What the hell is up with your TV industry, America? by pudor

GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

What the hell is up with your TV industry, America?

POSTED BY: PUDOR
UPDATED: Saturday, February 14, 2004 10:24
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3773
PAGE 1 of 1

Saturday, February 14, 2004 2:42 AM

There is something seriously wrong here - cancelling Firefly I can sort of see people explaining in terms of ratings and/or reaching the wrong demographic (even if that is entirely FOX's own doing).

But cancelling Angel is just plain wierd. Where I am, in England, the BBC tends to pick up random stuff for ever - way too long in some cases. Dr Who ran for about 20+ years, and even Red Dwarf got 8 (9?) seasons, despite being fairly dire and having minimal ratings.

If the BBC can do it, why is it so hard for the entertainment giants of America to pull off? How does industry regulation work over there? Is there any watchdog making sure tv exists for all tastes?

I just don't understand how someone, sitting at his expansive desk with DVD sales figures in one hand and a report on the *millions* of merchandise possibilities and outlets available for a show like Firefly or Angel, can decide it's a dead loss.

Tell me I'm going insane?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 14, 2004 2:56 AM

SCAFELL

The BBC doesn't have to be profitable. They have the most antiquated, unfair, compulsory and undemocratic system of funding possible.

Plus, what good tv have they made recently that has run longer than Firefly did? I don't even watch the channel anymore. Still have to pay them their £120 a year though...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 14, 2004 3:16 AM

SPOOKYJESUS

League of Gentlemen - 19 episodes.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 14, 2004 3:18 AM

PUDOR

Quote:
Originally posted by ScaFell:
The BBC doesn't have to be profitable. They have the most antiquated, unfair, compulsory and undemocratic system of funding possible.

Plus, what good tv have they made recently that has run longer than Firefly did? I don't even watch the channel anymore. Still have to pay them their £120 a year though...

I did sort of realise just after I posted that the BBC was a fairly bad example ;)

Having said that, I disagree that their funding is antiquated/undemocratic, etc. A TV is a luxury item - it doesn't seem unfair to me that it be taxed to provide a non-commercial media outlet. I have always seen the BBC as a _good thing_.

*Anyway* - whatever my feelings on the BBC, you can't deny that it does a lot better than commercial or network television at providing non-subscription specialist programming. I think it fills an important niche alongside the mainstream. Just look at their website, and the importance they put on cult programming - they have an entire *staffed* site for each cult programme.

Even if you've only skimmed the last few paragraphs, my main point is basically that the BBC provides niche-programming, and impartial news and opinions, which do a fantastic job of offering an alternative to commercial television. Even if you don't watch anything on the BBC anymore, you can at least be sure that, by paying the licence fee, you are helping to make sure that not everyone else has to watch what *you* want to see :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 14, 2004 4:06 AM

PUDOR

Quote:
Originally posted by Aywyn:
Couplings (UK version)was great (22eps), but I'm not from GB so what do I know, right?

Ah - very true, I'd forgotten about that. Very nicely written. If you liked the character of Jeff, you might be interested to know that he's starring in a supernatural thriller/drama thing (sort of a cross between Jonathan Creek and American Gothic) called "Strange" this spring - looks really good.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 14, 2004 4:24 AM

SCAFELL

The reason I described the licence as antiquated and unfair is because a 72 year old person, living on the basic state pension with no other income owning a 10 year old 14" colour TV, has to pay the same £121 per year as someone on £80k a year owning a 4 bedroomed house with 5 or 6 people watching 5 or 6 TVs in the house.

Most other taxes are based on income or wealth. Take income tax, VAT, inheritance tax, corporation tax, capital gains tax, stamp duty, council tax etc.

The reason I called it undemocratic is I can't opt out. The government is planning to make this country all digital and the analogue signal will at some point be turned off. With the technology we have it should be possible to decide whether we want to receive BBC channels or not. Let the people who want to watch all the cooking, gardening, DIY and crappy soaps pay for them.

As for the news, rather than watching something that *claims* to be impartial, I prefer to get my news from a range of sites such as guardian.co.uk and telegraph.co.uk and and make up my own mind what is impartial.

And just why exactly should licence fee payers money pay for an internet website? It's bad enough paying for TV channels I don't have access to like BBC3 and BBC4.

Regards :)
ScaFell

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 14, 2004 4:32 AM

SCAFELL

I'll give you League of Gentlemen, although 19 episodes over 4 years could be better.

Actually I bought the DVD for this. Shouldn't they be sent out free to the licence fee payers? :)

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 14, 2004 5:54 AM

ECMORGAN69

Quote:
Originally posted by pudor:
There is something seriously wrong here - cancelling Firefly I can sort of see people explaining in terms of ratings and/or reaching the wrong demographic (even if that is entirely FOX's own doing).

