What the CBC has done for you lately...

kimmy · October 31, 2006

British TV shows tended to feature overweight, twice divorced, unhappy, alcoholic detectives driving rusting Fords working for miserable jerks in run-down police stations...

Barney Miller?

The point they were making was that people don't want to watch television about people whose lives are as crappy as their own, they don't necessarily want to see real life reflected on TV. They want bright, shining, escapism that takes them away from their dull, ordinary lives into a fantasy world of fun and excitement. They want to be entertained, not depressed.

While I completely agree that people don't always want their TV to reflect real life, it's quite a generalization to say that people want bright shiny escapism.

On sit-coms, for example, there seems to be a rule of thumb that most male characters ought to be out-of-shape, dumb, employed at laughable jobs, or losers in some other sense. Perhaps they just wish to mimic Homer Simpson, or perhaps the theory is that people have an easier time laughing at somebody who sucks worse than themselves.

Earlier on you complained about perfect, plastic people on TV, but many of the most popular TV characters both now and in days gone by have been anything but. On NYPD Blue, Dennis Franz portrayed a overweight, twice divorced, unhappy, alcoholic-- well, a typical British detective. Sam Waterston, on Law and Order, is an aging guy with bushy eyebrows, weird twitchy mannerisms, an apoplectic temper, occasionally slurred speech, and a tendancy to spit when he talks. House MD is a loathesome man, and a physical and emotional cripple. As Gil Grissom on CSI, William Peterson plays an overweight, introverted geek who can't relate to people outside the context of work. I mention recent characters, but I'm sure you can go back as far as you like and find plenty of popular characters who are at least as flawed as the audiences that watched them. When it comes to characters, people want to see ...characters.

You mentioned watching LA Law once upon a time. I don't have much experience with that, but I've watched some of David E Kelley's more recent work. I used to watch "The Practice" regularly, but I got sick of it. Once you discovered Kelley's secret formula, you could figure out how every episode would end. The formula: each episode will have the most unjust outcome possible. The more despicable the defendant, the more certain our stalwart heroes, defense attourneys Bobby Donnell and co, would be to get him acquitted. The more tragic the victim or the victims family, the more torment they'd suffer in the courtroom. The more unjust the situation, the more impotent the justice system was in dealing with it. The district attourneys were never able to convict anybody, except for Donnell's most sympathetic clients. If Donnell was defending a loving, cookie-baking grandma, she'd be the one defendant that Donnell and co couldn't keep out of jail.

So why did people watch this, anyway? You'd think people would quickly get tired of seeing injustice dished out every week, but the show ran for years and years. What kept people tuning in? My theory is that it provided a catharsis. People sick of seeing outrageous crimes and outrageous verdicts on the news could tune in each week, watch fictional injustice, and vent their frustration in the comfort of their living rooms.

Another of Kelley's shows, Boston Public, set at a highschool, worked on the same premise, I think. If your kids were attending a public school like the one on the show, your kids were probably being beaten up and bullied, being sold drugs, having sex with their teachers, getting raped in washrooms, prostituted by gangs,

...and the teachers and schoolboard couldn't do anything to stop any of it. Why would anybody want to watch something so bleak? Beats me. So they could vent, I guess. Maybe it's for the same reason that I sometimes read NDP policy documents or Rabble.ca editorials... sometimes it just feels good to have something to be mad at. At any rate, Kelley's experiments in tormenting the audience showed that there was an audience that wasn't looking for bright shiny escapism, but the exact opposite: a reality that's even worse than the one they live in.

(of course, David E Kelley also produced lighter-hearted fare, like Ally McBeal, a show whose central thesis was that women are mentally impaired and therefore deserve special treatment.)

On the other hand, the theory of beautiful people, beautiful cars, and so on does seem to hold some water. Most of the women on most shows, whether they're police officers, lawyers, housewives, or whatever else, look as though they've just stepped out of a soap opera. In another thread a few days back I was asked why 3/4 of the murder victims I've seen on TV this year are gorgeous blondes.

