More about it - here:

http://www.latimes.c...72.photogallery

That list is kind of contradictory, in that they don't like procedurals, but also don't like serials. There aren't a lot of non-serialized non-procedurals out there.

A-listers going to TV to revive their careers has been around for decades. Did they see the Jimmy Stewart Show? Or Henry Fonda's shows? Or Jack Benny and Bob Hope and Frank Sinatra and their shows?

Music people performing on shows is also old.

Vampire shows can be overused, but then, as long as they get the ratings, they will stay, as any trend does. Vampire Diaries is the only hit show the CW has this season.

It's not "music people performing". The article states something different.

it's time networks and music supervisors reevaluate the way pop music is used on television. No more trying to anticipate trends or stay on top of the latest thing. Instead, surprise us. Dig deep, and don't be afraid to go instrumental only. The is not the place to play deejay; let the music serve the show.

I agree with everything they said. It's all old, overused and done.

Edited October 24, 200916 yr by Sylph

I guess I just see some of that as being a part of TV for ages, more than a trend. Back when I watched Buffy, I would get annoyed at how they would have to spend time showing these pop acts at the Bronze, but I don't remember any critics being that put out. It's a way for these shows that aren't huge ratings hits, which are niche shows, to keep going.

I agree with some of the trends, like no more modeling shows, but others sound like changing the very way TV is made, not a trend.

The "let's not have any show on the bubble"...that's been around for many years. Shows like St. Elsewhere and Hill Street Blues spent several years near cancellation. Fans who read up on TV knew that, yet they still tuned in. The same happened for Buffy, which might not have ever had a second season if fans and critics hadn't stuck with it, among other shows.

The alternative is something like Southland, which NBC canceled before the second season even aired. I didn't see any fans who were happy about being told in advance instead of seeing some episodes and then getting canceled.

Edited October 24, 200916 yr by CarlD2

I think I disagree with every curmudgeonly comment here.

I like how they trashed NCIS2 twice...90s movie stars AND procedural spinoffs. I don't watch it, but it's the #1 new show of the Fall. LOL. This article writer would NOT run a profitable broadcast network.

Curmudgeonly? So if it's no. 1 show, what does it mean? We need 10 clones of such a show? You missed the point entirely.

Curmudgeonly? So if it's no. 1 show, what does it mean? We need 10 clones of such a show? You missed the point entirely.

I agree with you -- I think the NCIS spinoff was a mistake; it's just kind of mediocre so far, the ratings are underperforming, and it's already damaged The Mentalist. However, this is something else which isn't a trend. Besides the L&O and the CSI spinoffs which started out 10 years ago, this type of thing goes all the way back to when CBS made Green Acres and Petticoat Junction because Beverly Hillbillies was such a success.

I just remembered another "on the bubble" show -- Star Trek. I know Star Trek isn't to all tastes (at least not before the JJ Abrams version that the press repeatedly told us was superior to the old show, as nearly anything JJ Abrams does is automatically considered superior it seems), but still, that went on to be a hugely influential and popular franchise. Yet this writer would have basically had the show canceled early on.

I guess I just see some of that as being a part of TV for ages, more than a trend. Back when I watched Buffy, I would get annoyed at how they would have to spend time showing these pop acts at the Bronze, but I don't remember any critics being that put out. It's a way for these shows that aren't huge ratings hits, which are niche shows, to keep going.

I hate it how every show sounds alike and goes for the same thing. Alexandra Patsavas is everywhere and there where she is not we have her clone. There's no invention, it's all the same and derivative.

I agree with some of the trends, like no more modeling shows, but others sound like changing the very way TV is made, not a trend.

Well, something's obviously very wrong with that way. Perhaps there comes a time when certain things need to change. You can't keep thumping out the same formula and expect people to be happy about it and watch in tens of millions.

The "let's not have any show on the bubble"...that's been around for many years. Shows like St. Elsewhere and Hill Street Blues spent several years near cancellation. Fans who read up on TV knew that, yet they still tuned in. The same happened for Buffy, which might not have ever had a second season if fans and critics hadn't stuck with it, among other shows.

The alternative is something like Southland, which NBC canceled before the second season even aired. I didn't see any fans who were happy about being told in advance instead of seeing some episodes and then getting canceled.

Sure. But I don't think this is about not tuning in, it's not about Oh, they will cancel it, why should I watch? It's not actually a pursuit which want to see the fans satisfied, but it's more about sending a very direct, defined message. Just being clear and not telling them OK, we might return, but then again who knows... Bla, bla. This is better. Announce the cancellation when it happens.

I agree with you -- I think the NCIS spinoff was a mistake; it's just kind of mediocre so far, the ratings are underperforming, and it's already damaged The Mentalist. However, this is something else which isn't a trend. Besides the L&O and the CSI spinoffs which started out 10 years ago, this type of thing goes all the way back to when CBS made Green Acres and Petticoat Junction because Beverly Hillbillies was such a success.

