What's on TV?

[Remiel]

Perhaps it could be argued that the only thing worse than wasting time on frivolous exercises like entertainment would be to spend all of your time doing something productive (the implication being that it would burn you out).

[Michael Hardner]

The problem is that TV shows (advertising flyers) are aimed at far too many people.

The situation with movies is worse, though, Auguste as there is less choice. You're speaking of network prime-time broadcasts, which are becoming less and less viable.

Also, British film critic Leslie Halliwell wrote an eloquent essay about the 'Golden Age' of Hollywood, wherein the films had to appeal to a very wide audience BUT the films were constructed intelligently enough that they could be enjoyed by audiences with sophisticated tastes, and those who enjoyed easy entertainment.

'Casablanca' would be the archetypical example - a love story, some intrigue, heroes and villains, and even some music within a strong story...

[Black Dog]

At first I thought that you were trying to get banned, with the 'cut and pasting' of entire quotes with only smarmy one-liners for content. However, my two cents: I wish television could be banned. Society would be so much better off without it (except for the nefarious state-control responsible for the banning). I blame the man who invented the TV Dinner for the downfall of society.

I have never seen an episode of 'Seinfeld' (I have watched about 3 minutes of it and it made me want to wretch), nor the sopranos, nor have I ever heard of any of the shows bandided about like 'Lost', etc. My wife likes a couple of shows, like CSI, for example, but hates it when I am in the same room when the TV is on, because I can't seem to keep from pointing out the silliness of it all...

It is all make-believe, like children playing 'house', only some people take it seriously. They even make careers out of 'playing house'. They have awards shows for people who play 'house' better than others. Worst of all, some of my paycheque goes towards it, simply because there are products that I need to buy and the manufacturer or the seller is a sponsor or advertiser.

You can apply the same argument to any medium: film, music, theatre, the visual arts...essentially all meaningless.

August:

By your definition, Kimmy, a Hallmark card is also an art form - just like the Mona Lisa. Or better, the flyer advertising free pizza delivery in my post box is also an art form. As you stated, "art for that is most dependent on popularity". If I design a flyer, I aim for popularity. No?

You're misinterpreting kimmy's statement. She is not saying art is defined by popularity, but that TV, among all art forms,is most dependant upon popularity for success.

[Argus]

Very amusing stuff. I can't wait for you and Argus' next debate: "Rock'n'roll: music or just a bunch of long hairs making a racket?"

Well, amongst all the griping and trashing of TV shows of different eras, I thought some interesting points were raised.

An interesting point I'd like to raise is why there isn't some kind of way to monitor for new threads and ones you've posted to. I had no idea this was even here.

But all right.

First of all, I have to challenge you on several points you were making last time we discussed this.

First: Just because something is aimed at a mass audience, and succesfully reaches it does not mean it is "watered down pap". Others have expressed this opinion before, but there's little evidence of it. To successfully reach and entertain a mass audience with something intelligent you have to be GOOD. MASH was watched by three times as many people as will ever watch Lost, and this from a lower population base. Even given the greater choices available today that says something about MASH's ability to entertain a wide audience, compared to Lost. MASH was quality in every respect. Lost is not quality, it's a concept. It's a riddle that people can watch be unravelled, but if that's not your desire then screw ya.

American Idol gets far, far higher ratings than the likes of Lost or House, and it actually is crap. It actually does appeal to the lowest common denominator. But the fact it can get an audience twice as high as what you consider to be "quality" tv today, shows that the fragmentation of the market can be overcome if you put on something the audience wants to look at. So far only the crap producers seem able to do that.

Second: I wonder what this fragmentation says about the unity of popular culture. In a day when "everyone" watched MASH, All in the Family, Streets of San Fransisco, or whatnot, there was a certain unity there. Not any more. Everyone is heading off in their own direction. Is that a good thing or not? I'm far from unique in saying there's nothing on TV which really entertains me. Is that because I have higher standards or that I'm out of touch with the standard culture - or the standard culture of twentysomethings? Those who are writers - like me - perhaps have a somewhat more craftsmanlike eye on what they watch. I see the huge, gaping plot holes, and can't seem to ignore them the way others do. I would never ignore them in my writing. Why should I ignore them in someone elses?

There has been, over the last few decades, a move towards younger and younger audiences. Twentysomethings are the target market, presumably because advertisers prefer to put their advertising bucks on a more credulous, and less set-in-their-way consumer group. In order to appeal to that target audience, the TV world has gone to younger and younger writers, most of whom don't seem to have much life experience, and who think their nifty idea is unique, even though it's been done better a hundred times before. I think that's probably a big part of why I find so much on television dreck. I'm in my forties. I've seen that scene done before - and more professionally crafted, too.

