I knew that Doctor Who had used from the FoP - just wasn't sure if Rome was still in production at the time (or had just finished or whatever).
Cable or Broadcast? Which is "better," and how?
- Thread starter stj
- Start date
I knew that Doctor Who had used from the FoP - just wasn't sure if Rome was still in production at the time (or had just finished or whatever).
Critics initially favored Chicago Hope over ER, until the popular success made it necessary to justify that position, or in effect be insulting the judgment of the majority of the the television audience. In that particular case, they couldn't. Chicago Hope was a very well done production but it just was not much new in medical shows, and was repetitive of Kelley's work.
Critics are people too, and I find that people will often make claims they feel are appealing, but not necessarily truthful. In other words, perhaps many shows on cable are not particularly innovative, perhaps even badly written, but are critically praised as innovative because that sounds better.
In principle, any cable network could have done Heroes or Lost or The Book of Daniel or Kings. But in fact they don't.
The point of the thread, as the "how?" makes clear, is to see whether the better quality of cable is attributable to innovative writing, a case it seems no on cares to attempt to make? Or is it attributable to appealing to niche audiences, a case that doesn't seem well founded to me? Or is it attributable to cable's freer language and sexuality?
Critics are people too, and I find that people will often make claims they feel are appealing, but not necessarily truthful. In other words, perhaps many shows on cable are not particularly innovative, perhaps even badly written, but are critically praised as innovative because that sounds better.
In principle, any cable network could have done Heroes or Lost or The Book of Daniel or Kings. But in fact they don't.
The point of the thread, as the "how?" makes clear, is to see whether the better quality of cable is attributable to innovative writing, a case it seems no on cares to attempt to make? Or is it attributable to appealing to niche audiences, a case that doesn't seem well founded to me? Or is it attributable to cable's freer language and sexuality?
But that's not always a good thing.
I'm too annoyed at the way they dominate all present & future timeslots. They have to rock my world to get past my arbitrary unfair vindictiveness. For example - technically Dexter could be called a cop show, and that is one of my top favorites of all time.
I've seen attempts at innovation on network TV that equals anything I've seen on cable. But they don't survive. The difference is not in the personnel - there are probably as many creative, competent writers on network TV as on cable - but it's the audience and really, in the financial model. Creativity in network TV is less likely to survive than on cable because the audience on network TV is worth less and less likely to justify survival of the shows that attempt creativity. It's not the writers/producers/directors, it's not the audience - it's how the money is made.
That's the right track - if you can focus your efforts on the tastes of a limited audience, you can create something with more merit than if you aim at a large, amorphous mass that has no defining attribute. What are you aiming at, really? Nothing. And nothing is what you get.
Phooey. That has nothing to do with anything. Pushing Daisies was clean as a nun's petticoat and was one of the most innovative shows I've seen in recent years.
L
Lord Garth
Guest
There are never absolutes.
And, ironically, my preceding sentence is stated as one...
What premium cable (and to a lesser extent basic cable) has managed to do, that I've rarely seen network television attempt, is be willing to produce shows with a limited run. The miniseries and the television movie is an all but dead art form on network television.
24 started out as a niche hit that was hailed by critics, but those days are a faint memory, because FOX saw a product that they could market to a massive audience and keep on producing for a long time. An eighth season is about to premiere, and it has already spawned one television movie (network getting into that game only when it's part of a broader, ongoing series).
Of course, Lord Garth is absolutely right when he says there are no absolutes. With a hit on their hands, Showtime has showed no motion to bring Dexter to a conclusion any time soon. HBO allowed for The Sopranos to go on well past its prime.
When I look on my DVD shelf and look at the television series from the past ten years which I've thought were worth owning and wroth re-watching, cable is far more represented than network television. But that's just a matter of personal taste, really. And my taste is that cable is 'better'. Whatever that means.
