Mash, Nip Tuck, Newhart, Star Trek: The Next Generation, Cheers. All had great finales. Surprising, fun, emotional ... they had it all. However, I have never been as pleased or (frankly) moved by a series finale, or for that matter by any piece of scripted television, as I was by the Lost series finale.
I have been cynical about and critical of the last two seasons of Lost. I thought the story was going nowhere and that the characters had stopped developing. The writers had lost my faith, and as you know I respect quality writing over any other part of a television show. I kept watching because I wanted closure; I had bought-in to the story arc, and as with a promising book that drags on in the last few chapters I couldn't leave it unfinished. I considered it! But I'm immensely grateful that I didn't.
My main complaint with the last few seasons may seem familiar. I thought the mysteries of the island were turning out to be yet another stab at over-used good-vs.-evil metaphors, and that the ending of the story would leave me disappointed and unchallenged. Seriously! The good guy and the bad guy were even wearing white and black, respectively! C'mon!
The finale episode, "The End", changed my mind not only about the series, but about the capability of a television show to challenge even my cynical outlook. As usual, I have to credit the writers here, Damon Lindelof and Carleton Cuse (J.J. Abrams also has a writing credit for this episode, but I doubt he put pen to much paper). The richness of the story in the finale was something I did not expect from a scripted show on a major network in general, and from Lost in particular. Here are my thoughts about why the Lost finale is the greatest series finale in television history (bold words, I know!):
First, the episode made me happy. Before I started, I was expecting lots of banal reveals about the island, the Dharma Initiative, Jacob and the Man in Black, and maybe a final crossing over sequence (ironically I did get that one right). What I was given was a reminder that great drama is not about the setting ... it's not about the mystery ... it's not about special effects ... it's not even about the plot! No, great drama is about the characters; how they relate to each other, and how we relate to them. This finale unapologetically tells us that (in the words of Desmond) "what happens here [on the island] doesn't matter." That's right folks, everything that has drawn us in for 6 years, in truth, hasn't really mattered. The truth of the show has been happening right in front of us, without us really noticing. Jack and Kate, Hurley and Benjamin, Locke and Jack, Jin and Sun. The relationships are all that really mattered. The writers effectively slapped us upside the head and said, "Look at these people. They are the reasons you watch this show. They are what you care about. It's not about an island, or good vs. evil. It's about humans finding each other when they most need to be found themselves." The characters weren't "lost" on an island, they were simply "lost" ... until they found each other.
Second, the performances of the actors was simply unbelievable. I thought Matthew Fox and Evangeline Lily did particularly wonderful jobs here, but everyone laid it all on the table. They were all great. Some of my favorite moments included Hurley, as he takes on the protector mantle from Jack and has to say goodbye; when Jack first touches the sideways Kate at the concert and refuses to remember; and when Kate, Claire, and Charlie come together for Aaron's birth and remember together. I'm not ashamed to say I cried a bit each time. And, of course, the deus ex machina moment (subtly and wonderfully done) when Jack meets his dead father for a final moment of pure, raw relief. The range of emotion in the finale, from all the actors, was enough to impress anyone. I would be surprised if any of these fine actors ever does better.
Finally, the message of the finale. I'm sure there will be people who talk about the death, the rebirth, and the need to find your purpose before you "cross over" as messages in Lost. I'm not in that camp. I truly think the message here was all about the love and joy we all find in life every day from the other people in our lives while we are unfortunately caught up in the vagaries of our setting: our homes, our jobs, our hobbies, our islands. The fantasy of the show is that we will eventually find each and every person we need to live full and purposeful lives, whether we find them here or in some other reality. Normally, being the cynic I am, I roll my eyes and groan at heart-string schlock like that, but for some reason it worked beautifully in the Lost finale. As a result, I think today I will be more optimistic. Don't worry, I'm not going to invest lots of money in GM, or anything like that, but I'll put aside my misanthropic tendencies for a few days and see if I can live up to Jack's example. Or Locke's. Or Kate's, or even Charlie's!
