Is network drama TV dead because of censorship rules?

[DarthTom]

I was thinking of some of the more popular TV drama's today and all of them are on cable TV, Is this because cable TV just hires more talent, has more $$, or is it because maybe they aren't constrained by the censors?

Some of the most popular shows on TV today: House of Cards, The Walking Dead, Orange is the New Black, Mad Men, Game of Thrones etc. IMO are successful not only because the writing is good and the actors are good but also because the content is far more edgy and controversial than would be allowed on broadcast TV.

Will broadcast TV die a slow death left with only reality TV because of bad programming or because they are inhibited from providing more controversial programming because of the FCC and it's rules?

 

[Robert Maxwell]

You don't get ratings worthy of broadcast TV by showing nipples and dropping f-bombs, dude.

 

[DarthTom]

You don't get ratings worthy of broadcast TV by showing nipples and dropping f-bombs, dude.

No but it adds an level of realism absent in other shows. For example, take the decent but sometimes anti-climatic NBC drama, Revolution.

Would the story had worked better if they were able to add in more realism in terms of profanity, violence, and even nudity into the show?

 

[Gov Kodos]

'Friends' did OK without all that edgy stuff. So did '30 Rock', 'Frasier' and a lot of other shows past and current.

The 8 Ball says, No.

 

[DarthTom]

'Friends' did OK without all that edgy stuff. So did '30 Rock', 'Frasier' and a lot of other shows past and current.

The 8 Ball says, No.

Those are comedies not drama. Add to that Big Bang Theory.

 

[Gov Kodos]

I've no doubt successful dramas are on TV as well?

 

[C.E. Evans]

All of these TV shows are network dramas.

It's really a case of premium cable, cable, and broadcast networks and how much they defer to advertisers/viewers. Premium cable can get away with R-rated stuff because they only ones they really have to please are their subscribers; cable still caters towards niche audiences but only barely these days; while broadcast can only go so far before parent groups start protesting and boycotting their sponsors.

The FCC, on the other hand, can be rather lenient when it comes to late-night programming, especially on cable (allowing uncensored profanity and even very brief partial nudity), but not during daytime hours--they can be real strict and unforgiving when it comes to that.

 

[DarthTom]

All of these TV shows are network dramas.

It's really a case of premium cable, cable, and broadcast networks and how much they defer to advertisers/viewers. Premium cable can get away with R-rated stuff because they only ones they really have to please are their subscribers; cable still caters towards niche audiences but only barely these days; while broadcast can only go so far before parent groups start protesting and boycotting their sponsors.

The FCC, on the other hand, can be rather lenient when it comes to late-night programming, especially on cable (allowing uncensored profanity and even very brief partial nudity), but not during daytime hours--they can be real strict and unforgiving when it comes to that.

NCIS on CBS is a notable exception and still popular but it's one of the few drama's on network TV today that's in the top 10.

 

[HaventGotALife]

I was thinking of some of the more popular TV drama's today and all of them are on cable TV, Is this because cable TV just hires more talent, has more $$, or is it because maybe they aren't constrained by the censors?

Some of the most popular shows on TV today: House of Cards, The Walking Dead, Orange is the New Black, Mad Men, Game of Thrones etc. IMO are successful not only because the writing is good and the actors are good but also because the content is far more edgy and controversial than would be allowed on broadcast TV.

Will broadcast TV die a slow death left with only reality TV because of bad programming or because they are inhibited from providing more controversial programming because of the FCC and it's rules?

Smash did nudity. Did it help it? I think they are trying for mass appeal and keeping sponsors happy. It makes for some very timid programming.

 

[Professor Zoom]

the ratings that most of the cable dramas get--even the ones that are really talked about--wouldn't be satisfying for a network.

Networks require a broad audience. Shows about drug making science teachers and self absorbed ad men in the 60s are to niche.

NCIS, CSIs, Castle, Once Upon A Time, Person of Interest, Criminal Minds, Elementry all do better than cable shows. For the most part.

So, really, your question is built on a faulty premise. Network dramas, even those NOT in the top ten, still get more viewers than Mad Men.

Here are some numbers: HERE.

 

[DarthTom]

the ratings that most of the cable dramas get--even the ones that are really talked about--wouldn't be satisfying for a network.

Networks require a broad audience. Shows about drug making science teachers and self absorbed ad men in the 60s are to niche.