I just remembered another "on the bubble" show -- Star Trek. I know Star Trek isn't to all tastes (at least not before the JJ Abrams version that the press repeatedly told us was superior to the old show, as nearly anything JJ Abrams does is automatically considered superior it seems), but still, that went on to be a hugely influential and popular franchise. Yet this writer would have basically had the show canceled early on.

Hm... Would he really? I think his outlook on shows would have been different in the, say, 70s or 80s from his attitude in 2009. It is precisely because of those Star Trek, CSI, Law & Order... spin-offs that we are where we are today. Every single show has a spin-off, and even though it is generally known that it almost always fails, people just keep ordering them as if the fact that it's a spin-off of a larger, more successful show guarantees ratings. And it doesn't.

Sure. But I don't think this is about not tuning in, it's not about Oh, they will cancel it, why should I watch? It's not actually a pursuit which want to see the fans satisfied, but it's more about sending a very direct, defined message. Just being clear and not telling them OK, we might return, but then again who knows... Bla, bla. This is better. Announce the cancellation when it happens.

I agree, but most of the shows that are on the bubble are shows that might actually stay. There aren't a lot of shows that the networks plan to cancel before they even air. If the networks just automatically yanked anything that they weren't 100% sure they were keeping, then a lot of classic, popular TV shows would have never made it.

I think if a show is good, and knows how to draw some viewers, then people will stay with it even if the show has a strong chance of getting canceled. Dollhouse, which many know is dead after this season, has started to post ratings increases. I don't watch Dollhouse but I guess something there is possibly starting to click with viewers.

Well, something's obviously very wrong with that way. Perhaps there comes a time when certain things need to change. You can't keep thumping out the same formula and expect people to be happy about it and watch in tens of millions.

That's true, but I also think much of the entertainment industry is about formulas. TV has done a lot of this stuff from almost the start of the major networks. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

I wouldn't mind seeing some formulas changed, or phased out, but I don't agree with the writer calling them trends. Glenn Close being on two FX shows does not mean "A-listers" are running to TV. Not unless she has a time machine.

Edited October 24, 200916 yr by CarlD2

Kurt Sutter, the creator of SoA just put up a blog post about network TV, thought it was an interesting read....oh and you couldn't pay me enough money to watch NCIS LA or Three Rivers or the Good Wife

http://sutterink.blogspot.com/2009/10/why-most-network-scripted-dramas-suck.html

Several articles like the one below hit the trades today. Read it. My opinions follow.

SAMCRO Defeats Leno: FX Beats NBC, ABC in Ratings

Posted by James Poniewozik Thursday, October 22, 2009 at 12:40 pm

Thump-thump. Thump-thump.

That was the sound of broadcast network television getting run over, twice, by FX's biker drama, Sons of Anarchy, Tuesday night. For the first time, SoA defeated both NBC's Jay Leno Show and ABC's The Forgotten in the 18 to 49 ratings, which, as network programmers will tell you incessantly, is the only rating that matters when it comes to advertising money.

Since all 10 p.m. programming this year must be viewed within the prism of the Great Leno Experiment, what does this mean for Jay?

A mixed bag:

On the one hand, it certainly would not look good for NBC to get beaten by basic cable on a regular basis. In the traditional ratings sense, Jay is getting his chin handed to him.

On the other hand, Jay has company: The Forgotten, an original scripted drama of the kind Jay is replacing, lost out to SoA too. Which raises the valid but unprovable argument that a new NBC drama in the time slot would be getting beat too, but paying much more to do it. (As bad as Jay is doing, some nights he comes close to or beats ABC originals like Eastwick, whereas even NBC only hoped he could take second against reruns.)

Bottom line: I've argued before that the premise behind the Leno show is that network TV is becoming increasingly indistinguishable from large-basic-cable-channel TV. From the vantage point of Leno and The Forgotten—splayed out on the highway with tire tracks across their back, it's sure looking like that.

Let me first say that my opinions are heated and a generalization. I don't have the time or desire to do the long, detailed, thoughtful version of this essay. I'm disillusioned and a little lazy. Having qualified --

It's not an issue of scripted show vs. non-scripted shows. It's a question of process. The reason most network scripted dramas suck is because of the process. For the most part, you have a collection of young, half-bright development executives who wouldn’t know a good story idea if it set itself on fire and fucked their mothers while singing “Cheyenne Anthem” from Leftoverture. So they do what most chimpanzees do -- they ape and throw [!@#$%^&*]. Developing shows based on what they think people want to see. Churning out clones of semi-successful shows. Looking for a “hook” to market. It’s never about the story or characters. That would demand talent, patience and an open mind. Commodities that have long up and deserted ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX and the CW.

