Yeah, subby, ask Drew how much money Fark makes from Sunday night Walking Dead threads and get back to us.

/Like what Netflix is doing
//A place exists for both models

ryarger: Yeah, subby, ask Drew how much money Fark makes from Sunday night Walking Dead threads and get back to us.

/Like what Netflix is doing
//A place exists for both models

I'll get the lights.

ryarger: A place exists for both models

Came here to say this. And it sounds like that's basically what the network people are saying too. Honestly, I'm not sure how a television station could even realistically do what Netflix did if they wanted to. TV has to air at a certain time. They certainly can't just play the whole season in one day.

I am not really sure what subby is getting at. Does he want the stations to just say "hey, we will be airing all of Show X on Friday. Set your DVRs to record it"?

vwarb: ryarger: A place exists for both models

Came here to say this. And it sounds like that's basically what the network people are saying too. Honestly, I'm not sure how a television station could even realistically do what Netflix did if they wanted to. TV has to air at a certain time. They certainly can't just play the whole season in one day.

I am not really sure what subby is getting at. Does he want the stations to just say "hey, we will be airing all of Show X on Friday. Set your DVRs to record it"?

Network shows are increasingly available on demand in certain areas. With the provided commercial interruptions as from the airing. I think Subby is attempting to find a place where networks agree to a season rather than to episodes and thereby giving television a chance, rather than the shows that hit their stride mid-season. If they can. The age old example now is "Would Firefly be canceled now?" If viewers did not have to dedicate a friday night to viewing it, could the series have lasted longer? With on demand access with commercials, chances are much higher. This exists now, and not then. A quality show that hit its stride late despite a good viewing in a shiatty timeslot. Does that mean that all TV needs to invest in a full season? No. But the gains could be much higher with the netflix point of view.

/HBO and premiums, unlikely. They invest in seasons fairly early. They are the beta for the new age, but stuck in a relic of the past.

The networks could get into the streaming market with shows they want to test or cheaper shows that they want to move from on air to streaming.  They could use streaming as a minor league and maybe horrible shows will be weeded out before NBC puts them on air.  Networks should learn from the music industry.  Dont fight the internet and new technology, work with it and find ways to reach more people.  Not sure how popular the mass release will be as people might stop talking about a show far quicker than normal.  Bunch releasing of 3-4 episodes every week would work for me.

Something that often gets overlooked in these discussions is the bizarre desire of American networks to run 20-24 episodes per season. These "water cooler" discussions treasured by network executives can't happen when shows are on mid-season hiatus or bumped out of their normal time slots for sports, reality show specials, or award ceremonies.

The broadcast networks should strongly consider what British series/premium channel series/a handful of cable networks are doing - no more than 10-12 episodes in a season. Then shows can be run continuously for 12 weeks, all the fluff and filler episodes can be discarded completely, and the audience will be begging for more. But when our dramas and comedies are hitting the 100-episode mark after 5 years... well, there are only so many stories to tell in such a short amount of time.

Malky: Networks should learn from the music industry.  Dont fight the internet and new technology, work with it and find ways to reach more people.

To paraphrase something I heard recently... if the industry isn't happy with change today, they'll be even less happy with irrelevance tomorrow.

Every single time I torrent a tv show because it isn't on On Demand I send an email to Brian Roberts, Comcast's CEO.

It's always the same message, with a link to the torrent.

It's a stupid and pointless endeavor, but it's all I got.

clkeagle: Something that often gets overlooked in these discussions is the bizarre desire of American networks to run 20-24 episodes per season. These "water cooler" discussions treasured by network executives can't happen when shows are on mid-season hiatus or bumped out of their normal time slots for sports, reality show specials, or award ceremonies.

The broadcast networks should strongly consider what British series/premium channel series/a handful of cable networks are doing - no more than 10-12 episodes in a season. Then shows can be run continuously for 12 weeks, all the fluff and filler episodes can be discarded completely, and the audience will be begging for more. But when our dramas and comedies are hitting the 100-episode mark after 5 years... well, there are only so many stories to tell in such a short amount of time.

Malky: Networks should learn from the music industry.  Dont fight the internet and new technology, work with it and find ways to reach more people.

To paraphrase something I heard recently... if the industry isn't happy with change today, they'll be even less happy with irrelevance tomorrow.

Why run 10 episodes when you can sell commercials to 20?

In reality, the current model has killed a lot of shows for my wife and I. First, we are limited to 2 shows per time slot with our current dvr. If a new show, no matter my interest, is on at a time where a current favorite is, bummer, won't be watching it.

