Slashdot Mirror


A Record High of 455 Scripted TV Shows Aired in 2016 (vulture.com)

In case you wanted to ground your abstract TV FOMO in hard numbers, FX has data on the fact that, yes, there really is too much TV. An anonymous reader shares a report: The network, whose CEO John Landgraf coined the idea of "peak TV," has released its unofficial tally of the number of shows on TV, finding that 455 different scripted television series from broadcast, cable, and streaming sources aired in the last year. That's an 8 percent increase from last year, when 421 shows aired on TV; a 71 percent increase from 2011, when a mere 266 shows were on TV; and a 137 percent increase from 2006, when there were 192 shows on TV.

189 comments

  1. nothing by qQ7eBMsfM5gs · · Score: 5, Insightful

    400+ TV channels, Netflix, Amazon Prime etc. and still NOTHING GOOD IS ON

    1. Re:nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sell your tv. If you can't find something "good" today, you simply don't like TV.

    2. Re:nothing by qQ7eBMsfM5gs · · Score: 1

      Don't you dare to assume my TV preferences! LOL

    3. Re:nothing by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Got thirteen channels of shit on the T.V. to choose from." - Pink Floyd 1979

      Only the number has changed.

    4. Re: nothing by Luthair · · Score: 1

      He's right it's almost entirely crap. Heck, there aren't even any real scifi shows any more

    5. Re:nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is old, but appropriate:

      http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20070626

    6. Re:nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty much how I feel. I've been watching fewer and fewer TV shows this year. All the good ones ended or turned to shit. Haven't found any good new ones. I guess producers have largely shifted to shows that don't appeal to me. So lately I'm just watching stuff on Youtube.

    7. Re: nothing by rijrunner · · Score: 1

      Kinda curious what your definition is then.. I know of at least 3 space operas on right now...

    8. Re: nothing by 605dave · · Score: 4, Informative

      Have you watched The Expanse? Seems like real SciFi to me.

      --
      Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a difficult battle. - Plato
    9. Re: nothing by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

      Colony isn't bad, it's a little too much interpersonal drama for most men, but it's definitely sci-fi.

    10. Re: nothing by SScorpio · · Score: 1

      I also liked Killjoys, it gave off some Firefly vibes. People also seem to like Dark Matter, but I couldn't get into the first two episodes.

    11. Re: nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's right it's almost entirely crap. Heck, there aren't even any real scifi shows any more

      With all the available media outlets you would think someone would bring back the classic western shows and movies and the movies about World War II. But no. It is all the same formulaic pablum regurgitated. In the New Year I will likely give up my cable television service.

    12. Re:nothing by Threni · · Score: 1

      There's loads of good stuff. You probably have no imagination or just like complaining. Unless you have 5+ hours per day free to sit around and do nothing which you're trying desperately to fill there'll always be something good to watch.

    13. Re: nothing by TheRealQuestor · · Score: 1

      The Expanse, Killjoys, and Dark Matter are all pretty decent for the "pure space" Sci Fi shows, Pure Genius, Mr Robot, Scorpion, Mars, Stitchers,Stranger Things, The Librarians, The Flash, and Agents of S,H.E.I.L.D also fit in the list quite well and are enjoyable shows to watch. Sci Fi doesn't always mean "space" :)

      And I'm kind of in the "I hate TV" boat but I'll be damned if I don't find myself DVRing the hell out of those shows I just listed. Sure some are kind of dumb, some are kind of campy, and others totally sudo science, but still a good distraction from all the crap going on in the world.

    14. Re:nothing by dywolf · · Score: 1

      Arrow
      Blackish
      The Blacklist
      Crazy Ex-Girlfriend
      The Expanse
      Flash
      Fresh Off the Boat
      Kimmy Schmidt
      Man in the High Castle
      Modern Family
      Shield
      Speechless
      The Strain
      Supergirl

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    15. Re:nothing by dywolf · · Score: 1

      forgot:
      Full Frontal
      The Last Ship
      Last Weekend Tonight

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    16. Re:nothing by dywolf · · Score: 1

      wrong parent!

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    17. Re:nothing by dywolf · · Score: 1

      probably a few more i forgot too:
      Full Frontal
      The Last Ship
      Last Weekend Tonight

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    18. Re:nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hamilton's Pharmacopeia on Viceland has been pretty interesting stuff.

      Only other things I find worth watching after a day at work are reruns on Big Bang Theory or Seinfeld. Wife watches all that gloomy depressing magical new sh*t full of bad acting and lame plots.

    19. Re:nothing by dywolf · · Score: 1

      Daredevil
      Jessica Jones
      Luke Cage

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    20. Re:nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fully agree.

      When I fire up DirecTv and scroll through the bazillion channels that are there, I always come to the same conclusion.
      " I could not possibly imagine paying full price for a subscription to this service due to the lack of anything interesting upon it. "

      I have it for two reasons:

      1) My other half watches a few series that she likes.
      2) I get a hefty discount on the service. ( To the tune of it costs about as much as Netflix does for me )

      Just cannot get interested in anything that is on these days.

    21. Re: nothing by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      sudo science

      They do experiments about making sandwiches?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    22. Re:nothing by Hognoxious · · Score: 0

      Does your TiVo think you're gay too?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    23. Re: nothing by Prien715 · · Score: 1

      Westworld seems to be SciFi and high budget. Unless "robot sentience" is no longer a "real" SciFi question.

      --
      -- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
    24. Re: nothing by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      > Killjoys, Dark Matter, Stranger Things

      Agreed those are decent.

      I would also add:

      * Continuum (2012) -- one of the few shows where time travel isn't idiotic or a deus ex machina.
      * Fringe (2008) for a weird X-Files pseudo-science bent.

      Hands down the best Sci Fi in the last decade would have to be 2004 remake of Battlestar Galactica

      > Scorpion

      Is crap. For a bunch of geniuses they sure make a lot of dumb mistakes.

      I *hate* how Netflix groups Sci-Fi with that Fantasy shit. I want to see ONE or the OTHER, not BOTH at the same time.

    25. Re: nothing by psmoot · · Score: 1

      Don't forget my favorite, The Man in the High Castle. Amazon just released season 2. I don't know what's going to happen, they're already past the end of the novel.

      Still can't decide what I feel about Obergruppenfueher Smith. Honorable or evil?

    26. Re: nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > sudo science

      I'll try this on Linux when I get back home

    27. Re: nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been bumping up the 96 timer limit of my Dish DVR for years. Usually around 90 of so year round.
      And none of that Law and Order/CSI shit.

    28. Re: nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If people count Stranger Things as Sci-Fi, I think Westworld qualifies.

    29. Re: nothing by Luthair · · Score: 1

      Its a book I read years ago, not sure what the point of viewing it is.

    30. Re:nothing by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      There's loads of good stuff. You probably have no imagination or just like complaining. Unless you have 5+ hours per day free to sit around and do nothing which you're trying desperately to fill there'll always be something good to watch.

      Even better, these are SCRIPTED shows. It means the tyranny of reality shows is over! Sure there will be some reality shows - some are quite well produced, but it also means the traditional scripted storyline is back. It means viewers care less for crappy reality shows that were coming up of late and are appreciating fully scripted shows.

      Yes, we'll always have reality shows, but hopefully we'll have good ones with high production values and less ones that are just people screeching at each other.

    31. Re: nothing by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      Hands down the best Sci Fi in the last decade would have to be 2004 remake of Battlestar Galactica [imdb.com]

      While I enjoyed it, it was a bit too much of a relationship drama / soap opera for me. But it really is pure Space Opera.

      I like Farscape quite a bit more as a series than BSG, because it tended to present a very strange universe, which is one of the main qualities I like in sci fi.

      And I like the twists and turns in the story for Ophan Black. I'd argue it's the best sci fi series of the last decade because 2004 was more than a decade ago, but I guess it depends on what you mean by "in the last decade". ;) It has some elements of Dollhouse, Dark Angel and Pain Killer Jane, but it's much better.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    32. Re: nothing by kuzb · · Score: 1

      The fact that you like Killjoys tells me you're part of the problem.