NCIS, CSIs, Castle, Once Upon A Time, Person of Interest, Criminal Minds, Elementry all do better than cable shows. For the most part.

So, really, your question is built on a faulty premise. Network dramas, even those NOT in the top ten, still get more viewers than Mad Men.

Here are some numbers: HERE.

Well even Duck Dynasty beat the Olympics in ratings. And TNT's Rizzoli and Isles exceeds most broadcast network ratings.

Yes, overall the networks have larger ratings because of broad appeal shows like Idol, Football, Dancing with the Stars. But IMO Cable is beating the shit out of the networks when it comes to drama. And it isn't only IMO because of the writing.

Variety

n preliminary “most current” estimates from Nielsen, the top original cable series of the year in total viewers are: AMC’s “The Walking Dead” (16.16 million), A&E’s “Duck Dynasty” (13.37 million), History’s limited-run “The Bible” (13.19m), AMC’s “Breaking Bad” (8.48m), TNT’s “Rizzoli & Isles” (8.33m), FX’s “Sons of Anarchy” (7.09m), TNT’s “Major Crimes” (6.45m), A&E’s “Longmire” (5.95m), FX’s “American Horror Story” (5.94m) and History’s “Vikings” (5.93m)

 

[Professor Zoom]

the ratings that most of the cable dramas get--even the ones that are really talked about--wouldn't be satisfying for a network.

Networks require a broad audience. Shows about drug making science teachers and self absorbed ad men in the 60s are to niche.

NCIS, CSIs, Castle, Once Upon A Time, Person of Interest, Criminal Minds, Elementry all do better than cable shows. For the most part.

So, really, your question is built on a faulty premise. Network dramas, even those NOT in the top ten, still get more viewers than Mad Men.

Here are some numbers: HERE.

Well even Duck Dynasty beat the Olympics in ratings. And TNT's Rizzoli and Isles exceeds most broadcast network ratings.

Yes, overall the networks have larger ratings because of broad appeal shows like Idol, Football, Dancing with the Stars. But IMO Cable is beating the shit out of the networks when it comes to drama. And it isn't only IMO because of the writing.

Variety

n preliminary “most current” estimates from Nielsen, the top original cable series of the year in total viewers are: AMC’s “The Walking Dead” (16.16 million), A&E’s “Duck Dynasty” (13.37 million), History’s limited-run “The Bible” (13.19m), AMC’s “Breaking Bad” (8.48m), TNT’s “Rizzoli & Isles” (8.33m), FX’s “Sons of Anarchy” (7.09m), TNT’s “Major Crimes” (6.45m), A&E’s “Longmire” (5.95m), FX’s “American Horror Story” (5.94m) and History’s “Vikings” (5.93m)

1. Duck Dynasty is a scripted drama?

2. NCIS, NCIS: LA, Criminal Minds, Person of Interest, CSI, Castle and Elementary ALL have higher ratings than Breaking Bad on your list according to the link I used. So, NO, cable is NOT beating the shit out of network.

3. On your list, only Walking Dead would be in the top ten. Breaking Bad and Rizzoli and Isles barely cracks the top 25. So, again, no, cable is NOT beating the shit out of network.

 

[Random_Spock]

Law and Order SVU is still doing alright. Another drama to add to the list. Also, good dramas shouldn't have to rely on being edgy and full of swearing to be good. I like watching shows that have good story lines and dialogue.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

Censorship is much more lax than it was in the past. In the past it was controversial even to show a dysfunctional family. Networks produced great television for years with much harsher restrictions than now.

You do not need to show people swearing and banging to be realistic. If anything HBO shows go a bit ridiculously far in the other direction, showing much more nudity and swearing than is actually called for by the story. If a zombie were chasing me I might scream the F word, and you might hear a group of teenage boys using it every other sentence when their parents aren't around. But generally just walking around on the street you don't hear people just yelling it out. And you don't need to show tits to communicate to the audience that sex has taken place.

If network drama is dying it's because it's so much cheaper to throw a bunch of blondes in a house and watch them yell at each other than it is to pay writers and actors, and that has made network execs extremely risk-averse when it comes to greenlighting new shows.

 

[Professor Zoom]

Oh, let me add Blacklist to the list. Variety said it's return last night had 11 million viewers.

Yep. Cable. Totally NOT beating the shit out of network drama.

 

[DarthTom]

You do not need to show people swearing and banging to be realistic. If anything HBO shows go a bit ridiculously far in the other direction, showing much more nudity and swearing than is actually called for by the story. If a zombie were chasing me I might scream the F word, and you might hear a group of teenage boys using it every other sentence when their parents aren't around. But generally just walking around on the street you don't hear people just yelling it out.

Never been to NYC have ya? Fuck you might as well be a salutation.

If network drama is dying it's because it's so much cheaper to throw a bunch of blondes in a house and watch them yell at each other than it is to pay writers and actors, and that has made network execs extremely risk-averse when it comes to greenlighting new shows.

This I'll agree with. Shows like Dancing with the Stars are cheaper to make than drama. Which actually begs the question outside of my original question - why are cable channels able to make quality drama on a per episode basis far more cheaply? It cannot simply be because they don't hire more recognized stars?

Then again, it's estimated that House of Cards cost Netflix $50 million for two seasons or $4 million / episode which would make it more costly than The Walking Dead which I'd assume has a lot higher production costs.

Generally speaking - I agree that the demise of prime time network programming overall [there are exceptions of course] isn't only because of censorship rules but I still believe it's one ingredient in the souffle as to why it has declined. For example I doubt that the way TWD has been made for AMC could have been aired on NBC without issues from the censors.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

The Blacklist seems to be doing just fine.

 

[Relayer1]

There is a major TV event in Liverpool at the moment. Hundreds of buyers from around the world picking up shows for next year.

They interviewed the buyer from Finland who said that viewing figures for US shows have collapsed and the other buyers were saying the same thing.

How important are foreign sales to the studio's ?

 

[C.E. Evans]

All of these TV shows are network dramas.

It's really a case of premium cable, cable, and broadcast networks and how much they defer to advertisers/viewers. Premium cable can get away with R-rated stuff because they only ones they really have to please are their subscribers; cable still caters towards niche audiences but only barely these days; while broadcast can only go so far before parent groups start protesting and boycotting their sponsors.

The FCC, on the other hand, can be rather lenient when it comes to late-night programming, especially on cable (allowing uncensored profanity and even very brief partial nudity), but not during daytime hours--they can be real strict and unforgiving when it comes to that.

NCIS on CBS is a notable exception and still popular but it's one of the few drama's on network TV today that's in the top 10.

A notable exception to what? There are other dramas on TV that others may consider really good and required viewing, regardless if they are in the top 10 or not.

 

[Professor Zoom]

Which actually begs the question outside of my original question - why are cable channels able to make quality drama on a per episode basis far more cheaply? It cannot simply be because they don't hire more recognized stars?

Why do you assume it's cheaper? Do you have a link?

I know WGA scale is smaller for cable shows, and I would imagine that is so for SAG-Aftra as well. However, that probably doesn't really matter.

AMC is willing to shell out a ton of cash for Mad Men because the number of people who watch it (the much smaller people than a network drama) are those who are more specifically craved by advertisers. Not only do they fall into the bracket age wise, but there is also spending habits, etc.

So, they aim at an extremely loyal, somewhat better off audience. And also consider, it's nice to have a prestige award winning show... that sells DVDs, etc.

Then again, it's estimated that House of Cards cost Netflix $50 million for two seasons or $4 million / episode which would make it more costly than The Walking Dead which I'd assume has a lot higher production costs.

Netflix is banking on more subscriptions, like HBO.

Generally speaking - I agree that the demise of prime time network programming overall [there are exceptions of course] isn't only because of censorship rules but I still believe it's one ingredient in the souffle as to why it has declined.

Again, you are also basing your idea on a false assumption. Networks couldn't survive on cable numbers. Most of the dramas, with the exception of Walking Dead, that you have given, would be around 25 most watched.

They are looking for a broad based. That's what they have based their model on. How long will it survive in this day and age? Who knows.

For example I doubt that the way TWD has been made for AMC could have been aired on NBC without issues from the censors.

It's not the censors. It's the executives. You think that the President of NBC couldn't turn to a censor and say, "shut the fuck up?" They aren't some independent group.

Or are you talking the FCC?

NBC wouldn't have bought it because the Walking Dead would be to far out of their brand, they are risk averse, and something like that... no.

And that's also saying the creators of the Walking Dead would WANT to be on network...