HBO Watch posted a great article by Tara Mazzuccca. This may be the best opinion piece I have read relating to Network TV EVER! I had to post it. Enjoy.
Over the past decade or so, it is hard to not notice how HBO and other cable networks dominate the award shows. Network television used to be the standard in which all television was compared, but not anymore. If the major networks want to be respected, competitive and watched more frequently again, they need to take some notes from HBO.
1. As all of us know, the reason we like HBO is because it is a network that takes risks. HBO is known for its high production valued miniseries, for example, Band of Brothers, The Pacific, John Adams, Mildred Pierce, Angels in America and Generation Kill, just to name a few. The last miniseries on network television that had people talking is Lonesome Dove back in 1989. Miniseries as a genre, is a great way to connect an audience to a subject that is talked about for months and maybe years, take Roots for example, people still talk about that miniseries and it aired 35 years ago.
2. Adapt a book series into a groundbreaking television show. Network television isn’t the most original, but they don’t have to be. Network television over the last 10 years has gotten lazy. The five major networks have franchised multiple shows just because of its popularity at the moment. None of these franchise shows, ie. CSI, Law and Order, are shows that are going to stay relevant over time. They are procedural shows that don’t bring in DVD sales or fan addiction like HBO shows. I haven’t heard anyone ever say, “Oh man, I can’t wait until the new season of Law and Order starts.” On the other hand, I have heard people say, “When does Game of Thrones new season start? I miss that show!”
3. Don’t be afraid to show the dirty side of life. Who do the major television networks think they are fooling? It is hard to become obsessed with shows like Once Upon a Time, when they sugar coat the stories and make the characters one note, because it is broadcast at an early time on a Sunday night. Network television dumbs down the storylines so to include the whole family, when in reality, children and adults understood the Harry Potter book series just fine. Network television could take some pointers from HBO. HBO doesn’t back down from violence or sexuality for the sake of the audience. That is HBO’s appeal. They will break barriers and question the status quo for the story. Network television doesn’t have to be as graphic in its sexuality or violence, but the element of implication is a powerful tool to fuel the imagination.
4. The only reality television shown on HBO is documentaries. There is something wonderful about a thought provoking, fully realized documentary and HBO is the king in bringing interesting, entertaining documentaries that resonate with the viewers. Documentaries are a great vehicle to show each point of view to get the whole story of a moment in time, about a person, event or tragedy, that gives viewers a glimpse into the human condition, for the sake of getting people talking and most importantly, moving for change.
Source: HBOWatch
I could not have said it better.
ReplyDeleteThis is why HBO (and more recently AMC and Showtime) have the best programming on TV for the past decade! Period.
I hope network TV will listen, but I know they won't.
They don't take risks. CBS all sitcoms and procedurals. NBC is doing reboots and adaptations of english series constantly, etc.
ReplyDeleteAll of this is so true especially point 3 about OUAT its why my patience has worn thin with that show.
ReplyDeleteI've had issues with how one-note the characters are from the the start too! Some tried to tell me the Enchanted Forest stories prove they are grey and not black and white characters, but I still say the origin stories just reinforce how black or white they are.
ReplyDeleteThe exceptions are the adulterous David and Mary Margaret, but ironically the large majority of fans say they are not being adulterous and doing the right thing! XD
Go figure? I guess they want even more black or white than the show already gives! XD
couldn´t agree more. I feel like shows like OUAT insults my intelligens. The characters are so one sided and become boring after a while. I much prefer characters like Boyd (Justified, FX) and Tyrion (Game of Thrones, HBO), who are both good and bad (a lot of bad if we talk about Boyd). All heroes on Network TV are pretty and always do the right thing. Strangly enough that doesn´t make them easier to care about.
ReplyDeleteSadly I don´t think that Network TV will change.
This is a very flawed article but it's just HBO P.R. so I didn't expect much anyway.
ReplyDeletePoint #1 - It's easy for HBO to talk about taking risks with high production miniseries' because their late night skin flicks and their mindless blockbuster shlock fill their subscriber driven coffers quite nicely. They can afford it. Networks don't have that luxury.
