Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'TV Show Talk' started by Drucifer, Jun 26, 2013.
Yeah, I always thought braking would be a huge problem. Bad enough on boats and ships.
I don't think you can single out FOX as being a delivery service that wants to maximize profits. Networks that don't obey the same rules do that at their peril. The fact that CBS skews older is not because CBS is shooting for old viewers. While CBS is very good at being the top network they are having a dilemma with what median age watches, and they wish it were lower, but about all they can do is wish. Elementary would never be on another network; not because the other nets would not have it, they would kill for it, but because that sort of show goes directly to CBS first. Producers woo the networks first who they assume will give them the longest-running chance at being on the air.
I'm not saying that quality skews to older audiences all the time, just usually. Imagine a pitch to FOX for the show The Good Wife. Never happen. As writers get better, they also get older, and write about issues that appeal to older folks. ABC tries harder than CBS to get the younger viewers, but in a sort of lame, flailing manner. Who over 39 would ever be interested in Super Fun Night, even if it were even marginally good? As it turns out, those under 39 are not there either.
There are also good reasons why the over 18-39 demo does not wash for selling commercial time. One of the biggest is that those over 39 are smarter about buying habits and are not so easily seduced when Samsung makes a commercial about its latest phone that is actually a complete fantasy, a sort of thing which happens daily. Another reason is that when folks get ratings books in the mail they are too busy to fill them out and give them to their kids, who then fill them out with what kids watch. You can't get more unscientifically skewed than that.
Over-39 folks actually watch more TV. They are less-likely to DVR or skip commercials. But the impact just isn't there regarding number of views of a product's commercial (according to skewed ratings reports) translating into a like number of purchases.
So yeah, they don't exist. Neither do viewers who watch DVR-ed content more than 7 days later.
So every day, the 1950's business model of a captive audience watching commercials gets ever more absurd, and ever more out of touch. It's a failing business model, but there really isn't all that much to replace it just yet. Give it another 5-10 years, but the ratings system is essentially dead in the water.
You would think that the rating system would be fully automatic by now.
I agree completely. It's no surprise that the Nielsen people have moved heavily into measuring on line activity. I have said over the years here and elsewhere that the broadcast network model makes no sense. It's not 1958.
First, comparatively few households watch the broadcast networks OTA from the local broadcast channel. The local affiliated broadcast channel model makes no economic sense at all. And even in a heavily populated DMA, the actual number of broadcast channels that would be economically viable without a network affiliation would be surprisingly small IMHO.
Second, the local channels seem to be a net-zero-sum game at best for the networks themselves. The networks could gain substantially as cable channels with a Monday - Thursday five hour "prime time + late night" competition that started at 5 pm EST recycling three times, again IMHO.
The problem is how to determine who is watching in the household, always the weak link in the rating system. To me it's unbelievable that any advertiser would try to target an age demo based on the Niesen ratings. Nonetheless, the Nielsen's still determine a lot of ad sales which is why I find it interesting to see what numbers appear in the ratings.
In the end, the 1958 model was based upon a belief that a the household of a family of 2 adults and 2.3 children would predictably after eating dinner together watch nighttime TV together with "the kids" going to bed at 9 pm or, in special cases, 10 pm.
Today, you can watch the ads on broadcast network TV for smart phones, tablets, and smart TV's, devices which effectively have turned the 1958 broadcast network TV model into the model of limitations for the 16-29 demo. Who in his or her right mind would watch video entertainment at a time that is convenient for the corporate network programmer?
Regardless of your age, if you like "NCIS", it makes no sense to watch 43± minutes of "NCIS" every Tuesday at 8 pm. And many of us in the 50+ crowd discovered that beginning with VCR's we could when we had time watch that 43± minutes in about 46 minutes of real time instead of 60 minutes?
Which comes back to "Almost Human" and Fox. Thinking about what allows "The CW" to continue, I could see "AH" games and other products aimed at the 14-24 male demo which, along with Fox getting $2 a month from 100 million American homes and some ad sales, would make this show a desirable "product" to own.
I like how AH has little Amazon drones flitting around all over the place!
If Amazon was smart (and who's smarter?) they would buy product placement logos on them.
I like Almost Human, mostly because of the two lead actors and the fine, fine, fine Minka Kelly. It's good, light entertainment.
She is kinda hard to beat.
Lets get her out in the field.
The babes in fellow sci-fi series "Black Mirror" give her a run for her money. And they put out on-screen.
OK, well tonight's in-car conversation was the best ever (the "Ken doll" dialog). I am starting to see this as becoming the iconic calling-card of the series. Keep it up. I also got my wish for miss perma-smile to get some field time. Who looks better in tight black jeans?