There are three "Crime Scene Investigation" shows on TV right now, the original Las Vegas show, and spinoffs set in Miami and New York. All 3 are major hits, but the New York spinoff lags the other two by several million viewers each week. Why? It's the newest of the 3, but in its 3rd season that shouldn't be a factor. It's the same format and similar stories. It also has Gary Sinise, who is arguably the best lead actor among the three series. Could the "bright and shiny" aspect be the difference? All three of the shows have distinctive colour-palettes and visual styles. The Las Vegas show combines desert sand and sun with Vegas glitz and neon. The Miami show has bright sun, sandy beaches, palm trees and lush plant life, and David Caruso's freakish red hair. The New York show has... grey. And brown. Grey skies, grey and brown buildings, grey streets and alleys. Could it be that several million fewer people tune in for CSI:New York than for CSI and CSI:Miami because the Vegas and Miami look so visually appealing and exotic, while New York looks so drab and depressing on the show? It might be part of it, I would think.

-k

jdobbin · October 31, 2006

I will always believe that we possess ingredients to make blockbuster movies and television series here. What we seem to lack is good recipes.

Funding is the difference. You make a lot of bad cookies until you make the right batch. If you don't have the dough though...

kimmy · November 1, 2006

For those of you having a strange feeling of deja-vu, you're right. We've done this before. I went looking for our last chat on this topic. Here it is:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....=2291&st=30

A guy who thumbs his nose at everything currently on TV is accusing me of elitism? Odd...

You're making assumptions. I never thumbed my nose at "everything" currently on TV. Some of it seems good, though flawed. And as I rarely watch TV any more I can't say that I've personally watched everything - especially the last couple of seasons.

That's hard to reconcile with these comments:

--"Writing is almost universally pathetic and unimaginative."

--"...if the sets are fancier it's only to draw your attention away from the lousy writing, the terrible dialogue, the implausible plotlines, and the bad acting."

--"What's great for this time? Which shows are routinely outstanding in terms of writing, acting and entertainment value, regularly tug at the heart strings, make the pulse beat faster, enlighten and inform, cause people to laugh out loud, push the envelope? Because believe it or not, the good shows in the sixties, seventies and eighties did that. I don't see any shows doing that today."

And yet, when it comes to discussing what's actually being created today, your complaints aren't actually about quality at all, but rather your personal preference.

--"Corner Gas and Earl are too bumpkinish for me."

--"The Office seems to have too much meanness."

--"The idea of a naive, plain woman constantly being insulted by snotty, stupid people just didn't strike me as something I wanted to sit through."

--"They've reinvented the serial - which I never liked, mind you. "

--"Mind you, I'm harder to entertain than I was."

I'd also suggest that the older shows had dismal production values, and by and large pretty mediocre actors and simplistic scripts.

I'd disagree. The only thing better now are special affects. Writing is almost universally pathetic and unimaginative. The sitcom died not because it was lowbrow, but because comedy is the ultimate test of a writer, and Hollywood doesn't enough good ones. As for production values - it's called colour - and yes, it has improved. Film quality has improved, and if the sets are fancier it's only to draw your attention away from the lousy writing, the terrible dialogue, the implausible plotlines, and the bad acting.

Funny, but having had the "pleasure" of watching some of your golden greats of yesteryear on DejaView when I was snowed in at my uncle's last year, I have the exact opposite opinion of which shows had lousy writing, terrible dialogue, implausible plotlines, and bad acting.

I have a hunch that a combination of sentimentality and selective memory have distorted your view of how "good" the good old days really were. Like the baby-boomer who recalls the 1960s as the golden age of music because he remembers the Beatles but has thankfully forgotten the Archies, you remember the good shows, have forgotten the bad shows, and are happier that way. It's actually quite cruel of me to point out how many of the shows of yesteryear were complete garbage.

The advent of colour and better quality film was probably a curse for the shows of the 1960s and 1970s, because there was no more hiding how fake and crappy their sets and props and special effects looked. Watch out, sherriff! One more step backwards and you're going to fall right through that backdrop painting! Careful, Captain Kirk! Don't trip over that foam boulder!

Terrible acting? I keep having to remind you that I've seen many of your golden oldies and I know first hand that the actors back then weren't better than the ones on TV right now, and in many cases were a whole lot worse.