I never expected to say this, but Lost ... thank you for reminding me that television can be surprising, and challenging, and wonderful. Now, if I could erase the last 20 years of reality programming all would be right with the world ...
P.S. -
Erica Durance, I love you.
Monday, May 24, 2010
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
How I Occasionally Get it Right
I'm nothing if not self-congratulatory. Remember when I pointed out my genius in predicting that 24 would not return for a 9th season? If no one else is going to pat me on the back, I have no problem giving my ownself mad props (I'm remarkably light on self-criticism, though. I leave that for you folks and the comments).
Haha, Frenchy! I'm back for more kudos to me! Back in March, I predicted that V would probably squeak through this season to return for a second season, even though it had an uphill slog due to some bad decisions on the part of ABC and it's genius scheduling personnel. Well, beloved readers, it seems like I lucked into a good call here. V will be back for another season, though it looks like we will have to wait until 2011 for new episodes after this season's run.
I know it's a little early, but I'm going to go ahead and predict that ABC will buy another 10-12 episodes of the show for 2011, but that will be the end of the show. It's viewership has steadily declined this year, but it managed to keep just enough buzz to survive. Unfortunately, while the writing started well and promised good quality, it has failed to deliver. The multiple plot lines have dragged on, the character motivation is on life support, and even the dialog written for Morena Baccarin, the creepy alien queen, has become pedestrian. With another long hiatus until the next season, the show will lose even more viewers, and I don't think ABC's marketing machine will be able to save it. Only spectacular writing could do that, and considering the show needed a writing bail-out this Spring but didn't get it ...?
If you are a V-lover, prepare yourself for a limited second season and then a curtain call. If a miracle happens and the show explodes into 2011 with gold-plated writing, I'll adjust my predictions. But don't hold your breath.
P.S. -
Erica Durance, I love you.
Haha, Frenchy! I'm back for more kudos to me! Back in March, I predicted that V would probably squeak through this season to return for a second season, even though it had an uphill slog due to some bad decisions on the part of ABC and it's genius scheduling personnel. Well, beloved readers, it seems like I lucked into a good call here. V will be back for another season, though it looks like we will have to wait until 2011 for new episodes after this season's run.
I know it's a little early, but I'm going to go ahead and predict that ABC will buy another 10-12 episodes of the show for 2011, but that will be the end of the show. It's viewership has steadily declined this year, but it managed to keep just enough buzz to survive. Unfortunately, while the writing started well and promised good quality, it has failed to deliver. The multiple plot lines have dragged on, the character motivation is on life support, and even the dialog written for Morena Baccarin, the creepy alien queen, has become pedestrian. With another long hiatus until the next season, the show will lose even more viewers, and I don't think ABC's marketing machine will be able to save it. Only spectacular writing could do that, and considering the show needed a writing bail-out this Spring but didn't get it ...?
If you are a V-lover, prepare yourself for a limited second season and then a curtain call. If a miracle happens and the show explodes into 2011 with gold-plated writing, I'll adjust my predictions. But don't hold your breath.
P.S. -
Erica Durance, I love you.
How to Pick a Bone With "Bones"
Maybe it's a result of getting older. Or maybe it's a symptom of the decline in overall tv programming quality available on the broadcast networks. Regardless of the cause, I find myself watching more crime shows than I would have a few years ago, and while it pains me to admit this: some of my favorites this year are, in fact, crime shows. The Mentalist, of course, has me hooked. Castle is also a fun show, though I haven't seen more than a few episodes yet; since it's been picked up for another season, I think I'll catch up this summer and jump into its Fall season with high expectations.
Given the dearth of solid one-hour dramas on broadcast tv, it's no surprise I've resorted to the well-sprung crime story to fill my copious tv time. Yet, I suspect this new penchant could be the result of something more Freudian because I'm also watching crime shows in my streaming Netflix/XBox list! Considering the thousands of available hours of decent tv available to stream, the fact that I've gone through 4 seasons of Bones is damning evidence that I might be growing up.
Don't panic, I won't be streaming episodes of Perry Mason or Hunter just yet. Having accepted my new crime drama exploration, though, I think it's time to simultaneously praise and complain about Bones.
