(originally written for ALARM Magazine in October 2006)
Lately I find myself recalling a lecture from one of my first media classes in college. The class was a basic requirement for all students majoring in film and television, generically titled, “Critical Evaluation of Mass Media.” The subject, a very rudimentary discussion of the differences between film and television, seemed unwavering. Like the date of the Battle of Hastings or the manner in which hydrogen and oxygen bond to form water, what we learned that day would never change… or so we thought.
The discussion centered on how film is viewed in a dark room with the full attention of the audience for an extended length of time, as opposed to television, which is viewed in little snippets for a short length of time amid the distractions of home and family life. On the big screen, you could tell complex stories with intricate plot lines, fully developed characters, and lots of beautiful production values. Conversely, television offers 22-44 minute bites, tightly structured around commercial interruption. Usually airing weekly, always desperate for ratings, and broadcast only once before rerun season, TV also has to assume that the viewer might not have seen the previous episode. To top it all off, since people watch from their distraction-filled homes, it is a good bet that half the audience is barely paying attention at all.
The message seemed clear at the time: film is the medium better suited to serious, artistic endeavors, while TV can only hope to offer trivial, commercial entertainment. It’s only been a few years since I left college—but my how things have changed. Television is taking bigger risks, devoting larger budgets to projects of artistic merit, and bringing its viewers richer stories of a greater scope than it ever has before.
Length is one of the first simple reasons this transformation was even possible. Early eighties dramas like Hill Street Blues were some of the first popular television shows to find artistic success in extending major plotlines over an entire season. Shows like ER and NYPD Blue followed, refining the structure of longer story arcs while keeping the show accessible to casual viewers. Then HBO opened the floodgates with tremendously popular shows like The Sopranos and Six Feet Under, shows that ditched many TV conventions altogether to become, essentially, 12-hour movies aired over several months.
Now, television offers the ability to tell much broader stories than film ever could. Lost is already over 50 hours and counting, whereas even Martin Scorsese can’t keep people in a theatre for much more than three. Peter Jackson’s epic Lord of The Rings trilogy only weighs in at about 12 hours, and that’s for the extended DVD version.
Incidentally, it was film’s biggest breadwinner, DVD sales, which made this new era of quality television possible. It’s common knowledge that, even for some of the biggest box office winners, the real money in movies comes from DVD sales. Though I’m sure there are plenty of Sanford and Son fans who rejoiced when the series was finally available on DVD, it was sales of big budget dramas like The Sopranos which finally convinced TV that DVDs were a viable extension of their business. Now, television can operate in a similar manner to movies, where large production investments can often be made back in DVD sales even if series don’t succeed in their original airings.
However, it’s the increasing penetration of new technology that has really made big-budget, high-quality serial television explode in the last year. Digital video recorders, video-on-demand cable services, downloadable video files like those sold on iTunes, and broadband video streams on network websites have given viewers more ways than ever to keep up. Missing an episode of your favorite show is becoming a thing of the past.
Emboldened by an evolving medium, changing financial models, and new technology, TV producers and executives are now green-lighting and producing some of the most ambitious shows in TV history. The transformation that brought us Lost, 24, The Wire, and Battlestar Galactica is now poised to rule the television landscape, with a slew of great new dramas like Heroes and Jericho making waves this season.
Not all the results of this transformation are a break from the past—far too many of these shows are extremely similar. All the shows seem dark, violent, bizarre, or some combination of the three. It’s the short sightedness of the entertainment industry at work again, modeling new shows on previous hits. Personally, I don’t mind this too much, because so many of the shows that have come out of this trend are right up my alley. But even if they are well produced, how many Lost remakes can we really stand?
On the other hand, it’s entirely possible that things in the TV business will swing the other way in a matter of months. With the advances of new technology have come new expenses. TV networks now have to support entire digital video empires that don’t have profitable business models established yet. Higher costs without higher revenue doesn’t bode well for the jobs of network executives these days, and as I write this, NBC Universal has just announced budget cuts in the $750 million range that will affect prime time dramas. The message: more cheap reality projects like Deal or No Deal, less costly, involved narrative dramas like Friday Night Lights.
So what will happen? For me I hope that once Deal or No Deal’s ratings go the way of the once hugely popular Who Wants To Be a Millionaire?, network execs will swing back towards quality, choosing scripted television as the best bet to win viewers, especially if we keep buying the DVDs.
