Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by LaminatorX on Wednesday September 02 2015, @12:30AM   Printer-friendly
from the diamonds-in-the-coal-pile dept.

John Koblin writes in the NYT that there's a malaise in TV these days that's felt among executives, viewers and critics, and it's the result of one thing: There is simply too much on television. John Landgraf, chief executive of FX Networks, reported at the Television Critics Association Summer Press Tour that the total number of original scripted series on TV in 2014 was 371 and will surpass 400 in 2015. The glut, according to Landgraf, has presented "a huge challenge in finding compelling original stories and the level of talent needed to sustain those stories." Michael Lombardo, president of programming at HBO. says it is harder than ever to build an audience for a show when viewers are confronted with so many choices and might click away at any moment. "I hear it all the time," says Lombardo. "People going, 'I can't commit to another show, and I don't have the time to emotionally commit to another show.' I hear that, and I'm aware of it, and I get it." Another complication is that shows not only compete against one another, but also against old series that live on in the archives of Amazon, Hulu or Netflix. So a new season of "Scandal," for example, is also competing against old series like "The Wire." "The amount of competition is just literally insane," says Landgraf.

Others point out that the explosion in programming has created more opportunity for shows with diverse casts and topics, such as "Jane the Virgin," "Transparent" and "Orange Is the New Black." Marti Noxon, the showrunner for Lifetime's "UnREAL" and Bravo's "Girlfriends' Guide to Divorce," says there has been a "sea change" in the last five years. "I couldn't have gotten those two shows on TV five years ago," says Noxon. "There was not enough opportunity for voices that speak to a smaller audience. Now many of these places are looking to reach some people — not all the people. That's opened up a tremendous opportunity for women and other people that have been left out of the conversation."


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Francis on Wednesday September 02 2015, @01:29AM

    by Francis (5544) on Wednesday September 02 2015, @01:29AM (#231071)

    Both. The standards for what is and isn't watchable has grown substantially for many viewers. When I was a kid there were about 7 or 8 channels of programming available. And you had to choose which one you'd watch. Now, with even basic cable packages having at least 150 channels which can be DVRed, there's a ton of programming out there.

    But, that doesn't mean that the programming is better, it's just that with choice, we don't have to watch shows that are marginally amusing or turn the TV off. We can go to the DVR and find something. But, with the increased amount of programming, the programs are becoming more niche and they probably do have to compete with each other. Not just over money, that's always been the case, but over people to actually produce the shows.

    Personally, between those asinine 2 half seasons split over the year per year and the shows that get canceled too soon, I've lost interest in watching most programming until it's already been canceled. That way I know how many shows I'm going to get and I don't have those awkward extended breaks in the middle. I used to like Suits, but I completely lost interest during one of those extended breaks between half seasons. I'm just not interested in waiting months between half seasons. It's just too hard to get invested in characters or stories when you're left to wait so long.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Dunbal on Wednesday September 02 2015, @03:48AM

    by Dunbal (3515) on Wednesday September 02 2015, @03:48AM (#231119)

    Now, with even basic cable packages having at least 150 channels which can be DVRed, there's a ton of programming out there.

    No there isn't. There should be, but there isn't. In fact there is very little "new" content on TV. It's the same damn show repeated over and over ad nauseam. In biology we have a method to study population called "mark and recapture". You can google it for the details and the statistical formulas. The basic idea is quite simple. If I grab a known quantity of organisms at random, mark them and release them and then return after a while and grab another known quantity of organisms and note how many in my sample are organisms I originally marked, then I can estimate the size of the population. Well you can apply something similar to TV. When you watch a show, and then a few months later you turn the TV on and lo and behold, you are watching the exact same episode, you can work out that there really aren't all that many episodes. They are filling their time and channels with the SAME BS over and over and over. It's almost insulting. There's a limit to the number of times I can watch "Transformers" or "X-men" or "Die Hard" or "Friends" or "2 and a half men"...

    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 02 2015, @12:22PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 02 2015, @12:22PM (#231217)

      Shows need at least 100 episodes (~4 full seasons of 24-26 episode seasons, or ~7.5 seasons of 12-13 episode seasons) to run in syndication (reruns, basically). There aren't many shows that run longer than 100 episodes, and lots don't even make it that long (some, if they get close, will add extra crap or draw out storylines just to make it to 100 to be able to run in syndication and end the show there). If its being shown in syndication once every weekday, that means they'll get back to the episode you just watched in about 20 weeks. Some channels are way worse about it though - BBC America shows reruns of Trek: TNG, but instead of running through the whole series like any decent syndication showing, they show the same 5 episodes over and over and over and over again for like a month or 3, and then do a different 5 episodes for the same span; its really fucking annoying. I've noticed lately some new shows have reruns on different channels while they're still in their 1st season, not really sure on the details of those though except that they must be some kind of special deal between networks for those shows.