Third: I do not understand how anyone with a strong interest in politics can not like West Wing. This was an intelligent show which dealt with all the issues in an intelligent and intersting fashion. Sure it was an ideolized version of the White House, where everyone was a patriot and wanted to do the right thing. But there was an awful lot of down and dirty politicing going on too, with deal-making and compromise a high art. It required a certain level of commitment from the audience, and informed rather than preached - usually. It was clever in its mixing of drama and comedy, never forgetting the importance of lightening things up when they got too heavy. And while it got sentimental, at times, it didn't treat its audience like idiots. My clearest memory of any show was the one where Jed Bartlett was considering whether to resign, whether he could run again with his revealed MS. He rails against God in a cathedral for inflicting the illness on him and standing in his way. Later, during a howling thunderstorm, with Sting's Brothers in Arms playing, you see him and his aides, security people and assistants making their way out into the storm, the convoy passing the cathedral on the way to a news conference, just as a cleaner picks up the cigarette butt Bartlett had contemptuously crushed underfoot before the alter. West Wing aspired to be great, intelligent drama, and it succeeded better than anything on the air right now.

--why is almost everybody on TV much better looking than Joe and Jane average? Why *do* all these lady cops look like models, anyway?

There isn't much comedy on TV. Comedy is entertainment laid bare. You can't cover up something which isn't funny. But with dramas, well, put in sexy people in sexy clothes, flashy cars and snazzy surroundings, and it'll help make up for weak writing and dialogue. Sex appeal gets people to keep watching even when there's not a lot interesting going on.

--whatever happened to Family TV? Do families even sit down and watch TV together anymore? If not, why not? Should they? What programs are on TV that you'd feel comfortable watching with Dumb Little Jimmy, your 12 year old nephew? What programs would you watch with your nearly senile aunt Edna?

I don't watch much TV so I couldn't say to honest. The only one I can think of is Seventh Heaven, though frankly, I doubt many teenagers would be interested.

--how much interest do people have in seeing realism? How much interest do people have in escapism?

TVs Top rated show: American Idol. What's that tell you?

--taboos. Apparently toilets and married couples sleeping together were taboo on TV. Is there anything left that's taboo on TV? Does TV programming push the envelope anymore? Is there an envelope left to push?

I mentioned those mainly to point out how comparatively innocent the culture was, and how that restricted the options of television producers. And how they were constantly trying new things, not just rehashing what had worked before. But there are still plenty of taboos to be broken. I just don't see that as the major purpose of television shows. Entertainment is the major purpose.

BTW, I spoke with two young ladies in their mid-twenties yesterday who had never heard of Monty Python. Ack!

Finally, my mention of several book series I think would be teriffic television - if done properly is because I like the concepts behind them. Most of what's on television today, even if it were done well, is bland to me because I find the concepts behind those series to be uninteresting. If you've never read any of those series - which, coincidentally, all feature female protagonists - I strongly advise you to give them a go. They're a hell of a lot more entertaining than what's on television today.

[Argus]

Very amusing stuff. I can't wait for you and Argus' next debate: "Rock'n'roll: music or just a bunch of long hairs making a racket?"

Old music:

Is this the little girl I carried?

Is this the little boy at play?

I don't remember growing older,

When did they?

When did she get to be a beauty?

When did he grow to be so tall?

Wasn't it yesterday when they were small?

Sunrise sunset, sunrise, sunset,

Swiftly flow the days,

Seedlings turn overnight to sunflowers,

Blossoming even as they gaze...

Sunrise sunset, sunrise, sunset!

Swiftly fly the years,

One season following another,

Laden with happiness and tears...

One season following another,

Laden with happiness and tears

New Music:

I'm representin' for the bitches

All eyes on your riches

No time for the little dicks

You see the bigger the dick

The bigger the bank, the bigger the Benz

The better the chance to get close to his rich friends

I'm going after the big man

G-string make his dick stand

Make it quick then slow head by the night stand

Like lightning I wanna nigga with a wedding ring

Bank accounts in the Philippines

Blank note to take everything

See I fuck him in the living room

While his children ain't home

I make him eat it while my period on

A little nasty ho, red-bone but a classy ho

Young jazzy ho and don't be scared

If you're curious just ask me hoes

And yes dick sucking comes quite natural

I'm da baddest bitch what

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Black Dog,

You can apply the same argument to any medium: film, music, theatre, the visual arts...essentially all meaningless.

Essentially true, but I generally have a greater choice as to what I will or won't pay money towards. I can't listen to commercial radio, it drives me nuts. ( I can't furrow my brow enough to find the 'disc jockeys' even remotely funny)I listen to CKUA, a publicly funded radio station out of Edmonchuck, or CJSW, the University of Calgary radio station. Occasionally I will listen to Fairchild Radio, a multicultural station that has time blocks for different cultures and countries, and sometimes, (though rarely) CBC 1010.

Kimmy,

At first I thought that you were trying to get banned, with the 'cut and pasting' of entire quotes

No offence intended, you are still everyone's favourite poster here!

Argus,

I do not understand how anyone with a strong interest in politics can not like West Wing.

I have never seen it, but I do have a favourite political show, called "Yes, Minister" (and later, "Yes, Prime Minister") Fantastic stuff, intelligent and witty. I also don't doubt that a lot of politics works this way.

[kimmy]

Since you have put this into Moral&Religious Issues, what about today's show like "Smith" (cancelled) that makes a Heros out of the bad guys, or the CBC show Intelligence, or the Sopranos each of these type of shows seem to make being a bad guy as acceptable to the masses.