      --
      BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
    33. Re:nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Full Frontal. LOL. That fat ditch pig Samantha Bee should hang herself, assuming she can find something to support all that skanky beetus.

    34. Re: nothing by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      I've heard Farscape is good but I haven't watched it. Thanks for the recommendation -- I'll add it to the winter To Watch list.

      Haven't heard of Orphan Black. Looks like another interesting one to check out !

      Yeah, last decade was stretching it a tad: ~12 years. :-)

    35. Re:nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      400+ TV channels, Netflix, Amazon Prime etc. and still NOTHING GOOD IS ON

      Way too obvious.

    36. Re:nothing by JoKer_Destroy · · Score: 0

      interesting things hidden deep inside a glance https://goo.gl/f0aqbj

    37. Re:nothing by qQ7eBMsfM5gs · · Score: 1

      There's loads of good stuff. You probably have no imagination or just like complaining.

      You probably don't have a sense of humour :-)

  2. Too Many my A** by Herkum01 · · Score: 2

    The problem is not quantity, it is quality. It amazes me how many shows that are absolute trash get put out and that is before we have reached these *peak* numbers. Maybe an increase in quantity, we can get new blood to see different or hopefully better shows.

    The last thing the world needs is to be locked up with the Michael Bay's of the world because they are too afraid to try anything new or different.

    1. Re:Too Many my A** by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      The problem is that quality usually doesn't make as much money as shit.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:Too Many my A** by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      This problem, and the TV networks, is going away. Eventually each TV show will have a team making it, paid for by (direct) payments of the watchers of the show. Once we get rid of the networks forcing us to watch what they want, only the popular shows will survive. (where popular = viewership pays for show, so cheap shows can get by with fewer watchers).

    3. Re:Too Many my A** by ckatko · · Score: 1

      Tell that to all the shows that are STILL in syndication today.

      Seinfeld?

      Star Trek: Next Generation?

      Die Hard airing on Christmas Day?

      Every time they air, they STILL make money.

    4. Re: Too Many my A** by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just don't see the networks going away so easily. The networks own the studios that produce a lot of the programming that's aired. Generally speaking, if two shows have similar ratings and coat to produce, the network is less likely to cancel one that they own over one that they don't own. I don't see any incentive for the studios and networks to split off from each other. Shows that are produced by network-owned studios have an advantage over those that aren't. The networks benefit from this arrangement because they can profit from the syndication rights to those shows. Those are often quite valuable, which is why a show that gets a third season will almost always also get a fourth season. Normally you need about four seasons, or 88 episodes, worth of programming to sell a show into syndication.

    5. Re:Too Many my A** by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I said "usually". Don't forget that the original Star Trek was cancelled. I'd say the number of great shows that were cancelled far outweighs the number that eventually survived for their full "natural" duration.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:Too Many my A** by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Ever heard the expression "The exception that proves the rule"?

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    7. Re: Too Many my A** by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck STNG, STV is so much better

    8. Re:Too Many my A** by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      With the price of quality cameras and LED lamps coming down under $100 each, Final Cut Pro is $300 if you find some community college acting students you can put together a series you write yourself for under $10,000.
       
      There's that show about couples that view three homes each and buy one at the end of the episode... how much could that possibly cost? Camera man, microphone guy, lighting guy, director and show host * 8 hours + equipment + van rental + gas. Probably the hotel bill is higher than the rest of their costs combined.
       
      My friend was in an online soap opera for four "Seasons" of ten episodes each; I don't think she got paid much but the investment is low and if your series gets picked up the return is very high.
       
      Netflix is great because you can just watch series that made it to season 3; typically if a series makes it to season 3 it's at least moderately worthwhile to watch.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    9. Re:Too Many my A** by guises · · Score: 1

      Everyone here seems to be missing the really important word in the summary: scripted. 455 scripted television series doesn't mean more TV, necessarily. It could also mean less unscripted TV (i.e.: reality television). I can only think that this is positive news. Either reality TV is in decline, or total TV is increasing - either way it should increase the small number of shows which are actually worth watching.

    10. Re:Too Many my A** by HornWumpus · · Score: 0

      All examples of _shit_ that still makes money.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    11. Re: Too Many my A** by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      'Networks' will never go away. ABC, NBC and CBS are already irrelevant though. They make _nothing_ worth watching and haven't for decades.

      Fucking 'Star Search' is all they've got. (Whatever the fuck they call it now.)

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    12. Re:Too Many my A** by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      3 seasons makes it worth watching? On what planet?

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    13. Re:Too Many my A** by cellocgw · · Score: 1

      Ever heard the expression "The exception that proves the rule"?

      Yes, I have. I also know what it means. Do you?

      For those few who might care, the word "proves" in this case takes the meaning "to test," as in, e.g. the US Army Aberdeen Proving Ground. (where, gosh, things are *tested*).

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    14. Re:Too Many my A** by dywolf · · Score: 1

      calling Die Hard, Seinfeld, and ST:NG s*** ??!!
      you must be trolling.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    15. Re: Too Many my A** by dywolf · · Score: 1

      Blackish
      The Blacklist
      Fresh Off the Boat
      Modern Family
      Shield
      Speechless
      Supergirl

      are all really good, old man.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    16. Re:Too Many my A** by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      I'd be happy to hang that label on Seinfeld.

      TNG also had it's fair share of it.

      And no, a contrary opinion is not "trolling".

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    17. Re:Too Many my A** by dywolf · · Score: 1

      Saying Die Hard sucks is bad enough and easily qualifies for automatic trolling label.

      but saying it of Seinfeld or TNG is planetary deportation worthy levels of trolling.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    18. Re:Too Many my A** by Immerman · · Score: 1

      What? No. According to Wikipedia, it's original meaning

      is that the presence of an exception applying to a specific case establishes ("proves") that a general rule exists. For example, a sign that says "parking prohibited on Sundays" (the exception) "proves" that parking is allowed on the other six days of the week (the rule). A more explicit phrasing might be "the exception that proves the existence of the rule."

      Which admittedly also doesn't directly apply to my usage, which is more in line with an alternate usage listed further down the page:

      Loose rhetorical sense
      A rural village is "always" quiet. A local farmer rents his fields to a rock festival, which disturbs the quiet. In this example, saying "the exception proves the rule" is literally incorrect, but it is used to draw attention to the rarity of the exception, and to establish the status of the village prior to the exceptional event.

      There are syndicated shows still making money, but the very fact that they're noteworthy proves that it's not the usual case.

      Don't make the mistake of assuming the meaning you've heard is the only one. That's the sort of logic that makes you defend the usage of "Begs the question" as implying circular logic - an anti-literal interpretation that originated with a mistranslation of the original Latin phrase "petitio principii", which actually translates as "assuming the initial point"

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    19. Re:Too Many my A** by cellocgw · · Score: 1

      You're not making any sense. The correct use of "begs the question" does in fact match the correct translation of "petitio principii," so what were you trying to claim?

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    20. Re:Too Many my A** by Notabadguy · · Score: 1

      And precisely what reality TV show do YOU think is/was unscripted?

    21. Re:Too Many my A** by Immerman · · Score: 1

      The literal meaning of "begs the question", would be closer to "(re)raises the question" than "assumes the initial point". Which is how it's commonly used (and complained about).

      Basically, the "correct" usage of "begs the question" bears no resemblance to what the words would mean without historical precedence based on mistranslation.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    22. Re: Too Many my A** by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're an idiot to believe that wikipedia is always right. It's just a website where anyone can write anything they believe, no matter how wrong.

      Look up the etymology of the verb "proving" in a proper dictionary and you' ll see that your wikipedia quotes are modern revisionist claptrap no doubt weitten by some self righteous ignorant student.

    23. Re:Too Many my A** by Falconhell · · Score: 1

      Its not christmas until Hans Gruber dies.

    24. Re: Too Many my A** by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      I've actually watch a few minutes of some of those. Terrible, Just lame.