(There are some exceptions. Chuck and Glee are all I can think of right now. In fact, that might be it... oh, and Lost, I love Lost)

Gone are the days of the TV visionary. Bochco, Kelley, Fontana, Sorkin, Milch, Wells, Wolf. These guys had [!@#$%^&*] balls. They stood up to network fears and contradicting marketing strategies and pushed their vision forward. The result was great TV. It was great because the networks were smarter, they let the creatives DO THEIR [!@#$%^&*] JOB. All those savvy executives have been replaced with accounting personnel. And when a network is inspired enough to hire a creative leader -- Reilly, Ligori -- they never give them a chance to flourish. It's a fucked up system that has created hours upon hours of dreck.

I have a director friend, let’s call him… CJ, who says the job of a network executive is to turn everything to [!@#$%^&*]. They hire you to stop them from doing that. Unfortunately, the [!@#$%^&*]-turners are winning. Nowadays it’s all about formula. You get rights, attach a hot writer, develop it into the [!@#$%^&*] ground until it’s so middle-of-the-road it has no point-of-view, then attach a waning movie star, throw tens of millions in promotion at it and hope that no one notices that it’s the same old crap repackaged. But folks always do.

In recovery, the “definition of insanity” is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Primetime is an active asylum.

I’m an extremely lucky guy. I have a network behind me that understands the creator-network relationship. Yes, FX has its bottom-line. They are not in the business to make great TV, they are in the business to make money. They do that by making great TV. The truth is that Fox didn’t want John Landgraf to make Sons. They couldn’t imagine anyone tuning in to watch a biker family drama. It defied all research. When John said he still wanted to do it, I think Chernin started to prepare his transfer papers. But FX believed in the show and by proxy they were forced to believe in me. I was all they had. Yes, they were completely up my ass during the pilot, pilot reshoot and the first four or five episodes, but then they backed off. They had to. They knew that the success or failure of Sons of Anarchy ultimately landed on my shoulders. When the show hit its stride midway through the first season we settled into our creative process that we still have today. I get notes, ideas and feedback. I take the ones that make the show better and discard the ones that don’t. At the end of the day, the creative decisions are mine. Sometimes I bend to a note and regret it, sometimes I disregard a note and regret it, but ultimately it comes down to trust.

FX trusts the storyteller. Networks trust charts and graphs.

Edited October 24, 200916 yr by Lucid

I'm glad SoA is doing well, and I get his basic point, but FX can be as generic as any network. Generally, in terms of FX's best known shows (Rescue Me, Nip/Tuck) if you're a white man, middle-aged, and you want to watch shows which put women and minorities in their place, then those shows fit your niche. Rescue Me, when I watched, was more conservative than most of what I could see on most network TV. That's why I lost interest. If FX trusts the storyteller, then, from my experience watching FX shows, it's usually because, most of the time, they pick shows that blur together. When they don't, those shows tend to be unsuccessful (like "The Riches"), and they are probably even more inclined to take less chances.

But I have only seen SoA once or twice and hopefully it's a better show than N/T or Rescue Me have been.

Gone are the days of the TV visionary. Bochco, Kelley, Fontana, Sorkin, Milch, Wells, Wolf. These guys had [!@#$%^&*] balls. They stood up to network fears and contradicting marketing strategies and pushed their vision forward. The result was great TV.

I think he overrates some of them, and he also neglects to mention that they did cater to network fears. Wolf brought in female characters for L&O's fourth season because NBC said the show was gone otherwise. It's also not a coincidence, I would imagine, that starting in season 4, every new assistant or detective was young and attractive; gone were the days of George Dzundza or Paul Sorvino.

Fontana was forced to add an attractive woman in season 3 of Homicide, and to put her in a hot sex storyline. They even had characters on the show joke in season 3 about how their show was being influenced and manipulated by network demands.

All Bochco shows after Hill Street Blues revolved around extremely attractive people. I remember female cops used to joke about NYPD Blue and the amazing life of these gorgeous women with their hair flowing, wearing see-through blouses.

Network TV has almost always been heavily regulated and watched, no matter how much of a visionary was around. And as cable has grown, the same has happened. The stuff HBO aired ten years ago, like Oz, would never be on that network today.

Edited October 24, 200916 yr by CarlD2

Network TV has almost always been heavily regulated and watched, no matter how much of a visionary was around. And as cable has grown, the same has happened. The stuff HBO aired ten years ago, like Oz, would never be on that network today.

This is true. But why has it happened?

HBO had big success with shows that were much safer than Oz, shows that were more wish fulfillment, shows that were much more generic. They aren't going to risk any potential damage to their more acceptable image now that they have had stuff like Sopranos or Sex and the City.

HBO had big success with shows that were much safer than Oz, shows that were more wish fulfillment, shows that were much more generic. They aren't going to risk any potential damage to their more acceptable image now that they have had stuff like Sopranos or Sex and the City.

Precisely. That is why I'm wondering why they aren't using that formula any more: lot of generic + a bit of boundary-pushing shows.