"I don't get it. What is it, avant-garde?"
April 08
2004
Wonderfalls takes the fall in tough TV season.
Creator and executive producer Todd Holland talks about howthe change of entertainment in general isn't for the better.
faith1984
| Wonderfalls
| 23:48 CET
|
15 comments total
| tags:
You need to
log in to be able to post comments.
About
membership.
« Older
Jane Espenson heads W&M gender con...
|
Wonderfalls: Get Their Words Out.
Newer »
© 2002 - 2008 - WHEDONesque.com
(
e-mail)
Individual posts are copyright their respective authors
This is a non-profit, unofficial website, not affiliated with Mutant Enemy, Inc., 20th Century Fox, Warner Brothers or UPN.
chasa | April 09, 00:13 CET
lala | April 09, 00:41 CET
Truly, we've lived to see a golden age come and go, friends. *fervently clutches Angel/Buffy/Firefly box sets* Thank god for DVDs.
Wiseblood | April 09, 00:53 CET
And let's not forget books.
phlebotinin | April 09, 01:19 CET
-- Movie Producer Griffin Mill (Tim Robbins) in Robert Altman's "The Player"
The new breed of "reality" series is the holy grail for the Griffin Mills of the world. There are no actors and no agents, and therefore, no salary demands to jack up the production costs. After each series, you dump the cast and start fresh. There are no writers, per se--once the original concept is set up, all you have to do is tweak the format for maximum entertainment. You still need people behind the camera, but let's face it, you don't need a Tarantino to direct reality TV. In this case, the editor is more important than the director. Subtract all those salaries, and you've eliminated 75% of the usual costs associated with scripted TV. Your bottom line is in fantastic shape. What sane TV exec wouldn't go for it?
Of course, once you fall into this mentality, you've stripped away any chance to nurture a BUFFY or SEINFELD-style franchise, something that would earn your network the BIG money. The Survivors and the Bachelors play well on first go-round, and the nets rake in the ad bucks--but that's about it for profits. Reality shows have no value in reruns. There's no syndication money. You'll probably never see them on DVD. There's no ancillary merchandise. (Okay, maybe a "Survivor: Barbados" T-shirt.) But today's TV execs from the major networks don't pay much attention to anything except ad dollars, and they can't afford the patience to nurture a series for a potential big score. Remember, Seinfeld was a miserable ratings failure its first three years. So was Cheers and Hill Street Blues. As has been said quite often lately, if any of these series were put on in today's market, they would have been gone after four episodes.
The only refuge for the talented writer/creator like Joss, Minear, Fuller, or Milch is cable, where the subscriber base and DVD sales give the execs the luxury to wait out a series' growing pains and cash in when the fan base catches up. Curb Your Enthusiasm started just as slowly as Seinfeld, but is now a big money-maker for HBO; the Sopranos and Sex in the City rake in unimaginable profits.
And for the poor TV viewer, starving for audiovisual creativity, who can't afford cable or DVDs? I can offer you no solace, my friends. Unless you're perfectly willing to sit through The Swan 3 and Big Brother 6, maybe you should turn off your TV and go back to reading and music. Start off with the Harry Potter and Tolkein books. That should keep you busy for awhile, and who knows? You might not miss your TV so much, after all.
cjl | April 09, 01:27 CET
phlebotinin | April 09, 01:41 CET
norman | April 09, 02:11 CET
My initial response has been: Yeah, it's funny to watch people be humiliated, held up for scorn and mockery, or denigrated for perceived negative physical attributes not of their choosing. It's funny to see how malicious, petty and greedy people can be when the promise of money is dangled in front of them. It's funny. Ha ha. Show me a reality show where this isn't the case, and I'll show you a reality show that's a scripted TV drama in disguise, with 'regular people' instead of actors.
I love "Monty Python". I enjoy Ween and Frank Zappa. I adore Joss's black wit. It's safe to say I don't lack a sense of humor (which has been known to be, actually, quite wacky on occasion), or an appreciation of humanity's foibles. So why don't I like reality TV? Is it just that it's too mean-spirited? I've got a cynical streak, but these kinds of shows repulse me. Do I lack the reality TV-loving gene? (Not that I mind being deficient, if that's the case.)
Wiseblood | April 09, 02:40 CET
It's not the best of times to be an artist interested in working in television.
[ edited by keever on 2004-04-09 01:15 ]
keever | April 09, 03:13 CET
Sekhmet | April 09, 03:23 CET
"...I think it's about the need to escape yourself for 15 minutes that everyone feels. But what it's really about is something more sinister. It's the idea that we now lead virtual lives. We live our joys and sorrows and foibles through the lives of public people. It's about the end of art. Because art has to take its cue from life."
bloodflowers | April 09, 03:56 CET
phlebotinin | April 09, 04:28 CET
Like the article says: "Anything you don't nurture and feed, withers. Our imaginations, our dreaming spirits, are in danger of giving up."
But I actually think it's worse than this. Such a disconnect between global political realities and art - one of the processing mechanisms by which we make sense of the world - is going to lead to real trouble in the long term.
c lake | April 09, 04:33 CET
cubiclesatan | April 09, 04:37 CET
"Home Office". Has a nice ring to it. Maybe it should be the name of a reality show....
[ edited by Wiseblood on 2004-04-09 04:10 ]
Wiseblood | April 09, 06:07 CET