Slashdot Mirror


Amazon Nears Debut of Original TV Shows

First time accepted submitter bakerharis writes with an article about Amazon's attempt to break into creating conventional television style episodic shows, but with a different model from the manistream media companies. "Amazon's foray into TV production is unique in the way it saves money. Every spring, traditional TV networks like ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox order dozens of pilots and show them to focus groups. Executives pick just a handful to make into series. Then, they commission 13 episodes of each promising show, with each one potentially costing a few million dollars. Many episodes won't ever air if the first few don't attract big audiences." Amazon, instead, has created 14 pilot shows, and is letting a cross section of customers in the U.S., UK, and Germany react to them to see which shows might be worth making more of.

66 comments

  1. Firefly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Firefly?

    1. Re:Firefly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A single word, uttered in dusty despair, knowing that hopes dashed again are too high a price to pay...

      ...I feel ya, brother brown coat.
       

    2. Re:Firefly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't care, I'm still free...

    3. Re:Firefly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You can't take the sky from me

  2. Maybe I'm missing something?? by ArcadeNut · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How is this "but with a different model from the manistream media companies"?

    How is this:

    Amazon, instead, has created 14 pilot shows, and is letting a cross section of customers in the U.S., UK, and Germany react to them to see which shows might be worth making more of.

    different then this:

    Every spring, traditional TV networks like ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox order dozens of pilots and show them to focus groups. Executives pick just a handful to make into series.

    They both make pilots and show them to groups of people who provide feed back, and based on that feedback the people producing the TV shows decide which ones continue.

    So again, how is Amazon doing it differently? Looks exactly the same to me.

    --
    Visit the Arcade Restoration Workshop @ http://www.arcaderestoration.com
    1. Re:Maybe I'm missing something?? by BradleyUffner · · Score: 5, Funny

      Amazon's is on the internet.

    2. Re:Maybe I'm missing something?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      TV networks kill shows when they are failing on their network even when they are successfully sold to other countries. It depends on the show but the earnings from international licensing can be higher than the add revenue nationally.

    3. Re:Maybe I'm missing something?? by mwvdlee · · Score: 4, Funny

      Then they should apply for a patent on the process.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    4. Re:Maybe I'm missing something?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, I forgot.

      The big Hollywood movies regularly earn more money internationally than in the US.

    5. Re:Maybe I'm missing something?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All focus groups do is promote their own agenda either for advertisers or political purposes.
      Why else has content on TV/Movies and Cable dropped to such a low standard.
      Most shows are garbage these days.

      The less noise/social control over a produced program gets from its inception to being viewed by a potential audience the better.
      Amazon is basically cutting out the middle man, just like what MP3's have done to the music industry.

      The result will be more geared and prone to what the people want, so long as the peoples opinions come first.
      The less corporate head/group driven influence, the better.

    6. Re:Maybe I'm missing something?? by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So again, how is Amazon doing it differently? Looks exactly the same to me.

      It's exactly the same, other than "focus groups" uses tiny groups that are presumed to represent the public at large, and Amazon actually reaches a large percentage of the public at large.

      Also, the networks are not looking for "profitable" but looking to fill a slot. They have set line-ups, and try to get complimentary shows as part of a line-up. That's a concept unknown to an on-demand-only company. So the process may seem similar, but it's as similar in practice as a moped and space shuttle (both vehicles that run off combustion).

      And why something like Firefly was so beloved and still failed. There wasn't a "slot" for it. It wasn't judged off its own merits.

    7. Re:Maybe I'm missing something?? by MpVpRb · · Score: 1

      >>So again, how is Amazon doing it differently? Looks exactly the same to me

      Focus groups are artificial, the internet public is real

      But, the people who use focus groups believe that focus groups represent reality

      This will be a very interesting experiment

    8. Re:Maybe I'm missing something?? by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      the focus group is bigger and not composed of people selected on purpose?

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    9. Re:Maybe I'm missing something?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just look at old process/software patents and add "ON THE INTERNET" at the end.

    10. Re:Maybe I'm missing something?? by Cardcaptor_RLH85 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What focus group agenda? I was actually swept into a focus group for that idiotic movie Welcome to Mooseport back in 2003. I was at the mall down in Daytona Beach, Florida and my roommate and I were asked to join a focus group watching clips from the movie and giving our opinions on them. Many of these groups are just made up of random people in shopping centers and other public places. I don't see where an 'agenda' could be gleaned from that.

