Can networks realistically compete with cable shows?
09-24-12 | 09:15 PM
#26
Banned
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 3,503
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Can networks realistically compete with cable shows?
I'm surprised, though. Do you seriously think Mad Men would survive more than possibly three episodes on a broadcast network? I didn't think anyone was that delusional. It wouldn't even have survived on AMC had it not started winning awards.
09-24-12 | 11:43 PM
#27
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
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.
V, Roots, North And South, these things were staples of programming in the 70s and 80s. We even saw History bring it back to amazingly huge success with Hatfields and McCoys this year.
I think you can craft something around 6 or 12 hours and make it work, and make it work very well. But I also believe that you can do the same thing with 22. I do think it's important to design your show around the number of episodes you have, especially when you're highly serialized.
09-25-12 | 12:08 AM
#28
Re: Can networks realistically compete with cable shows?
It's more of the format that bugs me. The cable shows typically have a season long arc to them while the big 4 have to create shows that anyone can jump in at anytime and not miss anything. That pretty much sacrifices any kind of drama that you're trying to build by having to start back at the beginning every episode.
09-25-12 | 12:31 AM
#29
DVD Talk God
Re: Can networks realistically compete with cable shows?
It's more of the format that bugs me. The cable shows typically have a season long arc to them while the big 4 have to create shows that anyone can jump in at anytime and not miss anything. That pretty much sacrifices any kind of drama that you're trying to build by having to start back at the beginning every episode.
FOX:
Fringe -- You could not jump in right now and have it make any sense. Probably the most heavily serialized show on the networks still airing.
NBC:
Grimm
Smash
Parenthood
ABC:
Greys Anatomy
Private Practice
Once Upon a Time
Revenge
Scandal
The CW:
Nikita
Gossip Girl
90210
and to some extent Supernatural
The procedural drama format will never die. It's the most profitable type of show with the most replay value. Plus, they are attractive to international stations.
09-25-12 | 12:34 AM
#30
Thread Starter
Suspended
Re: Can networks realistically compete with cable shows?
It's more of the format that bugs me. The cable shows typically have a season long arc to them while the big 4 have to create shows that anyone can jump in at anytime and not miss anything. That pretty much sacrifices any kind of drama that you're trying to build by having to start back at the beginning every episode.
09-25-12 | 12:40 AM
#31
DVD Talk God
Re: Can networks realistically compete with cable shows?
24 was successful through most of it's run because it was a unique format that noone had seen before on network TV. Especially when it premiered in 2001.
09-25-12 | 09:41 AM
#32
Senior Member
Re: Can networks realistically compete with cable shows?
I think Fringe is an interesting show to think about when considering whether a shorter season would be better. During its 20+ show season, some episodes stick strictly to the core theme of the season, while others are of the monster of the week variety, with only a few hints at the core theme. Some might argue that Fringe would be better without all the filler (monster of the week). But I think the monster of the week episodes are often ingenious in how they subtly refer, in the end, to a part of the core theme.
09-25-12 | 10:39 AM
#33
DVD Talk Legend
Re: Can networks realistically compete with cable shows?
It depends on the genre. On the comedic level I don't think they have any issues competing, but not so much on the dramatic front.
09-25-12 | 11:44 AM
#34
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Can networks realistically compete with cable shows?
Your thinking procedural dramas only though. There are quite a few heavily serialized shows on the networks where it would be hard to get a grasp on what is going on (both characters and plots)
FOX:
Fringe -- Watch religiously and wish it were longer
NBC:
Grimm -- Watch mostly On Demand, seldom if ever live
Smash -- Never watched
Parenthood -- Never watched
ABC:
Greys Anatomy -- Never watched
Private Practice -- Never watched
Once Upon a Time -- Never watched
Revenge -- Never watched
Scandal -- Never watched
The CW:
Nikita -- Never watched
Gossip Girl -- Never watched
90210 -- Never watched
and to some extent Supernatural -- Never watched
The procedural drama format will never die. It's the most profitable type of show with the most replay value. Plus, they are attractive to international stations.
