What Broadcast can learn from Cable TV

[Christopher]

degra wrote:

---

I rewatch a lot of those older shows and personally feel that they still hold up and are as satisfying as they originally were--and this is after having sampled a lot of contemporary programs--so it isn't like I have some nostalgia coloring my impressions--I've basically watched them side-by-side.

You've watched the good shows from that era, the ones that were good enough to last and be remembered and get released on video decades later. Your selection is therefore biased toward the positive and is not statistically representative of the whole. Of course the good shows from that era still hold up, but there was just as much ridiculous crap back then as there is now.

Sure every tv era has horrible shows but I have found that the 00s have had the worst and the ratio of good to bad based on what my viewing schedules were is also the worst.

But what I'm saying is that that perception is based on an uneven comparison, because your impressions of the past are biased in a way that your impressions of the present are not. Of course that's what you believe, what a ton of people have always believed in every single generation, but that belief cannot be trusted because of the neurological and environmental biases that shape it. True insight requires questioning your own perceptions. We are all fallible observers, and unless we identify the flaws in our own perceptions, we will always be misled by them.

[Kegg]

Vulture Capitalist wrote:

---

Just had to chime in here. Loooove Friday Night Lights. Even minus the American football aspect, it's wonderful.

I like it to the point I'm seriously considering Nashville when another British channel airs it next year 'cause Connie Britton. And that's the only network drama I was considering, to tie it relevantly to the topic of discussion.

[foxhot]

HILL STREET BLUES is still the finest TV drama ever made. It easily ran 22 episodes virtually every year and never had any dogs in the group....only classics. Only '60s STAR TREK and PRISONER: CELL BLOCK H approach its level of excellence.

Well, actually, OZ did also, though that averaged a mere eight episodes a year, flimsy even for HBO output. It was every bit as good as THE SOPRANOS ever was, and one year it managed to run a whopping 16 episodes. It'd be nice to have HBO's current shows match that.

[cylkoth]

Christopher wrote:

---

I think that may be a misunderstanding of what actually happened. Rather, TNG, DS9, and VGR had a unique policy of opening their doors to unagented freelancers, thanks to Michael Piller. Most shows would only take pitches from freelancers who had agents, but the Piller-run Trek shows were open to spec scripts from anyone who signed a release form. They were pretty much the only shows in the industry that had that open policy, and ENT didn't continue it. But that wasn't about staff vs. freelancers, but just about agented freelancers vs. unagented ones.

That's not true either. In season 1, they only scripted eight episodes and wrote or co-wrote story outlines for ten more. In season 2, they scripted eight and did stories for five. So they contributed to 31 out of the first 52 episodes, more than half, but hardly "almost all." The show's staff included other writers like Mike Sussman, Phyllis Strong, Chris Black, and Andre Bormanis. Season 1's staff also included Fred Dekker and Andre & Maria Jacquemetton (whose work I rather liked). Season 2 lost those three but added John Shiban and David A. Goodman.

And there were a few scripts credited to freelancers, such as James Duff ("Fortunate Son"), Alan Cross ("Fallen Hero"), and David Wilcox ("Marauders"). In general, yes, shows are more staff-driven these days because of their tighter continuities, but they're not completely closed to freelancers.

Thank you for the clarification concerning the freelancer issue. Much appreciated. And my use of 'most of' was more dramatic than intended. In reviewing ENT;s S1 episode guide, I see that the stronger episodes-well, at least to me, were the ones were B&B didn't write the teleplay for.

[degra]

Christopher wrote:

---

You've watched the good shows from that era, the ones that were good enough to last and be remembered and get released on video decades later. Your selection is therefore biased toward the positive and is not statistically representative of the whole. Of course the good shows from that era still hold up, but there was just as much ridiculous crap back then as there is now.

I think I acknowledged there was crap back then like there is now but I also stated that there weren't nearly as many good shows produced now as then. Even the so-called "better" shows like LOST or BSG were ultimately a mixed bag. LOST judged as a whole is seriously disappointing given how everything played out and BSG had all sorts of problems with editing, execution of storylines, weak villains etc.

But what I'm saying is that that perception is based on an uneven comparison, because your impressions of the past are biased in a way that your impressions of the present are not. Of course that's what you believe, what a ton of people have always believed in every single generation, but that belief cannot be trusted because of the neurological and environmental biases that shape it. True insight requires questioning your own perceptions. We are all fallible observers, and unless we identify the flaws in our own perceptions, we will always be misled by them.

