Networks are in business to make money not promote art. Period. That means maximization of the viewing audience. So what they put on is what they know will draw the most viewers and in turn generate advertising.
That assumes that they’re competent to judge what will draw an audience, but they tend to live in a bubble and come from a narrow background.
TM,
judging from the parc that the Big 4 put on, they don’t know art OR entertainment.
Look at the mess NBC is in. Their horrible ratings are well known, and yet, when Jay Leno made note of it and poked fun at the bosses for NOT knowing how to fix it, LENO, the only guy consistently making money for NBC, is the one who is out of a job!
And some of the stuff they put on, but don’t support, is gone before many of us get a chance to see them. Or they do the schedule shuffle and even IF you like a show, you can’t find it to see episode 4! Then the geniuses kill it for lack of ratings.
It’s the business equivalent of locking the doors on your store, then firing your manager for not making any money!
Actually the networks are still stuck in the pre-cable days when the Big Three networks controlled the world. Of course those days are long gone, not only with the cable revolution, but even more so with “TV” over the Internet.
BRUTAL: 50% Decline In TV Viewership Shows Why Your Cable Bill Is So High
Jim Edwards
Jan. 31, 2013, 11:08 AM
I for one hardly watch TV anymore, other than occasionally the old movie stations, especially once is started devolving to simply continuous strings commercials broken by an occasional snippet of the show. Like physical newspapers its part of the 20th Century which is probably best left behind there.
The network people are right, SF WON’T work on TV. That’s why that Syfy Network thing went belly up, right?
Actually I used to enjoy the SF channel when it originally launched and showed good SF like “Amazing Stories” and “Science Fiction” theater.
But with their poorly done fantasy “monster of the week” movies and shows they show rename themselves the “Monster Channel”. Really B movies like “Them” were mich better quality. I don’t even watch it for the Twlight Zone marathons since I have those on DVD.
Yeah, right. Nobody will watch if it isn’t set on Earth in the present or near future. And then there was Firefly. Not set on Earth but with people to care about.
Do Zombies count? Lotsa people, excluding me, seem to think AMC’s “Walking Dead” is worth watching. As further proof I’m not a “with-it” viewer, I also tho’t Firefly & BSG sucked slough water. Of course this is probably as, at age 13, I sat in a theater and watched the seminal SciFi in first release, “Forbidden Planet”.
I stopped watching when it got all rapey.
MikeD,
Yes, Forbidden Planet really fit the bill for good SF, making you “think” about the future and “What if”.
And seeing it in the theater is the way to go. I saw “2001” in one of the casino theaters a few months ago and it reminded me of when I saw it the first time in 1968.
One reason IMHO why mass-market SF sucks is that most of the people making it know nothing whatsoever about science.
Another is that most of the movie companies hate the very idea of risk. Much better to have one idea, make one decent movie and then make numerous sequels of decreasing quality, made up for with flashy CGI/explosions/chases.
Another problem is that many SF novels that would, if properly handled, make amazing movies have themes in them that would have the Moral Minority screaming in horror. Just one example: The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is essentially, at bottom, a retelling of the American Rebellion. However, it has several problems. First, language with simplified syntax, larded heavily with loanwords from Russian and other languages. Second, an extremely non-human sapient being in the form of Mike. And, worst of all, a polyandrous society with very few rules – downright libertarian, in fact, and very much TANSTAAFL.
All of those things make perfect sense in context, but try persuading a Hollywood producer!
Of course, rubber-forehead aliens are an inevitable consequence of the fact that most actors are human. And most of the general public would have a hard time identifying with (for example) thranx or Puppeteers, even if they could be depicted.
Haven’t read Niven’s puppeteers, I thought of puppet masters which I thought they did a good job of with Donald Sutherland (not my mental image of the chief, but good enough.)
Makes one wonder how Mars One will have enough drama to keep an audience and do reality for a real mission. Especially if they get to the point of putting four people on a six month flight (12 in two ships would create more drama which at the same time they would be trying to minimize.) I would expect it would require a lot of creative editing.
Which brings to mind the opening scene of Serenity, which they were very proud of it being uncut.
Because it’s SF they always think that somehow or other The Fate Of The World has to be at stake.
Strange comment coming from a man who made a TV show about the fate of the universe (B5) and whose example of “2001” was a sci-fi movie about the fate of the world. The execs believe that because some fate-of-the-universe moves made billions; e.g., “Star Wars.”
The rest is dead-on.
2001, the movie, was about the fate of two astronauts and the unraveling of an ancient mystery; there was no indication that the world was in any danger.
2001, the book, included some material suggesting that the world was at risk of nuclear war, and that Dave Bowman 2.0 was instrumental in eliminating that risk. This wasn’t central to the plot, but it was at least present. Possibly you are mixing memories of the book and the movie?
John,
I think you are referring to 2010. Recall the war was stopped when Jupiter turned into a star, a subtle message from the ETs to starting behaving.
In 2001 the Americans and Russians were at peace and actually sharing a space station in Earth orbit, which was a really crazy idea in 1968…
John, the “Dawn of Man” introduction indicates that the story was a bit more far reaching than just the story of two astronauts and a crazy computer.
