NBC Gives Up

[eggwards]

We were watching Heroes last night. Surprisingly one of the more plot-heavy episodes. We seem to be following the show just to see if they can actually pull it out of the tailspin that it's been on since the last episode of the first season. Every once in a while there's a spark of life in it, but more often it's full of comic book clichés and characters that change motivations on a whim. Two of the biggest things that bug me, everyone can see the future and to many characters die only to see them come back to life, often in the same episode!

Strangely, this isn't a entry about Heroes, but about network television. One thing about Heroes is that it seems to be run on a series of polls. We're trying to redeem Sylar. Oh no, test audiences don't like that, now he's back to being evil again. Enough of that. The show needs to grow a pair and try to tell a consistent story, but I'm thinking that network executives won't allow it.

Too much of network television is dumbed down for the masses, just when the competitive marketplace shows they should be taking more risks. There needs to be more talked about shows and not just another season of Two and a Half Men.

Sadly, those talked about shows don't seem to find an audience large enough for the networks, so a show like Pushing Daisies gets canned. It seems that the networks have an unrealistic audience expectation in a world where there's too many other choices. I would have loved if Daisies appeared on a cable network that would have been happy for the loyalty, but that cable network wouldn't have had the money to produce such a show. Well, maybe HBO would have but there's not enough sex on Dasies to have a boob shot now and again.

I guess it's dammed if you do, damed if you don't these days. Shows like Law and Order and CSI can go on and on since there's little to follow from week to week and actors can be plugged in and out at any time. CBS seems to have an entire line up of these shows, and they manage to win in the ratings again and again. What reason would a network have to try something like Lost when you have to hope that an audience will keep watching.

The only show I watch on CBS in The Amazing Race. I really don't like procedural shows. I want something with a little more story, something that make me feel good for remembering something from the first season. The only problem is we all expect these shows to be cancelled (I'm just waiting for Josh Whedon's Dollhouse) so no one wants to get too involved.

So that brings me to the news from NBC yesterday. Apparently NBC has given up, again. A couple of years ago NBC said that they would no longer put scripted shows in the 8 o'clock hour (7 Central), relying on a series of reality and game shows to fill the time. It was purely a cost cutting move, and suddenly you saw as many episodes of Deal or No Deal as you do Law and Order on TNT.

NBC backed off of that plan a little bit, but you may notice that most networks no longer program new shows on Saturday nights, and even Friday night seems to be filled with reruns. The Networks are putting on fewer new shows than ever. The cost-cutting has meant that the big three (NBC, ABC and CBS, Fox never did program a full schedule) no longer have something different scheduled each night. In a 500 channel and TiVo world this doesn't seem to be significant, but from growing up in a time before Cable, it seems crazy to me.

NBC announced yesterday that it was planning to give Jay Leno a new talk show, rather than have him run off to another network. Leno was losing the Tonight Show gig after originally planning to retire, but then changed his mind. For his new talk show, NBC will clear out the 10 o'clock (9 o'clock central) schedule. That's right, NBC will move the Tonight Show with Jay Leno up before your local news and give up on their last hour of programming. This will mean fewer episodes of Dateline, which is fine, but it's seems to be a sign that NBC has given up. They are unwilling to produce shows and try to build up an audience.

If I were a local NBC station that had to earn ratings for my late local news, I think I'd be pretty pissed with this decision. I can't understand why people watch Leno anyway - heck, I can't watch Letterman anymore, either, but Leno always seemed to be a bad host and interviewer. Now they are going to entrust 5 hours of prime time programming to him each week?

I'll admit that good TV doesn't have to come from the networks, but it seems that they are no longer trying, which is odd as advertising gets more scarce. You'd think someone would want to take more risks. The Networks have become so inclined to try to appeal to the masses that they are turning people away from their product. It seems that the Networks are becoming less relevant to the total entertainment package as fewer people watch television in real time, over the air. When does it become viable to pass up the Nets all together and just produce a show strictly for on-demad delivery?

I think many of us are very close to ditching the networks and cable because the programming is available elsewhere. As it becomes easier to get content away from the networks and watch it how we want, well maybe it's time for Network TV to give way and for television to be produced without the need for an actual airdate.

I know I'd be happy to have a few more seasons of Pushing Dasies. Where do I subscribe?