      No better than 'Diffrent strokes', 'The Love Boat' etc. Only now they are indoctrinating and no 'swimming pool scenes'.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    25. Re:Too Many my A** by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      TNG wasn't scifi. It was a fucking shitty court drama, at least book ended with a god damn court drama. The rest was a soap opera, just like original trek.

      Die Hard was just a lame old 'blows up real good' movie. It was worth watching once, when you were a kid.

      Seinfeld had maybe two funny episodes, maybe.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    26. Re:Too Many my A** by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eventually each TV show will have a team making it, paid for by (direct) payments of the watchers of the show.

      Until I've watched it, I won't know whether it's shite or not, so I won't pay.

      And until people pay them they won't make it, because they don't know whether it'll be profitable or not.

      Mong.

    27. Re: Too Many my A** by Immerman · · Score: 1

      The etymology of a word has no bearing on its meaning in a particular context. Unless I suppose the particular context was a usage that originated before the word evolved to have other meanings as well.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    28. Re:Too Many my A** by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Fawlty Towers only had two.

      You wouldn't like it though, no explosions.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    29. Re:Too Many my A** by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Note that this is about scripted TV shows. It says nothing about whether the junk of unscripted reality shows are having a deserved death or are still holding strong.

    30. Re: Too Many my A** by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you only watch two episodes? Otherwise, you're fucked in the head.

      There's dozens of Seinfeld classics. I'm here on vacation in Mexico, and this show is loved in many countries.

    31. Re:Too Many my A** by TrekkieGod · · Score: 1

      Don't forget that the original Star Trek was cancelled. I'd say the number of great shows that were cancelled far outweighs the number that eventually survived for their full "natural" duration.

      I'm a Star Trek fan, as you can tell by my username. I also do like the Original Series, and can point to several legitimately good episodes in it. A good show it was not, at least not consistently. For every good episode there were many more that I only enjoy today in the same way I enjoy MST3K movies. And even for the Trekkies who believe TOS was a great TV show, you'll find none that thought the third season was any good. The season that gave us "Spock's Brain" deserved to be cancelled.

      --

      Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.

    32. Re:Too Many my A** by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Have you seen Star Trek Continues? I'd say it's actually better than the original series.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    33. Re:Too Many my A** by TrekkieGod · · Score: 1

      I have, and it is indeed absolutely awesome.

      --

      Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.

    34. Re: Too Many my A** by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol! no.

    35. Re:Too Many my A** by JoKer_Destroy · · Score: 0

      interesting things hidden deep inside a glance https://goo.gl/emc1FF

  3. This is a bad thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't like "simple" dramas like Gilmore Girls, nor do I like cop dramas except for a couple of exceptions (eg The Wire), but for some reason I like Law & Order. But I'm a huge fan of science fiction, dark or strange comedies, and I'm actually enjoying the comic book spin offs even though I don't read comic books (I really enjoyed Daredevil and Gotham).

    So this abundance of choice is a good thing as far I'm concerned. It means more chances for serial dramas and comedies that I do like. It means more chances for entertainment that any one can enjoy.

    1. Re:This is a bad thing? by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      So this abundance of choice is a good thing as far I'm concerned. It means more chances for serial dramas and comedies that I do like. It means more chances for entertainment that any one can enjoy.

      Unfortunately, in my experience, it usually means quite the opposite. The more shows are in simultaneous production, the fewer viewers there are per show, on average. This means that more shows means less chance of any given show finding its audience before poor ratings cause the network brass to cancel it. We're already seeing most shows not make it past the first season. Before long, we'll see most shows not make it past the first half season. And the net result will be more content of lesser quality, left unfinished, aborted mid-story-arc by overzealous management who see each show as nothing more than a share number instead of as a creative work that people should want to enjoy over the long term.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  4. All these stuff by Lirodon · · Score: 3, Informative

    Yet every Canadian broadcaster just takes 15% of them and spreads reruns of them across multiple channels that provide the illusion of variety.

    1. Re:All these stuff by qQ7eBMsfM5gs · · Score: 1

      That's called "Canadian content"

    2. Re: All these stuff by Luthair · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately they didn't have spending requirements hence shitty entertainment shows starring morons like Mulroney jr qualify.

    3. Re: All these stuff by qQ7eBMsfM5gs · · Score: 2

      It could be much worse if Trudeau Jr would do entertainment shows and Mulroney Jr as prime minister.

    4. Re: All these stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trudeau Jr. does entertainment as well, just not in the appropriate venue ... that makes him much more dangerous than Mulroney Jr.

  5. Too much TV, yeah right by OzPeter · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Saying that there is too much TV implies that I should be trying to watch every show on TV. But if different segments of the population watch different types of shows then who cares how many shows there are on TV? That's simply called having a choice.

    Unless of course you mean all those "reality" shows that have* to die.

    * note that my list of shows that have to die may differ from other peoples lists. But here on /. I'm pretty sure that I can safely say that every damn ghost hunter/big foot hunter/alien hunter etc reality show needs to die a painful death.

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    1. Re:Too much TV, yeah right by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

      Saying that there is too much TV implies that I should be trying to watch every show on TV.

      "Nobody needs twenty three different kinds of deodorant!!!!"

      These bone-headed know-it-alls think they know what's best for everybody (an obvious failure of hubris over information).

      If a show can find a niche audience and produce more revenue than it costs, then it's a good show for some people. And, guess what? That's how all shows are going to be once the network model fully dissolves.

      Who wrote this article? Where are my killfiles in 2016? --- there's a market opportunity; Neilsen might buy up your startup

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    2. Re:Too much TV, yeah right by totallyarb · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "That's how all shows are going to be once the network model fully dissolves."

      Couldn't agree more. I realised the other day that roughly 50% of the "shows" I regularly watch these days are my YouTube subscriptions. And most of the rest are on Netflix. The era of running "TV channels" is all but over; the concept of "primetime" is on the way out too. Now it's all about content producers going directly to their target audience, who watch as and when it suits them.

      Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that *broadcasting* is dead. Rather than one single signal going out to millions of people, we have millions of individual signals, which may or may not have the same content. And of course that's going to encourage diversity.

      --
      -- Note to Mods: There is a good reason there's no "-1 Disagree" option. --
    3. Re:Too much TV, yeah right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you go from saying different shows for different people then go on to say some shows have to die.

      We got a real winner here, folks. My guess is that he has watched too much TV.

    4. Re:Too much TV, yeah right by c · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that I can safely say that every damn ghost hunter/big foot hunter/alien hunter etc reality show needs to die a painful death.

      Somewhere, there's a network exec poring over a script for a reality television program in which a ghost hunter, big foot hunter, and alien hunter are stuck on a remote island and have to fight each other to death...

      I... I might watch it.

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    5. Re:Too much TV, yeah right by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Forget target audience - if a show encourages the audience to actually believe the preposterous, then it's a hazard to a healthy society. And I know far too many people who cite such "reality" bogus-hunter TV as evidence for the preposterous. “Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.” -Voltaire

      Of course I've occasionally personally seen and interacted with "ghosts" while wide awake, stone sober, and even with corroborating witnesses, so I'm not prepared to dismiss the existence of such things out of hand, but I'm quite confident that the "Ghost hunter" shows are entirely fictional. Heck, actually had one of the big ones visit some of the more famous haunted locations in my home town... almost. Only problem is they focused entirely on nearby photogenic locations and didn't go anywhere near the places the "ghosts" actually manifest.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    6. Re:Too much TV, yeah right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Add in treasure hunters and you can just drop them all on Snake Island. "All signs point to alien bigfoot ghosts stashing a treasure of immeasurable value on the island with the highest concentration of venomous snakes in the world. Twelve elite teams will descend on this death trap in the hopes of finding... Paranormal Sasquatch Snake Island Gold From Outer Space"

    7. Re: Too much TV, yeah right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This i would gladly watch

    8. Re:Too much TV, yeah right by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      Well, there was already that one Finding Bigfoot episode where they split up and investigated with 2 different groups: one of whom thought bigfoot was supernatural/paranormal and the other that thought it was aliens. So we are already almost there.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    9. Re:Too much TV, yeah right by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      TV is living off of the largese of monopolies and oligopolies. This manifest in the absurdly high cable bill. Everyone in the chain is trying to push the number higher and higher. TV revenue in general is probably massively inflated and is probably due for some sort of market correction.