The medium character/actress was terrific. She delivered and saved the show. The clone stuff was beyond trite.
I admit I was kind of in love along with everybody else with Minka when she surfaced on Friday Night Lights. But after a bunch of seasons where the goalpost had a better range of expressions and emotions, she turned into a Kendra Doll. There's just nobody home. And she's missing her chest plate.
Megan Ferguson, the actress who played Maya the medium psychic (as opposed to a “petite psychic” on her good days), gave a great performance, and I don't believe I thought that because of the otherwise dearth of acting skills on this show. Or maybe it's just the absence of writing skills.
Last night the 20-something male nerds who write this show - even if they aren't 20-something male nerds they are emotionally about 16 - clumsily transformed the Captain Sandra Maldonado character (played by the talented Lili Taylor who really struggles to make the dialogue work) from a self-assured professional police supervisor to a woman in need of some kind of male validation which was then offered up as a weird complement I guess to create a possible alternative relationship.
And yet I find this show entertaining and if they were to add Ferguson as a regular and give whoever wrote her dialogue a lead writer position it could actually become a decent show.
Apparently this was filmed as the 8th episode though they aired it as #5.
Great point about Lili Taylor. Give her a weakness, sure, but not a cliche where she just longs to be a frickin beauty queen. That's a cheap shot and demeaning to the character, plus it gives her no character arc to follow other than "Gosh, that handsome detective thought I looked cute!" This isn't 1960 and "Mad Men" or "The Apartment" where a woman's sole purpose is to please a man. It's supposed to be the FUTURE fer cripesake. That trivializes her character and makes her shallow. Bad move.
Life's a circle. Maybe in this future society has abandoned political correctness and prefers men being men and women being women.
Hey, as a man, I'd LOVE to go back to 1960 and play some grabass. Where's the doc and his DeLorean??
I could not find the chest plate either....other then that I've been enjoying the show.
I'm glad you mentioned her; she really knocked it out of the park. Where have I seen her? Maybe Boardwalk Empire. That girl can really act, and her personality makes her much more appealing than perma-smile, by a perma-mile. Her persona reminds me of Azura Skye.
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure an evening with MK would be pretty great, but once you get the sex out of the way, who is there to talk to? With the other girl, every minute would be interesting. She's a diamond in the rough.
Bones has lost something for us. Not sure what, but it is not the same. Maybe it is the baby. Babies tend to kill shows.
Do like AH though. Probably never would have found it, but my daughter wanted to watch it since it has Karl Urban whom she loves as Bones from Star Trek.
Didn't really catch that until I typed it. One Bones (Urban) booted another Bones out of its timeslot.
While we have now opened up that subject, I had to stop watching Bones a couple years ago. Once 30 eps are piled up on the HDD, the handwriting is on the wall.
I thought it started out strong; the chicks were hot, the whole "I don't know what that means" persona was really interesting, but they lost that somewhere along the way, or at least didn't write to it anymore. It also won me over to David Boreanaz, who I think was surprisingly terrific after his boring work on BuffyTVS (I never could see what she saw in him). The first year, the only character I didn't like was Hodgins, but they fixed that by changing his gruff character into a much more pleasing version in season two, and he became my favorite character. The addition of Saroyan also helped, she really floats my boat.
But, downhill from there, I think turning lovable Zack into a psychopath was a HUGE blunder, and the writing got so dippy for Angela that I began to really not like her at all, and then it devolved for the rest. The snappy dialog was all gone, too.Now its just a joke; they've "Moonlighted" the sexual tension out of the lead character's relationship, and there are only dregs of creativity left anywhere. They also wasted every guest star, including Ryan O'Neal and Billy Gibbons.
But here is where I think it really went wrong. Some shows are procedurals, and some are character-based and dialog-based, and some have all of that. Bones has always been a pure procedural that never gave the audience the satisfaction of solving the case. Sure, they solved the cases, but it was more of an afterthought, and we seldom understood the motivation of the protagonist or even were allowed to care. It always ended like "what happened. Is it over?"
So it was a show masquerading as a procedural, and never delivering on that identity. They made up for that with great characters and great dialog, but the dialog got crummy and the decline in writing made you hate the characters, and they have nothing left, except a loyal audience that is habituated into watching.
I thought Hart Hanson just lost it, or maybe was a one-note wonder who shot his load in the first two seasons, but then came The Finder from him which proved that to not be the case. The Finder was ten times the show that Bones had devolved into by then. I still don't get it.