    11. Re:Maybe I'm missing something?? by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "The big Hollywood movies regularly earn more money internationally than in the US."

      So why are there so many baseball and golf movies? Don't they need the money?

    12. Re:Maybe I'm missing something?? by isorox · · Score: 2

      "The big Hollywood movies regularly earn more money internationally than in the US."

      So why are there so many baseball and golf movies? Don't they need the money?

      I wayched a golm on a plane last wrek (seriously limited selection)

      Rise of the guardians made 303 million on a budget of 145.

      However this is apparently an 83 million loss.

    13. Re:Maybe I'm missing something?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That Scientology is a bona fide religion is indisputable as proven repeatedly by courts the world over, including the United States Supreme Court.

  3. New paradigm by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 2

    "... a different model from the manistream media companies."

    They won't play half the episodes out of order on a shifting schedule then refuse to show the rest? That sounds positive.

  4. don't think networks are the relevant comparison by Trepidity · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sure, a non-TV-network producing original television shows for broadcast over the internet is going to have a different model than NBC or ABC do. But it's not like Amazon is the first company to do that. Netflix already produces original TV. I was hoping this article would compare to that, but it doesn't mention it at all. Is Amazon jumping in as a competitor of Netflix with roughly the same model? Or is their approach significantly different?

  5. Uhhhhh by cultiv8 · · Score: 1

    so how's it different, other than 14 series and a different way of measuring viewer responses?

    --
    sysadmins and parents of newborns get the same amount of sleep.
    1. Re:Uhhhhh by PRMan · · Score: 1

      The networks never just run a pilot anymore. They order 13 episodes and if it bombs they just show 5-11 of them and the rest is a waste. Amazon isn't in any hurry, so they just want a pilot episode each which will be voted on, and the winners will get a season made and then they'll see from there.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    2. Re:Uhhhhh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The networks don't "run a pilot" -- they screen the pilot for test audiences. If they order 13 episodes, that means their test audience responded well -- if it then flops when aired, it indicates they didn't have a representative sample, and they try to do better next time.

      Amazon seems to be letting anybody watch the pilots, meaning their test audience is self-selected, meaning if it turns out to not be representative they're fucking screwed, because they can't tweak the selection process next time.

      I'm not seeing how either is particularly better than the other... they both kinda suck. Clearly, they should just make me TV dictator, then all good shows and only good shows will get approved.

  6. Re:YOU ARE BEING LIED TO ... apk by petteyg359 · · Score: 0

    I've heard the phrase "wall of text", but this is like Great Wall of China of Text to the Power of Ten...

  7. Way to miss the mark Amazon. by Jartan · · Score: 1

    Amazon is testing the market with kidâ(TM)s show and comedies

    The networks have people overloaded on comedies. Kids content isn't exactly lacking either. They need to put out something different if they want any interest.

    1. Re:Way to miss the mark Amazon. by mitgib · · Score: 1

      I watched a few of them, one really sucked, but they was no scripted-reality, so that was refreshing.

      --
      Being a spelling & grammar Nazi is a sign you do not poses the intelligence to contribute to the conversation
    2. Re:Way to miss the mark Amazon. by Jherico · · Score: 1
      There are a bunch of comedies and a bunch of kids shows because Amazon is probably going to start of producing a comedy and a kid's show, because they're both proven genres. Having decided to do so, they produced a bunch of pilots in each genre with the intent of picking one or two of the best results. People keep reacting to these pilots as if they're the first episodes of a set of series Amazon will make, but they're not.

      Also, while the networks are overloaded on comedies, they're sadly lacking in stuff that includes the way real human beings talk (i.e. saying fuck) or stuff that can include drug humor, so there's plenty of room for doing stuff that hasn't been seen before.

      --

      Jherico

      What can the average user can do to ensure his security? "Nothing, you're screwed"

    3. Re:Way to miss the mark Amazon. by PRMan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Kids content isn't exactly lacking either.

      Really? Find a single scripted show rated less than TV-14 from the networks in prime time. There is NOTHING like the shows that I grew up on (Happy Days, Cosby, Home Improvement, etc...), which were shows the whole family could enjoy together.