Point #2 - The procedural programs that HBO thumbs their nose at are what keep the networks going. They may do crap DVD sales but they're what brings in all the big advertising and syndication (for the in-house productions) dollars which make DVD sales profits look tiny in comparison. They may not be cool but they're generally more profitable.
Point #3 - "Don’t be afraid to show the dirty side of life." Who does HBO think they're fooling? Broadcast programs are subjected to restrictions that pay cable doesn't have so there's a very clear line of how "dirty" they can get. NYPD Blue was about as gritty as network TV got and people across America had a shit fit because they saw a bare ass and someone said the word "shit." HBO also says "It is hard to become obsessed with shows like Once Upon a Time" but they clearly haven't met the millions of people that are already obsessed with it. It's certainly one of the most talked about shows on this website every week and a big ratings performer for ABC.
Point #4 - Honestly, I've got no problem with point #4. Screw reality TV.
In summation, yes, HBO is a network with high quality television programs not seen on broadcast networks. However, Broadcast TV and pay cable are two entirely different animals. Suggesting that one should make significant strides to be like the other is futile and, in this case, is just a way for HBO to pat itself on the back while crapping on the competition, all the while claiming it's friendly advice.
Agreed. The article has some good points, but I found it also simplified a lot of topics.
ReplyDeleteWow I usually don't disagree with you that greatly , but here I do....I agree partly on points 1 and 2, but none completely... That's pretty rare.
ReplyDeleteOn Point #1Most people I know, in fact everyone I know that pays for HBO or Showtime, buys them for the series not skin flicks or the movies. In fact I would argue most people would NOT pay for HBO or Showtime for those things. It is the series that sell the subscriptions.On Point #2...I do agree procedurals have their place and netowrk TV needs them for ratings and for syndication money. They have their place, but do procedurals need to be such a large part of the network schedule? I don't think so personally. I think there is a middle ground and space for more types of shows than just Legal, Medical or Police procedurals.On #3 we disagree completely I think. Dirtying up a series has nothing to do with nudity or cursing. Network series can be smart, well-done and realistic... and still manage to pass network standards. I wholeheartedly agree that I cannot get excited about the blandness that is Once Upon a Time. I want to since I want to enjoy the mystery, but everything is so dumbed down. As I wrote in a prior post. OUaT is more novelty than substance. That is okay, but call it what it is.On Point #4 I think we disagree completely too. I am not a fan of reality TV, but that is what makes networks the most money and often gets them the highest ratings too! I would say more money is earned by reality TV than skin flicks or blockbuster movies. Reality TV is a money-making machine and often a ratings juggernaut!Honestly I do not think those points can even be disputed. What the author of the article wrote is to a very large degree what makes HBO series so successful To say this is why something, is successful and others could adapt some of those traits to improve is hardly propaganda. I think even procedurals could take hints from the article, still be a procedural and meet network standards and be better series for taking the advice.Personal taste aside, HBO (AMC and Showtime recently) have dominated all awards shows and been the most talked about series in my memory. That's not me bringing it up at work, that's what others were talking about. Often shows I did not even watch or enjoy like Oz, The Wire, Deadwood, Sopranos, Six Feet under and Sex in the City at first and more recently Boardwalk Empire, Game of Thrones and non-HBO shows that fit the article like Mad Men, Breaking Bad, Dexter and Homeland. That's even ignoring the some of the best mini-series ever made like Band of Brothers, The Pacific, John Adams, and Mildred Pierce.Look at any critic's list of the best series of the last 10 to 15 years and HBO, and other cable network shows fitting the article's criteria will dominate their lists.
Lastly, many of the authors on HBO Watch are not HBO employees but unpaid writers that write about TV in general on personal sites - not for HBO.They are just picked up from blogs and websites etc... This particular author is unpaid and not employed by HBO, in fact she is unemployed. So I don't see the PR or propaganda in this if she wrote it about the state of network TV and did not write it FOR HBO..
I could not agree more, very well said.
ReplyDeleteSo much agreement I hate how black and white they are, I hate how unsubtle the show is, and the David/Mary Margaret storyline really rubs me up the wrong way! I wanted to love this show but yeah think I am officially giving it up. It could be so much better than it is, but everything is too simple and not complex enough.
