Apple TV+ cancels 'High Desert' after only one season

Posted:
in iPod + iTunes + AppleTV

A second season of the Apple TV+ dark comedy "High Desert" is not on the way, with star Patricia Arquette and executive producer Ben Stiller confirming the show's come to a premature end.

'High Desert' [Apple TV+]
'High Desert' [Apple TV+]



Apple TV+ started to air "High Desert" from May 17, but it hasn't taken the streaming service long to reject the show. In a post to Instagram, Arquette confirmed that the show has been cancelled by Apple, and that a second season's not happening.

Calling it a "sad bummer," Arquette had "just found out" that the show wasn't returning. The actress then proceeds to thank the cast and crew, before declaring "you can't win them all."



Confirming Arquette's video message, Stiller took to Twitter to say "We are all disappointed," then called the cast amazing and thanked fans "for embracing this show." "I LOVE Patricia Arquette, who gave an awards worthy performance," Stiller adds.

While the loss of a second season isn't good news, Stiller does offer a silver lining to the affair, in that the show won't be removed from view down the road.

"Unlike other streamers these days I'm told they will not be removing any shows. So you can enjoy the first season in perpetuity," writes Stiller.

The producer's comment refers to actions by other streaming services, including HBO Max and Disney Plus, to remove shows from their catalogs. The moves are made typically as a cost-cutting measure by the services.

Read on AppleInsider

«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 22
    This is sad, I really really liked that show. And it had so much potential for more seasons. And it has a very noteworthy 70% (critics) and 79% (audience) score on Rotten Tomatoes. While they chose to renew crap like Invasion with a 45%/48% RT rating. Make it make sense.
    Ofercpsrosflagelwatto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 22
    Couldn't watch more than 2 episodes. Inane premise with unfunny writing.  Arquette is better than this.
    Good call by Apple.
    appleinsideruserwatto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 22
    I watched all episodes, but thought it was only so-so. But on the other hand, it’s certainly no worse than physical, and that show got 3 seasons.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 22
    cpsrocpsro Posts: 3,212member
    Too bad a show that so thoroughly breaks stereotypes gets cancelled while shows like Succession--loaded with uninspired f-bombs--are so popular and get renewed.  (Yes, I know Succession isn't Apple TV+ and has finally ended.)
    williamlondonapplebynaturewatto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 22
    tokyojimutokyojimu Posts: 531member
     The moves are made typically as a cost-cutting measure by the services. 

    What, they can’t afford the hard disk space?
    sflagelwilliamlondonStrangeDayswatto_cobra
  • Reply 6 of 22
    JapheyJaphey Posts: 1,770member
    As much as I hate agreeing with JP, the whole season Arquette seemed like she was playing the role of Jennifer Coolidge. But like a bad, knockoff version of Coolidge. It might not have been so distracting if the excellent supporting cast had been given more to do. Average show. 
    JP234watto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 22
    tokyojimu said:
     The moves are made typically as a cost-cutting measure by the services. 

    What, they can’t afford the hard disk space?
    It’s all about actor’s residuals. While a show remains on the streaming service, there are ongoing payments to the main actors in the show. And they can be quite significant amounts of money.
    Check out: https://www.backstage.com/magazine/article/calculating-sag-residuals-17706/

    JWKennyappleinsideruserStrangeDaysFileMakerFellerwatto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 22
    kkqd1337kkqd1337 Posts: 446member
    Too many ideas are shoehorned into being a series when a movie would have been better 
    sflageldewmewilliamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 22
    entropysentropys Posts: 4,221member
    Look. I would actually prefer it if there is not a second or third season for a show. Just tell a complete story in the first season. If that takes 8, 12, 16 or 24 shows so be it. The one story.

    the trouble with second, third and fourth seasons etc is that usually the writers can’t think of a story. Or they get new writers in. Never ends well.

    it’s what the Koreans do.
    edited July 2023 williamlondonFileMakerFellerwatto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 22
    Let's face it, the show was terrible. After watching the last episode of the season, I thought to myself, how do I get my time back? Even if the show came back for a second season, I wasn't going to be there. Seriously, ending the season with the main character about to be shot out of a cannon? Someone thought that was good writing? That's the ending you come up with when you can't think of anything else. This show could never get out of its own way. The characters were not likable, the story dragged in ever episode, and I kept wondering if I'd finally like the show, thinking each segment would redeem the whole thing. Well it didn't.