      Now, the kids shows are so annoying and poorly-acted that no adult could stand them, and the adult shows are so "gritty" and "dark" and "sexy" that no kids like them. Amazon could make a lot of money by investing in the type of shows that make a ton of money, because apparently the networks are too busy trying to be "edgy" to make a fortune.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    4. Re:Way to miss the mark Amazon. by Albanach · · Score: 1

      This exactly. For younger kids, older than 1st grade but younger than teen/pre-teen there are almost no dramas. Nothing with actors at all. Take a look at netflix/redbox family selections. There are almost no decent movies aimed at the age group that aren't Disney/Pixar cartoons.

    5. Re:Way to miss the mark Amazon. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I watched a few of them, one really sucked, but they was no scripted-reality, so that was refreshing.

      --

      Being a spelling & grammar Nazi is a sign you do not poses the intelligence to contribute to the conversation

      Bad spelling & grammar is a sign you do not poses the intelligence to contribute to the conversation.

      FTFY

      Using "poses" when you mean "possess" is a sign you possess bad spelling, though not necessarily bad grammar.

  8. Coincidentally I just watched two of the pilots... by garcia · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So I was bored and decided to watch a few of the pilots. As someone who loved Netflix's House of Cards, I was excited to see what Amazon had in store for us of similar caliber. Well, suffice to say that spreading their dollars across numerous pilots instead of one single show gets you what you expect: utter trash.

    Those Who Can't, a story about three teachers (gym, history, and Spanish) was utterly terrible. They hated a jock in the school who was constantly annoying them and being the stereotypical douchebag. The script was jerky, the acting was bad, and the entire premise was overdone. Not impressive in the least, in fact in many instances it was downright painful.

    Alpha House starts out great with Bill Murray getting arrested and John Goodman watching as he freaks out but it goes downhill from there mostly because Murray is not on the show after that first 45 second cameo. The vulgarity (something I don't mind in the least and use regularly myself) is there for vulgarity's sake, not because it makes sense in the dialogue. The show itself is slow, boring, and pointless. It's like Amazon was trying to make fun of House of Cards on SNL but failing as SNL tends to do so well.

    While I haven't watched all the pilots yet, I really don't think I have much desire to do so. I am still waiting for more House of Cards and certainly more Arrested Development on Netflix but this Amazon shit is just bad. They need to get their shit together and up their game if they think they're going to compete with Netflix's first-run flagship.

  9. Don't like the Amazon approach, prefer Netflix by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Why would i go to the trouble of seeking out the pilots? Pilots are often kind of badly made, and hard to see how you might care about the main characters or subjects going forward.

    I really like the approach Netflix is taking here, in that they are taking a bigger risk but producing a real series. That means more time to think out the characters carefully, to have a story that doesn't evolve on the fly but can be tweaked in an overall package that makes the whole season work before release. It also allows you to get much more into a show rather than viewing a bunch of pilots, that even if enough other people like you will not see more of for months or years. That's the part I like least about episodic viewing, and Amazon wants to potentially wrench my heart 14 times over?

    Amazon's approach is also scraping the bottom of the barrel for content that even the networks would not touch, yet was crafted specifically to target the many limitations of network TV. It seems unlikely to find many winners out of the leftovers.

    Netflix in the meanwhile is thinking more in terms of "Fantasy TV" - like "wouldn't it be awesome if we could see any show made by Director X that also has stars Y & Z"? Then they don't even care exactly what show gets made, they just throw the delicious self-aware ingredients together and let it all work.

    I come off as sounding quite a lot like a Netflix infomercial here but I think it's just because I am amazed at the quality of what Netflix has produced out the gate in comparison to how much I detest most network TV shows. Netflix's approach also means that even if a show is canceled after a season, at least you get one strong season so it's worth the attempt to start watching. Although I thought Terra Nova was kind of ridiculous in a lot of ways and I wouldn't say I enjoyed it much, after watching a few episodes I at least wanted to see how it ended and it really left people hanging.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Don't like the Amazon approach, prefer Netflix by denzacar · · Score: 2

      Netflix in the meanwhile is thinking more in terms of "Fantasy TV" - like "wouldn't it be awesome if we could see any show made by Director X that also has stars Y & Z"? Then they don't even care exactly what show gets made, they just throw the delicious self-aware ingredients together and let it all work.

      You may want to rethink that "Fantasy TV" view.
      Not only is Netflix picking up shows in a traditional way, most of their current and future programming is basically "sold" one way or the other even before the production starts.