ReplyDeleteI really want a cable channel to develop 'Fables' it has a much more interesting take on the fairytales living in the modern world story with some very intriguing characters and some dark dark turns. Probably why ABC passed on it, not Disney enough.
I get the point about mini series, but I don't think it gets good ratings... I still remember Harper's Island on CBS...and to this day, I consider Harper's Island to be one of the most engrossing mysteries I have ever seen, be it on TV or film...but as I understand it, it wasn't a ratings success...
ReplyDeleteAlso, the problem with networks is, they are constantly trying to crack the formula to get viewers to stick around and the new fad in that area now seems to be stuffing procedural aspects to high concept shows that would otherwise be serialized. (Person of Interest, Touch, Alcatraz, etc.,) But I think if they can just stick to making quality shows and not care much about the ratings during the development of the show, they might come up with better results. And marketing always seems to be out of sync with the what the show is trying to establish sometimes (eg. The Event, the ads got everyone curious about some event that was never really shown).
ReplyDeleteInteresting.
ReplyDeleteThanks for this article!
ReplyDeleteWell I think it’s so easy to agree with this article. A little bit too easy may be.
In summation, all cable shows are awesome high quality shows and network shows are crap, without real addicted fans…
-What’s boring me is the way it’s pushing you to choose a side, major networks or cable TV.
Some of my fav shows are on Cable networks : GOT, Homeland, Breaking Bad, Justified, Mad Men, Lost Girl, Vampire Diaries…
But I also love Fringe, Community, NCIS, Castle, GA and OUAT on Fox, NBC, CBS and ABC…major networks.
Am I a bad, stupid girl or an alien because I like diversity and all kinds of shows ? Am I the only one being addicted to a major network show here ? I don’t think so.
I think some of these procedurals and classic shows have a great popularity for good reasons.
-In my opinion airing Fringe on Fox is taking financial risks, a lot more than it would be on Scy-Fy or CW cable shows dedicated to this genre. Fox tried. And we all have seen the ratings. Remember Flashforward on ABC ?
My point is that most of people watching the major networks doesn’t want this kind of show.
It’s really sad, but it seems being a fact.
On the contrary, people watching Cable TV is looking exactly for it, for something different .
-I love OUAT. I don’t feel ashamed about it. I don’t have any problem watching a show about fairy tales having one-note characters…even if I really think some of the characters in Storybrook are more ambiguous and not all good, all bad.
So, of course I do disagree on this example.
-I don’t watch any reality shows (well…may be am I really an alien) and I like documentaries so I’m good with that point.
"...and not care much about the ratings during the development of the show,
ReplyDeletethey might come up with better results. And marketing always seems to be
out of sync with the what the show is trying to establish sometimes"
So true! I do totally agree.
They also need to stop cancelling shows every year. I'm tired of getting into a good show and having it cancelled after the first season. I've stopped watching new shows because of this. I'd rather wait and make sure the story will be finished before investing a ton of time into a show!
ReplyDeleteHa ha, Point 3, but the bare ass belonged to Dennis Franz, so that was okay. Had it been Scarlett Johansson's, that would really be a network game changer.
ReplyDeletePoint 4: really? Documentaries = reality TV? It's a stretch. Sorry, but the story on Nova about how insects mate is not in the same category as Jersey Shore. And well done documentaries are all over TV land, cable and broadcast and public TV. The author does not score with this argument.
ReplyDeleteThat point I don;t agree with either. XD
ReplyDeleteWhile I LOVE documentaries, especially BBC nature related documentaries, I htink reality TV is the stuff that allows netowrks to keep less popular quality shows on the air. I have no problem with them even if I do not watch any.
**Disclaimer**
I do watch Face Off on SyFY since I love the special effects the show is about.
Great googily moogily! Some one can ramble off a rant when they are tired! By the by, that someone is me.... XD
ReplyDeleteApologies for the rant.
