Opinion: Why Channel Nine’s Gallipoli Has Failed To Capture Australia's Imagination

It’s strange to look back five or six weeks and recall the absolute PR blitz that accompanied the first episode of Gallipoli, the miniseries that Channel Nine has been promoting for, not just the entirety of the 2014-15 cricket season, but for the best part of two years.

Fast forward four episodes (three weeks, with a double episode to start) and Channel Nine’s ratings have gone from reasonable ratings – around the 1.1 million mark – to disappointing in it’s second week – under 600,000 – to the point now where the network has scheduled double episodes because no one is watching. In the industry, it’s called “burning off”. Now, the finish of the series will not end in April, near the zenith of commemorations marking the centenary year of the Gallipoli landings.

In every possible way, this is a disaster for Channel Nine. There will be some people in high places at the network very worried. People have tuned out in droves from a show that many were anticipating greatly. So, too, were the ratings folks at Nine, who, if rumours are to be believed, were hoping for somewhere in the region of 2 million viewers per episode.

I’ve always been fascinated by Gallipoli, and I was one of those greatly anticipating the series premiere. I’ve read Les Carlyon’s epic non-fiction book, Gallipoli, which I believe is the definitive account of the fateful campaign. It’s Carlyon’s epic that formed the basis for the writing team, whose work, it must be said, is top-notch. As is the direction and the acting.

Although I’ve enjoyed the entirety of the series (because I’m something of a World War One nerd) in two nights via Stan.com.au, early quotes that promised the show would get the ‘Band of Brothers’ treatment and the constant hype meant that, unless the show was brilliant in every way, shape and form, there would be a viewer backlash.

The limitations of the TV broadcast were noticeable immediately, particularly in terms of the extras featured in the battle scenes. As a witty Twitter user quipped during the first episode, “It’s a cast of dozens!” I agree with that, but disagree that the production is either slow or poorly-acted. Remember, they’re telling a story here, a historical event, and there tended to be long periods of boredom during the campaign. You can’t spice up the storyline of a historical event for the sake of television ratings, or it becomes a soap opera.

Aside from those minor complaints, the fact is that Gallipoli is a great project. Although on a smaller scale than Band of Brothers and the other HBO war dramas it was trying to sit alongside, the acting, writing and general detail was fantastic.

The show opened a visual window into parts of the Gallipoli campaign that had never been on screen before, poignant moments like the truce after an early counter attack (which was detailed in episode two), the great storm that convinced British commanders that a winter campaign was untenable, and the deliberations between senior officers on General Hamilton’s staff, to name just a few.

Perhaps there are a few other reasons why Gallipoli has bombed in such a large way.

Over-hype

Was there a commercial break during the cricket where we didn’t see an ad for Gallipoli? Was there a session of play where there wasn't a graphic popping up on the bottom of the screen promoting the show, with the breathless voiceover by Michael Slater or someone else? It was always going to be tough for Gallipoli to live up to the incredible amount of hype, and the assertion that it would be the ‘television event of the year’ but, still, it’s fall from grace has been a large, and largely unexpected one.

Also not aiding things was the incredible reviews for the show. Almost every pundit who penned a review said Gallipoli was top-notch, and whilst I thought it was very well done on most counts – remember, I’m a World War One nerd, not your average Aussie punter – I think the reviews made people expect more than what they got, particularly in terms of sweeping and large battle sequences.

Maybe, if the show had gone to the ABC instead, people’s expectations would’ve been a little more tempered because, let’s face it, no one pumps up a show like Channel Nine, and in this case, it’s been their undoing.

Commercials

Quite simply, too many. Far too many. And it chopped up the flow of the story. Just as I found myself getting into the events being portrayed on the screen, the battlefield of Gallipoli was replaced with an ad for Holden or Stan or whatever. I understand that companies want to be attached to an event like this, and that Nine needs to make their money back, but, still, the amount of commercials on each episode has been nothing short of ridiculous.

No wonder Stan.com.au’s free trial and the offer of all Gallipoli episodes screened commercial free has been reportedly so well received. No wonder, also, those without the ability – or desire – to watch on their computer have tuned out in droves.

Saturation

I wrote above that the show opened a visual window onto parts of the campaign that we’ve only previously been able to read about, but, at the same time, the fact remains that we’ve seen a lot of it before: It’s true. A bulk of it, perhaps. The well-received 1980s miniseries, The Anzacs, starring Paul Hogan and Andrew Clarke, covered the landing, the opening day, the Lone Pine attacks and some other parts in it’s opening episode. There’s also Peter Weir’s seminal film, Gallipoli, which focused on the West Australian light horse units who charged to certain death at The Nek.

The stunning and tragic final sequences were so good that nothing, perhaps not even another movie blockbuster, will come close to portraying the futile attack with such shocking realism. That’s a fact of life, and considering that Weir’s Gallipoli is held in such high esteem with Australians everywhere – show me someone who wasn't affected by the ending – meant that the comparisons between it and the television show of the same name were always going to happen. It’s an unfair comparison, considering budget availability, but expected nonetheless.

Russell Crowe’s well-received movie, The Water Diviner, also touched on the Gallipoli campaign, and, I think a lot of the popularity of that epic came because it wasn't a rehash of what we’ve already seen on television and on the big screen. The combination of Russell Crowe, controversial but always a draw at the box office, with a rare look aftermath of the bloody campaign, and the fact that the Turks were portrayed in a very sympathetic light – something that Gallipoli also did well in it’s second episode – pretty much guaranteed success.

The fact is, in Gallipoli’s centenary year, we’re going to be bombarded with so much about the campaign, and perhaps people just aren’t ready to have that begin in February. Maybe Nine would’ve been wiser to start it just before Anzac Day and continue thereafter.

Foxtel should be more than a little worried about their big production, Deadline Gallipoli, starring Sam Worthington and others. It arrives in April, and could bomb, too. Or, perhaps the break will help people reenergise their interest?

Timeslot

For mine, this is the chief destroyer.

First, Nine ran a double episode – or, what felt like a few minutes of a Gallipoli story around an avalanche of ads – starting at 9.00pm and not ending until after 10.30pm on a Monday night. No wonder people didn’t tune in. Asking your average Aussie to wait until 9pm and then stick with a show until after 10.30pm in the middle of the week is a massive commitment, and sit through too many ads in the process. Obviously, less and less people are making that commitment.

It’s somehow shocking that reality TV rules the roost compared to a show that Nine were saying was the television event of the year. The Block could’ve been cut back to an hour on Monday nights, allowing Gallipoli a far friendlier timeslot. I’ve got a sneaking suspicion that the show would’ve done much better if it had started a little earlier. Of course, The Block hasn’t exactly set the ratings world on fire, either, so a poor lead-in to a late-starting show that’s saturated with ads.

That’s a poor combination, and probably the main reason why a well-done Australian drama has come apart at the seams so quickly.