    • (Score: 1) by Francis on Wednesday September 02 2015, @03:09PM

      by Francis (5544) on Wednesday September 02 2015, @03:09PM (#231294)

      That's not true. There's a ton of original programming out there, it's just that most of it is niche. Look at all those reality programs. You and I might not like them, but that is original content. There's all those talk shows, made for TV movies and what have you.

      Most of it is crap, but it's new crap that people haven't already watched.

      • (Score: 2) by Dunbal on Wednesday September 02 2015, @06:06PM

        by Dunbal (3515) on Wednesday September 02 2015, @06:06PM (#231373)

        Sorry I didn't equate it to content in the same way as I don't equate dog food with "food". Reality TV is just laziness from a production crew devoid of any creativity. I don't consider that "content" any more than I consider the interactions between cars on my drive home "content".

      • (Score: 2) by Dunbal on Wednesday September 02 2015, @06:08PM

        by Dunbal (3515) on Wednesday September 02 2015, @06:08PM (#231375)

        Oh and another thing since you got me started on that subject, I don't think those shows that just take stuff from the internet (or before the internet, from people's home videos) and put it on television "content" either. Seriously. The best bit is when I've already seen those videos and know exactly which watermarks have been "blurred out".

        • (Score: 1) by Francis on Wednesday September 02 2015, @06:37PM

          by Francis (5544) on Wednesday September 02 2015, @06:37PM (#231382)

          I get that, unfortunately, we seem to be in the minority. I briefly enjoyed the Real World for a couple seasons back when the reality TV thing was a bit less transparent, but I stopped watching those well before Survivor and the whole industry blew up.

          There's some good scripted TV shows that come out, but it's hard to find a series that lasts long enough to invest myself in. Often times they're canceled before they have a chance to find an audience. I remember years back liking Cupid, later I found that there were more than just the 3 episodes I watched aired, but for some reason it got moved on the schedule with no notice and I'm guessing a lot of people didn't follow it past the move. Others like The Cape, have a really good premise and world, but aren't allowed enough time to get an audience.

          Movies are a bit more honest. They pick it up for one movie and that's probably it. You might get a sequel, but you usually have an idea as to whether or not that's even a possibility when writing it.

          • (Score: 2) by Dunbal on Wednesday September 02 2015, @09:11PM

            by Dunbal (3515) on Wednesday September 02 2015, @09:11PM (#231452)

            Oh I won't say there are no good TV shows. Gotham I quite like. Breaking Bad was awesome. Everyone raves over Game of Thrones - personally I've never seen it. But be honest, we (millions of people) are paying $50+ (or in my case with HD channels, etc $100+) per month to these people, every month. And MOST channels ALSO have ad revenue, when they manage to actually sell some space in between the endless repeated sperg about the "new" show they've been repeating all season. At $100+ a month I should have a hard time choosing between blockbuster shows to watch, not spend hours channel flipping to see if there's anything good on to finally settle on that episode of that show that I've already seen 5 times.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Magic Oddball on Wednesday September 02 2015, @07:30PM

    by Magic Oddball (3847) on Wednesday September 02 2015, @07:30PM (#231410) Journal

    I was surprised to learn firsthand this year that the paradox of choice can apply to this situation. After being bored with videos for almost 20 years, I decided to see if there were any oddball ShoutCast streaming channels left and found a short list of the consistent free ones [thugie.nl]. One of them called DoughyGuy Broadcast System [blogspot.com] had some hilariously awful bizarre old T&A fantasy/science-fiction film playing — something I'd never bother with normally — but with nothing else available, it was good enough for sitting in a window on my desktop (and sometimes actually directing all of my attention at). I soon found a *lot* of stuff moves into the "good enough" category (and becomes inexplicably enjoyable) when there's only one channel available.

    I did learn from some of the DGBS selections that some of that difference is that I'm not into more modern styles or actors (I found that I liked the Roger Moore 007 films and even a Vincent Price spoof, but not the ones made after the 80s), but a lot of it is still the result of not knowing what the hell to choose when faced with hundreds of options and feeling constantly discontent with anything I do pick.

    My reaction is a lot more extreme than most people's since I'm rarely into video-watching and in my late 30s, but I'm guessing that *some* of the same effect is going on. It's certainly the best way I can think of to explain some of the awful crap that we (or our parents or grandparents' generations) watched back in the day. ;-)