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.

In comedies I think they can still compete. I watch plenty of network comedies. In dramas? No.

Only in comedies.

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.

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.

Compete how? in quality?

They should.

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.

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.

Agree. I like shows with a little more edge to them. But, I don't need more tits, F bombs and throats being slit, over the top violence for a 1 hour drama to be good.

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.

Doesn't matter if Two and a Half Men is great -- people watched it. Not everyone wants to watch edgy series like The Sopranos and Mad Men. Not even all cable networks run stuff like that -- plenty of them have shows that could easily fit on OTA networks.

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)?

They run it to death because it makes money -- and then cable comes along and runs it to death even more -- witness Law and Order which seems to be on in some incarnation 24/7.

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 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.

The Good Wife IMO is one of the best written network dramas right now. Good cast, Smart characters, sharp dialogue, interesting stories week to week. Doesn't need to be super edgy with more sex and violence to be good.

Absolutely correct. This is why any network show that is on the level of something like Sopranos will be the exception rather than the rule.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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>

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.

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!

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.

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.

Except for the fact that it would be cancelled in 2 episodes (see The Playboy Club & Pan AM).

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.

You're seriously comparing Mad Men to Playboy Club and Pan AM? Those shows didn't make it because they were sucky '60s-era knock-offs.