Maybe the strike's not all bad. That's what some studio executives are saying in this Variety article. The winter TCA Tour has been canceled already and upfronts are now in jeopardy. And just as it took the lead in pulling out of the TCA, NBC has already said they will forgo the multimillion dollar extravaganza the upfronts had turned into.
But from the network's point of view these are good things, as they'd been wanting to cut some of these expenses for years. What does that mean? The TCA Tours may be done for good, ditto the upfront "events." And that may just be the start of changes in the television landscape we've come to know and love.
Sure, studios will still unveil their new shows, but the whole format may change. In fact, the timing may change, as studios and networks are now seriously considering year-round programming. A fact of discussion for years as summer ratings continued to erode, taking each fall's averages down a notch with them; apparently viewers were finding lots of shiny new programs on the cable nets during the summer and then not coming back. And with FOX already considering launching 24 in the summer due to the five-and-a-half week old strike, the gauntlet has been thrown.
Another tradition at risk is the pilot season. While a deal coming very soon (like today) could allow for a hastily thrown together batch of pilots, the more likely scenario is that very few, if any, pilots will be available for next season. One network has already indicated it has started looking at movie scripts that were never made to see if they could be tweaked into viable pilots. But some industry insiders think the disruption of this pilot season could be the impetus needed to push the networks into year-round development and programming.
Why spend millions of dollars trying to get the audience to pick out one of thirty-five shows debuting in a two-week span when you can just debut your show later when there's less competition for attention? I guess it's the lack of work that's causing the executives to start thinking about the things bloggers, fans and viewers have been saying for a while now. The traditional "season" format is just that ... tradition. And it's being held onto because it's tradition. FOX has shown that you can be successful with January launches (can anyone argue with 24 or American Idol?). There are even solid summer series now (So You Think You Can Dance and America's Got Talent). Sure, ratings aren't as impressive in the summer months, but these shows are on a lower budget than Desperate Housewives, so the books can still balance.
Another thing being bandied about is reducing the number of pilots pitched in general. Or skipping pilots altogether in some cases. Think of it this way: We've reached a point where millions and millions of dollars are spent on a pilot. And then if it gets picked up, that budget is slashed for all subsequent episodes. This lead to a critical backfiring this season as lots of people were impressed with the pilot for Pushing Daisies, but were convinced that once it's regular budget kicked in it's "storybook" feeling would suffer. Luckily that didn't happen, but it means the pilots have reached a point where they're not even a realistic reflection of what an ongoing series would look and feel like because they're working with a budget two to three times larger.
So now networks are just committing to a series based on a solid script, maybe some casting choices, a few scenes shot. Screw the razzle-dazzle of a big budget Hollywood production. If you show me Star Wars and I greenlight it but the second episode is The Star Wars Christmas Special because you blew all your money on the pilot, shame on me and you.
Maybe the networks do need to step back from the "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks" mentality that hits now during pilot season. How many pilots get made each year? How much money is wasted on film that sits in vaults somewhere never to be seen? Does this mean networks may give other shows more time to build an audience? I'd love to see the itchy trigger finger of cancellation go away, as in very few cases is it justified to kill a show after one or two airings.
The negative irony for the Writers Guild is that if pilot demand is reduced, pilot budgets are reduced and the overall network model is changed, there'd be less writing work available at the big networks. Add to this the fact that there is a lot of reality programming set to air now and some of it is bound to bring in decent ratings, which leads to renewal which means more reality and fewer scripted shows on the schedules and the WGA may be coming back to a bleaker landscape that they left. But change is hard, and still it can be good. And some of these possibilities could be really good.
But, like I said, these executives have a lot of free time on their hands now, so they're speculating and looking at ways to cut the bottom line, increase their profit margins and produce a better longer-lasting product. All of this is great, but it's also all just theory for now. When the strike ends and they're looking at getting back to work, will they want to push forward into a bold new era of television or just fall back into old habits? As anyone who's tried to exercise or quit smoking or do anything to improve their lives know, those old habits can be awfully enticing ... and so easy to embrace again.
I would like to think at least some of these ideas will stick. It looks like, at least, next year's "fall season" will be impacted. There will likely be fewer new shows, which would mean more renewals of "bubble" shows this season. And the fall premieres will probably be staggered a bit through the fall, so they'll at least get a taste of what a non-"Premiere Week" schedule will look like. The big money spent on the TCA and upfronts looks like it may be gone for good, but if networks can cut costs there which leads to more money spent on talent and the shows themselves (rather than fat year-end bonuses, right guys?), that's not a bad thing either. Maybe some of the millions they save on the upfronts and the TCA can go to residuals for the writers for streaming content online? Hey, I'm just saying.
Is the new TV season totally lame?
The TV characters you can (or can't) trust with your money
Giveaway Monday: That '70s Show The Complete Series Stash box set
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
12-13-2007 @ 10:41AM
Anita said...
I wouldn't mind seeing a change in the network TV landscape currently focused on flash, mass appeal and do-it-by-numbers over plot, script and flexibility. What I like about the cable networks, the BBC and PBS is that they are less tied to a traditional 22-episode/year schedule which fills in the gaps with re-runs and reality TV. I'd prefer to see 20 good shows with smaller budgets even if they have 10-eps a piece, over working actors & scriptwriters on an intense schedule which kills chemistry and trying to keep the show going 5-6 years later when the magic has gone.
Reply
12-13-2007 @ 11:01AM
Lenny said...
Don't hold your breath for sweeping changes. My money's on the nets falling back to old habits after maybe a year of experimental change, and not much change at that. Why should we expect anything more? They've shown time and again their lack of imagination and fear of anything different.
Reply
12-13-2007 @ 11:26AM
Derek said...
