TV, Drug Of A Nation*
Hello!
Oh, I was gonna come in here and bitch about this little society of ours, and how we've become a society of pampered whiners that tend to ignore not only the major world events as they unfurl; but also any sense of our own well being, in favor of quick fixes that will solve the problem now and not caring about the effect/toll it may take on our bodies. Thrown in here would be a quite unoriginal comparison to the pampered cultures of Rome, England, Atlantis**, etc.; and some examples of people seemingly going out of their way to experience things they know they won't like just so they can bitch for the purpose of futile-ly bitching. "We're more comfortable complaining about shit, than we are in experiencing the realness of the world around us."
You know, again.
Instead, I'll talk about something that's already starting to happen that, if embraced fully, could possibly let us become even more pampered in the realm of popular entertainment...
Now, it wasn't that long ago that the average number of episodes for a tv show, in the US, ranged around 24 - 26 shows a year. These days 20 - 22 eps. constitutes a full season; this is still a little under half a year of programming, so you'd think there'd be enough to go around. Sure, the broadcast networks tend to focus episodes around sweeps (November, February and May), which means that you'll get the occasional month, month-and-a-half long periods of repeats, and that summer will be bone dry; but you'd still get a ton of entertainment for that time.
And yet it seems, these days, that what we were willing to endure, in terms of scheduling, for the X-Files or Buffy (Moonlighting, Cheers, Newhart, Hill Street Blues, St. Elsewhere, etc. etc.), no longer is sufficient when we need our Lost, Battlestar Galactica, Desperate Housewives fix (who on earth is watching Desperate Housewives? Someone is. Come on, 'fess up).
The reasons for this are pretty obvious (see the growing acceptance of watching a season of a TV show on DVD, availability on the internet, etc. which cater to our instant gratification needs), so I won't waste too much time dwelling on it.
I started noticing this shift while hanging out in an online community with a group that specifically spent time talking about Lost.
Let me tell you, these people would whinge like there is no tomorrow about the way new episodes were distributed; and I understood it, but I would point out that unless ABC hears it, nothing's gonna change. Broadcasting companies have been working this way for over 30 years, and as far as they know this format ain't broken.
This despite cable's success with limited straight runs with shows like The Shield, The Sopranos, Six Feet Under, etc. "Cable's audience is far smaller than ours," is the argument. FOX's success with running non-stop seasons of 24 would then be cited, and the general industry stance on that is that FOX has created a special circumstance, due to the large number of special/sporting events FOX tends to host during the early part of the season. ABC would crow about the audience size of their popular shows compared to 24.
And then a funny thing happened: 24's numbers started kicking Lost's ass in the Nielsens, (24 is averaging 14m viewers, S2 of Lost is averaging 12m; down from 18m during S1).
Suddenly, the entertainment rags are filled with pronouncements from Lost's creators/producers, JJ Abrams/Damon Lindelof/Carlton Cuse.
"'We wish we could run the show in one continuous block...[Our] 24 episodes have to spread across the entire 35-week TV season. The network needs originals at key times, like premiere week and during the three sweeps periods....We feel our viewers' pain because we experience it ourselves." - Cuse on ew.com
"The rerun issue is as frustrating for us as it is for the fans...ABC ultimately makes the call as to how Lost is aired and they have chosen to make sure we run original eps through every sweeps period in addition to launching our season in September so the fans don't have to wait an extra four months for new episodes." - Lindelof, ibid.
Note the absense of commentary from ABC/DisneyCo. Two reasons for this: 1) They don't risk anything by not having their official stance known; 2) if they get the impression that the usual excuses aren't flying and decide to air Lost in a block, they'll look like brave pioneers.
If I'm right, and the amount of whining is as massive as I think it is; I think we can expect Lost to air in one big block, like 24 as early as next season.
And thus, the dominoes start falling.
Next: The Reasons This Is A Good Thing
*TV, Drug Of A Nation is the name of one of my favorite Disposable Heroes of HipHoprisy songs (click here for lyrics). It was also the name of a column I wrote for Must Read TV, an online concern created back in the halcyon days of the dot-com-boom. Wonder if there are any archives anywhere.
