Site Presented By
Wednesday, Nov 25, 2009
What or who is holding TV back from becoming a medium that embraces originality, quality and/or subtlety?
Franken: I'm not sure, but I think his name is "Ryan Seacrest." Or "Brian." Brian Seacrest, that's the guy.
Miss Alli: Compartmentalization. I think television and its viewers need to move past the great divide between a "quality show," which is often a pedantic bore, and an "entertaining show," which is usually a predictable, brainless drag. Middle ground, people. Oh, and the more extreme elements of fandom, too. If everyone who is in the 99th percentile of being overinvested in "American Idol" and everyone who is in the 99th percentile of being overinvested in "The West Wing" could be sent to live together on one big commune (which I guess would have an elaborate parliamentary system where you would vote by text message), that would be a good start.
Cowen: McDonald's. The one basic truth about TV is that it is not an entertainment medium. It is an advertising medium. As long as that is the case, the broadcast networks' motto will always be "Billions & Billions Served."
Wheaton: I'd say "the audience," but that's just blaming the victim. I think it's economics. Network television needs to make its advertisers happy by reaching the widest possible audience (see: denominator, lowest common) and that prevents them from taking a lot of risks. The upside of this is that if you like dramas where the audience tries to solve the crime before the characters do, you've currently got an endless supply of material.
Kroll: Viewers. For shows to succeed, viewers have to adopt them quickly and in force. That's just the economics of the business. By drawing big numbers at the outset, "Amish in the City" has been a real game changer for us at New Line. It's made us really fearless about taking on challenging topics and unconventional material. And it's made networks stand up and take note when we pitch that kind of material. We're also doing some extremely unconventional things, both technically and in terms of storytelling, with "Nightmare on Elm Street: Real Nightmares." If the show succeeds, we can continue to try to push the envelope. If not, we'll have missed an opportunity.
Rice: The same thing that has always held creative work back; safe-minded executives who are afraid of losing their jobs.
Rosenthal: The networks are looking to make money, so they're conservative. Even though the shows they choose may be outrageous, they're conservative in that they're not taking a chance on anything that hasn't worked before. They're making Xeroxes of Xeroxes -- looking for stuff that's been done, or actors who've done it. Shows test well because the test audiences, when they recognize the person, they hit the button that means "I like it!" because they like the person. But nobody watches TV this way. I always say, "Hey, why don't you test the testing?" 99.9 percent of new shows crap out after the second episode on television. Every one of them tested well. What does that tell you? Don't we learn anything? We learn nothing.
