TV Past the Aughts

2010-06-28T16:56:00.001-04:00

2010-06-07T22:42:00.003-04:00

2010-06-02T23:28:00.001-04:00

2010-06-01T00:38:00.002-04:00

24

2010-05-26T01:00:00.002-04:00

lost

2010-05-23T17:50:00.001-04:00

oc photo

2010-05-11T20:53:00.002-04:00

More on the Hulu Plus move

2010-05-01T13:39:00.000-04:00

To recap: After much speculation, reports surfaced this week that Hulu will begin beta-testing Hulu Plus, a $9.95 monthly subscription at the end of next month. Some critics think the move is too late, others just in time. Some suggest $10 is too expensive, others too cheap. In a way, they are all correct.

On one hand, convincing users to pay for something they could use just last week for free is a dicey plan and could lead to a backlash against, and migration from, Hulu.

Plus, $10 is a steep price to start with, even in testing. As I suggested a few months back, various tiers — $5, $10 and more — with different levels of content access might be smarter economically and regarding brand loyalty. And without any iPad or iPhone application and any non-computer-related delivery system period, paying for content most people already received through their cable service is not that appealing.

On the other hand, the content most people seemingly access Hulu for — watching last night’s or last week’s episode they missed — will still be free under this new pay system. That means the Hulu Plus subscription could open up entire series archives to a user, and perhaps people could find value in $120 per year for access to all seasons of popular series such as “24,” “Lost,” “The Office” and maybe even some old, not-currently-on-the-site series. However, it’s still unknown what will be offered behind the Hulu Plus wall, making this all speculation.

But if Hulu Plus gets off the ground successfully, perhaps with an iPad application, the game will be changed.

At that point, Hulu would then surely introduce different tiered and even bundled models as an attempt to bring in more revenue and users. It wouldn’t be a shock to see them offer two distinctive services based on users’ access to cable, maybe $5 to $10 for those who pay for cable, $25 or more for those who do not. Or even two distinct models for people who can stand 30-second ads and those who cannot. Throw in bundles and some a la carte options and Hulu could suddenly turn into this decade’s iTunes store.

Those moves could lead to an intense competition between Hulu, iTunes and Netflix because Hulu could start to offer a combination of the services the other two already do. Hell, the cable companies might want in on the fight as well.

For the television and film industries, there will be more desire to produce Hulu-only content thanks to the additional revenue coming in. Networks and companies currently on the outside of the Hulu reach such as Viacom and Time Warner might join in. It wouldn’t be shocking to see some sort of views counter introduced either, to give studios and fans more of an idea of what’s hot and what’s not. Finally, there would surely be more legal battles over online streaming fees and royalties.

For fans, it will be a time of transition but will ultimately lead to a better user experience. Once the application comes along, users will be able to access their Hulu accounts from their computers, smart phones, iPads and definitely televisions. We can also expect more customization — playlists, better search tools, recommendations and more — once Hulu grows in stature.

Hulu’s introductory move could serve as a watershed moment for the monetization of online video streaming. Or it could be a substantial failure. But no matter what the results are, Hulu’s play has crucial implications for viewers and industries alike.

Innovations, er, "Innovations" from broadcast networks -- FOX

2010-04-26T04:29:00.010-04:00

Curious to what this all means? Read my introduction to this multi-post series.

My goodness, epic apologies are in order. I remember (barely) when I started this project and hoped to run through the past five years of development for the four major broadcast networks in less than a week. Well, here we are nearly a month later and I'm still only halfway through. This is what happens when you're a graduating senior working two jobs and trying to organize plans for fall. Stupid life.

Anyway, let's get back to it with FOX.

Like CBS, we tend to think FOX has had a good run since 2005. Did I find that to be the case?

For the most part, yes.

FOX has aired the second least amount of new series, with 51 hitting the airwaves since the 2005-2006 season (that barely misses CBS' mark of 50). FOX's success rate is also closest to the Eyeball's, with 31 percent making it more than a season (as compared to the 36 percent for CBS).

Where they started

In the early part of the decade, FOX was still working out the kinks of its newfound, American Idol-induced domination. The Idol-24 combination was the flagship of their schedule, along with the Sunday night animated comedies. The O.C. was already burning out, just two seasons in. But aside from the new, but far from its apex House, FOX hadn't quite figured out how to develop series around its hits and create more of a brand for itself.

2005-2006

Total new series: 12

Drama: 5; Prison Break, Bones, Killer Instinct, Head Cases, Reunion
Single-camera sitcom: 3; The Loop, Kitchen Confidential, Free Ride
Competition reality: 2; Unan1mous, Skating with Celebrities
Multi-camera sitcom: 1; The War at Home
Animated: 1; American Dad

Total number of series that lasted more than one season: 5 (Prison Break, Bones, The Loop, The War at Home, American Dad); more than two seasons: 3 (Prison Break, Bones and American Dad).

Character type count: Cops (2), Young Pros (1), Cooks (1), Family (1), Idiots (1), Serial group (1), Fugitives (1), Lawyers (1), Animated family (1)

Thoughts: Solid year for FOX here, with three newbies lasting for a substantial amount of time. Bones and American Dad are still around and doing very well and Break lasted four good years. On the other hand, some of these series are beyond forgettable, so much so that I can't imagine anyone knows what Free Ride was about. Oh, Skating with Celebs, what a classic.

Any innovation? Negative.

2006-2007

Total new series: 14

Drama: 5; Drive, Justice, Standoff, Vanished, The Wedding Belles
Multi-camera sitcom: 3; The Winner, Til Death, Happy Hour
Game: 3; Rich List, Don't Forget the Lyrics, Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader?
Competition reality: 2; Celebrity Duets, On the Lot
Reality: 1; Anchorwoman

Total number of series that lasted more than one season: 3 (Til Death, Don't Forget the Lyrics, Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader?); more than two seasons: 1 (Til Death)

Character type count: Family (1), Young Pros (1), Idiots (1), Serial group (1), Lawyers (1), Cops (1), Politicians (1), Weddings (1)

Thoughts: Ew. Rough year for FOX. The two game successes slithered around for three years until finally going away and somehow the network always finds a place for Til Death even thought absolutely everyone hates it. Hates it! The drama development shows that FOX was trying to develop both more procedurals (Justice, Standoff) because at that point Bones wasn't that big of a hit and the net had little else in that department and also more serials (the other three) to pair with 24. None of which worked, mostly because they sucked. Except for Drive, it was at least compelling. Also: remember Happy Hour? Yeah, me neither.

Any innovation? If you mean one of the worst slates of programming during the period, then yes. Lots of innovation.

2007-2008

Total new series: 12

Drama: 4; Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles, K-Ville, New Amsterdam, Canterbury's Law
Multi-camera sitcom: 2; The Return of Jezebel James, Back to You
Reality: 2; Kitchen Nightmares, Nashville
Game: 2; Hole in the Wall, Moment of Truth
Single-camera sitcom: 1; Unhitched
Competition reality: 1; Next Great American Band

Total number of series that lasted more than one season: 3 (Terminator, Kitchen Nightmares, Moment of Truth); more than two seasons: 1 (Kitchen Nightmares)

Character type count: Cops (2), Lawyers (1), Robots (1), Idiots (1), Girl Power (1), News media (1)

Thoughts: Ew. Again. More failed drama series, more horrible comedies and more dumb game shows. Makes perfect sense for FOX. Those three comedies were three of the worst I watched full episodes of over this five-year period. Interestingly, though, is the diversity in character types, which suggests that FOX was trying to reach a wide variety of people over this period.

Any innovation? Shooting on location in New Orleans post-Katrina for K-Ville was cool and a lot of people talked about the insanity of Moment of Truth, so that's something.

2008-2009

Total new series: 8

Drama: 5; Fringe, Dollhouse, Lie to Me, Mental, Virtuality (failed backdoor pilot)
Animated: 1; Sit Down, Shut Up
Competition reality: 1; More to Love
Multi-camera sitcom: 1; Do Not Disturb

Total number of series that lasted more than one season: 3 (Fringe, Lie to Me, Dollhouse); more than two seasons: 1* (Fringe, Lie to Me's renewal is up in the air)

Character type count: Doctors (1), Astronauts (1), Supernatural cop (1), Serial group (1), Science team (1), Animated group (1), Young Pros (1)

Thoughts: With older series gaining more popularity -- House, Bones, Hell's Kitchen -- FOX wasn't as damaged by the WGA strike as other networks and its solid drama slate made things even better. The three series that made it to a second season were all great in their own ways and gave the network two procedurals with a twist (Fringe, Lie to Me). Also have to give them props for giving Dollhouse a chance. Oh, and let us not mention the epic disappointment that was Sit Down, Shut Up. Again, complete diversity in character type.

Any innovation? The procedural-mythology balance struck by Fringe is a nice touch that could alter broadcast serialization for the future and they picked up on cable's ability to make a procedural interesting with one cool lead character on Lie to Me. And Dollhouse was just innovative in general.

2009-2010

Total new series: 5

Drama: 2; Human Target, Glee (obviously neither comedy or drama really, but it's definitely not a sitcom, so here's fine)
Single-camera sitcom: 1; Sons of Tuscon
Multi-camera sitcom: 1; Brothers
Animated: 1; The Cleveland Show

Total number of series that lasted more than one season: 2* (Glee, Cleveland Show, with Target up in the air); more than two seasons: N/A

Character type count: Hero (1), HS Musical (1), Idiots (1), Family (1), Animated family (1)

Thoughts: If anything, this small development slate proves how successful FOX has been at building up its brand and keeping content on the air for an extended period of time. The two series at the top are very solid and both should return next season. The comedies, again, are awful, which is certainly a trend to look at.

Any innovation? What hasn't already been said about Glee?

Final wrap-up
Total number of series: 51

Drama: 21
Multi-camera sitcom: 8
Competition reality: 6
Single-camera sitcom: 6
Game: 5
Animated: 3
Reality: 2

Total number of series that made it past one season: 16; 31 percent

Final character type count: Cops (5), Family (4), Idiots (4), Animated (3), Young Pros (3), Lawyers (3), Serial group (2), Robots (1), Wedding (1), Doctors (1), Politicians (1), Fugitives (1), HS Musical (1), Supernatural cops (1), News media (1), Cook (1), Hero (1), Girl Power (1), Science team (1), Astronauts (1)

Final thoughts: FOX's success is obviously laced with the Idol glow, but in the latter half of the decade the network was able to use its primary success like the reality competition giant, House and 24 as lead-ins to create more sizable hits like Prison Break, Bones, Fringe, Glee, Lie to Me and Kitchen Nightmares. And even when FOX had bad years -- like 2006-2007 most notably -- the hits could keep things from getting too depressing.

But the most important point to note is the total lack of commitment to live-action comedy development. If Til Death is your most successful sitcom in five years, you have problems. And though Glee gets nominated in comedy/musical categories, it doesn't really fit anywhere and doesn't count towards FOX's sitcom development in this case. If FOX wants to extend its brand further, improving in comedy is the first step.

Moreover, it will be interesting to watch FOX deal with its older series in the next few years. 24 is on the way out, American Idol could be pushed out by X Factor and So You Think You Can Dance? didn't quite stick in the fall like it did in the summer. And House and Bones are old (thus presumably expensive). The network's slate has decreased in the past few years and that can't continue if FOX expects to replenish in proper ways.

Hulu attempts to monetize -- My reaction

2010-04-24T19:54:00.000-04:00

The time has finally come.

This week, Hulu brass announced their intentions to start charging for certain bundles of content.

Pay content on Hulu will begin "testing" on May 24 under the moniker "Hulu Plus," which will see a $9.95 monthly subscription base for content past the usual four-to-six new episodes of current series.

This is something that has been discussed all through media circles for over a year, including my proposal just a few months ago. So obviously, there are a variety of opinions on the matter. All Things Digital's Peter Kafka wonders if it's both too much and too little. VideoNuze's Will Richmond says that's definitely too late for Hulu to successfully try something like this. And PaidContent's James McQuivey thinks it's about time.

In a weird way, all of these opinions on the matter seem right to me. 120 bucks for something that people thought of as "free" less than a week ago is a steep fee -- especially from the jump. Moreover, three years in, people are now so used to and expect Hulu to be free that paying for content isn't going to set that well with them. If we've learned anything over the years, it's that you cannot give people something for free and then flip the switch to make them pay.

That is why, as I suggested previously, Hulu should have introduced more variety into their pay structure. That $10/month fee will scare people away from the get-go. Heck, I can even see some people moving away from the service totally because maybe they've only heard parts of the story and think that the fee applies to all videos (Some people are dense). I understand the need to try out a pay model in some way, but going too far, too fast might lead Hulu to lose some brand loyalty that they should not have if they implemented both a $5 and $10 option.

However, I can see the arguments for $10. One, it seems the content that people use Hulu for (seemingly, since there are not released data points on this) is brand new episodes they missed the night or week before and based on the stories, all those episodes will still be free. Thus, most Hulu users might not be affected by this at all. Though, on the other hand, if most users only use the content that's remaining free, the revenue earned from the pay tier won't be worth it anyway.

Secondly, we are still unclear of what will behind the Hulu Plus paywall. If they're going to offer full libraries of series, even series they don't offer now, then it might drum up some interest from people. If they offered, say, all eight seasons of 24 or all six seasons of The Office paying $10 a month could definitely be worth it to some people. In that respect, not much different from Netflix.

Except, Hulu is still only offering computer-based content, which brings us to the final point: the app. We all know/hope that there's going to be an iPad application released within the next year and if Hulu decides to charge for the app and then pair it with this pay plan, there could be a nice little bit of revenue earned there. But without that, or without any non-computer-based viewing possible, the subscription feels less effective.

This story is going to keep changing and only get more compelling as we go on. Soon, I'll write up some thoughts about what these means for the industry.

In which I worry about 'Glee'

2010-04-21T19:32:00.001-04:00

I think Glee is in trouble.

