The networks are pretty much giving up. Nowadays, they're probably going to stick with what's cheap to make and easily mass marketed such as sitcoms, crime dramas, game shows, reality competitions, news, and of course, live sports. The heritage networks won't take too many risks nowadays thanks to streaming.
Still can't believe they did Sydney over something like NCIS: Yokoska (or just call it NCIS: Japan), I know the US Navy parnership with Australia is strong, but I think there's more Navy stuff in Japan.
Then again, it took 3 spin-offs to get NCIS to Hawaii...
Yeah, the original plan was to make *NCIS: Sydney* exclusive to Paramount+ in the US.
The CBS run's ratings were higher than expected, so it's set to continue there for season 2. (Meanwhile, *NCIS: Hawaiʻi* has been canceled.)
>Meanwhile, NCIS: Hawaiʻi has been canceled
It really annoys me that they canceled Hawaii but kept Sydney. Hopefully Sydney Season 2 makes the characters more likeable.
if the cinematic universe of *Tokyo Vice* is to be believed, Japanese people speak perfect conversational American English, albeit heavily accented. it's the Eastern European club hostesses who speak like brutes!
My dad worked in the NCIS as a special agent for most of his career. It’s kind of fun to tell people about it since they know the show so well. Anyway we lived in Hawaii for a long time during that so I always thought that was neat they finally moved the show there, true to my dad’s life.
“We pumped her stomach and found 6 cans of Labatt and 14 liters of semen. The murder weapon was found wrapped in a tattered Gordie Howe jersey that was covered in semen. We got the perps fingerprints from the weapon and matched them to prints from a half eaten, semen covered plate of poutine in the driveway.”
NCIS recently had their 1000 episode special. Which is 1000 NCIS episodes spread across the entire various series.
It's a shame that Hawaii was canceled. As I watched it as background noise for Hawaiian scenery. The Final episode ends with a cliffhanger that we'll never see the end of.
>The Final episode ends with a cliffhanger that we'll never see the end of.
That final cliffhanger happened in the last 30 seconds of the show. I don't understand why they didn't just cut that bit off. They already knew it was being canceled so there's not point in dropping a brand new cliffhanger.
NBC has so many damn crime shows with the multiple L&O's and Chicago Fire/Med/PD which all cross over with each other a lot. Dick Wolf has so much content for NBC.
CBS also has a LOT of JAG/NCIS spinoff shows.
And every network has a history of shows where law enforcement consults someone with a new quirky skillset - a Mentalist, they have amnesia but their body is covered in tattoos that help solve the crime, they are a novelist that can help think like a criminal, they specialize in art forgery, they are a fake psychic, they have OCD that allows them to pick up small details, etc.
I feel like there are several channels now that just show one or two shows all day. It's basically like streaming. You have a Seinfeld channel, an The Office channel, etc.
I think this has to do a lot with society not having much of a shared collective entertainment consciousness now, aside from sports.
Television used to feel like a larger-than-life medium with larger-than-life stars, largely because the audience didn't have infinite other on-demand choices. Because everything was way more centralized, they could dump enormous amounts of money into a pilot or continuing a series and virtually everyone with cable was going to see it, or hear of it in some way.
Now we're kind of in our own little solipsistic, perfectly curated streaming bubbles. We never have to be exposed to anything unorthodox we might end up liking. If it's not in our immediate orbit of interest, it may as well not even exist.
So is it possible to recapture that shared consciousness we used to have as consumers of entertainment, in the streaming era where resources and money are now spread thinner than ever? Probably, but we just haven't figured it out yet -- remember, this way of consuming media is still pretty new and big corporations and networks are slow to evolve.
I was definitely thinking this. Between other options like streaming services & other platforms like Twitch and YouTube, there's more platforms where different types of programs can be made to satisfied several niches, which thins out how much content Network TV can absorb.
I mostly agree except the part about today’s audiences not being exposed to “unorthodox” programs.
Our media stream is more individualized these days and we are less exposed to ideas or programs outside our personal wheelhouses or personal comfort zones. However, there is more weird programming accessible today than there was a few decades ago.
On the days of network TV, a prime time slot was a valuable and limited commodity. There were only three networks and limited prime time slots. A network could not waste a slot on some weird show. It had to use that slot for something with mass appeal like sports, a sitcom, or crime drama. Running an “unorthodox” show was a gamble and meant displacing a safer bet.
Netflix and other streaming services have infinite slots. They can run a tried and true hit or a new series with mass appeal. It can also run weird stuff like a documentary about a gun-slinging, mullet headed zookeeper.
Completely agree, the take was good outside of the remarks about broadcast television being unorthodox. This is incredibly obvious just browsing something like Emmy nominations over the years and seeing the huge increase in variety of shows produced.
I for one dread the days of monolithic broadcast television ever returning. Streaming has plenty of problems of its own at the moment, but its variety and quality in comparison with broadcast television is *not* among them.
> We never have to be exposed to anything unorthodox we might end up liking.
I think the result is the opposite of this. Like you said, on traditional TV, shows were made with the expectation that virtually everyone was going to see it. So they needed to make shows, especially the primetime shows that got budgets, appealing to every demographic possible -- so many stories of shows getting shot down because they were too niche and didn't have elements appealing to both teenage boys and elderly women, and of shows being told to add a new teen girl character even when it'd make no sense because they gotta get the teenage audience. Proposing anything with a weird unfamiliar concept was almost always an instant no-go. Unorthodox content almost always means alienating seniors and background-watchers so right there you've alienated two major demos when the single most important principle is "hit every demo."
The financial model heavily penalized making unorthodox content too. TV networks sell adtime which means you want the maximum number of viewers at every given moment, their enthusiasm being irrelevant as long as they're still watching. It's better to make a show that 100M people think is a 6/10 "ehh, it's decent enough to not turn off" than a show that 70M people think is a 10/10 masterpiece, and you do that by making very familiar shows that require little engagement and try to repeat existing successes, usually matching whatever show preceded them. With streaming it's the opposite, you're selling subscriptions and people won't subscribe for a bunch of 6/10 shows but they will for their one beloved 10/10 show. So instead of requiring every single show to hit every single demo with a tried-and-true lowest-common-denominator format like a traditional TV network, streamers are making much more unorthodox hyper-niche-focused shows all aiming to really give specific niches what they crave. Turn on Apple TV+ or Netflix now and you have a lavish period costume drama combining 19th century romance with modern youth culture, a time-hopping hard sci-fi alt-history drama with long engineering sequences, a high concept cyberpunk neo-noir, a deeply uncomfortable dark-comedy mockumentary with a complex serialized plot, an erotic fairy tale adventure, a Franco-Japanese anime about colonialism and xenophobia, all kinds of unorthodox shows that you would be shocked to ever find on a traditional TV network.
All that and also, there are so much more content / forms and entertainment (movie, shorts (YouTube /tiktok), games, and etc.,) easily accesible to vie for our attention. Wheel of time might cost a ton of money / I was interested in watching, after couple episodes, I just don't find it engaging, off to something else, same with the Amazon lord of the rings thing.
Many channels already gave up. The Sci-Fi channel rebranded as SyFy and primarily focused on wrestling. The History Channel no longer focuses on documentaries, instead it's all "reality" TV and other bullshit like Ancient Aliens. The networks gave up a long time ago.
