Rethinking Prime Time
 

So I've been thinking a lot about television lately. Well, I am addicted to TV, but that's another story.

It seems to me that network television needs a renaissance, especially when it comes to the hour-long drama. Certainly we have a few great shows like ER (which I still watch) and Lost, but the pickin's have become slimmer and slimmer over the years.

Personally, a lot of my favorite shows don't last longer than a season anymore, like Commander-in-Chief. It's almost like they killed the show on purpose.

So....perhaps we need to have less "regular" series and more maxi-series.....

Let me explain..... while I think we have moved beyond the epic mini-series like V, Roots, North and South (your mother...laid down....with men...for money!), I think that our attention span is just long enough for some short term television shows with big stars that have a beginning, middle, and end, all in one season. And think of the revenue....shorter seasons, less money, crazy DVD sales.

It appears that the new Taye Diggs show will be just that. Come on -- we all know that nothing Taye Diggs is in will last. (Though we love him.)

What do you all think? I just hate to see these game shows and reality shows take over network airwaves as they have. I want to see some quality hour-long dramas like we used to have. And I don't mind only having one season of those dramas if they are well thought-out.

The game show/reality show thing comes around every 10 years or so. People get sick of it then move on. The sitcom was pronounced "dead" the year before The Cosby Show debuted.

I know for me, I hate to get involved in a show that I know I'll HAVE to watch every week to keep up. That's why I like Law & Order - the most they do is a 2 parter. There are things you know about the characters if you watch a while, but not knowing doesn't prevent you understanding what's going on in the show.

I'd be into a miniseries along the time-lines of Roots, actually.

I'm ready for the new season of Sleeper Cell.

Big Ol' Cosign on that one. Although I tend to stick with SVU and the original L&O - episodes with Jerry Orbach. If one of the others is on, I'll watch it, but SVU and Jerry Orbach take precedent if they're running on several stations.

In England, on the BBC - their television shows only film about 6 - 10 episodes. That is their season. Do you think that would be successful here? Think of 'Sex and the City' or 'The Sopranos'. The season isn't very long and those shows have been very successful. (BTW - I am not suggesting that the Big 4 (or Big 5 if you want to count the CW) use shows with this amount of sexuality or violence; just the same number of shows.)

Incidently, in one of the recent Entertainment Weekly mags, they had an article about NBC seriously considering dropping scripted shows to only 2 hours a night (from 8-10 or 9-11, depending on your time zone). They would show reality and game shows during the 7 pm or 8pm hour.

Three realities.

1) Overnight ratings in the major markets have doomed weaker shows. A few years ago, the programmers had to wait for one of the three "major" sweeps (basically February, May and November) to see how a show is really doing. Now, they know the next morning and have the opportunity to panic an cancel a show before it has the chance to gather an audience.

2) So called "reality" and game shows are much cheaper to produce.

3) So called "quality" shows are much more expensive to produce, thus there are less of them on the air -- and fewer episodes are being produced so you only get to see new ones during the "new season" and those pesky major ratings sweeps I mentioned above.

You do the math.

I remember Vanna White talking about how it takes 75 people to shoot a 10 second clip of her presenting a car/vacation/etc that a contestant can win.
I bet WofF isn't cheap to keep up with anymore.

Another problem with the networks. The same thing could be accomplished by one guy with a portable camera in the "real" world. Well, maybe two when you count the producer who has to tell the "talent" what to say.

That's what her cue-card person is for!!
And of course she needs a make-up artist, costume mistress, hairdresser or two, 15 cameras for different angles - which require one person to run and another to supervise, caters, director, producer, and I forgot the rest on the list she went through, but it was RIDICULOUS!

They already have. Unless it's something that's been on for a while and solid in its time slot (i.e. making money), they are not putting any new scripted shows in the 8-9 PM hour. The only 7-8 hour is Sunday, which of course already has Dateline.

I'm not sure about other days, but Thursday night, 'My Name is Earl' and 'The Office' are on the early hour (7-8 pm).


Perhaps if they did switch and made shows that had less episodes, we would see more quality shows and work. No more "According to Jim' or 'Still Standing' shows. Also, the British actors bounce around. They might do a comedy series and then a drama series. That way they are not typecast as a specific role or performer. One I can think of is the lead actress in 'Keeping Up Appearances' - can't think of her name. She did very broad comedy in that series, and then played a lady private detective in "Hetty Wainwright Investigates". I'm sure a lot of actors would love the chance to play various roles and scenerios.

Another point about cost: Do some of the actors deserve such high salaries? I'm thinking of Helen Hunt on 'Mad About You'. Was she really worth $1 million per episode? Don't get me wrong. I have always thought she was great, but come on. Of course, if the school district offered me $1 milllion per class to teach, I would take it. lol

7-8 in your time zone is 8-9 for people in the East, you freakazoids. :p You get Dateline at 6-7 on Sunday, right?

Oh, and nothing connected with Mad About You was worth $1M per episode. God, I hate that show.

Right, because they're drawing viewers, making some money (solid, as 33girl called them).
Patricia Routledge, who has a very broad resume indeed.

I can see both sides: I'm loathe these days to take on a "new" show because the ones I already watch take up enough time. (I tried taping "Lost" when it first started, but I got far enough behind in the first month that I gave up and haven't watched it since.) Between my wife and me, there are only 5 shows that we watch regularly (or tape if we're going to miss them) -- there are a few others we might watch if we have nothing else to do, but that's it. I've watched very few of the new shows this season, and I haven't really cared for the ones I have seen -- not enough to try and watch them again.