The summary is this: I recommend Bones. As a crime drama it has pretty typical fare: weekly murder mysteries with a scientist/cop crime-solving duo as lead characters. The show manages to stay fresh by (paradoxically) using the Fox Network's winning formula of snarky, almost juvenile dialog coupled with mostly plausible hard science. It worked for X-Files, and it has worked for House, Fringe, and Bones as well. Fox seems to do this better than just about anyone else. CBS has a similar format with CSI, but that show fails to deliver the "fun" that Bones cranks out every week. As with any show that shines among its competitors, I credit the writers on Bones, and that means I have to credit the production company - 20th Century Fox Television - for making good choices when it comes to hiring good writers. A company like Alliance Atlantis Communications (the producers of CSI and its related spinoff CSI Miami), however, seems to prefer crank writers. Crank writers are the folks that can "crank out" dozens of episodes that are basically the same, following a paint-by-numbers television scheme. You can guess my feelings about these shows and crank writers.
Bones doesn't revel in the technical details like CSI. In fact, the great science in the show is secondary to the character interactions; I find myself really empathizing with the lab geeks in the show because their interpersonal dialog is only sometimes interrupted by talk of hydrocarbons and luminol. Ostensibly, the show is about a forensic anthropologist and her FBI partner, but the talented writers have made much more of the show. If you like the weekly murder format, you will find comfort in Bones, and if you demand more from your characters (more humanity, more weakness, more empathy) Bones delivers there too.
Now for the complaining. If you watch Bones, you will know exactly where I'm going with this. !!Spoiler Alert!! Skip to the next paragraph if you haven't seen the show and plan on watching it. Season 3 finale (Bones is currently in its 5th season and has been picked up for its sixth). Zack Addy. Serial Killer's Apprentice?! W... T... F...???
I can summarize the season 3 ending this way: Worst. Twist. Ever. In a general sense, I have nothing but good and laudable things to say about the writers on Bones, but sometimes when the mighty fall, they leave a gigantic crater of crap. The season 3 ending twist, while probably designed to write a character/actor out of the show with style, took ridiculously unbelievable to new heights of eye-rolling stupidity. I've trolled the interwebs for viewer comments, and without going into quotations and detail, I'll just say that I can't find anyone who thought tossing aside a beloved character this way was a good idea. I kept waiting for one of the main characters to wake up from a drug-induced hallucination, in fact I was begging for some trite do-over plot device when I started on season 4. No such luck.
And I must say, the show is weaker for the lack of [insert fired actor here]. The show hasn't completely succumbed to the 4th season curse (see e.g., Alias, 24, and West Wing), mostly thanks to the utterly compelling relationship between Angela and Hodgins, but I'm squinty with wariness now. In other words, I recommend the show, but I've got my eye on these writers. I'm hoping the 3rd season twist was a decision made at the production level that was forced on the writers. That won't excuse the writers for going along, but it at least gives me hope that they won't do it again. If they do - you'll see a future blog post right here, publicly retracting my recommendation. For now, however, give Bones a chance. And let me know what you think of the 3rd season twist.
P.S. -
Erica Durance, I love you.
Given the dearth of solid one-hour dramas on broadcast tv, it's no surprise I've resorted to the well-sprung crime story to fill my copious tv time. Yet, I suspect this new penchant could be the result of something more Freudian because I'm also watching crime shows in my streaming Netflix/XBox list! Considering the thousands of available hours of decent tv available to stream, the fact that I've gone through 4 seasons of Bones is damning evidence that I might be growing up.
Don't panic, I won't be streaming episodes of Perry Mason or Hunter just yet. Having accepted my new crime drama exploration, though, I think it's time to simultaneously praise and complain about Bones.