Not to offend all you Gleeks out there, because I consider myself a major fan of the series, but something is just...off about the first two episodes back. I cannot put my finger on it. Is it the long lay-off between the first 13 episodes and the back nine? Is it the overwhelming sense that the series has been overhyped during that period? Not really, because I expected that.

It’s just that these first two episodes haven’t been very good. That or I am now suddenly aware of all the problems that have existed with Glee since the beginning. One of those two.

And I hate to be one of those people who fully aligns with this beautiful backlash time crafted by New York magazine’s Vulture Blog, but sometimes the truth is the truth. Because the biggest, most glaring issue with “Hello-O” and “The Power of Madonna” is the excess and use of music. The plan for the back nine was to include more and more music than the opening 13, and so far they’ve definitely succeeded with that plan.

I totally understand that the music is the primary reason the series is so popular; I love it too. I can also completely understand why FOX wants to pump up the music output. More songs equals more iTunes sales and compilation releases -- like the “Power of Madonna” EP that hit this week -- which obviously means more cash.

But when the series has proven that they can take the music and make it fit thematically, any time they do not is just severely disappointing. These first two episodes have fallen in to that category.

Even though I was shocked to get any explanation for why an entire episode was being dedicated to the Material Girl at all, the “you guys are being mean to girls, let them be powerful” line didn’t quite cut it. And frankly, “Hell-O” was even worse in that department.

Thus, when the music doesn’t fit thematically, I’ve begun to notice more of the problems that I was seemingly blind to earlier in the season because I hoped it would improve. You know, like the lack of continuity in character from episode to episode, the ridiculously too-fast pacing and the repetitive nature of the stories.

If the writers are trying to avoid dulling interest in the will-they-or-won’t-they will Finn and Rachel by having them go through eight episodes of drama just in “Hello-O,” consider me uninterested. And I know the whole “we have to place at [enter competition here] or glee club is canceled” thing worked magically in the first 13, but c’mon, again?

It was mostly obvious that the disease of more was going to infect this series on its way to becoming a cultural phenomenon, but I’m a bit surprised it has happened so soon. I can take the spew of public appearances, commercials, supplemental content -- all of it really -- if it doesn’t murder the content within the program. And that might not even be the case here, but it’s hard to not draw a connection.

Glee is giving people what the want, but in the end, it won’t be what’s best for the series -- or the fans. “The Power of Madonna” is a pivot point for the series, where now we can expect more of everything. You might enjoy it now, but rarely do series come back from things like this.

NBC Universal profit sinks

2010-04-17T23:16:00.000-04:00

NBC Universal released its profit information for the first quarter, and as to be expected, it is not good.

Will NBC ever be able to right the ship?
According to a Friday article in Broadcasting & Cable, the first quarter 2010 profit fell a staggering 49 percent from the same time in 2009. 49 percent! NBCU profit dipped all the way to $199 million, whereas it pushed near $400 million for the same quarter last year.

What's even more insane is that the article notes that the Olympic coverage lost NBCU "only" $223 million, compared to the $250 million they expected to lose.

Hold on. In what world -- no matter the terrible economic conditions -- is a loss of $233 million on a three week, MAJOR event a good thing? I know that articles from back January noted how NBCU would lose money on the Games because of rising licensing fees and declining ad revenues, but wow. The fact that NBCU lost that much AND is mostly okay with it just proves how much of a mess this corporation is in.

But on the flip side, cable revenues within the corporation are on the rise. Revenues -- not profits, so note the higher figures -- were up three percent to $1.2 billion across all the cable networks as a whole.

Thus aside from the general insanity that is being okay with sinking profits, these figures might yet again suggest that the broadcast model of television just does not work. NBC as a network is on the decline right now, which means their profits are going to be lower than even the other broadcast nets, but the discrepancies between NBC profit and the improvements on the cable end are more evidence that having a broadcast network isn't even worth it.

TBS is with Coco

2010-04-14T22:38:00.000-04:00

“In three months I’ve gone from network television to Twitter to performing live in theaters, and now I’m headed to basic cable. My plan is working perfectly.” -- Conan O'Brien after announcing that he had signed with TBS and plans to air a late-night series for them in the fall.

Yeah, I'm just as surprised as you are.

After weeks of speculation and a slew of reports that Conan was in discussion with FOX about a late night talk show, O'Brien announced today, on the first day of his live tour, that he was joining cable network TBS.

Though Conan won't hit the basic cable airwaves until November, it's never to early to postulate about what the hell this "means" for Conan, TBS, FOX, the viewers and television as a whole! So let's do that.

What this means for Conan: He gets a series and is back on TV where he belongs -- even if the tour is a major hit.

Honestly, moving over to FOX wouldn't have been the best move for him after the PR shine wore off. The affiliates were uneasy, meaning he would have been on a tight leash from the beginning. Plus, he'd be expected to compete ratings-wise with Jay Leno and David Letterman -- something he absolutely could not do. Because of all that pressure, he'd have to shape his FOX show to be more mainstream, even if FOX is known as the edgiest of the major networks, and we saw how that worked out over at NBC.

Thus, he now gets to move to TBS with lots of hype but less pressure. He'll have a longer line to work with, more creative freedom and the opportunity to be the face of the network. Even if some expected him to go to cable on Comedy Central, TBS is a smart play.

What this means for TBS: Wow, what a coop for a basic cable network that has tried to convince people that it can produce real original content, but seemingly failed on most counts.

Originals like "10 Items or Less" and "My Boys" have been around for an extended period of time, but I don't know anyone who actually watches it. "Tyler Perry's House of Payne" is an abomination to television. And George Lopez's late night show has also been successful, but from what I've seen, not that good.

So TBS has the tagline of "Very Funny," but most of that funny-ness comes from reruns of popular sitcoms like "Seinfeld," "The Office" and "My Name is Earl." Meh.

Bringing Conan on board automatically gives TBS a credibility they didn't have at 10 a.m. today. This surely means more writers, producers and actors will be looking at TBS as a place for legitimate original comedic content, which only pushes their brand out there further.

What this means for FOX: Not scoring Conan isn't as big of a loss as you might think. It was fairly obvious from all the stories that have come out in the last week, the affiliates weren't sold on bringing Conan to FOX. Keeping reruns of sitcoms and "TMZ" on in the 11 p.m. to 12 a.m. hour is much more profitable for the local affiliates, so why wouldn't that want to hold on to that money-maker?

And if Conan would have moved to FOX and then failed to re-capture his "Late Night" glory, it would have been a minor media disaster as well as a sunk investment of sorts. Just because everyone thought Conan would go to FOX doesn't mean Conan going to FOX was a good idea.

What this means for the fans: Conan's back!

But seriously, what's good for Conan is good for audience, meaning that lower expectations and more leniency makes for a better Conan-related TV product. Hopefully, he'll be better to open it up even more than he did at the end of his "Tonight Show" run.

What this means for television: It's easy to suggest that one of network television's biggest stars moving to cable television is a huge swing in power -- and it might be. But I do think that we'll have to see how Conan's TBS product works first before declaring any revolutions have started.

But if Conan's series does bring more talent to the network, it does mean good things for TBS. That could then spur other basic cable nets to pursue bigger players and THEN build their own brands further. Again, lots of dominoes have to fall for this to become a larger influence on the landscape of television, but it's all in play.

More could change by November, but there's a lot of things going on with Conan's move to TBS. At worst, it's going to be very, very interesting -- and you could never say that about TBS programming before today.

What's the future of serialization on broadcast TV?

2010-04-10T13:25:00.003-04:00

I've talked a lot about serialization here on the blog, and it's just as popular elsewhere (check out a nice post from Myles McNutt on Justified), partially because it's the end of two major serial powerhouses in Lost and 24 and also because I think people just love talking about it. So why not continue that discussion?

Today: what to expect from serialization on the broadcast networks.

As the photo to the post suggests, I think the future of serialized broadcast television lies with FOX's Fringe.

Let's face it: series that are heavily serialized with dense mythology do not seem to word in this landscape. As previously discussed, ratings for newbies V and FlashForward range from okay, but shrinking to overly awful. And ratings for those leaving series aren't blowing the house down either.

And although there is certainly more at play in those situations -- most notably FlashForward and 24 sucking -- the slumping ratings, especially for the new series, tells us that heavy serialization might not work on broadcast television.

So what will?

Serialization-lite. Which is where Fringe comes in to play.

Expect the networks to follow the Fringe formula: Introduce a serialized story that has the potential for heavy mythology early on, but rarely touch on that mythology. Instead, there will be some sort of procedural element that could keep the "general" viewer interested on a weekly basis and keep the attentive "fan" salivating for more of the A arc.

Not only does this approach keep the general viewer coming back -- and thus keeping the ratings afloat -- but it makes the fan do so as well. Take the Fringe episode "Peter" from a few weeks back. The response for that episode was overwhelmingly positive, primarily delved into important moments in characters' history. Now those who were already invested in the series feel revitalized because they actually "answered" something and perhaps those who were losing interest are now reinvested. It's a win-win, seemingly.

Now this is definitely not a new development, as The X-Files comes to mind first as a series that (at least attempted to) kept the overarching mythology at a distance long enough to keep those fans clamoring for more. Of course, it went off the rails before answering most of those questions and that is perhaps why Fringe has a leg up.

Lost fans and critics who don't have anything else to write about might feel the need to cry about the end of serialization as we know it, but it seems cyclical. Those writers influenced by their viewing experience with The X-Files probably went on to write more fully-developed mythology and straight serialization in their series through the aughts. Now there are writers that have seen the negatives to that type of storytelling as well, so we're heading back the other way to some sort of middle ground. And even though I myself get frustrated with some of the procedural episodes of Fringe, it's not because they are standalone, case-based. It's because sometimes they're not very good. When Fringe gets the procedural stuff right, it's still a damn good hour of television.

Just as Myles suggests, the real barometer for how people embrace the mix of serialization and procedural is how successful they are deployed and ultimately, if the episode is enjoyable. And at least with Fringe, that's almost always the case.

Catching up on DVD -- What changes?

2010-04-07T21:37:00.000-04:00

One of the best TV critics around, Myles McNutt, has a poll up on his web site right now that will help him choose what series to catch up on via DVD here in the coming months.

Obviously, DVD has done wonders for television viewers. We can wait until a entire season -- or series -- ends before watching. And of course, that also allows us to avoid both the long wait between episodes and commercials. Even more benefits certainly exist.

But what happens to our enjoyment of the season, series or even individual episodes when we catch up later on DVD?
Like Myles, I tend to buy a lot of DVD season or series sets, in hopes of getting in to something I missed the first time around, whether because I was too young -- hello, Freaks and Geeks, Buffy -- or just uninterested -- Sopranos -- and with a recent purchase, I'm beginning to wonder what is going to happen during that viewing experience.

I didn't watch Deadwood when it originally aired on HBO. But ever since I jumped head first into television and all the writings around it, I have heard nothing but good things about the David Milch-produced series. I can remember various pieces that talked about it being better than The Sopranos or just about any other much-praised cable drama. So I asked for the complete series on DVD and received it this past Christmas as a gift.

I plan to watch it this summer, and really have no idea what to expect. Well, except greatness. Like Myles notes in his post, I've done all I can to avoid spoilers, and have a loose, general outline of the series plot.

But isn't my experience watching Deadwood going to be radically different than the experience of those who watched it live? Even though I have taken precaution in finding out significant information, will even the most general of knowledge affect how I view the series? Will my experience with the actors' post-Deadwood work alter it (like Olyphant's Justified)?

We're always told that it's impossible to detach ourselves from the culture around us and the historical context of, well, everything; I don't see why television viewing via DVD would be much different. But I am concerned that the accessibility of more episodes will allow me to skip over the deep analysis and thought of individual episodes that the week between first-run efforts gives me. Sure, I could just stop after each episode and ponder it thoroughly, but with the WHOLE SET sitting right there, that's going to be difficult.

Just the same, I'm concerned that the lack of discussion with other fans when I watch those episodes will also negatively influence my enjoyment with it. Writing about it for other people to read is one thing, but reading six new recaps or reviews each week is totally different. This makes me realize that we -- or at least I -- depend on the interactivity and discussion so much more than I think. I do not know where I would be without all those Lost or Mad Men posts each week during their original runs.

Finally, watching the series on DVD loses its context. Perhaps something was happening externally when the series was on, whether with the production itself or in culture as a whole. That can certainly shape or manipulate how a text makes us feel in that moment. Detaching oneself from that -- especially with a series that's been gone for a long while -- might completely alter what the series means as a whole.

Thus, this could be just my hang up, but I am coming around to the fact that catching up on DVD is not always the best approach. Or at least there are a few cons out there to think about before celebrating the easy access and multiple viewings.

Broadcast network innovation series update

2010-04-07T20:46:00.000-04:00

Yeah, I know.

For those of you that do care, I have fallen behind on my broadcast network innovation posts. They're coming this weekend. Sometimes, being a college student sucks when you just want to blog about television.

DirecTV to save 'Damages?'

2010-04-03T21:52:00.000-04:00

Rumors abound that Sony, producers of Damages, is looking to DirecTV for help in paying for a fourth season.

Not to be a contrarian here, but is this really necessary?
Sure, Damages is a critically acclaimed, narratively complex drama that gives FX and Sony a lot of cultural cache. Glenn Close is fantastic in every single episode, and Tate Donovan has been right there with her for most of the series run. Throw in a slew of high-profile guest stars and a you-must-pay-attention narrative and it seems like a formula for a successful cable series.

But alas, it is not. Almost nobody watches Damages. Most new episodes garner .2 in the all-important 18-49 demographic. A .2! That's anemic. .2 in the 18-49 + < 1 million viewers = not a hit. Obviously.

Fans of the series will clamor about DirecTV's deal with Friday Night Lights that saw them cover a good amount of the production costs for the rights to air the series first and also gain some brand identity as a place for original programming. But even FNL's porous numbers weren't as bad as those Damages obtains. And I'd also imagine that the production costs for FNL are cheaper than those for Damages, despite the on-location shoots. Big name stars aren't cheap.