    While some of the characters were interesting and well created and cast, they didn't go anywhere. Did you ever want to know any of these people in real life? Not a one. I blame the writers for this one. Did I really need to see Patricia Arquette take drugs one more time? How many times did the writers write the line "Give me one more chance..."? Did I need to hear about a bad boob job every episode? It wasn't just bad writing, it was lazy writing as if a committee was trying to figure out where to take the show and nobody agreed. It just sat there as a miserable place with miserable unlikable people. Canceling the show was the most honest thing about it.
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 11 of 22
    PemaPema Posts: 70member
    I like and remember Arquette fondly from Medium. I eagerly waited for this show to start. After cringing through ½ an episode I switched to another show. It was simply unbearable and unwatchable. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 12 of 22
    CLS9CLS9 Posts: 6member
    I quit watching after I slogged through two or three episodes of drunken, drug-addled Arquette. That is not entertaining to me.
    edited July 2023 appleinsideruserwilliamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 13 of 22
    bageljoeybageljoey Posts: 2,007member
    tokyojimu said:
     The moves are made typically as a cost-cutting measure by the services. 

    What, they can’t afford the hard disk space?
    It’s all about actor’s residuals. While a show remains on the streaming service, there are ongoing payments to the main actors in the show. And they can be quite significant amounts of money.
    Check out: https://www.backstage.com/magazine/article/calculating-sag-residuals-17706/

    I’m not so sure. I could have sworn that it was about tax law and write offs. For example, while you have a show available for streaming on your platform, theoretically it is enhancing the value of the network. But, if you remove it from streaming, then you can write off a portion of the production costs as a loss because it is no longer adding any value of any kind to the platform. 
    Incidentally, one of the reasons for the current writers strike is that the residuals are as much as 100 times lower than for network TV shows. If the writers are not lying about this then it would make sense that residuals would NOT be a major factor in the removal of shows from streaming platforms. 
    StrangeDaysFileMakerFellerwatto_cobra
  • Reply 14 of 22
    1348513485 Posts: 361member
    kkqd1337 said:
    Too many ideas are shoehorned into being a series when a movie would have been better 
    Of course, and you can always tell that the writers have reached the end of their story-telling creativity when they put each of the major characters in a life-or-death drama. For instance, how many times can Olivia Benson of L&O SVU have her child or herself in extreme danger--it seems like about fifty times so far. Most Dangerous Job In the World, apparently. And so many other dramas follow suit. 

    But if you only have 90 minutes to run a movie, or 2-3 or 20 seasons of 10-12 hour-long episodes, which will make you more money?
    JP234watto_cobra
  • Reply 15 of 22
    roxsocksroxsocks Posts: 22member
    I watched two episodes and I just couldn’t go on. Arquette just had unearned super detective powers. The “secret drug addiction” trope is as overused now as quicksand was back in the 60’s-90’s. House, Nurse Jackie, Breaking Bad, etc.


    and like House, Arquette just walks in like this Sherlock Holmes super hero and gets the job done. How did she become like that? The whole show wanted to be a dark comedy, but to me it came across as campy tropes that made me roll my eyes. 
    Meteorwatto_cobra
  • Reply 16 of 22
    mike1mike1 Posts: 3,330member
    entropys said:
    Look. I would actually prefer it if there is not a second or third season for a show. Just tell a complete story in the first season. If that takes 8, 12, 16 or 24 shows so be it. The one story.

    the trouble with second, third and fourth seasons etc is that usually the writers can’t think of a story. Or they get new writers in. Never ends well.

    it’s what the Koreans do.

