Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="LightPhoenix" data-source="post: 1245459" data-attributes="member: 115">You'd see it more if creativity wasn't stifled by networks trying to make instant fortunes.  Every network, especially the main ones, but not limited to them, is trying to find that magical show that rakes in millions if not billions of dollars.  Now, I'm not saying that's it doesn't work, because unfortunately it does.  I wouldn't even say that it's completely unwarranted, because often times these shows are the reasons that shows with lesser ratings can stay on the air.   The problem is that networks, and again mainly the big ones, but the little ones too, are so focused on finding these shows that they'll cancel without a thought shows after five or six episodes.  The amount of shows staying on after one season is pretty low.  For big networks this works alright, because they have so many viewers.  For smaller networks that try to emulate the big ones, it doesn't.  Smaller networks need to be more willing to take chances and let stuff grow.  They need to be willing to accept that the lilypad approach isn't going to work, because they don't get the numbers of viewers or writers that the big ones do.   In the long run, neither the big stations nor the little ones are willing to take chances on something creative because of this.  They find one fad show that's a huge success, and then try and emulate its success - all you need to do is look at the prevalence of reality TV (from Survivor), or the stress-filled game shows (from Millionaire). How does this relate to Farscape?  I really don't know what crack the executives at SFC were smoking when they cancelled the show, because it was not getting the ratings they wanted.  I think SFC is blinded by this lilypad approach to programming, simply because numbers weren't good enough. I blame the Neilsen ratings for disillusioning network executives by enabling this lilypad approach more easily.  I will admit, it is unfair of me to blame the system for bonehead executives.  So in that, I'm wrong, and again I admit it.  No, it's not easy, or cheap.  And I agree that some sort of centralization is realistically necessary. I'm not trying to please 100 million people.  They are.  Knowing your audience is the key to success in entertainment, and the best way to do this is to be in contact with everyone.  I think you gain some respect by allowing suggestions from your audience.  I'm not saying the audience runs the show, but letting them know they're being listened to is important. With ratings, they can slack off in this area.  It leads to a network detached from it's audience.  If you were trying to run a store, would you keep yourself detached from your customers?  No, obviously not.  Same principle applies to any business, entertainment included. I did imply this was an idealistic approach, though.  I agree with all of this. What I would like to see, actually, is for there to be more than one big ratings group.  After all, the Neilsen group is pretty much a monopoly on the TV ratings systems.  I think with more competition, both the Neilsen group and the networks might be pressed to enact some of these changes.</blockquote>

Verification