Slashdot Mirror
Is There Too Much New Programming On TV?
HughPickens.com writes: John Koblin writes in the NY Times that there's a crisis in television programming felt among executives, viewers and critics, and it's the result of one thing: There is simply too much on television. John Landgraf, chief executive of FX Networks, reported at the Television Critics Association Summer Press Tour that the total number of original scripted series on TV in 2014 was 371. The total will surpass 400 in 2015. The glut, according to Landgraf, has presented "a huge challenge in finding compelling original stories and the level of talent needed to sustain those stories."
Michael Lombardo, president of programming at HBO, says it is harder than ever to build an audience for a show when viewers are confronted with so many choices and might click away at any moment. "I hear it all the time," says Lombardo. "People going, 'I can't commit to another show, and I don't have the time to emotionally commit to another show.' I hear that, and I'm aware of it, and I get it." Another complication is that shows not only compete against one another, but also against old series that live on in the archives of Amazon, Hulu or Netflix. So a new season of "Scandal," for example, is also competing against old series like "The Wire." "The amount of competition is just literally insane," says Landgraf.
Others point out that the explosion in programming has created more opportunity for shows with diverse casts and topics, such as "Jane the Virgin," "Transparent" and "Orange Is the New Black." Marti Noxon, the showrunner for Lifetime's "UnREAL" and Bravo's "Girlfriends' Guide to Divorce," says there has been a "sea change" in the last five years. "I couldn't have gotten those two shows on TV five years ago," says Noxon. "There was not enough opportunity for voices that speak to a smaller audience. Now many of these places are looking to reach some people — not all the people. That's opened up a tremendous opportunity for women and other people that have been left out of the conversation."
Michael Lombardo, president of programming at HBO, says it is harder than ever to build an audience for a show when viewers are confronted with so many choices and might click away at any moment. "I hear it all the time," says Lombardo. "People going, 'I can't commit to another show, and I don't have the time to emotionally commit to another show.' I hear that, and I'm aware of it, and I get it." Another complication is that shows not only compete against one another, but also against old series that live on in the archives of Amazon, Hulu or Netflix. So a new season of "Scandal," for example, is also competing against old series like "The Wire." "The amount of competition is just literally insane," says Landgraf.
Others point out that the explosion in programming has created more opportunity for shows with diverse casts and topics, such as "Jane the Virgin," "Transparent" and "Orange Is the New Black." Marti Noxon, the showrunner for Lifetime's "UnREAL" and Bravo's "Girlfriends' Guide to Divorce," says there has been a "sea change" in the last five years. "I couldn't have gotten those two shows on TV five years ago," says Noxon. "There was not enough opportunity for voices that speak to a smaller audience. Now many of these places are looking to reach some people — not all the people. That's opened up a tremendous opportunity for women and other people that have been left out of the conversation."
Until people start asking for new ones?
Quantity has a quality all of its own.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Remember Lost? The show where they would start with some interesting subplot, only to never revisit it in subsequent episodes? They just went on to some newer subplot.
That's what I feel about new TV shows. If I give in to the show and start watching regularly, I must know that they're going to treat me well. But doing that kind of crap is boring as fuck for writers (evidently) because they hate it and only want to start with a blank slate every episode. I've been burned too many times. Now, they have THE NERVE to complain that viewers won't engage? God damn, it's your own fucking fault, people.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Forgot the name, the one that's a cross between 2001 and an interplanetary treasure hunt. That had potential.
Oh, you mean the one with thingy in it, the guy from that other show. And the girl with the hair. And giant robots. I loved that show. It should never have been taken off the air.
already discussed this on the red site
Hilarious
Network producers think there's "too much on television" and people think "there's nothing to watch on television". Who is right? Well, how about we look at the rising trend of people cancelling their cable subscriptions.
Bullshit, there's another, more serious issue
There's not enough reason to commit to shows on american television because they're highly prone to cancellation. Why should I commit to a show if the network won't? I've seen too many shows run on for a long time (gotta milk that cash cow until it dies, apparently) and then get cancelled before concluding.
This damages the viewers' trust in future shows. Nobody wants to commit to anything because it's almost guaranteed to die instead of finish. What percentage of american television shows reach their conclusion? 1%? 3%? There's no reason to take the risk.
Meanwhile, in the rest of the world...
Interpretation
Here's the interpretation you should take away from this: ...and it's HARD!"
"We have lost all negotiating power since all these show creators can take their show so many other places. We can't resurrect old crap anymore for guaranteed income, but we're not risky enough to bet on new material. We even tried to lock as much content behind paywalls, but people just stop watching our stuff instead of paying us again to watch it any other way than when it airs. We actually have to do the job we've been claiming to do since cable was conceived.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
No, you are not alone, there are plenty of people like you, constantly mentioning to others that you don't watch TV. It is especially evident when the topic is watching TV, you'd think this is the one time when you'd decline to comment as you have no idea what's been going on, but no there are already several comments just like yours, already moderated up to +5 Insightful.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
You can tell because there is so much of it.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
There may be a lot of new shows, but there sure aren't a lot of good new shows. I'm not having any trouble at all trying to choose what to watch. I'm having trouble finding anything worth watching
In the immortal words of Pink Floyd's "Nobody Home", "Got thirteen channels of shit on the TV to choose from"
Except its no longer 13, more like several hundred....
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
Or for that matter Max Headroom - the problem with that show was that it was too critical of viewer ratings and ads to get finance from people placing ads.
Like the Blipverts episode.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Lessee, we have shows about insane hairdressers in LA. We have weird shows about making people run around in the woods without clothing - but in a twist, blur out the tittilating bits. We have shows about the contents of storage units and parking meter attendants, we have shows about idiots who live in teh Alaskan bush, yet seem to know as much about survival in the bush as someone from New York city. We have shows about how people are stupid, and every human advance is because of ancient aliens. We have shows about peole who think that a woman's vagina is a clown car. I gotta stop - but there are hundreds more examples.
The fact is, Television today is simply bottom of the barrel bad!
And the channels that were good at one time have been taken over. The learning channel was once about learning, The history channel once had history, not swamp logging midgets who run a pawn shop in Alaska's north slope.
So no - it isn't too much programming. It's that none of it is worth watchning
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
The problem with TV is that the amount of advertising is increasing to the point where watching in real time is too frustrating.
Of course people are turning to other sources where they can watch without the constant interruption of yet more and more and more commercials. The channels are starting to run certain ads more than once during a single ad break: Why would anyone want to watch that?
Without a PVR, TV is simply unwatchable.
Sometimes the "writing on the wall" is blood spatter...
Bad enough its basically cop-porn, federal-style, unlimited excuses for "What constitution? Constitution? Isn't that something to do with whether I catch cold or not?"
You really gotta wonder if these show producers make this stuff because it's popular and most Americans are down with that, or because the government/powers-that-be are trying to condition the population for a future with fewer civil liberties.
With so many new shows each year, I have trouble deciding what to watch. My time is limited so I can't watch even a few minutes of every one of them.
These are called "white people problems."
I am failing to understand how any of this is an actual problem. So making a popular show doesn't mean you earn 200 lifetimes of income for you and yours because there is so much competition. How tragic. Excuse me while I spend 0.00035 microseconds feeling sorry for content owners and superstars.
We have been told, most often by IP owners, that without their staggering profits new content would no longer be made. I guess that's a "problem" we can stop worrying about.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!