      House of Cards - a remake of a successful UK show.
      Hemlock Grove - based on a novel.
      Lilyhammer - made jointly for a Norwegian broadcasting company. I.e. pre-sold to Norwegians.
      Arrested Development - a revival of a popular show.
      Derek - based on an Ricky Gervais old character.
      Turbo: F.A.S.T. - a spinoff from an upcoming DreamWorks cartoon.
      Orange Is the New Black - based on a book.

      On top of that, every single one of those productions is "sprinkled" with recognizable names - either acting or in production.

      They are not trowing shit at the wall to see what will stick or carelessly throwing money at "Director X that also has stars Y & Z".
      They are aiming at existing audiences.
      Classic Hollywood game.
      Get the rights to existing "content" with existing audience, slap some stars on the production, make your own thing out of all that and then sell the shit out of it.

      Nothing bad about that, just nothing fantastic either.
      Though... While you may not end up with wall to wall "Friends" clones (no star appeal at the beginning), but you may end up with the entire comedy line-up of "Joey" and "Two And a Half Men" clones, and the "drama" section full of "Sex and the City" clones.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    2. Re:Don't like the Amazon approach, prefer Netflix by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      But as I said, the story doesn't matter much - just the pairings. House of Cards was more about what David Fincher and Kevin Spacey could do together, as Netflix had viewing data to show that people who watched stuff from the producer also really liked Kevin Spacey movies.

      That's the core, more than the story (though it does not hurt to pick stories they already know are popular).

      But even considering just the story, simply chosing to make great versions of already existing material is still 99.99999% better than approach of TV today which are generally shows that have almost zero new material and are totally crappy.

      On top of that, every single one of those productions is "sprinkled" with recognizable names

      Yes, exactly, that is my EXACT point about what Netflix is doing being better. These people are recognized because they have produced things others enjoyed. THAT is "Fantasy TV", just as in Fantasy Baseball you get to pick a team with players from all over.

      They are aiming at existing audiences.

      Of course they are, I never said they were not. I said what was different was about how they are approaching making shows.

      Get the rights to existing "content" with existing audience, slap some stars on the production

      Sure that's done in movies a lot (overdone) but NOT IN TV.

      While you may not end up with wall to wall "Friends" clones (no star appeal at the beginning), but you may end up with the entire comedy line-up of "Joey" and "Two And a Half Men" clones, and the "drama" section full of "Sex and the City" clones.

      Nothing we are seeing supports that. All of Netflix's shows are totally different from one another, none of them classically formulaic so far.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    3. Re:Don't like the Amazon approach, prefer Netflix by denzacar · · Score: 1

      Nothing we are seeing supports that. All of Netflix's shows are totally different from one another, none of them classically formulaic so far.

      That's because you only have a few shows at the moment.
      Let it run for a while and wait for the shows to start getting renewed based on the lowest common denominator.

      As for the "NOT IN TV"... "Two And a Half Men" is the example of that, so is "Sex and the City", so is "Medium", so is "Battlestar Galactica", so is "Justified", "Boardwalk Empire", "Game of Thrones", "Blue Bloods"...
      Star Appeal has been a major TV show ingredient for a while now.

      But as I said, the story doesn't matter much - just the pairings. House of Cards was more about what David Fincher and Kevin Spacey could do together, as Netflix had viewing data to show that people who watched stuff from the producer also really liked Kevin Spacey movies.

      Fincher had planned on doing that show since 2008, and they went with it to other networks - Netflix just offered the most money.
      Spacey-Fincher quote is a post-facto explanation of why they offered that much - not a reason for the existence of the show.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Cards_(U.S._TV_series)#Production

      Also, you should check out the original show. Ian Richardson is... Well, what Palpatine should have been like.
      You know that he's an evil bastard, but you just can't help yourself cheering for him.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  10. Correction on barrel thing by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Aha, I missed somehow that it was net network leftovers they were watching but that they were specifically created as pilots for Amazon.

    Still, it seems like it's the exact same approach that traditional networks have used and yielded so little of value. All my other points stand.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Correction on barrel thing by TWiTfan · · Score: 1

      If they're making them for Amazon, chances are they were already turned down by the networks and cable channels. Even "House of Cards" was first pitched to HBO, Showtime, and AMC. If no one else was even willing to produce a pilot, you can bet they're pretty godawful.

      --
      The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
    2. Re:Correction on barrel thing by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      Even "House of Cards" was first pitched to HBO, Showtime, and AMC. If no one else was even willing to produce a pilot, you can bet they're pretty godawful.