Ditto the production work. TV was a fairly new art-form back then. The technology has advanced a lot, but so have the techniques. It's not just a matter of fancier special effects, it's things like using the camera more effectively. Older shows didn't (or couldn't) move the camera effectively, resulting in static looking scenes and often clunky-looking scenarios like characters pointing at stuff that the director wanted the viewer to take note of. Newer techniques move the picture to follow the action and emphasize details. And, viewers are more savvy as well-- you can do non-linear story-telling, or frames of reference, or flashbacks, and other literary techniques on TV now, that would have confused the hell out of viewers in years gone by.

"For their time" seems to be a common refrain here. Were people just easily amused in yesteryear?

Kind of. It was a less jaded, less sophisticated time. You also have to remember that television had a wider reach. It didn't necessarily play to segment groups as TV does so much now. Most television was broadly aimed at everyone. When Hawaii Five Oh came on the whole family would watch it, including grandparents and teenagers, believe it or not. Same for All in the Family and the rest. Now everything seems aimed at people in their twenties - which is good for you, I suppose, but not so good for me.

Well, perhaps that's part of the difference in our perspectives.

You grew up at a time when a successful show had to be able to appeal to Dumb Li'l Jimmy, and Senile Aunt Edna, and everybody in between. I can't even imagine such a thing. As a family we often watch Saturday night hockey together, and sometimes Sunday afternoon NFL. But not much else. We used to watch "Northern Exposure" as a family when I was young.

I am reminded of the adage "Design a system so simple that even an idiot can use, and only an idiot will want to use it." My feeling is that if you wrote a show so simple that even Aunt Edna and Dumb Li'l Jimmy can follow it...

At any rate, I do agree with you on the point that there's very little family programming on TV right now. If I was a parent, I would not watch most of the shows on TV with my children. Or with Aunt Edna, for that matter. I would watch The Amazing Race with my kids, and Jeopardy and Wheel of Fortune with Aunt Edna... but beyond that I'm somewhat at a loss.

I think somewhat that the whole concept has changed, though. I don't even know if families watch TV together anymore. Maybe there's no family programs left because there aren't many families that watch TV together anymore.

The current Battlestar Galactica series has superb writing, a superb cast, and production values that are unequalled by pretty much anything TV has ever seen before.

Hmm, I wouldn't doubt it. I've see a few episodes. I've been a big SF fan all my life, you see. But I almost never watch BG because it's so dark in every way. It has implausible, if not ridiculous plots, and seems determined to not only be as dark as possible in its storylines but in its lighting. Can't anyone turn a light on in those ships!? I'm surprised they don't bump into each other more.

You know what? The original Star Trek might have had lousy production values but it was entertaining as hell. I'm not entertained by BG, I'm depressed by it. It's not something to enjoy, it's something to endure.

...you like bright, cheery shows where there's no problem so big that it can't be solved in a one-hour episode.

House is a great show and compares well to medical shows of the past.

Because he's an arrogant jerk? There were jerks on St. Elsewhere too.

Because he's an arrogant jerk whose physical and mental frailty adds complexity to the show, and because the plots involve surprising twists and turns and often interesting or frustrating ethical dilemnas.

I think you've misunderstood the point I was trying to make. I know I mentioned the "risk taking" somewhat, but really, the problem I have with modern shows has nothing to do with them taking no risks. It has to do with not being entertained by them. Mind you, I'm harder to entertain than I was.

Well, earlier you were talking about Archie Bunker flushing the toilet as if it was the greatest TV moment since the moon landing and asking why TV no longer shatters barriers like that. I got the impression that this pushing envelopes and breaking barriers was a big thing for you. I'm still curious as to what you think could "push the envelope" in 2006 in they way Archie Bunker and MTM did in the 1970s.

Well, admittedly, I haven't watched much TV for several years now, due to the continued deteriorating quality. I read up on what new shows were coming out, and wasn't tempted by them. Nothing sounded interesting. So however good the production values or scripts - well so what if they're not about anything I want to see? Put a couple of cops in a cop car and ride them around town for 44 minutes and I'll watch that. In the meantime, the last TV show I watched regularly was West Wing (which I admit, had great writing), and that's been cancelled, so I doubt I'll be watching much this year.

The West Wing? I'm a little surprised. I didn't think that'd be your kind of thing. Personally, I only saw it a few times and couldn't stand it on the times I did watch it. I became physically nauseous at the end of an episode, watching our heroic cast walk in slow-motion to the strains of a '60s protest anthem, and decided I'd jab my eyes out with a pencil before I ever watched that again. Politicians who care too much? Please. That's about as realistic as Bea Arthur being impregnated.

The West Wing gang transfered their efforts to the new "Studio 60" program, which appears to be on death row due to low ratings. It was highly acclaimed, yet as with many other critical favorites, that didn't translate into an audience.

-k

Argus · November 1, 2006

British TV shows tended to feature overweight, twice divorced, unhappy, alcoholic detectives driving rusting Fords working for miserable jerks in run-down police stations...
Barney Miller?
The point they were making was that people don't want to watch television about people whose lives are as crappy as their own, they don't necessarily want to see real life reflected on TV. They want bright, shining, escapism that takes them away from their dull, ordinary lives into a fantasy world of fun and excitement. They want to be entertained, not depressed.

While I completely agree that people don't always want their TV to reflect real life, it's quite a generalization to say that people want bright shiny escapism.

On sit-coms, for example, there seems to be a rule of thumb that most male characters ought to be out-of-shape, dumb, employed at laughable jobs, or losers in some other sense. Perhaps they just wish to mimic Homer Simpson, or perhaps the theory is that people have an easier time laughing at somebody who sucks worse than themselves.

It's comedy, kid, comedy. Fat men are funny. Didn't you know that!? Comedy is the home of geeky Jews and dumpy assed middled aged men.

Earlier on you complained about perfect, plastic people on TV, but many of the most popular TV characters both now and in days gone by have been anything but. On NYPD Blue, Dennis Franz portrayed a overweight, twice divorced, unhappy, alcoholic-- well, a typical British detective.

First, he was only person in that squad room that couldn't have been a model. He was the exception that makes the rule. Second, he was an EX-alcoholic, coping nicely, thriving at work, with a gorgeous babe wife.

Sam Waterston, on Law and Order, is an aging guy with bushy eyebrows, weird twitchy mannerisms, an apoplectic temper, occasionally slurred speech, and a tendancy to spit when he talks.

Yeah, but the difference is LAO is all about the crime investigation. When was the last time you saw a scene of Briscoe at home, or with his family, or doing anything other than working? When did you see him crawling into his pathetic house - alone - with his cheap stick furniture, and staring bleakly at his cheap-ass tv as he pops a beer?

House MD is a loathesome man, and a physical and emotional cripple. As Gil Grissom on CSI, William Peterson plays an overweight, introverted geek who can't relate to people outside the context of work. I mention recent characters, but I'm sure you can go back as far as you like and find plenty of popular characters who are at least as flawed as the audiences that watched them. When it comes to characters, people want to see ...characters.

Sometimes, yes, sometimes no. CSI - I don't watch it, but from what I've seen most of the "detectives" are again, models. So once more it's the exception that makes the rule. But yes, there have always been oustanding character actors. Not EVERY actor on TV would set female hearts aflutter, and not every woman is a babe - although damned near all are.

So why did people watch this, anyway? You'd think people would quickly get tired of seeing injustice dished out every week, but the show ran for years and years. What kept people tuning in? My theory is that it provided a catharsis. People sick of seeing outrageous crimes and outrageous verdicts on the news could tune in each week, watch fictional injustice, and vent their frustration in the comfort of their living rooms.

Or maybe it had a good time frame? I dunno. I never watched it. I HATE shows where the bad guys win. Yes, I know that's unrealistic, but I don't care.

Another of Kelley's shows, Boston Public, set at a highschool, worked on the same premise, I think. If your kids were attending a public school like the one on the show, your kids were probably being beaten up and bullied, being sold drugs, having sex with their teachers, getting raped in washrooms, prostituted by gangs, ...and the teachers and schoolboard couldn't do anything to stop any of it. Why would anybody want to watch something so bleak?

Actually, it wasn't that bleak. Most of the shows wound up having happy endings. There was humour, and some awfully attractive teachers. There was more than its share of T&A episodes, too, what with cheerleader strippers, students sleaping with teachers, "bra strikes" and the like. And 7 of 9 made a great teacher.