I also hate getting screwed by investing a few hours into a show, and then having it get canceled. I'm looking at you, Fox.

Right now, we are watching HoC at our own pace. It's nice. With a 4 yr old, we never know when we may have a free hour open, so not having to worry about when the new episode airs is nice.

At my office, the water cooler thing is relegated to Monday or Tuesday, by then, everyone's caught up on last week's TV on their DVR.

Something something Kate Mara in the white dress thread

I want pretty much every show to follow that model.  I went from watching HoC finale to watching the Suits finale.  Absolutely no comparison.

Already Disturbed: Something something Kate Mara in the white dress thread

ruined by her receiving Spacey oral sex while talking to her dad.  eeeewwwww

ryarger: //A place exists for both models

And we're done

Nobody drinks from a water cooler anymore, they use bottles.

clkeagle: The broadcast networks should strongly consider what British series/premium channel series/a handful of cable networks are doing - no more than 10-12 episodes in a season. Then shows can be run continuously for 12 weeks, all the fluff and filler episodes can be discarded completely, and the audience will be begging for more. But when our dramas and comedies are hitting the 100-episode mark after 5 years... well, there are only so many stories to tell in such a short amount of time.

Not sure if you realize, but the way the british model can support that kind of thing, is because any home in the UK with a television is required to pay a licence fee. It is around 150 pounds per year per household and the money goes to support the BBC. I imagine most Americans would lose their shiat if they had to pay a government tax to own a tv, and that money went to develop tv programming. Plus the number of channels in the UK is way smaller than what we have in north america, so the talent pool isn't massively diluted and you can just have the good writers writing good shows, without having 100's of other channels that need to develop content too.

As far as the netflix thing goes, I imagine the budget for a cable show is probably significantly higher than the budget for something only on netflix. The same way the budget for a network show is usually significantly higher than a cable show. It is all about the number of viewers you can get. I mean it appears that netflix only has around 27 million subscribers. AMC on the other hand has over 100 million. And even with AMC in over 100 million homes Mad Men only gets around 4 million viewers. Yes it is a different business model, but ratings are still a big factor.

Having marathoned several series, now; I find doing so reduces most series to what seems like a few episodes. I toss out all the forced family drama of Homeland and it seems like a movie of the week.

How's that "making a profit" thing working out for Netflix so far?

House of Cards was great (except for the endless "Robin Wright and the artist" subplot.

But I watched it all, it's done for me for a while. I much prefer fewer episode releases over longer period of time. It gets people invested, and talking about the show.

Also watched Lillyhammer w Steve Van Zandt. Pretty good as well.

I agree with the top post.

But here's another piece of advice for cable (and broadcast) networks: take some damned risks, but the RIGHT risks. The more you dilute your original programming, and cancel everything good to make way for more lame reality shows, the less of a chance you're going to have making "water cooler TV".

You think AMC plays it safe? FX? Hell, even the USA network - which was once a mere step above flyover-state UHF channels (look it up, kids) - has been ballsier at times than broadcast networks.

One of those risks you could take is not screwing with a good thing. What ain't broke doing need fixin'.

Lernaeus: which was once a mere step above flyover-state UHF channels (look it up, kids)

"Welcome to USA's Up All Night with Rhonda!....also known as tits and ass hour!"

mechgreg:

Not sure if you realize, but the way the british model can support that kind of thing, is because any home in the UK with a television is required to pay a licence fee. It is around 150 pounds per year per household and the money goes to support the BBC.

The British model for series production (short seasons and relatively short runs of seasons) tends to apply across all channels in the UK, not just the BBC. See Downton Abbey by ITV or The IT Crowd by Channel 4 for examples, neither of which are funded by the TV license.

Lernaeus: You think AMC plays it safe? FX? Hell, even the USA network - which was once a mere step above flyover-state UHF channels (look it up, kids) - has been ballsier at times than broadcast networks.

That goes to the budgets and ratings. It is a lot easier to take risks when budgets are small and there is less money to be lost. Networks on the other hand have bigger budgets and hate to take risks. The perfect example is Lost. Probably one of the biggest hits of the last decade. Lloyd Braun was head of NBC who thought up the concept of the show and gave the greenlight for the 13 million dollar pilot. Even though the show was a hit he got fired for taking a huge risk.

Target Builder: The British model for series production (short seasons and relatively short runs of seasons) tends to apply across all channels in the UK, not just the BBC. See Downton Abbey by ITV or The IT Crowd by Channel 4 for examples, neither of which are funded by the TV license.

