CBS Has No Creative Control Over New Streaming Series
- Thread starter Overgeeked
- Start date
Actually, this could be a good thing. We all know how network execs can screw up a show by trying to micromanage story ideas. CBS just needs to pay for the series and leave the creative part to the creative people like the writers. A good show is usually one where the writers and head producer have full control to map out the direction of the show.
The article seems to be interviewing the wrong person (someone involved with programming at CBS the broadcasting network)...
Really?
It fills me with a lot of confidence.
All broadcast networks are good for are interfering and messing with good shows. TNG and DS9 didn't have to listen to out of touch corporate jackets ramble on about ratings due to it first-run syndication format, and they were, considered by many, to be the two best Trek shows.
When a network has a lot of control over a show (e.g. NBC on TOS, UPN on VOY and ENT), we see what the result is. Either the show gets cancelled prematurely, or loses a lot of its creative juices.
For this series to be left to Kurtzman, Kadin, and the writers is great news, it means they will have more creative freedom from the get-go.
The head of CBS entertainment being in the dark doesn't bother me, he's not the one creating or developing the show. He gave it the green light, so his job is done. Leave it to the show runners to craft something worthwhile.
Nope. You completely missed what he said. He didn't give the show the green light. CBS All Access did. The head of CBS network has no creative control because it's not his show. It's the equivalent of asking the head of CBS network if he has control over a show on Showtime. There is likely an executive who does have some control. But it's, Marc DeBevoise, Executive Vice President/General Manager – CBS Digital Media, not Glen Geller, President of CBS Entertainment(ie primetime network).
When has an exec ever had a good idea?
Every show you've ever liked involved an exec having the good idea of greenlighting it.
Whedon didn't fund his thirteen episodes of The Adventures of Kaylee Across Space And Time" via Kickstarter.
Approving of an idea isn't the same as having a great idea. We don't thank the guy who greenlit Citizen Kane or Casablanca.
But that's a great concept and I'll rob a bank to help fund it.
We mostly thank of the guy who greenlit Casablanca; it's the classic example of an arguably non-auteuristic movie (or one where, if there is an 'auteur', it's the producer.)
Adding Elaine to Seinfeld
Including minorities in Star Trek
Keeping Jack alive on Lost
Doing a second pilot for The Big Bang Theory
And thousands of ideas that you never heard of, network or studio executives giving notes is a good thing, they are professionals and know what they're doing (most of the time).
Of course some of their suggestions are crap but it's not like everything a writer comes up with is gold (remember Beverly Crusher having sex with a ghost?)
The problem is that we usually only hear from writers via interviews, podcasts etc. and of course they are more likely to talk about the shitty ideas an executive had because it's either a funny anecdote or it allows them to shift the blame to someone else for something that didn't work.
Very few writers will talk about their own bas ideas that got vetoed by an executive or will go into detail about how "The thing everybody in the audience loved was something the network forced on us, the entire writer's room was against it!".
Executives rarely get to tell their stories of stubborn writers and their silly ideas.
Often it's also not good ideas vs. bad ideas, an executive gets to look at a script with a new set of eyes, he or she wasn't in the writer's room when the story was broken, so it's easier to spot things that don't work or could be improved, like moving a scene to another point in the episode, removing a line of dialog that's repetitive, often entwork notes are minor things that nonetheless improve the final product.
Notes by an executive also force a writer to take a second look at his or her work and consider alternatives, that's always a good thing even if they ultimately disagree with the note.
In what way?
Uniforms, technology designs, plot details, all were shared between First Contact and the shows running at the same time. One show even lent a principal castmember to two of the movies. Nemesis sat after the TV show continuity so could hardly step on their toes, and even threw in a reference to Voyager. Both Voyager and Enterprise made extensive use of the 'movie Borg'; the Queen even features in major plotlines in VOY. Since then, we've had two movies and no TV shows to clash with.
I can't say that Trek had ever had notable issues between the movie and TV arms of the franchise, let alone that it was a major problem. The only complaint I recall was the ignoring of Worf being an ambassador after What You Leave Behind. Hardly the bullet that killed the franchise, I feel.
The fracture was TOS vs TNG. TOS had it's own creative team that were separate from what TNG staff was doing. The TNG people didn't like that the TOS movies were off on their own. One of the things they got when TNG started doing movies was the TV crew getting their shot. But arguably, the TV people weren't really prepared to produce major Hollywood movies.
Either way, the split today is even greater with it actually being two separate companies. Aside from Kurtzman's name, we have no idea if there will be any overlap between the two.
Similar threads