**Yes, I am kidding about Atlantis, for pete's sake.
posted by the beige one @ 7:02 PM
19 comments
19 Comments:
I saw the Disposable Heroes of HipHoprasy in Central Park, summer of '92. What a great show. They were the sole hip-hop act represented at the tribute to Woodie Guthrie; and with the exception of Billy Bragg, they blew those contemporary folkies off the stage.
If I'm right, and the amount of whining is as massive as I think it is; I think we can expect Lost to air in one big block, like 24 as early as next season.
First of all, no fucking way, dude.
This is a great conversation to have, despite Ly’s distracted attention by a small shiny object. There’s a ton of ways I want to engage it.
I keep coming back to the term success, and how many different contexts you bring up in your examples. Of course you’re right that industry paradigms are shifting, but there is still a great deal of difference between success on a paid subscription service, a very targeted network like FOX, and a big three.
I don’t think you will see the broadcast model change near anything like what you are predicting because in the end and across the spectrum, LOST will generate more overall value for ABC than 24 will for FOX.
Part of it is the nature of the narratives. LOST in particular is a singular, though highly complex, narrative. Buffy and X-Files and even Battlestar Galactica have their episodic moments, side stories that don’t really advance the grand narrative. 24 has a similar singularity of narrative, but it operates on short arcs, whereas LOST is one long arc. The pull is different, and allows the networks to use them in different ways. 24 wouldn’t work on a LOST schedule, and if LOST went straight through in six months, fans would be bitching about the acute pain that settled in moments after the season finale.
And, mightn’t it even put more pressure on sensationalism in the finale, the need to sustain interest for six months in a single episode, that upsets the more natural narrative arc of the particular story.
But, I’m digressing a little here. You won’t see ABC make dramatic changes to the broadcast schedule of LOST because the current configuration works just fine for them. I mean, first you have to be careful of ratings averages and can’t just read them as straight numbers. It isn’t unusual to see that kind of ratings cycle for what becomes a long-running and successful network show. It has good momentum, delivers good numbers in sweeps which then sate ad rates for another entire cycle, and can deliver across all three sweeps from one production cycle – FOX would be running 24 plus that other third of the season, NFL right now, two budgets for the same breadth.
FOX does well in ad dollars because it is so targeted. It isn’t a surprise that right-wing entertainment like 24 is kissing cousins with O’Reilly and Hannity. Ad buyers use FOX for shorter run, higher-density buys, and they are effective. They use ABC for longer runs and broader market products.
Ad dollars run the show. We don’t have the direct democratic voice you characterize. We are the product and the product is eyeball hours. Way I see it, LOST succeeds by one standard and in one context and 24 in another and for different reasons, and that ripple you want is going to have to come from somewhere else.
Yeah, and all this after I post fucking found poetry on my blog today. I should get some sleep.
This is a great conversation to have, despite Ly’s distracted attention by a small shiny object.
That small, shiny object WAS, at the very least, mentioned in the previous post. And while we are talking about the cream of the network television crop, hip-hop just struck me as a more interesting side-note. I'm sure the beige appreciated the little shout out to the mutually appreciated outfit.
LOST will generate more overall value for ABC than 24 will for FOX.
Interesting that what follows doesn't really clarify--or even modify--this statement. In what way will LOST generate more overall value?
LOST in particular is a singular, though highly complex, narrative. Buffy and X-Files and even Battlestar Galactica have their episodic moments, side stories that don’t really advance the grand narrative.
Well, so does LOST. Some of the flashback episodes are important to the plot, but I also think a lot of them are designed just to give character context; and occasionally, they serve to offer alternatives to the sci-fi/mystery/adventure of the central arc by injecting pieces of medical drama, family drama, romantic comedy, gangster epic, noir, etc.