But cancelling Angel is just plain wierd. Where I am, in England, the BBC tends to pick up random stuff for ever - way too long in some cases. Dr Who ran for about 20+ years, and even Red Dwarf got 8 (9?) seasons, despite being fairly dire and having minimal ratings.

If the BBC can do it, why is it so hard for the entertainment giants of America to pull off? How does industry regulation work over there? Is there any watchdog making sure tv exists for all tastes?

I just don't understand how someone, sitting at his expansive desk with DVD sales figures in one hand and a report on the *millions* of merchandise possibilities and outlets available for a show like Firefly or Angel, can decide it's a dead loss.

Tell me I'm going insane?

It all boils down to this...
Too much money floating around
Not nearly enough intelligent, thoughtful people in the business
Too many

DFMs making all the programming decisions
Way, way too many

lawyers with their jing chang mei yong de niu shi (I hope I didn't mangle that too badly

)
Oh yeah, did I mention the lawyers?

"You can't take the sky from me..."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 14, 2004 6:11 AM

TEELABROWN

I wish I knew what was up with American TV, and I live here? What is with our TV?

_____________
"Freedom is the Freedom to say that 2+2 makes 4. If that is granted, all else follws"-Winston, 1984
Teela Brown, keeper of bad typing.
"No one reads these things any way."- Bart on Blackboard

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 14, 2004 6:14 AM

ECMORGAN69

Quote:
Originally posted by TeelaBrown:
I wish I knew what was up with American TV, and I live here? What is with our TV?

_____________
"Freedom is the Freedom to say that 2+2 makes 4. If that is granted, all else follws"-Winston, 1984
Teela Brown, keeper of bad typing.
"No one reads these things any way."- Bart on Blackboard

I find that I just watch my DVDs now. At least, that way, I can control the programming I want to watch. I just want to know who has those stoooopid

Nielsen boxes, so I could steal me a few and put them all on a 24-hr. pr0n channel. That would severely mess up all the numbers

They can have my "Firefly" DVDs when they pry them from my cold, dead fingers....

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 14, 2004 8:18 AM

DORAN

Well, US TV with the exception of the "Public Television Network" is a capitalistic model. Ideally a TV network should succeed be airing shows that the viewers want to see the most.
The unfortunate deal breaker in the US is the "Nielsen's Rating" system.

Some sort of measure is important if networks are to gauge what is successful and what is not; but the Nielsen's ratings are corrupt at their base. Some memberships in the Nielsen pool are given away; and others are sold. They are not doled out in a lottery or randomly installed which would be more effective.

Members are allowed to join for a fee. What was it that Douglas Adams said, "they who wish to be president of the galaxy are by definition the least qualified"? Who, without an agenda, would pay a fee to have their television monitored? Not many. This opens the door to all kinds of other corruption.. Memberships given away or "sponsored" by groups for those who are likely to prefer certain programing. Memberships given to those in demographics not likely to watch certain other programing.

Even with a minimal effort the ratings can become very skewed. Couple this with the fact that many of those who use these ratings really don't understand them in the first place.

Just recently there was a collective outcry from the network TV community when they "discovered" that the rating couldn't possibly be accurate. Wow, it was news to them but no one else was surprised.

These days there is just too much competition for any specific TV show to support the type of numbers networks execs expect...

The BBC and Public television, in defense of these, do occasionally come up with good ideas and good TV... but more often for my money they come up with long running shows I would never watch. They don't have to please a large audience. they only need critical acclaim. :O)
I like the capitalist model better but only if it's done right.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 14, 2004 9:53 AM

STEVE580

Quote:
If the BBC can do it, why is it so hard for the entertainment giants of America to pull off? How does industry regulation work over there? Is there any watchdog making sure tv exists for all tastes?

I just don't understand how someone, sitting at his expansive desk with DVD sales figures in one hand and a report on the *millions* of merchandise possibilities and outlets available for a show like Firefly or Angel, can decide it's a dead loss.

Because the point of television isn't the programs; it's what's between them: the commercials. Commercials are the sole reason that television exists (broadcast and basic cable, that is). Network execs don't give a f*ck what programs they're running; only how many peoople watch in relation to the cost of the show. It's cheaper to have reality shows, and they make get more commercial-watchers.

It sucks a lot, though.
-Steve

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 14, 2004 10:16 AM

3OF19

Doran, thanks for explaining some stuff about Nielsen ratings, I had NO idea it is being handled that way in the US. What dimwit came up with that?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 14, 2004 10:24 AM

ZELDA

I don't totally understand the Neilsen system, but I know not all of the boxes are given out those ways. I had a friend who had one, and they just got a random phone call on day, got asked some questions, and then basically: "Hey, you're in a demographic we'd like to monitor (at that time, females between 20-25), can we bring this thing over?" And voila, they had a Neilsen box.

It always irritated me, because they were all really outdoorsy & never watched TV & I was trying to save Sports Night.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE