The Problem(s) with American Television

[maasman]

I think you answered your own question in some ways in the original post. You said a benefit to straight to netflix and the like was no commercials, well how do you expect the network to make money? On the movie side, in my hometown there is a theater which thankfully has only raised its price $1 in almost 30 years. It now costs $3 to watch a movie there, and for an extra dollar, you can get a small pop and popcorn. Of course there's a much newer theater a few miles away that charges 3 times more for ticket and snacks, but it's also much newer and has multiple screens.

I don't know this for a fact (although I suppose I know some of it for fact), but I pay Netflix a monthly fee. Presumably Netflix pays a fee to the network for the use of that particular show. I'm not sure how that works exactly, but I'm fairly certainly the network gets some cut for those shows on Netflix or Comcast On Demand.

But would it equal the amount of revenue created by the commercials? I don't know either, but it seems like they wouldn't make as much money.

[thegreekdog]

I think you answered your own question in some ways in the original post. You said a benefit to straight to netflix and the like was no commercials, well how do you expect the network to make money? On the movie side, in my hometown there is a theater which thankfully has only raised its price $1 in almost 30 years. It now costs $3 to watch a movie there, and for an extra dollar, you can get a small pop and popcorn. Of course there's a much newer theater a few miles away that charges 3 times more for ticket and snacks, but it's also much newer and has multiple screens.

I don't know this for a fact (although I suppose I know some of it for fact), but I pay Netflix a monthly fee. Presumably Netflix pays a fee to the network for the use of that particular show. I'm not sure how that works exactly, but I'm fairly certainly the network gets some cut for those shows on Netflix or Comcast On Demand.

But would it equal the amount of revenue created by the commercials? I don't know either, but it seems like they wouldn't make as much money.

You are probably right. But, they would make more money than they would just killing the show (or maybe not given television's finite resources).

[The Bison King]

Yeah it's a shame that good shows get dumped for terrible shows because of ratings. I was pissed when Arrested Development and Futurama both got canceled because they couldn't compete with the dancing or cop shows that were in their time slots. Luckily Comedy Central picked up Futurama. It's still a shame about AD though, that was by far the best thing on basic cable. Instead it's all dating shows with some celebrity from the '80s. I don't even watch television much, about the only thing I watch regularly now is Its Always Sunny in Philadelphia and Futurama (excited for whenever new season comes out). At least Sunny stuck around.

-TG

Those are pretty much my 2 favorite shows on TV now as well. But I watch a lot of Cartoon Network as well, and I think that that market is pumping out WAY better stuff than they were 5 years ago. Adventure Time, Flapjack, and Regular show I think are all way ahead of say Fosters, Fairly Odd Parents, and Jimmy Neutron. They're actually being innovative and original. Granted this is far from the mainstream for people 20 years and older but their trying to bring the market up there. The prime time CN show's are starting to become closer and closer to adult swim show's (especially Regular Show). It's actually kind of exciting to watch this shift in demographic.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Those are pretty much my 2 favorite shows on TV now as well. But I watch a lot of Cartoon Network as well, and I think that that market is pumping out WAY better stuff than they were 5 years ago. Adventure Time, Flapjack, and Regular show I think are all way ahead of say Fosters, Fairly Odd Parents, and Jimmy Neutron. They're actually being innovative and original. Granted this is far from the mainstream for people 20 years and older but their trying to bring the market up there. The prime time CN show's are starting to become closer and closer to adult swim show's (especially Regular Show). It's actually kind of exciting to watch this shift in demographic.

I don't watch a lot of cartoons anymore, mostly because I don't like anything that's on. However as you said since that's changing, I'm not familiar with anything that's on because I haven't watched them in a few years. I remember growing up with my generation stuff (Ren & Stimpy, Rocko's Modern Life, Pinky & the Brain, etc., which I loved) and also my parents' generation stuff (you know the classics). Occasionally when I'm getting ready for work I'll watch Cartoon Network and they have Tom & Jerry, and I'm glad to see they still air that. I would still enjoy cartoons if they did them well, so I'll take your word and see if things have improved.

