If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Hollywood Reporter)   Cable executives who apparently have never heard of TIVO or DVRs refuse to follow the Netflix "House of Cards" model of releasing shows all at once, still want to make "water cooler TV"   (hollywoodreporter.com) divider line 9
    More: Unlikely, economic bubble, DVRs, TiVo, Netflix, Screen Actors Guild Awards, Nancy Dubuc, Game of Thrones, Ben Silverman  
•       •       •

1978 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 28 Feb 2013 at 6:50 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-02-28 07:02:32 AM
4 votes:
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
2013-02-28 07:40:20 AM
2 votes:
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.
2013-02-28 10:10:28 PM
1 votes:

fusillade762: Also really worried ABC's going to cancel this one:

[i50.tinypic.com image 768x615]

Wouldn't be surprised if I'm the only Farker that watches it, though.


watches it? I've never even heard of it.
2013-02-28 07:02:43 PM
1 votes:
Also really worried ABC's going to cancel this one:

i50.tinypic.com

Wouldn't be surprised if I'm the only Farker that watches it, though.
2013-02-28 06:57:43 PM
1 votes:

Karate Explosion: 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

ABC.

images.zap2it.com

ecx.images-amazon.com
2013-02-28 01:45:02 PM
1 votes:
Much better than getting into a show and having it cancelled halfway through the season.
2013-02-28 12:59:53 PM
1 votes:
news.bbcimg.co.uk

"I couldn't possibly give a rat's ass."
2013-02-28 10:45:01 AM
1 votes:

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.
2013-02-28 07:28:31 AM
1 votes:

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.
 
Displayed 9 of 9 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report