FOX:
Fringe -- Watch religiously and wish it were longer
NBC:
Grimm -- Watch mostly On Demand, seldom if ever live
Smash -- Never watched
Parenthood -- Never watched
ABC:
Greys Anatomy -- Never watched
Private Practice -- Never watched
Once Upon a Time -- Never watched
Revenge -- Never watched
Scandal -- Never watched
The CW:
Nikita -- Never watched
Gossip Girl -- Never watched
90210 -- Never watched
and to some extent Supernatural -- Never watched
The procedural drama format will never die. It's the most profitable type of show with the most replay value. Plus, they are attractive to international stations.
I do watch NCIS, NCIS LA and I'll give Vegas a look. I watch the Ramsay shows on Fox and I'm struggling to think of other Network shows.
09-25-12 | 09:35 PM
#35
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Can networks realistically compete with cable shows?
A lot of it has to do with the differences in their revenue streams. Most of the premium cable channels own their content, which means a high-quality show can produce revenue on home video for years after a season airs. Most networks are simply licensing their shows from production studios, where they won't see a dime from home video sales or syndication.
It's also a matter of Hollywood talent choosing where they want to work. The top creative people in Hollywood pick the network more than a network picks them. The creative talent are all aware of the inane demands of network television, watering shows down to the lowest common denominator for mass exposure. Most people, once they've reached a certain level of success in Hollywood, would rather work in film or the shorter seasons of cable than network television, with its grueling schedules.
It's also a matter of Hollywood talent choosing where they want to work. The top creative people in Hollywood pick the network more than a network picks them. The creative talent are all aware of the inane demands of network television, watering shows down to the lowest common denominator for mass exposure. Most people, once they've reached a certain level of success in Hollywood, would rather work in film or the shorter seasons of cable than network television, with its grueling schedules.
09-26-12 | 09:02 AM
#37
DVD Talk Legend
Re: Can networks realistically compete with cable shows?
Count me as one of the people who likes the 13-episode seasons on cable.
I'd rather have writers have to worry about how to fit everything into 13 episodes than how to stretch things out into 22 episodes.
I'd sacrifice some good TV getting left on the cutting room floor than bad TV added as needed filler.
I'd rather have writers have to worry about how to fit everything into 13 episodes than how to stretch things out into 22 episodes.
I'd sacrifice some good TV getting left on the cutting room floor than bad TV added as needed filler.
09-26-12 | 09:06 AM
#38
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Can networks realistically compete with cable shows?
I disagree that Fringe is inaccessible to newbies, I basically caught the Season finales from each season and it mostly all made sense. I've since gone back and watched additional episodes but really they didn't do much. I liked those finale episodes, they seemed focused on overall plot instead of monster of the week. My friends that have never seen the show also didn't seem particularly lost at what was happening in the S4 finale episodes. The storytelling is competent, the relationships obvious and I dunno, it really isn't all that complicated.
09-26-12 | 04:42 PM
#40
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Can networks realistically compete with cable shows?
I despise 13-episode seasons, mainly realizing how much classic television we would not have today if network television only had 13-episode seasons for its history. I will accept a few filler episodes among a 22-episode order. Do people really think the classic seasons of Seinfeld or the Simpsons would have been better with 13 episodes?
09-26-12 | 05:56 PM
#41
Re: Can networks realistically compete with cable shows?
That's comedy though. Most of the time, 13 episode seasons are for 1 hour dramas which ends up longer than 22 episodes of 30 minute shows.
09-26-12 | 07:16 PM
#42
Member
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Can networks realistically compete with cable shows?
I also agree that I wouldn't want every show limited to just 10 to 15 episodes a season. If a great show needs to do, say, 25 episodes a season, sure some of them will be a bit filler, but some can be interesting and even ground-breaking stuff that would have been tossed aside in a very tightly-plotted series.
There's no absolute limit on quality/creativity, sometimes producing more gets you into better practice to produce quality.
There's no absolute limit on quality/creativity, sometimes producing more gets you into better practice to produce quality.
09-26-12 | 08:33 PM
#43
DVD Talk Legend
Re: Can networks realistically compete with cable shows?