I think there is a place for every type of show, from light escapist TV, to deep thought provoking drama, to historical drama to Science-Fiction... and yes, even reality TV. XD
ReplyDeleteI never took the article as "Hi, we're HBO and EVERY SHOW should change to be like HBO shows because we are the best". I took it as "this is why HBO is dominating award shows and here are a few easy fixes for network TV" as written by a fan of TV and not an HBO employee whatsoever. I think it could have easily been about cable TV in general, but using the specific of HBO is easier to write about since HBO has been at the forefront of many industry pushing dramas.
I think I must be the alien if anyone because I do not see the appeal of many popular TV shows whatsoever! XD
Once Upon a Time I can is the prime example for me. I love a mystery and multiple realities and how they can play off of each other, in theory. I just think the writing on Once is honestly mediocre at its best times. Predictable and overly romanticized drama that is so contrived about 50% of the time the viewer (or at least I can) predict the outcome of the fable of the week after seeing the first scene. This is coming from a person that does not know Disney stories or most fairy tales plotlines either. Not the overarching story though, on that they really do not delve deep enough for me, but I keep hoping! XD
Despite feeling that way about Once I don't want it off the air or think it could be used as an alien detector! XD
Different strokes for different folks as they say.
My dispute with the author in a nutshell.
ReplyDelete1) She lumps documentary TV and reality TV in the same category: "The only reality TV shown on HBO is documentaries." Two entirely different genres. Celebrity Wife Swap is not a documentary and Ken Burns The Civil War is not "reality TV."
2) I argue with the author when she says "HBO is the king" of documentaries. Oh really? She doesn't think much of PBS' Nova? National Geographic channel? Discovery? There are wonderful documentaries on broadcast as well as cable. And on these two outlets you can also find that other, completely different genre, reality TV. And I agree with you that some of these are useful and entertaining, as well as profitable.
Agreed.
ReplyDeleteIf I had to pick royalty for documentaries I would say BBC, PBS and Discovery Networks all rate above HBO.
I can see putting reality TV into the same category as documentary though.....
It all could fall under "unscripted television" I guess technically. Plus some reality shows are more documentary in nature like Deadliest Catch, Pawn Stars, American Pickers etc...
I think most people when they hear "reality TV" think of America votes contests or competition shows like like Idol, Survivor and Amazing Race. That sub-genre has nothing to do with documentaries as far as I am concerned too.
Point #1 - The "the people I know" argument is never convincing. Take the average viewership of an HBO drama and compare that to total HBO subscribers. Big discrepancy. It's the same for all the pay networks.
ReplyDeletePoint #2 - "but do procedurals need to be such a large part of the network schedule?" If they're successful, yes. You broadcast what people like to watch and as long as successful procedurals still rake in viewers, it only makes sense that the schedule reflect it.
Point #3 - I was using NYPD Blue as an example. I didn't mean to imply that dirty has to mean raunchy. However, the more intelligent and thought provoking a series is the less chance of success it has on network television. Networks have to attract a much larger amount of viewers AND in the key desirable demographic. That's not going to get you a lot of smart viewers. That's why shows like Arrested Development fail on network TV and why a show like Homeland is successful on pay cable.
Point #4 - I don't disagree with you, I just hate reality TV.
Even if this wasn't written by someone from HBO, the crux of my argument still stands. Broadcast and pay cable are fundamentally different and making one like the other can only go so far, and it's not very far at all. HBO using this for their purposes is just them patting themselves on the back.
The fact is, these critically acclaimed, award winning shows work on pay cable because they require a much, much smaller audience (and a few DVD sales) to succeed. They wouldn't make it on a broadcast network because they are niche programs that wouldn't attract a large audience. Hell, it's even a problem on basic cable. Mad Men and Breaking Bad struggled to get renewed because Mad Men was to expensive for its low ratings and Breaking Bad's ratings are just bad. Rubicon, the smartest show AMC ever made was a one-and-done cancellation.
The broadcast model can't support a pay cable show. Period.