(of course, David E Kelley also produced lighter-hearted fare, like Ally McBeal, a show whose central thesis was that women are mentally impaired and therefore deserve special treatment.)

I thought the central thesis was that you could be a tough, smart, capable, educated professional woman and still wear a miniskirt to work every day?

It's a thesis I strongly support.

I would love to see the following shows on TV:

SF space opera based on David Weber's Honor Harrington novels

Comedy-drama based on Janet Evanovich's bounty hunter series

Drama series based on the Anita Blake vampire hunter series by Laurell K Hamilton

It's probably a good time for a military comedy series, too.

Remiel · November 1, 2006

Telefilm Canada seems to be giving a lot of money to a lot of productions every year. And it isn't even hard to qualify. The more Canadian your movie is, the more money you get. There are a couple of point based systems, I think the major one is 10-point... You get a point if (as I recall):

The director is Canadian.

The producer is Canadian.

The lead actor is Canadian.

The lead supporting actor is Canadian.

The majority of the other actors are Canadian.

The film crew is Canadian.

The film is shot in Canada.

The film is set in Canada.

I forget what exactly the other two are, maybe lead actress and lead supporting actress. Anyway, you get the gist of it.

What I would really like to see is someone really stick it and make a movie that has all of the best and most popular Canadian talent. For instance, I'd like to see something with Donald & Kiefer Sutherland, Jim Carrey and Rachel McAdams, though I'm not as up on directors. Go big or go home, as they say.

jdobbin · November 1, 2006

Telefilm Canada seems to be giving a lot of money to a lot of productions every year. And it isn't even hard to qualify. The more Canadian your movie is, the more money you get. There are a couple of point based systems, I think the major one is 10-point... You get a point if (as I recall):
The director is Canadian.

The producer is Canadian.

The lead actor is Canadian.

The lead supporting actor is Canadian.

The majority of the other actors are Canadian.

The film crew is Canadian.

The film is shot in Canada.

The film is set in Canada.

I forget what exactly the other two are, maybe lead actress and lead supporting actress. Anyway, you get the gist of it.

What I would really like to see is someone really stick it and make a movie that has all of the best and most popular Canadian talent. For instance, I'd like to see something with Donald & Kiefer Sutherland, Jim Carrey and Rachel McAdams, though I'm not as up on directors. Go big or go home, as they say.

You forgot the most important one: the screenwriter. As a screenwriter myself, I shouldn't be surprised. We always get overlooked.

If it's not on the page, it's not on the stage.

It isn't easy to get Telefilm money. It requires not only points but additional funding.

However, one thing is certain: a successful Canadian movie is immensely more profitable for a distributor in Canada than a successful American film which has a limit of the profit that can be made. Bon Cop, Bad Cop has made oodles of money for its Canadian producers. Trailer Park Boys is making money.

But like all films, there are a number than don't make any money. Telefilm has been seeking more commercial films to get Canadians into theatres. This has been a fairly successful year but having said that, Canada has the smallest number of people seeing homemade product in TV and film in the G7.

Canuck E Stan · November 1, 2006

For instance, I'd like to see something with Donald & Kiefer Sutherland, Jim Carrey and Rachel McAdams, though I'm not as up on directors. Go big or go home, as they say.

All these "Canadians" did just that Got big and left home.I'd like to see Canadians who live,work and stay in Canada get credit for staying.

jdobbin · November 1, 2006

All these "Canadians" did just that Got big and left home.I'd like to see Canadians who live,work and stay in Canada get credit for staying.

Some of these actors return for lower paid work from time to time. Donald Sutherland starred in Bethune in 1999. Keifer goes back even farther and won a Genie in 1985 for the Bay Boy. Both have been involved in TV in the States the last few years which offers fewer TV opportunities and usually they pick the ones that pay the most which are American films.

Rachel MacAdams has done a lot more recent Canadian film but she is big office in the U.S. and probably would need an exceptional role in Canada to come back to work.

gerryhatrick · November 1, 2006

This is not a federal politics topic.

The anti-cbc rightwing sect of course wants to draw attention away from our current federal politics because they're so rotten for the rightwing Conservatives. The age-old method for doing that is attack the media.