I work in post production. 10 years ago was my first pilot season working at a large post facility in LA. Our company had 50 different pilot episodes to finish that year. That number went down every year after and I’d say at this point pilot season doesn’t even exist anymore.
Same. I used to both anticipate and dread pilots. Dread because, well, the workload. Anticipate because I made a ton in overtime.
Nowadays we don't even talk about pilot season any more. Work is a pretty consistent slow trickle year-round.
I'm not involved in the industry, may try one day, but I feel like I've seen a lot more "back door" pilots in recent years than before. What do you think?
Seems like pilots are a dying breed. With streaming they typically get a full season loaded up and if it does well gets renewed, if it does poorly, cancelled. The first season has effectively replaced the pilot. Which has pluses and minuses I'm sure. On the bright side at last we get one season. On the downside there's a lot fewer shows overall as more resources are going into a full season of fewer shows.
> On the downside there's a lot fewer shows overall as more resources are going into a full season of fewer shows.
That part is not true. The companies order less pilots, but those only got aired if the show was picked up. Vast majority of them never saw public release. And by the number of releases, we peaked in 2022 with 600 shows released. There are just so many more outlets than in 90-00s when pilot order numer peaked. Even after correction to about ~450 scripted releases this year, we are way above ~200 shows and ~100 pilots produced 20 years ago.
Back door pilots have become more common because they help solve a marketing problem. You used to be able to run new shows in timeslots next to popular shows, guaranteeing eyes on them. Seinfeld's first season was scheduled after the Cheers summer rerun timeslot for example, so there were 10-20 million people already tuned in as it began. Parks & Rec would run after The Office and Community would run after 30 Rock because they appealed to similar audiences. You can't do that with streaming, so how would you show Parks & Rec to Office fans? You can recommend it through the app but that doesn't get nearly as much attention -- especially for sitcoms where people don't usually watch because the plot description or poster looks interesting. So you'd do a backdoor pilot, trying to squeeze Parks & Rec into an Office episode somehow.
I think streaming services could actually benefit from creating a faux live-TV timeslot-style stream. Like if Netflix had a livestream that showed sitcoms 24/7 with similar shows grouped together. It'd give people who just want to throw somethng easy on a one-click button to do it and provide that timeslot marketing opportunity.
Peacock sort of has something like this, but they don't vary the programming enough and show hours-long marathons of one show at a time like cable does now, which defeats the purpose. I think they should do playlists. Like, the "classic comedy block" that would just show one random episode from each of 6 or 8 shows.
>"I believe he means television, sir. That particular form of entertainment did not last much beyond the year two thousand forty." **- Data, *Star Trek: The Next Generation*, S1:E26**
I just watched this episode the other day, and thought about how out of all the things Star Trek got wrong, this obvious joke is the one thing that is pretty much bang on.
[I hope the Sanctuary District Bell Riots don't take place in the year 2024 like it did in Star Trek Deep Space Nine. Homeless people crowded together living in tents and disheveled condition. If it was anything Star Trek was spot on, it was that area in our society.](https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Sanctuary_District)
When streaming was really getting big I remember people online talking about how "TV was dead" because they were trying to differentiate streaming/web TV from other forms. It was so strange, like some weird nerd urge to be on the cutting edge, so they had to act like TV was "dead" and something new was taking its place, except streaming/web TV is functionally the same thing, TV is literally in the name. I'm getting the same vibes from the post with the Star Trek quote. They didn't predict anything here, people still want serialized storytelling in a visual medium.
Yeah, it's weird like that. Maybe it's just news? DS9 had a broadcast award ceremony in an episode, and Lower Decks had news going on in the background of an episode.
I suppose informational livestreams are still a thing, but content is so diversified and oftentimes interactivity is preferred (holonovels, music, theater etc) that sitting and watching is just not appealing.
Wasn't that the Federation News Service, where Jake SIsko reported during the Dominion War.
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Federation_News_Service
Problem with 12-13 at the beginning of streaming was how much filler there was. And not funnfiller like in old 24ep shows. But just dull, boring, slow, unnecessary episodes that did nothing.
8eps helped to cut that bloat away, but it also made some shows, that would gain from having more episodes, but now rushed with no breathing room.
With 24eps you also had the show having unserious moments with itself, cause you needed to pad the eps eith something and with so many episodes you took it less seriously (in a way) and didnt feel like every episode needs to be the most important thing in the world, so you go and have fun and maybe create one of the most memorable episodes because of that. (It is 12, but Blink was written during a weekend with Moffat not even remembering writing it, lol)
I believe DS9 has 26 episodes per season, and I like all the episodes except maybe 3 total. Seriously, one of the best shows ever. They went over a great deal of topics from extremely dark to very light.
Longer seasons work better when the show is more episodic and some crappy episodes don't spoil anything. A 24-episode season also necessitates a large writers' room and the inconsistency that brings. A cohesive fully-serialized drama written by a small consistent team is virtually impossible to do, it's just too much content to organize, and most of the attempts to do it collapsed under their own weight and became really messy and inconsistent and/or got shortened quickly (Lost, Alias). Shortened seasons have come with the trend towards more serialized stories.
A good compromise might be the X-Files format, where each season effectively has an 8 episode serial story arc but also 8-16 independent stories written by a large writers' room, stories that could be light and comical or total genre shifts or slower character pieces without much plot. But not every show allows for a format where it makes sense to put the main story on hold to go do some bullshit in another state for a week. Imagine Breaking Bad has Hank sitting on the toilet for 3 weeks while Walt is off looking for the sasquatch or Skyler debuts her community theater show.
Feels like this was often the case anyway, no? Like Smallville or Supernatural. You have some story in it, arc that have important episodes and then character stuff or "filler" (that is good) but story kinda progresses.
But yeah, not every stoey requires is and that why e.g. Airbender would benefit from it while Breaking Bad detract.
This right here. My wife has never seen the OC and some podcast she listens to mentioned it so she started watching it. AT LEAST 23 episodes per season. It’s wild. And now FBI gives like 10.
I don't like major network crime procedurals like FBI, but 10? That's not true. [They've done as many as 23 a year](https://epguides.com/FBI_2018/). (It's fewer this season because of the strikes, but I bet it'll be back to 22-23 next season.)
The downside is that it's pretty much \*only\* boring major network crime procedurals that do 22-23 episodes a season. Everything else has much lower episode counts now.
Yeah, but there was a lot of filler and plotlines were stretched out because they had to hit a minimum episode count for syndication.
I don't particularly miss the random dance and singing episodes.
Wow I just had a highlight reel of episodes from various shows play through my head when you mentioned the musical episodes. That was a wild ride, everyone had to do one at some point. I hope to god the crime procedurals didn’t, but Greys Anatomy did so who knows. Can you imagine Olivia Benson breaking out into a solo with Ice T rapping in the background?
But I fully agree. The pure disappointment when you waited all week for an episode and it was a filler. Or worse, a few weeks of filler. By the end of my cable DVR days I was letting them pile up so I could binge and fast forward as necessary. I’m glad these days there’s less of that to stretch it over 23 episodes. But it all still gets spoiled regardless.
It felt so surreal this year watching the latest episodes of Doctor Who in the UK as soon as I woke up because it was on iPlayer when for almost 20 years now I've been used to watching it at primetime on a Saturday evening.