- I can see your point about "everyone I know" arguments, but I still think the stories point is valid. HBO shows get more discussion by media and within the industry which was the original point. Not ratings. In fact you argued her side of the case by saying Once Upon a Time is one of the most talked about shows. Why? It took the risk to put fairy tales on TV
ReplyDelete- My hatred of procedurals may bias me. However the risk taking and dirtying up is more the point anyway. Risks that are successful get more word of mouth than shows everyone has seen before. Again, you brought up OUaT's success. It fits the risk, but not the dirtying up obviously.- I still say there is a place between too smart for network TV and watered down for mass consumption.- I still don't under even see your point honestly. This article was never close to saying cable style shows should be on network TV. It said network shows can be improved and I cannot understand why anyone would argue that point ot that the at least 3 of the 4 points in the story do greatly contribute to HBO's success.So once again, I just don't see the article saying networks should use cable format shows, or try to be cable format shows. Like you pointed out, because of network standards and the need for larger audiences, of course they cannot BE a cable format show. It just discusses why HBO is more successful and how a few things HBO does could pay off for networks.
Alas (thankfully to you and others I assume) I have no more to say on other than I think you looked at the article in a COMPLETELY different way than I did and different than the author intended. Although maybe exactly as HBO intended it... I just don't mind HBO patting itself on the back.. It's earned it.
But is the system what plays the march, this article is overly simplistic and doesn't takes into account that there are two completely different business models.
ReplyDeleteDon't get me wrong, I love HBO business plan, and the programming that lets it produce, but lets be honest, until the major networks change the way they make profit, thing are not going to change.
Ratings are EVERYTHING for the major networks, and until they change that fundamental base, they have to keep doing what they are doing. They business plan demands high ratings for profit, not groundbreaking entertainment, not relevant entertainment, networks have to actively fight continuity lockout to the point of an almost negative continuity in order to keep the doors open for whatever new viewers can get.
They thrive for the casual viewers, those who can keep sit for an hour and then be gone. You can pick any procedural and if it is competent you get entertained for an hour, but if you catch a random episode of Supernatural or late Fringe, you have no idea what is going on.
Casual versus Cult viewing, and Casual has been proved much more profitable and safe.
Because that's the plan they have and have to stick to it to not crash and burn.
But HBO has proven that polished and daring products can be profitable, the big networks are becoming relics. Cable tv is following in stride the steps of HBO, pushing the envelope and making money of it.
A change is needed, because Winter is Coming, and NBC is nothing but a sickly deer.
Ha! XD
ReplyDeleteValar Morghulis....
"It took the risk to put fairy tales on TV"
ReplyDeleteAll pilots are a risk and OUAT was a very small risk. Disney owns ABC. Disney and Disney-fied fairytales are very popular and have been for a long time. You throw in a good cast, successful producers, and a love story or two with characters the audience is already familiar with and it's not hard to foresee hitting paydirt. Pan Am was a risk. OUAT, not as much.
"I cannot understand why anyone would argue that point ot that the at
least 3 of the 4 points in the story do greatly contribute to HBO's
success."
I'm not arguing against the formula for HBO's success. I'm arguing that applying this formula to programs on commercial-driven television is a superficial idea that doesn't seem to work all that well when the idea is properly scrutinized.
"It just discusses why HBO is more successful"
If you're gauging success in terms of trophies or favorable critics, you can make a case that HBO is more successful than most of broadcast. However, I don't believe that's the only measure of success in television and I think a network like CBS can stand shoulder to shoulder with HBO and give 'em the finger if they want. CBS will gladly take the viewers and the money over the trophies and the critical idolatry.
Can the quality of broadcast TV improve? You bet. Is following the example of premium cable the way to do it? Most likely not. Broadcast needs to find ways to improve that will work for them, not what works for subscriber-based TV.
Valar dohaeris...
ReplyDeleteI think the problem here, is that comparing HBO to other networks is comparing chalk and cheese.
ReplyDeleteHBO has the safety of revenue for its subscriptions, plus advertising revenue also, this allows them to produce more original show with better production values, as even if no really watch it, it still has the revenue for it subscriptions.
Networks on the other hand are dependent on advertising revenue so they can't take the risk that HBO of the world can, they have produce procedural shows and reality television as they pull in big ratings, which get them good revenue, at low production cast. This what keep those original dramas around that critical low but not getting brilliant rating. At the end of the day networks are a business and are there to make money.