So what the hell is really in it for DirecTV?

Next to nothing. The best thing I can think of is that airing Damages first will help DirecTV further its brand identity for their channel 101, in hopes of attracting some smart people for original, DTV-only content in the future.

That's it.

Think about it: Despite season three being somewhat a return to form -- I've only seen the first four episodes, full disclosure -- it still isn't as good as those first batch of episodes. It's not going to win the Emmy or Golden Globe for Best Drama Series. Glenn Close might win another one for her performance, but it's not as if she'll automatically thank DTV.

Plus, people aren't going to follow Damages liked they did FNL. I already noted the ratings differences, but in general, the fanbase of the latter is much more active than the high culture former.

To review: If DTV does go along with this deal, they will pay a lot of money for a series that literally no one watches. Moreover, they'll be paying more for that smaller return than they did for the FNL deal.

It seems like any time a series is in jeopardy these days, people automatically turn to DirecTV for the save. Thankfully, they've been smart so far by not jumping on other opportunities. Damages is an opportunity they should pass on. If FX cancels it, let it go.

Why not think saving more popular, but in trouble series like Chuck or Southland?

Thank you, Shawn -- Celebrating the performance of one of wrestling's greatest

2010-03-29T23:56:00.004-04:00

I'll say it, I love professional wrestling. Have ever since I was six years old way back in 1994 when I randomly started watching on a semi-regular basis. Through the Monday Night Wars, the WCW buyout and the current "PG" era of the WWE, there's one individual that kept me coming back every week -- even during his four year absence as I sat around hoping he'd pop up -- Shawn Michaels. The Heartbreak Kid. The Showstopper. Mr. Wrestlemania.

Tonight on RAW, HBK said his tearful goodbyes and I was choked up right along with him. Not just because he's a charming character or fantastic in-ring performer, but because he is, without a doubt, one of the best pure performers I have ever seen, no matter the media or showcase.
I know, that sounds strong, especially because next to no one takes professional wrestling seriously. The best it usually do is get the clichéd "soap opera for men" comment, as if that's some form of praise. For the most part, that moniker, along with all the other adjectives like "ridiculous," and "over the top" are valid most of the time. I'll admit that.

But not with Shawn Michaels.

In my 16 years of fairly regular viewing of pro wrestling and my somewhat knowledgeable journey into the business' past, there is simply no one better at telling a story, both in and out of the ring, than Shawn Michaels.

As he said tonight in the ring, the most obvious reason for that is because HBK has always been one of the most upfront pro wrestlers. When Michaels life was barreling out of control in the late '90s and he had to take some time off because of it -- and injuries -- he sold it with the now-infamous "Lost my smile" speech. But as corny and ham-fisted as that is, watch this video and see how HBK acts during the announcement. This isn't some musclehead trying to emote. Those are legitimate tears, folks.

And after his sabbatical, I think that HBK was an even better performer on the mic. The guy cuts a promo better than anyone in the wrestling business, whether he's crying over something intensely personal or flipping the script and playing the villain like he did a few years back when he returned to Canada, the sight of the uber famous "Montreal Screwjob," which Myles McNutt analyzed beautifully a few months ago when Bret Hart returned to the WWE:

Let us also not forget HBK's comedy skills, which he also puts to good use any time that he's together with HHH as DX. Though most of the sketches were outrageous and HHH overdoes it every. single. time., HBK always does his best to salvage even the goofiest of bits, like this one from the middle of 2009:

All of this doesn't even consider how great of an in-ring performer Michaels has been for all this time. Nobody sells the emotional and physical toles of a wrestling match like him. And he never needed a blade, a steel chair shot or any other sort of gimmick make his matches the best -- even if he did popularize the ladder match and compete in the first and still-best Hell in a Cell match. Just like he did in his match with Ric Flair a few years ago at WrestleMania:

Should Shawn Michaels have ever moved into mainstream acting? Probably not. But there aren't many other performers in the world that convince me more than HBK, even amid a world of out-there characters and stories that barely exist in reality. Michael's heart-on-sleeve persona worked for him for more than 15 years, and people bought it the whole time. No other pro wrestler could sell us on storylines that saw him be "forced" to work for someone else because he was out of money due to bad investments during the 2008 economic crisis. Or when he faced the McMahons in a tag match where his partner was God. Or really any of the ridiculous things he was thrown in the middle of during his mid-'90s title reign when the then-WWF was struggling mightily.

So when people like me nearly cried tonight when HBK said goodbye, it's because no other pro wrestler let us in more. In a profession that's based on scripted situations, but relies more on serialization more than anyone wants to give it credit for, Shawn Michaels was the ultimate performer because we remember everything he's been through over the past two decades. And we remember all the feuds, the gimmick matches, the swerves and more because he sold it to be as real as possible. We -- or at least me -- were more than just entertained, we were moved. And that's why Shawn Michaels will never, ever leave pro wrestling's Mount Rushmore.

Innovations, er, "Innovations" from broadcast networks -- CBS

2010-03-29T18:39:00.002-04:00

Curious to what this all means? Read my introduction to this multi-post series.

We tend to think that CBS has had the best run of success in the last handful of years, but after my research did my mind get blown?

Not really.

CBS has aired the least amount of new series in the last five years – 50 – which means to me that they have had a good run. Additionally, the Eyeball also has the best total success rate percentage – 36 percent – so obviously things have not been that bad since 2005-2006.

Where they started

Coming into the 2005-2006 season, CBS was plodding along like they always do. They had the top reality series – Survivor and Amazing Race – the top drama – CSI: – and a slew of reliable, mostly popular procedurals, from the CSI: spin-offs, Without a Trace and the still-new NCIS.

They were not armed with many buzzworthy programs, but ones that picked up big-time ratings.

2005-2006

Total new series: 11

Drama: 7; Love Monkey, Threshold, Close to Home, The Unit, Numbers, Criminal Minds, Ghost Whisperer
Multi-Camera Sitcom: 3; Out of Practice, How I Met Your Mother, Courting Alex
Reality: 1; Tuesday Night Book Club

Total number of series that lasted more than one season: 6 (How I Met Your Mother, The Unit, Numbers, Ghost Whisperer, Close to Home, Criminal Minds); more than two seasons: 5 (All but Close to Home)

Character type count: Cops (3), Young Professionals (2), Scientists (1), Supernatural Girl Power (1), Family (1), Girl Power (1), Military (1)

Thoughts: Wow, pretty big year for CBS here. Five of their seven new drama series were successes and the other two would have probably survived on other networks, but CBS has the highest requirements for ratings. Three of the five were still substantial hits this season, and though Numbers is ending, both How I Met Your Mother and Criminal Minds are key components to the Eyeball’s weekly line-up.

Also interesting is how little variation in format CBS is willing to pursue. Most networks develop at least competition reality series, a few different kinds of comedies and maybe a game show each season. But CBS knows who they are, and based on these early results, and that is why they have done so well.

Any innovation? Not really, but does it matter?

2006-2007

Total series: 9

Drama: 4; Jericho, 3 LBs, Smith, Shark
Multi-Camera Sitcom: 2; New Adventures of Old Christine, The Class
Competition Reality: 1; Pirate Master
Reality: 1; Armed and Famous
Animated: 1; Creature Comforts

Total number of series that lasted more than one season: 3 (Shark, New Adventures of Old Christine, Jericho); more than two seasons: (Just Christine)

Character type count: Girl Power (1), Lawyers (1), Young Pros (1), Animated Family (1), Doctors (1), Serial group (1), Thieves (1)

Thoughts: Ouch. I remember the articles this season about how CBS was in trouble for this development slate, which was certainly their weakest of the decade’s second half. Smith was quickly canceled, 3 LBs was awful and we all know the story with Jericho.

Does anyone even remember Creature Comforts? I’m still shocked that CBS aired an animated comedy. I guess they do take risks every once in a while. The two reality series were certainly a low-point for a network that usually airs some of the best reality content.

Any innovation? Negative. Unless you count CBS’s reaction to the Jericho fan campaign that allowed the series to come back for a second season – and then get canceled again.

2007-2008

Total new series: 11

Drama: 4; Cane, Viva Laughlin, Moonlight, Swingtown
Multi-Camera Sitcom: 2; The Big Bang Theory, The Rules of Engagement
Competition Reality: 2; Secret Talent of the Stars, Greatest American Dog
Single Sitcom: 1; Welcome to the Captain
Reality: 1; Kid Nation
Game: 1; Power of 10

Total number of series that lasted more than one season: 2 (Big Bang Theory, Rules of Engagement); more than two seasons: 2 (Same)

Character type count: Young (1), Geeks (1), Marriage (1), Supernatural Detective (1), Family (1), Period (1), Musical (1)

Thoughts: Yuck. We can blame the strike all we want, but I guess this is what happens when CBS tries to be innovative and go outside their brand. All four of the drama series aired during this season were outside their usual procedural ranks – and that’s probably why they failed miserably.

I wonder if that was because CBS does not know the right people to work with in terms of non-procedural dramas or if the series were actually good and just failed because CBS’s usual demographic wasn’t ready for something like that. It is important to give them credit for trying something different, and in the strike year, the failures don’t seem as big of a deal.

Any innovation? I wouldn’t say there were any major content innovations here in the larger sense, but like I said, gotta hand it to CBS for trying something different. Of course the failure of those drama series meant they went right back to the procedural well, but hey!

2008-2009

Total new series: 10

Drama: 4; The Mentalist, Flashpoint, Eleventh Hour, Harper’s Island
Single Camera Sitcom/Comedy: 2; Worst Week, The Ex-List
Game: 2; Game Show in My Head, Million Dollar Password
Multi-Camera Sitcom: 1; Gary Unmarried
Reality: 1; I Get That A Lot

Total number of series that lasted more than one season: 4 (The Mentalist, Flashpoint, Gary Unmarried, I Get That A Lot); more than two seasons: 1* (The Mentalist for sure, the others still up in the air)

Character type count: Idiots (2), Supernatural Cop (2), Cops (1), Serial group (1), Girl Power (1)

Thoughts: A few years after it had become the norm, CBS finally embraced the single camera comedy in 2008-2009, but just their drama changes the season before, they failed handily. Same goes for Eleventh Hour and Harper’s Island. I’m now convinced that CBS cannot necessarily be criticized for its lack of content innovation, because even when they try something different, people are just not interested. At all.

Any innovation? Slight kudos to Harper’s Island, which played with horror conventions within a slightly different one-off 13-episode order. And at least they aired a few single camera comedies.

2009-2010

Total new series: 9

Drama: 5; NCIS: LA, The Good Wife, Miami Medical, Medium*, Three Rivers
Reality: 2; Live For the Moment, Undercover Boss
Multi-Camera Sitcom: 1; Accidently on Purpose
Competition Reality: 1; There Goes the Neighborhood

Total number of series that lasted more than one season: 3* (Undercover Boss for sure, surely NCIS: LA and The Good Wife as well); more than two seasons: N/A

Character type count: Doctors (2), Lawyers (1), Cops (1), Girl Power (1)

Thoughts: All five of CBS’ drama series fit their formula, which is probably why three of them have been a success and Miami Medical should be fine as well. They seem to want to go inspirational with their reality series, so I guess Undercover Boss fits in pretty well.

Final wrap up

Total number of series: 50

Drama: 24
Multi-Camera Sitcom: 9
Reality: 6
Competition Reality: 4
Game: 3
Single Camera Sitcom/Comedy: 3
Animated: 1

Total number of series that made it past one season: 18; 36%

Final character type count: Cops (5), Girl Power (4), Young Pros (4), Supernatural Cops (3), Doctors (3), Family (2), Serial group (2), Lawyers (2), Supernatural Girl Power (2), Idiots (2), Geeks (1), Scientists (1), Military (1), Animated Family (1), Musical (1), Thieves (1), Period (1), Wedding (1)

Final thoughts: After all this, I’m not even sure what I have to say about CBS. I’m not surprised by any of these results. I feel like they know who they are more than any other network and any time they go outside of that brand, it doesn’t work. So why wouldn’t they stick with what works?

There might not be a slew of innovations in terms of content, but sometimes being good at what you do is better than trying something new that might not work.

Innovations, er, "Innovations" from broadcast networks -- ABC

2010-03-27T01:10:00.005-04:00

Curious as to what this all means? Read my introduction to this multi-post series.

Of all the networks I researched for this project, I think ABC's results surprised me the most.

And that's not a good thing.

So what is the format of these posts? I'm not exactly sure. I'll play ABC this way and *hopefully* will some feedback, maybe I can mix it up moving forward.

Where they started

Coming off the 2004-2005 season, ABC was flying high. The two most powerful and popular new broadcast series of the year -- Lost, Desperate Housewives -- were on the Alphabet network, pulling them out of a substantial hole they found themselves in for the decade prior. With those two stars and the growing-in-popularity Grey's Anatomy also in tow, ABC might have been best primed to face the second half of the aughts.

2005-2006

Total new series: 16

Drama: 6; Commander in Chief, Invasion, Night Stalker, Blind Justice, What About Brian, The Evidence
Reality: 2; How to Get the Guy, One Ocean View
Multi-Camera Sitcom: 3; Crumbs, Hot Properties, Freddie
Single Camera Sitcom: 2; Emily's Reasons Why Not, Sons and Daughters
Competition Reality: 2; The One, Master of Champions

Total number of series that lasted more than one season: 1 (What About Brian); more than two seasons: 0

Character type count: Family (3), Girl Power (2), Politics (1), Supernatural Cop (1), Lawyers (1), Young Professionals (1), Cops (1) and Aliens (1).

Thoughts: Well, that's a rough start to the decade's second half. The one series that lasted more than season was What About Brian, the JJ Abrams-produced, Barry Watson-starring melodrama that had a minuscule five episode first season order and a total run of only 24 episodes. The post-Lost landscape led to Invasion, a fairly popular series that would be a megahit in today's TV world, but didn't work as a lead-out of Lost -- something ABC has yet to figure out since 2005.

