SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion
TV and Movie Chat
>
Basic networks screwing up? NBC, ABC, Fox
Thomas wrote: "I took a brief glance and didn't see anything in regards to this, so I wanted to make a topic.Why is it that networks can't get it right when they're doing science fiction shows? With the recent ..."
Thomas,
For better or worse, a for-profit business is all about business and actually must be in order to remain in business for long.
Ratings, which determine how much sponsors must pay per commercial and by which every TV network measures profitability, are the sole determining factor utilized to determine any show's longevity.
You make a valid point. It is all about money and that's sad.But that makes it seem like they don't actually care about the story. It's my opinion that they focus too much on the business aspect and not enough on fan appreciation. At least when Doll House (Fox) was cancelled they were able to give it a somewhat proper ending.
What I wish they would do is recognize that it's not doing well and at least give the writers a chance to finish out, even if it's in some mini-series event or shortened season.
there are many great tv concepts in sci fi and fantasy but most lend themselves to "mini series" not on going seasons because good writers that can crank out quality material are rare. and many of the higher management types don't understand scifi-fantasy well. look at the scifi channel and it's lame programming.
but game of thrones is good stuff because there is sooo much good writing in the the adaptors get to adapt instead of create.
when I read wool, I knew it would be great adapted to either tv or big screen and when I looked into I found that ridley scott agreed with me.
Thomas, I think that when they find that stand alone seasons will have some longterm legs, sales wise. executives will be more interested in closing out well.
My theory is that it is indeed all about the ratings and profits.The demographic that watches FOX and other Network TV channels is not the demographic that is interested in science, technology, history, religious myth and folklore. The demographic is one of short-attention interest in soap-opera-like sitcom shows. They don't want to follow a complex plot, or a continuity-plot. They want standalone episodes, humor, romance, contemporary or relateable issues.
Consider the most successful SF and F series that have had long runs on TV. Now look at the other content that aired on those channels, and their time slots.
The big picture will reveal why some series are successful and others not, issues with writing/acting aside.
Don wrote: "there are many great tv concepts in sci fi and fantasy but most lend themselves to "mini series" not on going seasons..."I actually prefer the mini-series format over the typical US format where there is no set end to the story and if the show's a hit they milk it for as long as they possibly can until they've driven the show into the ground and everyone's just sick of it and once a show's "under performing," they either abandon it before the overarching story is complete (Firefly) or make some feeble attempt at wrapping things up quickly (Lost).
A mini-series is much more like a book: it has a predetermined beginning, plot line and end. It's a complete story with (hopefully) a satisfying final wrap-up. A lot of British productions are like this, self-limiting the number of seasons they do (non-SF examples are shows like Fawlty Towers, The Office and House of Cards). This actually makes for better storytelling and, I think, is a better solution for viewers and writers alike. I mean, even Star Trek's original series was only two seasons long. I can't help but think that this boosted its effect on TV and SF culture because the (already cheesy show) was not allowed to over-ripen till it smelled of Pont l’Eveque.
It always comes down to ratings. If fans liked a show well enough, they'd watch it.The Nielsen ratings are some kind of voodoo that bear little resemblance to reality. Now that over 55% of US households have DVRs, they have actual hard data about who watches what.
So if you like a show and have a DVR, don't wait until the end of the season or the halfway point to binge-watch. Watch them within that 3- to 7-day window that the networks count, because those are what advertisers base their ad buys on.
j.j. Abrams is the "all hat and no cattle" guy... he's the guy who strings you on and on and in the end all you wind up with is lots of STRING.
Micah wrote: "I actually prefer the mini-series format over the typical US format where there is no set end to the story and if the show's a hit they milk it for as long as they possibly can until they've driven the show into the ground and everyone's just sick of it and once a show's "under performing," they either abandon it before the overarching story is complete (Firefly) or make some feeble attempt at wrapping things up quickly (Lost)."I also prefer the BBC model over the American one. It keeps shows from having too many filler episodes.
That said, I think there are some ideas which would fare just fine in the ongoing "22-episode, 5-years of shows for syndication" style of broadcast we've had for so many decades.
Problem being, there are so many distractions (and channels) that the business model doesn't really work any more. If the networks would commit to half seasons with self-contained stories using the Walking Dead model, I think more people would tune in.