Can we please get a little moderation on this forum as far as controlling non-political topics?

jefferiah · November 1, 2006

I think it qualifies as a topic. CBC is funded by Canada. Thats pretty federal. I think this whole thing about rallying all Canadian actors and all Canadian talent and all Canadian directors is silly. That just sounds like you are trying to prove something.

Canuck E Stan · November 1, 2006

Some of these actors return for lower paid work from time to time. Donald Sutherland starred in Bethune in 1999. Keifer goes back even farther and won a Genie in 1985 for the Bay Boy. Both have been involved in TV in the States the last few years which offers fewer TV opportunities and usually they pick the ones that pay the most which are American films.
Rachel MacAdams has done a lot more recent Canadian film but she is big office in the U.S. and probably would need an exceptional role in Canada to come back to work.

!999? !985? Jez, that was 21 years ago,hardly someone who IS IN Canada or can be considered resident Canadian.Hollywood has been so good to these people...sort of like Iggy coming forward after 30 years and saying he's a Canadian and knows what it's like living in Canada or understanding our current problems......they may be Canadians but they really can't relate unless they live here.Visiting and being active in Canadian politics is extemely hypocritical of this bunch,

gerryhatrick · November 1, 2006

I think it qualifies as a topic. CBC is funded by Canada. Thats pretty federal.

Well, let's have a topic about the state of the trans-Canada highway then. And anything/everything else that's funded by the federal gov't.

The forum is federal politics, not "anything you can remotely tie to the federal gov't"

Cameron · November 1, 2006

I personally dislike the CBC immensely. I think we should keep it just for hockey and sell the rest to Mexico...with an adjustment to to the budget of the gargantuan elephant of course.

There shows are boring...news is boring...pretty much all of it is boring...

jdobbin · November 1, 2006

!999? !985? Jez, that was 21 years ago,hardly someone who IS IN Canada or can be considered resident Canadian.Hollywood has been so good to these people...sort of like Iggy coming forward after 30 years and saying he's a Canadian and knows what it's like living in Canada or understanding our current problems......they may be Canadians but they really can't relate unless they live here.Visiting and being active in Canadian politics is extemely hypocritical of this bunch,

I tend to agree that they are mostly absent from the Canadian screen or TV scene. The series 24 is practically a Canadian series with all the Canadian writers, producers, actors and directors involved. We just can't fund anything that pricey.

Ricki Bobbi · November 1, 2006

I tend to agree that they are mostly absent from the Canadian screen or TV scene. The series 24 is practically a Canadian series with all the Canadian writers, producers, actors and directors involved. We just can't fund anything that pricey.

Practically Canadian, but it doesn't count as Canadian under the baloney Cancon laws.

Why exactly should those Cancon laws exist?

jefferiah · November 1, 2006

This is not a federal politics topic.
The anti-cbc rightwing sect of course wants to draw attention away from our current federal politics because they're so rotten for the rightwing Conservatives. The age-old method for doing that is attack the media.

Can we please get a little moderation on this forum as far as controlling non-political topics?

anti-cbc right wing sect? lol. Thats right Gerry, we here on the forum are part of a massive conspiracy to shut off the media.

Ricki Bobbi · November 1, 2006

Well, let's have a topic about the state of the trans-Canada highway then. And anything/everything else that's funded by the federal gov't.
The forum is federal politics, not "anything you can remotely tie to the federal gov't"

Gerry, if you don't like the threads don't post on them.

The CBC is funded by the Federal Government with over $1 Billion a year in taxpayers money.

In the eyes of many Canadians, including many posters here, it uses the funding to pay for an activist, left-leaning agenda.

It is clear that you cannot abide by anybody disagreeing with you. Odd you want to spend your time on a discussion forum with many different views. :lol:

M.Dancer · November 1, 2006

But like all films, there are a number than don't make any money. Telefilm has been seeking more commercial films to get Canadians into theatres. This has been a fairly successful year but having said that, Canada has the smallest number of people seeing homemade product in TV and film in the G7.