Commander in Chief was buzzworthy from the jump, but flamed out by season's end and Night Stalker was a remade mess that proved one of the best rules in Hollywood: It's better to have Stuart Townsend leave your project than to star in it.

The sitcom's this season featured a few high-profile stars -- Freddie Prinze Jr. in Freddie and Heather Graham in Emily's Reasons Why Not -- but not much else.

Any innovation? Absolutely not.

2006-2007

Total new series: 23

Drama: 7; Men in Trees, Brothers & Sisters, October Road, Day Break, Traveler, The Nine, Six Degrees
Single Camera Sitcom: 6; Help Me Help You, Knights of Prosperity, Notes From the Underbelly, In Case of Emergency, Ugly Betty, Big Day
Competition Reality: 4; American Investor, Fat March, Fast Cars and Superstars, Greatest Celebrity Impersonator
Reality: 3; Shaq's Challenge, Great American Dream Vote, The Ex-Wives Club
Game: 2; Set For Life, Show Me The Money
Anthology: 1; Masters of Science Fiction

Total number of series that lasted more than one season: 6 (American Inventor, Brothers & Sisters, Men in Trees, October Road, Notes From The Underbelly, Ugly Betty); more than two seasons: 2 (Brothers & Sisters, Ugly Betty)

Character type count: Small town (2), Wedding (1), Doctor (1), Pregnancy (1), Thieves (1), Idiots (1), Girl Power (1), Supernatural Cop (1), Family (1), Fugitives (1), Young Pros (1), Serial group (1)

Thoughts: A bigger slate of development led to a better output of returning series. Also, this season sees ABC really building its brand as a place for primarily for women while trying to add more for the fans of Lost. In terms of quality, each one of the seven drama series had its redeeming qualities, but the ones that were supposed to appeal to Lost fans -- Day Break, Traveler, The Nine -- were either messes or not given their due. Brothers & Sisters is still plodding along, Ugly Betty is wrapping up a solid four-year run now and some might say that October Road and Men in Trees should have lasted longer than they did.

On the comedy side, a slew of single camera efforts that were all pretty bad aside from Betty, but Knights of Prosperity and Big Day at least tried to do something different. Alas. The reality efforts were also lame, with four of the seven featuring celebs or semi-celebs, a major trend of this period.

Any innovation? Maybe a little. Ugly Betty was not innovative in a sense, but worked as a successful formatting of an international product, which is again a mark of this time. Day Break was an interesting exercise of serialization, but ended up as an online burn-off. That could be something to note: That season, ABC went hard with the online video portal, and even burned off a few series online.

2007-2008

Total new series: 20

Drama: 7; Pushing Daisies, Big Shots, Dirty Sexy Money, Private Practice, Cashmere Mafia, Women's Murder Club, Eli Stone
Game: 5; Dance Machine, Duel, Wanna Bet?, Wipeout, I Survived a Japanese Gameshow
Competition Reality: 4; Dance War, High School Musical: Get In The Picture, Here Comes The Newlyweds, Oprah's Big Give
Single Camera Sitcom: 3; Samantha Who?, Carpoolers, Miss Guided
Multi-Camera Sitcom: 1; Cavemen

Total number of series that lasted more than one season: 8 (Samantha Who?, Wipeout, I Survived a Japanese Gameshow, Eli Stone, Pushing Daisies, Dirty Sexy Money, Private Practice, Here Come the Newlyweds); more than two seasons: 2 (Private Practice, Wipeout)

Character type count: Girl Power (3), Lawyer (2), Young Pros (2), Idiots (1), Doctors (1), Supernatural Cops (1), Cops (1)

Thoughts: Important to remember that this was the WGA Strike season, which ABC reacted very, very poorly to. It took a risk with a whole new Wednesday of Daisies, Sexy Money and Private Practice, but by not bringing them back after the strike was over, fans moved away from the first two, which led to their cancellation in 2008-2009. Hell, you could even throw Eli Stone in that group too.

Samantha Who? was a solid hit that quickly burnt out, but the other three comedies were less than stellar. Very much so. The reality slate makes me go "meh," but you cannot fault them for pushing Wipeout on us.

Any innovations? Taking a chance with an all-new Wednesday was ballsy and Pushing Daisies is probably the most "innovative" series on broadcast television in this five-year run. Dirty Sexy Money would have worked better as a cable series.

2008-2009

Total new series: 12

Drama: 5; Castle, Defying Gravity, Life on Mars, The Unusuals,Cupid
Single Camera Sitcom: 3; Better Off Ted, Scrubs, In the Motherhood
Multi-Camera Sitcom: 1; Surviving Suburbia
Animated Comedy: 1; The Goode Family
Reality: 1; Homeland Security
Competition Reality: 1; Opportunity Knocks

Total number of series that lasted more than one season: 3 (Better Off Ted, Scrubs, Castle); more than two seasons: Probably 1 (Castle)

Character type count: Cops (2), Animated Family (1), Family (1), Young Pros (1), Supernatural Cops (1), Astronauts (1), Doctors (1), Supernatural Being (1)

Thoughts: In the post-strike environment, not many winners here. The Unusuals and Castle were two more attempts at ABC trying to get its own successful procedural, and thankfully the latter is doing well enough to give them that. Mars and Cupid were two remakes that did not do too hot, while Better Off Ted was an innovative comedy that was simply buried when ABC figured out their comedy block in 2009. Sad.

Any innovations? Not really.

2009-2010

Total new series: 14

Drama: 6; FlashForward, the forgotten, Eastwick, V, The Deep End, Happy Town
Single Camera Sitcom: 3; Modern Family, Cougar Town, The Middle
Competition Reality: 3; Shark Tank, Crash Course, The Superstars
Reality: 1; Find My Family
Multi-Camera Sitcom: 1; Hank

Total number of series that lasted more one season: 3* (Modern Family, Cougar Town, The Middle); more than two seasons: N/A

*Assuming that V doesn't make a run and get a second season.

Character type count: Doctors (3), Serial group (2), Small town (2), Aliens (2), Idiots (2), Politicians (2), Witches (1), Supernatural Being (1), Astronauts (1), Animated Family (1), Fugitives (1), Thieves (1), Pregnancies (1), Weddings (1)

Thoughts: With Lost at its end, it was smart of ABC to try to find a replacement for it, it's just too bad that the possibilities aren't worth a damn. Good news for ABC is that they found their comedy block to build around. Modern Family is a great combination of the Office-style mockumentary and the family comedies of old.

Any innovations: Modern Family.

Final wrap up
Total number of series: 85

Drama: 31
Single Camera Sitcom: 17
Competition Reality: 14
Reality: 8
Game: 7
Multi-Camera Sitcom: 6
Animated: 1
Anthology: 1

Total number of series that lasted more than one season: 21; 24.7%
Character type count: Family (8), Girl Power (7), Cops (5), Young Pros (5), Lawyers (4), Supernatural Cops (4), Small town (3), Doctors (3), Serial group (2), Small town (2), Aliens (2), Idiots (2), Politicians (2), Witches (1), Supernatural Being (1), Astronauts (1), Animated Family (1), Fugitives (1), Thieves (1), Pregnancies (1), Weddings (1)

Final thoughts: Like I said thousands of words ago, I'm a little surprised with ABC's last five years. We talk a lot about NBC's failures, but ABC hasn't really done much better. They've been doing a solid job with establishing themselves as a place for women, but aside from that, there has not been much else. Every single one of the post-Lost sci-fi series have been a bust, whether for valid reasons or not.

ABC has struggled with comedy for years, and it's only been the last few seasons that have helped them establish themselves a little. Of the 17 single cam comedies they've aired since 2005, eight have gone more than one season. That might seem like a solid number, but remember that includes three of this season and two from last, which means that well was pretty dry before 2008. Absolutely none of their multi-camera comedies have lasted more than a season.

Obviously, the general trend is leading towards more reality and competition programming, and though ABC's aired their fair share of it, only three of the 22 series in those two categories have gone 1+.

When you think about, if the three comedies and Castle wouldn't have been successful, most of ABC "big" programs would all be old. Their three biggest are still the same they started with going into this period, and while Ugly Betty, Brothers & Sisters and Private Practice have been fine, one is ending and the other two are a mess. And in general, the ratings for ABC's big series are falling faster than the general rate.

In terms of off-content innovations, ABC does deserve some credit for being one of the first adopters of online video, and they were also smart enough to join up with Hulu when they could see eyes cumulating on that web site.

Thus, though ABC might not be in as bad as shape as NBC moving into 2010-2011, it has still been a rocky road for the past five years. They've missed on most reality projects and failed with most comedies, but perhaps more than the other networks, their few successes have been big enough to keep us from looking this closely at them. Until now of course.

Your thoughts on ABC?

Innovations, er, "Innovations" from broadcast networks -- An introduction

2010-03-25T22:27:00.002-04:00

Though I have been using it for more, this blog was primarily constituted for a course about the changes in what we refer to as "television." Along with this blog, I am also working on a presentation/paper about the content and format innovations from "traditional" (read: broadcast) networks in this dynamic time.

Over the past few weeks, I've been doing some fairly in-depth research into not only what series the four majors -- ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC -- have aired, but also what "kind" of series. Thanks to The Futon Critic's fantastic DevWatch and ShowWatch archives, I was able to go back five years to the 2005-2006 television season and determine every single series the broadcast networks have aired. From there, I researched each series to determine both the format and the "type" of characters the series (if scripted) showcased. After hours upon hours of scrolling, reading and entering into a five-tabbed, color-coded Excel sheet, I am both surprised and not surprised at what I found. Thus, I thought it would be nice to share some of my findings in this space with anyone who wants to read them.

But first, let me clarify a few of the statements or choices I mentioned above as a way to introduce the posts I'll be writing in the next week or so about each network, because I know you're asking the following questions. I'll ask them for you.

Q1: Why start with the 2005-2006 season?

Great question. A few reasons. First, it was five years ago, meaning there has been enough time to make valid observations and analysis without seeming too short-sighted or ridiculous. It's long enough to confirm past trends and find new ones while short enough to avoid being a confusing mass of data. But I also feel like that the season before was somewhat of a pivot point for the broadcast networks where tent-poles of the "old guard" went away and innovative content actually succeeded.

A number of the series that dominated popular culture and discussion in the decade's latter half and continue to do so premiered during that season: Lost, Desperate Housewives, Grey's Anatomy, The Office, Veronica Mars and House. At the same time, a few of the series that served those ends in the first half of the decade or before ended in 2004-2005: Friends, Fraiser, The Practice, Ed and HBO's Sex in the City (though not a broadcast series, it helps my point. Kind of a cheat, sorry).

Thus, with all those developments a year prior, the aftermath is crucial to evaluate. I think most people could see the general differences -- whether in aesthetic, storytelling, brand, style, etc. -- between the first and second group of series. We know that the television industry, much like most others, is one of copycats. So did the successes in 2004-2005 alter the way the broadcast networks thought in the subsequent years? If so, how much? And did those influences play dividends? These are some of the questions I hope to address both in my project and in subsequent posts based on my research.

Q2: What do you mean by "type" of characters showcased? And why do that?

Another great question. You're tough. By "'type' of characters showcased," I refer to the general archetypes that the series builds around. For example, Law and Order predominantly features "Cops" and "Lawyers," while Grey's Anatomy features "Doctors." Those are easy enough, but some series are tougher. What about Lost? Heroes? (Well, aside from "Idiots").

I have done my best to create broad categories of characters that are found in all comedies and dramas, whether it is "Serial Group" (Lost, FlashForward), "Idiots" (Sons of Tuscon, Cavemen, any other show that highlights stupid men we're supposed to laugh at) or "Girl Power" (Samantha Who?, Ugly Betty, any other show that is powered by a female lead and is told from their perspective).

And I'm doing this with all the scripted series as a way to gauge any innovations in storytelling when it comes to the representations of people we see. We all know about the slew of series in development each year that feature cops, doctors, lawyers and families, but how many actually make it to series? How many last? And what are some of the other character tropes the broadcast networks are relying on that we might not realize? With the awareness that these aren't absolute categories, I hope to answer these questions.

Q3: Why does any of this matter?

I think I have hit on this as I've rambled on, but I will state things a bit more explicitly here. This research and these observations will hopefully matter because they will plainly lay out what has been happening with the broadcast networks over the past half-decade. We read all the stories about declining advertising revenue, sinking ratings, the death of certain genres or storytelling techniques, the scramble to monetize and the general worry over the future of broadcast. But does the rhetoric line up with reality? Has NBC's last five years been as bad as we think? Has FOX's run been as good?

Obviously, the results I will be presenting did not occur in a vacuum. Increased DVR and online use, furthered fragmentation and other external factors have altered the content and formatting decisions that the broadcast networks have made since the summer of 2005. However, the results could tell us how the networks have reacted to those external factors, whether positively or negatively, information that will be crucial moving forward as those external factors continue to have an impact.

Thus, with the information we already know compiled in one place, we might just learn a few things and be able to make solid analysis of any development season, like the one we currently find ourselves in. We can see how networks have attempted to craft a solid brand and whether or not it's actually worked. In the most hopeful of suggestions, this information could tell us things I am not even thinking of right now.

Q4: Are you done yet?

With this post, very close. I hope that this long-winded introduction to what will feature at least five more posts over the next handful of days. I will introduce and analyze content from each network individually, going in alphabetically order starting with ABC. For people in C411, this spoils my presentation. For the rest of you, I hope it entertains you and maybe even makes you think. Join me, will you?

Fandom and serial TV -- Letting go, holding on

2010-03-24T01:28:00.000-04:00

A lot of ink has been spilled about the future of serial television, but even if I do not think that it is "going away" or "dying," I've recently been thinking about how troubling it is to be a fan of these types of series.

As a fan of serial television, there are usually two things that happen to me. And there are two series on the air right now that embody them perfectly: FlashForward and 24.
Like I said, there are two ways the relationship between serial television and I play out in the end. In one example, I get attached to the series fairly quickly, only to see it canceled in a short time. In the other, I get invested in a series that lasts too long and by the time things are coming to an end, I'm bored and ambivalent.