    Agreed. I like when the story arc has been thought through and the creative team has an end game. One of the benefits of the streaming renaissance has been the increased implementation of of the limited series, what used to be called a mini-series. Some stories need more than a movie but don't need 100 episodes. Apple's Blackbird is an excellent example. 6 Episodes. Story told in 6 or 10 or whatever episodes and then done.
    RudeBoyRudywatto_cobra
  • Reply 17 of 22
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,891member
    Couldn't watch more than 2 episodes. Inane premise with unfunny writing.  Arquette is better than this.
    Good call by Apple.
    I'm in the same boat. Two episodes and it was a slog. I don't know if I'll watch the rest. 
  • Reply 18 of 22
    charlesncharlesn Posts: 941member
    This is sad, I really really liked that show. And it had so much potential for more seasons. And it has a very noteworthy 70% (critics) and 79% (audience) score on Rotten Tomatoes. While they chose to renew crap like Invasion with a 45%/48% RT rating. Make it make sense.
    I've worked in television programming for more than 20 years. Viewers always think TV execs are somehow plotting to cancel their favorite shows or to dream up new bad ones, but the simple truth is this: the tail almost always wags the dog. Meaning: viewers decide what stays on and what doesn't. Popular shows get renewed. Less popular shows (generally) do not. And if a show is a big hit? Expect to see spin-offs, rip-offs, etc, as TV execs chase what viewers are watching in large numbers. Rotten Tomato scores, etc, matter if tied to popularity. Sometimes high RT scores reflect shows that are either critical darlings and/or have small but passionate fan bases rating them, but simply haven't broken through to a larger audience. There have been times when a less popular show will get a renewal if a network/streamer really believes it can eventually break through and/or if it's an award-winning prestige project--but those exceptions are few and far between. And if you're frustrated by this as a viewer, consider what it's like for people creating the shows--some of the work which I'm proudest to have made never made it to Season 2. Viewers are ruthless, lol. 

    I like and watch a lot of what's on Apple TV+, and really wanted to like High Desert, but gave up after slogging through 4 or 5 eps. Love Patricia Arquette, but not this character, who felt dialed up to 11 by the writers who then kept her there. For me, she became one note and exhausting, especially since she carries the bulk of the show's dialogue. 
    edited July 2023 watto_cobra
  • Reply 19 of 22
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 12,959member
    cpsro said:
    Too bad a show that so thoroughly breaks stereotypes gets cancelled while shows like Succession--loaded with uninspired f-bombs--are so popular and get renewed.  (Yes, I know Succession isn't Apple TV+ and has finally ended.)
    Succession was fucking fantastic. One of the best written shows in memory with excellent acting and effective drama. Swearing is ok because people actually swear. 
    edited July 2023 Spitbathwatto_cobra
  • Reply 20 of 22
    SpitbathSpitbath Posts: 92member
    JP234 said:
    cpsro said:
    Too bad a show that so thoroughly breaks stereotypes gets cancelled while shows like Succession--loaded with uninspired f-bombs--are so popular and get renewed.  (Yes, I know Succession isn't Apple TV+ and has finally ended.)
    Succession was fucking fantastic. One of the best written shows in memory with excellent acting and effective drama. Swearing is ok because people actually swear. 
    I watched roughly 60 seconds of the first episode of Succession, but I had to quit after the 20th F*&%ty, F*&%ty, F*&%, F*&%, F*&%.
    If you took the F word out of that episode I bet it would have run about 3 minutes.
    Not enough swearing for an accurate depiction of New Yorkers if you ask me. However, The Hallmark Channel is currently showing Christmas movies in July if boring, unrealistic, sugar-coated portrayals of wholesome whitebread is your thing.
    JapheyFileMakerFellerwatto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.