But in the UK there are still way fewer channels so the writing pool is much less diluted. So you don't have talented writers stuck writing crap shows. Plus the rules for content are much more relaxed in the UK. I mean if you look at the episodes of the US version of the office vs the Uk version, there are at least a few episodes where the basic plots yet the uk episodes are so much dirtier and can get away with more stuff.

Plus the UK seems to love reality TV, even more than the us. So they can use that to fill holes in the schedule. When I was in London back in 09 Big brother was on every night in prime time, plus a late night show, plus a morning talk show that was all about big brother.

There is also the fact that in the UK they can fill their schedule with shows from the US that are proven hits. It wouldn't really work as well if a US network tried the same thing.

Hebalo: How's that "making a profit" thing working out for Netflix so far?

House of Cards was great (except for the endless "Robin Wright and the artist" subplot.

But I watched it all, it's done for me for a while. I much prefer fewer episode releases over longer period of time. It gets people invested, and talking about the show.

Also watched Lillyhammer w Steve Van Zandt. Pretty good as well.

I think their ultimate goal is 12 shows and they release one a month. Even if you don't like everyone you figure "why cancel if the show i like is going to start in 6 weeks" and you end up with a year subscription even if you only like 4-8 shows.

I've tried watching The Walking Dead one episode at a time, and it is a horrible experience.  The comics were a good book I didn't want to put down (and I didn't!)  I'll wait until Netflix picks up season 3 and watch them all at once, while multitasking on my laptop during the boring moments, the way these shows were intended.

mechgreg:

But in the UK there are still way fewer channels so the writing pool is much less diluted. So you don't have talented writers stuck writing crap shows.

Hmm... There are a lot more channels than there used to be.

Plus the UK seems to love reality TV, even more than the us. So they can use that to fill holes in the schedule. When I was in London back in 09 Big brother was on every night in prime time, plus a late night show, plus a morning talk show that was all about big brother.

Big Brother is a bit of a special case - but they do have a lot of filler shows, like soap operas, that run forever with a new episode each day which helps take pressure of filling programming slots. I have no idea why people like them but they seem to be popular.

There is also the fact that in the UK they can fill their schedule with shows from the US that are proven hits. It wouldn't really work as well if a US network tried the same thing.

Good point - that certainly helps with filling time in a big way.

There is also a big difference in reasons why series are cancelled. In the US it seems they will keep running seasons well past their sell-by date until ad revenue no longer supports production or another show comes up that will make more money. In the UK there seems to be a preference to end a series when the show is still good but there isn't a solid direction to take it in for the next season - often the choice to end a series is made by the show's writers/creators rather than the networks as they don't want to have to start jumping the shark.

I have an HBO on demand login even though I do not have HBO or cable TV for that matter and when Game of Thrones starts up a new season I will wait until the season is over then watch every episode over a weekend. I do the same with pretty much all shows that I watch.

So when does season 2 of HoC start?  Only downside to releasing the whole season at once is how quickly I hurry through the episodes leaving myself nothing good to watch.

mechgreg: Lernaeus: You think AMC plays it safe? FX? Hell, even the USA network - which was once a mere step above flyover-state UHF channels (look it up, kids) - has been ballsier at times than broadcast networks.

That goes to the budgets and ratings. It is a lot easier to take risks when budgets are small and there is less money to be lost. Networks on the other hand have bigger budgets and hate to take risks. The perfect example is Lost. Probably one of the biggest hits of the last decade. Lloyd Braun was head of NBC who thought up the concept of the show and gave the greenlight for the 13 million dollar pilot. Even though the show was a hit he got fired for taking a huge risk.

OH that Lloyd Braun!  He is something!

poughdrew: I've tried watching The Walking Dead one episode at a time, and it is a horrible experience.  The comics were a good book I didn't want to put down (and I didn't!)  I'll wait until Netflix picks up season 3 and watch them all at once, while multitasking on my laptop during the boring moments, the way these shows were intended.

I DVR them and usually watch 2 or 3 episodes at a time.

True Blood is a show I can do one episode at a time and feel content.  The Americans also just hooked me.

dletter: vwarb: ryarger: A place exists for both models

Came here to say this. And it sounds like that's basically what the network people are saying too. Honestly, I'm not sure how a television station could even realistically do what Netflix did if they wanted to. TV has to air at a certain time. They certainly can't just play the whole season in one day.

I am not really sure what subby is getting at. Does he want the stations to just say "hey, we will be airing all of Show X on Friday. Set your DVRs to record it"?

