Greed is ruining TV-shows! (rant)

[Thornir Alekeg]

But what happens when this possible great TV is not profitable TV? Babylon 5 was written with a five-year story arc in mind pretty much from day 1. In my opinion the show was great TV, but it wasn't profitable TV and as a result was always fighting cancellation. They managed to complete the series, but it was very touch and go at the end of each season.

So, should writers plan for a one season show, written with a definitive beginning, middle and end? That is a very risky, very expensive proposition as expenses like set construction can't be defrayed over multiple years.

Do hey write for three season? Do you then end up in the Firefly dilemma? If you get cancelled before you can tell the whole story and end up with disappointed or angry fans. If you manage to make all three, the fans might accept a definite ending, but there will likely be many who will still be upset.

And what about the networks? Should they commit to a three year deal before a show is aired and has proved the fans will come? Should they accept that they every show is a single season long and every year they will have to find new ideas and capture new audiences?

It sucks that many times TV shows last longer than they should, but that is the reality of the economics of TV.

Perhaps if the viewers pledged to watch whatever drek is on a particular network regardless of whether it was good or not, the networks might be willing to take some additional risks (although they would more likely throw an entire lineup of shows like Joe Millionare at you instead to keep costs low and profits high).

 

[WayneLigon]

IMHO creators of TV-shows should learn from mini-series and movies. They should define a series of events from the beginning to the end of the show and only tamper with it if the show will become _better_. Not because they promised the marketing department they have a concept they can use for two more years thanks to marketing analysis.

I don't think anyone knows what 'better' is, though. It's impossible to gauge what will be a success and what will not be. Despite all the research and testing that goes into these things, it seems to be a total crapshoot each time.

Really, I can think of more shows that died before they had a chance to be good than shows that went on too long. I'd rather have five seasons of something I like and two terrible seasons once they run out of ideas than a handful of episodes that show what a great run it could have had 'if only'.

 

[Ranger REG]

Ya, look at reality TV. All that is greed, they don't pay writers or actors

Um, probably because them reality TV shows have no actors and writers on the payroll, eh?

and the people that are starring in it they use up and throw away. Greed has been a problem for a long time though.

Meh. Reality TV shows, at least most of them are just game shows that give away prizes from -- you guess it -- advertisers.

I mean, you look at the tear-jerking Extreme Makeover: Home Edition. As great as the story is, it's Sears promotional vehicle. FWIW, at least it's not Wal-Mart.

As for the greedy part, it's now getting greedier. Screenwriters want to get paid for including product placements in TV and films. After all, if advertising agencies get paid to produce 30-second commercials for advertisers to plug in a slot during the showing of a TV and movie, why can't screenwriters get paid for including, say a Dungeons & Dragons Player's Handbook or Reese's Pieces in a scene?

 

[niolo]

Something I recently learned: TV shows usually lose money on the first broadcast. It is rare that a TV show makes money on its first run. The people making the TV shows want to reach the magic number 100. Once a TV show reaches 100 episodes it is MUCH more likely to be pick up for syndication. Syndication is where a TV show reaps the greater money (and recoups the losses). This has been true for a long time, not just recently.

Additionally Reality shows DO have writers and there is a minor (or big) stink over whether or not they should be paid union rates.

 

[Ranger REG]

Additionally Reality shows DO have writers and there is a minor (or big) stink over whether or not they should be paid union rates.

Why? They're not writing screenplay, they're just thinking of more ways to torture and humiliate the contestants in challenges and games. Charles Ryan could do that in his sleep.

 

[Darrin Drader]

Something I recently learned: TV shows usually lose money on the first broadcast. It is rare that a TV show makes money on its first run. The people making the TV shows want to reach the magic number 100. Once a TV show reaches 100 episodes it is MUCH more likely to be pick up for syndication. Syndication is where a TV show reaps the greater money (and recoups the losses). This has been true for a long time, not just recently.

This may be true for the production companies, but usually not true for the networks. The production companies want to syndicate their shows because that means that they'll be on the air and continue to earn them money for years into the future. Networks normally do not own the shows and they need the cash now to pay for what's on the air.

By the way, I think a good character driven show can go on forever, as long as the character is around. A plot driven show will have problems once the plot is resolved. However, a show like Babylon 5, which was both character and plot driven, could have had a bright future, given the fact that they started planting seeds for events that would take place after the 5 year run during the show. As long as the writing is good, a show does not necessarily need to have an expiration date. And for what its worth, I enjoyed the X-Files up until the very last episode. It's a shame that the final episode pulled a Seinfeld.

 

[Bront]

I saw 24 mentioned here, and think that it's actualy a good example of what you're fighting for as well as a good example of a continuing series.

Each season of 24 is a fairly unique and enclosed story arc. They use characters and occasionaly other things from previous seasons, but in general, each season is on it's own, and can be watched in it's entirety by itself. In fact, many people, including myself, felt the 4th season was the best season of all. Though, indeed, nothing has topped the ending of season 1 (Which TV Guide called the biggest twist in TV History a few years later)

Now, some series are drawn out beyond reason, but often a writer enjoys telling a story that doesn't always have a true ending, since life realy doesn't have a true ending beyond that of any individual person.

 

[mojo1701]

Why? They're not writing screenplay, they're just thinking of more ways to torture and humiliate the contestants in challenges and games. Charles Ryan could do that in his sleep.

Not in the traditional sense, and that IS the main reason why they're fighting for union wages.

They are the ones who watch the footage and decide what "conflicts" and "plots" to develop. They could make a girl seem like a total bitch from just a few key pieces of footage.

 

[Ranger REG]

They are the ones who watch the footage and decide what "conflicts" and "plots" to develop. They could make a girl seem like a total bitch from just a few key pieces of footage.

They have that. They're called post-production editors.

 

[Rackhir]

They have that. They're called post-production editors.

Actually there is a fair amount of footage "Shot to order" AKA Restaged, from what I understand. "Reality" TV shows are about as real as most other shows, just not "pre-scripted" to the same extent.

Psionicist, DVDs may actually be bringing TV more towards what you want out of things. Since they may be moveing the profit center from re-runs to DVD sales. They have certainly made the difference for several shows in the past couple of years Family Guy being the most notable example.

Lost at least as I have heard things has been planned out for a 5 year run with cut outs built into the series in case of premature cancelation.

But greed and the problems it creates are nothing new and have always plagued TV. In most respects I think things have actually gotten far better than they ever were in the past. Most TV when I was growing up in the '70s was at about the level of "Three's Company". Episodic TV where nothing ever really changed and the characters were essentially fixed for the run of the TV show. Yes obviously there were exceptions, but those exceptions are now pretty much the norm. Compare Lost to Giligan's Island for example. The characters grow over time, we're introduced gradually to who they are, why they are who they are and how they wound up on the plane and the island. We also can be pretty sure that at some point they are actually going to get off the island. Giligan's Island and so many shows patterened after it, the characters were pretty much fixed in the premier, had new ways of getting off the island introduced pretty much every other episode, but you knew they never were going to get off, because the show would be over.