      When that happens, will 90% of the dreck be sustainable anymore?

      Meanwhile, the back catalog continues to grow. Simple rabbit ears are more feasible than ever. Gratis internet video is eating into mind share.

      You could probably reduce your absolute favorites to a few shows that could be acquired for less than a year's worth of cable. Especially now that Netflix is undercutting everyone.

      Or you might even just decide to give Netflix a pittance instead of your cable company

      The pyramid is built of sand and it is being eroded from all sides.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    10. Re:Too much TV, yeah right by maeda · · Score: 1

      Any interesting YouTube channels you care to share?

    11. Re:Too much TV, yeah right by dywolf · · Score: 1

      Crash Course
      Healthcare Triage
      Carbot Animation

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    12. Re:Too much TV, yeah right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I was a kid, we had three channels of TV, and "what TV you watched" was a major bonding feature. We'd talk about them and re-enact them in the playground.

      Today, right here on Slashdot and elsewhere you see people referencing popular TV programs as if under the assumption that everyone watches them. Well, 20 years ago that would have been true. 10 years ago it was still mostly true. But it's now rapidly moving into the realm of "incorrect assumptions".

      I'm not saying this is a good or bad thing, but it's a thing. Increasing choice in TV = reduction in common culture and shared values.

    13. Re:Too much TV, yeah right by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      They'll all get beaten by a hippy, a fat girl in glasses, a val and a guy who'd be quite hunky if he dumped the Ascot. Oh, and a dog that talks, nearly.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    14. Re:Too much TV, yeah right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People are going to believe what they're going to believe. By your metric we should be able to ban sci-fi if someone thinks it may be science fact even if it's soundly defeated by known natural law. At that rate ban James Bond films right now, the MI6 has already approached a James Bond film crew about how they made gizmo in the film work without knowing it was just a fanciful prop.

    15. Re:Too much TV, yeah right by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      I enjoy project runway.

      Tim Gunn seems legitimately like he cares, and the show doesn't play the drama so much. And they break the rules for the sake of making better TV (not eliminating people when no one should be eliminated).

      There's definitely an element of making things too.

      I know it's not for everyone, but it's hardly garbage IMO.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    16. Re:Too much TV, yeah right by bazorg · · Score: 1

      Fortnine

      We create motorcycle content with a rare twist: honesty. FortNine releases new videos on Tuesday and Thursday. Expect travel documentaries, motovlogs, gear reviews, motorcycle reviews, crash tests and more.
      The engine behind our channel is fortnine.ca. Canada's largest online powersport retailer gives us the freedom we need to produce legitimate reviews. We are not indebted to the manufacturers we cover, and that means we don't have to pull any punches!

      Nerdist

      Welcome to Nerdist. We've got video entertainment for all of your nerdy passions and a whole lot of funny. You are what you watch!

      Alan Thrall (powerlifting, strongman)

      Glove and Boots

      A puppet web series. With puppets. On YouTube.

  6. yeah, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    its 455 shows with only about a dozen different different plots - most of them are derivatives of derivatives of derivatives of ...

    1. Re:yeah, but by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      Well, since there are only 7 basic plots that's not surprising,

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
  7. With good reason! by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The basic issue is there is a war being waged between media companies. The basic issue is that old media companies like the fat checks they get from cable providers but new online services cannot afford to write said fat checks. The result is that online services began creating their own content because it was much cheaper than licensing it. When there was some exclusive hits like on Netflix, old media decided they needed to quash the rebellion by putting out something that is equally as attractive to avoid people jumping ship. Both sides are upping their game so that customers won't be tempted to switch media providers and thus the media company war.

    The funny thing is, the old media companies could have avoided all of this if their demands weren't so unreasonable.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:With good reason! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not cheap to make TV, Netflix wrote off $US200m when Marco Polo flopped. What it does do is give Netflix a lot of exclusive content they distribute only over their service globally to tempt people to pay up and allows them to build a unique brand. For Amazon TV is a part of loyalty programmes to keep their customers shopping on Amazon.com.

      The thing about scripted content is that once people get hooked on the characters and story they keep watching forever too see how it ends. Which is why the Networks, cable (including History and Lifestyle Channels) and streaming services are all trying to make lots of it. The problem is 18-39s are become less and less likely to sit down watch ads on Networks or pay HBO's fees when they have so many other options.

      Peak TV is only a problem for the networks and critics, who have to worry about all of it. For viewers nothing has changed, you find the few shows that are worth your time (and possibly money) to watch and ignore the rest.

      "There's fifty-seven channels and nothin' on" -- Bruce Springsteen

    2. Re:With good reason! by random_ID · · Score: 1

      ...the old media companies could have avoided all of this if their demands weren't so unreasonable.

      What's unreasonable about saying "give me billions of dollars"? It always sounds good when I say it....

  8. Sturgeon's Law or Sturgeon's Revelation by bmo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "90 percent of science fiction is crud because 90 percent of anything is crud."

    So to apply that to this number, there are only 45-46 "good" shows to watch.

    And this is why a bajillion channels on Cable are useless.

    --
    BMO

    1. Re:Sturgeon's Law or Sturgeon's Revelation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "90 percent of science fiction is crud because 90 percent of anything is crud."

      ..

      And this is why a bajillion channels on Cable are useless.

      --
      BMO

      Doesn't that actually mean more channels would lead to more good content?

    2. Re:Sturgeon's Law or Sturgeon's Revelation by Kjella · · Score: 1

      When you put it that way, it sounds plenty... really who watches 45 shows? Personally I feel there's only so much time I want to passively waste as a couch potato and there's no shortage of decent-ish shows to fill the time. I think Netflix found the same, good catalog or bad catalog we end up taking our fill from the best of what's available.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    3. Re:Sturgeon's Law or Sturgeon's Revelation by bmo · · Score: 1

      No, because the number of good writers, directors, and producers is finite.

      --
      BMO

    4. Re:Sturgeon's Law or Sturgeon's Revelation by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      That may be true, but I doubt that number is capped at 455 (or 1000, to account for teams). More shows may mean more opportunities for different voices, perspectives, niches. If you've only got, say 20 comedy writers, they're going to end up a little generic, trying to cover all the bases, but with 200 of them maybe you'll have 100 you hate, 60 that are okay, and 40 who really seem to be speaking to you.

    5. Re:Sturgeon's Law or Sturgeon's Revelation by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      "90 percent of science fiction is crud because 90 percent of anything is crud."

      So to apply that to this number, there are only 45-46 "good" shows to watch.
      And this is why a bajillion channels on Cable are useless.

      I draw an opposing conclusion from the same data. This is why a bajillion channels (on Cable, or major services on the internets, or wherever) are necessary. If 90% of everything is garbage, then you need at least ten shows to be made before anything is on. If you account for taste, for which there is no accounting, you have to take into account the fact that not everyone is going to want to watch the same shows no matter how competently they are made. That means we need dozens of shows to exist for there to be anything on that's worth watching.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:Sturgeon's Law or Sturgeon's Revelation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends if you record things or not.
      Recording and setting a time for when you watch, cycling through an episode each from each show, it can go quite smoothly.
      Of course, if you have a bad memory, you might want to limit that to anywhere from 4-8 at a time.
      Depends how much time you set to watch them, whether it is an hour or two a day, maybe every other day, etc.

      I've even, ready for this?, watched 2 shows at the same time.
      One that is mainly audio based and one that is mainly visual based. It works well in that case because you can consciously keep track of them better.
      Mind you, that probably taxes the brain in the long run. (stress)
      The problem with this is you'll find it hard to know whether something is heavily talking based or visually actiony TV with only an episode, so it would only be something you have experience with.