I think the point many people say is "why" do you need networks at all in todays technology?   When all we had was a one-way signal that could only go out on a limited number of bandwidths to devices to receive them, then, yes, that "Watch All in the Family on Saturday @ 8pm!" model was what had to work.    And that model of "watch when we send it to you" was ingrained in people's heads from movie theatre times and other forms of live entertainment times.

But, now, other than "truly" live events (like sports or awards shows), the concept that you have to "drip, drip, drip" out an already recorded TV series is getting outdated.  Obviously, for the people that control the content, if they still want to deliver it that way that is fine, and they believe it gives the series more "hype" that way.   But, IMO, the Netflix/House of Cards model will be the norm in 20 years, not the exception.

No, a "TV station" can't do what Netflix did... but, traditional "TV stations" are a 20th century analog interface, which is not the direction society is going.

Maybe it's because most people like the current model. They like that television is delivered to them rather than having to seek it out themselves.

Television isn't like the movies. Most shows are meant to be watched in installments. Sure, there are some show that binge well (Homeland was mentioned earlier), but many shows aren't. I wish I hadn't binged Oz because that's a show that works much better when you have time to sit and decompress between each episode, and it's especially hurt by jumping straight from one season to the next.

In othe words, sure, your way may work for you, but the current model is liked by far more people.

So what is Sen Frank Underwood/Kevin Spacey end goal?

I feel dumb for asking but what is Underwoods real goal?  It seems at the beginning of the show that Underwood wanted to take down the President as petty revenge for getting passed over for the Sec of State position but then it seemed like he was still trying to get the Sec of State position.

I get that Russo was a pawn that Underwood was using but for what?  Was he really trying to get Russo the governor's position or was it just a move to get the VP to withdraw from office and run for governor?  I originally thought he wanted Russo to be governor so that if Underwood ran for president he would have a good VP candidate that would do whatever he wanted.

What does Undewood want?  And what's Claire's goal for her charity?  Does she really want to help people or is it an excuse to spend time with the photographer that she loves?

Who would you pick: Robin Wright or Kate Mara?

Me, I'd go with Robin as Princess Buttercup still looks good at 50!

tdyak: True Blood is a show I can do one episode at a time and feel content. The Americans also just hooked me.

The pacing of Americans works better with no commercial breaks. There are times where the show builds up and then you get a commercial break, come back, and it feels like the air has been let out of the balloon. I couldn't get into watching it live, but streaming the show..totally into it now.

I am Wee Todd Ed: What does Undewood want? And what's Claire's goal for her charity? Does she really want to help people or is it an excuse to spend time with the photographer that she loves?

Scorched earth policy until he gets his way

As for Claire, I think you answered that one already.

NASAM: mechgreg: Lernaeus: You think AMC plays it safe? FX? Hell, even the USA network - which was once a mere step above flyover-state UHF channels (look it up, kids) - has been ballsier at times than broadcast networks.

That goes to the budgets and ratings. It is a lot easier to take risks when budgets are small and there is less money to be lost. Networks on the other hand have bigger budgets and hate to take risks. The perfect example is Lost. Probably one of the biggest hits of the last decade. Lloyd Braun was head of NBC who thought up the concept of the show and gave the greenlight for the 13 million dollar pilot. Even though the show was a hit he got fired for taking a huge risk.

OH that Lloyd Braun!  He is something!

[encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com image 259x194]

Funny thing is the seinfeld character is actually named after the TV exec, since the real guy used to be Larry David's lawyer/manager.

I am Wee Todd Ed: I feel dumb for asking but what is Underwoods real goal? It seems at the beginning of the show that Underwood wanted to take down the President as petty revenge for getting passed over for the Sec of State position but then it seemed like he was still trying to get the Sec of State position.

He wants to be the President. Seriously, how can you watch the whole show and not get that. Pretty much everyone he talks to or makes a deal with is simply a chess piece for him. Russo was used to move the VP out of the way, and make room for Underwood in that position. If you look at pretty much any deal he makes, the goal is always to remove someone from his path, or change something so he can get what he wants.

As for the artist guy? Not sure, that was the worst sub-plot I've seen in a while. Boring as shiat.

dletter: rugman11: In othe words, sure, your way may work for you, but the current model is liked by far more older people.

You forgot a word.

I will guess if you ask another under 25 how many shows they watch at the time they are "supposed" to watch it.... it will be pretty low.   Heck, many are not even really aware "what" channel a certain show they like is on, they just know they watch it on Hulu or ITunes, or whatever.