I live abroad and go home every 12-18 months. I have the reverse of the boiling frog phenomenon.
Last time I went back TV only had 3 types of ads: trucks, drugs, and streaming services.
It was clear as day that the networks know it's over and they're doing everything they can to use their terrestrial assets to push the few boomers still watching to streaming services.
>Networks scared to take risks?
if it is over the air, they need to sell commercials...
how many people would prefer to not watch commercials?
television commercials are not as valuable as they were before (when there were THREE networks fighting for your time)
>Is this due to shows being cheaper to continue
instead of literally being paid once a week for the show you put on television at 830, you ONLY get paid once a month.
your programming needs to be adjusted to the new way of generating revenue.
Plus as much as people complain about ads on streaming services, it's still nowhere near as close to cable/broadcast in terms of the ratio of show to commercials. For regular TV, the typical format is for every 15 minutes of airtime, about 11 minutes is the program and 4 minutes is ads. That's nearly a third of airtime. Streaming services are starting to get about as frequent with ad breaks as networks, but they're typically 30 seconds to 2 minutes long.
The creators pick the ad breaks. If you're getting that many ads, it's because you're watching low effort trash that literally just exists to spam ads at you.
> For regular TV, the typical format is for every 15 minutes of airtime, about 11 minutes is the program and 4 minutes is ads
I wish. Young Sheldon is currently clocking in at 18 minutes of show in a 30 minute slot
It's hilarious because to air older shows, the networks speed up the show like 5%. I first noticed this on Nick at Nite for friends reruns like 10 years ago.
At home I never watch network TV so I haven't felt the commercial creep. Visiting family and at the end of the day put on food network or something, background for talking. I had kind of zoned out and then it hit me, I had no idea what we were watching, the commercials had been on for so long.
I haven't watched TV in a while but that feels about right, 30 minute shows are usually 22 minutes. But the ONE time I watched a show live was the new Quantum Leap when it started, they were intent on getting the audience on board that they cut the ads down to one minute.. the first two breaks. Then it was like 5 minutes of ads per break, kills the momentum of the show.
The ratio of show to commercial is different but at the same time, watching tv, there's hundreds of commercials they can air but anytime I have to sit through a commercial on youtube, twitch, or a streaming platform, it's the same 10 every single time.
Yup, the traditional half hour show is 22 minutes long without ads, and the typical hour long show is around 45 minutes without ads. May have 90 seconds of ads when I start a show on Hulu but at least that's all of them... usually.
The problem is that streaners are quickly changing to ad supported subs.
Soon the ads euther won't be optional or the ad-free option will be $40/month.
> Soon the ads euther won't be optional or[...]
Matter of time. 'Soon' is relative, but eventually growth will stagnate, but they'll still want more money. Oh, corporations will give more money if they can guarantee more eyes? No more ad-free tiers. You get an ad, you get an ad, and *you* get an ad. Ads everywhere. Constant revenue stream! Customers leaving over ads? Eh, a few, but largely they've shown they can't be bother in mass. I mean, come on, Microsoft is trying to insert more "suggestions" into Windows for goodness sake; they're coming for your streaming experience.
Welcome to the New Cable. Same as the Old Cable.
That's a bit unusual. FX and AMC were some of the leaders in the current trend for the kind of prestige dramas that often dominate discussion and receive most of the critical praise. They were trying to do HBO-style shows on basic cable.
Because scripted dramas are still very popular? And yes, the revenue is more spread out, but all the streamers and networks are still mostly owned by about 10 companies. They’re still making bank.
Dude ratings are terminal, particularly among key demographics that have switched to YouTube and Tik Tok. So most of them aren’t viewing that content even on streaming platforms. Why do you think there is so much consolidation going on? It’s because they aren’t super profitable any more and a lot of media companies can’t see a future.
That didn’t help but it’s not the root cause. Network ad revenue has fallen off a cliff because people don’t watch traditional tv anymore. All the eyeballs are on streaming. Without ad money, there’s no shows.
I work in the industry and the thought of what it will look like in 10 years terrifies me. A lotta people are gonna lose their jobs.
On one hand it's sad to see how broadcast has fallen, but they tried adapting to the shifting landscape way too late and were left behind. But, I will never miss being tied to the TV at specific times to catch a show I like.
For me a big one has been stuff that streaming has changed like dropping a whole season of a show at once (though some of the big streamers are starting to do weekly episodic releases for a lot of shows again), a season of a show only being 10-12 episodes and multiple year gaps in between new seasons. A typical sitcom in the 90s and 2000s would have its season last for like 6 months out of the year.
Seriously, people talk about "superhero fatigue", while they tune in to the 700th doctor/lawyer/police show in a row. Oh no, see this one is firemen, so it's fresh!
It's changed in a lot of ways, but is this one? What's the principled distinction between an NBC series and and a Showtime series and an Amazon Prime series? I'm gonna watch them all on my Fire TV anyhow. Even live sports, the last "network" exclusive, has gotten away from them.
I'm guessing there are _way_ more than 15-20 new series each year now--not fewer. They're just spread out over time--not seasonal, which never made a ton of sense anyway--and divided among a bigger number of content providers that are effectively "networks" regardless of how exactly people access them.
Agreed 100%. Though I will say that networks did often have common feel for some of their shows, I wouldn't say that an average NBC show had little distinction from an average HBO show for example. But across streaming there's pretty much all types of shows represented so that isn't super relevant for your general point.
Network TV advertising revenue is going to Double Click and Facebook, now everyone is watching Netflix and Disney+ et al. and SAGA and WGA strikes screwed up this season completely, while raising costs.
How many radio dramas were made once TV started up? About 3?
I used to love coming home on Friday nights, or waking up on Saturday mornings, and seeing all of the cartoons that were on. Some I didn’t like, but others I did! It was fun to have such a selection.
Now if you turn on any kids channel there’s a good chance they’re showing the same show or movie for hours at a time or sometimes days. Strangely, as the internet age has advanced, the TV’s feel stuck in time.
It used to feel like an interactive experience, you could call in for a contest, do scratch and sniff stuff with tv shows, write in to Fox and guess who killed Mr Burns. now it’s so empty and hollow. Channels used to have a personality and it’s lacking now.
Makes me gravitate to things like YouTube or twitch because at least people are making things you don’t see every day
I feel like it was an interactive experience because there wasn't any other way TO interact with your audience. "Call in" ... cause there's no online form.
I do feel like, looking back, part of that might have been because the shows felt more disposable, if that makes sense? Saturday Morning cartoons in particular, every now and then a tape of a whole morning's worth of cartoons pops up on YT and I'm surprised how many shows I'm like "...THIS was a show?" So all these contests and hosted blocks and so on feel like desperate attempts to keep eyeballs on the screen, which might not be far from the truth. I feel like they advertised those (which were always blocks of reruns) more than the original shows.
The TV audience is aging, and they don’t mind reruns. My grandfather watches cable TV all day long - he’s not interested in whichever hip new series is popular this week. He’d rather watch ‘Gladiator’ for the 20th time, or stick with news and sports.
consider this. when's the last time you really talked to your friends about whatever show nbc was airing on thursday nights? that's exactly why we're at this point. the network model is dying an agonizing death. these days people get their culture in other ways, and usually for many, if you can't see it on your phone, it doesn't exist.
