Women have long held a place in their hearts for rogues. Don’t ask me why: I’m a TV junkie not a psychiatric social worker. Men seemed to get onboard the Anti- Hero Train with the arrival of Tony Soprano. My theory is they were attracted to the idea of a guy who could eat all the baked ziti he wanted and still get strippers to jump him. Whatever the initial draw, both genders have cheered on a bevy of bad boys from dedicated murderer Dexter Morgan to meth perfectionist Walter White. Well, maybe not cheered, but certainly kept hoping they’d get away with their villainy for at least another week.
I admit to preferring my miscreants on the softer side: praying for the soul of Tommy Gavin, daydreaming about mentoring well-meaning Tim Riggins and – um – doing other things with crafty Sawyer that I will not print in a family blog. But the latest crop of shadowy characters aren’t soft so much as half baked. It’s as if the network execs ran a book about shadowy characters through Google Translator three or four times and then gave the resulting concepts to their nephews in the mailroom for further development. With apologies to House of Cards fans, but Spacey’s Underwood is more schoolyard bully than evil genius. The finale parties for the loathsome-not-in-a-good-way Low Winter Sun must have been less populated than Fort Dodge, Kansas. And if The Blacklist’s Raymond Reddington was played by anyone other than the master of intimation, James Spader, he’d do little more than make me want to take a Benedryl.
I have read recent columns calling for the end of the Anti-hero Era, but that does the television landscape a grave disservice. We can’t have used up our entire cultural allotment of “thrillingly dastardly.” Would we want a literary world without the next generation of Mr. Rochesters, Tom Ripleys, or Lisbeth Salanders? (Yes, badass chicks count.) Of course not. But the process can’t be rushed just to get something on the air. Writers need time to dig deeper – say, develop a character with the ingenuity of Nucky Thompson, the charmed luck of Vic Mackey and the sex appeal of Jax Teller. Now him I would watch.
I have some advice for those of you complaining that it’s hard to get any attention for your network’s new shows. STOP IT! I don’t just mean the marketing; I mean the entire concept of rolling out the red carpet and sounding the trumpets just because it’s September.
Clearly it isn’t working for you. No one could have gone to greater lengths to get the word out about a new show than the promoters of Sleepy Hollow on FOX. Commercials began airing way back in May. Buses were plastered with images of Ichabod Crane, who apparently spent part of the last 200 years at Crunch Fitness. Headless Horsemen roamed shopping malls and public squares in the weeks leading up to the first airing. The result? A third place finish by its second week. Yeah, those ratings were higher than FOX has achieved with anything since 24. But that’s a lot of time and money thrown at a passable 3.0.
Honestly, this isn’t working for us either. Eleven other premiers aired that first week of the so-called broadcast season. I am an admitted TV fanatic and I’d have trouble telling you what eight of them were. Maybe three or four of them are right up my alley. I’ll let you know when they’re made available for streaming. For now, my DVR is as full as I like it to be (partly because none of my alleged friends got around to telling me how utterly addictive Orphan Black is until I’d missed too many episodes and Netflix only has it on disc so I’m letting Season 1 reruns pile up on TiVO until I have enough to binge watch over a stormy weekend with a bag of Cheetos – the puffy kind).
Look, Mr/Ms Marketing Executive, you and I both know what comes next. Series that your bosses spent tons of money developing and producing will be canceled. True, some of them like the sappy and much reviled Lucky 7 will be mercy killings. But history suggests that a few entires would have lived on happily in homes and offices across the country if they hadn’t had to share the spotlight with so many others.
Imagine if Kellogg, Post and General Mills all put out new cereal once a year at the same time. Would we have chocolate Frosted Flakes? Your cable brethren have learned to stagger their season so they are only promoting one new night at a time. And in case you hadn’t noticed, they are not only stealing buzz, but awards as well. So go ahead. Be the first of the big 4 (or are we counting the CW?) to break away from the pack. Admit that the season as you’ve known it is dead and move on.
I’m delighted to report that the digital upgrade of the Delancey Street Screening Room was completed before the end of 2012 with fabulous results. This project grew into an inspiring community effort, with the Foundation’s resourceful supply manager and knowledgable theater crew working hand in hand with cutting edge manufacturers and dedicated film professionals.
Individual donors — many of whom tweaked their personal budgets to find money to contribute — covered the cost of installation, including an additional projection booth window. Station KRON provided the cables, renowned local cinematographer Mike Maley helped the Delancey team with the electrical work and Moving Imagine Technology came up from LA to supervise the equipment testing and training. With full certification in place, everyone at Delancey’s San Francisco Headquarters is excited to be starting the new year in style.
I received a personal tour and demo of the revamped facility and was extremely impressed. The viewing experience — made possible by NEC, Doremi Labs, and RealD — is positively dazzling. The new screen provides a cleaner image, even for 35MM prints. And QSC’s enhanced audio system sends sound towards the audience as well as from the sides.