But, we might be talking about "similar" things here.... I don't disagree that shows might not be "released" in segments.  Something Netflix could have done with House of Cards is "release" a new episode weekly on Sundays at 8pm let's say.   But, that still doesn't mean they own a "channel" they are "broadcasting" it over, it just means it now "becomes available".   I guess that is what I am more thinking will be "dead" in 20-30 years... the concept that you need to go to "Channel X" to watch this at 8pm on Sundays.  That concept is already pretty outdated, with DVRs and on demand and Hulu, etc, but, I think the concept of a "channel" will die off in the next generation or so.

I don't know. I'm 30 and there's something nice about knowing that my shows are going to air at the same time every week. Sure, I may not watch it at that time, but I know that I can and that even if I don't, it'll be there on my DVR waiting for me. I don't have to fire up my PS3 like I do for Netflix or torrents. I don't have to find it On Demand, it's just there waiting.

I mean your example of Netflix releasing HoC at a certain time each week isn't really any different than CBS "releasing" a show over the air at a certain time each week.

Hebalo: As for the artist guy? Not sure, that was the worst sub-plot I've seen in a while. Boring as shiat.

I think I understood it's purpose of establishing their weird relationship and that her loyalty flag can waiver (although that was best accomplished by her job destroying the water act vote).  Maybe its just really good fuel for season 2?

but yeah, boring as hell even considering its a show about politics.

mechgreg: NASAM: mechgreg: Lernaeus: You think AMC plays it safe? FX? Hell, even the USA network - which was once a mere step above flyover-state UHF channels (look it up, kids) - has been ballsier at times than broadcast networks.

That goes to the budgets and ratings. It is a lot easier to take risks when budgets are small and there is less money to be lost. Networks on the other hand have bigger budgets and hate to take risks. The perfect example is Lost. Probably one of the biggest hits of the last decade. Lloyd Braun was head of NBC who thought up the concept of the show and gave the greenlight for the 13 million dollar pilot. Even though the show was a hit he got fired for taking a huge risk.

OH that Lloyd Braun!  He is something!

[encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com image 259x194]

Funny thing is the seinfeld character is actually named after the TV exec, since the real guy used to be Larry David's lawyer/manager.

Yep.
Also, Alec Berg is named after one of the producers.

"I couldn't possibly give a rat's ass."

Hebalo: I am Wee Todd Ed: I feel dumb for asking but what is Underwoods real goal? It seems at the beginning of the show that Underwood wanted to take down the President as petty revenge for getting passed over for the Sec of State position but then it seemed like he was still trying to get the Sec of State position.

He wants to be the President. Seriously, how can you watch the whole show and not get that. Pretty much everyone he talks to or makes a deal with is simply a chess piece for him. Russo was used to move the VP out of the way, and make room for Underwood in that position. If you look at pretty much any deal he makes, the goal is always to remove someone from his path, or change something so he can get what he wants.

As for the artist guy? Not sure, that was the worst sub-plot I've seen in a while. Boring as shiat.

The whole Claire/Artist guy subplot is kind of boring.  Seems like she had a thing with him years ago and wanted to rekindle it and did.  Frank doesn't seem to care as they kind of have an open relationship.  I guess Claire was once caring and generally wanted to help people but then met Frank and changed.  Claire is just as cold as Frank but she does show some pangs of regret.  But the weird hospital scene with the dying secret service agent was kind of disturbing and makes me not like her as a character.  What does she really want to do with the charity.

Frank and the cadet buddy from the citadel had a homosexual encounter, right?  They get drunk in the library and kind of get waaay to close for two buddies, y'know.  NTTAWWT...just wanted to confirm that I didn't read more into that scene than what was there.

As far as running for president, I kind of figured that out later but I also thought he was getting revenge by undermining the presidents agenda without appearing to do so.  Still a really good show.

Is Claire having the artists's kid? I watch this show but I'm usually doing something else while I am, checking email, cleaning the house, etc.,.  So I sometimes miss stuff.

Much better than getting into a show and having it cancelled halfway through the season.

rugman11: I mean your example of Netflix releasing HoC at a certain time each week isn't really any different than CBS "releasing" a show over the air at a certain time each week.

HoC's episodes weren't released one at a time - all 13 episodes were released on the same day.

Eh, releasing episodes 1x per week doesn't bother me at all, as I typically won't watch back to back of the same show in 1 sitting anyhow.

I guess the only positive thing I can say is that so far, HoC has been quite good (5 episodes in), and I do hope it's a sign of further similar programming from Netflix.

It also makes me wish that HBO wasn't tied to cable.   Eventually, they'll wish the same thing, if they don't already.

Good luck making an effects-heavy sci-fi (think SG-1) show like that, subby.