Networks are in business to make money not promote art. Period. That means maximization of the viewing audience. So what they put on is what they know will draw the most viewers and in turn generate advertising.
That assumes that they’re competent to judge what will draw an audience, but they tend to live in a bubble and come from a narrow background.
TM,
judging from the parc that the Big 4 put on, they don’t know art OR entertainment.
Look at the mess NBC is in. Their horrible ratings are well known, and yet, when Jay Leno made note of it and poked fun at the bosses for NOT knowing how to fix it, LENO, the only guy consistently making money for NBC, is the one who is out of a job!
And some of the stuff they put on, but don’t support, is gone before many of us get a chance to see them. Or they do the schedule shuffle and even IF you like a show, you can’t find it to see episode 4! Then the geniuses kill it for lack of ratings.
It’s the business equivalent of locking the doors on your store, then firing your manager for not making any money!
Actually the networks are still stuck in the pre-cable days when the Big Three networks controlled the world. Of course those days are long gone, not only with the cable revolution, but even more so with “TV” over the Internet.
http://www.businessinsider.com/brutal-50-decline-in-tv-viewership-shows-why-your-cable-bill-is-so-high-2013-1
BRUTAL: 50% Decline In TV Viewership Shows Why Your Cable Bill Is So High
Jim Edwards
Jan. 31, 2013, 11:08 AM
I for one hardly watch TV anymore, other than occasionally the old movie stations, especially once is started devolving to simply continuous strings commercials broken by an occasional snippet of the show. Like physical newspapers its part of the 20th Century which is probably best left behind there.
The network people are right, SF WON’T work on TV. That’s why that Syfy Network thing went belly up, right?
Actually I used to enjoy the SF channel when it originally launched and showed good SF like “Amazing Stories” and “Science Fiction” theater.
But with their poorly done fantasy “monster of the week” movies and shows they show rename themselves the “Monster Channel”. Really B movies like “Them” were mich better quality. I don’t even watch it for the Twlight Zone marathons since I have those on DVD.
Yeah, right. Nobody will watch if it isn’t set on Earth in the present or near future. And then there was Firefly. Not set on Earth but with people to care about.
Do Zombies count? Lotsa people, excluding me, seem to think AMC’s “Walking Dead” is worth watching. As further proof I’m not a “with-it” viewer, I also tho’t Firefly & BSG sucked slough water. Of course this is probably as, at age 13, I sat in a theater and watched the seminal SciFi in first release, “Forbidden Planet”.
I stopped watching when it got all rapey.
MikeD,
Yes, Forbidden Planet really fit the bill for good SF, making you “think” about the future and “What if”.
And seeing it in the theater is the way to go. I saw “2001” in one of the casino theaters a few months ago and it reminded me of when I saw it the first time in 1968.
One reason IMHO why mass-market SF sucks is that most of the people making it know nothing whatsoever about science.
Another is that most of the movie companies hate the very idea of risk. Much better to have one idea, make one decent movie and then make numerous sequels of decreasing quality, made up for with flashy CGI/explosions/chases.
Another problem is that many SF novels that would, if properly handled, make amazing movies have themes in them that would have the Moral Minority screaming in horror. Just one example: The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is essentially, at bottom, a retelling of the American Rebellion. However, it has several problems. First, language with simplified syntax, larded heavily with loanwords from Russian and other languages. Second, an extremely non-human sapient being in the form of Mike. And, worst of all, a polyandrous society with very few rules – downright libertarian, in fact, and very much TANSTAAFL.
All of those things make perfect sense in context, but try persuading a Hollywood producer!
Of course, rubber-forehead aliens are an inevitable consequence of the fact that most actors are human. And most of the general public would have a hard time identifying with (for example) thranx or Puppeteers, even if they could be depicted.
Haven’t read Niven’s puppeteers, I thought of puppet masters which I thought they did a good job of with Donald Sutherland (not my mental image of the chief, but good enough.)
Makes one wonder how Mars One will have enough drama to keep an audience and do reality for a real mission. Especially if they get to the point of putting four people on a six month flight (12 in two ships would create more drama which at the same time they would be trying to minimize.) I would expect it would require a lot of creative editing.
Which brings to mind the opening scene of Serenity, which they were very proud of it being uncut.
Because it’s SF they always think that somehow or other The Fate Of The World has to be at stake.
Strange comment coming from a man who made a TV show about the fate of the universe (B5) and whose example of “2001” was a sci-fi movie about the fate of the world. The execs believe that because some fate-of-the-universe moves made billions; e.g., “Star Wars.”
The rest is dead-on.
2001, the movie, was about the fate of two astronauts and the unraveling of an ancient mystery; there was no indication that the world was in any danger.
2001, the book, included some material suggesting that the world was at risk of nuclear war, and that Dave Bowman 2.0 was instrumental in eliminating that risk. This wasn’t central to the plot, but it was at least present. Possibly you are mixing memories of the book and the movie?
John,
I think you are referring to 2010. Recall the war was stopped when Jupiter turned into a star, a subtle message from the ETs to starting behaving.
In 2001 the Americans and Russians were at peace and actually sharing a space station in Earth orbit, which was a really crazy idea in 1968…
John, the “Dawn of Man” introduction indicates that the story was a bit more far reaching than just the story of two astronauts and a crazy computer.