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."
"The amount of competition is just literally insane," says Landgraf.
Then you should commit yourself to a sanitorium, mr. Landgraf.
"Literally" does not mean "very much like".
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Just donate some new scripts the Hollywood industries, they're plagued with sequels, reboots and lame, reworked, versions of anything that came out before 1986.
... and then it's dropped after 1st or 2nd season. Yet piece of shit shows like 'lost' go on for a decade. Fuck this shit. Fuck you executives.
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!
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.
I'm pretty sure there are a lot more books published each year than TV shows, and yet it seems this does not pose a problem for writers.
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!
This kind of statement reminds me of Catholic church every Sunday as a child. You don't really believe it, you don't think about it, but you know you're just supposed to mumble these words when you get to this point in the ceremony. How in the world could anyone believe women have been "left out of the conversation"? Does this man actually own a television?
Firefly: loved. Dropped at ep. 13 or so. Zero closure (from the network. Kudos on cast and others for the attempt with the movie, but... 2 hours of movie cannot replace many hours of series.) Poster child for network insanity, lack of foresight driven by must-profit-this-quarter-or-shareholders-will-riot.
Homeland: the season "finale"? Nothing. Not a damn thing worth airing. And the drivel-infested baby-angst... omg, switch it off. 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?" but I have to have baby angst inflicted on me? It's no wonder these series die on the vine when the shows grievously lose focus like that.
Speaking of baby angst, Sons of Anarchy: An entire inane SEASON of baby-angst. Hollywood: When I want "soul searching humanity" in my drug-dealing, weapons-smuggling, murdering, underhanded, principle-free smorgasbord of evil gangland bottom-feeders, I'll let you know, mkay? Don't hold your breath on that one, either. They would have lost me over that baby-kidnap nonsense if it wasn't for Crazy-Pants McGillicuddy, AKA Tig Trager. He was constantly saving episodes. Best-written character on the series by leaps and bounds.
Mostly-consistent entertainment: Deadwood, Game of Thrones, Vikings, Ray Donovan, House of Cards, and (surprisingly) Daredevil.
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, and if I do find such a thing, they'll probably cancel it anyway.
Then there's the abject cop porn. Talk about appealing to the lowest common denominator. Total bottom-feeder trash. But at least there's a huge audience for it. We can't all manage to keep the drool off our faces. That's exactly what keeps Fox News on the air and Trump in the running — the huge number of utter idiots in the general population. I can't think of a single cop show where a major theme wasn't the show trying to make excuses for absolutely inexcusable behavior by the cops. I mean, okay, if the show is *about* inexcusable behavior, alright then. But when the "hero" is off the reservation and they play that up as a good thing, that's just destructive to every reasonable and sane point of view there is. Awful stuff. I''m not talking about antiheroes either. When a show about a cop is clearly holding cops up as "the good guys", and they can't be bothered with little things like people's actual rights, as if their correct role was legislator, judge and jury all rolled into one, I just turn the show off.
My only real problem with TV is finding anything worth watching. I get that stranger in a strange land feeling more often than not, and sadly, it doesn't come staffed with a libertarian, open-minded genius, super mental powers, and telepathic aliens. Just a vague urge to go do the hermit thing in a cave.
You can tell because there is so much of it.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
I don't know... I barely watch regular tv anymore, but I've never once said 'I can't commit to another show, and I don't have the time to emotionally commit to another show.'. What I usually say is 'There is to much crap I have no interest in on tv', which includes lots of shows with interesting premises that never go anywhere. When I do find a show I like I'm lucky to get 13 episodes before they go on hiatus and run the risk of never being seen again because the metrics say it's not 'popular enough'. As has already been mentioned Firefly falls on this list, but plenty of others do as well. Networks are inherently fickle and wouldn't recognize good tv if it was used to hit them over the head. Thank god they are becoming less and less needed to handle entertainment.
we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
I was watching several series for a few years, and new ones kept coming up, and I got bogged down. Missed a few episodes, then decided to wait until I could just watch the entire season at once, to catch up, but then fell behind in several more series. Then you would have some series take several breaks, and I wouldn't know when to start watching again. Then you get filler episodes that don't matter, and don't interest me enough to catch up on them. Then add to that the aforementioned fact that a lot of shows I enjoyed got cancelled after I invested time into them (Sarah Connor Chronicles was a huge blow to my enjoyment of TV), and I just stopped caring. I mostly game, exercise, or watch movies or the Marvel shows, on Netflix. I'll watch some occasional cartoons (Family Guy, Simpsons, Archer, etc), that doesn't require too much knowledge of previous shows, but I can't invest time in like 10 different series, that require me to watch each and every week.
Defender of Microsoft and Communism!!!
Maybe somebody can write a Python script, that writes better TV scripts than TV script writers?
Graham Chapman, John Cleese, Terry Gilliam, Eric Idle, Terry Jones, and Michael Palin did that already in the late 1960s.
I'm cord and battery free. Now have a slave girl playing a lute.
