'08-'09 TV season scifi slump

[Hermiod]

We've had this conversation before, I say you just need to try some other shows, you say none of them grab you.

They don't and I have tried. House is occasionally interesting but it still feels episodic and the characters other than House himself seem bland and interchangeable.

Personally I don't see this "Everything is aimed at women" thing you talk about. I know there are a lot of shows aimed at women nowadays, but I don't think that stops me watching if I like the premise or the characters. I watch Grey's and sure some of the relationship stuff is annoying or childish, but that doesn't mean I can't enjoy the show on the whole.

What else is there ? Isn't it just the same old Hospital drama US television has been churning out for 50 years ?

All television, especially American television, is aimed at some specific group. It is very hard to make a show everyone will watch. Television networks are businesses, they'll go for the demographics that make the most money and right now that's young women. Young men are off playing video games, browsing the Internet and DVR'ing everything. They get their dose of advertising from Google, not NBC.

If you make a show aimed at one group, you're going to put another off. If you aim it at teenagers it'll put off the over 60's, for instance. There's often very little overlap.

Women might have suddenly joined in the gaming fun but they've all bought Wii's which end up in the attic after a few weeks. The Wii's attach rate is shocking, one of the lowest ever for a games console, especially one that has sold as well as it has. People just aren't buying additional games. It wasn't women queueing up outside Game at midnight the night Grand Theft Auto IV came out. And so, the main output of the games industry remains aimed at men.

We've dodged a bullet with the movie industry, we nearly ended up with Sex and the City being the summer's most profitable film. If it wasn't for The Dark Knight the studios would be rushing high budget rom-coms in to production left, right and centre.

The music industry is a lost cause. The mainstream music business has been aimed at teenage girls since Elvis turned up.

That leaves us guys with video games and comic books and even those get picked on. That female character's breasts are too big, it's too violent, the controls are too hard for casual players, girls don't like buttons on their controllers blah blah blah.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

We've had this conversation before, I say you just need to try some other shows, you say none of them grab you.

They don't and I have tried. House is occasionally interesting but it still feels episodic and the characters other than House himself seem bland and interchangeable.

Personally I don't see this "Everything is aimed at women" thing you talk about. I know there are a lot of shows aimed at women nowadays, but I don't think that stops me watching if I like the premise or the characters. I watch Grey's and sure some of the relationship stuff is annoying or childish, but that doesn't mean I can't enjoy the show on the whole.

What else is there ? Isn't it just the same old Hospital drama US television has been churning out for 50 years ?

All television, especially American television, is aimed at some specific group. It is very hard to make a show everyone will watch. Television networks are businesses, they'll go for the demographics that make the most money and right now that's young women. Young men are off playing video games, browsing the Internet and DVR'ing everything. They get their dose of advertising from Google, not NBC.

If you make a show aimed at one group, you're going to put another off. If you aim it at teenagers it'll put off the over 60's, for instance. There's often very little overlap.

Women might have suddenly joined in the gaming fun but they've all bought Wii's which end up in the attic after a few weeks. The Wii's attach rate is shocking, one of the lowest ever for a games console, especially one that has sold as well as it has. People just aren't buying additional games. It wasn't women queueing up outside Game at midnight the night Grand Theft Auto IV came out. And so, the main output of the games industry remains aimed at men.

We've dodged a bullet with the movie industry, we nearly ended up with Sex and the City being the summer's most profitable film. If it wasn't for The Dark Knight the studios would be rushing high budget rom-coms in to production left, right and centre.

The music industry is a lost cause. The mainstream music business has been aimed at teenage girls since Elvis turned up.

That leaves us guys with video games and comic books and even those get picked on. That female character's breasts are too big, it's too violent, the controls are too hard for casual players, girls don't like buttons on their controllers blah blah blah.

I find the trend of thing that are aimed at men are low brow and full of 'splosions annoying, and shows aimed at teenagers are all style no substance are condescending, but there are always shows that break the mold and are more interesting regardless of who they are aimed at.
I find the argument that just because something is aimed at a specific group, it can't be enjoyed by a wide range of people to be ridiculous. I've enjoyed shows that are aimed at teenagers, women, children, "urban youth", etc. without being any of those groups.
A good show transcends that pigeon-holing, but yeah, bad shows in an given catagory are usually stereotypical, and insulting.