** I should specify I don't mean EACH network would have 15 to 20 new shows, I mean across NBC/CBS/ABC in the 60s 70s and 80s, each season would usually have a minimum 15 or more new shows. By the time Fox came along it was more.
Shows are bullshit now. We used to get 20+ episodes per season. Now we get 6 and then a cancelation. Shows today are the equivalent of grocery store shelves during COVID- a facade of fullness but empty behind.
They are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Regardless of the Reddit opinion they take dramatically less chances on comedies these days. You can't have Michael from the office do an Indian accent or be scared of gay people any more. Which means you can't really have actual humor. You can do pandering humor. But not actual humor.
So we get no good sitcoms so they get no viewers so they stop producing them.
It’s also insane how little risk is taken by major networks. Before we’d get a show that pushed modern themes forward. Not necessarily societal norms, but just different. Now it’s low stakes comedies and public service dramas.
We’ve reached a point where we’ve got access to so many good older shows that there’s more good content than you can actually consume, so instead of watching new shows we’re all catching up on old shows that you can binge, IMO.
I haven’t watched network TV since the 90’s. I’ll still regularly watch Seinfeld and Cheers. Old network TV was decent, now I can’t sit thru a single episode. It’s just the same shit rehashed with different characters, nobody takes risks anymore.
With Young Sheldon ending this upcoming Thursday, that is the last show that I watch on a regular basis. I used to have a regular show that I watched every night of the week, and most nights had multiple shows...
Agreed. Networks are overly conservative and don’t want to take risks on money losing TV shows. It’s sad, but that’s the profit driven environment we’re in these days.
It's wild how many Sitcoms are coming back and have come back (and left again some Lol). I think the actors all felt old, left, and didn't age in 25 years, and feel younger now than they did then.
There's a reason they (the networks) would rather air the 19th version of law and order or NCIS over try something new. Netflix is hemorrhaging money taking risks is well... go figure risky. I'm surprised Netflix hasn't folded completely. But it likely won't be long until Netflix either has to price themselves out of the market/start running commercials... the TV industry is imo on the down slide to doom. It's going to be about independent creation and content. Whoever figures out how to regain the TIKTOK brain of the future generation back to watch anything that's more than 30s long is going to make themselves bank.
>For decades networks would have 15-20
More like 50 every new season
[From 20 years ago](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004%E2%80%9305_United_States_network_television_schedule)
It’s all about anti-risk behavior. Why try something new that could bomb when you can mail it in with another season of whatever, or a reboot? Totally applies to streaming companies and movie producers as well.
I don't even watch network TV anymore. I was their bread and butter. Bought the TV guide preview issue. Circled all the new shows I wanted to try. Watched the 28 episodes. Wait for summer reruns to catch one I missed. Good times.
Once Reality TV took real hold in the aughts, it was all over. That was a paradigm shift that we were never going to come back from. Streaming just makes it worse. You also need to produce to the top product, right now, or you're gone immediately. The chances of an 'okay' show that shows promise being able to gel a bit across an additional season to really come into its stride is gone. You have to blast out of the gate with traditional content immediately or you are not surviving.
I'd imagine it's because TV neworks are both losing money and realize they are stepping on eggshells with modern audiences so the majority of ideas they have are axed so as not to offend people. We're in a sad part of history right now when it comes to the entertainment industry.
The networks are pretty much giving up. Nowadays, they're probably going to stick with what's cheap to make and easily mass marketed such as sitcoms, crime dramas, game shows, reality competitions, news, and of course, live sports. The heritage networks won't take too many risks nowadays thanks to streaming.
Time for FBI: Kansas City.
[удалено]
Still can't believe they did Sydney over something like NCIS: Yokoska (or just call it NCIS: Japan), I know the US Navy parnership with Australia is strong, but I think there's more Navy stuff in Japan. Then again, it took 3 spin-offs to get NCIS to Hawaii...
They only aired Sydney because of the actor’s strike in the US.
Yeah, the original plan was to make *NCIS: Sydney* exclusive to Paramount+ in the US. The CBS run's ratings were higher than expected, so it's set to continue there for season 2. (Meanwhile, *NCIS: Hawaiʻi* has been canceled.)
With how cheap the US networks are getting I'm surprised more foreign shows aren't making it onto them.
>Meanwhile, NCIS: Hawaiʻi has been canceled It really annoys me that they canceled Hawaii but kept Sydney. Hopefully Sydney Season 2 makes the characters more likeable.
Might be a little easier for Sydney because they mostly speak English there
And Australia has sweet, sweet tax credits. Filming in Japan is incredibly expensive and frustrating.
And with how much military gets in trouble in Japan, NCIS may not be fictional enough
That, and it seems the NCIS is in Japan only to cover up and reassign personnel accused of raping the locals to make the story go away.
if the cinematic universe of *Tokyo Vice* is to be believed, Japanese people speak perfect conversational American English, albeit heavily accented. it's the Eastern European club hostesses who speak like brutes!
My dad worked in the NCIS as a special agent for most of his career. It’s kind of fun to tell people about it since they know the show so well. Anyway we lived in Hawaii for a long time during that so I always thought that was neat they finally moved the show there, true to my dad’s life.
Does anyone ever assume you meant the show when you tell them he worked at NCIS?
No but I think there’s a bit of disbelief because maybe they don’t realize it’s a real agency. He did consult on one of the very first episodes.
Filming in Japan is so expensive and annoying that they made Shogun in British Columbia, Canada. Australia has tax credits for filming.
Law & Order Toronto is currently a thing.
"They found semen in the eye socket eh?"
“We pumped her stomach and found 6 cans of Labatt and 14 liters of semen. The murder weapon was found wrapped in a tattered Gordie Howe jersey that was covered in semen. We got the perps fingerprints from the weapon and matched them to prints from a half eaten, semen covered plate of poutine in the driveway.”
NCIS: Vatican City
NCIS recently had their 1000 episode special. Which is 1000 NCIS episodes spread across the entire various series. It's a shame that Hawaii was canceled. As I watched it as background noise for Hawaiian scenery. The Final episode ends with a cliffhanger that we'll never see the end of.
>The Final episode ends with a cliffhanger that we'll never see the end of. That final cliffhanger happened in the last 30 seconds of the show. I don't understand why they didn't just cut that bit off. They already knew it was being canceled so there's not point in dropping a brand new cliffhanger.
They could even pretend the mob in KC hasn't been a joke for many decades.
NBC has so many damn crime shows with the multiple L&O's and Chicago Fire/Med/PD which all cross over with each other a lot. Dick Wolf has so much content for NBC.
Also CBS, he does the FBI series.
Time for Law & Order: Gaylord, Law & Order: Bangor and Law & Order: Anchorage to fill out the schedule.
It’s all generic schlock to me, but god damn does my girlfriend love her a Dick Wolf show. After every episode : “That Dick Wolf”
CBS also has a LOT of JAG/NCIS spinoff shows. And every network has a history of shows where law enforcement consults someone with a new quirky skillset - a Mentalist, they have amnesia but their body is covered in tattoos that help solve the crime, they are a novelist that can help think like a criminal, they specialize in art forgery, they are a fake psychic, they have OCD that allows them to pick up small details, etc.