Lately I find myself recalling a lecture from one of my first media classes in college. The class was a basic requirement for all students majoring in film and television, generically titled, “Critical Evaluation of Mass Media.” The subject, a very rudimentary discussion of the differences between film and television, seemed unwavering. Like the date of the Battle of Hastings or the manner in which hydrogen and oxygen bond to form water, what we learned that day would never change… or so we thought.
The discussion centered on how film is viewed in a dark room with the full attention of the audience for an extended length of time, as opposed to television, which is viewed in little snippets for a short length of time amid the distractions of home and family life. On the big screen, you could tell complex stories with intricate plot lines, fully developed characters, and lots of beautiful production values. Conversely, television offers 22-44 minute bites, tightly structured around commercial interruption. Usually airing weekly, always desperate for ratings, and broadcast only once before rerun season, TV also has to assume that the viewer might not have seen the previous episode. To top it all off, since people watch from their distraction-filled homes, it is a good bet that half the audience is barely paying attention at all.
The message seemed clear at the time: film is the medium better suited to serious, artistic endeavors, while TV can only hope to offer trivial, commercial entertainment. It’s only been a few years since I left college—but my how things have changed. Television is taking bigger risks, devoting larger budgets to projects of artistic merit, and bringing its viewers richer stories of a greater scope than it ever has before.
Length is one of the first simple reasons this transformation was even possible. Early eighties dramas like Hill Street Blues were some of the first popular television shows to find artistic success in extending major plotlines over an entire season. Shows like ER and NYPD Blue followed, refining the structure of longer story arcs while keeping the show accessible to casual viewers. Then HBO opened the floodgates with tremendously popular shows like The Sopranos and Six Feet Under, shows that ditched many TV conventions altogether to become, essentially, 12-hour movies aired over several months.
Now, television offers the ability to tell much broader stories than film ever could. Lost is already over 50 hours and counting, whereas even Martin Scorsese can’t keep people in a theatre for much more than three. Peter Jackson’s epic Lord of The Rings trilogy only weighs in at about 12 hours, and that’s for the extended DVD version.
Incidentally, it was film’s biggest breadwinner, DVD sales, which made this new era of quality television possible. It’s common knowledge that, even for some of the biggest box office winners, the real money in movies comes from DVD sales. Though I’m sure there are plenty of Sanford and Son fans who rejoiced when the series was finally available on DVD, it was sales of big budget dramas like The Sopranos which finally convinced TV that DVDs were a viable extension of their business. Now, television can operate in a similar manner to movies, where large production investments can often be made back in DVD sales even if series don’t succeed in their original airings.
However, it’s the increasing penetration of new technology that has really made big-budget, high-quality serial television explode in the last year. Digital video recorders, video-on-demand cable services, downloadable video files like those sold on iTunes, and broadband video streams on network websites have given viewers more ways than ever to keep up. Missing an episode of your favorite show is becoming a thing of the past.
Emboldened by an evolving medium, changing financial models, and new technology, TV producers and executives are now green-lighting and producing some of the most ambitious shows in TV history. The transformation that brought us Lost, 24, The Wire, and Battlestar Galactica is now poised to rule the television landscape, with a slew of great new dramas like Heroes and Jericho making waves this season.
Not all the results of this transformation are a break from the past—far too many of these shows are extremely similar. All the shows seem dark, violent, bizarre, or some combination of the three. It’s the short sightedness of the entertainment industry at work again, modeling new shows on previous hits. Personally, I don’t mind this too much, because so many of the shows that have come out of this trend are right up my alley. But even if they are well produced, how many Lost remakes can we really stand?
On the other hand, it’s entirely possible that things in the TV business will swing the other way in a matter of months. With the advances of new technology have come new expenses. TV networks now have to support entire digital video empires that don’t have profitable business models established yet. Higher costs without higher revenue doesn’t bode well for the jobs of network executives these days, and as I write this, NBC Universal has just announced budget cuts in the $750 million range that will affect prime time dramas. The message: more cheap reality projects like Deal or No Deal, less costly, involved narrative dramas like Friday Night Lights.
So what will happen? For me I hope that once Deal or No Deal’s ratings go the way of the once hugely popular Who Wants To Be a Millionaire?, network execs will swing back towards quality, choosing scripted television as the best bet to win viewers, especially if we keep buying the DVDs.
No comments:
Post a Comment