Comments

[eggwards.livejournal.com]

Well, NBC has reniged on the full season order for Knight Rider. They cut back to 17 episodes, which was 17 more than the show needed.

NBC Universal now makes more money from the Cable networks than ever before, but the programming, especially on Sci-Fi, is incredibly cheap, Battlestar non-withstanding. Still, if it wasn't for Battlestar, Caprica wouldn't be greenlighted. Sci-Fi won't be allowed to spend so much for any future show that doesn't have a built in audience (or share production costs abroad).

I think we are getting to the point where distribution is going to go around the networks, and maybe even cable. I think Hulu, You Tube, Apple TV and Netflix are showing us the future.

[eggwards.livejournal.com]

Well, it's the fact that a show can be watched in any order that makes it great for reruns. It's sort of like reading a Garfield Cartoon every now and again vs. reading a novel. Many people just can't actually read a whole book anymore.

The biggest mistake I think Heroes made was keeping Sylar alive. The character was done, and evil defeated at the end of season 1, but now his character limps along having to interact with all of the other cast members whether it makes sense or not, just because he was a fan favorite. He's not the only one, but his character makes it hard for the writers to move on to something new and fresh. They could have brought him back later, but think about it, do all Superman stories have Lex Luthor, or all Batman stories have the Joker? If the villain is overused, the story suffers.

[magebear.livejournal.com]

The only reason I keep cable is for the internet connection. I download or stream anything I really want to watch.

[eggwards.livejournal.com]

Yes, and I'm doing more of that, through the legal channels right now. Still, if you go to get programming out there through other means, I could be watching HBO and Showtime shows as well. If I was a little more savvy, tech wise, maybe I'd fully make the switch. If times get harder, the Cable just may have to go.

do you find that you are watching more or less now? How do you discover the next thing you want to watch? Word of mouth?

[magebear.livejournal.com]

Yes, and and some word of mouth. The hubbie still is a tube boob.

[hanover.livejournal.com]

You never mentioned Lost. :)

I think thats one of the ballsiest shows on TV. They kill of beloved characters and the characters stay pretty consistent. Benjamin Linus will be, and always will be a son of a bitch. The cool thing about it, their survival depends on him. This real asshole who doesn't care if people die. Talk about balls! :)

Not to mention the twists and turns this series has taken. People getting off the Island and it's not even the last season yet. Resolutions coming when you least expected them. It just shows you that they are going to play by their rules and not what you'd typically see on television.

I say Kudos to Lost and wish more non-pay cable networks would take chances on programs like that one.

[eggwards.livejournal.com]

I mentioned Lost in passing, but you are correct, it is one of the best shows around and a good model for what I would liek to see on TV. Still, if it wasn't for a big, buzzworthy begining, the show would be gone.

ABC has kept the show around, but the producers had to give into to some demands to limit the show. In the end, those demads have made the show better - having an end date is a good thing, but the changes were made so the show wouldn't get cancelled.

ABC sees the shows ratings fall each season. Sure, people pick up the DVDs, but it doesn't make it profitable. I think the show might have been cancelled after the third season if the producers didn't choose to shorten the seasons and produce and end date. Lucky for them they made the show practically cancel-proof as ABC would have looked bad cancelling the show before the end wrapped up things.

Still, the 13 episode season is a good thing. Tighter writing, and allows for a good story arc. It's a model used by the BBC for years and it works. The new Doctor Who has been very good at using this model. I think US series should do the same, and not run so many shows where it's hard not to have fiuller episodes. Reality series and cable series already use this shorter season format, why not the scripted shows?

I think creator-driven shows are preferred to the "by committee" shows, at least for dramas.

[njbearcub1.livejournal.com]

Jeff Zucker contemplates cutting back even more:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i686368ba4cd6a88c1ba37d99bf187003?imw=Y

[eggwards.livejournal.com]

Well, my dislike of Leno kind of set up this post. I think he's really horrible to watch and to give over 5 hours of prime time to him just seems silly. Especially since you know he's going to be like Carson and probably only work 3 of those hours.

Zucker may have a point. If you are trying to fill all those hours with a limited production budget, maybe it's not worth it to make so much crap when you can make a smaller amount of crap for the same money! If I thought we'd get better programming from it, I could see it as a win, but the same guy who greenlighted Knight Rider also greenlighted Bionic Woman and My Own Worst Enemy. I don't have high hopes for him.