The same with music and movies. Pixar make children's films, but are enjoyed by everyone. Pop music is aimed at the teenage market, but there's plenty of pop that is good, although it may not get a lot of air play.

 

[Hermiod]

I find the trend of thing that are aimed at men are low brow and full of 'splosions annoying, and shows aimed at teenagers are all style no substance are condescending, but there are always shows that break the mold and are more interesting regardless of who they are aimed at.

Yes, certainly, but I don't consider Battlestar Galactica to be low brow.

I find the argument that just because something is aimed at a specific group, it can't be enjoyed by a wide range of people to be ridiculous. I've enjoyed shows that are aimed at teenagers, women, children, "urban youth", etc. without being any of those groups.
A good show transcends that pigeon-holing, but yeah, bad shows in an given catagory are usually stereotypical, and insulting.

The bad shows typically make up 90% of a network's schedule, unfortunately. Of course there are shows that transcend demographics - Lost and Heroes are two very good examples - but ultimately most entertainment is pigeon-holed.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

I find the trend of thing that are aimed at men are low brow and full of 'splosions annoying, and shows aimed at teenagers are all style no substance are condescending, but there are always shows that break the mold and are more interesting regardless of who they are aimed at.

Yes, certainly, but I don't consider Battlestar Galactica to be low brow.

But isn't BSG's audience something like 50/50? Not aimed at any specific group besides intelligent viewers. Or I suppose the network view it as aimed at 19-35 year old males, but just because that's the audience they want to attract doesn't mean that's the only audience it entertains.

I find the argument that just because something is aimed at a specific group, it can't be enjoyed by a wide range of people to be ridiculous. I've enjoyed shows that are aimed at teenagers, women, children, "urban youth", etc. without being any of those groups.
A good show transcends that pigeon-holing, but yeah, bad shows in an given catagory are usually stereotypical, and insulting.

The bad shows typically make up 90% of a network's schedule, unfortunately. Of course there are shows that transcend demographics - Lost and Heroes are two very good examples - but ultimately most entertainment is pigeon-holed.

It may be pigeon-holed, but that doesn't mean that's the only people it appeals to, which was my point. Yes, there may be a lot of bad shows, but I find that at certain points in the year, there is so many shows I like to watch that there isn't enough time in the day to watch them all.

 

[Hermiod]

But isn't BSG's audience something like 50/50? Not aimed at any specific group besides intelligent viewers. Or I suppose the network view it as aimed at 19-35 year old males, but just because that's the audience they want to attract doesn't mean that's the only audience it entertains.

Let's face it, the Sci-Fi Channel's output is entirely aimed at men. The fact that women watch it is little more than a happy accident.

It may be pigeon-holed, but that doesn't mean that's the only people it appeals to, which was my point. Yes, there may be a lot of bad shows, but I find that at certain points in the year, there is so many shows I like to watch that there isn't enough time in the day to watch them all.

Hopefully this doesn't come off badly, but you have a higher (or lower ? ) "entertainment" threshold than I do. I won't say that's a bad thing or a good thing, it just is.

When I watch a show, I focus on that show. I pay very close attention to the details. Yeah, that means I'm a big geek who notices when Atlantis reuses an actor from season two of SG-1. It also means, however, that I limit myself to a certain number of hours of television per week.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

But isn't BSG's audience something like 50/50? Not aimed at any specific group besides intelligent viewers. Or I suppose the network view it as aimed at 19-35 year old males, but just because that's the audience they want to attract doesn't mean that's the only audience it entertains.

Let's face it, the Sci-Fi Channel's output is entirely aimed at men. The fact that women watch it is little more than a happy accident.

It may be pigeon-holed, but that doesn't mean that's the only people it appeals to, which was my point. Yes, there may be a lot of bad shows, but I find that at certain points in the year, there is so many shows I like to watch that there isn't enough time in the day to watch them all.

Hopefully this doesn't come off badly, but you have a higher (or lower ? ) "entertainment" threshold than I do. I won't say that's a bad thing or a good thing, it just is.

