Can networks realistically compete with cable shows?
#1
Suspended
Thread Starter
Can networks realistically compete with cable shows?
Networks have more money but realistically due to censorship restrictions can they really compete with shows like The Sopranos, Homeland, Game of Thrones, Mad Men, Dexter, and Girls?
There have been some decent hits but lets be honest stuff like Two and A Half Men really isn't that great of a show and it was most likely awarded to give an F.U. to Charlie Sheen.
Even when a network has a decent show they either run it to death or cancel it prematurely. See The Office and Arrested Development.
There have been some decent hits but lets be honest stuff like Two and A Half Men really isn't that great of a show and it was most likely awarded to give an F.U. to Charlie Sheen.
Even when a network has a decent show they either run it to death or cancel it prematurely. See The Office and Arrested Development.
#2
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
Re: Can networks realistically compete with cable shows?
In comedies I think they can still compete. I watch plenty of network comedies. In dramas? No.
#4
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 630
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Can networks realistically compete with cable shows?
It might have less to do less with overt restrictions than it does the pressure on networks to attract the widest possible audience. So they'll take a good idea with potential and instead of concentrating on that, they dilute it down to the blandest form and blend it with mundane unrelated elements for mass appeal. See Revolution and all the (canceled) shows it's being compared to for a prime example.
#5
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Re: Can networks realistically compete with cable shows?
I don't watch ABC, NBC, CBS, or FOX anymore simply because most shows are pretty bland or atleast unoriginal. Whether they are some form of reality show, some form of American Idol, or some form of CSI, they are just not interesting to me. I love shows like BoardWalk Empire, Game of Thrones, and Homeland, as there is nothing on regular TV that comes to close this quality.
#7
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Can networks realistically compete with cable shows?
Yes they can but they won't since the income comes in differently.
Networks are determined to have a good quality show run as many episodes per season as is reasonably affordable. Some shows, like Lost, would have benefited from the 13 episode seasons of Cable networks. Since stations like HBO and Showtime rely on subscribers, a 12 - 13 episode season is fine since few people take the time to cancel their subscriptions between seasons. This also applies to stations like AMC, though they benefit from longer seasons, they aren't going to make as much from advertising since there are inherently fewer viewers. Since shows are the only source of income on Broadcast stations, they run the fuckers into the ground.
I personally don't think it's necessary for a show to have vulgarities or nudity to be worth a damn, and you can get away with a ton of violence and some nudity on network TV. Broadcasters are actually allowed to show a lot of the same content as Premium stations as long as it's after 10:00 pm (yes this includes most f-bombs and nudity, just no hardcore porn). They usually don't though since 1) Advertisers will be pressured to boycott the show/station due to parenting groups and 2) It would break-up broadcasts through different time zones since 10:00 pm EST is 9:00 pm CST and the same content can't be shown at 9 pm.
Networks are determined to have a good quality show run as many episodes per season as is reasonably affordable. Some shows, like Lost, would have benefited from the 13 episode seasons of Cable networks. Since stations like HBO and Showtime rely on subscribers, a 12 - 13 episode season is fine since few people take the time to cancel their subscriptions between seasons. This also applies to stations like AMC, though they benefit from longer seasons, they aren't going to make as much from advertising since there are inherently fewer viewers. Since shows are the only source of income on Broadcast stations, they run the fuckers into the ground.
I personally don't think it's necessary for a show to have vulgarities or nudity to be worth a damn, and you can get away with a ton of violence and some nudity on network TV. Broadcasters are actually allowed to show a lot of the same content as Premium stations as long as it's after 10:00 pm (yes this includes most f-bombs and nudity, just no hardcore porn). They usually don't though since 1) Advertisers will be pressured to boycott the show/station due to parenting groups and 2) It would break-up broadcasts through different time zones since 10:00 pm EST is 9:00 pm CST and the same content can't be shown at 9 pm.
#8
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Re: Can networks realistically compete with cable shows?
The networks have had top quality dramas and comedies in the past so there is no reason it can't happen today.
Unfortunately, network execs are now just hiring too many hack writers with movie-of-the-week ideas and usually casting from second rate modeling agencies. Too bad because network comedies and dramas of the past are probably some of the best shows ever.
