what are your intentions?
Mood:  caffeinated
warren ellis posted a quote i liked on the bad signal today:

"We have to change the negative things into positive. In today's Japanese film industry we always say we don't have enough budget, that people don't go to see the films. But we can think of it in a positive way, meaning that if audiences don't go to the cinema we can make any movie we want. After all, no matter what kind of movie you make it's never a hit, so we can make a really bold, daring movie. There are many talented actors and crew, but many Japanese movies aren't interesting. Many films are made with the image of what a Japanese film should be like. Some films venture outside those expectations a little bit, but I feel we should break them." - Takashi Miike

i went on and on a week or two ago about how tv networks should stop all trying to be number one and worry about putting out quality product, and people acted like i was a crazy man (this before they believed me an obnoxious prick in regards to that whole jerry orbach debacle). how dare anyone suggest networks not just do everything for money. how dare anyone suggest that an artistic medium be used for art and not just commercial gain

of course, networks go for tried and true formats, regurgitating the old material or produce reality show after reality show. and, don't get me wrong, some of those "reality" shows can be pretty good, or at least enjoyable if not anything of great quality. but, there's got to be a point where the dollar doesn't rule all, where it's better to put out good shows that get a nice critical (and audience) response but don't necessarily get the ratings

but, there's the rub, right? how does one get a good audience response and not get the ratings?

of course, the thing is, what makes for good ratings anyway? does a show have to be number one to be any good? or does second place still stand for something? out of the hundred or more shows that are strewn about the field of network and basic cable television (not to mention pay tv channels like hbo or showtime), why isn't second place worth something? so, the current advertising system (talking commercial television, of course) makes it so that if the ratings are lower than projected (and, how about we get some more realistic projections) then ad revenue drops and money is often even owed back to the advertisers. but, come on. are we to pretend that low rated shows don't still attract advertisers? are we to pretend that even the worst, least watched show doesn't earn at least enough audience that someone would want to buy ad time? obviously, if the budget for the particular show is not covered by the revenue, a network would be hard pressed to care to keep it in production, but there's got to be some middle ground, a place that embraces even more cult series and gives low rated shows the opportunity to find an audience

my ideal system would treat network and basic cable shows like pay cable shows, namely, give them a complete season to tell a story. if the audience wills it, produce a second season. if there is no audience, let that one season stand alone. maybe, stop trying to create a series that will last many years and instead focus on one year at a time, leaving open the possibility (or not) of further seasons. more short term programming, less long term. get your audience to trust you for your production choices (a la hbo) and stop depending on competing endlessly for number one

the network is in the business of television, sure (like the government is in the business of war). but, the producers and writers and actors (like soldiers) should still be held accountable for what goes on, and arguably should be more interested in the art of the product rather than its commercial value. most shows will not be hits. most films will not be blockbusters. most books will not be bestsellers. so, why not do all you (we) can do to make a good product? see, what are your intentions? are you just in it for the money or would you like to create art? the networks doesn't have any programming without the production cast and crew, so, if the individuals responsible for content put more care into it, the networks won't have a choice but to air what they get

or i'm just a crazed idealist?