Even if we tak your statement at face value, though, the answer is, "Well, YES! Exactly. Hence Buffy and X-Files (although, to be perfectly fair, X-Files had significant through lines, perhaps more comparable to Alias than anything else) can work on the standard broken trajectory, while Lost, anchored as it is in its arc, could afford an abbreviated, uninterrupted season."
24 has a similar singularity of narrative, but it operates on short arcs, whereas LOST is one long arc.
That's somewhat true, but 24's episodes all move forward to the next one, whereas, as noted above, LOST, while less given to digressions than nearly any other show, seems more given to those digressions than 24.
I'm not really sure whose side that bolsters, since it seems to me that LOST being more singular in its arc than 24, which you argue, actually undermines your broader argument about LOST not being served by a 24-like season; while my contention that LOST is more prone to digression undermines my argument (and TBO's) that LOST would be better served by such compression (considering that this is the way my mind works, I think I ought to be commended for EVER getting ANYTHING done at all).
24 wouldn’t work on a LOST schedule . . .
Well, it did up until last season. It just works BETTER now, IMO.
. . . and if LOST went straight through in six months, fans would be bitching about the acute pain that settled in moments after the season finale.
As opposed to bitching about the acute pain of only getting 2 or 3 new episodes at a time, then going a month with nothing but reruns. I say that abbreviated seasons of hit shows could help make room for critically acclaimed but commercially unsuccessful shows like Freaks & Geeks and The Tick (just to give some past examples) to be offered to audiences who might not have bothered to watch them when they were competing with the more intelligent blockbuster shows. But that's a whole 'nother conversation (one about network TV, which, as evidenced by my Disposable Heroes digression in the first reply, is probably the least interesting art form for me to discuss).
The other option, of course, is for them to run the entire last season of LOST, in sequence, from August thru December. Newbies'll catch up, die-hards'll brush up, and everyone can tune in for new episodes in January.
And, mightn’t it even put more pressure on sensationalism in the finale, the need to sustain interest for six months in a single episode, that upsets the more natural narrative arc of the particular story.
I don't see why. One expects a cliffhanger anyway, as one got at the end of the first season. Besides, the writers of LOST say they've already got five seasons mapped out clean (and television is more friendly to writers than film, which turns a lot of power over to the "auteur" . . . or, in bigger productions, the studio head).
You won’t see ABC make dramatic changes to the broadcast schedule of LOST because the current configuration works just fine for them.
Again, though, the other configuration worked fine for 24. They just decided it might work better with a new approach.
I mean, first you have to be careful of ratings averages and can’t just read them as straight numbers. It isn’t unusual to see that kind of ratings cycle for what becomes a long-running and successful network show. It has good momentum, delivers good numbers in sweeps which then sate ad rates for another entire cycle, and can deliver across all three sweeps from one production cycle – FOX would be running 24 plus that other third of the season, NFL right now, two budgets for the same breadth. FOX does well in ad dollars because it is so targeted. It isn’t a surprise that right-wing entertainment like 24 is kissing cousins with O’Reilly and Hannity. Ad buyers use FOX for shorter run, higher-density buys, and they are effective. They use ABC for longer runs and broader market products.
This is all wonk stuff. I barely understood a word you said. I mean, I'm sure it's important to the suits up top . . . Either way, these two networks have these cool shows, and lots of people watch them. I'm not sure how the number of viewers per episode compares, but it seems to me that could still translate as advertising dollars. Still, my argument would be for what best serves the show artistically.
You really think 24 is that much more targeted than LOST? I wonder; there seems to be a lot of moral ambiguity in both. And MANY Fox shows (The Simpsons stands out in my mind) take potshots at Fox management and political leaning (and Fox is, by far, the stoniest network on commercial TV). That, again, is probably another topic.
Ad dollars run the show. We don’t have the direct democratic voice you characterize.
But mightn't advertisers notice if the audience responds? Advertisers pulled their support from the TV movie in which James Brolin played Ronald Reagen due to a well-run public campaign by conservative viewers. Dr. Laura lost her advertisers through a similar campaign by gay activists. Maybe, rather than pressuring the network, viewers ought to pressure sponsors, and let the sponsors pressure the network.
as I intend to address a lot of these issues in the follow up entry, I'll keep out for the nonce, unless y'all say something that wouldn't be addressed otherwise.