Way too much psychobabble. I enjoyed certain shows that appealed to me when I was 10--some have held up and others I see as crap. I enjoyed certain shows that appealed to me in my teens and they still do while others didn't age as well. The point is I'd like to think my tastes are as good or even better in my 30s and if today's tv shows can't keep up with my evolving tastes I'd argue they are worse now--I can barely count on one hand how many shows in the past ten years that were just barely passable that I even watched on a regular basis compared to how many I watched 15 years ago for instance. And you seem to think all the shows I liked years ago I still can watch and that is wrong.

I don't think there is a single one I truly enjoyed through and through and ever see myself revisiting down the road.

[Christopher]

degra wrote:

---

Way too much psychobabble.

You prove my point. Sad.

[Kestrel]

Kegg wrote:

---

I like it to the point I'm seriously considering Nashville when another British channel airs it next year 'cause Connie Britton. And that's the only network drama I was considering, to tie it relevantly to the topic of discussion.

I'm definitely enjoying Nashville so far - I checked it out for the same reason - and it's good soapy fun but it's nowhere neare FNL's level in terms of writing or characters. Still, Connie Britton does a great job as always and Panettiere isn't bad either, and it's only 3 episodes in after all.

[Temis the Vorta]

Here's a good article that provides a lot of context.

You can't just look at the initial ratings, since DVR bumps are getting bigger all the time.

"Revolution" isn't the only show whose popularity can no longer be measured solely by traditional TV ratings. [50% increase in viewers.] Of the 18.1 million people who watched the season premiere of CBS' new gangster drama "Vegas," 3.6 million did it hours or days after the episode originally aired. It is not uncommon for more than half of the audience for Fox's "Glee" to watch the show after it airs on Thursday nights. FX's "Sons of Anarchy" doubled its audience for a recent episode thanks to the digital video recorder. Even ABC's "Modern Family," already one of the most-watched situation comedies on television, has gained as much as 30% of its audience from DVRs.

And yes, some DVR users do still watch ads, amazingly enough.

Network executives and Nielsen contend that not everyone using a DVR is skipping commercials. In May 2010, a Nielsen analysis showed that in homes with DVRs, average prime-time commercial viewership among adults 18 to 49 — the demographic most popular with advertisers — jumped 44% from the time ads first aired to three days later.

"The ratings tell us people watch commercials when they are doing playback," said Pat McDonough, a senior vice president at Nielsen. According to McDonough, almost half of all spots are viewed in playback mode. That figure, she said, has increased from a few years ago.

Viewers often simply forget they are watching a recording, particularly if they are seeing a show the same day it was recorded, McDonough said. There are also more eye-catching advertisements, she added.

"The people making the commercials know how to get us to come off the fast-forward button, McDonough said.

Even if they don't, the TV business has ways to make fast forwarding less palateable.

The networks are also finding ways to make commercial skipping more of a hassle. In the past, a network show might have three commercial breaks of equal length. Now, many shows have four shorter breaks. Viewers who fast-forward often find themselves having to rewind and ultimately decide it's easier just to watch an ad or two.

And advertises will chase eyeballs as they leave TV anyway.

"I just don't think we can put all our eggs in one basket anymore," said Andy Donchin, an executive vice president with Carat, which buys commercial time for General Motors, Home Depot and other companies. "It's time to see what other media platforms we can use to make up for the people who are not watching our commercials."

[John Mason]

Several things...... oh right....

[stj]

Shorter:...
Serialized:...
Patience:...
Braver:..

Yes, shorter makes it more likely the producer's of the program will make more good episodes.

Serialized? Open-ended serialization is usually catastrophic, and there is no evidence at all that cable, premium or basic, is immune to the structural problems that damage the artistic quality of open-ended serials. The Sopranos literally could not find an ending. Dexter is a pitiful shadow of itself. Rome was running out of characters. Even The Wire had problems in its fifth season.

Serialized and shorter, i.e., serials with an end planned don't suffer the same kinds of structural problems though.

How much patience depends upon how much you can afford, and that has nothing to do with "learning from cable."

Braver? Women's breasts and simulated sex are not especially brave. When it comes to bravery, cable's can be measured by the combined length of exposed penises.

What is truly interesting is what's not there, which is the absence of commercials. Frankly, a lot of cable doesn't make very good use of the absence of commercials. As near as I can tell most copy the act structure imposed on broadcast TV by commercial breaks. Always hoping for broadcast/basic cable syndiation?

The number one reason for decline in audience I think is the increasing number of commercials. The number two reason I think is the increasing number of reality/game shows. They may get more eyeballs but they lose interest in television as a genuinely entertaining medium, one that can engage deeper emotions.