But really, I think most viewers just want to turn on their TVs and get some familiar show that fits within their preconceived notions of the typical lawyer-doctor-police procedural. Even the most popular sci-fi shows (CSI, X-Files, Person of Interest) are just procedurals.
[A minor correction about Lost -- they knew at the end of season 2 that season 5 was going to be the end, something the producers requested, so they could write toward a resolution. Any failings of that show belong to the writers, not the network.]
@Micah: I too like the mini-series model. That knowing there will be a definite beginning, middle and end is great and it doesn't feel stressed.I think that going into it, networks should really determine if the show will have that ending before they even agree on starting. Burning something to the ground over years because they can is terrible and killing a show off if they could feasibly wrap up the plots with one more season is worse.
Do they really have such a tight budget that they need to cancel a show the moment ratings drop a bit?
Micah wrote: "Don wrote: "there are many great tv concepts in sci fi and fantasy but most lend themselves to "mini series" not on going seasons..."I actually prefer the mini-series format over the typical US f..."
Amen.
This is the reason I watch so many British things on Netflix, including miniseries, such as the original House of Cards.
Thomas wrote: "@Micah: I too like the mini-series model. That knowing there will be a definite beginning, middle and end is great and it doesn't feel stressed.I think that going into it, networks should really ..."
Other network execs have new shows and show ideas they want to promote to further their own careers. If they smell the slightest bit of blood in the water . . .
Often, they shuffle the condemned program through a series of ever-worsening time slots until the bewildered fans give up the chase and it dies a lonely death.
Everyone who wants good story telling likes the mini-series model. The thing is lots of broadcasting is still based off shows where you can miss an episode or several and turn it on and still be able to enjoy it. The DVR/Netflix/Hulu/watching online has really changed this and is what is allowing more shows where you can't really miss an episode or two like The Walking Dead/Game of Thrones/Breaking Bad to flourish. I mean the demographic is there and they are watching shows heck those shows often make up some of the biggest shows. However it's a big risk for them to go out on something unknown and until the execs know what works and what doesn't they will keep shoving dumb rom-com or Tru-tv garbage. I don't think it will be too long until we get a big sci-fi success on Tv.
Don wrote: "j.j. Abrams is the "all hat and no cattle" guy... he's the guy who strings you on and on and in the end all you wind up with is lots of STRING."I hate JJ Abrams with a passion. Even when I don't know he's involved with a show, as with Alcatraz last season, I dislike it. there's just something about the way he structures his TV series and movies that annoys the hell out of me. He just makes crap. I'm very glad 4 of his 5 shows were cancelled this year.
Trike wrote: "So if you like a show and have a DVR, don't wait until the end of the season or the halfway point to binge-watch. Watch them within that 3- to 7-day window that the networks count, because those are what advertisers base their ad buys on. "I don’t know anything about how networks evaluate their ratings and decide which shows to keep, but it seems like basing ad buys on DVR usage is a bad plan? How many viewers using DVR’s ever watch the commercials? Can they tell if viewers are fast forwarding?
The best part of DVR in my mind is that you don’t have to watch the commercials. Even if you want to watch a show when it airs, all you have to do is set it to record and then start watching it 15 minutes late (assuming the show is an hour long). You can then fast forward through the commercials and arrive at the end of the show at about the same time that the show actually ends in real time. I had cable for a year or two before I decided it wasn’t worth the cost. During that time, I used DVR for everything and never watched commercials.
If anything, they would probably do better to give more weight to their online viewers who watch via their web sites. You can’t fast forward through those commercials; you just have to wait them out. I used to watch a couple of my favorite TV shows via the networks’ web sites, but the commercials eventually drove me away. They were repetitive and obnoxious. They aired the same set of commercials during every commercial break, and sometimes multiple times within the same commercial break. Besides, I enjoy TV shows more if I watch just one show at a time, from the beginning to the end of each season, without having to wait a week between episodes.
These days, I only watch TV shows via Netflix and/or Amazon Prime. It means I’m always behind the rest of the country, but I’m much less annoyed when I’m watching shows because I don’t have to wait a week (or more) for the resolution to a cliff hanger. And I don’t have to dodge obnoxious commercials. It also prevents me from getting invested in a new show that ends up getting canceled during/after its first season.