Is this type of programming good for our society?

I saw the first episode of "Smith", and the reason I didn't watch any further episodes wasn't that the characters were bad-guys, but rather that the characters were all unsympathetic.

Do shows like "Smith" or "The Sopranos" glamorize crime? I'm not sure. I'm not worried that impressionable young people will watch an episode and think "hey, let's rob an art museum!" or "hey, let's form our own mafia family!" It's quite different from something like street-racing. Movies or video-games might make street-racing seem fun and cool, and just about everybody who has a car has probably considered drag racing the guy next to them at a stop-light, at least once in their life. Somebody might think street-racing is harmless enough, as long as nobody gets run over and nobody gets caught. Glamorizing street-racing is something I'd see as a potential problem, because just about everybody has the means to try it, and if you glamorize it-- make it seem fun and exciting, while diminishing the dangers-- people might be tempted to try it. Glamorizing organized crime or high-tech robberies, on the other hand ... not many of us have the means to join a mafia family, crack safes, defeat high-tech security systems, and so on... and no amount of "glamorizing" is going to convince people that robbery and extortion and murder are harmless.

What about the trend of writers doing scripts based on recent news stories, doesn't this blur reality from fiction?

That's why I hate Law and Order. It speaks to the laziness of the writers that they have to steal plotlines from current events.

I suppose it might be laziness. On the other hand, don't you think it can also provoke people to think about current issues? If watching an episode of a show that's inspired by some real event prompts somebody to ask "how much was the real case like that?" or makes them say "I never looked at that side of it before..." isn't that a good thing?

The "ripped from the headlines" stories tend to apply some editorializing about current events, usually in the form some sort of preachy, ham-fisted moralizing.

Story writing today is excellent(Lost,Prisonbreak),but I prefer to watch from downloads wthout the commercials,the interruptions drive me nuts.

Wait a minute: I love Lost, but the actual writing (particularily the dialogue) can be brutal and is probably the weakest part of the show. I'm more compelled by the concept and the twists than I am by any of the characters.

I watched the first season of Lost, but have scarcely watched it since. And strangely, for the exact opposite reason. I loved the character development during the first season, but found that I cared less and less about the mysteries of the island.

The first season they did some truly wonderful episodes, introducing the characters through flashbacks of their lives before they were marooned... showing how in some sense each of them was 'Lost' long before the plane crash, relating some current dilemna on the island to some past experience of their former lives. Having the characters faced with new challenges that allow them to in some sense make up for the mistakes of their past (or conversely to remake them) or confront their demons made for some terrific character-driven episodes. "Lost" refered to not just their geographic location, but also to their personal lives in some way or another, and seeing the characters try to find what they had lost made for some wonderful episodes.

I found the episode that introduced Locke's past to be particularly moving, and I thought the first episode about Sawyer's background was also exceptionally good. But as things went on and the episodes focused less on the characters and more on the mysteries of the island, I lost interest.

-k

[kimmy]

Finally, my mention of several book series I think would be teriffic television - if done properly is because I like the concepts behind them. Most of what's on television today, even if it were done well, is bland to me because I find the concepts behind those series to be uninteresting. If you've never read any of those series - which, coincidentally, all feature female protagonists - I strongly advise you to give them a go. They're a hell of a lot more entertaining than what's on television today.

I'm not familiar with Honor Harrington or Anita Blake, but I have read a couple of Janet Evanovich's Stephanie Plum novels, and you're right, it could be the basis for a terrific TV series. Everything about the character, and the supporting cast, and the stories themselves, seems almost ideal. In fact, when you mentioned the idea, the thing that most surprised me is that there isn't already a TV or movie adaptation of Stephanie Plum.

Found this on the "FAQ" section of Janet Evanovich's website:

What's going on with the One For the Money movie?

Last we heard, nothing. They've been working on a script for several years now. Reese Witherspoon is attached to the project to play Stephanie. No other casting has been done. If anything exciting ever happens we'll be sure to post it on the site right away.

Who would Janet like to see cast in the movie?

Janet saw Miss Congeniality and loved Sandra Bullock. Thought she would make a great Stephanie. She also would like John Travolta to be in the movie. Not necessarily because he's right for a specific part, but she would really like to dance with him at the premiere party.

-k

{terribly behind; will eventually respond to more posts in this thread. I promise!}

[Black Dog]

First: Just because something is aimed at a mass audience, and succesfully reaches it does not mean it is "watered down pap". Others have expressed this opinion before, but there's little evidence of it. To successfully reach and entertain a mass audience with something intelligent you have to be GOOD. MASH was watched by three times as many people as will ever watch Lost, and this from a lower population base. Even given the greater choices available today that says something about MASH's ability to entertain a wide audience, compared to Lost. MASH was quality in every respect. Lost is not quality, it's a concept. It's a riddle that people can watch be unravelled, but if that's not your desire then screw ya.

MASH (which, let's be honest, was pretty watered down by the time it ground to a halt) was the product of a three-chanel universe. It had, in effect, a captive audience. I think you downplay that too much and overplay the quality hand.