The summary is this: I recommend Bones. As a crime drama it has pretty typical fare: weekly murder mysteries with a scientist/cop crime-solving duo as lead characters. The show manages to stay fresh by (paradoxically) using the Fox Network's winning formula of snarky, almost juvenile dialog coupled with mostly plausible hard science. It worked for X-Files, and it has worked for House, Fringe, and Bones as well. Fox seems to do this better than just about anyone else. CBS has a similar format with CSI, but that show fails to deliver the "fun" that Bones cranks out every week. As with any show that shines among its competitors, I credit the writers on Bones, and that means I have to credit the production company - 20th Century Fox Television - for making good choices when it comes to hiring good writers. A company like Alliance Atlantis Communications (the producers of CSI and its related spinoff CSI Miami), however, seems to prefer crank writers. Crank writers are the folks that can "crank out" dozens of episodes that are basically the same, following a paint-by-numbers television scheme. You can guess my feelings about these shows and crank writers.
Bones doesn't revel in the technical details like CSI. In fact, the great science in the show is secondary to the character interactions; I find myself really empathizing with the lab geeks in the show because their interpersonal dialog is only sometimes interrupted by talk of hydrocarbons and luminol. Ostensibly, the show is about a forensic anthropologist and her FBI partner, but the talented writers have made much more of the show. If you like the weekly murder format, you will find comfort in Bones, and if you demand more from your characters (more humanity, more weakness, more empathy) Bones delivers there too.
Now for the complaining. If you watch Bones, you will know exactly where I'm going with this. !!Spoiler Alert!! Skip to the next paragraph if you haven't seen the show and plan on watching it. Season 3 finale (Bones is currently in its 5th season and has been picked up for its sixth). Zack Addy. Serial Killer's Apprentice?! W... T... F...???
I can summarize the season 3 ending this way: Worst. Twist. Ever. In a general sense, I have nothing but good and laudable things to say about the writers on Bones, but sometimes when the mighty fall, they leave a gigantic crater of crap. The season 3 ending twist, while probably designed to write a character/actor out of the show with style, took ridiculously unbelievable to new heights of eye-rolling stupidity. I've trolled the interwebs for viewer comments, and without going into quotations and detail, I'll just say that I can't find anyone who thought tossing aside a beloved character this way was a good idea. I kept waiting for one of the main characters to wake up from a drug-induced hallucination, in fact I was begging for some trite do-over plot device when I started on season 4. No such luck.
And I must say, the show is weaker for the lack of [insert fired actor here]. The show hasn't completely succumbed to the 4th season curse (see e.g., Alias, 24, and West Wing), mostly thanks to the utterly compelling relationship between Angela and Hodgins, but I'm squinty with wariness now. In other words, I recommend the show, but I've got my eye on these writers. I'm hoping the 3rd season twist was a decision made at the production level that was forced on the writers. That won't excuse the writers for going along, but it at least gives me hope that they won't do it again. If they do - you'll see a future blog post right here, publicly retracting my recommendation. For now, however, give Bones a chance. And let me know what you think of the 3rd season twist.
P.S. -
Erica Durance, I love you.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Why They Are All the "Biggest Loser"
In a previous post, I tried to justify why I watch The Biggest Loser. I'm not proud of it, but my basic argument was that shows like The Biggest Loser are really just modern game shows; they're not as fundamentally despicable as the traditional reality shows like The Bachelor and The Real World. This is one of those moments where I demonstrate to everyone why this blog is called The Loaded Diaper. Because I was full of crap. I was rationalizing a TV habit that I'm not proud of.
Well friends, admitting that you have a problem is the first step in the recovery process, right? This week, after watching the most recent episode of The Biggest Loser, I've finally admitted that this show is not a game show. It's not a contest. It's not an uplifiting story of personal struggle or of overcoming obstacles. Let's be honest. Shows like The Biggest Loser, Extreme Makeover: Home Edition, Tough Love, and others that add an element of competition to the traditional reality show model have not improved the format. They haven't even changed the format. The Biggest Loser and its ilk have only made TV, and frankly our culture, less rich.
I know, I know ... this isn't funny. But who else is going to tell you that your habit of watching reality TV is strangling your ability to grow as a human? Huh? No one, that's who.