For example:
network TV, which...is probably the least interesting art form for me to discuss
I can grok it, but, for me, this is offset by the following.
television is more friendly to writers than film, which turns a lot of power over to the "auteur"
Joss Whedon, JJ Abrams, the folks behind Veronica Mars, 24, Gilmore Girls, and most emphatically Battlestar Galactica all make network TV a worthwhile endeavor for me.
Dennis Potter, anyone?
(All, check out Pennies from Heaven and The Singing Detective, both original BBC series, from the library as soon as possible. You will not regret it.)
I'm going to be juggling response and child, so I'm gonna try and do one thought at a time.
LOST will generate more overall value for ABC than 24 will for FOX.
Interesting that what follows doesn't really clarify--or even modify--this statement. In what way will LOST generate more overall value?
Yeah, I took it in a different direction and forgot to clarify this point.
LOST performs well in three sweeps periods for a single production budget. It carries its lower-per-show average audience over a longer period. Measured from September to September, regardless of whining from fans, it will sell more eyeball hours than 24, and sells more in the current broadcast format than in a straight broadcast run.
Yes, TV on DVD and Tivo/DVRs and Internet downloads of episodes are changing that model of measuring financial success. As it is easier to skip commercials, they are worth less. But, under the current model, LOST works financially. And if it ain't broke, the network won't "fix" it.
Complaining won't help. Only not watching would.
I'm not really sure whose side that bolsters, since it seems to me that LOST being more singular in its arc than 24, which you argue, actually undermines your broader argument about LOST not being served by a 24-like season
No, what I was getting at is that it has a longer-term narrative pull. You get through 24 episodes of 24, and you have a completed arc. If you did 24 straight episodes of LOST, you'd still be mid-narrative at the end.
The season finale of a longer narrative is just going to be, essentially, like any other episode, leaving you wanting more. I believe this makes iteasier to stretch the episodes over a longer period.
I say that abbreviated seasons of hit shows could help make room for critically acclaimed but commercially unsuccessful shows like Freaks & Geeks and The Tick (just to give some past examples) to be offered to audiences who might not have bothered to watch them when they were competing with the more intelligent blockbuster shows. But that's a whole 'nother conversation
Yes, true, but it just won't happen because there is no incentive for the network to run two shows over a season in a slot that they can fill with one. Network TV doesn't sell content, it sells viewers. Cable, and iTunes and such, sell content.
Which is kind of my point in the post to begin with. It isn't useful to wade into a produce stand and start comparing shit to each other until you distinguish the different types of things you are dealing with.pexgh
I do agree, beige one, that network TV has its gems, and I mostly agree with you as to which shows qualify (and I first introduced you to Potter--speaking of which, we should have an all day The Singing Detective marathon, sort of like our Christmas sloth day, sometime this coming year). Indeed, the gem-to-turd ration is probably equally sad in both, say, hip-hop (since that was the digression with which I ran) and television. And note that I AM having the discussion, whereas I can't even be bothered to show up and pass gas on a sports post. Referring to something as the "least interesting art form" is, for me, like saying someone is the "least attractive tattooed female Japanese punk bassist". I mean, I'm still at attention (in whatever sense we want to use that phrase).
Funny enough, I think JJ is hitting on what bugs me about network television. We're talking about what's best for the advertisers, not for the storytelling. I don't think there's really much dispute that the storytelling on LOST would be well served by a nonstop season; there's only dispute as to whether it serves ABC to do so. I'm not entirely convinced by JJ's argument that it doesn't, but my real beef is that this would be the primary concern. Of course, that's always the beef of the media artist in the face of the business of media, which brings us back to . . . well, the same stuff we always talk about.
JJ, I agree that my claim that Lost could go consecutive next season is a little exaggerated, but stranger things have been known to happen, especially from ABC (Moonlighting was just such a risk).