Sounds like the US networks might finally join the rest of the world and have no fixed seasons and just launch a show when it's ready (all episodes are filmed) so that there's no stupid hiatus. They should follow the UK where anything can happen at any time of the year. Take a show like "only fools and horses" for example. It ran for 20 years, sometimes being 6 half hour episodes, sometimes 9 one hour episodes, sometimes taking a 3 year break. They made it when they felt like it and all the cast were available. They also often made "christmas special" episodes. It seems like in the states all the good shows stop over the Christmas period, whereas in the UK it all steps up and there's a great selection of content.
I'd like to see the late night talk shows shaken up too. Enough with the formulaic structure that you can practically set your watch to ... oh, it's 11:41pm, I bet Jay Leno is walking over to his desk after his monologue right now, and Letterman will be having his 22 second banter with Paul. Plus, why can't one of them move their show to 10pm? Oh no, it's been at 11:30pm for the last 50 years, we can't change that.
Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of US shows I like (Letterman being one of them). It's just the scheduling and strict format of the shows that I find to be so lame. They're frightened of taking a risk.
Reply
12-13-2007 @ 11:32AM
Steven Rubio said...
"they're speculating and looking at ways to cut the bottom line, increase their profit margins and produce a better longer-lasting product."
The first two items are true, I'm sure, but then, they've always been true. I doubt the third item has anything to do with the first two, though, not in their minds.
Reply
12-13-2007 @ 12:10PM
Midnight13 said...
I also believe another way shows may improve is to make less episodes. Many shows, particularly shows like "Lost" (which has already decided to shorten thier seasons), or a show like "PrisonBreak" will have a lot less filler episodes. Having to fulfill a 22 hour long episode season for such shows so often give those shows uneven seasons. "Lost" can be a perfect example,(I know many will disagree) but if "Lost" has a amazing season premire, and an amazing season finale, but the other 18 episodes are just medicore, what's the point? The HBO and Showtime seasons have prevented this for years, doing from about 10-13 episodes a season. Before you know it the season is over almost as soon as it began. Short, maybe, but overall the season sustains a better flow of storyline. The episodes should always serve the storyline, not have half the season be a set up for the storyline, which is what you get often with these 22 episode shows.
Reply
12-13-2007 @ 2:32PM
Brent McKee said...
As I recall (probably wrongly) the traditional model of a fall premiere period of two weeks in September is based on the fact that car companies rolled out their new models each year in September, a process that involved a lot of special advertising events on TV, and the networks tied the introduction of their new shows into this process. Now of course the auto industry doesn't operate n that sort of manner, particularly with a concerted advertising blitz at a particular time of the year from all of the companies. It begs the question as to why the television business still behaves as though they do.
Reply
12-13-2007 @ 3:28PM
Thomas said...
Although I like having 20+ episodes of a great series it always puzzles me why the US system works on that basis. It's not as if they're showing them all consecutively then replacing them with another show for the other half of the year. Surely they'd be better committing to 12-16 or so, showing them, showing something else then making another 12+ even if it ends up that you're showing 3 shorter seasons in 2 years rather than 2 long ones split up with repeats as new episodes are being finished.
As is the tv seasons are constantly disrupted by repeats and then there are long months in between seasons. I'm a fan of Dexter but it would piss me off if they scheduled it like the main networks would with gaps between each episodes - that said the huge wait between seasons is a pain.
I would have thought spreading new shows out would help everyone, they could focus on promoting and building new shows, give them breathing room by reducing competition and show them consistently and throughout the year. In the UK Sky One have actually had to advertise the fact that Prison Break won't be on every week due to new episodes not being available (even without the strike) that's how alien it is.
Reply
12-13-2007 @ 3:40PM
Paul Kwo said...
Or even think Heroes, for breaking their show into volume despite the season. The second volume is over already even though the season isn't. There's no reason to think doing things like that won't work. Yeah, when 24 did the January thing, and did the non-stop season....it was so nice. I was raised on Hong Kong soaps that airs the entire series every weeknight whenever the entire series is made for like a month. Granted, I don't think that's really gonna be good here in the US, but still my point is viewing habits is not as square cut as the current formula. My thought when I was still in school was why in the world are all my shows follow my school schedule? Why are there no good shows in the summer when I actually have time to watch TV.
Anyways, just my 2 cents.
Reply
12-13-2007 @ 5:36PM
MeriAnn said...
They need to settle this strike NOW!! I dislike reruns so let's get back to work. Okay. When we all get snowed in and iced in that is what we do. We don't live in sunny California.
Reply
12-13-2007 @ 9:40PM
Joe said...
I appreciate you taking the time to legitimately look at the strike's impact on television, especially after the pathetic fluff pieces we've seen.
Reply
12-14-2007 @ 8:14AM
Will Harris said...
As a relatively new member of the TCA who's only attended one of the press tours, I have to say that I'd be majorly bummed if there were no more...and I say that not because of all the over-the-top pampering the writers get (although it was AWESOME) but, rather, because I live in Chesapeake, VA, and my reason for being so psyched about the tour was the fact that it gave me access to the actors, producers, writers, and so forth that I just don't get here. I'd be fine if they toned down the swag and just gave us a chance to do meet and greets with the cast and crew of the new shows; I mean, really, that's why I joined in the first place.
Reply
12-14-2007 @ 1:04PM
las6 said...
The only thing this strike will achieve is that the networks realize that writers are too much hassle to deal with and replace every show with a reality tv one. And even though the reality tv shows are scripted, there is no need for a "writer" - just someone who knows to what to film and how to edit the footage together.
Besides irritating viewers and possibly even killing off shows, what good could come out of this? It's a strike - nothing good ever comes if you have to resort to a strike.
Reply