Topic: Why do I not want to see another Star Trek?
Lindsly
Ex-Member
posted
The main reason for this is that I am a firm believer that commercials detract from the ability of producers and writers to make a decent, and even a good product. By the end of Voyager (2001 or 2002), we could be seeing 20 to 25 minutes of commercials for every hour of tv programming. With 35 to 40 minutes for an episode, the storylines will have to be trimmed to a level of minimum coherence. This amount of commercials will not allow the emotional complexity nor the character development needed to make, imho, a good episode. The result will be a recycling factory of old scripts and stories that do not carry in an arc. Voyager could be the future. Voyager is M---er F---in Bad! Excuse my French. Translation-NO THANK YOU. I believe this will occur to all tv shows. Oh, BTW, a news article I read in Entertainment Weekly shows another aspect of this future of TV. The full article for your enjoyment. (EW, Issue 479, Page 74) . Double Ordering. Bruce Springsteen got it wrong. It's not 57 channels and nothing on. It's 57 channels and the same thing on. For some time now, so-called media visionaries have been heralding TV's bright, bold horizon : a 500 channel universe with unlimited viewing options-something for everyone! But as a recent, supposedly groundbreaking deal between NBC and Barry Diller's USA Networks illustrates, the reality is much dimmer. To get the hit drama Law & Order for another three seasons (through the 2001-02 season), NBC is also committing to 13 episodes of a spin-off from creater Dick Wolfe titled Law & Order's Sex Crimes. The catch: After NBC airs an episode, it will run within two weeks on USA. Wolf says this deal lets him "get two slices out of the same pie". Financially, this is one creative deal. The Peacock gets a new Wolf drama on the cheap (because of the agreement with USA), and USA, instead of airing old reruns, will air new reruns. But creatively speaking, it's a dud. In effect, it proves (1) that there isn't enough fresh programming for all the channels out there, and (2) that USA, one of the most successful cable nets around, would rather get a secondhand show than create something on its own. (Actually, with few exceptions, that's about how the entire cable industry operates.) As deals like this become more popular (and rest assured they will), the future of television won't be 500 different shows on at the same time; it will be just 50 shows running over and over again on all 500 channels. "It's the wave of the future, good, bad, or otherwise.", says Bill Croasedale, of the media-buying firm Western Initiative. "It's a business, and this offers the most bang for the buck". Yep. As my favorite comic, George Carlin, might put it-bend over, spread your checks, and get b---f--k. Excuse my French again. But, hopefully, the picture is clear.
[This message was edited by Lindsly on March 31, 1999.]
posted
That's assuming that television will continue to be the dominant entertainment medium.
------------------ "The record of my unspeakable crimes, in previous lives, in previous times, indelibly stains the pages of history." -- They Might Be Giants
posted
The people with the power over programming are the people with money. If everyone gets bored and tunes to something else, eventually, someone else will have the money. Hopefully this will be the visionaries who have a better idea than 50 programs all showing on 500 channels.
If it weren't for AMC and A&E, I'd hardly watch TV at all.
--Baloo
PS: Okay, okay! Cartoon network, too!
------------------ ADVISORY: There is an Extremely Small but Nonzero Chance That, Through a Process Known as "Tunneling," This Product May Spontaneously Disappear from Its Present Location and Reappear at Any Random Place in the Universe, Including Your Neighbor's Domicile. The Manufacturer Will Not Be Responsible for Any Damages or Inconvenience That May Result.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