Obviously I’m not helping the ratings for the shows I like, but I’m not losing any sleep over it because watching TV is near the very bottom of my priority list. If a show I like gets canceled, I'm annoyed for a few minutes, but then I move on and forget about it. Perhaps networks need to find more modern solutions for delivering content and evaluating ratings while still making money. I'm sure that's easier said than done, but viewers today aren't watching TV in the same way they were a couple decades ago. Heck, in many cases, they aren't even watching TV on a TV.
You can't fast forward through the commercials.
Trike wrote: "You can't fast forward through the commercials."Do you mean you physically can’t? If so, we must be talking about two different things or else DVR's have changed a great deal in the years since I had cable. My DVR device allowed me to record shows, pause them, rewind, fast forward, etc. All of the functionality typically inherent with recording devices.
Or do you just mean that you “can’t fast forward through the commercials and be counted by the networks”?
I mean for most recent TV shows you physically can't. They disable the fast forward functionality.Which makes sense. It's ad-supported, so if you aren't paying for it then you have to sit through the ads. That's the trade-off.
For shows that you pay for, you have all the usual functions of the DVR or VCR.
I thought this was a good article on the topic, although it focuses on Fox. I came across it on reddit the other day. The point I found interesting is that they're quite clearly getting it wrong with the example of Firefly showing that most clearly. It's very frustrating as a viewer. I don't want to get invested in a show in case they cancel it midway again.
Trike wrote: "I mean for most recent TV shows you physically can't. They disable the fast forward functionality."Ah… that’s interesting. I had no idea they’d implemented that. It's been perhaps five years since I’ve had cable, but I'm surprised I haven't heard anybody complaining about it.
Although I can understand the reasoning behind it, it gives me yet another reason to stick with subscription services like Netflix. Those services have a trade-off of their own (convenience and price versus having to wait a long time for shows to be made available), but it's one that better fits my own viewing preferences.
Don wrote: "j.j. Abrams is the "all hat and no cattle" guy... he's the guy who strings you on and on and in the end all you wind up with is lots of STRING."And lens flares! Don't forget the lens flares!
Thomas wrote: "@Micah: I too like the mini-series model. That knowing there will be a definite beginning, middle and end is great and it doesn't feel stressed.I think that going into it, networks should really determine if the show will have that ending before they even agree on starting..."
Yeah, I agree...though I do admit there are other valid formats that don't really require those big wrap ups. I mean the original episodic model does work if the set up is correct...like in the original Star Trek series. Each episode (with the exception of special 2-part episodes) was a complete story.
The trick to doing that is you have to impose an artificial stasis on the show: at the end of a show you have to have the status quo preserved. All the characters end up with their relationships the same as at the beginning, and no overarching history can be explored.
I think it was probably Babylon 5 that changed things for SF. Writers/producers realized that episodic SF shows could also explore an evolving history and bigger stories (although threads of this were already in the X-Files series, which began a year before Babylon 5, I think). Star Trek's DS9 series adopted that narrative change. And ever since then we've seen a leaning toward that expanded narrative.
Anyway, both can work. But bigger stories need a more directed and purposeful pace than episodic shows. And they definitely need to be working toward some preconceived resolution. Or else we end up with never ending messes like Fringe (more string, BTW).
Trike wrote: "I mean for most recent TV shows you physically can't. They disable the fast forward functionality.Which makes sense. It's ad-supported, so if you aren't paying for it then you have to sit through..."
Are you thinking of watching via OnDemand, as opposed to recording something on the DVR?
c.o.lleen ± (... never stop fighting) ± wrote: "Are you thinking of watching via OnDemand, as opposed to recording something on the DVR? "Ah… thanks, Colleen, if that’s what Trike meant then that would make a whole lot more sense to me.
I have no doubt that networks would love to restrict fast-forwarding through commercials when watching a show recorded with DVR, and I imagine it would be possible to accomplish it with some collaboration between networks, providers, and the DVR manufacturers. The thing that is so surprising to me is the idea that such a thing might have been implemented without my hearing about the inevitable resulting uproar.
It would also make more sense to me if the original intent was to say that watching On Demand shows counted toward viewer ratings rather than watching recorded shows on DVR.
TV Guide has a top watched shows list every week with separate statistics for those who watched it when it was aired and those who watched it on the DVR. I believe that they get these statistics from Nielsen.