What made me change my mind? Here it is: I watched a complete episode of The Biggest Loser without fast-forwarding through the melodramatic parts, testing myself. If you watch the show, you know exactly what I'm talking about. Examples: Jillian or Bob "decide" that one of the participants is having a rough day in the gym, take this person outside, then poke and prod the contestant into an emotional breakdown - complete with synthesized heart-string progression chord muzak in the background; or how about the tear-streaked appeals when the contestants have to make their case every week that they should be able to stay at the ranch; or my personal favorite, the voice-over commentary from the participants describing every moment of a workout while trying to wring maximum drama out of problems that everyone faces on a daily basis. I usually fast-forward through this eye-rolling garbage, but I thought I'd try to endure the full-press Biggest Loser treatment this week.
Frankly, I was disgusted. I knew it was bad, but I don't think I truly appreciated how badly contrived and exploitative these shows are. I used to think The Learning Channel was TV's answer to the early 20th Century freak show, but I realize now it is actually NBC.
This week on The Biggest Loser, the show's producers brought back 2 previous winners to speak to the final 5 participants. If you ever bought into the illusion that this show actually helps people, this week your hopes were dashed. One of the returning winners has obviously worked hard and kept a lot of her weight off. The other returning winner gained almost all of his 217 pounds back, and was going through another cycle of workout/starvation to try and lose it again. It should be obvious there's a problem if you can't find two previous winners out of nine seasons that have managed to keep the weight off. Reality check: statistically, almost all of the contestants on this show will gain most, if not all, of their weight back when they leave the controlled environment of the ranch. This show isn't helping people, it's merely aggrandizing the exploitation of people who need serious long-term care.
Please, people! Can we decide as an enlightened culture that we no longer need to revel in the misery of others to find our entertainment? Haven't we evolved beyond gladiatorial displays of competition that eat away at our sense of community? All of the contestants on this show have lost, and so have we for watching. I, for one, have seen my last episode of The Biggest Loser.
Remember that anti-littering commercial with the Native American shaman who sheds a single tear when he sees a discarded plastic bottle on the roadside? After that, I felt guilty about shedding skin cells in public. We need another one of those campaigns ... maybe with Thomas Jefferson or Martin Luther King, Jr. packing up and moving to Canada after watching an episode of The Bachelorette.
P.S. -
Erica Durance, I love you.
Well friends, admitting that you have a problem is the first step in the recovery process, right? This week, after watching the most recent episode of The Biggest Loser, I've finally admitted that this show is not a game show. It's not a contest. It's not an uplifiting story of personal struggle or of overcoming obstacles. Let's be honest. Shows like The Biggest Loser, Extreme Makeover: Home Edition, Tough Love, and others that add an element of competition to the traditional reality show model have not improved the format. They haven't even changed the format. The Biggest Loser and its ilk have only made TV, and frankly our culture, less rich.
I know, I know ... this isn't funny. But who else is going to tell you that your habit of watching reality TV is strangling your ability to grow as a human? Huh? No one, that's who.
What made me change my mind? Here it is: I watched a complete episode of The Biggest Loser without fast-forwarding through the melodramatic parts, testing myself. If you watch the show, you know exactly what I'm talking about. Examples: Jillian or Bob "decide" that one of the participants is having a rough day in the gym, take this person outside, then poke and prod the contestant into an emotional breakdown - complete with synthesized heart-string progression chord muzak in the background; or how about the tear-streaked appeals when the contestants have to make their case every week that they should be able to stay at the ranch; or my personal favorite, the voice-over commentary from the participants describing every moment of a workout while trying to wring maximum drama out of problems that everyone faces on a daily basis. I usually fast-forward through this eye-rolling garbage, but I thought I'd try to endure the full-press Biggest Loser treatment this week.
Frankly, I was disgusted. I knew it was bad, but I don't think I truly appreciated how badly contrived and exploitative these shows are. I used to think The Learning Channel was TV's answer to the early 20th Century freak show, but I realize now it is actually NBC.