Obviously with FlashForward being in its first season and 24 in its eighth, it's apparent which of these series fits which example for me.

I don't even LOVE FlashForward, but I'm on board with the concept and feel like there is a legitimate series in there somewhere that all the showrunner changes, delays and other external issues might be messing up. Well, that and the terrible reliance on the soap opera elements of the story. But after the two hour "event" spring premiere picked up pretty horrible numbers for ABC last week, things don't look good for the series. The ratings have dropped massively since the beginning of the season, that sprawling cast is probably expensive and ABC is probably ready to cut the chord (because if they weren't, they would have put it behind Lost instead of V).

And even though I don't really, truly care about Mark Benford and his stupid god complex or all the other idiots on that show ranting about what they "saw," I still don't want it to be canceled for my own selfish reasons. I have invested 11 hours into this series and will end up investing at least 11 more by the time May comes around. That's almost a whole day of my life I won't get back. And that doesn't even count the time I spend re-capping the episodes or writing about the show.

So it is these things external from the quality of the show itself that keep me hanging on. I see the potential and I just cannot let go. Ever.

And that's perhaps why I end up on the other end of things when it comes to other, older series like 24. I've talked about how the series should go away this May before, and I certainly haven't changed my mind.

But there was a time when I felt even more passionate about 24 than I do right now about FlashForward, it's just that the quality of the series has finally wore me down over time. Thus, I'll spend less time worrying about the renewal of 24 than I will FlashForward even though I know that the former is certainly more successful and is probably still better.

Which brings me to perhaps my main and probably obvious point. It seems as if a personal connection to a series means more than quality when it comes to response or action when cancellation might be near. I guess that's obvious when most fans of series probably are not the most objective in terms of recognizing quality, but as someone who prides themselves on trying to be at least an amateur critic, I don't want to think that way.

But I do.

Last spring, I went through the most intense fan-related experiences I probably ever have when I pushed hard for the renewals of both Chuck on NBC and Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles on FOX. I bought a slew of Subway sandwiches, changed my Twitter pictures, joined groups, wrote columns about them, etc.

Looking back on that experience, I probably wasn't the most objective I could have been, especially when it comes to Sarah Connor.

But again, do I feel that way now only because it didn't make it onto FOX's schedule this season whereas Chuck did so I feel like it's renewal validated the quality? Probably.

So I'm not sure what to think about the possible renewals of Chuck (again), 24 or FlashForward. I know how relieved I was about returning to the Buy More when I heard the news last spring, but also how dejected I was when I knew I'd be getting no more Sarah Connor. But almost a year later, I don't really feel that bad without it on the air. And yet, I still feel like Chuck would be a more of a monumental loss, and even FlashForward, which still makes me think that I cannot separate my fan allegiances from the situation at hand.

Can anyone?

Broadcast networks and miniseries -- Will it ever happen again?

2010-03-16T01:06:00.003-04:00

Well, I guess that headline is partially dumb and misleading, because obviously the major broadcast networks will air a miniseries at least one more time in the future. I think.

But what I meant by that headline is can the broadcast networks actually air a quality miniseries?

Based on my in-depth (read: mostly from Wikipedia and tangential sources stemming from that Wiki analysis) research, a broadcast miniseries hasn't been nominated for the Best Miniseries Emmy since 2005 when CBS' Elvis mini was nominated. In the last ten years, only 8 of the 39 nominees for Best Miniseries have been from a major network -- and 5 of those 8 came in 2000 and 2001. Finally, only 2001's Anne Frank: The Whole Story (ABC) actually won the Best Mini award in that time period.

Those are staggering figures.

One might say that just like all the other Emmys, the cable companies are the ones getting nominated and maybe the broadcast networks are still dedicated to the miniseries.

One might be wrong. Again, I cannot be 100 percent sure because there isn't one spot where all this information is listed, but just in terms of general production output, the pickings they are a slim. In recent years, most broadcast networks have decided the best story to tell in the miniseries format is the worldwide disaster. NBC produced 10.5 in 2004 and 10.5: Apocalypse in 2006 and The Storm in 2009. CBS did Category 6: Day of Destruction in 2004 and Category 7: The End of the World in 2005. ABC aired Impact in 2008. And there might be more.

This is what the broadcast networks think of the miniseries or at least their ability to air a good one. They think putting glasses on James Van Der Beek and calling him a scientist is good enough for us. AND I EVEN LIKE THE BEEK.

That's one of the major problems with broadcast nets and the mini: they don't produce themselves. I'd wager that every one of those disaster-related projects were produced by third parties -- most likely in Canada -- and then distributed by one of the big boys.

The thing is, we all know why the major broadcast powers don't produce miniseries these days: the cost. The Pacific reportedly cost upwards of $250 million and even if that's on a very extreme end of the pole, the penny pinching broadcast powers aren't going to shell out even $50 million for something that would air over a couple days. Especially if they don't think the ratings will be there -- NBC's summer unspooling of The Storm managed a beautiful .9 in the 18-49 demo and less than 5 million viewers -- and they might not be.

I understand that HBO can manage something like The Pacific, with Hanks/Spielberg in-tow, the pedigree and the subscribers providing revenue even if it is a ratings failure. But HBO has put themselves in that situation by taking chances with the miniseries ten years ago and now they have people like Hanks and Spielberg coming to them ready to do things like The Pacific. They can spend millions of dollars marketing the mini for a year because they know that with the HBO name and all the things mentioned above, people will watch.

But shouldn't a broadcast network -- say NBC -- try a similar strategy? Sure, it would be on a much tighter budget (especially at first), but the Peacock needs something to be known for; why couldn't it be great miniseries? All it takes is one or two sharply written, tightly produced miniseries that cover interesting topics with real promotion during a prime spot. That might seem like a lot, but it's not. Minute to Win It and The Marriage Ref aren't going to make us fall back in love with NBC, but a cool miniseries could.

And NBC makes the most sense because its parent company is one of the most efficient producers of miniseries. Both USA and SyFy have aired successful minis over the past few years -- Taken, Battlestar Galactica, The 4400, The Lost Room, Tin Man, Alice, The Starter Wife and maybe a few more. Sure, not all of them were fantastic, but a few of them were, most of the rest were solid and only a couple were outrightly bad. Thus, while NBCU is strong with the miniseries, NBC is not. They even had their own one lined up with Day One, but it constantly saw its order cut and by the beginning of this year was basically shelved.

Where does that leave us with the miniseries? Probably exactly where we are right now, with most major networks ignoring them unless the title is used as a way to hedge bets with a product that might not be that successful -- like what ABC's doing with the V reboot -- while HBO and other cable nets dominate the field.

But despite the cost, it's time for a broadcast network to take a chance on a major miniseries. As we've seen lately, "event TV" is getting bigger and bigger with social media involved and the miniseries is one of the best forms of event television.

Should NBC pause the ticking clock on '24?'

2010-03-13T21:55:00.060-05:00

Last week, rumblings were that 24 would finish out its eight-year run this May on FOX. Now, Ausiello is reporting that 20th Century Fox (the studio) is pitching the series to NBC, who obviously need space-fillers on its schedule.

One question for NBC: why?
Let's break this down a little bit. What are the primary reasons that FOX is probably going to ax 24 in the first place? To wit:

The ratings are shrinking. Though it's still pulling in a respectable 2.8ish in the 18-49 demographic, that's not where the series used to be. Eight years in and with a few lackluster seasons behind it, that's expected, but still not a positive.

It's expensive. These specific things aren't released to the public so I cannot say for sure, but I have to guess that 24 is one of the top 10 most expensive series on broadcast television, if not the most expensive outside of Lost. Thus, decline ratings + rising costs = bad combination.

The movie. We've heard rumblings about a movie series for years and now they've hired someone to write a script. A 24 movie is going to happen and it cannot until the series is dead.

FOX needs the room. Despite the train wreck that is broadcast television, FOX is doing okay, so much so that they could actually use the prime real estate spot that is Mondays at 9 PM. The network is already having to push Lie to Me to the summer just because they don't have a damn spot for it -- and that's a fairly successful series. Next season they'll no holes to fill unless you count Friday nights, so if you consider Monday-Thursday gives them 8 hours of television. With House, Bones, Fringe, Glee, Lie to Me, (probably) Human Target, American Idol and The X-Factor (two series that will run multiple days in the fall and spring), it's packed. And again, 24 is probably the most expensive scripted out of the lot.

And why would FOX bring it back? Maybe to wrap up the TV series before jumping into the movie, but it's not like 24 relies on continuity or cares about character development. That's all I can think of.

On NBC's side of things, bigwig Angela Bromstad noted that she would be "interested" in the series a little bit ago. But all the factors that are leading FOX to end it still apply. PLUS, series on NBC are almost always going to get worse ratings than series on FOX, just because no one is loyal to the Peacock like they are to FOX. It's not like the numbers are going to go up, even if 24 would automatically become NBC's highest rated drama (as pathetic as that is).

And isn't NBC the network that is so concerned with cost? I know that might be one of the reasons they're in such a dire situation now, but that still has to be in the back of their mind. So taking on one of the most expensive series on broad TV doesn't quite fit that penny-pinching mantra.

Moreover, as numerous people have discussed in the last year, NBC needs to re-build their brand, reconnect with fans, etc, especially with their drama series. Parenthood might not be the answer and Chuck probably is not either, but isn't borrowing, remaking, rebooting or adapting one of the things that got NBC this trouble in the first place? And dating back further, holding on to series way too long in the early-to-middle part of the '00s was another contributing factor to their current position.

Thus, there is literally not one good reason for NBC to bring 24 aboard. And really, I don't think there is a chance that the Peacock will go for it anyway. This could be a bargaining maneuver on the part of 20th Century Fox in hopes of getting another season or maybe to get a higher budget for the movie -- or really anything. But to seriously think 24 will join NBC's schedule is pretty foolish. And I think even NBC isn't foolish. I think.

Watching TV on the Internet -- Only on the Internet

2010-03-11T23:50:00.000-05:00

As someone who watches a lot of television on my laptop, I have spent time wondering if I really needed to cable television. Those moments of reflection usually come when my damn Comcast bill arrives in the mail each month.

This week, the New York Times profiled some folks who have more willpower than I and thus risen up against their cable providers.
The article discusses how people who do not want to pay the rising monthly costs for cable -- I think mine in the far-from-metropolis Bloomington is $50 for cable and some HD channels -- are doing just that by relying on network web sites, Hulu, Fancast and I'm assuming even iTunes or Amazon to watch their television. Even for people who buy episodes on iTunes, the costs could still be less if they are not burning through 10 different series per week or something.

But what happens when the content you want isn't online? You better have some cool friends -- or be ready to break the law:

Because they command hefty advertising rates, few sporting events are streamed live. Premium channels like HBO and Showtime also keep their original programming behind a pay wall, since they rely largely on subscriber revenue. So a rabid football or “True Blood” fan who decides to dump cable had better have some very hospitable neighbors (preferably, ones with a premium package).

The Times article notes that all the people interviewed here find their television by legal means, but no one is that naive. Just as the article mentions, even if you can watch nearly everything online, there are still things you cannot. Sure, HBO has their in-development web portal GO, but Showtime doesn't have anything and AMC and FX also do not post new episodes online as far as I know.

That means no Mad Men, Breaking Bad, Dexter, Sons of Anarchy, Justified, Damages, Rescue Me, Weeds, etc. And if you love those series, you're not waiting the extra year to catch up on DVD, you're streaming them illegally from Megavideo or downloading the torrent. The article kind of dances around this idea with one portion, saying "It's impossible to quantify how many people have ditched their cable service."

Add to this that people who don't have cable or can't watch certain series online must avoid social media:

Social media can actually pose a problem for people without cable: because they must wait for shows to be available on the Web or DVD, they sometimes must avoid sites like Twitter and Facebook, which are minefields of episode spoilers.

And we know how difficult it is to avoid social media, especially for people who are tech savvy and "connected" enough to their TV content through the web.

This all might not be anything new, but perhaps it's too short-sighted to glorify people for not paying for cable -- even if Comcast deserves it. Instead, let's all be aware that people watch a lot of television illegally and we still might not be sure what that all means.

Hulu and monetization: A prospective pay model

2010-03-07T18:51:00.001-05:00

Despite what we all want, we are eventually going to have to pay to use Hulu.

Ever since the video streaming service became a major player in the television industry a few years ago, the brass at News Corp and NBC Universal have been talking about monetizing it.

But fearful of the failures that came when various newspapers toyed with pay walls, nothing has materialized yet. Even when maverick News Corp Deputy Chairman Chase Carey mentioned creating a system that involved charging users back in October, the internet rose up.

Yet with Viacom pulling its content – “The Daily Show” and “The Colbert Report” – from Hulu this past week over financial disagreements, it’s apparent that Hulu needs a plan for additional revenue streams.

Thankfully, that’s what I’m here for. Though I understand that we’re all indoctrinated with the idea that we shouldn’t have to pay for anything online – a Leichtman survey last week noted that 81 percent of users “strongly disagree” with a $10 monthly fee – there are ways we can meet Hulu in the middle.

Base subscriptions with little wiggle room and no additional content won’t work, as the Leichtman survey proves. Most people who use Hulu presumably pay for TV anyway, so making them pay additional costs for stuff they can already obtain with ease is pointless and since Netflix offers TV programs – though much later once they’ve hit DVD – as a part of their service, it would fail to differentiate Hulu.

A la carte only is a no go too, considering the iTunes store offers the pay-per-episode model already.

Thus, a tiered pay model with bundling seems like the way to go. Here’s one way it could work:

First, keep the two newest episodes free for all users for one week; this would apply to all series that have a deal with Hulu. These episodes would feature the advertising that exists now. This still drives people to the web site, gets them familiar with the interface, etc. Cost: $0

The next tier(s) would cost some money, where users could bundle series together and pay a flat fee based on the number they choose. For example, one could bundle all four NBC comedies together and get every episode from the current season in HD with only one commercial at the beginning for $20. Say someone loves “House” and “24?” Bundle those together for $10. The more bundled together, the higher the cost, with a maximum of 10 series for $50. The episodes one month after the season ends. These bundles would also include Hulu exclusive bonus features like extended episodes, commentaries and selected deleted scenes. Cost: $10-$50 per bundle.