24 started out as a niche hit that was hailed by critics, but those days are a faint memory, because FOX saw a product that they could market to a massive audience and keep on producing for a long time. An eighth season is about to premiere, and it has already spawned one television movie (network getting into that game only when it's part of a broader, ongoing series).
Of course, Lord Garth is absolutely right when he says there are no absolutes. With a hit on their hands, Showtime has showed no motion to bring Dexter to a conclusion any time soon. HBO allowed for The Sopranos to go on well past its prime.
When I look on my DVD shelf and look at the television series from the past ten years which I've thought were worth owning and wroth re-watching, cable is far more represented than network television. But that's just a matter of personal taste, really. And my taste is that cable is 'better'. Whatever that means.
I haven't noticed that cable shows have shorter runs than broadcast. You have Monk that runs for what, 8 years? Shows like The Sopranos and Dexter basically go for as long as the premise can maintain them, but even that's several years. Most network shows are cancelled the first year. Cable shows sometimes have the luxury of deciding their own end dates, but that gets back to the financial model, which especially for premium cable, is less brutal than broadcast.
Cable is the only place where you'll see miniseries like The Prisoner and Grey Gardens. But those are rarities in comparison with cable's mainstay of dramas, which mimic the format of network TV: premises that are designed to run for years.
Michael C. Hall could force an end to Dexter simply by refusing to come back for a sixth season. And given the ending of S4, I think the plan is to bring the show to a conclusion in the next year or two. They could have kept coasting along with the format they established in S3 - just spin their wheels eternally - but to their credit, they decided to end all that with a big event that signals a point of no return. Which is fine with me, five or six years is about right for a premise as limited as Dexter's.
But will Michael C. Hall be willing to give up whatever huge sum of money Showtime could offer him next? He's managed to find success with leading roles on Premium Cable dramas, but his career hasn't otherwise taken off.
I think you're right that cable shows can go on for just as long as network shows. I'll withdraw that point. But my remark about miniseries and television movies still stands. Network television has completely removed themselves from that arena because they're scared to death of a short product. That's why Prison Break limped along for four years (and a DVD movie, again, linked to a long-running product) off a two-season plan.
I think you're right that cable shows can go on for just as long as network shows. I'll withdraw that point. But my remark about miniseries and television movies still stands. Network television has completely removed themselves from that arena because they're scared to death of a short product. That's why Prison Break limped along for four years (and a DVD movie, again, linked to a long-running product) off a two-season plan.
Maybe the Rome stuff went to that Sparticus show on Starz
Not being in the US it's hard to say really, but it seems that cable shows can take more risk, so you end up with better shows in general.
Here in the UK we don't have premium cable channels in the same way you do in the US, premium channels here are movie and sports channels, and Sky One, FX, Sci-Fi are all on a basic package, but they don't produce shows really, just import them.
Sky One makes the occasional Mini-Series or TV Movie like Discworld or Skellig but not much else really.
The only digital channels that really produce their own shows are spin offs of the main networks anyway, BBC Three and Four, ITV 2 and 3, E4. And it seems when BBC Three or Four produce a hit it gets moved over to their main networks, so the lines between network TV and digital TV are a little more blurred over here.
Here in the UK we don't have premium cable channels in the same way you do in the US, premium channels here are movie and sports channels, and Sky One, FX, Sci-Fi are all on a basic package, but they don't produce shows really, just import them.
Sky One makes the occasional Mini-Series or TV Movie like Discworld or Skellig but not much else really.
The only digital channels that really produce their own shows are spin offs of the main networks anyway, BBC Three and Four, ITV 2 and 3, E4. And it seems when BBC Three or Four produce a hit it gets moved over to their main networks, so the lines between network TV and digital TV are a little more blurred over here.
Being at a far remove, the examples in the original post (and many more could be added,) do show that with one significant exception, the programming in cable, premium and basic, is at the least no more innovative than network television. (Actually, cable may be less innovative.) And, if taking risk by presenting something different is meant, there is also no real reason to think that being risky will mean a smaller audience. That appears to be snobbery instead, as in "The filthy masses don't like good stuff."