      Equally, another thing you could do if you don't care TOO much about the media retaining its "original spirit" as its creators intended, you could watch it at 1.25 to 1.5 times speed.
      I actually heard that anger. I heard it before it even happened. The rage of a million people screaming internally.
      1.25 brings total time of 60 minutes down to 48. 1.5 brings it to 40. Given an average show has about 15 minutes of ads, even less time.
      Downside is you ruin the original work as intended, which a lot of people cannot stomach. (also minor chipmunkishness)
      1.25 is closer to ideal in regards to audio, which might be a better compromise for some.

      However, the easiest, tried and tested method is watching TV while shitposting on the internets about your favourite TV shows, missing half the show after getting in to a heated debate and rewinding it till you remember what you last saw.

    7. Re:Sturgeon's Law or Sturgeon's Revelation by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Sturgeon wrote 90% crud.

      Don't think so? Then you cannot believe his quote.

    8. Re:Sturgeon's Law or Sturgeon's Revelation by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      No, because the number of good writers, directors, and producers is finite.

      As is the number of bad ones. As is the number of meddling studio execs who wouldn't know shit from shinola .. etc

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    9. Re:Sturgeon's Law or Sturgeon's Revelation by bmo · · Score: 1

      I think he would agree with you.

      --
      BMO

  9. An ad agency is crying at this story by randomErr · · Score: 1

    With that kind of diversity who do you market too? There is only so many dollar to spend. So which one gives you the return and which one is wasted money. Especially when a lot of these shows are experimental. Then you have the break out hits on Netflix where there no commercials. Its bleak for advertisers.

    --
    You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
    1. Re:An ad agency is crying at this story by Immerman · · Score: 1

      And the crowd cheers wildly!!!

      Seriously, advertising is evil in almost every manifestation and can't die fast enough. It's entire purpose is to generate false poverty so that you'll go out and buy something you don't need to satisfy a want that didn't exist before you saw the ad.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    2. Re:An ad agency is crying at this story by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Marxism is not a good state of mind.

    3. Re:An ad agency is crying at this story by Immerman · · Score: 1

      How exactly do you imagine that's a Marxist position? (I'll grant you that, within the context of a capitalist society, Marxism is likely to make you more discontent with being a member of the working class)

      Plenty and choice are good things. Ads designed to inform you of available choices are also good things, or at worst neutral. Modern advertising though is carefully and intentionally designed to create artificial desire through a large number of psychological manipulation techniques. The goal being that you buy a product that satisfies no need, nor even notably benefits you, and thus you remain fertile ground for the next batch of manipulation.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  10. Possibly misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are any number of things that would cause the number of scripted shows to increase. The summary is potentially misleading.

    Not all programming is scripted. News and sports are unscripted. Reality TV is considered unscripted, though some of it really is scripted to varying degrees, anyway. Simply replacing one type of programming with another could make a difference here.

    In terms of network TV, the amount of programming is pretty much fixed in terms of time per week. Each network produces a certain number of hours of programming per week that is aired by its affiliates. That isn't going to change much. What can change, however, is how that time is used. For example, a network could opt to have a 26 episode season of a show and air reruns the other 26 weeks. However, they could also opt for a 22 episode season, then add in other shorter series with 10-12 episodes to fill in the remaining weeks. It doesn't necessarily mean there's more TV, just a trend toward shorter seasons and to fewer reruns, thus allowing more new programming and a larger number of series.

    Midseason cancellations and replacements are another way the number could be inflated. If a show has poor ratings, the network can reduce the number of episodes ordered and isn't obliged to air those episodes at all. If networks are quicker to pull the plug on shows with low ratings, that could increase the number of scripted series.

    There are any number of ways to explain this trend that don't require adding more channels and inflating the amount of programming aired in terms of the total length of the scripted shows. It certainly seems like seasons are getting shorter and there are fewer reruns, allowing more series to be squeezed in during a year. It also seems like networks have gotten quicker at pulling the plug on low rates shows, perhaps not giving some potentially good shows a chance to grow a following.

  11. A little deceiving... by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1
    There may be more actual scripted shows, but there are less episodes of each show.

    .
    For example, TBS's comedy show People of Earth had only 10 episodes.

    Many of the cable-network scripted shows have only 6 to 10 episodes per season.

    1. Re:A little deceiving... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fewer episodes, you illiterate cunt.

    2. Re:A little deceiving... by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1
      https://www.merriam-webster.co...

      ...Usage Discussion of less

      The traditional view is that less applies to matters of degree, value, or amount and modifies collective nouns, mass nouns, or nouns denoting an abstract whole while fewer applies to matters of number and modifies plural nouns. Less has been used to modify plural nouns since the days of King Alfred and the usage, though roundly decried, appears to be increasing. Less is more likely than fewer to modify plural nouns when distances, sums of money, and a few fixed phrases are involved and as likely as fewer to modify periods of time ....

  12. And yet Cmdr Taco by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    has over a million mp3s. Go figure what is too much to have.

  13. And nothing..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .....worth watching.

  14. Need Regulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are too many TV shows; this is what happens when you just let the Free Market run wild.

    We need the FCC or some other regulatory agency to step in, and control what shows are being made, what the content is, whether or not there's enough diversity in the casts, etc.

    1. Re:Need Regulation by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      I agree as long as I am appointed High Commissar of programming.

    2. Re:Need Regulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Luckily we aren't obligated to watch it all, or even any of it.

      I haven't watched TV in several years and I've never bothered with netflix or any other streaming service.

      Also forced diversity is bullshit.

  15. Turn it off by kcdoodle · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It is really hard to stop watching TV. I have cut down to 3 shows a week.

    I also stopped playing video games, especially on my phone.

    These things are a big time-suck, a vacuous hole of waste.

    Instead of video games, I have apps that are game-like, but educational. DuoLingo, MemRise, PianoSightReading, etc.

    Instead of TV, I practice guitar, bass guitar, piano, and recently, violin. Also I workout and run everyday.

    Basically, I am taking my previously wasted time and trying to better myself.

    Try looking back. Did it really matter if Gilligan ever got off of that stupid island?
    Did Hawkeye Pierce save more people because you tuned in?
    Do you care if Al and Peg Bundy's kids ever moved out?

    Twenty years from now, will you care if Sheldon every marries Amy?
    Will you care if Mike Ross goes to jail or really becomes a lawyer?

    Or, in twenty years, will you say, I should have been healthier, I should have read more, I should have learned a language.

    --

    - I live the greatest adventure anyone could possibly desire. - Tosk the Hunted
    1. Re:Turn it off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm starting to feel the same way about Slashdot, reddit, etc. Most of the time, there isn't really any meaningful dialogue—it's unlikely that your own opinion will even be read, let alone understood.

      Why am I even bothering to write this comment? I should be going for a walk, or building my real-world social network, or practicing an instrument, or whatever.

    2. Re:Turn it off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      TV is one way to relax or allow for distraction. Learning and development, on the other hand, takes effort and, depending on the subject and individual, may end up not being remotely relaxing. Exercise can provide relaxation in some people; in others, it promotes an exhaustion response.

      The most stressful time in my life was when I was working, completing my masters, learning a third language, and volunteering as president of a non-profit club. Swapping out one option for some TV or video games could have greatly reduced my stress.

    3. Re:Turn it off by apoc.famine · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You've given a great example of what's wrong with the modern world.

      I am taking my previously wasted time and trying to better myself.

      So you've always got to be "on". Always need to be productive. Always need to go, go go. Look, if that makes you happy, great. I'm a firm believer that everyone should do what makes them happy, as long as it doesn't negatively impact those around them. But get the fuck off your high horse lecturing to the rest of us.

      Or, in twenty years, will you say, I should have been healthier, I should have read more, I should have learned a language.

      In my case, absolutely not. I'll be damn glad that I put my feet up, had that third scotch, and dicked around on the internet. Why? Because I need that down-time. I need to shut my brain off and let it rest. I've got a demanding job that requires coding and math, people skills, negotiation, and creativity. I can't do any of that well on a fatigued brain.
       