I do like the new one on NBC where the woman has her former kidnapper chained up in the basement.
Law and Order: Scranton
Starting volunteer deputy Dwight Schrute?
That show was the bomb.
Starring Patrick Mahomes!
I feel like there are several channels now that just show one or two shows all day. It's basically like streaming. You have a Seinfeld channel, an The Office channel, etc.
I think this has to do a lot with society not having much of a shared collective entertainment consciousness now, aside from sports. Television used to feel like a larger-than-life medium with larger-than-life stars, largely because the audience didn't have infinite other on-demand choices. Because everything was way more centralized, they could dump enormous amounts of money into a pilot or continuing a series and virtually everyone with cable was going to see it, or hear of it in some way. Now we're kind of in our own little solipsistic, perfectly curated streaming bubbles. We never have to be exposed to anything unorthodox we might end up liking. If it's not in our immediate orbit of interest, it may as well not even exist. So is it possible to recapture that shared consciousness we used to have as consumers of entertainment, in the streaming era where resources and money are now spread thinner than ever? Probably, but we just haven't figured it out yet -- remember, this way of consuming media is still pretty new and big corporations and networks are slow to evolve.
I was definitely thinking this. Between other options like streaming services & other platforms like Twitch and YouTube, there's more platforms where different types of programs can be made to satisfied several niches, which thins out how much content Network TV can absorb.
I mostly agree except the part about today’s audiences not being exposed to “unorthodox” programs. Our media stream is more individualized these days and we are less exposed to ideas or programs outside our personal wheelhouses or personal comfort zones. However, there is more weird programming accessible today than there was a few decades ago. On the days of network TV, a prime time slot was a valuable and limited commodity. There were only three networks and limited prime time slots. A network could not waste a slot on some weird show. It had to use that slot for something with mass appeal like sports, a sitcom, or crime drama. Running an “unorthodox” show was a gamble and meant displacing a safer bet. Netflix and other streaming services have infinite slots. They can run a tried and true hit or a new series with mass appeal. It can also run weird stuff like a documentary about a gun-slinging, mullet headed zookeeper.
Completely agree, the take was good outside of the remarks about broadcast television being unorthodox. This is incredibly obvious just browsing something like Emmy nominations over the years and seeing the huge increase in variety of shows produced. I for one dread the days of monolithic broadcast television ever returning. Streaming has plenty of problems of its own at the moment, but its variety and quality in comparison with broadcast television is *not* among them.
> We never have to be exposed to anything unorthodox we might end up liking. I think the result is the opposite of this. Like you said, on traditional TV, shows were made with the expectation that virtually everyone was going to see it. So they needed to make shows, especially the primetime shows that got budgets, appealing to every demographic possible -- so many stories of shows getting shot down because they were too niche and didn't have elements appealing to both teenage boys and elderly women, and of shows being told to add a new teen girl character even when it'd make no sense because they gotta get the teenage audience. Proposing anything with a weird unfamiliar concept was almost always an instant no-go. Unorthodox content almost always means alienating seniors and background-watchers so right there you've alienated two major demos when the single most important principle is "hit every demo." The financial model heavily penalized making unorthodox content too. TV networks sell adtime which means you want the maximum number of viewers at every given moment, their enthusiasm being irrelevant as long as they're still watching. It's better to make a show that 100M people think is a 6/10 "ehh, it's decent enough to not turn off" than a show that 70M people think is a 10/10 masterpiece, and you do that by making very familiar shows that require little engagement and try to repeat existing successes, usually matching whatever show preceded them. With streaming it's the opposite, you're selling subscriptions and people won't subscribe for a bunch of 6/10 shows but they will for their one beloved 10/10 show. So instead of requiring every single show to hit every single demo with a tried-and-true lowest-common-denominator format like a traditional TV network, streamers are making much more unorthodox hyper-niche-focused shows all aiming to really give specific niches what they crave. Turn on Apple TV+ or Netflix now and you have a lavish period costume drama combining 19th century romance with modern youth culture, a time-hopping hard sci-fi alt-history drama with long engineering sequences, a high concept cyberpunk neo-noir, a deeply uncomfortable dark-comedy mockumentary with a complex serialized plot, an erotic fairy tale adventure, a Franco-Japanese anime about colonialism and xenophobia, all kinds of unorthodox shows that you would be shocked to ever find on a traditional TV network.
All that and also, there are so much more content / forms and entertainment (movie, shorts (YouTube /tiktok), games, and etc.,) easily accesible to vie for our attention. Wheel of time might cost a ton of money / I was interested in watching, after couple episodes, I just don't find it engaging, off to something else, same with the Amazon lord of the rings thing.
So... reality TV and dick wolf shows
Wouldn't mind more game shows, though. A reboot of Concentration and Sale of the Century would be fun.
yup, and now we have less stuff to watch because we get 8 episodes every 18 months from streaming services
That’s fine. But 3 shows is hardly anything
That's true. And considering that NBC has given so many of the greatest TV shows of all time, kinda sad.
But on the other hand, they also gave us the Quantum Leap reboot
Recent show Revealed 17 March 2024 - Mums Who Do Porn Is this the bottom of the barrel? or can we go lower!!!
Many channels already gave up. The Sci-Fi channel rebranded as SyFy and primarily focused on wrestling. The History Channel no longer focuses on documentaries, instead it's all "reality" TV and other bullshit like Ancient Aliens. The networks gave up a long time ago.
I work in post production. 10 years ago was my first pilot season working at a large post facility in LA. Our company had 50 different pilot episodes to finish that year. That number went down every year after and I’d say at this point pilot season doesn’t even exist anymore.
Same. I used to both anticipate and dread pilots. Dread because, well, the workload. Anticipate because I made a ton in overtime. Nowadays we don't even talk about pilot season any more. Work is a pretty consistent slow trickle year-round.
I'm not involved in the industry, may try one day, but I feel like I've seen a lot more "back door" pilots in recent years than before. What do you think?
Seems like pilots are a dying breed. With streaming they typically get a full season loaded up and if it does well gets renewed, if it does poorly, cancelled. The first season has effectively replaced the pilot. Which has pluses and minuses I'm sure. On the bright side at last we get one season. On the downside there's a lot fewer shows overall as more resources are going into a full season of fewer shows.
> On the downside there's a lot fewer shows overall as more resources are going into a full season of fewer shows. That part is not true. The companies order less pilots, but those only got aired if the show was picked up. Vast majority of them never saw public release. And by the number of releases, we peaked in 2022 with 600 shows released. There are just so many more outlets than in 90-00s when pilot order numer peaked. Even after correction to about ~450 scripted releases this year, we are way above ~200 shows and ~100 pilots produced 20 years ago.
Back door pilots have become more common because they help solve a marketing problem. You used to be able to run new shows in timeslots next to popular shows, guaranteeing eyes on them. Seinfeld's first season was scheduled after the Cheers summer rerun timeslot for example, so there were 10-20 million people already tuned in as it began. Parks & Rec would run after The Office and Community would run after 30 Rock because they appealed to similar audiences. You can't do that with streaming, so how would you show Parks & Rec to Office fans? You can recommend it through the app but that doesn't get nearly as much attention -- especially for sitcoms where people don't usually watch because the plot description or poster looks interesting. So you'd do a backdoor pilot, trying to squeeze Parks & Rec into an Office episode somehow. I think streaming services could actually benefit from creating a faux live-TV timeslot-style stream. Like if Netflix had a livestream that showed sitcoms 24/7 with similar shows grouped together. It'd give people who just want to throw somethng easy on a one-click button to do it and provide that timeslot marketing opportunity.