For example, consider the original Law & Order. For decades television was wedded to the one hour cop show and the one hour lawyer show. Law & Order is a half hour cop show followed by a half hour lawyer show. If that wasn't innovative, nothing is. That was a risky venture, but it was instantly popular. (None of the spinoffs copied the format.)
Also, for decades, television shows had a flexible approach to time, with the time between scenes varying according to narrative need, understood by the audience according to context and convention. Then, 24 presented its story in real time. That was innovative, and risky, but instantly popular. Pushing Daisies was extremely innovative but was instantly popular.
Cable is actually less likely to take liberal (forget leftist) viewpoints on political issues. In the few instances of cable programming even being aware of political issues, they are conservative to far right. The Wire was a partial exception, except a glaring tendency to make the heroes more macho, even the gay one! But The Wire had troubles surviving even on premium cable. Politically speaking, cable plays it safe.
The freer attitudes to vulgar language and sexuality on cable are not especially risky, since they are more in line with the actual practices of large numbers of the population. They are influenced more by real people. (In that sense, attributing the "quality" to the financial model is correct, in my opinion.) But the networks are influenced more by corporations, which brings a strong reactionary influence. The amazing thing is that it still was on network shows like ER and Brothers & Sisters that once would see a country at war in Iraq, for just one instance. I suspect that the social position of Hollywood producers, directors, writers, etc. comes out more in the cable productions. (Again, The Wire is a partial exception.)
^I think you'll find neither 24 nor Pushing Daisies were instantly popular. In fact Kiefer Sutherland counts the reception in the UK as the reason 24 was picked up for a second season in the US. Pushing Daises was cancelled because of low ratings.
I'm not sure what politics has to do with it, entertainment is entertainment regardless of the politics of the people in charge, I don't watch things for political leaning I watch things because they entertain or inform me.
Seems to me Network TV started taking more risks in reaction to cable TV having hit shows with non-standard formats and genres, or quirky premises, but regardless of this most network shows still have good guys and bad guys, the good guys invariably win then bad guys invariably lose. While on Cable where you have shows like Dexter with no real identifiable "good guy" just a protagonist who happens to be a killer.
The Wire, where you were shown as much of the drug dealers and their reasons as you were the cops, and the cops were corrupt and sometimes the drug dealers were good.
Battlestar Galactica a show which started off with genocide and actually managed to go down hill from there.
You don't get a lot of cop/lawyer/doctor shows on cable, or if you do they're from a different perspective or have a twist or quirk of their own, on network TV it's nearly always the same dynamic going on.
As for swearing and sex, I'll be honest, swearing doesn't bother me, but sex I often find is used gratuitously to distract from bad writing or other quality issues, so I wouldn't count bad language or sex as taking risks. Taking risks is giving something different or non-standard a chance, it's letting things be more realistic and less over blown, it's leaving a storyline to mature but not dragging it out in the way so many network shows do.
I'm not sure what politics has to do with it, entertainment is entertainment regardless of the politics of the people in charge, I don't watch things for political leaning I watch things because they entertain or inform me.
Seems to me Network TV started taking more risks in reaction to cable TV having hit shows with non-standard formats and genres, or quirky premises, but regardless of this most network shows still have good guys and bad guys, the good guys invariably win then bad guys invariably lose. While on Cable where you have shows like Dexter with no real identifiable "good guy" just a protagonist who happens to be a killer.
The Wire, where you were shown as much of the drug dealers and their reasons as you were the cops, and the cops were corrupt and sometimes the drug dealers were good.
Battlestar Galactica a show which started off with genocide and actually managed to go down hill from there.
You don't get a lot of cop/lawyer/doctor shows on cable, or if you do they're from a different perspective or have a twist or quirk of their own, on network TV it's nearly always the same dynamic going on.