[mrdreamjeans.livejournal.com]

I haven't watched any shows on NBC in years. My folks still watch ER on NBC, but that' s it for them. I differ a bit from you in that I do enjoy CSI, CSI Miami and NCIS, but my two favorite "new" shows have been cancelled ... "Pushing Daisies" and "Eli Stone". I don't watch Letterman or Leno; at that hour, I'm watching Adult Swim:)

Great, thoughtful post!

HUGS!

[eggwards.livejournal.com]

I love 30 Rock on NBC. Besides Heroes it's the only thing I watch on the network. I used to love ER, but the constant changing characters and a change on how they focused the shows - from the patients to the soap opera doctors, made me stop watching.

I loved Pushing Dasies, and I loved Wonderfalls, both from the the same production group. I hope he gets to do another show, perhaps on a cable channel that will be willing to let it run longer. I watched an Episode or two of Eli Stone, but didn't get the chance to get hooked in. Strangely i watched Eli Stone on line, and was upset that they only had 3 episodes, so i really couldn't get hooked.

Adult Swim is fun, but the shows are very hit or miss with me. At least they are willing to take risks, even if some are pretty out there!

Thanks, and keep breaking those legs!

Hugs!

I'm not surprised of money woes within the media

[gmjambear]

The networks of today, with at least 19 minutes of commercial and promotional content within a 1 hour show, annoying squeeze teases during the end credits and corporations owning numerous media outlets under their large umbrella, is a lot different that the networks from before the mid-1980s.

Then again, when it comes to TV shows that either last too long or not long enough, it has always been SOB (Standard Operational Bull....). Considering NBC has been cutting back on their morning and afternoon programming hours (from approx. 9 hours a day back in the 1970s to 5 hours), it's not too surprising that NBC may be on the same prime-time schedule as Fox.

I wonder if (or when) Hulu and other online video ventures will surpass the number of TV viewers, at least went it comes to filmed TV shows. I noticed that the most popular videos are the shows currently on the air. Personally, it has been nice to watch old "Ironside" episodes on my own time, with almost 50 minutes of program content and limited commercial interruption.

Re: I'm not surprised of money woes within the media

[eggwards.livejournal.com]

Well, now the problem will be not how to add more commercial time, but rather how to find advertisers. I doubt running time on shows will ever increase again (unless you are HBO), but perhaps we will see more "filler" programming. Disney Channel only has so many commercials so a lot of airtime is filled with short 5 minute programs here and there, or Boomerang will often show a five minute cartoon in between programs. Now of course much of the Dinsney channel's shorts are advertisements in themselves, A Hanna Montana concert excerpt or Disney movie preview, but they keep the audience's attention.

I guess like Cable, I see broadcast TV recycling and repeating it's shows more and more. Saturday night has been the repeat yard for a while now. To think that All in the Family and The Mary Tyler Moore Show used to run on Saturdays and were huge hits!

I just can't think that a local station operator for NBC is going to be happy with running the late news after Leno. Is there really going to be enough of a audience left that will watch the news afterwards? I certainly can't see younger viewers wanting to watch Leno. It seems that they should move Conan or Jimmy Fallon into the prime time spot and keep Leno in latenight.

I think the one thing that will make online video the method of choice is a better way to get all the content that you want to the big living room screen. Something really easy, where content isn't expensive, and plug-and-play. It's getting closer, but Windows Media doesn't have content, Apple TV's content is expensive, and Netflix over X-Box is still limited. It's closer, but not ready for prime time just yet. The big networks are also beholden to their local affiliates and can't really release broadcast quality video right away without some cost attached to it.

Still, with more people using bit torrent sites, you know the demand is there.

Re: I'm not surprised of money woes within the media

[gmjambear]

On another matter, I would be curious to see if some NBC stations will choose to let their affiliation agreement expire. Some NBC stations that are doing well locally may want to shop around to Fox or CBS for a better deal. Then again, it all depends on money.

For the record, my former station hired me when it was an NBC affiliate. A few months after I was hired, it switched to a CBS affiliate. I left after the station signed an operating agreement with the local Fox affiliate. Sadly, it's all business. No feelings needed.