The final tier would open up entire series libraries to the user, dating back to the very beginning. It would also offer any and all deleted scenes, commentaries and other special features from previous DVD releases and include the Hulu exclusives mentioned above. Tier 3 would include access to canceled programs and old series not even found on DVD. Additionally, users in this tier can access Hulu via their new iPad/iPhone application, on their desktop and anywhere else. Finally, the price paid would be based on the amount of data streamed. Cost: $8/month for less than 40 hours streamed, $20/month for unlimited.

Though there are a slew of other issues that would derail this – contracts, music rights, network web sites offering stuff for free – a combination of already successful models is a good place to start. This way, casual fans don’t get the shaft and diehards can really make it worth their while.

NBC reboot has begun: Where to now?

2010-03-02T19:59:00.000-05:00

Tonight -- well, I guess this week since Leno's Tonight Show started yesterday -- is the makeshift reboot of NBC's schedule, as it's newest hope for ratings success, positive critical response and good buzz, Parenthood debuts at 10 PM.

In the last year, NBC's undergone a slew of changes that more or less led to nothing. So where do we stand with the Peacock network?
This time last year, we were all discussing the Leno-to-10 PM deal and what the ramifications would be. Well, I think everything that's happened since September more or less caused all the ramifications anyone with a brain could deduce in the spring of 2009:

1. Certain programs wouldn't fit in the 9 PM timeslot -- and thus would get axed. Hello, Southland (which fittingly starts the second season ordered-then-no-thanks'ed by NBC tonight).

2. The affiliates would have trouble adjusting to lower ratings and ultimately lower ad revenues. Um, check.

3. The Jay Leno Show would suck. Hell yes.

Since it is NBC, there were some unexpected events over the past calendar year as well, with Ben Silverman finally moving on -- with NBC acting like that was the plan all along -- and the whole Leno-Conan melodrama.

And yet, here we are a year later and everything is more or less in the same spot it was pre-Jay Leno Show announcement. NBC's pilot development for the 09-10 season was more or less a bust, with Community being the lone bright spot -- and even it isn't pulling in good ratings at all. The other newbies Mercy and Trauma were as generic as everyone expected, but NBC's in such a mess that the latter was canceled, then brought back and then maybe canceled again and now it's on the bubble for renewal.

But that's how things go at NBC these days. Only Parks and Recreation remains from their 08-09 season slate of scripted newbies and Chuck is the similar lone scripted survivor from 07-08. Yep, that's two programs since 2007 that have stayed on the air -- and have only done so because of NBC's pathetic expectations. Don't think that's going to cut it.

Now, NBC's hoping for a spring series from big-name producers to save them -- just like they were last year with Southland. The reviews have been mixed for Parenthood, and this point, that's clearly not good for NBC. If the network is going to rebuild its reputation, it needs a drama series that lots of people love AND watch, and based on NBC's typical ratings, the latter part isn't coming -- so the former has to be there.

So where does NBC go from here? Jay debuted to big numbers last night, so all might be right in the late night front, but despite huge post-Olympic numbers, nearly everyone hated the "let's give Seinfeld a blank check and let him do whatever he wants" project, The Marriage Ref.

And obviously the success or failure of Parenthood won't destroy NBC -- because it's already damaged pretty heavily. But it would surely help them on their way to some rehabilitation, as would a strong development slate (you can see for yourself what's on the table right now).

In any event, tonight is the unofficial "new beginning" for NBC. It would be great to look back and say Parenthood was the start of a resurgence, wouldn't it? But with NBC, I never get that feeling. Ever.

Jay's back! Who's pumped?!

2010-03-01T00:24:00.000-05:00

Tonight is the premiere/re-start of Jay Leno's Tonight Show! I'll wait a few moments while you contain your happiness.

Okay.

So, will you be watching?
Now I know most anyone who reads this probably doesn't consider themselves a fan of Jay Leno, especially after the whole mess that occurred about a month ago. You know, when NBC decided to cancel Jay's 10 PM show, give up on their cost-cutting experiment and ultimately give Conan O'Brien an ultimatum that led to his departure. I don't want to re-examine those issues because they've been done to death, so let's move forward.

It has been over a month since Conan said goodbye to his short-lived tenure on The Tonight Show. And although people were all up in arms about the whole situation then, will anyone truly care now? Despite all the behind-the-scenes drama, Leno did his best to stay out of the situation on-camera, going as far as letting Jimmy Kimmel comically fillet him on his own show. Thus, we probably cannot expect him to come out tonight and mention the events. In fact, I would be shocked if he even mentioned it at all. Instead, expect a lot of jokes about the Olympics -- watch out Canadian women's hockey team! -- and probably even some Tiger Woods stuff. Because Jay is that funny.

But, we all tuned in back in September when his 10 PM show debuted, perhaps hoping that something would be different even though we all knew it wouldn't be (the no-desk, more-fidgety leg thing doesn't count). Or perhaps because we are pathetic gluttons for punishment.

Yet, after all that groundswell of support for Coco and anti-Leno rhetoric, wasn't it all for not? Conan's gone -- but on Twitter! -- and Leno's got his old job back. Not to make this a culture war, but his "old" fans will be happy and everyone who threw around #ImwithCoco will go on ignoring him after the first few nights -- if not from the beginning.

And what about those celebrities who hitched a ride on the Team Conan express back in January? The biggest star of the bunch that included Ben Stiller, Ice T, Christina Applegate has to be Tom Hanks and it looks like he'll be appearing on The Late Show with David Letterman in hopes of keeping the CBS giant on top. But what happens when Hanks' next film comes out? Will he really not go on the air with Jay? And although Hanks has the pull to avoid a situation like that, some of the lesser stars probably don't. However, I guess it's not like Jay has the balls to confront anyone who knocked him anyway, so maybe it doesn't matter.

Finally, what about the program itself? Kevin Eubanks' departure is NBC/Leno's way of mixing things up, just as the no desk thing was. Man, these guys are creative. I assume it's just going to go on, business as usual with unfunny stand-up and terrible "bits." And sadly, after all the bluster that blew through social media a short time ago, no one is going to raise that much of a fuss about it.

We are back to square one with Jay and Conan's gone. So did any of our clamoring matter?

Reminder: Other work

2010-02-28T23:58:00.000-05:00

I just wanted to take a few words to remind anyone who looks at this blog that I do other TV-related work for the Indiana Daily Student. You can find the links to my podcast on the top of the right sidebar, and then further down you'll notice links to my recaps of various programming and other writing.

Thanks!

Twitter and TV viewing: Pay attention to me!

2010-02-28T12:19:00.001-05:00

In the last week, a couple of stories have been written about the growing use of Twitter during live television events and the interactive culture created by it.

So obviously, people have taken to Twitter to talking about, which allowed me to find the articles.
The NY Times' Brian Stelter wrote on Tuesday about the new Water-Cooler Effect of Twitter, which is "encouraging people to split their time between the computer screen and big-screen TV." This has helped live events like the Grammys, Golden Globes and Olympics score high ratings, while people chatter online as the events unfold.

Meanwhile, Max Dawson took to Antenna to discuss the phenomenon from a more personal level and how Twitter has helped bring the academic world of television scholars together, even if they've never met in person before:

I first realized this when I started watching television with some of my colleagues at other universities and colleges. Mind you, I wasn’t actually in the same room with them at the time. In fact, technically speaking I’ve never “met” a number of these people. Rather, when I say that I’ve been “watching television with my colleagues,” what I really mean is that I’ve been following – and responding to – their Twitter updates as we watch television on our own.

You should definitely check out the comments section of that article, where a number of today's big time scholars discuss how Twitter has changed their TV viewing habits.

But as I said there, Twitter brings something different to people like me, who are trying to break into academic, popular TV criticism or both. For me, Twitter does certainly exist as a way to follow what some of my favorite critics and scholars are saying as Idol, Survivor or the Olympics unspool live.

But it's also a way for me to attempt to start a conversation with them via Twitter. I'll be honest, when my recent post on the "death" of serialization was RT'ed by Christine Becker, then commented on and RT'ed by Myles McNutt and then done the same by Dawson, it was one of the better moments of that week for me. Later that week, after a couple of my posts had made it onto Becker's News For TV Majors blog, Jason Mittell started following me too. Similarly, I still remember when major TV critics like Alan Sepinwall and Mo Ryan answered questions of mine, too.

So what does this all mean for people like me? I'm not sure. Am I pathetic because I hope that something I write ends up on a blog, which then ends up being mentioned on Twitter by other people who do the same thing I do, only better? Maybe.

An article written over at Gawker discusses this pretty well in terms of prospective media writers trying to get noticed, and make themselves feel better:

Here is what we are doing: We 'follow' writers we like, in multiple senses, in hopes of them, for some reason, following back. We link to posts they write, often. We tend to the shaft. We disagree with them, respectfully, in hopes of a counter-argument. In hopes of being discovered. We work for free. We blog when they instant message us, asking about our internships. We compliment how cute their kids are. We 'like' them, we really 'like' them. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his followers count. Replies are encouraging; @'s are encouraging. It is all about ego and misplaced hero worship and low expectations. And it doesn't come with a paycheck.

That's exactly how I feel, maybe a little less cynical. I want people to notice me, but not in a "Hey, look at me!" way. I just want to be a part of the conversation that's happening and no application gives me that opportunity better than Twitter. Sure, I could send an e-mail, I could leave a comment, hell, I could even call Sepinwall on that office number they always put on his NJ.com stuff. But I'd feel obnoxious, and maybe even a little creepy doing that. With Twitter, it all feels okay. I'm not sure that it is, but it feels that way to me. So perhaps I'll go on living in my fantasy world where an @ reply from Sepinwall makes my year.

Just end it already! Genre television and end dates

2010-02-26T00:44:00.000-05:00

As we've all seen over the past month, the end of Lost has sparked a slew of different conversations about the future of television, formats, serialization, etc. One move that Lost proponents always cite as the turning point in the series was the agreement to end it all back in 2007.

And now, that idea gets thrown around for nearly every series with any extended mythology. But should it?
When I think of some of television's most talked-about "genre" series, the words "end date" usually make it in there somewhere -- because everyone talks about it. Battlestar Galactica kinda did it by announcing right before the final season that well, it would be the final season. But no one has made the move years in advance.

Heroes is the most obvious example of this, as a number of articles have been written over the past couple seasons calling for the much-trouble series to set an end date -- or just end.

But recently, the "end date" chatter has been getting louder. Two seasons in, J.J. Abrams and Fringe producers are already thinking that staking out a date to end it all might wise.

After just a few episodes, FlashForward producers said they could tell their story in a few seasons if needbe. V is already being planned as a 2-3 short season "event."

So the talk is there, but why isn't anyone really doing it? There are so many positives to setting an end date that in an area where any original idea is copied, I cannot believe other producers and networks have taken the idea and ran with it.

First, setting an end date does free up the writers to tell the final leg of the story, assuming that exists in some form. The mythology questions can be answered and characters can be given their proper due. No more plodding, no more padding. And it also (hopefully) keeps the series from collapsing due to all the mythological layers weight it down.

Secondly, that creative direction could charm old viewers to return, reignite the fire within fans bored with the series and even draw in some people who weren't watching before or waiting for the DVDs. So many series that need an end date also rely heavily on fan support and so pleasing them makes a lot of sense.

Consider two series that have probably ran too long at this point: 24 and Smallville. The former hasn't been good for three seasons and though I didn't expect FOX to bow out after the masterful fifth season, going three more years after that has only made most fans realize how formulaic and generic the series is now.

No one who wants to keep their reputation in the industry talks about Smallville, but as a fan from the beginning, I'm still shocked that it's still on the air -- and probably going to be for a 10th season next year. And even if I (and a lot of the series small, but rabid fan base) thinks the series has actually been better in years eight and nine than it was in years four through seven, it should have never made it this far. Despite its charms, a 10-year journey to Flight and Tights isn't what we expected.

Both of these series have fallen victim to the "more story" syndrome where if contracts are already in place, the demand is still kind-of there or in the CW's case, the network is in such bad shape, they just keep coming back.

And therein lies the problem: the networks are rarely -- and I mean RARELY -- going to give up a good thing. Lost got a good deal because ABC boss Steve McPherson respects the team and knew what would be the best for the series. But despite its current, pathetic state, NBC will probably bring back Heroes next season, which means it will end up running at least 50 episodes longer than it should have.

Moreover, there's every indication that Fringe will be back. Same too for Smallville. And in an example that proves that even when you say there's an end date, it doesn't really matter if contracts are signed, the CW is bringing back Supernatural past its "five year plan" timetable.

We all know why: money. And to a lesser extent the fear of the unknown. Because despite creative flaws, pre-arranged, but not confirmed agreements and past-due life, Heroes, Supernatural and Smallville make money. Maybe not through traditional advertising revenue, but through DVD sales -- where all three do very well -- and other ancillary markets like magazines, graphic novels, etc. Plus, don't forget international and syndication money.

But on top of that, the major networks clearly are working with the "deal with the devil you know, not the one you do not" approach, as it is just too damn hard to build an audience these days that it might cost more to do the whole pilot process and marketing execution just to get eyes on early episodes of a new series. So while costs for older series usually go up over time due to rising salaries and other budgetary things, the somewhat guaranteed performances of some of these series is over-ruling that in current landscape.

Thus, while it would be wonderful to see series like Fringe or Supernatural end exactly how and when they should, they won't. Because even these days, there's still a lot of money to be made.

Streaming video news part three: iTunes episodes for 99 cents?

2010-02-21T23:08:00.002-05:00

There have been a few interesting developments in streaming video this week, all of which should have long-term implications for the television industry. I'm hoping to write about all three over the next day or so. Click here to see my thoughts on Hulu to the iPad and HBO's GO.