As for swearing and sex, I'll be honest, swearing doesn't bother me, but sex I often find is used gratuitously to distract from bad writing or other quality issues, so I wouldn't count bad language or sex as taking risks. Taking risks is giving something different or non-standard a chance, it's letting things be more realistic and less over blown, it's leaving a storyline to mature but not dragging it out in the way so many network shows do.
I'm too young to remember a time when Law & Order was innovative. Visually, it's only interesting to the extent that it's filmed on location in New York. It lacks the innovation of the jump cuts using multiple takes that became a central part of the character of Homicide: Life on the Street.
Character-wise, from what little I've seen, it has a format that allows for little or no character development. The characters are ciphers who exist only to serve the plot, becoming interchangeable when an actor asks for more money. It's no wonder that Jerry Orbach had more time to let his character grow in one episode of Homicide than entire seasons of Law & Order.
Combining a cop show and a lawyer show? Now that is an interesting proposition, but it comes at such a cost to the characters that I've never been very interested in Law & Order in any of its incarnations. I must admit that I didn't even know the spin-offs abandoned this format.
Bob the Skutter is right when he points out that 24 wasn't instantly popular. The series was so on the bubble during the first season, that the initial order of 13 episodes was written so that it would tell a self-contained story. It continued to be popular with only a cult audience until the fourth season, when Fox both adopted a schedule that eliminated re-runs and the show became much more conservative in its politics (this was the season where Jack Bauer the constant and successful torture began--an image which was far different in the first three seasons).
Pushing Daisies premiered to decent ratings, but that was a given considering ABC's heavy promotion of the show. After the pilot, it consistently lost ground in the ratings, which led to its cancellation.
The notion that cable is far less likely to take liberal stances is an interesting one. I'm not so sure of it's validity, but it's definitely worth exploring in more depth. The cable shows I am most familiar with--The Wire, Six Feet Under, Californication, and Curb Your Enthusiasm--hardly seem bastions of conservatism. On the other hand, it's hard to make that same argument for the Stargate franchise, which has always been a cable production.
Character-wise, from what little I've seen, it has a format that allows for little or no character development. The characters are ciphers who exist only to serve the plot, becoming interchangeable when an actor asks for more money. It's no wonder that Jerry Orbach had more time to let his character grow in one episode of Homicide than entire seasons of Law & Order.
Combining a cop show and a lawyer show? Now that is an interesting proposition, but it comes at such a cost to the characters that I've never been very interested in Law & Order in any of its incarnations. I must admit that I didn't even know the spin-offs abandoned this format.
Bob the Skutter is right when he points out that 24 wasn't instantly popular. The series was so on the bubble during the first season, that the initial order of 13 episodes was written so that it would tell a self-contained story. It continued to be popular with only a cult audience until the fourth season, when Fox both adopted a schedule that eliminated re-runs and the show became much more conservative in its politics (this was the season where Jack Bauer the constant and successful torture began--an image which was far different in the first three seasons).
Pushing Daisies premiered to decent ratings, but that was a given considering ABC's heavy promotion of the show. After the pilot, it consistently lost ground in the ratings, which led to its cancellation.
The notion that cable is far less likely to take liberal stances is an interesting one. I'm not so sure of it's validity, but it's definitely worth exploring in more depth. The cable shows I am most familiar with--The Wire, Six Feet Under, Californication, and Curb Your Enthusiasm--hardly seem bastions of conservatism. On the other hand, it's hard to make that same argument for the Stargate franchise, which has always been a cable production.
How much of Homicide was location filming? Sometimes it all comes down to budget. HLOTS might bec able to do the multiple cuts/takes etc becasue it saves moiney on location shooting - it's swings and roundabouts when it comes to production budget.
I don't think there's ever been a political angle to Stargate:SG1 despite it's revolving around the military (plus one of the characters is non-military). It's only be a cable production becuase no mainstream network would of gone with it for 10 years. SciFi doesn't do well as a network produciton.
