tv cancelations

Apr 26, 2007 11:14

I posted this as a comment in a friend's journal, but it probably deserves it's own entry for further discussion ( Read more... )

discussion, tv

Leave a comment

Comments 11

(The comment has been removed)

sorakirei April 26 2007, 15:47:37 UTC
You make an excellent point. By asking anyone to sign up for reality shows, if they are selected they are not paid a salary to be on the show. They get compensated with room and board which in the grand scheme of things is exceptionally cheap.

Maybe the networks and SAG need to rescale pay structures.

For a single performer to be paid $1 million or more per episode is a rediculous. Anyone getting that amount of money and is not able to retire after a single season is doing something wrong with their finances. There is no need to make that much money for so little work. /sigh

Reply

jythie April 26 2007, 16:05:36 UTC
unfortunately, actors are paid what they are 'worth'. The problem is, in such a market, an actor's 'brand' is worth more then their acting ability for the given role.

If you get a big name actor that people recognize and connect with, you will get a surge of people at least giving the show a chance. And getting those eyeballs sells commercials.

Reply


rinkun April 26 2007, 15:42:14 UTC
::flashbacks with Firefly begin to come again::

Poor Nathan. Him and Fox are not good with each other :(

Reply


jythie April 26 2007, 16:03:04 UTC
I don't recall any time within my lifespan when good casting and writing brought in the ratings. Even before reality shows.

But as gregwicker pointed out, reality shows are inexpensive to produce and currently very popular (people connect with them on a more personal level)... so they do very well in the entire cost/benefit range.

We are also talking FOX here. The larger the network, the more LCD they are going to have to make their programming. They can not afford nitch shows with intellectual writing. Those shows tend to get picked up by other networks (gotta love cable and competition! it has worked out surprisingly well...)

Reply

nerdboyhimself April 26 2007, 17:06:29 UTC
Quality television ended with M*A*S*H.

It pains me.

Reply


cotton770 April 26 2007, 18:27:00 UTC
i miss studio 60 which was replaced with the black donnelys which was replaced with the stupid reality show.

*cries*
studio 60 was my favorite.

Reply

sorakirei April 26 2007, 18:45:52 UTC
NBC was going nuts with the hiatus replacement thing this year. I never realized how problematic keeping a show on the air was. I just wish networks would let shows have a chance to finish telling their stories instead of axing them mid season. I'm certain they waste more money prepping and filming mid season replacements.

Reply


celine April 26 2007, 21:38:54 UTC
Huh.. I didn't know there were good shows on the air to compete with the reality (bad) shows. I haven't heard of any of the shows you mentioned.

That being said, I like the Girls Next Door. Clearly, I fail.

Reply

sorakirei April 27 2007, 15:47:00 UTC
*looks up Girls Next Door* Ah. Ok.

As alethea79 said below we as humans have a thing for voyeurism. So while reality shows have a purpose, I feel that many of them should not exist. So much of the reality is false, staged or intentially instigated. Wow I may have been totally redundant there.

As for me I've rarely found a reality show that I do like. I did enjoy The 1900 House but I feel they deliberately selected a family with a mother who would hate being a stay at home person dealing with the rigorous labors of a woman in that time and a daughter who was so much like her mother thus intentially instigating drama. MTV's Pimp My Ride is also a favorite of mine, but I really wish they would spend more airtime showing the work on the car instead of the staged planning conversations. Made also by MTV had potential but many times it was too annoying to watch because they would pick people who weren't up to the task thus instigating unnecessary drama and suffering.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up