[polomex.livejournal.com]

You'd think someone would want to take more risks.

I simply cannot wrap my head around this sentiment.

I don't know what it is, but I feel like I have to defend TV for some odd reason... even though I know there is more than enough crap.

Banks have run out of money. The Big Three car companies are looking for a bailout. Sony is announcing layoffs. Several newspaper and television companies are handing out pink slips. The Tribune Company--which owns the Chicago Cubs, Wrigley Field, WGN-TV, CLTV, WGN Radio, the Chicago Tribune, and the Los Angeles Times,--filed for bankruptcy.

Then you've got people who would rather sit through 20 hours worth of DVDs than watch programs as they air. (This, I don't understand.) Or the people like magebear above who only watch television shows via the Internet.

With all this... why in the world would a broadcast network want to "take more risks"?

Finally, while I know that many of my "geek" friends take a certain delight in remembering some obscure fact from 3 years ago, the fact is, your average American viewer does not have this kind of attention span.

For example, while I enjoy FOX's new Fringe, I know that if I miss just one episode, I will be lost because I will very likely miss some pivotal plot point. While I don't have an issue with being "loyal" to a show I like, I don't want to have to give it up because I might miss a show somewhere along the way. In fact, this is why I never watched Lost; I never watched the first season, so I knew that I'd be (*ahem*) lost when watching subsequent seasons.

In an age of instant gratification, any form of entertainment that requires a significant investment of time and attention will always struggle. And in this economy, the networks have to appeal to the attention-deficient masses.

[eggwards.livejournal.com]

I understand your argument, and I don't think it's wrong. In fact, I think that is exactly the strategy CBS uses. They like making solid performers where one episode is indistinguishable from another. CSI in tits incarnations, The Unit, NCIS, Cold Case, Numb3rs, it's all the same stuff all the time. Yet, CBS wins with this line up. It attracts an older audience, but it's one that stays with them.

To compete with this, do you do the same, or do you try to get noticed in order to woo viewers? ABC seems to take the opposite approach, going for flashy, colorful shows. They aren't particularly deep shows, Desperate Housewives, Grey's Anatomy, Ugly Betty, but the come off more feminine than CBS's line up. Poor NBC doesn't know what it wants to be though, and doesn't seem to have a vision.

Especially in NBC's case, since they do own Hulu (along with Fox) they need shows that will interest people and keep them looking for their content - either online or over air. They could use a flashy hit. More people will watch 30 Rock on Hulu or on DVD than would probably look at Law and Order. More will pick up Battlestar or Lost on DVD than more CSI. Shows that take risk have longevity on the shelf.

Sure, you say, Law and Order and CSI are on all the time in reruns, and that's true, but that's a broadcast mentality. Those shows are there because anyone tuning in can watch and episode and feel they never have to watch another. If we are moving to a world like the one magebear already lives in, content producers need to up their game in order to attract eyeballs.

Maybe it's the big broadcast network that needs to go, and maybe Zucker over at NBC is right. Perhaps he knows it's better to produce fewer quality shows than to try to fill all those hours with crap. It's just unfortunate that NBC Universal is not doing much more than crap. Remember when NBC was trying to be the quality network? Well, that was the 80's. The idea of a provider being able to produce programming to a large segment of the masses went away years ago, so maybe the model just doesn't fit anymore.

You are right about attention span. It's true that if I were just watching something in the background as I cook or something, it's not likely to be something I saved in the TiVo to watch later.

So there you go, you are right, and CBS is a network that puts your theory to the test, and wins with it, so maybe it is right, but how do you make yourself different from the competition? Still, in this economy CBS has been making layoffs as well.

Now the Tribune, and print media as a whole have a similar problem. The attention span that would be needed to read a newspaper through is gone - hence the Red Eye, but a problem with newspapers is than except for a few local stories, there's no reporting that you can't get from Yahoo or Google News, and the newspaper doesn't aggregate the news beyond just selecting what's printed and what isn't. Now I know with your job you are providing local content - and actually competing with the Tribune and other locals, that's value added, but newspaper owners have been killing off staffs to actually provide that content and actually killing off what made the publication worth reading. Killing newspaper staff, and encouraging writing stories from press releases and not actually reporting is what's doing in the business - in my opinion. How about yours?