I think, however, that you underestimate the mood of the general Lost fan.
Losing, on average, 6m viewers during a season that's supposed to still be building a fan base is one danger sign. Especially considering how many new viewers the show gained due to the DVD.
The other thing is the lessons learned during Twin Peaks, another longer-narrative show (and another ABC gamble) that had a huge following that ended up being lost because questions weren't answered fast enough.
Yes, this last week's episode (which shan't be talked about, as the Whites have yet to see it), assuaged a lot of people, but it was episode 17 (only five eps left!), amidst a season that has seen a break of a month and a half, to then air one ep, to another two week break, for example.
Most people remember the instant gratification the DVD supplied, and are going to start demanding it. If they don't get it, more people are going to get exasperated and leave.
Besides, this kind of change is going to happen sooner rather than later, why not be a pioneer?
I'll make a bet with you, JJ, my money is that in the next two seasons more shows will be scheduled in the continuous model. Name the stakes.
and I first introduced you to Potter
uhm, I'd first seen the movie Pennies From Heaven with Steve Martin, et. al. before I left Colorado Springs. I also found the VHS copy of Singing Detective at the SPL, via Patrick B's recommendation.
You did loan me the book, though, and that's how I found out about his early BBC career, and for that I am eternally grateful.
(which shan't be talked about, as the Whites have yet to see it)
Me neither, so keep mum y'all.
Be back here once naptime starts to rattle the cage.
You really think 24 is that much more targeted than LOST?
No. I think FOX is more targeted than ABC (or CBS or NBC, for that matter).
Still, my argument would be for what best serves the show artistically.
Part of my argument again. This is a different conversation than what will make it successful.
Like Freaks and Geeks, which we own and love dearly, which was successful artistically and then cancelled. And it can't really be successful, even artisitically, if it isn't being made.
On the episodic nature of some shows…
Well, so does LOST. Some of the flashback episodes are important to the plot, but I also think a lot of them are designed just to give character context…
…to be perfectly fair, X-Files had significant through lines, perhaps more comparable to Alias than anything else…
I’m no expert on Buffy and have never seen Alias, but let me clarify what I mean by episodic.
While I’ll grant that perhaps not all of each flashback are important to LOST’s narrative, you won’t find an episode that focuses mainly on a little hop arc that is contained by that episode. X-Files had episodes where Mulder and Scully investigated an event that was tied up neatly in that episode. Battlestar’s episode Claw advanced character, but was essentially a story in and of itself. I don’t think you see that in LOST.
So, it ain’t that every bit of the every episode must serve the narrative, but whether there exist episodes that tell complete little stories from the show’s universe. When there are, I call that an episodic moment.
The other option, of course, is for them to run the entire last season of LOST, in sequence, from August thru December. Newbies'll catch up, die-hards'll brush up, and everyone can tune in for new episodes in January.
Fuck that. I’da been PISSED if I had to wait from end of S1 to January for the new season. I’ll even go so far as to modify that PISSED with HELLA.
Seems like there is a risk of drop-off there, too. ‘Course, that risk exists everywhere, but I’m just sayin’.
This is all wonk stuff.
You do realize I have an advertising degree from arguably the best media school in the country, right? I love this shit.
Just seems pointless to me, a very SHOULD argument, to talk about what would be best artistically and ignore what is actually driving the decisions.
But mightn't advertisers notice if the audience responds? ... Maybe, rather than pressuring the network, viewers ought to pressure sponsors, and let the sponsors pressure the network.
Sure, that is a better route than complaining to the network. As I mentioned, we aren’t the network’s customers, we are the network’s products. But we are the sponsors’ customers.
But, as your two examples illustrate, it is far easier to get a sponsor to pull support for a show that offends than it is to get a sponsor to lean on a network to shift a broadcast pattern.
A sponsor is more likely to respond to a simple demand (pull support for that show or we’ll boycott) from an identifiable demographic group than a more complex demand (make the network give us all the shows in a row) from a less-identifiable demographic (as much as LOST viewers have similarities to each other, we are in NO WAY a single demographic – just look at the demographic difference between you and I).