[Phatscotty]

At least according to me. I recently viewed a TV show on Netflix called "The Unusuals." It was a show about a bunch of cops with various psychological and social issues. It was a well-acted, well-written show. After my wife and I watched the entire first season, I said, "We need to see when this show comes back for the fall TV season." Turns out the show was cancelled. I was shocked, although I shouldn't have been. This is not the first show that seemed to be very good, but that was cancelled. Now I understand that poor ratings have something to do with this, but I wanted to think about this for a little bit. So I've come up with some conclusions/thoughts.

(1) Television appears to be a copycat business. I believe there are a number of reality TV shows that just deal with dancing competitions (reality TV comes next). There is also some new show that's trying to copycat Lost (The Event or something).

(2) Reality television appears to be the mainstream. It appears to generate large audiences (Jersey Shore, American Idol, Dancing with the Stars) and costs little to produce. In the interest of full disclosure, I do not voluntarily watch reality TV (occasionally I am forced, through marriage, to watch Top Chef). I think reality TV is the height of un-creativity.

(3) The rating system is screwed up. In the interest of further disclosure, I rarely, if ever, watch a TV show when it originally airs. I generally watch TV shows through Netflix, Comcast's On Demand service, or by purchasing the DVDs. Therefore, presumably, my viewing of that particular TV show is not reflected in the ratings. Further, I suspect that there are many people who do not watch TV shows when they originally air, preferring one of the services I indicated above. One doesn't lose anything from a viewing perspective by watching the show after it airs (in fact, one gains access to no commercials as an added benefit). However, with reality TV it appears to be a little different. I'm constantly bombarded with "who got voted off Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire/Survivor/Dancing with The Situation" despite not caring about reality TV.

(4) Good shows are still pitched to the major networks as opposed to cable. Some of the best shows are on USA, TBS, TNT, HBO, Showtime. Yet it appears that shows still pitch exclusively to the major networks, which appear to almost exclusively show reality television. So, when a good show gets picked up by an NBC, it gets cancelled quickly (or moved to Friday night to die) because it's not pulling in American Idol numbers (or whatever). And I'm sure there are provisions in the contract with NBC that prevent that show from going to a TNT.

So, I'm an angry TV watcher now. I wondered if anyone had any thoughts on this.

reality television cost almost nothing to produce, surely nothing close to a normal production. I have always shared these opinions, hence, a clear disdain for most/all reality TV. Sweet Thread

[PLAYER57832]

On the plus side, if TV were much better, maybe there would not be so many here on CC..

[tzor]

Here's all you need to know: The network tried to cancel the original Star Trek after two years because it was not popular enough. A massive write-in campaign got it another year (its third), but it was then cancelled for good after that year.

Star Trek: Not popular enough.

The show that replaced Star Trek was ... Laugh In.

But remember the real reason for Star Trek; without Star Trek, All in the Family would never have been possible.

That's the hard thing to understand about Star Trek TOS, people often confuse it with a Sci Fi TV show.

Star Trek was social commentary that used Science Fiction to get around the social censors of the time. Sometimes this was flat out blatant as was the case when the hippies were crossing the galaxy or when "he's black on his right side and white on the left; I'm black on my left side and white on my right" (played by the same actor - forget his name - who played 'The Riddler' on the old Batman TV series).

You know they tried a spin off on TOS ... Gary 7 was supposed to be his own series.

[2dimes]

Laugh in might not have the staying power but it killed!

[The Bison King]

Those are pretty much my 2 favorite shows on TV now as well. But I watch a lot of Cartoon Network as well, and I think that that market is pumping out WAY better stuff than they were 5 years ago. Adventure Time, Flapjack, and Regular show I think are all way ahead of say Fosters, Fairly Odd Parents, and Jimmy Neutron. They're actually being innovative and original. Granted this is far from the mainstream for people 20 years and older but their trying to bring the market up there. The prime time CN show's are starting to become closer and closer to adult swim show's (especially Regular Show). It's actually kind of exciting to watch this shift in demographic.