Though this news item isn't quite "streaming video" specifically, it's still important to discuss. Rumors are swirling that CBS might start selling episodes of its television series on iTunes for only 99 cents.

That, according to statements by CBS head honcho Les Moonves. All Things Digital reported on Thursday that Moonves noted certain series would begin to sell for a dollar less than the usual $1.99 all the time. All Things later updated the story saying that behind-the-scenes folks at CBS didn't think anything was specifically in the works quite yet, but talks were definitely happening. Despite that, Moonves is the only one on the record and thus, there is still something to discuss here.

Some are noting that this development could be declared a victory for Apple, who have reportedly been pressuring the TV networks to drop the price of television episodes for a while now. That was the word late last month, as many assumed the move was to coincide with Apple's iPad.

As Mashable noted at that time, episode sales have not been an overwhelming success for Apple in the iTunes store, and so they assume a price slash would appeal to more consumers and thus raise sales figures -- obviously enough to re-coup the dollar lost on each sale under this new plan.

The question at that time and still is, will the networks go for it? Though it will be great to have more units moved and see more episodes top random iTunes charts -- just for appearances sake -- but I can't imagine cash-crazy nets like NBC would go for this deal unless they were completely sure that the lower price equaled more money in the end. Especially since NBC pulled content off iTunes in 2008 in hopes of being more able to control the price themselves (and they did, getting $2.99 for HD eps).

Secondly, even if cheaper episode costs brought more people and more money to the networks via iTunes, it would also possibly pull more people away from the actual airings on television, which of course means lower ratings and less money from advertisers. And there is no way the iTunes sales revenue would make up for that.

But if CBS, the most successful network ratings-wise right now at least in terms of viewers, takes the bait and is actually successful, there could be some sort of shift to cheaper episodes.

What does this mean for Apple? I think it means they'd be less willing to approve a Hulu application, because they'd be offering a more attractive-than-before alternative from the iTunes store. It also might tie in with the rumored iTunes powered Apple TV subscription plans that have been talked about for months. Under that plan, users would pay a monthly fee (say like $30) and be able to have access to TV content through all of Apple's platforms -- and provide a slightly new revenue stream for networks.

In December, CBS and Disney were rumored to be on-board with that deal, which would reportedly gain them $2 to $4 for each subscription. This would clearly allow consumers to by-pass paying for cable at home when they could just pay a fairly cheap rate to Apple and get all the same programming.

Whatever happens, with all this and the possible Hulu-to-iPad news, it's clear that Apple has a lot of horses in the TV game-changing race.

Streaming video news part two: HBO GO goes live, frustrates consumers

2010-02-21T20:35:00.001-05:00

Eric Kessler, a president of HBO, said the company was not offering the HBO GO service to attract a new audience. Instead, it hoped to extend its relationship with its current audience.

“We’re a subscription service, and our ongoing overarching objective is to enhance the service to make it better,” Mr. Kessler said. “It’s about enhancing the satisfaction and continuing the life cycle of the subscriber.”

Wow. Doesn't that seem a tad bit short-sighted on the usually-ground-breaking HBO's part? I understand the need to evolve in hopes of keeping the subscribers already on-board, but for a network that does not rely on advertising, wouldn't obtaining new subscribers be a good thing?

And it is not as if people are calling for HBO GO to be free. But the smart play would seem to be that HBO should open up GO to non-subscribers for a small monthly (less than the $10-$16 fee most HBO subscribers pay) or even larger one-time flat-fee. HBO could even limit the number of videos non-TV subscribers watch per day or per week in hopes of convincing them that signing up for the full deal is worth it.

Instead, this feels like an attempt by HBO to continue its "It's not TV" cultural elite mystique. The pay cable giant is damn good at creating financial and taste distinctions between those who can watch HBO programming and those who cannot, so it is actually no surprise to see them further expand those boundaries with GO.

As it stands now, HBO is seemingly more worried about furthering its image than making money -- and that's shocking in today's world.

Streaming video news part one: Hulu to the iPad?

2010-02-20T00:57:00.001-05:00

There have been a few interesting developments in streaming video this week, all of which should have long-term implications for the television industry. I'm hoping to write about all three over the next day or so.

First up: Rumors are swirling that Hulu could come to the iPad. But will we have to pay?
Probably.

All Things Digital is reporting that Hulu is likely for the iPad, but it will most likely include some form of charge. This plays right into the rumblings that Hulu and its partners -- NBCU, FOX and Disney (ABC) -- want to create a premium service, which if moving to the iPad is included, would make sense.

Though Hulu has provided free content so far, a tiered system feels almost certain and one way to convince people to pay for Hulu is moving it across screens or platforms:

“One idea the company and its backers like: Turning Hulu from a ‘one screen’ service — one you’re only supposed to watch on your computer — to a “three screen” offering, by adding support for TVs and mobile devices.
‘Just three screens alone is pretty enticing,’ for consumers, says an executive at one of Hulu’s parent companies."

So the question then becomes how/what to get people to pay for. Paying per episode is too similar to iTunes and doesn't offer any incentive to try something new for viewers. A subscription might work, but perhaps a high-ish cost for the application download itself makes the most sense. It's a one-time cost, but certainly worth it. I know that I'd pay anywhere between $20-$40 to have full-time access to Hulu on a device like the iPad.

Just a few weeks ago, I noted that the lack of flash video would keep the iPad from having any massive influence on the television world, and though the flash-embargo stands, there are stories circulating about that while Apple won't include it on the iPad, there are ways application developers can implement something similar.

However, there are other issues to consider with the move to the iPad, most notably licensing fees. Hulu would have to go to the networks and production companies and re-negotiate the fees and terms for use on a "mobile device," because that's all different than the terms for computer use. And with the iPad being able to use Wi-Fi (thus making it computer-like) and 3G (thus making it phone-like), there's a slew of moving parts involved.

If (and it still feels like a big if to me) this happens, it won't be on-time for the iPad launch.

Nevertheless, I think Hulu's move to the iPad could actually convince people that it's okay to pay for Hulu's service. The interface is fantastic, it's a recognized brand and if the terms can be worked out and the same type of content is available, paying for an application will be worth it to people who love television and love the iPad. With an up-front fee and the usual advertising, Hulu then becomes a bit more of a traditional medium, and at this point, that's probably what both the television and advertising industries are looking for.

The dead-end "dead" serial discussion: It's not happening

2010-02-15T22:35:00.002-05:00

I've talked a lot about serialized television lately, and it seems like a lot of TV critics and scholars have the same thing on their mind with Lost coming to an end.

In the past few weeks, a slew of articles and columns have hit the web about the topic, with some writing the serials eulogy.

Simply put: Those people are wrong.
Though I myself said there won't be another serialized series like Lost, and it's fairly obvious that the series' end is somewhat like the end of an era, the island-bound drama is still an extreme example. But that didn't stop Broadcasting and Cable's Marisa Guthrie from wondering if serials would die with Lost:

As the economics of television have become increasingly challenging amid viewer fragmentation, back-end potential has become even more critical. Unlike crime procedurals, which seem to run endlessly on ad-supported cable and in syndication, serials have always been a much tougher sell in the syndication market.

And this week, Aaron Barnhart of the KC Star painted a similar picture, this time noting the poor ratings for various broadcast network serial series:

[O]ther critically acclaimed serial dramas are taking it on the chin, even on cable channels, where smaller audiences can keep a show afloat long after a big network would ordinarily cut it loose.

As a major fan of serialized television who has lost some probably-in-hindsight-not-good series because they were too convoluted or too complicated, too fast, I get it. I've already said it in this space. Ratings for most of the serials on broadcast television are down and it's hard to sell them into syndication. I mean who the hell wants to watch one episode of 24 randomly on WGN? Nobody I hope.

But just as I said 12 days ago, serialization and the serial is not going away. It might be moving in a cyclical pattern on the broadcast networks, but it's still alive on cable. Every single one of the big series on cable -- Mad Men, Breaking Bad, Damages, Sons of Anarchy, Big Love, True Blood, Dexter -- is a serialized television program. Period. And aside from Damages, those series have all had good-to-great ratings for cable. And as TV By The Numbers points out, serialization television DOMINATES DVD sales. And I'd guess that Netflix streams or rentals tell a similar story. And this all matters.

So seriously, can we just let this talk go? Yes, Lost marks the end of an era, and era that was started by 24 and continued by Lost. But all the series that cloned those formulas or attempted to pull from them back then were failures. So to write a eulogy now seems like a way to start an imaginary discussion or argument that is not there.

Those two were the biggest and most extreme examples of serialization. When they go, so will those extremes. But television has been dealing with the after-shocks of their debuts since 2001 and 2004 respectively. It's not a story now just because the two of them might be gone.

Update: One thing I forgot, that someone who read this noted to me: It also seems like people have such a limited definition of serialization anyway. Like I noted above, 24 and Lost are extreme examples, but hell, Grey's Anatomy, Desperate Housewives and even Gossip Girl feature a certain type of melodramatic serialized story. It's not some epic mythology like Lost, but threads continue pretty closely to where it left off in the previous episode. I feel like that's an obvious thing to say, but maybe not?

'Chuck' versus the Ridiculous Fan Reaction

2010-02-11T00:58:00.001-05:00

FACT: NBC series Chuck has a ridiculously active fanbase.

For anyone who doesn't know, the fans -- which included critics like Alan Sepinwall and Mo Ryan -- of the series helped organize a slew of "Save Chuck" campaigns last spring, including pilgrimages to Subway, a sponsor of the show, and a number of social media-related outputs. For more info on the efforts of Chuck fans see here, here and here.

FACT: The fans feel as if they had a big part in the series coming back for a third season this year on NBC and thus have some "ownership" over it.

FACT: The Chuck fans are using this "ownership" to overreact to the most recent episode, "Chuck versus the Mask."

This week's episode saw Chuck and Sarah, destined lovers, spy partners, hook up with other people. Just like almost every other series with a romantic relationship at the core, the writers are finding new ways to keep the two of them apart. But unlike many other series, this current way of keeping Chuck and Sarah apart actually works, since their respective new loves are actually good for their development.

But some fans are really, really, REALLY upset about this plot development. So much so that one went as far as to organize a "fan blackout" of the series in the comments of Alan Sepinwall's post about the episode. Here's what the person had to say:

When Chuck returns after the Olympics, no one should watch it on air. Rather we should all watch it online at Hulu or any other online service we can find. Failing that, DVR the show and watch it that way.

That way we can send a message to NBC and the producers of the show that we are still interested in the show but we are not prepared to settle for the caliber of show we saw last night. “We’re mad as hell and we’re not going to take it anymore”.

If we can bring the number of on air viewers below 1 million, the advertisers will take note. You can count on that. You can also bet the advertisers will be on the phone to NBC and the producers of Chuck. Money talks after all.

If everyone that loves the show were to watch online at Hulu, you can bet NBC would notice that too. We can send a message and still get our Chuck fix.
We need NBC to know that we love the show. We also need for NBC to know that we are disappointed.

That's right, this person is hoping to get fans to not watch the series so that the writers will do what THEY, the fans want. It seems that the hard work all the fans put into keeping Chuck around has caused them to feel very controlling about who is actually captaining the ship. And just as they did when they were trying to celebrate the series, Chuck fans were willing to take to the internet in hopes of spreading the word, as instances like the one on Sepinwall's blog occurred on Mo Ryan's as well, leading to NPR even commenting on the issue. Todd VanDerWerff sarcastically chimed in as well. Finally, executive producers Josh Schwartz and Chris Fedak had to comment as well before all this got out of control.

As the NPR article suggests, having this type of fanbase is such a double-edged sword. It was great to have these people -- I hate to refer to Chuck fans like that, as I consider myself a die-hard fan of the series -- back in March and April of 2009. But this week, it's a little tougher to swallow. Criticism is one thing, but an outright boycott of the series simply because the two main characters hooked up with other people? Seriously?

Obviously, this commenter's suggestion is so flawed it is laughable. If the small amount of people who do watch Chuck stop and the viewership dips anywhere near 1 million viewers, it will be canceled. No question. Hell, the series is on the bubble with the die-hards watching and the 6/7 million viewers it's getting right now.

And as a fan, I'm embarrassed by such an idea. I've been frustrated with series before, enough so that I've taken to the internet to express those frustrations. But trying to tear down a series you spent so much time building up just because something doesn't go the way you want is a disrespect to anyone who calls themselves a fan. It just is.

Chuck does not belong to the fans, despite their influence in saving it (which is still smaller than they think). It belongs to the writers, producers, actors, etc. If you're upset with the direction, don't watch. Write some fan-fiction where what you want to happen actually does. BUT DO NOT ask all the fellow fans to join you.

Looking forward, is this the type of thing that "cult" series have to deal with? Fans of programs feel entitled beyond belief and they eventually tune out? I could see this occurring, especially for a true shark-jumping moment, not just a roadblock in some "shipper" debate. What do these types of fans really want or hope to accomplish? Are they real fans at all? I'm not sure.

'MAS*H' knocked-off: Is that good for advertising?

2010-02-09T23:15:00.000-05:00

Not to call out Professor Anderson, but recently in class, he noted that nothing would ever top the ratings of the M*A*S*H series finale, which reached 105.97 million viewers in 1983.

And why wouldn't he say that? Nothing has come that close ever since, and with the slew of cable, pay-cable, OnDemand, online and other channels, the audience is fragmented beyond belief.

Well, never count out the appeal of a city coming back from disaster and Peyton Manning.
Last Sunday's Super Bowl, broke the record held by M*A*S*H and became the highest-rated single-day television program ever. 106.5 million viewers watched the game on Sunday. This continued the NFL's big year on television, where a Monday Night Football game topped the cable record for all-time viewership, both conference title games were the highest-rated in two decades and even the Pro Bowl reached its highest levels of viewership in 10 years.