We're talking about what's best for the advertisers, not for the storytelling.
And they are two VERY different discussions. I place the latter in the SHOULD category.
Of course, that's always the beef of the media artist in the face of the business of media, which brings us back to . . . well, the same stuff we always talk about.
Yeah, but it also, if we understand them as two separate conversations, sets us up to actually enact change. If we decide, through a conversation, what we want in terms of the content from the media artist, AND we understand how networks, or whichever business, make their decisions, we can try an get OUR desired outcomes by appealing to THEIR sense of logic.
ABC isn’t going to respond to “well, this would make the storytelling better.” But, if we decide, and I totally agree here, that the story would be better our way, we can try and spin it so it also makes sense to the business side.
Despite everything I’ve said, I see the industry changing in a way that might give our desired outcome more weight in networkworld, but the conditions just aren’t there yet.
I think, however, that you underestimate the mood of the general Lost fan.
Maybe, though odd considering I am one and active on one board, anyway. But, as I keep saying, it isn’t their mood I’m talking about. It is their power. And I think you may be overestimating that in this case (which you kinda admit by saying that a straight run of S3 LOST is far-fetched).
I'll make a bet with you, JJ, my money is that in the next two seasons more shows will be scheduled in the continuous model. Name the stakes.
I don’t necessarily disagree with this. Shit, look, reality TV operates on that model, no? But, as for dramatic narratives, while I agree that it may move that direction, I disagree quite a bit as to why it might.
So, no bet. You’re just trying to get to see my ass again anyway.
Just seems pointless to me, a very SHOULD argument, to talk about what would be best artistically and ignore what is actually driving the decisions.
Except if the audience wants it and the artists wanna do it, the notion that the money machinery should find a way to accede to that demand. The fact that there are humans who exist with no interest in anything but moving money from one place to another, and that they DON'T consider themselves accountable to those who actually produce and consume the products they, brings out anti-capitalist animal at the heart of my being.
But, as your two examples illustrate, it is far easier to get a sponsor to pull support for a show that offends than it is to get a sponsor to lean on a network to shift a broadcast pattern.
Proof that their priorities are fucked--kowtow to the weakest aspects of the animals, ignore the proactive desires, ensure the evolution of a more worthless, simpering, exterminable species.
. . . just look at the demographic difference between you and I.
Uh . . . We're both white, overeducated blowhards in the arts. Married guys, to boot. Exactly how different do you imagine we are?
And they are two VERY different discussions. I place the latter in the SHOULD category.
Without an idea as to how society should function, nothing changes, whether we're talking about new models of media distribution or new definitions or understandings of civil rights. I agree that "should" gets us in trouble some time, but avoiding "should" is as futile an exercise as basing one's whole course of action thereon.
Yeah, but it also, if we understand them as two separate conversations, sets us up to actually enact change. If we decide, through a conversation, what we want in terms of the content from the media artist, AND we understand how networks, or whichever business, make their decisions, we can try an get OUR desired outcomes by appealing to THEIR sense of logic.
From where I am, that seems as likely as appealing to the sense of logic of a stapler, so I'm glad that there are a few of you out there who care about the art AND the marketing and distribution.
ABC isn’t going to respond to “well, this would make the storytelling better.”
Here's where a "should" seems necessary: People who distribute entertainment SHOULD have some knowledge of and stake in better entertainment.
But, if we decide, and I totally agree here, that the story would be better our way, we can try and spin it so it also makes sense to the business side.
Sounds great. But who's gonna do it? With the exception of you, I generally know people who know business and people who know art; most who truly excel in one other have to sell several shares of wisdom in the other, in my observation. Is there a way to radically alter the market to make this unnecessary?
Still, what you suggest is fair and rational.
So, no bet. You’re just trying to get to see my ass again anyway.
God, dammit . . . Well, you can just rock me to sleep tonight.