One of the major and deserved criticisms of telefilm is that it is set up to fund movies with no chance of making money. I will not argue for it's dismantleing, but I think it has to take more of a venture capital approach. The next big stumbling block for Canadain productions (the first finding investors) is that they have a hard time finding screens. Fact is that Hollywood pretty much controls the theatres and without the ability of putting a film like Bon Cop in wide release in every multiplex, they have no chance of being seen by a large audience the way a 3rd rate US movie gets seen.

Remiel · November 1, 2006

First of all, I would like to offer my sincerist apologies for overlooking your profession, jdobbin. Screenwriters are, of course, one of the most integral parts of any film. Many hoped for movies have been cancelled or delayed because they couldn't find a quality screenwriter to produce a good script, no matter how much fans have been begging for it.

Also, big Canadian talent and big Canadian films is kind of like a Field of Dreams scenario. If you build it, they will come. I would think most well known Canadian actors would be just as happy to make a Canadian film as an American one, if they have confidence in the people they are working with, and if they are getting paid around their normal level. There just need to be films here worth taking risks on.

jdobbin · November 1, 2006

One of the major and deserved criticisms of telefilm is that it is set up to fund movies with no chance of making money. I will not argue for it's dismantleing, but I think it has to take more of a venture capital approach. The next big stumbling block for Canadain productions (the first finding investors) is that they have a hard time finding screens. Fact is that Hollywood pretty much controls the theatres and without the ability of putting a film like Bon Cop in wide release in every multiplex, they have no chance of being seen by a large audience the way a 3rd rate US movie gets seen.

Telefilm certainly has its critics. In the last year, they have tried to fund more commercial endeavours. Some of those films have had great success this year. I agree there isn't enough venues but I don't think that anyone would support the government being involved in the theatre business.

I have no easy answers for TV and film. Most Canadians would be happy if there were only American channels and film in Canada with zero Canadian content...except hockey. I think people would miss that.

jdobbin · November 1, 2006

First of all, I would like to offer my sincerist apologies for overlooking your profession, jdobbin. Screenwriters are, of course, one of the most integral parts of any film. Many hoped for movies have been cancelled or delayed because they couldn't find a quality screenwriter to produce a good script, no matter how much fans have been begging for it.
Also, big Canadian talent and big Canadian films is kind of like a Field of Dreams scenario. If you build it, they will come. I would think most well known Canadian actors would be just as happy to make a Canadian film as an American one, if they have confidence in the people they are working with, and if they are getting paid around their normal level. There just need to be films here worth taking risks on.

One of my screenplays tried to nab Rachel MacAdams. Alas, she is too expensive nowadays as America's sweetheart.

gerryhatrick · November 1, 2006

This is not a federal politics topic.

The anti-cbc rightwing sect of course wants to draw attention away from our current federal politics because they're so rotten for the rightwing Conservatives. The age-old method for doing that is attack the media.

Can we please get a little moderation on this forum as far as controlling non-political topics?

anti-cbc right wing sect? lol. Thats right Gerry, we here on the forum are part of a massive conspiracy to shut off the media.

How does "anti-cbc rightwing sect" translate into a "conspiracy"?

I don't think you understand the term "conspiracy".

I'm not calling rightwingers organized or clandestine in the matter. They're openly anti-cbc.

Hydraboss · November 2, 2006

"I'm not calling rightwingers organized or clandestine in the matter. They're openly anti-cbc."

*choke* *cough* *aaack!*

Gerry's right.

*hack* *gurgle* *ouch!*

Damn, that hurt.

I only meant, of course, that the rightwingers are openly anti-cbc.

We just hate wasting money on useless things.

Ricki Bobbi · November 2, 2006

I only meant, of course, that the rightwingers are openly anti-cbc.
We just hate wasting money on useless things.

Uhhh, yeah. Nobody tries to hide their disdain for the CBC. Just goes to prove the crap you get when financial survival isn't a consideration when creating programming for a television network.

Higgly · November 2, 2006

Uhhh, yeah. Nobody tries to hide their disdain for the CBC. Just goes to prove the crap you get when financial survival isn't a consideration when creating programming for a television network.

I just finished wathcing Jane Taber launch puffballs to lyin' Jim Flaherty on CTV. I guess that shows the kind of crap you get when financial survival is more important than news coverage for a telelvision network.