tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2130572569541182865.post8690048683413447799..comments2024-03-26T15:09:47.077-04:00Comments on Casa Cabeza: 5 Things on a Friday: Age of Ultron & Other StoriesDanno E. Cabezahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00514343832663815418noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2130572569541182865.post-40119955583959799992014-10-26T10:51:20.571-04:002014-10-26T10:51:20.571-04:00I've gotta say, I've never understood the ...I've gotta say, I've never understood the appeal of The Big Bang Theory. That's a weird-looking show.Danno E. Cabezahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00514343832663815418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2130572569541182865.post-90717376663706222092014-10-24T12:32:35.290-04:002014-10-24T12:32:35.290-04:00I think network TV's last concessions to youth...I think network TV's last concessions to youth were in animated shows like <i>The Simpsons</i> and <i>Family Guy</i> (which is also why most of cable cartoons are equally subversive). Ironically, variety shows that play late at night are relevant to youth, but they're busy doing other things, presumably, at that time. It might behoove NBC to create a Prime Time Show, for instance. The thing cable does every single time it wants to differentiate from the networks is increase the "adult" quotient, but a large part of the reason that they've managed to create most of the water cooler buzz of the last fifteen years is because they can promote fewer shows better than networks can with a much larger slate. That was why <i>Heroes</i> was so successful initially, because it managed to come up with a campaign that helped single it out ("save the cheerleader save the world") and why <i>Lost</i> was much more distinctive before a thousand other shows tried to replicate it. (Never mind that both shows, as all cult shows do with massive early hype, eventually lost significant fan and critical support; the major difference <i>The Walking Dead</i>, say, has is that it started out with relative anonymity and low expectations, and built its reputation and viewership over time. I think its success at the moment will eventually give way to a much smaller audience, the way Image declined over the years in comics.)<br /><br />It's great that there are alternative models being considered, but subscription-based services are really nothing more than an evolution of the cable model. They're not competition for YouTube, which is a vehicle for selective randomness (which is again one of the key things <i>Family Guy</i> represents, and what <i>SNL</i> and the late night talk shows have been doing for decades). The difference is a matter of structure. In a traditional format everything is put together in a neat little package and there are fixed limits on how long the programming needs to be because of the need to schedule everything. There is no scheduling on YouTube. That's the mobile device revolution right there. Everyone, in effect, is the executive producer of their own show.<br /><br />But I still think that's a fad. People aren't going to be walking around like that forever. Didn't it seem in the '80s like boomboxes would be everywhere forever? Technologies change. People adapt. Certain formats stick around, proven reliable. There's a reason why mobile devise companies come up with something "new" every year. They're desperate to stay ahead of the curve, which is to say, relevant. It would actually be far worse to completely adapt to current trends. It pays to be conservative sometimes, no matter how retrograde it can seem.<br /><br />Bottom line, the networks are already adapting. They've been accepted significantly diminished ratings for years. Shows that would've been cancelled in a heartbeat stick around for longer than ever. It also creates the sensation (the Internet effect) of anything that's actually popular being at the same time uncool (<i>The Big Bang Theory</i>).<br /><br />What're you gonna do?Tony Laplumehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07854455859399339169noreply@blogger.com