And the British-style schedules might indeed bring more interesting shows that do not require as much commitment as, say, a whole season of "Lost."

On the other hand, like many I've become conditioned to the "it's-***day-so-[blank]-will-be-on-tonight-and-watching-it-is-what-we-do-every-***day" syndrome. Might be hard to break.

Reality shows have no place on network TV. Send them to cable where they originated from!

They could try the Hong Kong method of television. Hong Kong prime time dramas usually last about 20-30 episodes, and are on daily. Once the storyline is over, the show is done. If the series was extremely popular, then a sequel season will be produced.

Disagree. Most reality shows are relatively worthless (which doesn't mean they can't be entertaining), but the good ones like The Amazing Race and Survivor were brought to us by network TV, not cable.

A la the telenovella -- a staple of TV in Latin America and much of the world.

So are you saying you haven't been watching Bo Derek and Morgan Fairchild brawl on My Network TV's new American telenovellas?

I think it depends on what shows you like. Plenty of my favorite shows have been around for a few seasons (Prison Break, House MD, Gilmore Girls, L&O:SVU, Grey's Anatomy, Medium). But notice most of my favorites are police/crime and hospital dramas which tend to do well with viewers.

The first ever "reality" show was on PBS, when there was no such thing as cable.

You mean nature shows and documentaries?

Wow, I didn't know that. I always thought that reality shows got their start with MTV's Real World.

Wow.

That's what I was thinking too...anything before that, the shows on PBS (and PBS-like channels) are documentaries or nature shows because I don't recall anything similar to Real World on PBS.

What "reality" show was on PBS?

It was called An American Family and came on in 1973. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_American_Family

For real, yo.

In addition to An American Family - we went through a lovely time in the late 1970's when we had this and this. Now THAT was stupid television.

And don't forget "America's Funniest Home Videos." :rolleyes:

Well, that's more "reality" than "reality." I used to call it "dumb." Still do. Surprised it came back.

Now I feel really stupid. Thanks for the information.

All I watch is cable

Honestly, I'd love if they did novellas like they do on Spanish networks. It's basically anywhere from a few months to a bit longer than a year with really good plots, a WHOLE lot of non-cheesy (not in all cases, just the really good ones) romance, and sometimes (unfortunately in the case of a damn good show) and ending the resolves everything and you get a break from being home every night at 10 to watch it.

I think reality shows should belong on cable or a station strickly for that venue. These shows have taken away the quality tv that was once was. I just cannot get into watching fear factor and the grotisque things they had to endure on that show. Survivor just has run its course. Yes it was cool the first two seasons but now ...i got nothing! We all have busy lives and the last thing i want to do is watch reality i rather get embroiled into a good story line vs reality. IF i wanted reality i would just turn the tv off and go out and see reality outside my front door.

There are some shred left of great shows like Greys Anatomy, ER , Studio 60, Gilmore Girls,etc... But when they take great show away and replace it with reality TV then becomes a real turn off!

I'm not sure I really want reality TV. I really love Grey's Anatomy style shows that are like soap operas, but more realistic (yeah I know Grey's Anatomy isn't realistic, but it's several steps above General Hospital).

Blue,

No reason to feel stupid. There are a lot of people around who have never known of a time without MTV.

I will keep my thoughts on MTV to myself, except to say that they aren't positive for the most part.

Nuh uh..bad idea.

The channel that took over the former WB affiliate became MyNetwork TV. Every night there's FASHION HOUSE and DESIRE on. Have you ever watched this crap? It's horrible! The viewers here agree -- a recent article said that ratings have been poor, companies haven't been buying commercial time, and now the channel's thinking about dropping MyNetwork altogether. The intent was to "Americanize" novellas, but it didn't work out here.

Although Ugly Betty was the exception, I think it's best to keep novellas Spanish.

They just need to put English subtitles on the novellas. That'd make me happy.

Agreed. For some reason, novellas/dramas from foreign countries are awesome. We don't get Spanish novellas here unless you subscribe to the Spanish digital channel, but subtitled Japanese/Korean dramas are the craze here -- those are carried on network TV.

I think dramas need to be waaaaay more realistic. I simply cannot relate to most of the dramas out there. That's one of the main reasons why I really like reality TV. Sure, it's not that "real", but they reflect real life interpersonal relations better than dramas, and especially sitcoms. The only non-reality TV show I can stand is CSI. I enjoy the suspense and intensity, which is also lacking in dramas.

I used to watch the Asian soap operas on AZN but then Time Warner moved it to the digital cable channels so I don't get to watch any of them anymore. :(

While MTV has existed almost all of my life, we didn't get it at my house until I was 12. I think I meant that I felt stupid for not knowing that PBS had the first reality show. My sister works for IPTV (Iowa's PBS station) and once I heard the name of the show something clicked from a previous conversation with her.

IPTV does a HDTV symposium (or at least did), and I met their chief engineer one year in Des Moines.

Which novellas are you watching?? Everyone I've seen is all about the cheesy romance (although I mainly stick to the Mexican ones, I can understand their dialect so much easier - no thinking involved)...which is ok, caz they do it well.
And I do like how they resolve themselves completely.

I think they still do, I've seen notepads around her house with a logo from the symposium on it. My sister works in the Communications area.

/end hijack

As far as the original topic I will say that prime time TV is definitely lacking something to draw viewers in. The only night that I truly plan to watch week in, week out is Thursday. I never got into Lost and feel like it's too late to start with that show now.