      Maybe for you brain down-time is a "vacuous hole of waste", but for a lot of people it's necessary. I hope 20 years don't go by before you figure out that you need it too.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    4. Re:Turn it off by Pfhorrest · · Score: 1

      I feel somewhere between the two of you.

      What I *want* is to have a well-enough rested brain that I get bored and start doing creative productive self-directed things. I would most like for my entire life to be filled with the kind of passionate creative energy I had when I was younger and far less busy, where I was constantly thinking of new things and working on projects and would stay up into the middle of the night neglecting sleep and meals because meh I can catch up on them later if I need to right now I'm engaged in this.

      But as I've gotten older life has gotten much, much busier, and now by the end of most workdays my brain is so fucking fried that i can bareby bother capitalizing or spllechecking myself when i make typeos i just dont fucking care anymore it too much im too exhausted i cant bother to think about anything, but I am also overwhelmed with anxiety thinking about every next possible thing that might put a demand on me and revved up a million miles an hour from being in a panicked rush all goddamn day long, and if I have nothing to engage my brain with at all I will just spin the wheels out of control and fucking lose it.

      So even though I don't have the energy to do anything I would really like to be doing in my spare time, I need to be doing something, and TV is a nice mindless something that can put my aching mind to sleep and give me a brief respite from the hell that is just getting through every day until I am tired enough to check out of consciousness entirely, just to get up and do it all over again the next day.

      So watching TV feels like I'm wasting my life, but TV isn't the cause, it's just a bandaid over the problem, making the fact that I'm wasting my life anyway just hurt a little bit less.

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    5. Re:Turn it off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      more people read this than you know

    6. Re:Turn it off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was recently unemployed for two years and, while I watched far more television than I do now, I had a lot more time and mental energy to direct toward creative projects and personal interests. Once I went back to work, I could no longer get the same degree of focus on those creative projects, which meant that they were no longer feasible. Even if I could carve out enough chunks of time, it would be the wrong chunks of time, usually after work when I just need to decompress. And so I watch shows about other people's fruitless endeavors instead of engaging in my own, but at least I can afford a nice house and a good retirement. Life is all about trade-offs.

    7. Re:Turn it off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stupid Einstein, Shakespeare, da Vinci, Mozart, etc. F-you universe and your stupid gift of life.Self-induced atrophication in front of the glowing idiot box is the only way to live!

    8. Re:Turn it off by Pfhorrest · · Score: 1

      i am just hoping that someday i will be able to afford a retirement and the house it will require so that i can actually do something with my time then and not have lived my entire life pointlessly for nothing never actually doing anything of my own origination in the entire time

      yesterday on my lunch break i had some thoughts about maybe just writing a brief synopsis/outline/overview of the huge series of interconnected stories that i once wanted to spend my life writing so that people could at least see that and think 'yeah that wouldn't been cool if you'd've written that'. i couldnt find time to finish even that yesterday. today i thought maybe i would just shorten the remaining part i didn't get a chance to write but unless i can find it in my to do so in the next 15 mins it looks like even that fucking synopsis is going to be yet another unfinished project i will probably never get back to.

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    9. Re:Turn it off by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1
      Holy cow. Defensive, much?

      You've given a great example of what's wrong with the modern world.

      Because somebody might prefer to make use of idle time in a different way from you?

      But get the fuck off your high horse lecturing to the rest of us.

      Where do you see a lecture? I'd suggest you go back and re-read the post you replied to. I read it simply as someone who decided to make some changes in his own life, and was posing a few questions to others that he found helpful. At no point in the post do I see any commands or declarative sentences saying, "If you don't spend your free time learning 10 languages, you're an idiot!"

      Did you read a different post from what I did? Because I just heard someone stating their opinion. You're stating yours. Why so defensive? And I didn't hear "vacuous hole of waste" applied to downtime in general -- it seemed to me to be a critique of stupid video games people play on their phones.... which can easily BE a "timesuck" for a LOT of people. (Again, I'm not judging people's choices, here... but in some respects arguing in favor of phone video games is AGAINST "brain downtime." I enjoy just sitting peacefully and thinking in my downtime sometimes... rather than the continuous phone stimulation some people seem to just give into all the time nowadays.)

      And the thing is -- GP wasn't even saying "downtime is bad." He explicitly says he still "cut it down to 3 shows/week." Maybe that's adequate for him. Maybe his "relaxation" comes from exercise. Maybe it comes from doing the kinds of activities he suggests. I'm also the sort of person who finds intellectually stimulating "downtime" to be more fun than sitting on a couch watching some rerun of a stupid sitcom. I'm NOT judging -- if someone else needs that for their own sanity, that's great.

      I am ALL for "moderation" in life and for finding time "for yourself" in whatever form feels good for you. GP seems to have discovered that he was feeling about his downtime for some reason. Maybe he was a couch potato and that made him depressed, overeating, whatever. Maybe what he's doing now makes him feel better.

      For me, if I'm watching too TV rather than reading books or learning languages or learning some new math exercises or whatever, it generally means I'm depressed. I know this from experience.

      But I also know that I have a job that I mostly find enjoyable and not particularly stressful. I completely understand other people may need to "unwind" a bit more, and most people don't seem to like intellectual engagement in their "downtime." That's great for them.

      Anyhow, I'm not sure what prompted your crazed response. Maybe you were just in a bad mood, or maybe your defensiveness comes from something deeper. But I'm all in favor of "work/life balance" and I think people who insist on working huge numbers of hours to be "the most productive" is silly... and often likely to lead to the sort of regrets in a few decades you discuss. But GP's talking about what he finds makes him feel good about himself in HIS downtime. He obviously feels better about what he's doing now than what he used to, and he just wanted to share. Why not be happy for him?

      To me, this exchange sounds like a fat guy who came along and said, "You know, I realized I didn't need all this food. It was a lot of empty crap calories to eat a slice of cake. And do you really NEED that cake? In 10 years, when you look back, will it have made you feel that better? I started eating mostly vegetarian with a few slices of bacon per week, and I"m feeling better for it. I stopped eating a lot of pies and cakes, and I'm feeling good." And then you come along and start yelling, "Stop lecturing us! It's okay to have pie when you need it -- you need to strike a dietary balance!"

    10. Re:Turn it off by JoKer_Destroy · · Score: 0

      interesting things hidden deep inside a glance https://goo.gl/a7jKCb

  16. The big three? by tgibson · · Score: 1

    I haven't had subscription cable/satellite for many years. How are ABC, CBS, & NBC faring through all of this? I would think inertia would carry them for some time given their size but that they're sickly otherwise. I can't imagine they compete well given over-the-air decency restrictions and a corporate culture stuck in the 20th century.

    1. Re:The big three? by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      I don't know how they're doing, but I can't think of a single show I watch on NBC or ABC. I do watch 60 Minutes on CBS, if they don't postpone it for sports. Everything else is cable, Netflix, and maybe Youtube.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    2. Re:The big three? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You can count on most old people to keep doing what they're doing (aiming the clicker at the teevee) up until they die, or get sent to a home and someone takes the clicker away from them. However, "TV viewing by 18-24-year-olds [...] has now fallen by 38% since 2011." (Oct. 5, 2016) And "In 2015, Netflix accounted for about half of the overall 3% decline in TV viewing time among U.S. audiences [...] Total viewing of networks from Time Warner, Scripps Networks Interactive, AMC Networks and Discovery Communications rose in 2015. A+E Networksâ(TM) viewing hours declined 15%, Viacom fell 13%, and NBCUniversal and Disney each dropped 5% overall." (March 3, 2016) So it looks like they are faring quite poorly indeed, and Netflix specifically is eating their lunch.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  17. Welcome to the knowledge economy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With 7 billion people on the planet and less and less need for farm and manufacturing labor (due to increases in efficiency from things like automation), there's not much left for most people to do other than to help create new digital entertainment - writing software to make it easier for people to share their cat videos with the rest of the world - or scripting skits for YouTube channels - or even creating old school television shows. It's either that or rub hot oil on naked rich people while chanting about Shakras and energy points - and that only works if you're reasonable fit and attractive - i.e. not your typical middle aged white guy who's out of work after he lost his assembly line job when the local factory closed.