[polomex.livejournal.com]

Being involved in the blogosphere and now in mainstream media has been an eye-opening experience.

As excited as I am about my new gig with NBC Chicago, I'm not going to pretend anything other than the truth. NBC gave the job to me because, well, I'm cheap. I'm a freelancer, not a full-time writer, so NBC doesn't have to spend nearly as much money on me as they would on an hourly or salary employee.

And the longer I'm around, the more I can see where corners are cut. The Sun-Times and Tribune were always known for being rivals, but in recent years have found themselves collaborating often. In fact, the Tribune actually delivers the Sun-Times papers for them!

But you're right, no one has time to read an actual newspaper anymore. Heck, does anyone even watch the news? Beyond The Daily Show and breaking headlines that leak onto social-networking sites, I have to wonder if anyone would even know what's going on around them.

No, news no longer comes from papers or TV, it comes from the Internet, and the media is realizing this. But despite that, while you can easily get information by searching Google, Google doesn't actually write the news. Someone still has to research and write it in order for Google to find it. NBC Local Media wanted in on some of that action, hence my new position.

Your idea on "writing stories from press releases" wouldn't be too far from the truth. Years ago, there were maybe a dozen or so journalists out on the street, battling for the scoop on a new story. But today, when information is spread so quickly on a massive scale, do words like "scoop" and "exclusive" mean anything anymore?

For example, the AP may print a story first, but then it's copied, pasted, and regurgitated on every local news site and specific-interest blog. On LiveJournal alone, I'll see the same story posted three different times. With information so readily available, is there such a thing as brand-loyalty in media? If we read a news story, do we make a note of who wrote it? Do we care?

I suppose the art of communication, whether it be for entertainment or informational purposes, is always evolving. From print to radio to television to the Web... people have always been skeptical and scared of change. I suppose, as we watch the newspapers and bound books crumble, this is just another step in the evolution. And one day, when the Internet is 50 years old, it too will be a dying breed.

[eggwards.livejournal.com]

The cost-cutting at news organizations really irks me because it effects the quality of the content. Sure, freelancers are great, especially since many will actually get out in the field, but I feel that so many city desk writers, only picking up a press release and calling out for a quote really don't do their job. I understand that editors want them at their desks, writing stories and not out at press conferences, city hall meetings, etc because they are time consuming, but it comes down to neglecting the job. We need the press at events to actually ask questions and dig deeper, not just take the word of the PR flack.

I will admit that I'm totally ignorant of local news here. I never watch local TV news, and I don't read the local paper or their online edition. There's little interest - and what I used to watch local news for, Weather and Sports, are available elsewhere. I'm much more interested in national news and seek out writing from Salon and Slate as well as my "My Yahoo" page that gives me national headlines.

It's too bad the UPI folded since almost everything written at a national level is written by the AP, if not them, then Reuters. Given that there is little difference in much of the content provided by newspapers, why not just get your news online from one or two aggregators?

I find it surprising that NBC has decided to put a greater emphasis on local coverage in their online world, but I guess it's done to keep the affiliates happy and to attract more ad dollars to their web offerings by trying to provide click-through content.

I'm with you about the anonymity of news writers. There's people I look to for commentary, but news? Not so much. I think media outlets know this and they try two different tactics, pay very little for news writers, and try to develop personalities. Anderson Cooper is less of a journalist but a media host. He's on because he's a recognizable brand. Newspapers try to do this as well with columnists and online outlets are doing it as well. We get less objective news coverage and more commentary than ever before because news outlets want you to watch Keith Obermann and not their news desk reporter.

There is something about a newspaper, flipping through the pages and seeing the articles you probably would have missed online, but online you deal with less waste and expense. Are we ready to take everything on-line now? Probably not, but the day is coming and the expense of the printing press is getting to be too much with the reduced readership. I'm already reading a lot on my iPhone, and the Amazon Kindle seems to be taking off, so it's just a matter of time where everyone on the el is reading from pixels and not from paper.

Now we just need to get newspapers to understand online content and how people aren't loyal to one source of news, like they had to be when the newspapers in a city were the only outlet. Now they have to compete in a national marketplace, trying to compete with other outlets all over the country for eyeballs as people look more and more to digg, Google and Yahoo, not to mention CNN and MSNBC to filter their news for them.

