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."

11 of 307 comments (clear)

  1. Literally by mwvdlee · · Score: 5, Funny

    "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?
  2. You like a new show... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    ... 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.

  3. Too many of them aren't worth following by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!
    1. Re:Too many of them aren't worth following by swb · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Too many seem to have the following structure:

      90% of the time is dedicated to an episode specific narrative following a formula. Whether it's the detectives getting a case, the scientific guy chasing a new phenomenon, etc. For the most part the, the events in this portion are episode specific although usually there's some new morsel that exposes information the grand conspiracy and larger story arc when that episode's events are resolved.

      10% of the time is dedicated to following/expositing the serial aspect of the story, usually some kind of conspiracy or larger story. Very little information is exposed, mostly just enough to let you remember there's this bigger (and often much more interesting) narrative arc taking place.

      Mostly this just feels as if the series has been turned on its head. It should be about the 10% part that is the actual "meat" of the story. If (and only if) the dumb series runs enough seasons, the larger story arc might get resolved in some semi-satisfying way. Mostly it seems like the writer had a pretty cool idea but didn't know what to do with it, and fell back on the "case of the week" to fill it in because the bigger idea really didn't have much behind it.

      In some cases, this can be tolerable but most of the time you just feel strung along, like there's this really cool story that's going to get broken wide open...and then nothing, or something entirely lame like Lost happens.

      In contrast, really good series (like the Wire) manage to make the entire series about the story arc and the individual episodes expand and bring it out. Part of the Wire's specific genius was that it did this well and also had a seasonal anthology feel to it as the action shifted from the corner, to the port, to the dealers again without losing the larger momentum but giving us different characters and settings, too.

      When I start a new series if I feel like I'm being strung along by episode 4 or 5, chances are I won't ever get resolution and I just drop it.

  4. from the red site by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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:
    "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. ...and it's HARD!"

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  5. Lame excuse by William+Baric · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  6. Re:So glad I don't watch TV by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!
  7. Why not just do it right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Why not just do it right? by Computershack · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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
  8. Re:Why not stop making new shows by Z00L00K · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There are shows that rolls on because they attract stupid people that are too lazy to skip the commercials and there are smart shows that gets cancelled because the ad providers considers the audience impossible to target.

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  9. Looking under the streetlamp by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 5, Insightful
    because the light is better there.

    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.