Our work isn’t done quite yet. To cover the cost of the projector, $10,000 had to be spent from the Foundation’s general fund. Since this is money that could go towards tires for the moving vans, fresh fish for the restaurant and suits for the graduates starting their job search, tax deductible donations for the Screening Room Project are still being accepted. If you’d like to play an active role in this successful undertaking by making a contribution (big or small), you can reach the Network for Good secure server through Delancey’s homepage. Just be sure to write “Screening Room Project” in the “Behalf” box.
It’s thrilling to have this precious Bay Area resource relaunch better than ever. In addition to the digital movie equipment, the space includes a small stage for presentations and a glass enclosed lobby with a wet bar perfect for receptions. If you’d like to schedule an event, please contact Rebecca Jackson at 415-512-5153. I look forward to hearing from you after you’ve had the opportunity to see the revitalized venue for yourself.
The more web-based series try to conquer new territory, the more they walk along the paths established by their network counterparts. But that’s what happens when you realize you have to balance your creative genius with actually earning enough money to keep your program going. There’s no shame in making a monetary move in support of your project as long as it’s a righteous one. For example, there was a bit of hoopla when cult darling The Guild “sold out” last Christmas. But it’s a beautifully orchestrated campaign that ties in well with Season 5. And their licensing deals have helped the long running series stay, well, long running.
With the cost of even simple production going up and advertising dollars harder to find, the fees and royalties paid for using trademarked characters and logos can really punch up a show’s income stream. According to the MediaGuardian, the television merchandising industry took in over $191 billion globally last year. The Simpsons, a show with appeal to a wide age group and therefore suitable for a range of products, was at the top of the heap making over $8bn. That’ll buy a lot of Krusty Burgers (which as far as I know have never actually shown up on a franchise menu).
You can’t just make any old deal, sit back and wait for the bucks to flow. While wall calendars somehow continue to flourish in this time of Smart Phones, most shows are recognizing that they need to go beyond the typical threadbare Ts and aluminum lunch-boxes and think creatively about merchandising to be completely successful. You want to expand the universe of your series and select items that are in tune with your audience. If the conception is inappropriate, you risk the danger of having your latest collectable wind up in a remainder bin between the “Go Diego Go” lead painted boats and the bags of GeoCentral “Sticky Stones” sited for causing intestinal infections.
It’s been a while since I worked in commercials, but I regularly collaborate with my clients on brand integrity. I admire deals obviously constructed by people who understand their brand image and their target market. An Adrianna Papell evening gown promoting E! Live From the Red Carpet? Can’t wait to wear one to my next Oscar bash! The Food Network’s line of kitchenware products available at Kohl’s? What else would I use for my holiday spiral ham! Rick Castle’s latest Nikki Heat novel? At the top of the best seller list where we Castle fans like to see it! Gunsmoke loungewear, Mighty Mouse wallets and Elly May Clampett Barbies? Apologies to those who treasure them, but not every combinations of “beloved TV property” + consumer product strikes the right note.
Children’s television is a particularly delicate area when it comes to merchandising. Almost all of the programming for the younger set is developed with a licensing income stream factored into the mix. There’s simply insufficient funding coming in from other sources. But parents get itchy when they sense they are being sold to through their offspring. Some of today’s Saturday morning favorites are all-too-obviously geared more towards pushing dolls or cereal than entertaining or educating. In some cases, the product came first, followed by a series of what amount to 30 minute weekly commercials. You just have to be grateful when the tie-ins include a book, learning game, or toothpaste. On the plus side, production values are considerably higher than when I was a kid and there are a number of networks completely devoted to little ones. So at least some of the money is going back into the development pipeline where it belongs.
As for the folks over at The Guild, thanks to a healthier budget they were able to leave the house and shoot on location. A thrill indeed. How Felicity Day will feel next Monday when Trick or Treaters deck out in her image is harder to guess.
Most of the discussion I read about the advent of 3D TV centers on the technological advances. While LG, Samsung, Panasonic and most of the other major players have already released 3D capable sets, they all require glasses. Horizontal passive shutters don’t have any moving parts, but you lose half the resolution of your set per eyeball. The battery powered active shutter glasses produce a superior full picture, but they are considerably more expensive per pair. And who wants to keep a drawer full of goofy eyewear just so you can have the gang over to watch the Super Bowl anyway? A glasses-free experience is by most measure at least 5 years away, likely accomplished using a decoder at the consumer end. But for me, this timeline and indeed this path is almost beside the point. Many other factors from production to distribution are also going to have to evolve in order for there to be any there there in 3D TV land.
I had the pleasure of attending a seminar about 3D technology at Dolby Laboratories in San Francisco last weekend. The featured speaker was stereographer Grant Anderson from the Sony’s 3D Technology Center in Los Angeles. As an established producer, visual effects supervisor and digital artist, his talk focused on the thought process behind directing features, but I kept my television ears on. More well known directors are shooting in and thinking in 3D, so it’s safe to assume at least a few of them are contemplating how the creative approach involved would work on the smaller screen.