When I watch a show, I focus on that show. I pay very close attention to the details. Yeah, that means I'm a big geek who notices when Atlantis reuses an actor from season two of SG-1. It also means, however, that I limit myself to a certain number of hours of television per week.

I find it funny that you think that's just you, you're on a board full of people who do that.
I watch more stuff, because I have more time on my hands to fill, I'm disabled and don't work. I pay a lot of attention to shows, too. It's not hard to spot a reuse in Stargate, most shows shot in Canada are full of the same actors used over and over again. If I limited myself the the amount of shows i watched, then I'd have nothing to do most of the time. I read, listen to music, play video games, and watch TV, and go to the cinema.
I've seen something like 40 films at the cinema, read 50 odd books, watched 50 or 60 seasons worth of TV shows, and gone through about 10 games this year, but that doesn't mean I watch any old rubbish on TV, it's still stuff I find interesting, and/or entertaining

 

[Hermiod]

^No offence, intended here.

I don't have quite as much time and I didn't mean to imply that you just watched rubbish.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

^No offence, intended here.

I don't have quite as much time and I didn't mean to imply that you just watched rubbish.

None taken, as I said, I get more chance because I have more time to kill, which is probably why I give so much stuff a shot in the first place.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Back when TOS was cancelled everyone said "but look at the colour TV numbers!"

Now we say "but look at the DVR numbers!" or "it's selling well on DVD!"

Networks don't give a crap. Your show has to get high ratings on the night. That's what advertisers pay for.

New media numbers do count.

NBC is shaping a new strategy around new media. Well of course, the old media Neilsens are so bad, they have to do something. The plan is still vague, but it should be good news for shows that appeal to the time-shifting, tech-using young'uns that watch Heroes, Chuck and Knight Rider but is unlikely to rescue Life.

Another factor that will be big especially on NBC - more product placement, which is something that DVR numbers count towards because nobody can zap product placements away. Heroes really gets a boost when the DVR numbers are added; Chuck and possibly Knight Rider will probably show gains when the DVR charts catch up to their premieres.

So... the modern sci-fi tv era that began with TNG back in '87 is coming to an end maybe?

Just the opposite, sci-fi is doing better than average for all genres. Fringe is already one of the "hits" of this year. Life on Mars and Eleventh Hour did decently in their premieres (and I think the former at least will hang on to its audience). Meanwhile, many non-sci-fi shows are debuting poorly and already being cancelled - pretty normal considering 2/3rds of all new shows fail in the first season and when a show fails, it generally does so quickly, but the point is that there's no reason for anyone to think that sci fi is an unsuccessful genre.

I wouldn't be surprised if networks continue to flock to the relative "safe harbor" of the X-Files-ish kind of "relatable" sci fi. The V revival is right along these lines. It's also nice to see AMC being bolder and doing space-based sci fi with Red Mars but on AMC, they can get a million viewers and be happy. I guess the cable subscription fees count for a lot?

Overall, basic and premium cable are doing the most interesting stuff nowadays because they can appeal to a few million viewers and survive nicely. We just need everyone to follow AMC's lead and start adding a sci fi show to their lineup - if Showtime, HBO, TNT and FX would all do one sci fi show apiece (preferably bolder sci fi than the X-Files knockoffs we're getting way too many of), we'd be doing great! And of course there's always Skiffy, for what it's worth...

I personally never understand it when people say "There's nothing worth watching" because there's tons, you just have to be open minded enough to try the shows in the first place.

I find plenty worth watching but it's not because I'm at all open-minded! I am picky as hell. But I try out a whole lot of shows and every so often, something really clicks. There is such a mammoth volume of shows that even five percent "clicking" is more than enough.

I know I go on about this, but I wonder if somebody in some market research company somewhere has some data that says that women use DVRs less (TrekBBS' women are not a representative sample here) and thus networks should target their programming towards them. Or maybe there's been some economic shift and women have more disposable income now so that's the reason, but I've noticed that American TV is definitely being aimed more and more at women. More romantic, soap opera type shows like Desperate Housewives and Greys Anatomy, for instance.