American Idol gets far, far higher ratings than the likes of Lost or House, and it actually is crap. It actually does appeal to the lowest common denominator. But the fact it can get an audience twice as high as what you consider to be "quality" tv today, shows that the fragmentation of the market can be overcome if you put on something the audience wants to look at. So far only the crap producers seem able to do that.

That's because, and I'm sure you'll agree with me here, the majoirty of the audience doesn't want quality, intelligent programming. The biggest market are idiots.

Second: I wonder what this fragmentation says about the unity of popular culture. In a day when "everyone" watched MASH, All in the Family, Streets of San Fransisco, or whatnot, there was a certain unity there. Not any more. Everyone is heading off in their own direction. Is that a good thing or not? I'm

Again: more choices means more fragmentation.

Third: I do not understand how anyone with a strong interest in politics can not like West Wing.

Because it was a smirking, smarmy too-clever-by-half, overblown piece of work? I think the scene you described pretty much encapsulates why I hated it: the pomposity, the Sting...

kimmy:

I suppose it might be laziness. On the other hand, don't you think it can also provoke people to think about current issues? If watching an episode of a show that's inspired by some real event prompts somebody to ask "how much was the real case like that?" or makes them say "I never looked at that side of it before..." isn't that a good thing?

I'd be surprised if 90 per cent of the people watching these programs are aware of the original story. But that's not the only reason I hate LaO: I'm just sick and tired of fuckin' cop and lawyer shows. Everywhere you look: cops and lawyers. Why? Whta's the fascination?

[Remiel]

Perhaps it just comes down to people wanting to see the " bad guys " get caught, with some personality. In the real world, there is a stereotype of bad guys getting away with it, so naturally people turn to a form of entertainment which rubs the other way.

[M.Dancer]

Speaking of what's on TV...last night just before my little one's birthday...we were simultaneously reading a Hillary Duff book and watching CNN.......I turned off CNN because I think my little one is too young to hear from some Crystal Methodist (thanks Avs) that evangelicals have the best sex.........so I flipped the channels till it landed on the religious channel, not the reputable one, the 100 huntley one......anyway, they had the Facts of Life (1979-1988) on.

When I first watched it way back when, I was attracted to the characher Jo (Nancy McKeon). I liked her no nonsense no games tom bot demeaner. Now looking back more than 20 years I can say she was a proto dyke lesbian......

.....And as i get older, I start to find Mrs Garret odddly becoming......

Trivia

Mindy Cohn (Natalie Green) is the voice of Velma on the New Scooby Doo

[August1991]

August:

By your definition, Kimmy, a Hallmark card is also an art form - just like the Mona Lisa. Or better, the flyer advertising free pizza delivery in my post box is also an art form. As you stated, "art for that is most dependent on popularity". If I design a flyer, I aim for popularity. No?

You're misinterpreting kimmy's statement. She is not saying art is defined by popularity, but that TV, among all art forms,is most dependant upon popularity for success.

Also, British film critic Leslie Halliwell wrote an eloquent essay about the 'Golden Age' of Hollywood, wherein the films had to appeal to a very wide audience BUT the films were constructed intelligently enough that they could be enjoyed by audiences with sophisticated tastes, and those who enjoyed easy entertainment.

'Casablanca' would be the archetypical example - a love story, some intrigue, heroes and villains, and even some music within a strong story...

Point taken. I'm not certain that's what I really meant anyway. Mozart reaches a mass audience. (That's obvious to anybody who saw the beginning of Amadeus with the priest in the insane asylum talking to Salieri. "Did you compose that?" Charming!")

Tolstoi and Hugo strike me because they both wrote in great detail about how people lived in a place and time. Yet people who know nothing about these eras enjoy the stories. There must be something universal. This art attracts a wide audience.

I didn't really mean to criticise TV because it aims for a wide audience. My criticsm of TV was that it's free. Moreover, to pay for itself, it's designed to make you watch ads. (In truth, the TV programmes are filler for the ads. I'm somewhat surprised that no one has simply dispensed with the programme and gone straight to the ad. IOW, make infomercials entertaining.)

I could be wrong but it seems to me that if you get something for free, it's worth that. The BBM/Nielsen rating system is a poor substitute for people shelling out cash to buy something.

I enjoy old 1930s movies (Deanna Durbin, for example). When TV didn't exist, and people in cities went to the cinema two or three times a week, these are the movies they watched. These movies don't exist anymore because TV has replaced them.

Yet, they are arguably better than the TV equivalent. People in 1938 had to pay to see Three Smart Girls. Nobody pays to see a Seinfeld episode, except an advertiser.

I can't listen to commercial radio, it drives me nuts. ( I can't furrow my brow enough to find the 'disc jockeys' even remotely funny)

Agreed.

I listen to CBC Radio and Radio-Canada, as frustrating as they can be, simply because there are no ads. I may try satellite radio. BTW, I remember CKUA when I lived in Edmonton. If I recall, the 'UA' stands fro University of Alberta.

Old music:

Is this the little girl I carried?

Is this the little boy at play?

....