The initial problem is a matter of bandwidth. Most cable companies already only distribute programming in 1080i or 720p, not full HD. Furthermore, there is movement towards decreasing that bandwidth to make room for more stations. 3D would require these businesses to reverse course, and we’ve all seen how “quickly” they do that. Cord cutters shouldn’t be doing their happy dance just yet since many internet providers are starting to put caps on downloaded bytes. Discs are more likely to be a satisfactory delivery method for 3D content, but it’s hard to imagine that any programming not initially produced in 3D would go through the expense of conversion just to sell what many consider to be a vanishing format.
Let’s be utopian and assume that somehow the bandwidth were to become available. The next hurdle would be changing the way almost all television is directed. The smaller screen and home viewing space provide a bigger “comfort zone” than a typical movie theater for viewing 3D without eyestrain. Nevertheless, the pace, movement and editing would all have to be slowed down. Standard practices of interchanged close-ups, documentary-style hand-held camera work, and quick cuts could become rapidly sick-making.
Further, there would be a host of new and expensive design considerations. 3D is easier to scale down than up and home theaters, not to mention standard living rooms, provide a much more controlled environment that suits the 3D experience. However, stage sets would have to convey more depth to support an impactful effect. And those matte paintings used for low budget background would need to be converted so they didn’t look like, well, matte paintings used for low budget background.
Then there is the storytelling to consider. Television is still a writer’s medium, after all. Providing an enjoyable 3D episode would necessarily influence the tales told. Not every program would be a good candidate for 3D anymore than every feature is filmed that way. But it’s hard to imagine anything among the current fall favorites as a genuine contender for a worthwhile 3D upgrade.
So what are we watching on these 3D TVs? Football? Clash of the Titans? Call of Duty: Black Ops? I realize that for a few of you I have just described the ideal weekend. But I doubt I’ve summarized a line-up that defines a new industry. Then again, I would never have predicted a successful Banana Republic clothing line built around a drama with less than 3 million viewers. So as Dennis Miller used to say when he was still a liberal, I could be wrong.
Janko Roettgers’ GigaOm article predicts a new rise in piracy because of the current economy. I’m not sure where he got the idea that Hollywood is treating the issue as “passé.” Within the Directors Guild, it’s been a hot topic at our last few meeting and headline news on our website. Yes, it’s been helpful that services such as Netflix and Hulu provide entertainment at a more reasonable price. But there are still many challenges to fair distribution that need to be addressed. From what I see, a contributing factor to the surge is a misunderstanding held by many viewers concerning who is affected by these free copies, the sharing of which gets easier all the time.
I learned how grave this misunderstanding had become when I read the comments addressed to GigaOm guest writer Alex Swartsel. A member of the Motion Picture Association of America, Ms. Swartsel’s blog piece accused Mr. Roettgers of promoting piracy. (GigaOm staff writer Ryan Lawler explained that their intent was exactly the opposite: to alert the studios to the need for viewers to have easier access to better legitimate sources.) Readers were absolutely livid that Swartsel and the MPAA were given a say on a site like GigaOm and many stated plainly that they do not have much respect for current copyright laws.
Let me make a few things clear before I go any further. I don’t love the MPAA either, but mostly because I think their ratings system is absurd. (The Kings Speech an R? Really?) And most of what Swartsel said, including her unfortunate shoplifting analogy, inflamed more than informed. Clamping down is a pointless response to pirating; just ask the music industry. Further, I 100% agree that it’s wrong to ding honest viewers multiple times for the same content. But P2P sites shouldn’t be considered the best source for material just because the audience is frustrated.
That piracy has become “socially acceptable” comes in part, I think, from putting much of the available content under the banner of Big Hollywood. As I pointed out in my piece There’s Nothing Cute About Pirating, it’s the little guys who get crushed first and worst when content is distributed illegally. The way the system is set up, the revenue from secondary markets is what helps fund salaries, healthcare, and retirement for over 300,000 workers who have very everyday jobs that just happen to be in the film and television industry. These earnings are syphoned off every time someone helps themselves to a free download. So in many ways, the people who are losing money aren’t very different from the people who are trying to beat the system.
Obviously, the providers need to get real about the way viewing habits have evolved. Finding, retrieving and sharing content has to be made much easier and priced within reason. It’s time for companies to rethink their current adversarial relationships – easily developed when you’re fighting over the same eyeballs and same pot of money – and work together more effectively and efficiently. As the saying goes in the US market, Bulls and Bears both get ahead, but Pigs never do. By now, Chief Liaison Officer, someone comfortable and conversant with broadcast and technology, should be a common position in the convergence space. There’s been plenty of tech giants buying cooler widgets and media giants buying cooler product, but not as much collaboration between the two worlds as obviously needs to happen. I applaud the concept posted by Kelley Mitchell, a commenter on Roettgers’ piece, that companies should start thinking of piracy as a competitor. That would indeed be motivating!
It’s also time for a group-effort campaign putting a face on piracy. Not everyone in entertainment is Big Hollywood or greedy or trying to “screw over” the audience. Many are just doing the best they can to make the next house payment and take care of their kids. I’m not saying piracy will ever go away, but it would be preferable if we could head off this new surge, resulting from the worsening economy, and didn’t generate more unnecessary job loss.