The networks all have different marketing strategies via carving out different demographic slices:

ABC - Targetting women with light comedies and dramas like Desperate Housewives, Grey's Anatomy and Pushing Daisies. (Lost is a bit of an outlier for them.)

CBS - Old folks' home. They make their money by sheer volume attracted by uncomplicated, formulaic crime dramas - even if the % of 18-49 is lower for their shows, they make up for it by getting twice the audience.

Fox - Young male demographic.

CW - Young female demographic.

NBC - Who the hell knows what they're doing? They seem to be trying for a tech-using demographic, which would generally skew younger and more male. Heroes, Chuck and Knight Rider make sense for them, Life not so much. This demographic is elusive because they don't watch ads, which is why NBC is experimenting with less Neilsens-based revenue streams such as in-show product placement.

This all makes perfect sense because it gives advertisers a clear picture of where to go to advertise X product based on what demographics they are seeking.

And like I said, broadcast networks aren't where the interesting stuff is anymore. The action is on cable, which is why cable dominated the Emmys this year (a trend I'm sure will continue).

 

[Hermiod]

New media numbers do count.

NBC is shaping a new strategy around new media. Well of course, the old media Neilsens are so bad, they have to do something. The plan is still vague, but it should be good news for shows that appeal to the time-shifting, tech-using young'uns that watch Heroes, Chuck and Knight Rider but is unlikely to rescue Life.

Another factor that will be big especially on NBC - more product placement, which is something that DVR numbers count towards because nobody can zap product placements away. Heroes really gets a boost when the DVR numbers are added; Chuck and possibly Knight Rider will probably show gains when the DVR charts catch up to their premieres.

Frankly, I doubt the advertisers care about any of that. As far as they are concerned, DVR views skip ads and that's it.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

New media numbers do count.

NBC is shaping a new strategy around new media. Well of course, the old media Neilsens are so bad, they have to do something. The plan is still vague, but it should be good news for shows that appeal to the time-shifting, tech-using young'uns that watch Heroes, Chuck and Knight Rider but is unlikely to rescue Life.

Another factor that will be big especially on NBC - more product placement, which is something that DVR numbers count towards because nobody can zap product placements away. Heroes really gets a boost when the DVR numbers are added; Chuck and possibly Knight Rider will probably show gains when the DVR charts catch up to their premieres.

Frankly, I doubt the advertisers care about any of that. As far as they are concerned, DVR views skip ads and that's it.

I'd think the networks would know what the advertisers will look for better than you, or anyone (who doesn't work in an advertising agency) would.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

New media numbers do count.

NBC is shaping a new strategy around new media. Well of course, the old media Neilsens are so bad, they have to do something. The plan is still vague, but it should be good news for shows that appeal to the time-shifting, tech-using young'uns that watch Heroes, Chuck and Knight Rider but is unlikely to rescue Life.

Another factor that will be big especially on NBC - more product placement, which is something that DVR numbers count towards because nobody can zap product placements away. Heroes really gets a boost when the DVR numbers are added; Chuck and possibly Knight Rider will probably show gains when the DVR charts catch up to their premieres.

Frankly, I doubt the advertisers care about any of that. As far as they are concerned, DVR views skip ads and that's it.

I'd think the networks would know what the advertisers will look for better than you, or anyone (who doesn't work in an advertising agency) would.

Nissan and Sprint are very interested in those DVR figures when it comes to in-show product placement. And if advertisers were being honest, they'd admit that DVR figures should be factored into ad rates but advertisers are loathe to allow anything to boost ad rates - why would they give in without a struggle? So that's more of a power struggle between advertisers and networks than any proof that DVR figures don't contribute at all to ad viewing. They know damn well that some DVR viewers do watch ads, but they want to get those eyeballs for free if they can finagle it.

And yeah, I do work in advertising.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

Frankly, I doubt the advertisers care about any of that. As far as they are concerned, DVR views skip ads and that's it.

I'd think the networks would know what the advertisers will look for better than you, or anyone (who doesn't work in an advertising agency) would.