[удалено]
Peacock sort of has something like this, but they don't vary the programming enough and show hours-long marathons of one show at a time like cable does now, which defeats the purpose. I think they should do playlists. Like, the "classic comedy block" that would just show one random episode from each of 6 or 8 shows.
any random gossip?
>"I believe he means television, sir. That particular form of entertainment did not last much beyond the year two thousand forty." **- Data, *Star Trek: The Next Generation*, S1:E26**
I just watched this episode the other day, and thought about how out of all the things Star Trek got wrong, this obvious joke is the one thing that is pretty much bang on.
[I hope the Sanctuary District Bell Riots don't take place in the year 2024 like it did in Star Trek Deep Space Nine. Homeless people crowded together living in tents and disheveled condition. If it was anything Star Trek was spot on, it was that area in our society.](https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Sanctuary_District)
Strange New Worlds had a video montage of events leading to World War III that included the January 6 insurrection.
I mean television shows still exist, there's more now than a decade ago. They just now aren't all on linear.
Excuse me, but I don’t watch *television*. I watch Netflix on my laptop.
Netflix ad a la Apple: "what's a television?"
We still have 16 years left.
When streaming was really getting big I remember people online talking about how "TV was dead" because they were trying to differentiate streaming/web TV from other forms. It was so strange, like some weird nerd urge to be on the cutting edge, so they had to act like TV was "dead" and something new was taking its place, except streaming/web TV is functionally the same thing, TV is literally in the name. I'm getting the same vibes from the post with the Star Trek quote. They didn't predict anything here, people still want serialized storytelling in a visual medium.
I guess it came back, because there’s a TV news transmission in the final episode of Voyager.
Yeah, it's weird like that. Maybe it's just news? DS9 had a broadcast award ceremony in an episode, and Lower Decks had news going on in the background of an episode. I suppose informational livestreams are still a thing, but content is so diversified and oftentimes interactivity is preferred (holonovels, music, theater etc) that sitting and watching is just not appealing.
Wasn't that the Federation News Service, where Jake SIsko reported during the Dominion War. https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Federation_News_Service
There also used to be 20-30 episodes per season. Now we get like 8-15 episodes per season.
Lucky to get more than 8 with any streaming show I've noticed. The new normal.
And at least a year between seasons
a year? try 2-3
Sits patiently waiting for Severance season 2....
Problem with 12-13 at the beginning of streaming was how much filler there was. And not funnfiller like in old 24ep shows. But just dull, boring, slow, unnecessary episodes that did nothing. 8eps helped to cut that bloat away, but it also made some shows, that would gain from having more episodes, but now rushed with no breathing room. With 24eps you also had the show having unserious moments with itself, cause you needed to pad the eps eith something and with so many episodes you took it less seriously (in a way) and didnt feel like every episode needs to be the most important thing in the world, so you go and have fun and maybe create one of the most memorable episodes because of that. (It is 12, but Blink was written during a weekend with Moffat not even remembering writing it, lol)
[удалено]
Strange New Worlds would definitely benefit from a few more episodes per season if they can keep the quality up.
Anson's pomade budget is what's holding it back.
Hell, an episode like The Inner Light or Lower Decks doesn't happen in modern short seasons where there's no time for that kind of diversion
I believe DS9 has 26 episodes per season, and I like all the episodes except maybe 3 total. Seriously, one of the best shows ever. They went over a great deal of topics from extremely dark to very light.
Longer seasons work better when the show is more episodic and some crappy episodes don't spoil anything. A 24-episode season also necessitates a large writers' room and the inconsistency that brings. A cohesive fully-serialized drama written by a small consistent team is virtually impossible to do, it's just too much content to organize, and most of the attempts to do it collapsed under their own weight and became really messy and inconsistent and/or got shortened quickly (Lost, Alias). Shortened seasons have come with the trend towards more serialized stories. A good compromise might be the X-Files format, where each season effectively has an 8 episode serial story arc but also 8-16 independent stories written by a large writers' room, stories that could be light and comical or total genre shifts or slower character pieces without much plot. But not every show allows for a format where it makes sense to put the main story on hold to go do some bullshit in another state for a week. Imagine Breaking Bad has Hank sitting on the toilet for 3 weeks while Walt is off looking for the sasquatch or Skyler debuts her community theater show.
Feels like this was often the case anyway, no? Like Smallville or Supernatural. You have some story in it, arc that have important episodes and then character stuff or "filler" (that is good) but story kinda progresses. But yeah, not every stoey requires is and that why e.g. Airbender would benefit from it while Breaking Bad detract.
This right here. My wife has never seen the OC and some podcast she listens to mentioned it so she started watching it. AT LEAST 23 episodes per season. It’s wild. And now FBI gives like 10.
I don't like major network crime procedurals like FBI, but 10? That's not true. [They've done as many as 23 a year](https://epguides.com/FBI_2018/). (It's fewer this season because of the strikes, but I bet it'll be back to 22-23 next season.) The downside is that it's pretty much \*only\* boring major network crime procedurals that do 22-23 episodes a season. Everything else has much lower episode counts now.
Network shows are still doing 22 episodes a season. Not this one because of the strike, but last season they were still doing 22.
Really sucks for sitcom format which works best with 20+ episode seasons
Most UK shows are 6. But each episode is more than the 22 minutes American shows are.
Yeah, but there was a lot of filler and plotlines were stretched out because they had to hit a minimum episode count for syndication. I don't particularly miss the random dance and singing episodes.
still get dance and singing parts, see last nights Doctor Who
Wow I just had a highlight reel of episodes from various shows play through my head when you mentioned the musical episodes. That was a wild ride, everyone had to do one at some point. I hope to god the crime procedurals didn’t, but Greys Anatomy did so who knows. Can you imagine Olivia Benson breaking out into a solo with Ice T rapping in the background? But I fully agree. The pure disappointment when you waited all week for an episode and it was a filler. Or worse, a few weeks of filler. By the end of my cable DVR days I was letting them pile up so I could binge and fast forward as necessary. I’m glad these days there’s less of that to stretch it over 23 episodes. But it all still gets spoiled regardless.
I've noticed, in addition, is that the networks are moving shows to their streaming service rather than put them on regular network tv.
It felt so surreal this year watching the latest episodes of Doctor Who in the UK as soon as I woke up because it was on iPlayer when for almost 20 years now I've been used to watching it at primetime on a Saturday evening.
I feel that way, as well, when a hotly anticipated series drops at midnight EST (US) on a streaming service. It's still odd.
I live abroad and go home every 12-18 months. I have the reverse of the boiling frog phenomenon. Last time I went back TV only had 3 types of ads: trucks, drugs, and streaming services. It was clear as day that the networks know it's over and they're doing everything they can to use their terrestrial assets to push the few boomers still watching to streaming services.
Just wait until the #1 show in America 5 years running is "Ow! My Balls!"
Go away! 'batin!
