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?