    1. Re:Welcome to the knowledge economy by avandesande · · Score: 1

      Sounds dystopian.... half of the population watching the other half waste time....

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    2. Re:Welcome to the knowledge economy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds dystopian.... half of the population watching the other half waste time....

      Hasn't that always been the dynamic between the sexes?

  18. Only 455? by totallyarb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    FX are *way* under-counting. There are an awful lot more than 455 scripted television shows out there. Hell, there are more than that on YouTube alone.

    Their mistake is to assume that something only "counts" as a TV show if it's in standard half-hour-with-ad-breaks format, and it's "broadcast" on something that they recognise as a TV channel. But a looser definition - say, "scripted video content released on a recurring basis" would include literally thousands more, and it's a bad sign for FX that they apparently haven't acknowledged this fact.

    What FX are doing is the equivalent of an oil company not realising that they're in the *energy* business (and therefore subject to competition from solar power and the like), or a car company not realising they're in the *transportation* business (and therefore subject to competition from rail, motorcycles and so on). Or perhaps a better comparison is the phone company not realising they're in the *communications* industry, and therefore failing to expand into mobile and internet provision until it was too late.

    --
    -- Note to Mods: There is a good reason there's no "-1 Disagree" option. --
    1. Re:Only 455? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Methinks you do not understand the meaning of the word "television". I would readily believe that there are only 455 scripted *television* shows out there, since you can't count Netflix, Hulu, Youtube, etc. exclusive shows in that total as they never go anywhere near a television broadcast. "Television show" != "episodic video show"

      Yes, they absolutely have outside competition in the "episodic video show" market, and you'd better believe they know it. Which is no doubt why the number of shows is increasing, but that has nothing to do with counting those shows.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    2. Re:Only 455? by Megane · · Score: 1

      They are also probably only counting English-language shows. Half of what I watch in any season is likely to be from the other side of the world, though music gets a larger fraction than that because Western music has been lame since the '90s. Also, I don't watch cable TV or subscribe to Netflix, Amazon, etc., so I don't even have access to much of that 455, nor do I care enough to pirate them. These days it's basically Brooklyn Nine-Nine, Agents of SHIELD, Fox's Sunday night animation block, and Nova, along with various current season anime from Japan.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    3. Re:Only 455? by Threni · · Score: 1

      YouTube? This is about tv programs. There's absolutely nothing (legally) on YouTube that's as well executed as the poorest TV shows. Or am I somehow missing a YouTube version of Breaking Bad, Mad Men, Quarry, Luke Cage.... ?

    4. Re:Only 455? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since one catagory was 'online services' i assume Netflix and Amazon got in there.
      They don't define scripted tho. Is Survivor a scripted show, a game show, or something else?

    5. Re:Only 455? by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 2

      YouTube? This is about tv programs. There's absolutely nothing (legally) on YouTube that's as well executed as the poorest TV shows. Or am I somehow missing a YouTube version of Breaking Bad, Mad Men, Quarry, Luke Cage.... ?

      Not that I know of. But I've seen YouTube stuff that's probably as good as 90% of the stuff on TV. That says a lot more about the stuff on TV than it does about YouTube.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    6. Re:Only 455? by drew_kime · · Score: 1

      YouTube? This is about tv programs. There's absolutely nothing (legally) on YouTube that's as well executed as the poorest TV shows. Or am I somehow missing a YouTube version of Breaking Bad, Mad Men, Quarry, Luke Cage.... ?

      If Breaking Bad, Mad Men, Quarry and Luke Cage are your examples of "the poorest", I think I may know why you aren't finding stuff on YouTube that's better than that.

      --
      Nope, no sig
    7. Re:Only 455? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's blindingly obvious from the above that you 100% do not understand the meaning of the word television

      tele-
      combining form
      at or over a distance; distant: telescope, telegony, telekinesis, telemeter

      vision
      noun
      the act, faculty, or manner of perceiving with the eye; sight
      or the image on a television screen for example

      so, seeing a remote image is the literal meaning of television

    8. Re:Only 455? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      And since when does the etymology of a word provide a reliable source for its current meaning? It has been a long time since television was commonly used in any context other than as a shortening of "television set". "Video feed" is typically used in all other contexts, even when referring to video feeds from probes on other planets where tele-vision would be especially appropriate.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    9. Re:Only 455? by Threni · · Score: 1

      I think you're parsing my post wrong; those were examples of good shows.

  19. C'mon Folks! This Does Not Make Sense! by mallyn · · Score: 1
    Folks:

    Please tell me that something is scrambled up in my brain!

    I am making an assumption that the average (or mean) TV show is 60 minutes. There are some 30 minute shows. There are even some 15 minute shows (Three Stooges and Popeye are examples) and there are the 2 hour movies. Put the whole shebang together and I believe that the average/mean is 60 minutes.

    There are 24 hours per day. Times 7 days per week. That is 160 hours per week.

    In the old days (I am 63 years old, so I am talking about my childhood in the 1960's). There were three TV networks, PBS, and maybe one independent TV station. Boston (my childhood home) had two independents; wsbk 38 and wlvi 56.

    So, let's be conservative and multiply the 160 hours per week by 4 channels in the average viewing area of my childhood (prior to cable) and you get 672.

    So, that's 672 discreet programs/series per week. (Give or take). Now, Slashdot is crying on my shoulders that we have too many shows at 455.

    Huh, please help me. I need to cry on Slashdot's shoulders and understand where I f**ked up.

    --
    Most Respectfully Yours Mark Allyn Bellingham, Washington
    1. Re:C'mon Folks! This Does Not Make Sense! by sinij · · Score: 1

      Commercials, re-runs, and dead air 3am to 7am.

    2. Re:C'mon Folks! This Does Not Make Sense! by Marble+River · · Score: 1

      I'm the same age, and I think you're forgetting that most (if not all) stations signed off around midnight-1:00 AM and didn't resume broadcast until 5-6 AM. In your area, it was a big deal when "5 All Night" started in the early '70s, but that was just old movies and shorts. Also the article is talking about scripted shows, so except for the soaps, that eliminates most everything from 5 AM to 7:00 PM. I won't do the math, but I think you get the idea.

    3. Re:C'mon Folks! This Does Not Make Sense! by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      I'm 56, and I remember when they didn't have 24 hour TV (if I got up early enough I could turn on the tube and get that fancy test pattern). So the number of shows was less than your figures. But I agree with your point. 455 isn't too much.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    4. Re:C'mon Folks! This Does Not Make Sense! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's counting scripted TV shows. So the news, game shows and talk shows are not included.

      You are forgetting that during the weekday, channels would air the same lineup every day. So soaps, plus the above shows that don't count, would air 5 times a week.

      On the weekend during the day there would be sports or movies, not scripted shows.

      Finally there are also re-runs in syndication, they wouldn't count.

      Plus you completely forget about channel 25 in Boston.

    5. Re:C'mon Folks! This Does Not Make Sense! by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      Remember they are only counting scripted shows. Another way to say that would be "fiction" shows -- dramas, soap operas, and comedies -- which does not include news broadcasts, chat shows, gameshows, sports broadcasts (of which there are many), talent contests, interviews, and so on (regardless of how scripted any of the above might actually be).

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
  20. Especially bleak with fake ad viewers by swb · · Score: 1

    And it's especially bleak when they're paying for advertising that is being "played" to fake users with fake social media profiles visiting fake web sites hosting fake news.

    It's good thing that the ads feature products that make fake claims by fake real people for fake results.

  21. I found that since... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...Person Of Interest ended, there's no point for television to exist.

    1. Re: I found that since... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now if only they ended the chinese Sherlock Holmes. For fucks sake, how retarded libs have become.

  22. This is a good thing, depending on your perspectiv by Ayanami_R · · Score: 1

    Too much, or a large selection? I'm going with option 2

    --
    "Science is the power of man"
  23. Ignoring the rest of the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So 455 shows on North American Tv. Ignoring the rest of the world as usual. You know that Bollywood is bigger than Hollywood right?