Unfortunately, network execs are now just hiring too many hack writers with movie-of-the-week ideas and usually casting from second rate modeling agencies. Too bad because network comedies and dramas of the past are probably some of the best shows ever.
#9
DVD Talk God
Re: Can networks realistically compete with cable shows?
As far as the action genre goes for 1 hour network dramas, IMO there are/were quite a few that are quite violent and push the boundaries for network TV.
#10
DVD Talk Legend
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Vichy America
Posts: 13,533
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Can networks realistically compete with cable shows?
Networks have more money but realistically due to censorship restrictions can they really compete with shows like The Sopranos, Homeland, Game of Thrones, Mad Men, Dexter, and Girls?
There have been some decent hits but lets be honest stuff like Two and A Half Men really isn't that great of a show and it was most likely awarded to give an F.U. to Charlie Sheen.
There have been some decent hits but lets be honest stuff like Two and A Half Men really isn't that great of a show and it was most likely awarded to give an F.U. to Charlie Sheen.
And let's not forget that there's plenty of crap on cable -- how many HBO series have just quietly disappeared over the years, or continued for inexplicable reasons (cough Arli$$ cough)?
Even when a network has a decent show they either run it to death or cancel it prematurely. See The Office and Arrested Development.
#11
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,917
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Can networks realistically compete with cable shows?
From what I saw in the first two episodes (before I dropped it), Girls doesn't belong in the list of top cable TV shows.
I think network TV can compete. I find The Good Wife good enough to belong in that list of top shows. Of course if Sex, nudity, and profanity heighten your enjoyment of a show you'll likely feel differently.
I think network TV can compete. I find The Good Wife good enough to belong in that list of top shows. Of course if Sex, nudity, and profanity heighten your enjoyment of a show you'll likely feel differently.
#12
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Can networks realistically compete with cable shows?
I thought Girls was excellent, but I started watching near the end of it's first season run. Veep doesn't though, it has potential but has a long way to go.
#13
DVD Talk God
Re: Can networks realistically compete with cable shows?
From what I saw in the first two episodes (before I dropped it), Girls doesn't belong in the list of top cable TV shows.
I think network TV can compete. I find The Good Wife good enough to belong in that list of top shows. Of course if Sex, nudity, and profanity heighten your enjoyment of a show you'll likely feel differently.
I think network TV can compete. I find The Good Wife good enough to belong in that list of top shows. Of course if Sex, nudity, and profanity heighten your enjoyment of a show you'll likely feel differently.
#14
Re: Can networks realistically compete with cable shows?
It isn't the permissivness around language or graphic depictions of sex and violence, it is the permissivness afforded to the idea behind the show and the characters.
#15
Senior Member
Re: Can networks realistically compete with cable shows?
I agree. There are some top notch shows that are on (or were recently on) network TV. I include Fringe and Friday Night Lights among them. Good Wife creators have figured out how to make an excellent show that does well in the ratings. Fringe and FNL have not. I don't think that makes these shows worse than Good Wife; in fact, I like them more. I like them as much as any show on cable, despite the lack of nudity and raunchy language.
#16
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Can networks realistically compete with cable shows?
Fringe is one of the best "produced" shows on TV, it generally looks fantastic, is well acted and has solid effects and sound design, however I almost wish it were a great 2.5 hour movie or mini-series instead of a 5 season series. Was never a big fan of the monster of the week episodes but loved the underlying story line.
#17
DVD Talk God
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Posts: 130,262
Received 614 Likes
on
493 Posts
Re: Can networks realistically compete with cable shows?
I don't know about competition with cablenets, but outside of broadcasting live sports, I'm not sure the network TV model (revenue generated from commercials only) can continue to be profitable as DVRs become more prevalent.
#18
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Can networks realistically compete with cable shows?
It will for a little longer, then we'll be seeing:
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/BhIIPbO_6xg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/BhIIPbO_6xg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
#19
Moderator
Re: Can networks realistically compete with cable shows?
LOST was on a network and was one of the best dramas of the past decade. Mad Men could, with very few (if any) changes in content, air on a network. This isn't a standards and practices issue, it's an issue with different business models.