New Music:

I'm representin' for the bitches

All eyes on your riches

No time for the little dicks

...

Argus, these are only words.

A few short years before your "Old Music", millions were killed in mass slaughters. (In fact, the lyrics of your old music were written expressly in response to this slaughter.)

If that's the criteria, I'll take the 'New Music' anyday. Argus, the good old days were not so good. Other than the hypocrisy and sheer frustration, there was alot of death, destruction and disease.

[kimmy]

I didn't really mean to criticise TV because it aims for a wide audience. My criticsm of TV was that it's free. Moreover, to pay for itself, it's designed to make you watch ads. (In truth, the TV programmes are filler for the ads. I'm somewhat surprised that no one has simply dispensed with the programme and gone straight to the ad. IOW, make infomercials entertaining.)

If people are just watching for the ads, why is there such a massive preference for one show over another? Why do 22.5 million people watch CSI:Miami on Monday nights at 10 pm, while just 7.5 million people watch Studio 60 on at the same time on another station? Does CBS just have more exciting ads than NBC? That seems like an odd supposition...

I meant to address this earlier...

The comparison of TV and advertising flyers is accurate. TV shows, like flyers, are designed to make you watch advertising. In aTV show, the scripting, the directing, the editing are entirely set to make you watch the ad. (As Higgly would say, D'oh.) I have no problem with that. Leonardo's Last Supper in Milan (strongly recommended to see in person) is designed to make you look at Christ. Years ago, I watched an American TV show, without the ads, on Bulgarian Soviet TV. Try it some time. It's worse than reading a newspaper without the margin ads.

I completely disagree. I often watch episodes of TV without the ads. I've purchased full seasons of TV programs on DVD. Or if I miss a show I wanted to watch, I simply download a handy, ads-free version off the internet. I find it enjoyable, actually. Of course, the ability to record TV shows on your VCR and fast-forward through the commercials means that people have been essentially watching TV without the ads for years.

Watching a TV show with the ads removed, it's easy to tell where the commercial breaks are supposed to be. Is this the point you're making? Indeed. TV shows are structured in such a way. Live theatre is structured with scenes and acts. If you go to an opera, they have intermissions, yes? That the necessity of commercial breaks is taken into account in planning an episode is no different than the fact that closing the curtains to change the sets is taken into account in planning a theatre performance.

TV is designed to make you watch-- period. They want you to be interested enough to see what happens next that you'll sit through the ads to find out.

I could be wrong but it seems to me that if you get something for free, it's worth that. The BBM/Nielsen rating system is a poor substitute for people shelling out cash to buy something.

So, the online news stories that we all read and link to, they're worthless? If we shelled out $1 for the print edition, it'd be inherently more valuable? If you pay money to see a symphony performance of Mozart, or buy the CD, it's art.... but if you hear it on the CBC its merits somehow decrease?

An episode of TV isn't free. It's purchased, at considerable expense, by the network that airs it.

Suppose for a moment that an art gallery were run like a business (are they? I honestly don't know.) They'd have to choose which collections to rent, based on how much audience they might bring in and how much it would cost to bring in those collections. And, they'd have to decide how to make money by displaying the collections. Sell tickets? A corporate sponsor ("Gustav Klimt at the Kimmy Gallery... presented by Ford Canada.") Sell souvenirs? A concessions stand? Charge a loonie to use the washroom? Some combination of all of the above? Whatever the gallery's business model, does that alter the merits of the exhibits themselves?

I used to get the "Firefly" and "Wonderfalls" TV programs for free. Then their networks cancelled them. Then the shows were released on DVD, and I purchased them. Did the format change-- from free network TV to for-purchase DVD collection-- alter the artistic merits of the material? It's the same shows! Does the fact that most TV series become available for purchase on DVD-- sans ads, by the way-- impact your argument? The arrival of purchaseable downloads of TV episodes?

It's true that broadcast TV's business model is increasingly challenged. Between technological challenges (the remote control and VCR make the whole premise that people will watch ads somewhat dubious) and the increasing number of alternatives make it likely that the broadcast networks will have to change the way they make their income. But I don't see that as a comment on the programs themselves.

-k

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear kimmy,

most TV series become available for purchase on DVD-- sans ads, by the way--

Actually, they put the ads at the front. Mostly of comparable products, too, so you are more likely to buy them. They don't put an ad for the DVD of "The story of Tinkie-Winkie and His Magic Bag" at the beginning of "Chopper Chicks in ZombieTown", I'm pretty sure.

That the necessity of commercial breaks is taken into account in planning an episode is no different than the fact that closing the curtains to change the sets is taken into account in planning a theatre performance.

Nonsense. Set changes for television shows can happen 20 times between commercial breaks. They pause for commercial breaks because they choose to.

An episode of TV isn't free. It's purchased, at considerable expense, by the network that airs it.