In fact I'd go so far as to say the claim about Cable Channels being less likely to produce "liberal" shows as a load of crap and the pushing a political barrow.
Joel Surnow (creator of 24) is a dyed in the wool conservative and the show is based on the notion that violence and torture works.
JAG was very pro-military through it's run (to the point where it's story lines supporting the military in Iraq and Afghnistan began putting people off (disclaimer - I watched JAG from the first appearance of Harmon Rabb Jr to the last coin toss, have alwasy supported the invasion of Afghanistan but opposed Iraq). Apparently Bellisario is socially liberal but very conservative when it comes the Military.
Law & Order balances the Liberal and the Conservative between both the cops and the lawyers. On SVU I'd argue that Stabler is conservative - he's very strong in support for families, coming down like a ton of bricks on the perps, pro-life, staunch Catholic.
Kelsey Grammar had 10 years of Frasier despite being a registered REpublican. Patrician Heaton was on Everyone Loves Raymond (which was apparently a very popular show with conservatives)- she's a conservative Republican strongly involved in pro-life causes.
Hell I remember reading comments on snpp.com which is big simpsons site however conservatives got kick out of the ep where Sideshow Bob (voiced by Kelsey Grammar) as the Republican wins the mayoral election through corruption. (plus the Kennedy inspired Mayor is a corrupt buffoon).
So I don't think that Cable tv is somehow a bastion of conservatism and network tv a bastion of liberalism. Network tv is bastion of ratings.
Back To you which featured Grammar and Heaton didn't fail becasue it featured to Republicans, it failed becasue it didn't get the ratings the network wanted.
The big drop in Pushing Daisies' ratings came after an extended hiatus. As I pointed out with the Sandy Duncan example, momentum counts in building up a committed audience. Once the viewers invest in the characters or the story, the show builds. I didn't remember 24 as being on the bubble.
I agree, selling sex is not taking risks, since it's very popular, despite widespread allegations to the contrary. The only cable shows I know of that took a chance with sex were Six Feet Under and Queer as Folk. The latter was critically panned and the former never won awards as far as I can remember. But there are political conservatives who are socially tolerant, and there are political liberals who are not. Only if politics is reduced to a culture war between the liberal "left" and the conservative "right" makes selling sex a leftwing political stance. This is nonsense.
Some people delude themselves that dismissing politics as all flummery or overexcited people getting all worked up over their exclusive personal views. The right course if a little bit of this and a little bit of that. These people even congratulate themselves on their common sense. The problem is that this cheap cynicism never prevents them from waiting helplessly for the next crisis.
Really, politics is about government policy, and by far the most important aspect is: Who gets what? As in, what countries get invaded, or which banks get billions, or which bankruptcy protections are removed, or which credit card practices are protected, or which telecommunications get monopoly privileges, and which obligation of the Federal Reserve (full employment or maintaining profitability of the banks) is honored, and on and on.
The nearly universal assumption that none of these even impinge on our lives, much less that they might be interesting issues, shows an extremely narrow viewpoint of what is permissible, safe "drama." The strident insistence that only the eternal verities of character are worthy subjects for drama have a consoling political implication, especially for those with a vested interest in popular ignorance about reality. Rarely is this, so great a part of most people's lives, of interest to cable programming, despite its supposed higher quality.
Lastly, as to the moral character of the heroes on network and cable television, there is a misunderstanding. There is a greater tendency on network television to follow conventional standards of morality. They tend to win over the bad guys because the good guys winning is a satisfying story for many people. The heroes on cable also win over the bad guys, for exactly the same reason. The heroes on cable merely are less likely to follow conventional morality.
Perhaps the very best example is Dexter. Dexter is the hero, and is in no way a "gray" or ambiguous character. He unfailingly tries to do the right thing in his social life with his girl friend and sister. And he tries to do the right thing in his crime fighting life. But he's killing people you say? People like the idea of "bad guys" getting killed, or they wouldn't pay for so much of it. Years ago I read a remark the best way to make an audience or readers to like a character was to show them as loving. A few months ago, I ran across the claim that the best way to make an audience or readers to like a character was to make them good at what they do. Dexter is supremely good at what he does. He is the hero.