This week on The Biggest Loser, the show's producers brought back 2 previous winners to speak to the final 5 participants. If you ever bought into the illusion that this show actually helps people, this week your hopes were dashed. One of the returning winners has obviously worked hard and kept a lot of her weight off. The other returning winner gained almost all of his 217 pounds back, and was going through another cycle of workout/starvation to try and lose it again. It should be obvious there's a problem if you can't find two previous winners out of nine seasons that have managed to keep the weight off. Reality check: statistically, almost all of the contestants on this show will gain most, if not all, of their weight back when they leave the controlled environment of the ranch. This show isn't helping people, it's merely aggrandizing the exploitation of people who need serious long-term care.
Please, people! Can we decide as an enlightened culture that we no longer need to revel in the misery of others to find our entertainment? Haven't we evolved beyond gladiatorial displays of competition that eat away at our sense of community? All of the contestants on this show have lost, and so have we for watching. I, for one, have seen my last episode of The Biggest Loser.
Remember that anti-littering commercial with the Native American shaman who sheds a single tear when he sees a discarded plastic bottle on the roadside? After that, I felt guilty about shedding skin cells in public. We need another one of those campaigns ... maybe with Thomas Jefferson or Martin Luther King, Jr. packing up and moving to Canada after watching an episode of The Bachelorette.
P.S. -
Erica Durance, I love you.
Monday, May 10, 2010
How Brian's Vomit Brought Me Back to "Family Guy"
I used to be a Family Guy groupie. I was the annoying guy at the party who incessantly quoted Stewie, particularly the episode where he tries to collect a gambling debt from Brian: "Don't forget! Ehhhhh, you're not gonna forget!" I looked forward to every Sunday, when I knew I would be doubled over in hysterics, waiting for Peter to break into another refrain from "Bird is the Word."
You can imagine my lament, therefore, when Family Guy started to suck. Yep, it sucked. All year it has sucked. That means I've had a long series of un-funny Sundays. Props to the Bangles, but Sunday was definitely no longer my "funday".
For those of you who never really appreciated the unique Family Guy humor, you may wonder why it took so long for me to become inured to its admittedly offensive blend of raunch, wit, and overkill. I honestly don't know. I don't think the quality of Family Guy is measurably worse than it used to be. I think I'm just bored with the excruciatingly gross jokes. In particular, last week's episode "Brian and Stewie" made me consider taking the show out of Tivo rotation. In that episode, Stewie and Brian get caught in a bank vault over the weekend, and have to entertain/sustain each other (and ostensibly me) for an extended 40 minute episode. It was horrible. I don't necessarily think there is a "line" that can be crossed with offensive comedy - even defining such a line makes it fodder for comedy, doesn't it? - but opening an episode with Brian eating the contents of Stewie's dirty diaper was a bit much even for me. And it wasn't even funny. Maybe that's why I'm bored with the show ... it's still extremely disgusting, but it's no longer funny.
That is ... I was bored until this week's episode, "Glen's Dad", in which Glen's war hero dad undergoes a sex change, yadda yadda, Brian ends up sleeping with shim. The episode was decidedly unfunny right up until Brian discovers the truth about "Ida." Stewie breaks the news to him, and Brian goes through a little cat-vomit seizure (you know exactly what I'm talking about), then proceeds to projectile vomit for at least 20 seconds straight. The detail here is what had me rolling .... the steady accumulation of vomit ... Stewie backing away in horror ... the mutual screams of terror from both Stewie and Brian when he finishes. I laughed so hard, I had trouble breathing for a solid minute.
While the series is still on my probation list, I won't take it off the Tivo this week. Hopefully, the season so far has just been a dry spell, and the oasis of Brian's vomit will lead to a lush wonderland of Stewie quotes for my party list. Hopefully.
P.S. -
Erica Durance, I love you.
You can imagine my lament, therefore, when Family Guy started to suck. Yep, it sucked. All year it has sucked. That means I've had a long series of un-funny Sundays. Props to the Bangles, but Sunday was definitely no longer my "funday".