I don't watch a lot of cartoons anymore, mostly because I don't like anything that's on. However as you said since that's changing, I'm not familiar with anything that's on because I haven't watched them in a few years. I remember growing up with my generation stuff (Ren & Stimpy, Rocko's Modern Life, Pinky & the Brain, etc., which I loved) and also my parents' generation stuff (you know the classics). Occasionally when I'm getting ready for work I'll watch Cartoon Network and they have Tom & Jerry, and I'm glad to see they still air that. I would still enjoy cartoons if they did them well, so I'll take your word and see if things have improved.

I too watched and Loved Ren and Stimpy, Rocko, Animaniacs, and so on. I'm not going to lie and say that the new wave really follows in the same vein because they don't. But that's a good thing too, because that's been done already. The things that made those cartoons good at the time were that they were innovative and pushing the envelope of what a cartoon could be. Especially Ren and stimpy. It's this spirit that I'm seeing in the new wave of CN cartoons. Not just increased language and more adult subject matter but in more unique plots and character relationships. It'll be interesting to see what comes after this, hopefully I'll have something to do with it.

[tzor]

Laugh in might not have the staying power but it killed!

Second ... "Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In is an American sketch comedy television program which ran for 140 episodes from January 22, 1968, to May 14, 1973. It was hosted by comedians Dan Rowan and Dick Martin and was broadcast over NBC."

Here were the ratings

• 1968–1969: #1
• 1969–1970: #1
• 1970–1971: #13
• 1971–1972: #22

[jonesthecurl]

Laugh in might not have the staying power but it killed!

Second ... "Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In is an American sketch comedy television program which ran for 140 episodes from January 22, 1968, to May 14, 1973. It was hosted by comedians Dan Rowan and Dick Martin and was broadcast over NBC."

Here were the ratings

• 1968–1969: #1
• 1969–1970: #1
• 1970–1971: #13
• 1971–1972: #22

<moves foliage aside>
Verry int-eresting...

[oVo]

"Laugh In" probably had more jokes per minute than any show ever produced for TV. If it was controversial or you didn't get it or didn't find it funny? There were five more jokes butting in right behind it. It also made a few lesser know personalities into celebrities.

There are always a few well written and produced shows every year that spawn clones on American TV if they get decent ratings. Of course some things can't be duplicated. In recent years I've enjoyed BBC, Canadian and Australian shows presented by PBS.

Two problems with network television; 1) they believe their own hype and 2) laugh tracks don't make lame attempts at humor funny. Many shows win their time slot by default, since they have nothing but crap competing for your viewership and this unfortunately pushes many of these same shows into perpetual syndication.

I hate reality shows... for the most part they are such BS.

[john9blue]

I rarely watch TV. Maybe a few hours a week maximum.

[The Bison King]

Mad Men is probably the best show on TV right now. At least best scripted drama any way. I love that show.

[Woodruff]

Here's all you need to know: The network tried to cancel the original Star Trek after two years because it was not popular enough. A massive write-in campaign got it another year (its third), but it was then cancelled for good after that year.

Star Trek: Not popular enough.

The show that replaced Star Trek was ... Laugh In.

In that slot, sure. But cancelling vs. moving to a different slot? There was clearly a significant following.

But remember the real reason for Star Trek; without Star Trek, All in the Family would never have been possible.

You had me lost on this comment at first. But as I read further in your commentary, I caught on. There is certainly some truth to it, though it really sounds weird when you read it. <grin>

That's the hard thing to understand about Star Trek TOS, people often confuse it with a Sci Fi TV show.
Star Trek was social commentary that used Science Fiction to get around the social censors of the time.

Oh, no question about that. And they used it like a flipping hammer most of the time...not particularly subtle. Probably a lot of what appealed to me about it, I suppose. I don't mind being preached to, if I like the sermon. <grin>

You know they tried a spin off on TOS ... Gary 7 was supposed to be his own series.

I hadn't heard that...that could be interesting.

[PLAYER57832]

All in the Family, while not a comedy, had probably a wider reaching impact on society at the time it aired than probably any other show in history.

Today, no one would even consider such controvery, not really. We get the Cable Guy, etc. But, while funny all they really do is throw in a bunch of raw vulgarities to comedy. Partly, its because times have changed and we no longer seem to have a set of universal issues that impact us all. Partly, its because the internet allows people to divide and seek out only those ideas and things they truly like.