      "House of Cards" was pretty good though, leaving some room for the possibility that grabbing network leftovers may be feasible.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  11. Re:YOU ARE BEING LIED TO ... apk by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

    I wonder when he'll realize that others posting as "Anonymous Coward" aren't actually impersonating him.....

    Personally, I'm not sure which I prefer; these rants, or the hosts ones. At least the hosts ones were mildly informative for anyone new to slashdot....

    Oh for the days of a Natalie Portman and Hot Grits of beowulf clusters in Soviet Russia....

  12. They should do a nature show by Megahard · · Score: 1

    Featuring the Brazilian jungle. Or maybe a strong-woman competition. Just a couple of thoughts.

    --
    I eat only the real part of complex carbohydrates.
  13. Onion News Empire by Vrallis · · Score: 2

    I'm guessing Onion News Empire is one of them, just started watching the pilot a few minutes ago. A few recognizable actors (not just a bunch of unknowns), funny so far.

    Hopefully others work out this well too.

    1. Re:Onion News Empire by MrEricSir · · Score: 1

      Yup, hence the words "Amazon Original Pilots" on the show's Amazon page.

      As a huge fan of both The Onion and Jeffrey Tambor, I hope they pick this one up.

      --
      There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    2. Re:Onion News Empire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like the onion, but it feels like they are trying to parody the newsroom a bit too much for my taste. It really inhibits the comedic effect.

  14. Re:Coincidentally I just watched two of the pilots by lennier1 · · Score: 1

    Gave it a try and already lost interest again before any video even had a chance to start.

    The German page didn't have any content, the US page wanted me to install Microsoft's Silverlight (was kinda surprised to see that this stuff is even still in use) and then ran into a region block.

    Germany will most likely only get some dubbed versions with the usual delay (even their streaming services over here usually don't include access to the original audio for US-made content) and after that Silverlight crap I've already lost the interest necessary to get me to activate the proxy options.

  15. Hilarious PR work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After the pilot for 'Zombieland' (which was godawful, BTW), comes a video promotion message from Amazon's PR people. The message literally has imaged quotes from viewers saying things like "fantastic show", "best program ever" and "why can't all TV be this good", and then suggests the problem with ordinary TV networks is that don't get to hear all the positive thoughts we have on their various output. Then, we are told this great Amazon initiative gives us a chance to lavish praise on all the pilots, with the promise that now the program makers will notice the praise, and greenlight the shows.

    There is no suggestion at all of any possible negative or ambiguous viewer response to the show. No, the geniuses at Amazon instructed their PR team to ONLY include imagined glowing responses from the imagined viewer. Can you imagine anything more condescending? And yet surely WE thought the idea was to vote the winners up, and the losers down, so only the good shows moved forward. Such a process surely needs to hear the 'boos' as well as the 'cheers'?

    Better again would be a mechanism for constructive criticism- allowing the viewer to 'repair' promising shows that had clear issues in their pilots. 'The Munsters', 'Star Trek' and 'Lost in Space' (to name but three) experienced massive retooling after their pilot episodes. Indeed, the pilots to these shows were actually clear flops (at least in the eyes of the people financing the shows).

    Shouldn't Amazon, therefore, be crowd-sourcing the viewers to improve the premise of shows described by their pilots. Changing some of the actors, perhaps. Or the tone of the show. Or the pace? Take 'Zombieland'. On paper, the idea has potential (although the successful film was also a stinker). On screen, a post-apocalyptic zombie infested world with no emotional 'weight', or budget for post-apocalyptic sets, is just dreadful beyond words. Add the cheapest, nastiest cast almost no money can buy, and the recipe for disaster is complete.

    Methinks Amazon is going to strike out with every one of their pilots (and I say 'theirs' although various studios normally responsible for programs on other channels made the pilots- who knows how the funding responsibility was split).

    1. Re:Hilarious PR work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take 'Zombieland'. On paper, the idea has potential (although the successful film was also a stinker).

      Huh, I thought the film was quite good.

      I didn't even get as far as the trailer for the pilot on Amazon,though. The casting director clearly needs to be shot.