They make a large chunk of their money from cable subscriptions. This was my big beef, I cannot simply purchase The Discovery Channel or A&E or Showcase by itself, I have to purchase 'basic cable' first and then add channels that I would have liked to have. I complained that I don't watch the rubbish on the lower channels, Seinfeld, or Oprah, Geraldo, or any of that other brainless pap. Yet I have to subsidize it with a basic cable subscription. I might watch the news once a month, but I still pay for all the other crap. (The only reason we even have cable is that we get a 'bundled discount' for internet, digital phone and cable from Shaw. A choice of mine, I suppose, but I wish I could choose what to pay for.)

[kimmy]

Dear kimmy,

most TV series become available for purchase on DVD-- sans ads, by the way--

Actually, they put the ads at the front. Mostly of comparable products, too, so you are more likely to buy them. They don't put an ad for the DVD of "The story of Tinkie-Winkie and His Magic Bag" at the beginning of "Chopper Chicks in ZombieTown", I'm pretty sure.

Perhaps rental DVDs have ads at the front, but none of the ones that I've purchased have ads. Perhaps the movie studios produce a different grade of DVD for the rental market from those for the retail market.

At any rate, it's irrelevant to August's intention of equating artistic merit to the purchase price.

That the necessity of commercial breaks is taken into account in planning an episode is no different than the fact that closing the curtains to change the sets is taken into account in planning a theatre performance.

Nonsense. Set changes for television shows can happen 20 times between commercial breaks. They pause for commercial breaks because they choose to.

I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying that commercial breaks are necessary because TV shows need to change the sets. Obviously, they're they're because the network needs to make money. However, I do claim that commercial breaks are a necessity required of the television format. Just as breaks to change sets are a necessity of the live theatre format.

(yeah, I'm sure there are examples of TV shows aired without commercial breaks, just like there are one-act plays where the curtain doesn't fall until the end of the show. Almost everything produced for TV is designed around the idea that there'll be breaks.)

-k

[kimmy]

I'd be surprised if 90 per cent of the people watching these programs are aware of the original story.

Most of the "ripped from the headlines" cases are pretty high-profile and tabloidish stuff. Also, is what percentage of the audience "gets" the allegory really a valid criticism of the art itself? I bet a huge percentage of the general public looked at the paintings of Cezanne and Picasso and so-on during their lifetimes and said "Like, what the fuck."

That's not to equate TV with fine art. Quite obviously the big difference is that while fine artists need only appeal to a small, sophisticated clientelle, TV has to appeal to a large number of those people who'd be looking at Cezanne and Picasso and scratching their heads.

Is it possible to do a show that appeals to a wide range of audience while still doing something artistic or intelligent? Is it possible to do something sophisticated without alienating the dumb-guy demographic?

But that's not the only reason I hate LaO: I'm just sick and tired of fuckin' cop and lawyer shows. Everywhere you look: cops and lawyers. Why? Whta's the fascination?

It's one of the only confrontations left between "good guys" and "bad guys" in our society, isn't it? Good guys vs bad guys is probably one of the most central themes in literature going back to the beginnings of human story telling.

Peoplehave always wanted to see the good guys confront the bad guys, whether the bad guys are robbers or murderers, shady businessmen, or flesh-eating zombies, or sinister government agents, or terrorists, or space aliens, or Injuns, or mobsters, or frost giants...

But what is there that's actually set in 21st century North America? Cops and lawyers. Terrorists, but that's too touchy right now. Everything else is escapist, and though escapism is tremendously popular right now there's a large appetite for something that seems realistic or at least plausible.

Maybe a story about ethical and ideological conflict within some hypothetical corporation could be setting for a drama. I don't know what you might do for stories each week, or if people would want to watch... but perhaps it's an idea.

-k

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear kimmy,

Perhaps rental DVDs have ads at the front, but none of the ones that I've purchased have ads. Perhaps the movie studios produce a different grade of DVD for the rental market from those for the retail market.

Odd, I have never rented a DVD, but I have bought a couple. Not all of them have ads, (or 'trailers' for other shows...perhaps that is the confusion...I don't mean ads for products like Quaker Oats TM, but rather for other DVD's)but some do. In fact, I bought and older Jackie Chan movie called "Project A" (the stuntwork is untouchable) and the ads at the beginning (For some Jet Li movies) can't even be fast-forwarded through.

Almost everything produced for TV is designed around the idea that there'll be breaks

I don't think it is a misunderstanding, I think that this is where August1991 and myself, differ our opinions from yours. True, TV is designed around breaks, but it is more important (for the cable television market) for the ads to air than the shows. Shows come and go, get moved to different time slots, etc, but ads will appear at the top and bottom (and often elsewhere) of every hour, and you can bet on that more than you can expect to see your favourite show appear in it's same time slot tomorrow.

Is it possible to do a show that appeals to a wide range of audience while still doing something artistic or intelligent? Is it possible to do something sophisticated without alienating the dumb-guy demographic?

Is there 'artistic and intelligent' porn? Perhaps somewhere, but advertisers and producers don't want to take a chance on it. They want what sells, now.

[kimmy]

Perhaps rental DVDs have ads at the front, but none of the ones that I've purchased have ads. Perhaps the movie studios produce a different grade of DVD for the rental market from those for the retail market.