For those of you who never really appreciated the unique Family Guy humor, you may wonder why it took so long for me to become inured to its admittedly offensive blend of raunch, wit, and overkill. I honestly don't know. I don't think the quality of Family Guy is measurably worse than it used to be. I think I'm just bored with the excruciatingly gross jokes. In particular, last week's episode "Brian and Stewie" made me consider taking the show out of Tivo rotation. In that episode, Stewie and Brian get caught in a bank vault over the weekend, and have to entertain/sustain each other (and ostensibly me) for an extended 40 minute episode. It was horrible. I don't necessarily think there is a "line" that can be crossed with offensive comedy - even defining such a line makes it fodder for comedy, doesn't it? - but opening an episode with Brian eating the contents of Stewie's dirty diaper was a bit much even for me. And it wasn't even funny. Maybe that's why I'm bored with the show ... it's still extremely disgusting, but it's no longer funny.
That is ... I was bored until this week's episode, "Glen's Dad", in which Glen's war hero dad undergoes a sex change, yadda yadda, Brian ends up sleeping with shim. The episode was decidedly unfunny right up until Brian discovers the truth about "Ida." Stewie breaks the news to him, and Brian goes through a little cat-vomit seizure (you know exactly what I'm talking about), then proceeds to projectile vomit for at least 20 seconds straight. The detail here is what had me rolling .... the steady accumulation of vomit ... Stewie backing away in horror ... the mutual screams of terror from both Stewie and Brian when he finishes. I laughed so hard, I had trouble breathing for a solid minute.
While the series is still on my probation list, I won't take it off the Tivo this week. Hopefully, the season so far has just been a dry spell, and the oasis of Brian's vomit will lead to a lush wonderland of Stewie quotes for my party list. Hopefully.
P.S. -
Erica Durance, I love you.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
What I've Been Trying to Say ...
On occasion I have difficulty putting my thoughts together in a coherent, well-packaged message that informs and entertains. Sort of like that sentence. Fortunately for me (and for you), everything I think is the spawn of some other person's original idea - that's probably why my only humor comes from quoting John Hughes movies - and sometimes I am lucky enough to have access to those original ideas.
A reader sent me a link recently to a short article (really just a lengthy answer to a complex question) written by a TV executive about why networks do not provide more online access to popular TV shows.
I recommend anyone who enjoys television should read this brief essay. The executive does a nice job of explaining why you can't just go to www.nbc.com and download an entire season of The Apprentice to your iPod. I find his explanation more complete and easier to understand than most of the information I've seen on this issue, but you know I have some comments. Read the essay, and also check out the first three comments, then come back ....
So? What did you think? Yeah, I don't care. Here's what I think:
1. While the information Mr. Engler lays out is correct, I think he leaves out one important detail. Namely, that American networks have most of the bargaining power in the interaction between production studios and tv networks, at least until a show becomes a huge hit. That means that a network like CBS or SyFy can basically dictate how a show will be presented on the network - including time slots, lead-ins, re-runs, and advertisers. Long time readers (you know, those of you who've been around since March, 2010) will remember this post about programs that were canceled for various reasons, and how Fox has a tendency to kill its shows by mucking around with the air times. Thus, I find Mr. Engler's not-so-subtle "Don't blame us!" subtext a bit disingenuous. I'm confident that if SyFy wanted to show lots of streaming content, they could bully their production studios into releasing the rights. Of course, that would be a lose-lose situation for both the network and the production studio. The network would lose lucrative advertising revenue from lost viewership (don't kid yourself into thinking online advertisers would make up for it. If you think that, you probably bought a lot of stock in pets.com back in 2000), and the production studio would lose licensing revenue. Mr. Engler is dead-on about that;
2. Check out comment # 3 for Mr. Engler's article. Whoever left this comment (like me) is brilliant and absolutely correct. Television networks, both broadcast and cable, are operating under a 50 year old business model that can't keep up with technology trends. Some of you who understand how the Nielsen rating system works will instantly get this: we've been torturing tv metrics and revenue models since VHS came onto the scene in order to give advertisers and producers bad information about viewership habits. Why? So the bean-counters can prevent the collapse of the tv business model. Like commenter # 3, however, I think the long-delayed collapse is now inevitable. Networks and producers will be forced to adapt to streaming technology and the more diverse viewing habits of modern tv watchers. For more, see most of my previous posts, including this one about how we will be watching tv in the next decade; and
3. Predictably, I think Apple has a few lessons for the networks. Soon, production studios will learn that with a little savvy deal-making, they can make more money off their shows by streaming them direct to viewers. Apple saw this coming with music and got ahead of the blast zone by developing iTunes. Now Apple gets a cut from each artist without having to develop any content at all. In essence, Apple is an aggregate-or of content. Sort of like a tv network in a streaming format, without the advertisers. I wonder if anyone at Fox or HBO is paying attention to this trend? I would bet they are, and if the major networks don't have teams of business analysts trying to figure out how to set up their own streaming aggregate format - they're idiots. Idiots with very short business life-spans. Once again (I should be getting royalties for this), I'm going to plug Netflix. Can I call this? Yep ... coming soon to an XBox or Playstation near you ... The Netflix Network, with exclusive, original content. Deadwood season 4, anyone?