Nissan and Sprint are very interested in those DVR figures when it comes to in-show product placement. And if advertisers were being honest, they'd admit that DVR figures should be factored into ad rates but advertisers are loathe to allow anything to boost ad rates - why would they give in without a struggle? So that's more of a power struggle between advertisers and networks than any proof that DVR figures don't contribute at all to ad viewing. They know damn well that some DVR viewers do watch ads, but they want to get those eyeballs for free if they can finagle it.

And yeah, I do work in advertising.

I thought I remembered you saying so in the past, which was why I added the part about people who work in ad agencies.

 

[RAMA]

this is a good article on SyFyPortal:

http://www.syfyportal.com/news425459.html

• Major returning series like Heroes, Pushing Daises, Terminator:SCC, and Chuck are in a ratings nosedive, with sometimes critically mixed reviews
• Viewership is down as a whole, though, largely due to the Writers' Guild Strike last year; returning shows got truncated first seasons, or a slump in quality (Heroes season 2, BSG season 3, though that's not on TV now and season 4 already fixed most problems, etc.)

• [FONT=Georgia]"The sad truth is, genre programming has been in a creative slump for some time and is failing to deliver material that is truly interesting, innovative or intriguing. Even quality programs such as "Heroes" and "Lost" suffered from creative slumps that led to viewers tuning out. Certainly, quality genre programming can still be found, but when the landscape is littered with garbage, it's not hard to see why many mainstream viewers simply avoid this type of programming.[/FONT]"

• Creatively, they just keep shoving remakes at us: Battlestar Galactica isn't really a direct remake and its an exception which unfortunately encouraged a lot of awful further attempts: Bionic Woman and Knight Rider, the "laughably awful" Flash Gordon.

• [FONT=Georgia] [/FONT][FONT=Georgia] "Remakes and re-imaginings are, by far, the biggest culprits in this slow death of originality, but imitators share some of the blame. Despite protests that "Fringe" isn’t like "The X-Files," "Journeyman" was not just a remake of "Quantum Leap,"and "Moonlight" wasn't "Angel" in a different wrapper, the truth is, the shows shared enough elements to at least make people consider the sense of déjà vu they were feeling"[/FONT]

• Personally, I also think this was just an "off year" and everyone is still recovering from the Writers' Strike; not just in ratings, but creatively. "Fringe" is honestly an okay new show and not a direct "X-Files clone" (its the same "subgenre" but its got its own thing going). But even "Fringe" isn't a "new breakout hit", as Lost then BSG then Heroes were. Its okay but it hasn't grabbed our imagination and hears and minds, because it isn't entirely "new". Anything new is always "bad".
• What is out in mid-season? Dollhouse of course, but given that they forced them to make a THIRD pilot episode....I strongly suspect there is behind the scenes fighting: Whedon wants to make a very dark and morally ambiguous show while the network always wants to make a "happy show" (What was NYPD Blue? or Sopranos?)
• Scifi Channel (Beyond) is going down the tubes: "Caprica" sounds awful the more I hear of it, an RDM-less attempt to cash in on BSG, while Sanctuary and Stargate: 90210.....
• I'm also upset that....when live-action scifi slumps, I turn to anime which has good scifi (Cowboy Bebop, Planetes, etc.) but Cartoon Network just canceled its Toonami block and pushed its last remaining anime shows back to the 5:00 AM (yes, AM) death slot....so the one good show on, "Code Geass", is buried (It's about an alternate history in which the Holy Empire of Britannia has conquered Japan using basically Battlemechs, and an exiled Britannian prince starts a rebellion in "Area 11" (formerly Japan) as revenge on his homeland. It's good stuff and great 'mech action).
• With the loss of Harry Potter, THE main tentpole film for Winter 2008 is gone. We're down to City of Ember, Twilight, and Max Payne.
• I *am* excited about RDM's new "Virtuosity" and the remake of "V" (the series) - V may be a remake but it had a lot of political allegory which is always good. I mean in a post-9/11 world your first thought is "V remake" not "Bionic Woman remake".
• Is it just me, or is it that everyone has abandoned TV (and Film) because of the Economic Collapse and everyone is worrying about that or the election now?

I didn't have high hopes for the SF/supernatural/techno thriller tv shows this season, but so far, I've enjoyed Fringe, and to lesser degree Sanctuary. I need to see more of Eleventh Hour.

RAMA