I despise 13-episode seasons, mainly realizing how much classic television we would not have today if network television only had 13-episode seasons for its history. I will accept a few filler episodes among a 22-episode order. Do people really think the classic seasons of Seinfeld or the Simpsons would have been better with 13 episodes?
09-27-12 | 12:44 AM
#44
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Can networks realistically compete with cable shows?
The shorter seasons are my biggest complaint about British television. A show like the X-Files with its long-term storylines and mythology simply couldn't exist as we know it, if it only had 10-13 episodes per season. The right creative staffs can knock out 15 or 20 high-quality episodes per year if given the budget. Sure, there are dozens of shows each year that can't pull it off on a consistent basis. But I'm willing to sift through the chaff to find a Buffy The Vampire Slayer.
09-27-12 | 01:36 AM
#45
DVD Talk Legend
Re: Can networks realistically compete with cable shows?
The shorter seasons are my biggest complaint about British television. A show like the X-Files with its long-term storylines and mythology simply couldn't exist as we know it, if it only had 10-13 episodes per season. The right creative staffs can knock out 15 or 20 high-quality episodes per year if given the budget. Sure, there are dozens of shows each year that can't pull it off on a consistent basis. But I'm willing to sift through the chaff to find a Buffy The Vampire Slayer.
09-27-12 | 04:55 PM
#46
DVD Talk Special Edition
Re: Can networks realistically compete with cable shows?
And yet both Lost and BSG were at their best when they were doing short seasons, and absolute crap when they were doing long ones. Blake's 7, modern Doctor Who, and the Prisoner had no trouble building up complex mythologies with a limited number of episodes. Most anime series are 12-26 episodes total, and yet they manage better and more consistent mythologies than the X-Files ever did.
09-27-12 | 05:17 PM
#47
Thread Starter
Suspended
Re: Can networks realistically compete with cable shows?
Here's an interesting article about how FX's Louie is the next stage of evolution in tv formats.
Excerpt.
http://www.avclub.com/articles/why-l...n-of-th,85474/
Excerpt.
This isn’t really the case with Louie. There’s really been nothing else like it in the history of television, and it seems likely that as the decades roll on, more and more shows will be influenced by its blend of cynical comedy and genuine pathos, as well as its deeply personal worldview. Because the show is so cheap to produce, other networks are already looking into replicating it in a way that will hopefully garner larger ratings. (HBO already has a somewhat successful comedy highly influenced by Louie in Girls.) Nobody would argue that there aren’t other good comedies on television, but when series creator, writer, director, and star Louis C.K. lost the Emmy for Outstanding Actor In A Comedy Series to Jon Cryer Sunday night, it was somewhat similar to James Gandolfini losing to Dennis Franz or James Spader back in the day: The two shows felt like they occupied entirely different television universes.
http://www.avclub.com/articles/why-l...n-of-th,85474/
09-27-12 | 10:04 PM
#48
DVD Talk Hero
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 29,850
Received 23 Likes
on
16 Posts
From: Bartertown due to it having a better economy than where I really live.
Re: Can networks realistically compete with cable shows?
yes
the shock value of swearing and nudity on the cable shows has pretty much worn off
good plot is more important than nudity and swearing, and there are still some shows on the big networks with decent plots
the shock value of swearing and nudity on the cable shows has pretty much worn off
good plot is more important than nudity and swearing, and there are still some shows on the big networks with decent plots
09-28-12 | 06:30 AM
#49
DVD Talk Legend
Re: Can networks realistically compete with cable shows?
I don't watch much cable so I guess I'd say yes. I'm not disputing the quality of HBO shows. BoB is my favorite program of all time. I just don't subscribe to any of the premium channels due to cost.
09-28-12 | 03:18 PM
#50
Re: Can networks realistically compete with cable shows?
I pretty much gave up watching network shows because of the rate they either cancel them or watch as the show becomes garbage as it stays on longer.
DJariya nailed the show I was thinking about also, Southland. I wouldn't mind 13-14 episode seasons at all.
DJariya nailed the show I was thinking about also, Southland. I wouldn't mind 13-14 episode seasons at all.