I've taken to watching series on Netflix when I know that they at least have a closing. I've been let down too much and Revolution is just the latest casualty. My wife conned me into watching Alphas recently though and I warned her before we started that it was cancelled and ended at a cliffhanger. She went ahead with it anyway and was severely upset.That's SyFy though. They brutally murder most shows they pick up or start.
DVR through Comcast allows you to record and fast forward. On Demand makes you sit through the commercials.
Re SyFy--Yes, the basic broadcast networks aren't the only ones who aren't doing right by SF shows.
I just bought a DVR a few months ago and it lets me skip commercials. If it weren't for that, I'd just use Hulu.
I also like the BBC model of t.v. shows - 6 to 12 episodes a year.I actually don't have standard t.v. and only watch things on Netflix and Hulu Plus but the ones I watch all seem to be BBC or BBC America shows such as
Doctor Who
Primeval
Almost Human (British)
Torchwood
Red Dwarf
I know some of those are off the air but since I only watch about an hour of t.v. a week it's taking me a while to watch them.
Back from my tangent - If America did things like BBC and had shorter seasons there might be slots for more quality sci-fi - they would come out to be really long mini series if they ordered a 6 episode season (or like Sherlock, a 3 episode season).
c.o.lleen ± (... never stop fighting) ± wrote: "Are you thinking of watching via OnDemand, as opposed to recording something on the DVR? "Both. The new DVRs behave the same way for both On Demand and many (not all) of your recordings within that first week window.
Which is probably counterproductive and lends itself to binge-watching at the end of the season but it's designed so that advertisers can coordinate their marketing pushes.
I suspect consumer pushback will lead to the demise of this lack of control, but everything is in so much flux currently that it's hard to say what we'll end up with.
Re; The BBC Model... There are other TV networks in the UK you know... anyone who hasn't gone beyond BBC shows should check out Misfits from Channel 4 - a superhero saga that made Heroes look like a kids show.
Hulu Plus airs new episodes of Misfits every Thursday. Or did, that's how Hubs and I found it. I agree, makes Heroes look like a kids show.
Liz wrote: "Hulu Plus airs new episodes of Misfits every Thursday. Or did, that's how Hubs and I found it. I agree, makes Heroes look like a kids show."I've never watched Misfits but that is going to chance tonight. Sounds like a great show.
When comparing the programming format and quality of the BBC or PBS to other broadcasting companies, it is important to remember that it is an "apples to oranges" comparison.The British Broadcasting Company and Public Broadcasting Station are financially subsidized by their respective national government. The others are privately owned and dependent upon commercial sponsors for operating revenue.
Jim wrote: "The British Broadcasting Company and Public Broadcasting Station are financially subsidized by their respective national government. The others are privately owned and dependent upon commercial sponsors for operating revenue."That sounds a bit too much like you're saying good storytelling can't make a profit, which is patently not the case.
Also, the BBC's programming is funded by licensing fees and PBS only gets between 15 and 20 percent of its budget from federal sources.
All that being said, it's untrue that the BBC doesn't use viewer ratings for programming decisions...it's more complicated than that:
http://www.denofgeek.com/tv/ripper-st...
Anyway, I see no reason why commercial viability and the UK's programming style can't coexist. As long as you've got high quality content, shorter seasons and shorter series would still bring good audiences. Theoretically you'd just have more good shows over all.
In many ways it has succeeded look atThe Walking Dead
Game of Thrones
Breaking Bad
House of Cards
All running 1 cour seasons that have year breaks. That eventually end...well hopefully The Walking Dead will end.
The Walking Dead and Breaking Bad are from AMC which surprised me that they became hugely popular. Before those shows existed I always passed AMC because they had nothing of interest to me on.The Walking Dead has the comic book crowd and the zombie crowd hook line and sinker because there simply isn't anything else like it out there. I can't recall any other zombie shows at all, so it's a niche demographic.
Game of Thrones was already fairly popular from the books as far as I understand it and it's by HBO where they get to throw in whatever sex/nudity they feel like. That's a good chunk of appeal for certain people right there.
Another one that NBC botched...The Event. I had forgotten about it until just recently. I was disappointed at the cancellation of that one too.
Breaking Bad was a great show. Cable seems to put out a lot of great shows. I don't watch The Walking Dead or Game of Thrones but some of my favorite shows are on cable. The Americans, Orphan Black and Justified to name a few.