  16. Re:don't think networks are the relevant compariso by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    Is Amazon jumping in as a competitor of Netflix

    Amazon has been positioning themselves as a competitor to Netflix for a long time. For example

    It wouldn't surprise me if Netfilx started selling books soon just to get revenge.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  17. Re:Coincidentally I just watched two of the pilots by Jherico · · Score: 1

    Well, suffice to say that spreading their dollars across numerous pilots instead of one single show gets you what you expect: utter trash.

    You can't compare the budget with House of Cards with the budget spent on these episodes. Amazon didn't make these pilots as an alternative to spending a lot of money on a single show. They did it as a prelude to spending a bunch of money on one or two shows.

    I'm pretty certain Netflix produced a bunch of pilots which were equally as shaky as the Amazon work. The only difference is that those weren't shown to the general public, just focus groups and Netflix execs, and they picked the ones that they thought had the most promise. Many, if not most shows start out with a pilot that isn't nearly as good quality as the finished product, and not all series air a pilot as the first episode.

    Your reaction to the pilots is pretty much why pilots don't get shown to the general audience: because most people go in with an expectation built up over years of watching final products.

    --

    Jherico

    What can the average user can do to ensure his security? "Nothing, you're screwed"

  18. Re:Coincidentally I just watched two of the pilots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like back to the '80s, exactly what you'd expect with the conflict of interest (Amazon can't do anything really edgey or they'll get boycott threats from this and that group).

  19. Nears? by antdude · · Score: 1

    They were released yesterday! You're slow, /.! :(

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  20. Free advice for Amazon. by khasim · · Score: 2

    Drop the idea of "TV show". They've been done and you probably do not have any better ideas than the networks have.

    Instead, look at the books you're selling. Create "mini-series" type programming from the literature that is already out there. Focus on story arcs where you can have a beginning and an end.

    The Black Company by Glen Cook.
    Vlad Taltos by Steven Brust.
    A steam-punk version of Doc Savage.
    Perry Rhodan.
    Neal Stephenson either The Baroque Cycle or Cryptonomicon.

    Go big. Bigger than the networks. Bigger than the movie studios. Fill the niche they aren't willing to.

  21. They might be fantastic ... but I'll never know by FuzzNugget · · Score: 1

    I pay for Amazon Prime, all the the pilots are available for me to watch, and I'll bet some of them are great ... but I'll probably never know.

    The steam consistently dies in exactly the same spot a few seconds in. No, not buffering, just dead in the water.

    My browser and flash player are up to date, no other sites have a problem streaming flash video to me. It sounds like a lot of other people are having similar problems, if Amazon's discussion boards are any indication.

    Seriously, Amazon? These kinds of problems are sooo five years ago. If your actually expect this to take off, you need to get your shit together.

  22. Germany by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can see the comedies flopping in Germany, after all they are the least funniest people in the world !

    1. Re:Germany by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That made me LOL. I'm German, so "Thank You" for bringing some humor into my life!

  23. Betas by Memroid · · Score: 1

    Betas wasn't too horrible. It was a bit cliché, but entertaining and applicable to the entrepreneurial/tech crowd.

  24. Info on potential shows will leak to the public by SteveFoerster · · Score: 1

    When the focus group is that big, it means that if a promising show isn't picked up, it will more likely become known to fandom in general, leading to the possibility that large groups will come together to ask that a particular show be made. I could see that making a difference.

    --
    Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
  25. Re:Coincidentally I just watched two of the pilots by tibman · · Score: 1

    Most pilots suck, that's just the way it is. Leave you feedback and watch another : )

    --
    http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
  26. Jeremiah Cornelius: Grow up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Keep embarassing yourself Jeremiah Cornelius http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3581857&cid=43276741 since you posted that using your registered username by mistake (instead of your usual anonymous coward submissions by the 100's the past 2-3 months now on slashdot) giving away it's you spamming this forums almost constantly, just as you have in the post I just replied to.

    1. Re:Jeremiah Cornelius: Grow up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shut up, Paul.

  27. Zombieland (the series) by Flere+Imsaho · · Score: 1

    The Zombieland pilot was mildly amusing. I'll probably watch a couple more to see how it's going to develop.

    --
    It gripped her hand gently. 'Regret is for humans,' it said.
  28. Re:Coincidentally I just watched two of the pilots by TWiTfan · · Score: 1

    The vast majority of pilots are utter crap. That's why they usually don't release them to the public. Very proposed series that produce pilots get greenlit, even fewer last beyond one season, and much rarer than even that is one that's actually any good.

    --
    The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."