Except if the audience wants it and the artists wanna do it, the notion that the money machinery should find a way to accede to that demand. The fact that there are humans who exist with no interest in anything but moving money from one place to another, and that they DON'T consider themselves accountable to those who actually produce and consume the products they, brings out anti-capitalist animal at the heart of my being.
It bothers me, too, but I recognize that I'm barking at the moon. It's the whole reason SHOULD chafes my ass so. If we want change, we have to pay attention to conditions as they are FIRST and foremost.
You and I and Beige probably have the same lists of SHOULDs. I just find that making that my starting point for discussion places me on the moral high ground, and I get dizzy with heights.
Proof that their priorities are fucked--kowtow to the weakest aspects of the animals, ignore the proactive desires, ensure the evolution of a more worthless, simpering, exterminable species.
Motherfucking agreed, motherfucker. Totally. But, they are their priorities. Were I THE MAN, plenty of folks would disagree with my priorities, too. What with the emphasis on free hookers for THE MAN, and all.
Uh . . . We're both white, overeducated blowhards in the arts. Married guys, to boot. Exactly how different do you imagine we are?
Well, there is the kid thing. Our financial picture is different - I imagine we have more debt (our student loans alone combine at nearly 20k) and more earning potential (I married a finance major that is an AVP at WaMu now).
But, really, it is our psychographics that differ most. A look across our movie/music/book-buying patterns would reveal that.
Not too far apart, but considering how far apart when we live in the same town and know the same people, significant in the eyes of advertisers.
Without an idea as to how society should function, nothing changes, whether we're talking about new models of media distribution or new definitions or understandings of civil rights. I agree that "should" gets us in trouble some time, but avoiding "should" is as futile an exercise as basing one's whole course of action thereon.
The fine semantic difference between how society SHOULD be and the set of desired outcomes that you or I would present with warrants is significant. The biggest difference being the placing of the idea on the moral high ground. I never ever listen to anyone tell me how things SHOULD be, or what I SHOULD do, but I will listen to any well-warranted argument.
And, you are right, I recognize the futility, but I'm happy living midway on the slippery slope. Just means dudes like you and Beigey will try and catch me in a SHOULD, but I don't mind because I recognize the grey and just fight my own good fight for my postion.
From where I am, that seems as likely as appealing to the sense of logic of a stapler
Nobody ever said know thy enemy was easy. Just effective.
Here's where a "should" seems necessary: People who distribute entertainment SHOULD have some knowledge of and stake in better entertainment.
Funny thing, Beigey and I were just talking about this moments ago on the cellies. The people that make the content are not the same people that distribute the content. They are in different businesses essentially, and have diferent sets of values by which they base their decisions.
But, if we decide, and I totally agree here, that the story would be better our way, we can try and spin it so it also makes sense to the business side.
Sounds great. But who's gonna do it? With the exception of you, I generally know people who know business and people who know art; most who truly excel in one other have to sell several shares of wisdom in the other, in my observation. Is there a way to radically alter the market to make this unnecessary?
Well, see, I have little interest in trying to get business types to understand art, because I would rather, given the choice, teach ducks calculus. But, I believe artists can learn about business because in my experience upper half of artists are smarter than businessmen.
And there are those who understand both, and are somehow still optimistic. My man Douglas Rushkoff is a great example. He is very incested in avoiding should and focusing on what is, and believes we, meaning you and I and out ilk, will win out, will actually be the guiding force of the future.
Businessmen are like dinosuars. Formidable and yet doomed. Artists, especially those open to understanding modes other than those most natural to them.
God, dammit . . . Well, you can just rock me to sleep tonight.
You me and the missuses, we'll all just cuddle.
Just thinking this morning that I, as a viewer, am less tolerant of the commercial interruptions during the broadcast than I am of the staggered schedule. I always watch either taped, from DVD or from iTunes.
Not sure if or how that might be significant, but thought I'd share.
Agreed, mostly. I don't care for commercials. But they a) mean that I don't have to pay for the broadcast (being one of the cable-less) and b) give me time to do some dishes while my shows are running.
Whatsa matter?
Watchin' too much TV?
Post a Comment
<< Home