Go see what it took in the old days to produce a TV show. The capital investment in cameras, editing equipment, lights, sound systems, etc was HUGE. You needed a large audience to make the economics work.
Today you can produce a decent quality show with a couple thousand dollars in equipment. So you can make money with a very small audience and you can have much more diverse subjects where as before when you had a huge audience you needed to appeal to everyone. There is nothing wrong with so many shows. The market is great at figuring out how many shows are needed.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
That's insane.
http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/i...
They are the number 1 Demographic after general population. Almost all daytime television is aimed at them and most evening television.
Yes, it is a new era. About Amazon: they are seriously competing with Netflix, Apple, the cable companies and others to control the new media distribution system. Many of us that have used Amazon Prime just fell into instant video subscriptions and it is a low cost alternative that might beat out Netflix if they stumble again. It is going to take time for culture to evolve to effective use video on demand. We are at a moment of very rapid change in technological possibilities but people haven't figured out how to use the new possibilities effectively.
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...
First, they could always use blipverts.
Second, 400+ new shows is somewhere between half to a third of a new show per channel per season, on average. That suggests that if there's too much new material, there are far, far too many channels. In fact, that might be the best solution. Shut down nine in every ten channels. Then you can have exactly the same amount of new material with less channel surfing. People will stay on channel because they'll like the next program as well.
The British did perfectly well on four channels. In fact, they mostly did perfectly well on three channels. America is, of course, bigger. They might need fifteen to cater to all the various needs. You don't need several thousand (including local). All it does is dilute the good stuff with a lot of crap.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
It was not so long ago that writers complained about the closed Hollywood shop that kept most of them out of work most of the time. Viewers complained about interesting new TV series being canceled after two weeks of low ratings. Directors had to concentrate their efforts on a few cookie-cutter surefire hits because the costs of production were too high to allow for any mistakes. Even after cable proliferated, the complaint we all had was, "500 channels and nothing on."
Now, because technology has lowered the cost of program production and distribution, we live in the golden age of TV. All we have to do now to end the "glut" is fix the legal problem: make it easier to stream prior episodes of shows over long periods of time. Because we get some episodes soon after air and not others, and those for perhaps three weeks region-limited, and limited to some artificial number of "Verify your cable provider" carriers much smaller than the number that actually air the show, there is a tendency to stop watching a new series after one or two missed episodes so you can wait a year and then binge-watch the season on Netflix. Fixing the distribution problem would increase the current-season viewership of new shows, pleasing the advertisers because they would enjoy a larger, happier audience.
Many of the new series are only ten to thirteen episodes a season. That's a far cry from the traditional TV season where a series had ~23 episodes. Some still do, but not many. Most of them are quote good. But, with shorter seasons it's hard to believe that there are too many series now. They're spread out over many more networks than in the past.
You can't be serious. Reality took over and it will never go away. Why? Probably costs 100k to put on one episode of a reality show. And it cost 100k+ to pay ONE actor in a real series. Kind of a no brainer for the creators.
Wuddooeyeno? IITYWYBMAD? Like nuts? eclecticallyincorrect.com
Firefly was pretty damn good but it was more of a Western in space.
That's why it was so genius. Out in space, you're not going to have police nearby, or any kind of structured society, it'd be just like the Wild West (which actually wasn't that "wild", contrary to popular opinion). Of course, the show had to make a severe assumption for the sake of plot, which was that humans had moved to a different star system with hundreds of planets and moons most of which they were somehow able to terraform to some degree, creating a huge amount of "land" for humans to expand into; it's just like the frontier days where people settled far beyond the reaches of the law and government. But this isn't any more unrealistic than other sci-fi which assumes the existence of FTL travel, "subspace" radio, teleporters, etc., and in some ways is more realistic since it sticks to conventional physics mostly (it's just unlikely they'd find a star system with so many terraformable worlds which wouldn't be either way too hot or way too cold).
You're missing something. What you need to do is buy your kids an Amazon(TM) tablet, park them in from of your Samsung TV and spend the rest of your life working enough hours to pay for the hardware and subscriptions.
That, my friend, is the New American Dream.
And don't forget that new iPhone for the Missus.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
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!
Doctor Who is getting preachy. When Capelli's Doctor tells that woman that it's too bad she's a soldier and the blatant disgust with PE, I get little turned off
Doctor Who has been preachy since color (early on it was written more as a kids show, but oddly wasn't preachy). Thing was, the shows were (almost) always solidly, competently written. Some were uninspired, but the plots made sense, the characters were understandable, the scenes hung together, and so on. As social issues we care about change, the preachy-ness becomes hard to spot, because it was never central to the plot.
The problem with the most recent doctor is that the episodes are a chaotic mess. They seem thrown together at random - scenes that are individually well shot and acted, but don't tell a coherent story. Attention-grabbing story elements that never pay off, and afterwards you wonder why they weren't just cut. The writing has become dreck. Too bad, too, I really like the cast.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.