I am not saying everyone who watched all in the family found it their favorite show. Many watched it simply because they were bored. But, there was little else and so.. people stayed even when the situations were not entirely easy. Rosanne tried to do the same on different issues and succeeded to a point, but not in the same way at all. When Rosanne brought up birth control, a lot of people simply did not watch.

[PLAYER57832]

You know they tried a spin off on TOS ... Gary 7 was supposed to be his own series.

I hadn't heard that...that could be interesting.

What was Gary 7?

[Woodruff]

You know they tried a spin off on TOS ... Gary 7 was supposed to be his own series.

I hadn't heard that...that could be interesting.

What was Gary 7?

Ah, the illiterate heathens!!!!!

Just kidding...Gary Seven was a one-off character on the original Star Trek who was a traveler from another species/galaxy.

[PLAYER57832]

You know they tried a spin off on TOS ... Gary 7 was supposed to be his own series.

I hadn't heard that...that could be interesting.

What was Gary 7?

Ah, the illiterate heathens!!!!!

Just kidding...Gary Seven was a one-off character on the original Star Trek who was a traveler from another species/galaxy.

Gotcha, the predecessor to Q. (not entirely illiterate, but there are a few episodes I missed)

[Woodruff]

You know they tried a spin off on TOS ... Gary 7 was supposed to be his own series.

I hadn't heard that...that could be interesting.

What was Gary 7?

Ah, the illiterate heathens!!!!!

Just kidding...Gary Seven was a one-off character on the original Star Trek who was a traveler from another species/galaxy.

Gotcha, the predecessor to Q. (not entirely illiterate, but there are a few episodes I missed)

Well...without the smugness, arrogance and MAYBE the omnipotence (that last part was never explored very closely).

[PLAYER57832]

Ah, the illiterate heathens!!!!!

Just kidding...Gary Seven was a one-off character on the original Star Trek who was a traveler from another species/galaxy.

Gotcha, the predecessor to Q. (not entirely illiterate, but there are a few episodes I missed)

Well...without the smugness, arrogance and MAYBE the omnipotence (that last part was never explored very closely).

Who knows, might just see someone dusting off those old ideas again. Of course, the names would be changed, etc. (though not quite to protect the innocent)

[bradleybadly]

I rarely watch TV. Maybe a few hours a week maximum.

Make sure Outsourced is on your list - funny and well written. Diedrich Bader kills!

[tzor]

Just kidding...Gary Seven was a one-off character on the original Star Trek who was a traveler from another species/galaxy.

Close but not quite, the cat was the alien, he was from Earth, but was modified by the aliens. Here is the quote from wikipedia.

The episode "Assignment: Earth" was a television pilot for a proposed series about Gary Seven, a human who lives on Earth but who works for the inhabitants of another planet. His mission was to prevent nuclear war on Earth by sabotaging a missile platform launched by the United States in 1968. Seven is encountered by the crew of the Starship Enterprise, who have been sent back in time by the United Federation of Planets to find out what actually had occurred on Earth in the late 1960s.

[PLAYER57832]

sounds a little like that time changing series (cannot remember the name, only caught it a few times when I was in school.)

[Woodruff]

Just kidding...Gary Seven was a one-off character on the original Star Trek who was a traveler from another species/galaxy.

Close but not quite, the cat was the alien, he was from Earth, but was modified by the aliens. Here is the quote from wikipedia.

The episode "Assignment: Earth" was a television pilot for a proposed series about Gary Seven, a human who lives on Earth but who works for the inhabitants of another planet. His mission was to prevent nuclear war on Earth by sabotaging a missile platform launched by the United States in 1968. Seven is encountered by the crew of the Starship Enterprise, who have been sent back in time by the United Federation of Planets to find out what actually had occurred on Earth in the late 1960s.

Well, yes and no...that's really not quite accurate. He was actually the descendent of humans who were captured from Earth centuries earlier. By that point, I'm afraid that while his DNA may have been human, his outlook simply would not have been.

(Geekness abounds...)