Odd, I have never rented a DVD, but I have bought a couple. Not all of them have ads, (or 'trailers' for other shows...perhaps that is the confusion...I don't mean ads for products like Quaker Oats TM, but rather for other DVD's)but some do. In fact, I bought and older Jackie Chan movie called "Project A" (the stuntwork is untouchable) and the ads at the beginning (For some Jet Li movies) can't even be fast-forwarded through.

I own about a dozen movies, and two TV show collections, on DVD... and to my collection, not a one of them has ads or trailers for other movies.

Perhaps the DVDs with trailers, like rental movies, or apparently your older Jackie Chan movie, have been "subsidized" by their manufacturers by the placement of ads, while major releases, which is the bulk of my collection, are expected to be profitable based on large sales volume alone. Maybe that's the difference, or maybe it's something else. Beats me.

At any rate, it's still irrelevant to the linkage August was seeking to create.

Almost everything produced for TV is designed around the idea that there'll be breaks

I don't think it is a misunderstanding, I think that this is where August1991 and myself, differ our opinions from yours. True, TV is designed around breaks, but it is more important (for the cable television market) for the ads to air than the shows. Shows come and go, get moved to different time slots, etc, but ads will appear at the top and bottom (and often elsewhere) of every hour, and you can bet on that more than you can expect to see your favourite show appear in it's same time slot tomorrow.

Yes, the networks need to sell ads, and can't be financially viable without them. If that's what you're getting at, then I guess my response is "well, duh."

Movies need to sell tickets. Movies aren't financially viable without selling tickets. Movie theatres can't stay open without selling tickets. Movies come and go from the theatres, but the box office is always there. Going by your logic, handing your $11 to the kid in the box office is the most important part of going to the movies, and the actual films are rather secondary.

Hey, the supermarket has cashiers. The food that's on the shelfs changes from week to week or year to year, but there's always been cashiers. The supermarket goes broke without the part where you give money to the cashier. So, it would be fair to say that the important part of going to the supermarket is the most important part, and the part where you get food is sort of secondary. (or to borrow August's hyperbole, "I'm surprised they even bother with the food anymore, and just make giving your money to the cashier more entertaining.")

Is it possible to do a show that appeals to a wide range of audience while still doing something artistic or intelligent? Is it possible to do something sophisticated without alienating the dumb-guy demographic?

Is there 'artistic and intelligent' porn? Perhaps somewhere, but advertisers and producers don't want to take a chance on it. They want what sells, now.

Wasn't the movie "Henry and June" (one of Uma Thurman's first major roles) considered "artistic porn" when it was first released?

To some people, "artistic" and "porn" are contradictory. For others, being "artistic" moves something out of the category of "porn." I'm sure that there are others who give "3 thumbs up" to the idea that porn is inherently artistic.

-k

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear kimmy,

Wasn't the movie "Henry and June" (one of Uma Thurman's first major roles) considered "artistic porn" when it was first released?

I don't know, I never heard of it. (I also find Uma Thurman rather repulsive.)

Yes, the networks need to sell ads, and can't be financially viable without them. If that's what you're getting at, then I guess my response is "well, duh."

"Duh" indeed. Actually, this is what I was alluding to...

However, I do claim that commercial breaks are a necessity required of the television format. Just as breaks to change sets are a necessity of the live theatre format.

I am saying that the breaks for TV are not 'just like live theatre breaks'. They are not at all related to 'artistic merit'. I suppose what I am saying is that TV is not 'art', (it is, as Calvin from "Calvin and Hobbes") 'television is the opiate of the masses'.

[Melanie_]

I watched the first season of Lost, but have scarcely watched it since. And strangely, for the exact opposite reason. I loved the character development during the first season, but found that I cared less and less about the mysteries of the island.

Lost is one of only two shows I watch, the other being Survivor (I know, I must have a subconscious need to be deserted on an island - escapism, anyone?). My theory about Lost is that the writers have lost track of all the loose threads they've left hanging, and now are trying to confuse us all so much that we stop watching, the show gets cancelled, and they NEVER HAVE TO EXPLAIN ANYTHING! I have to watch now, just to hold them accountable.

I'm with you, kimmy, on the Stephanie Plum books being good potential TV (who would be Ranger?), but not all shows match the potential of the books. I'm still feeling a little burnt by the show Bones, where Tempe Brennan was almost unrecognizable. I'd rather read any day.

[kimmy]

Dear kimmy,

wassup, T-bag?

Wasn't the movie "Henry and June" (one of Uma Thurman's first major roles) considered "artistic porn" when it was first released?

I don't know, I never heard of it.

Henry & June was the first film to receive the "NC-17" rating.

(I also find Uma Thurman rather repulsive.)

I'm sure she's crushed.

Yes, the networks need to sell ads, and can't be financially viable without them. If that's what you're getting at, then I guess my response is "well, duh."

"Duh" indeed. Actually, this is what I was alluding to...

However, I do claim that commercial breaks are a necessity required of the television format. Just as breaks to change sets are a necessity of the live theatre format.

I am saying that the breaks for TV are not 'just like live theatre breaks'. They are not at all related to 'artistic merit'.