    1. Re:Ignoring the rest of the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's almost like India has a larger population of creators and consumers! A better question is, do they have anything worth watching... that isn't a blatant ripoff of Hollywood content? If so, why hasn't a lot of it gained international popularity? American content clearly gains popularity internationally or other countries wouldn't be ripping it off. Quality over quantity.

      Furthermore, just what the fuck should anybody care about Bollywood? This isn't an Indian site, nor is the site that wrote the actual article. And, most importantly, the entire point of the article is that there is TOO MUCH American content for Americans to consume. Throwing in the rest of the world's content is just a pointless exercise in giving crybabies from other countries (or the bleeding hearts attempting to speak for them) a handjob because they feel left out.

  24. Re:Season Length by TheCastro1689 · · Score: 1

    You're downvoted, but I agree with that on the better cable shows. Many seasons aren't as long as conventional network shows. This is evident in my DVR when shows all start the same but max out at 5 unwatched episodes and I only watched the first one.

  25. Thanks for that by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

    The network, whose CEO John Landgraf coined the idea of "peak TV"

    I would like to coin the idea of "peak dork"

    --
    My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
  26. Too much complaining by ITRambo · · Score: 1

    There are plenty of watchable shows on Netflix and Amazon Prime available anytime. My wife and I enjoy the wide selection. It's true that most is shit. But, with "millions" of choices, there has to something that any one person would enjoy. If you're not sure what to watch, start with The Good Wife, Downton Abbey, Daredevil, Jessica Jones etc. The CW has a lot of very good shows that you can stream online. There is no way that nothing good is available at any time today.

  27. 57 channels but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "57 channels but nothing on." - Bruce Springsteen 1992

    1. Re:57 channels but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone who says this today simply isn't paying attention.

      The last 5-10 years has been the golden era of TV, although pretty much none of it is on the networks. Its on HBO, AMC, Netflix, Amazon, FX, Showtime, Cinemax, etc. If you honestly don't like any of Game of Thrones, Mad Men, The Knick, Westworld, Breaking Bad, House of Cards, Fargo, Goliath, or the 10-20 other current/recent shows at that level, then you just don't like TV and never will.

    2. Re:57 channels but... by thomn8r · · Score: 1

      "Hooked up 80 channels, and each one stunk" --Al Yankovic, 1992

  28. 455 includes what? by tomhath · · Score: 2

    Does that 455 "scripted" shows include all the reality shows and professional wrestling? It should.

  29. SOMEONE must be watching them by p51d007 · · Score: 1

    Sure isn't me! Other than 2-3 weekly comedy or drama shows I watch on the network tv, I either just leave it on MeTv, AntennaTV, Cozi, etc, or just watch a movie from Amazon Prime.

  30. It's also a drop in all offline shows... by rklrkl · · Score: 1

    If you look at the graph shown in the article link, it turns out only online scripted shows have increased in the last year. The other 3 media (broadcast, paid cable and basic cable) all actually fell in 2016. Considering online scripted show 2016 quantities only sit half way between paid cable and broadcast quantities, then really all the article should had said is that there's a trend towards more online scripted shows.

    1. Re:It's also a drop in all offline shows... by hackel · · Score: 1

      Are you counting Netflix/Amazon programmes as "online shows?" These are quite a bit different than what has traditionally been an online show. The former are produced by professionals—the same companies that make network shows. There's literally no difference. The online shows are usually a string of 10-minute short clips, filling time with obnoxiously long credits on each "episode," and generally of questionable quality. I wouldn't count these at all.

    2. Re:It's also a drop in all offline shows... by voidstin · · Score: 1

      Basic Cable dropped from 188 in 2015 to 181 in 2016, up from 66 in '09. Not much of a drop. And separating those out doesn't really make sense - everyone is bidding on the same pitches from the same writers and production companies. Increased competition is driving up costs. It's not like there's a million brilliant writers with series ready to go. And even when you get an amazing show, that doesn't mean the next show/ season will be as good (True Detective, The Bastard Executioner, Mr. Robot). Ain't no sure things.

  31. Your opinion... by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

    FX has data on the fact that, yes, there really is too much TV.

      literally stated as fact.

  32. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  33. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  34. Number of episodes? by hackel · · Score: 1

    The number of shows isn't a particularly relevant metric. What matters more is the number of individual episodes, and their durations. A scripted network comedy might be a mere 20 minutes long, compared to, say, an average WestWorld episode that is three times that. Also, network trash typically runs full American-length seasons of 20+ episodes per year, compared with the much shorter runs of British and decent U.S. programmes. I personally think that *more* shows with fewer, longer episodes is the way to go. Drawing out seasons as long as possible results in terrible storytelling.

  35. Nothing good on? Bullshit. by voidstin · · Score: 4, Informative

    Nothing good on? Bullshit. Here are the show only on FX in the past year, with their RT ratings:

    Atlanta 100%
    Fargo 98%
    Always Sunny in Philadelphia 97%
    Archer 97%
    People vs. OJ Simpson 97%
    The Americans 96%
    Better Things 94%
    You're the Worst 92%
    Man Seeking Woman 90%
    American Horror Story 77%
    Baskets 70%

    That doesn't count all the great shows on HBO (GoT, Westworld, Insecure), AMC (Better Call Saul, Walking Dead), Netflix (Stranger Things, The Crown), Amazon (Fleabag, Good Girls Revolt), and many others.

    Also, RTFA - 455 this year is counting only NEW, SCRIPTED (not reality) shows on TV and OTT services like Netflix and Amazon. There's even a chart. Landgraf knows what he's talking about.

    Also, many of you are making his point for him. Nobody wants to pay for this (ie watch commercials or subscribe). Each hour of high end TV (not twitch, not pewdiepie, not unboxing, but real scripted TV that can compete in this landscape) costs roughly $2.5 million. So, I just mentioned roughy 170 hours of content above - that's 425 million dollars. Where is that money going to come from?

  36. Hawkeye Pierce & MASH helped end the draft. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hawkeye Pierce & MASH helped end the US draft and mostly keep us out of stupid, quagmire wars for about twenty-five years.

    The completely bat-shit, cowardly reaction to 9-11 destroyed much of that. Hopefully we can crawl back out of the gutter, and quality, entertaining art can in fact help us get there.

  37. Scripted TV shows on TV...occasionally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously america what the hell is up with your TV scheduling?
    Agents of shield for example; S04E06 on 2nd Nov, E07 on 30th Nov, E08 on 7th Dec and E09 on 11th Jan. 4 episodes over TWO MONTHS.

    It's no wonder your networks are brutal when it comes to cancelling shows; of course the viewing figures will go down if people have to wait months between episodes.

  38. Re:Nothing good on? Bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe if Hollywood types didn't make 6+ figures per episode those shows wouldn't cost as much. I certainly don't want to pay for any of it. But I also don't WATCH any of it, so I think I'm entitled to skip the bill.

    Oh and here's a tip: "nothing good on" is a subjective statement, an opinion which should not be questioned and cannot be disputed. Just because YOU love a lot of shows doesn't mean we all do. Instead of calling bullshit on people's opinions, shut up and go watch something.

  39. there is still some good stuff made outside the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Try:
    Orphan Black.
    Luther
    River
    DCI Banks.
    Not being US made there may not be enough shooting for you though.
    Ever notice how US crime dramas have more gunplay in the intro than entire series from Europe/Canada/Australia?
    I do miss POI though, such a great cast, Amy Acker, Sarah Sahai, Micheal Emerson were superb.

  40. Re:Nothing good on? Bullshit. by JoKer_Destroy · · Score: 0

    - The fellow to watch the next episode to find out the fate of family and elsa spiderman offline https://goo.gl/flpVXI

  41. There's lots more than that! by martinfb · · Score: 1

    If you think about it, there are LOTS of Facebook accounts that one can count as scripted, watchable stuff.

    And so on, and so on, and so on......

    --


    Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.