P.S.
Erica Durance, I love you.
A reader sent me a link recently to a short article (really just a lengthy answer to a complex question) written by a TV executive about why networks do not provide more online access to popular TV shows.
I recommend anyone who enjoys television should read this brief essay. The executive does a nice job of explaining why you can't just go to www.nbc.com and download an entire season of The Apprentice to your iPod. I find his explanation more complete and easier to understand than most of the information I've seen on this issue, but you know I have some comments. Read the essay, and also check out the first three comments, then come back ....
So? What did you think? Yeah, I don't care. Here's what I think:
1. While the information Mr. Engler lays out is correct, I think he leaves out one important detail. Namely, that American networks have most of the bargaining power in the interaction between production studios and tv networks, at least until a show becomes a huge hit. That means that a network like CBS or SyFy can basically dictate how a show will be presented on the network - including time slots, lead-ins, re-runs, and advertisers. Long time readers (you know, those of you who've been around since March, 2010) will remember this post about programs that were canceled for various reasons, and how Fox has a tendency to kill its shows by mucking around with the air times. Thus, I find Mr. Engler's not-so-subtle "Don't blame us!" subtext a bit disingenuous. I'm confident that if SyFy wanted to show lots of streaming content, they could bully their production studios into releasing the rights. Of course, that would be a lose-lose situation for both the network and the production studio. The network would lose lucrative advertising revenue from lost viewership (don't kid yourself into thinking online advertisers would make up for it. If you think that, you probably bought a lot of stock in pets.com back in 2000), and the production studio would lose licensing revenue. Mr. Engler is dead-on about that;
2. Check out comment # 3 for Mr. Engler's article. Whoever left this comment (like me) is brilliant and absolutely correct. Television networks, both broadcast and cable, are operating under a 50 year old business model that can't keep up with technology trends. Some of you who understand how the Nielsen rating system works will instantly get this: we've been torturing tv metrics and revenue models since VHS came onto the scene in order to give advertisers and producers bad information about viewership habits. Why? So the bean-counters can prevent the collapse of the tv business model. Like commenter # 3, however, I think the long-delayed collapse is now inevitable. Networks and producers will be forced to adapt to streaming technology and the more diverse viewing habits of modern tv watchers. For more, see most of my previous posts, including this one about how we will be watching tv in the next decade; and
3. Predictably, I think Apple has a few lessons for the networks. Soon, production studios will learn that with a little savvy deal-making, they can make more money off their shows by streaming them direct to viewers. Apple saw this coming with music and got ahead of the blast zone by developing iTunes. Now Apple gets a cut from each artist without having to develop any content at all. In essence, Apple is an aggregate-or of content. Sort of like a tv network in a streaming format, without the advertisers. I wonder if anyone at Fox or HBO is paying attention to this trend? I would bet they are, and if the major networks don't have teams of business analysts trying to figure out how to set up their own streaming aggregate format - they're idiots. Idiots with very short business life-spans. Once again (I should be getting royalties for this), I'm going to plug Netflix. Can I call this? Yep ... coming soon to an XBox or Playstation near you ... The Netflix Network, with exclusive, original content. Deadwood season 4, anyone?
P.S.
Erica Durance, I love you.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)