Obviously, there is a big difference between singular events and scripted events that you can watch later without being that spoiled, but this still feels like a significant occurrence. The NFL's success proves that there is still at least one type of television format that appeals to masses of people.This is good news for advertisers as well, who surely spent millions of dollars to reach the eyes of those watching the game.

But could the growing success of NFL games, specifically playoff games and the Super Bowl, be a bad thing for advertisers?

Maybe I'm just playing devil's advocate here, but despite the success of this one event, Professor Anderson's comments hold true. Rarely, and I mean rarely, do television events or episodes reach past the 30 million viewers mark unless it is a sporting event and the occasional award show.

So it's obvious a new model of advertising needs to be created. What, I'm not quite sure, but it seems to be that both the ad and television industries will use this Super Bowl's success as a way to say, "What we're doing is right! Tradition holds!" because that is the kind of thinking they usually deploy.

Good for CBS, perhaps bad for new advertising models moving forward.

'Lost' burnout and the frustrations of serialization

2010-02-05T22:16:00.001-05:00

I hate to keep writing about Lost, but over the past few weeks, its return has been the best story that is being covered from all angles.

Last time I discussed the end of Lost meaning the end of well-respected serialization on broadcast network television. Today, let's look at another reason why serialization, especially heavy serialization, might not work so well for audiences in the future.

New York Magazine's Emily Nussbaum recently voiced the frustrations and worries that some long-time Lost fans have as the six-year series begins its final season:

I don’t want to be the viewer who watches with her eyebrow raised; it’s more fun to be a fan. But narrative playfulness isn’t meaningful unless it rests on a something real—the way it did in the great chronology-shuffling movies of the last decade, like Memento and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, which resonated with deeper ideas about identity and the nature of love. Lost’s creators designed the lovable Hurley (and sometimes the annoying Arzt) as their stand-ins for an audience of demanding nerds. But right now, I’m praying I don’t end up like Locke, that crazy bastard who just wanted to know that the path he followed had some meaning and who ended up instead with the saddest possible thought: “I don’t understand.”

Nussbaum's not the only one. Since the premiere aired, I've talked with a number of different people who are more frustrated now than perhaps they've ever been. And yet, those that are frustrated tell me that they feel as if the final season should be all about the answers relating to the mythology -- which is basically the exact opposite of what Nussbaum's saying.

But either way, it is clear that for all the people that are psyched to see Lost unspool its final act with just as many twists and turns as previous season or interweave characters even further, some are just as psyched to see the whole thing end. Today a co-worker of mine told me that he wishes the writers would have stayed away from such sci-fi or supernatural topics, but he feels like he has to watch because it's almost over and he might as well see it through.

Not everyone wants to even do that, though. Look here and see how the ratings have declined since the first season (thanks to Wikipedia)

While some of that can be attributed to the general decay of viewership thanks to the DVR and online streaming, that's a steady drop. Loads of people have given up on Lost at this point.

And that brings me to my main point: does serialized television cause burnout?

One could argue that, considering all the canceled series mentioned in my last post. But again, there are a number of serialized series doing pretty darn well on cable, most notably True Blood, Dexter and Breaking Bad and Mad Men to a lesser extent. Perhaps it is because those cable series have such short runs that people are willing to invest the time more intently?

On the networks, there is a need to drive up the episode orders of series that are marginally successful, but for series that need the audience to do their due-diligence, 22-25 episodes a year for five to six years isn't going to cut it. There will be too much stalling, too much padding. See Lost's third season as exhibit A and the later Sopranos years as exhibit B.

Thus, as usual, perhaps the cable networks have it all correct. Even with the shorter seasons in the latter half of its run, Lost will eventually cap out at 121 hours. With a mythology and story so dense and complex, that's probably too much. Compare that to The Wire, which ran for five seasons, but only 60 episodes. Half as much commitment, still a great story.

Celebrating 'Lost' as a game-changer in television

2010-02-03T20:24:00.001-05:00

Last week, I discussed why I personally thought we'd never see another television series like Lost.

Well, the Lost creative brass kind of feels the same way that I do.
In an interview with Jace Lacob of the Daily Beast, executive producers Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse talked about the impact that their baby has had on television as a medium. Here's the question from Lacob and their response to a question about serialization on television:

The Daily Beast: While the May conclusion marks the end of Lost in its current incarnation, it also marks the end of a particular type of serialized storytelling on television. Following the success of Lost, several networks attempted to reproduce its magic, ordering a number of highly serialized shows meant to capitalize on Lost's success, including ABC's Invasion, Daybreak, and The Nine, NBC's Heroes andSurface, and CBS' Threshold. Of the Lost wannabes, none lasted more than a season other than Heroes, which has seen its own fortunes severely decline over the years.
Cuse: We like to believe that we've sort of opened the door for certain types of shows that were not welcome on network television before Lost. It has led to the networks taking gambles with heavily serialized shows, and also genre shows. I mean, basically, there was no science fiction on the networks prior to Lost.
Lindelof: Except for The X-Files, but they'd been off the air for at least five years.
Cuse: At the point in which Lost started, there was nothing and it was not something that anybody was interested in. Clearly, there was an appetite for other shows.Heroes came along, debuted, and did very strongly for a few seasons. It proved that there was a network audience for shows, not just our show, but for other shows that were sort of heavily genre. We like to think that we opened the door.
On the other hand, we feel a little bit like we're sort of blacksmiths in the Internet era. We're making this gargantuan show; we shoot it on 35mm film in Panavision. We often have multiple crews filming at the same time. We shoot it on location in Hawaii. We live in a fractured media environment now where there's such a multiplicity of choices that it's hard to aggregate resources to do a huge big-budget series like this… I think those opportunities will be a lot fewer in the future.

As Lacob notes in his question, after Lost, there were a slew of serialized series trying to become "the next Lost" -- and not one of those series has been successful.

Again, Heroes had a successful first season, but I feel as if that was more a product of how people felt about Lost at the time. If we go back to the 2006-2007 season, that was during the infamous "polar bear cage" six-episode pod time, Nikki and Paulo and Jack's tats. The storyline on Lost was stalling a little bit and people were looking for a reason to jump ship and Heroes was there -- even if it wasn't actually any good. Once Lost started picking up, people realized how bad Heroes was at least in terms of sharp, serialized storytelling.

The lack of success for other series trying a Lost-like formula tells us a lot about how fans react to serialized storytelling, at least on the surface. In that respect, the quick cancellations ever since Lost and the declining ratings for the one series many thought actually had the chance to touch Lost, FlashForward, it is easy to argue that audiences do not like serialized storytelling anymore.

However, taking a closer look at things across all networks and the picture is not as clear. Yes, there have been a number of failures on the major networks, but is that really related to the fact that the series are specifically serialized? I'm not sure.

Aside from latter eps of Invasion, every one of the series Lacob notes were not really that good. The Nine had potential, but it fell apart quickly. The others were bad. Really bad. And we know what happens to terrible series: they get cancelled.

But does that mean the end of hyper-serialized storytelling? No. Lost is the most drastic example, but across the cable powers -- FX, HBO, AMC, Showtime -- every single one of their series is serialized. That's a lot of television with serialized storytelling.

So we might not see another Lost, but we'll still have a full plate of serialization.

'Lost' signifies the end of an era

2010-01-28T19:17:00.000-05:00

Today, the publication that I edit WEEKEND ran a Lost-centric issue, most of which I penned. You can check out everything here, but I wanted to re-post the piece I thought was most important to a discussion about television formats and genres moving forward. Here it is.

With Lost at the beginning of the end, emotions are high for us fans who have spent too many hours watching, debating online and staring at paused DVR images in hopes of finding hidden clues. But even for non-fanatics, this should be a sad time because there is no way that we will ever see a television phenomenon quite like Lost ever again. And here’s why.
1. No broadcast network takes risks anymore. Even in 2004 when it began, Lost was a major risk. When Lloyd Braun, the head of ABC at the time, greenlit the egregiously expensive pilot (the two-hour effort reportedly cost between $10-$14 million, compared to the usual $4-$5 million), he was fired for being so careless.

Six years and an exponentially quick increase in the use of the DVR and Hulu later, networks are even more worried about saving money. We all know the drill: reality shows, procedurals and lame spin-offs are how the major networks do business these days. And even when a network dips its toe into the shallow end of the interesting idea pool, they are quick on pulling the plug (see: Invasion, Journeyman, Dollhouse).

2. The writers put character over concept. When people think of Lost, their minds instantly go to the Smoke Monster, the DHARMA Initiative, time travel and the Numbers. But that’s not what the series is about.

Show masterminds Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse have always said that this is a story about people who were thrown into extraordinary circumstances – and they’ve backed that up. Unlike all the other Lost rip-offs like FlashForward that rely solely on an out-there premise.

Sure, we diehards all tune in to figure out what the hell the four-toed statue is, or how in the name of Jacob, Ben and Locke were able to move the island, but we stay for Sawyer’s nicknames, Hurley’s “Dude”s, Jack’s incessant need to fix everything and all the other character beats that make all the waiting for mythology moments still so enjoyable. There’s a reason purely character episodes like “Tricia Tanaka Is Dead” and “Some Like It Hoth” are still compelling.

3. Audiences aren’t patient enough. Sprawling, cross-season mythologies don’t just scare penny-pinching networks – they terrify TV watchers in middle America.

Lost does have a sizable group of fans that have watched since the beginning, but as time has gone on and the plot has gotten more dense and complicated, the ratings have plummeted from around 20 million to 9 million viewers an episode. Even factoring in DVR and online viewing, that’s a steep decline.

And the problem with the audience leads to the concept-over-character issue I mentioned above. Producers and writers feel like they have to hook people in with these outrageous ideas and then the audience doesn’t get invested in the characters and leaves. It’s a cyclical roundabout of doom.

4. The disease of more always kicks in. If a series is a major hit, the networks and advertisers are going to want more of it. More episodes per season, more seasons and these days, more spin-offs.

And the people involved with the show want more too: more money, more screen time, better back-end syndication money, whatever.

But the folks at Lost always avoided that. Lindelof and Cuse negotiated the six-season deal in 2007 when they realized they couldn’t tell the story they wanted to if they didn’t know when it would end. And no actor has spoken out vehemently for more screen time or money, but instead fell into place because they knew they’d get their time to shine.

In May, Lost will be gone forever and so will the idea of the hyper-serialized character drama on network television.

Will the iPad change TV?

2010-01-28T01:03:00.000-05:00

Image courtesy of Apple

Wednesday, every media outlet, web site, newspaper or blogger had something to say about Apple's latest "world changing" creation, the iPad.

And while the discussion of whether or not the iPad is actually that revolutionary is for another day, I thought I'd shape the story to fit into the realm of television.

So, in response to the question I posed in the headline: No, put simply.
The iPad does connect to the iTunes store and YouTube, so there are video-watching capabilities present. Combine that with the larger screen and we have ourselves a beautiful picture of our favorite iTunes-purchased episode or video, but it is still the exact same interface.

However, the video-watching software is not any more advanced on the iPad than it is on the iPhone or iPod Touch. And what does that mean? No flash video. Which means no Hulu. No Fancast. No TV.com. No streaming episodes or video content from network web sites. As the folks at Gizmodo put it:

No Flash
No Flash is annoying but not a dealbreaker on the iPhone and iPod Touch. On something that's supposed to be closer to a netbook or laptop? It will leave huge, gaping holes in websites. I hope you don't care about streaming video! God knows not many casual internet users do. Oh wait, nevermind, they all do.

I think most of us have been expecting a major Hulu application for the iPhone and iTouch and that still hasn't arrived. I'm not sure if the whole thing is to protect the iTunes store or what, but every person I talked to hoped that the iPad would have flash capabilities. Well, it does not.

Secondly and certainly less importantly, the iPad doesn't have widescreen viewing. That isn't a huge deal, but who the heck wants to watch an episode of Lost or Damages in 4:3 these days? Not me.

Finally, the lack of a camera means that along with iChat, you can't film something that's happening and throw it up on YouTube. Obviously that doesn't effect mainstream television viewers or the industry that much, but it is surely a development that is worth noting based on our class discussions about YouTube and the DIY possibilities.

So be psyched about the iPad if you want. But just know, if you care about watching television on it, don't expect anything different than the frustrating options you have right now.

More spin-offs coming to a TV set near you

2010-01-26T00:46:00.000-05:00

This semester, I am hoping to research how television content will change in the 21st century and so most of my posts on this blog will discusses issues relating to genre, narrative, etc.

Two recent announcements give us an indication of one way programming content will move, at least on the major broadcast networks: spin-offs.

Obviously spin-offs are nothing new, with CBS trotting out three different iterations of the CSI: series and successfully launching a second entry into the NCIS brand this season. And that's just scripted content. Think of all the spin-offs and new iterations of reality programming that fills up the schedules of cable networks like MTV and VH1.

But it doesn't look like spin-offs will go away any time soon on the scripted side. CBS has been kicking around the idea of a Criminal Minds spin-off for a couple of years, and they are officially going forward with it now, starring Oscar winner Forest Whitaker.

And over at FOX, the idea of a House spin-off is still alive in some capacity. FOX thought they had an idea for the spin-off when House producers introduced P.I. Lucas (Michael Weston) last year, but it ultimately fell a part for whatever reason.

As disappointing and uninventive as spin-offs are, these two instances are more respectable than others, with the creators of the originals staying closely involved with the new versions and in the case of Minds, they are at least trying to rope in quality actors.

So perhaps the ideas are being re-done over and over, but we can take a sliver of solace in the fact that there is still some effort being made to produce quality television. And of course, they are really smart business because people are seemingly more apt to respond to a pre-packaged brand that something brand new.

Quick plugs

2010-01-25T02:13:00.001-05:00

I'll be using this blog for my C411 entries, but for anyone who reads this and wants to get more television analysis from me, check out my other blog, WEEKEND Watchers, where myself and my staff recap all of television's best.

And if that's not enough, I also edit and produce the WEEKEND Watchers Official Podcast, which just crossed the 40 episode mark. You can subscribe to that on iTunes.