Jim wrote: "Thomas wrote: "I took a brief glance and didn't see anything in regards to this, so I wanted to make a topic.Why is it that networks can't get it right when they're doing science fiction shows? W..."
You're spot on. So far, a lot of shows that are beloved by science fiction fans haven't - for various reasons - been able to pull in the numbers needed to support their survival.
A lot of the more successful shows (e.g., Game of Thrones) have already had a fairly dedicated fan base before going to air, which pretty much guaranteed a certain audience size. That said, Game of Thrones actually has decent production values, whereas some of what's put on TV is just badly made to begin with.
If you think you guys have got it bad in the US, have a look at Australia. On free to air TV, science fiction is essentially dead or consigned to the dead zone (e.g., 12 midnight).
Aaron wrote: "In many ways it has succeeded look atThe Walking Dead
Game of Thrones
Breaking Bad
House of Cards..."
People's tastes vary, obviously, but IMO:
The Walking Dead--was horrible. All of its characters are idiots who deserve to die.
Game of Thrones--hated the books, watched some of this to see if they could rescue the books...turned out they made the story just as bad but for very different reasons.
Breaking Bad--saw some of it and could tell it was a class act production but just not the kind of show I want to watch. So, no real criticism there.
House of Cards--It's a Netflix production, not a network production. And I saw the original British version and can't see why anyone would think an American version would be necessary or desirable.
Again, all that's my opinion and not supposed to reflect on reality as anyone else sees it.
I actually agree with those opinions, just trying to go look successes.
I would like it if they tried doing mini-series for sci-fi/fantasy shows. I doubt the cost is heavy compared to a show that runs 5 or more seasons with 13 to 23 episodes a season.
Mini series are good. The model works. But 13 episodes per season is completely doable.Doctor Who sticks to this with the Christmas episode being the 14th episode per season and the show is doing really well in terms of viewers.
If other major networks adopted a 13 episode season especially for sci-fi, I think it might give series longevity. People won't get so burnt out by episode 24 or 25 and the ratings might fare better.
Too bad they're probably stuck in their ways.
At one point the David Lynch version of Dune was being talked about as a miniseries. Herbert was very much in favor of that but it got nixed by the suits.The miniseries, I think makes total sense for SF stories. I just wish there'd be some new story ideas being developed. Alien invasions, time travel, small colonies on another world, super heroes and paranormal stuff have all been done to death.
Re new story ideas--The problem is "the suits" who are TPTB in networks don't want to take risks. Series and miniseries are sold to them by saying that it's like some other series that had good ratings. Even if the series or miniseries is different they need to pitch it to TPTB as like some other series or miniseries that was very successful. Star Trek TOS was famously pitched by Gene Roddenberry as Wagon Train To The Stars. I don't think I have ever seen anything completely original on television.
Shomeret wrote: "I don't think I have ever seen anything completely original on television. "Check out Orphan Black.
Shomeret wrote: "I don't think I have ever seen anything completely original on television. "To be fair, you likely haven't seen anything completely original anywhere else, either. Art builds on art, after all, and is in constant conversation with the culture at large.
Part of the problem is that unique and quirky shows don't get watched, nor do smart shows. The reason given for canceling Police Squad! all those years ago was that the audience "had to pay attention too much." (Fortunately the show got a second chance at life as the Naked Gun movies.)
I'm kind of amazed that we got two seasons of Pushing Daisies, but even that show had elements of the typical procedural so that it wasn't completely unfamiliar.
The show I'm really looking forward to this fall is Galavant , which is sort of The Princess Bride meets Monty Python's Holy Grail... as a MUSICAL. Doesn't that trailer look like a hoot? I mean, Alan Menken, the guy behind Little Shop of Horrors and every good Disney musical of the past 20 years, doing a weekly TV show? How can we lose?
And I'm fairly certain no one will watch Galavant, either, and instead yet another goddamn NCIS spin-off will top the ratings.
Why is it that networks can't get it right when they're doing science fiction shows? With the recent announcement that Revolution is being cancelled (to my outrage) I find myself losing faith in them at all to produce a good show.
It's not just NBC. ABC had V a few years back and they abruptly left it hanging. Fox is cancelling Almost Human after its pilot season.
Do they just have the wrong formula for sci-fi shows? Or are they just not feeling like they're making X amount of profit and so it's not worth it?