[itchwoot.livejournal.com]

Nice post! I basically agree with everything you wrote. Heroes has become a mess and most of the good shows get canned too soon. But: In comparison to what we've got over here, you still have an incredible amount of quality television in the States. German tv sucks ass. There's hardly any self-produced fiction here and if there is, it's usually not worth mentioning at all. So we just get all the shows your networks produce, usually about a year later and dubbed. The rest is stupid reality tv and casting shows that are more about humiliating people that have no talent than celebrating talented people.

[eggwards.livejournal.com]

Well, Scripted shows here are going away too. There's more and more reality programming because it's cheap and one season is just like another, but people still watch. Networks here want scripted shows to become instant hits because they are expensive, but are not willing to put time into them to try to get back some of the investment. It's a no win situation. A network here has to get ratings for 8-10 million viewers for a show to be a hit, especially a scripted show.

You think they would understand that selling a show that lasted longer would be easier when they do sell it overseas. Why would German TV want to buy a show that lasted 13 episodes or less, then wasn't resolved?

I guess television is a losing business these days. At lease independent television is. The BBC still seems to put out some good shows, but they don't have to answer to stockholders.

Heroes is a mess, and I really doubt that there's much they can do about it now. They would have to scrap lot of the cast and get back to the more personal stories they told the first year.

[itchwoot.livejournal.com]

It's not like the reality shows aren't scripted, though. ;)

With Heroes, they should have stuck with their original concept, i.e. tell a fresh storyline with completely new characters in every new season. After all, the part where they find out about their powers and how to come to grips with them was the most fun to watch.

[rowgun.livejournal.com]

There's a rumor going around that might save Heroes - Bryan Fuller, the creator of Pushing Daisies, is set to come back to write the last few episodes of this season. He wrote some of the best episodes from season 1 of Heroes, he could possibly turn the show around.

One thing that amused me with the last few episodes of Heroes was the addition of the comic book guys. It was as if the show broke the fourth wall and added the viewers to the show as a character. It was funny to see the show poke fun at itself.

Despite alot of the crap that's on NBC, I have to give them props for keeping shows like 30 Rock and The Office around. I think they're some of the most original shows on network tv at the moment.

[eggwards.livejournal.com]

Yes, Fuller had already said he would go back to Heroes if Dasies was canceled. well, he at least still has a job. Fuller wrote for the first season, so there's some hope. We'll see. At least Fuller seems to write for characters, rather than storylines, which is a good part of what made Heroes interesting at first.

I wasn't sure what to make of the comic book guys. Yes, I see what you are saying, sort of the fan's voice, and I didn't have a problem with the premise, the comic books that foretold the future were already part of the show's canon, so it makes sense. Casting the Robot Chicken creators was a bit of a stunt, though. I don't know if other people would notice, but in a rather unknown cast, they kind of stood out - like George Takai does.

Sometimes I think that they use Hiro as the "comic relief" guy too often, sometimes it's just dreadful to watch, but I was very happy with his story on last nights show.

I haven't been that interested in The Office, but I love 30 Rock. I wonder if it would still be around if it didn't win the Emmy, though. I hope they will continue to let it build. NBC years ago took a chance on a few shows like Cheers and Family Ties and held them for longer than normal because they felt good about the quality. I hope they are doing the same with 30 Rock, but I don't know if you can build the same audience that you could in the 80's.

A Glimmer of hope

[rowgun.livejournal.com]

Here's an interview with Bryan Fuller, who comments on the "Villains" arc which is ending this monday (Thank God).

http://ausiellofiles.ew.com/2008/12/exclusive-bryan.html

Looks like you're right, he's focusing more on the characters themselves than a huge storyline. The best thing I think from that interview is:

"People will die"

That's the best news I've heard about the show in a long time.

[cubziz.livejournal.com]

Shows like Heroes and Battlestar claim that they have a "plan" from the beginning, but the scripts go in a dozen different directions, it is a wonder that there is any coherency.

I've started wondering if most TV is just about filling in time between product placement.

[eggwards.livejournal.com]

Well, is seems that cable goes for the buzzworthy shows and network TV is playing it safe. Quite a change from the NBC of the 1980's where they tried for quality programming, not just the same Jay Leno dreck.