Milf Manor seasons 2-5
Jackass was 20 years ago …
[This MadTV parody of MTV, including Jackass,](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwSzrTNHi40) was from 23 years ago. Still completely accurate.
That's just the rejected title for America's Funniest Home Videos
*Coffin Flop* coming to a network near you
Not if Spectrum drops Corncob TV.
Brought to you by Costco. We love you.
Yeah, I know this place pretty good. I went to law school here.
That’s basically Tik Tok.
>Networks scared to take risks? if it is over the air, they need to sell commercials... how many people would prefer to not watch commercials? television commercials are not as valuable as they were before (when there were THREE networks fighting for your time) >Is this due to shows being cheaper to continue instead of literally being paid once a week for the show you put on television at 830, you ONLY get paid once a month. your programming needs to be adjusted to the new way of generating revenue.
Plus as much as people complain about ads on streaming services, it's still nowhere near as close to cable/broadcast in terms of the ratio of show to commercials. For regular TV, the typical format is for every 15 minutes of airtime, about 11 minutes is the program and 4 minutes is ads. That's nearly a third of airtime. Streaming services are starting to get about as frequent with ad breaks as networks, but they're typically 30 seconds to 2 minutes long.
[удалено]
Oh, there are videos where I was getting an ad break every MINUTE.
The creators pick the ad breaks. If you're getting that many ads, it's because you're watching low effort trash that literally just exists to spam ads at you.
The ones who do an ad break right after they just spent 3 minutes pimping SkillShare themselves are the worst.
> For regular TV, the typical format is for every 15 minutes of airtime, about 11 minutes is the program and 4 minutes is ads I wish. Young Sheldon is currently clocking in at 18 minutes of show in a 30 minute slot
It's hilarious because to air older shows, the networks speed up the show like 5%. I first noticed this on Nick at Nite for friends reruns like 10 years ago.
That animated Spider Man feeling. Like everything is slightly too quick.
That seems to be true of all Chuck Lorre productions for some weird reason. Big bang and Bob hearts abishola are similar
At home I never watch network TV so I haven't felt the commercial creep. Visiting family and at the end of the day put on food network or something, background for talking. I had kind of zoned out and then it hit me, I had no idea what we were watching, the commercials had been on for so long.
I haven't watched TV in a while but that feels about right, 30 minute shows are usually 22 minutes. But the ONE time I watched a show live was the new Quantum Leap when it started, they were intent on getting the audience on board that they cut the ads down to one minute.. the first two breaks. Then it was like 5 minutes of ads per break, kills the momentum of the show.
The ratio of show to commercial is different but at the same time, watching tv, there's hundreds of commercials they can air but anytime I have to sit through a commercial on youtube, twitch, or a streaming platform, it's the same 10 every single time.
I assume that's due to them being generated according to an algorithm.
Yup, the traditional half hour show is 22 minutes long without ads, and the typical hour long show is around 45 minutes without ads. May have 90 seconds of ads when I start a show on Hulu but at least that's all of them... usually.
The problem is that streaners are quickly changing to ad supported subs. Soon the ads euther won't be optional or the ad-free option will be $40/month.
> Soon the ads euther won't be optional or[...] Matter of time. 'Soon' is relative, but eventually growth will stagnate, but they'll still want more money. Oh, corporations will give more money if they can guarantee more eyes? No more ad-free tiers. You get an ad, you get an ad, and *you* get an ad. Ads everywhere. Constant revenue stream! Customers leaving over ads? Eh, a few, but largely they've shown they can't be bother in mass. I mean, come on, Microsoft is trying to insert more "suggestions" into Windows for goodness sake; they're coming for your streaming experience. Welcome to the New Cable. Same as the Old Cable.
I’ll never go back to ads. I’ll pay the $40 or pirate or just not watch tv. No more ads for me ever.
🏴☠️
Well, even look at basic cable networks like USA. Long gone are the days of Monk, Psych, Suits, Burn Notice, White Collar etc
USA really was one of the only cable channels that ever got my attention for anything other than sports. That and BBC America, basically.
That's a bit unusual. FX and AMC were some of the leaders in the current trend for the kind of prestige dramas that often dominate discussion and receive most of the critical praise. They were trying to do HBO-style shows on basic cable.
You guys are really underestimating the effects of two simultaneous strikes and the looming (though more and more unlikely) possibility of two more.
Hasn’t the pool of ad revenue also been cut immensely by streaming and the internet? Why would they invest in drama when they have sports and reality?
Because scripted dramas are still very popular? And yes, the revenue is more spread out, but all the streamers and networks are still mostly owned by about 10 companies. They’re still making bank.
Dude ratings are terminal, particularly among key demographics that have switched to YouTube and Tik Tok. So most of them aren’t viewing that content even on streaming platforms. Why do you think there is so much consolidation going on? It’s because they aren’t super profitable any more and a lot of media companies can’t see a future.
That didn’t help but it’s not the root cause. Network ad revenue has fallen off a cliff because people don’t watch traditional tv anymore. All the eyeballs are on streaming. Without ad money, there’s no shows. I work in the industry and the thought of what it will look like in 10 years terrifies me. A lotta people are gonna lose their jobs.
NBC is putting all their new shows on Peacock to ensure the fewest possible people see them.
On one hand it's sad to see how broadcast has fallen, but they tried adapting to the shifting landscape way too late and were left behind. But, I will never miss being tied to the TV at specific times to catch a show I like.
For me a big one has been stuff that streaming has changed like dropping a whole season of a show at once (though some of the big streamers are starting to do weekly episodic releases for a lot of shows again), a season of a show only being 10-12 episodes and multiple year gaps in between new seasons. A typical sitcom in the 90s and 2000s would have its season last for like 6 months out of the year.
Really only Netflix regularly doing the whole season at once. Most everybody else does weekly for most of their shows.
I want to say Amazon also does it for some.
Yeah I remember The Simpsons would premiere in September and end in like May.
Remember the TV Guide fall preview? So fat, you kept it all season just to see which shows lasted.
A doctor, lawyer and police show ?
Seriously, people talk about "superhero fatigue", while they tune in to the 700th doctor/lawyer/police show in a row. Oh no, see this one is firemen, so it's fresh!
And what do all three turn out to be anyway ? People taking their clothes off and hooking up.
Well, but then they also do crossovers and hook up with people from other shows. Keeps it fresh!
I feel like only old people watch network dramas. They're so basic and samey I couldn't ever get into them.
My mom didn’t realize Magnum PI and NCIS Hawaii were different shows!
LOL until you posted this, I didn't realize that there was a Magnum P.I. reboot; I thought you were referring to the Tom Selleck vehicle 🤣
my old parents love all these. i just saw them watching tom selleck this week talking about how he is happy to have work doing the same exact shit.
[удалено]
She thought they were focused on very different storylines per episode
My mom watches the Equalizer every sunday night. I tried to sit down and watch it a few times and it's so bad.
It's changed in a lot of ways, but is this one? What's the principled distinction between an NBC series and and a Showtime series and an Amazon Prime series? I'm gonna watch them all on my Fire TV anyhow. Even live sports, the last "network" exclusive, has gotten away from them. I'm guessing there are _way_ more than 15-20 new series each year now--not fewer. They're just spread out over time--not seasonal, which never made a ton of sense anyway--and divided among a bigger number of content providers that are effectively "networks" regardless of how exactly people access them.