Breaks in live theatre are not related to artistic merit either. They're a limitation imposed by the medium. And you can't name for me a single art form that doesn't have some limit imposed upon it by its own medium. In some cases (such as movies, painting, sculpture, writing and poetry) the art is limited by the ability of its medium to portray what the artist wishes to convey (movies are limited to 2 dimensions and only 2 of the 5 senses. sculptures are limited by the laws of physics and the mechanical characteristics of the material being shaped. Writing and poetry are limited by the limited ability of words to convey ideas or feelings or images. Some forms of writing (haiku or sonnets) even have self-imposed limitations. And all art forms face limitations in the amount of resources available to the artist.

I suppose what I am saying is that TV is not 'art', (it is, as Calvin from "Calvin and Hobbes") 'television is the opiate of the masses'.

We tend to forget that Shakespeare's plays were written to appeal to the masses too.

Is TV "art"? August addressed this quite succinctly earlier: "But moving pictures themselves are arguably European (the 7th Art). And TV is just moving pictures."

Wikipedia's page defines art as:

Art is an act of creation, when images & objects, sights and sounds, or drawings and carvings convey the beauty and splendor of the world, or realize the imagination of the artist, for the purpose of self-expression or the shared enjoyment of its creation. Art is that which elevates our interpretation of the world and of ourselves from simple description or narrative to the sublime.

So what about that would discount an episode of a TV drama?

-images, sights, sounds? check

-realize the imagination of the artist? check

-self expression or shared enjoyment? Hey, just because *you* don't enjoy it, T-bag...

-elevates our interpretation of the world and of ourselves? Earlier in this thread, Argus was explaining how Archie Bunker and Maude and MASH made people think about controversial issues or question authority. And we were discussing whether the "ripped from the headlines" shows make think about current events. While most people would probably consider TV to be closer to "simple description" than "the sublime", but I think that any attempt to portray human dilemnas can be considered an attempt to "elevate our interpretation of the world or of ourselves".

-k

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear kimmy,

And you can't name for me a single art form that doesn't have some limit imposed upon it by its own medium.

Indeed, and my point isn't that television (or a tv set) can't defy the law of gravity, they just can't defy their sponsors.

but I think that any attempt to portray human dilemnas can be considered an attempt to "elevate our interpretation of the world or of ourselves".

Rubbish, the bulk of it lowers rather than elevates. There is a saying I saw on a friend's mom's fridge, many years ago...

"Great minds discuss ideas,

Lesser minds discuss events,

And small minds discuss people".

TV generally sticks to even beneath these, but will try to sell any of them for the quickest buck possible. It doesn't try to elevate anything, and if it does it is incidental. That is not it's purpose.

(I also find Uma Thurman rather repulsive.)

I'm sure she's crushed.

(given the voyeuristic bent of film, I would imagine sex with her to be akin to 'humping a dusty sack of antlers') Which, I am sure will crush her even further.

[kimmy]

Indeed, and my point isn't that television (or a tv set) can't defy the law of gravity, they just can't defy their sponsors.

I'm not sure if you're being obtuse on purpose, or just can't help it.

The point is that *every* form of art ever devised faces limitations. In some cases, it's unavoidable (dancers can't exceed the limitations of the human body or defy the laws of physics) and in some cases it's purely arbitrary (the 5-7-5 format of the haiku.) TV faces limitations of time-- the program must last half hour or an hour, with space for either 8 or 16 minutes of ads, respectively. That the constraint of time and the necessity of including commercial interruptions is driven by the business model. And?

It seems that you can't see past the fact that commercial breaks are a necessity of the business model, unlike other limitations that result from technological limitations or physical limitations or simply by tradition. I don't know why you're so hung up on that, or what it has to do with anything.

but I think that any attempt to portray human dilemnas can be considered an attempt to "elevate our interpretation of the world or of ourselves".

Rubbish, the bulk of it lowers rather than elevates. There is a saying I saw on a friend's mom's fridge, many years ago...

"Great minds discuss ideas,

Lesser minds discuss events,

And small minds discuss people".

TV generally sticks to even beneath these, but will try to sell any of them for the quickest buck possible. It doesn't try to elevate anything, and if it does it is incidental. That is not it's purpose.

Often times I thought it would be more elevating to hit myself over the head with a brick than read through some of the stuff I had to read in Lit class, but I still realize that the fact that I didn't like it doesn't mean it wasn't "art". Maybe someday when you've grown up a little and realized the same we can continue.

-k

[geoffrey]

Often times I thought it would be more elevating to hit myself over the head with a brick than read through some of the stuff I had to read in Lit class, but I still realize that the fact that I didn't like it doesn't mean it wasn't "art". Maybe someday when you've grown up a little and realized the same we can continue.

-k

It was likely far more elevating to choose the brick... there is nothing worse or more mind numbing than Lit classes.

As well. Art may be art, but it doesn't have to be good art. And it most certainly need not be appreciated.

[Argus]

I suppose what I am saying is that TV is not 'art', (it is, as Calvin from "Calvin and Hobbes") 'television is the opiate of the masses'.

Do you think Calvin and Hobbes was art? What about Bloom County?