#20
Re: Can networks realistically compete with cable shows?
Overall, network dramas tend to cater to the lowest common denominator, which is why there are so many procedurals. A drama does not need explicit sex, language, and/or violence to be good so it's not that a cable show is necessarily better because it has those things. Some of the greatest shows in history had none of these things.
The Big 4 are stuck with this need to have ~22 episode seasons over 10 months. This worked well in 1990 but the times, they are a changin'! TV audiences are so fractured now. I'd be interested if the networks started 10-12 episode seasons and air two different shows in a timeslot instead. Quality over quantity!
The Big 4 are stuck with this need to have ~22 episode seasons over 10 months. This worked well in 1990 but the times, they are a changin'! TV audiences are so fractured now. I'd be interested if the networks started 10-12 episode seasons and air two different shows in a timeslot instead. Quality over quantity!
#21
Suspended
Thread Starter
Re: Can networks realistically compete with cable shows?
That's actually a really good idea. People would actually tune into drama's if they had one 12 episode season on networks kind of like a miniseries.
#22
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Re: Can networks realistically compete with cable shows?
Sorry, but I like the longer seasons on Network TV, and wish that cable companies would adopt them as well. I've never watched a show and said "you know, it'd be great if there were less episodes."
Longer seasons allow more depth. They give us longer to enjoy them. We don't have to wait 9 months for the next new episode after the season finale.
The only thing that a shorter season has an advantage in is budget. Cable shows are cheaper to produce, and aren't as focus on getting ratings. Cable shows get more of a chance to grow. Mad Men would have been cancelled after 3 episodes on network TV. This also allows more diverse programming, as you can cater to a niche and still make money.
But I'll take 22 episodes over 12 every time.
Longer seasons allow more depth. They give us longer to enjoy them. We don't have to wait 9 months for the next new episode after the season finale.
The only thing that a shorter season has an advantage in is budget. Cable shows are cheaper to produce, and aren't as focus on getting ratings. Cable shows get more of a chance to grow. Mad Men would have been cancelled after 3 episodes on network TV. This also allows more diverse programming, as you can cater to a niche and still make money.
But I'll take 22 episodes over 12 every time.
#23
Banned
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,503
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#24
DVD Talk God
Re: Can networks realistically compete with cable shows?
I know some people believe that less is more, but when a show like Southland ends in March and isn't scheduled to return until 11 months later (Feb 2013), that sucks!
At least TNT/USA and SyFy do the split season scheduling for some of their hit shows where you get 8-10 episodes in the summer and the rest in the winter/new year, that sort of helps with the long gaps.
But going back to TheKing's point. While I like more content as much as any person, not every cable show would work with longer seasons. I think shows like Dexter, Homeland, Mad Men, Sons of Anarchy and even Breaking Bad, which are very plot and character driven work better in the 12-13 episode format. The writers can focus more in the storytelling than filling out an episode quota. It would probably cost too much for a longer season too.
Southland, which only gets 10 episodes per season, is one of the few cable shows that I think deserves more episodes. Especially since the show is pretty much the day in the life of an LAPD officer and isn't relying on serialized arcs. Getting cancelled on NBC and moving to TNT was actually a blessing. The show creatively would have been hindered by the network censors. It's a very gritty show and cable has helped it.
At least TNT/USA and SyFy do the split season scheduling for some of their hit shows where you get 8-10 episodes in the summer and the rest in the winter/new year, that sort of helps with the long gaps.
But going back to TheKing's point. While I like more content as much as any person, not every cable show would work with longer seasons. I think shows like Dexter, Homeland, Mad Men, Sons of Anarchy and even Breaking Bad, which are very plot and character driven work better in the 12-13 episode format. The writers can focus more in the storytelling than filling out an episode quota. It would probably cost too much for a longer season too.
Southland, which only gets 10 episodes per season, is one of the few cable shows that I think deserves more episodes. Especially since the show is pretty much the day in the life of an LAPD officer and isn't relying on serialized arcs. Getting cancelled on NBC and moving to TNT was actually a blessing. The show creatively would have been hindered by the network censors. It's a very gritty show and cable has helped it.
#25
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Re: Can networks realistically compete with cable shows?