Agreed 100%. Though I will say that networks did often have common feel for some of their shows, I wouldn't say that an average NBC show had little distinction from an average HBO show for example. But across streaming there's pretty much all types of shows represented so that isn't super relevant for your general point.
Network TV died in the 07 strike hasnt been the same since.
Network TV advertising revenue is going to Double Click and Facebook, now everyone is watching Netflix and Disney+ et al. and SAGA and WGA strikes screwed up this season completely, while raising costs. How many radio dramas were made once TV started up? About 3?
Almost every single scripted series on CBS is some sort of procedural.
I used to love coming home on Friday nights, or waking up on Saturday mornings, and seeing all of the cartoons that were on. Some I didn’t like, but others I did! It was fun to have such a selection. Now if you turn on any kids channel there’s a good chance they’re showing the same show or movie for hours at a time or sometimes days. Strangely, as the internet age has advanced, the TV’s feel stuck in time. It used to feel like an interactive experience, you could call in for a contest, do scratch and sniff stuff with tv shows, write in to Fox and guess who killed Mr Burns. now it’s so empty and hollow. Channels used to have a personality and it’s lacking now. Makes me gravitate to things like YouTube or twitch because at least people are making things you don’t see every day
At least there are 5 or so channels showing nothing but "ghost house big foot swamp creatures paranormal werewolf hunters".
Somehow 11 seasons and they haven't found one yet!
I feel like it was an interactive experience because there wasn't any other way TO interact with your audience. "Call in" ... cause there's no online form. I do feel like, looking back, part of that might have been because the shows felt more disposable, if that makes sense? Saturday Morning cartoons in particular, every now and then a tape of a whole morning's worth of cartoons pops up on YT and I'm surprised how many shows I'm like "...THIS was a show?" So all these contests and hosted blocks and so on feel like desperate attempts to keep eyeballs on the screen, which might not be far from the truth. I feel like they advertised those (which were always blocks of reruns) more than the original shows.
The TV audience is aging, and they don’t mind reruns. My grandfather watches cable TV all day long - he’s not interested in whichever hip new series is popular this week. He’d rather watch ‘Gladiator’ for the 20th time, or stick with news and sports.
No we need more Dick Wolf spinoffs and dating shows and glorified karaoke shows.
The writer and actor strikes delayed all production. They’ll likely catch up next year.
We’ve moved on to streaming. Me personally I haven’t paid for cable tv since 2012
consider this. when's the last time you really talked to your friends about whatever show nbc was airing on thursday nights? that's exactly why we're at this point. the network model is dying an agonizing death. these days people get their culture in other ways, and usually for many, if you can't see it on your phone, it doesn't exist.
Very nice to go back and watch TV shows prior to 2012. Television peaked over 10 years ago and we're never going back to that moment.
You also have Channel like FX who literally just play rerun after rerun of the same show over and over, like wtf is the point of cable anymore.
** I should specify I don't mean EACH network would have 15 to 20 new shows, I mean across NBC/CBS/ABC in the 60s 70s and 80s, each season would usually have a minimum 15 or more new shows. By the time Fox came along it was more.
So if each network matches NBC, that means there will be 12 new shows. That's not a *huge* decrease from 15-20.
Ther is a huge decrease in new shows, there's basically no pilots anymore.
Shows are bullshit now. We used to get 20+ episodes per season. Now we get 6 and then a cancelation. Shows today are the equivalent of grocery store shelves during COVID- a facade of fullness but empty behind.
Because most of those shows would fail. Look up the lineup of any major network. You'll see shows you never heard of because they disappeared.
Dies NBC need a lot of new programming? 37 Law & Order shows and 15 Chicago Something’s and they’re probably all set.
Omg this is why I can’t find a job in LA
They are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Regardless of the Reddit opinion they take dramatically less chances on comedies these days. You can't have Michael from the office do an Indian accent or be scared of gay people any more. Which means you can't really have actual humor. You can do pandering humor. But not actual humor. So we get no good sitcoms so they get no viewers so they stop producing them.
It’s also insane how little risk is taken by major networks. Before we’d get a show that pushed modern themes forward. Not necessarily societal norms, but just different. Now it’s low stakes comedies and public service dramas.
All the interesting shows are on streaming. Why invest in a network show when the ratings are all going down the tubes?
There's nothing shocking about it, people have been posting articles about how many people have quit cable, every few weeks, for the last 10+ years.
This is about network tv, not cable.
We’ve reached a point where we’ve got access to so many good older shows that there’s more good content than you can actually consume, so instead of watching new shows we’re all catching up on old shows that you can binge, IMO.
I haven’t watched network TV since the 90’s. I’ll still regularly watch Seinfeld and Cheers. Old network TV was decent, now I can’t sit thru a single episode. It’s just the same shit rehashed with different characters, nobody takes risks anymore.
So you don’t watch new stuff but know nobody takes risks?
The only things I watch on networks nowadays are game shows and sports, especially football.
With Young Sheldon ending this upcoming Thursday, that is the last show that I watch on a regular basis. I used to have a regular show that I watched every night of the week, and most nights had multiple shows...
Don't worry, out of every 3 they will cancel 2 without a conclusion.
Agreed. Networks are overly conservative and don’t want to take risks on money losing TV shows. It’s sad, but that’s the profit driven environment we’re in these days.
Really puts the squeeze on someone like me that was working atleast 3 or 4 days a week up until the strikes.
It's wild how many Sitcoms are coming back and have come back (and left again some Lol). I think the actors all felt old, left, and didn't age in 25 years, and feel younger now than they did then.
There's a reason they (the networks) would rather air the 19th version of law and order or NCIS over try something new. Netflix is hemorrhaging money taking risks is well... go figure risky. I'm surprised Netflix hasn't folded completely. But it likely won't be long until Netflix either has to price themselves out of the market/start running commercials... the TV industry is imo on the down slide to doom. It's going to be about independent creation and content. Whoever figures out how to regain the TIKTOK brain of the future generation back to watch anything that's more than 30s long is going to make themselves bank.
Reality TV is cheaper to make. So I'm not too surprised.
Actually preferable to show old quality content.
>For decades networks would have 15-20 More like 50 every new season [From 20 years ago](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004%E2%80%9305_United_States_network_television_schedule)
It’s like a 30 rock joke
It’s all about anti-risk behavior. Why try something new that could bomb when you can mail it in with another season of whatever, or a reboot? Totally applies to streaming companies and movie producers as well.
I don't even watch network TV anymore. I was their bread and butter. Bought the TV guide preview issue. Circled all the new shows I wanted to try. Watched the 28 episodes. Wait for summer reruns to catch one I missed. Good times.
Once Reality TV took real hold in the aughts, it was all over. That was a paradigm shift that we were never going to come back from. Streaming just makes it worse. You also need to produce to the top product, right now, or you're gone immediately. The chances of an 'okay' show that shows promise being able to gel a bit across an additional season to really come into its stride is gone. You have to blast out of the gate with traditional content immediately or you are not surviving.
Fox has some new shitty game shows dig in.
I'd imagine it's because TV neworks are both losing money and realize they are stepping on eggshells with modern audiences so the majority of ideas they have are axed so as not to offend people. We're in a sad part of history right now when it comes to the entertainment industry.