The difference in public morality between years ago and now is the supposed cutting edge of cable I think. But I don't think it is any more sophisticated. The hero is the good guy and he wins, almost invariably.
And the bad guys win sometimes on network tv, anyhow.
I agree, selling sex is not taking risks, since it's very popular, despite widespread allegations to the contrary. The only cable shows I know of that took a chance with sex were Six Feet Under and Queer as Folk. The latter was critically panned and the former never won awards as far as I can remember. But there are political conservatives who are socially tolerant, and there are political liberals who are not. Only if politics is reduced to a culture war between the liberal "left" and the conservative "right" makes selling sex a leftwing political stance. This is nonsense.
Some people delude themselves that dismissing politics as all flummery or overexcited people getting all worked up over their exclusive personal views. The right course if a little bit of this and a little bit of that. These people even congratulate themselves on their common sense. The problem is that this cheap cynicism never prevents them from waiting helplessly for the next crisis.
Really, politics is about government policy, and by far the most important aspect is: Who gets what? As in, what countries get invaded, or which banks get billions, or which bankruptcy protections are removed, or which credit card practices are protected, or which telecommunications get monopoly privileges, and which obligation of the Federal Reserve (full employment or maintaining profitability of the banks) is honored, and on and on.
The nearly universal assumption that none of these even impinge on our lives, much less that they might be interesting issues, shows an extremely narrow viewpoint of what is permissible, safe "drama." The strident insistence that only the eternal verities of character are worthy subjects for drama have a consoling political implication, especially for those with a vested interest in popular ignorance about reality. Rarely is this, so great a part of most people's lives, of interest to cable programming, despite its supposed higher quality.
Lastly, as to the moral character of the heroes on network and cable television, there is a misunderstanding. There is a greater tendency on network television to follow conventional standards of morality. They tend to win over the bad guys because the good guys winning is a satisfying story for many people. The heroes on cable also win over the bad guys, for exactly the same reason. The heroes on cable merely are less likely to follow conventional morality.
Perhaps the very best example is Dexter. Dexter is the hero, and is in no way a "gray" or ambiguous character. He unfailingly tries to do the right thing in his social life with his girl friend and sister. And he tries to do the right thing in his crime fighting life. But he's killing people you say? People like the idea of "bad guys" getting killed, or they wouldn't pay for so much of it. Years ago I read a remark the best way to make an audience or readers to like a character was to show them as loving. A few months ago, I ran across the claim that the best way to make an audience or readers to like a character was to make them good at what they do. Dexter is supremely good at what he does. He is the hero.
The difference in public morality between years ago and now is the supposed cutting edge of cable I think. But I don't think it is any more sophisticated. The hero is the good guy and he wins, almost invariably.
And the bad guys win sometimes on network tv, anyhow.
So Dexter only kills bad guys? How reassuring. Who determines what *is* a bad guy? Dexter himself? Has he ever made a MISTAKE?
(I've never seen the show, as if that wasn't obvious
). Even if this is true - i.e. that this guy only actually does kill bad guys (and again, WHAT IS a bad guy? Who makes that distinction?), you can understand why networks wouldn't want to show something like that. In a very real sense, protagonism is advocacy. Whatever the main character does, is being celebrated. Why would a network risk that?
Last edited:
It's an interesting question. Broadcast airs a lot more shows so you can always find some that are good. However, I'd say cable has a better batting average.
Homcide: Life on the Street was filmed exclusively on location in Baltimore, MD. For that reason, it surely wasn't cheap to produce.
stj said:
I didn't remember any awards, either, but a quick internet search shows that Six Feet Under won quite a few Emmy Awards, Golden Globes, and Screen Actor Guild awards. Go figure.
