On week nights television felt the ratings drop all over the place on standard network shows. On weekends people looked for more variety in entertainment out side of television which symbolized an escape from the work week. Television was tied to the 9 to 5 culture of America. Weekends were escape hatches.
However there have been break out shows since the late nineties when the paradigm shifted away from the big Saturday tv night. But those shows are on during the week. Most notably, Thursday night. That’s when the networks put on their biggest hit-seeking efforts. This started after NBC struck gold with THE COSBY SHOW, FAMILY TIES, CHEERS, and LA LAW. ABC had carved out a money-making niche with TGIF with FAMILY MATTERS, PERFECT STRANGERS, and FULL HOUSE. But NBC stood strong with MIAMI VICE, a kind of residue from their Thursday night dominance.
At this point Saturday night is the television graveyard. It is littered with the bodies of repeats, cheesy tabloid shows, and canceled shows that must “burn off” their remaining episodes. The only true remaining winner is ironically, SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE. There are efforts underway to bring some new late night competition in this fall. Will Saturday night ever return to it’s former glory? Keep your eyes on the life-support monitor.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
WHATEVER HAPPENED TO SATURDAY NIGHT (Part 1)
For television there was a time that Saturday night was a big thing. There were great shows like Carol Burnett, The NBC Saturday Night Movies, The Love Boat, Mission Impossible, The Golden Girls, Empty Nest, The Bob Newhart Show, The Mary Tyler Moore Show…
Saturday night had some of the best shows. Even though people would go out to parties and dinners and drive-ins, television was at the time a viable night’s entertainment. Because it was the weekend, every demographic watched from 7:30 (in the ‘60’s and 70’s Saturday prime time started at 7:30; on Sundays it started at 7:00)to 11:00 so the commercials (tv’s real revue stream)targeted almost every member of the family. You had bubble bath commercials for the kids, beauty products for women, and cars for men. Curiously not a lot of products were geared toward teenagers. They were most likely out partying even though it was the hip thing not to get to a party before ten or eleven. No matter, advertisers could still do well on other nights with teenagers when they were trying to avoid studying.
So what changed for the Saturday night big bonanza? Technology. And technology breeds choices. Gone are the days of the monopoly of ABC, NBC, and CBS. The first crack in the dominance was the Fox network and then the floodgates burst open with an excess of 500 plus channels to fit every major and minor niche. And HBO and SHOWTIME. And the internet. Cell phones. Texting. And after 1975, the blockbuster movie later re-christened in the ‘90’s as the “Event” movie.
Saturday night had some of the best shows. Even though people would go out to parties and dinners and drive-ins, television was at the time a viable night’s entertainment. Because it was the weekend, every demographic watched from 7:30 (in the ‘60’s and 70’s Saturday prime time started at 7:30; on Sundays it started at 7:00)to 11:00 so the commercials (tv’s real revue stream)targeted almost every member of the family. You had bubble bath commercials for the kids, beauty products for women, and cars for men. Curiously not a lot of products were geared toward teenagers. They were most likely out partying even though it was the hip thing not to get to a party before ten or eleven. No matter, advertisers could still do well on other nights with teenagers when they were trying to avoid studying.
So what changed for the Saturday night big bonanza? Technology. And technology breeds choices. Gone are the days of the monopoly of ABC, NBC, and CBS. The first crack in the dominance was the Fox network and then the floodgates burst open with an excess of 500 plus channels to fit every major and minor niche. And HBO and SHOWTIME. And the internet. Cell phones. Texting. And after 1975, the blockbuster movie later re-christened in the ‘90’s as the “Event” movie.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Taking A Risk
Whenever I hear the term, "taking a risk," bandied about in creative circles, it makes me wince. A guy jumping off a cliff into water is a risk. The water might be 30 feet deep or 3 feet deep. The risk is that it's 3 feet deep and there goes your cliff jumping career!
Writing a script or performing a part doesn't seem so risky in comparison. Okay, maybe you forgot to secure the rights to a story from another source so you risk getting sued. Maybe the show you are performing in rests on the quality of your performance and if it's a bad one, then the audience will stay away in droves and the producers lose money. That's a risk for the producers. Unless of course you were thinking of being hired by them again.
Maybe, because we are sensitive, paranoid, creatures by nature, we perceive writing something provocative or controversial as a risk. I can understand being hesitant about doing a nude scene in a film or play if you happen to have a life long aversion to Bally's. But what are you risking, really? Embarrassment? Okay, so go cry and do something else next week.
I think of risk as something life threatening or career threatening rather than a bruised ego or hurt feelings. True, great writers and performers reach into their core and channel deep-seated experiences into their work to make it resonate with the audience. But then, isn't that the creative person's job? If the job is done well there's no harm in saying, "Job well done," or "good work," or "that really hit home for me." Compliments are welcome. But don't get it twisted. The work is not risky. It is either well done, an acquired taste, or it blows.
So if you are an artist working on a project, be honest with yourself. Are you really taking a risk? Are you being pretentious? Or are you really trying to do good, satisfying work?
Writing a script or performing a part doesn't seem so risky in comparison. Okay, maybe you forgot to secure the rights to a story from another source so you risk getting sued. Maybe the show you are performing in rests on the quality of your performance and if it's a bad one, then the audience will stay away in droves and the producers lose money. That's a risk for the producers. Unless of course you were thinking of being hired by them again.
Maybe, because we are sensitive, paranoid, creatures by nature, we perceive writing something provocative or controversial as a risk. I can understand being hesitant about doing a nude scene in a film or play if you happen to have a life long aversion to Bally's. But what are you risking, really? Embarrassment? Okay, so go cry and do something else next week.
I think of risk as something life threatening or career threatening rather than a bruised ego or hurt feelings. True, great writers and performers reach into their core and channel deep-seated experiences into their work to make it resonate with the audience. But then, isn't that the creative person's job? If the job is done well there's no harm in saying, "Job well done," or "good work," or "that really hit home for me." Compliments are welcome. But don't get it twisted. The work is not risky. It is either well done, an acquired taste, or it blows.
So if you are an artist working on a project, be honest with yourself. Are you really taking a risk? Are you being pretentious? Or are you really trying to do good, satisfying work?
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Haven't We Met Before?
When I was a Disney Writing Fellow in 2003 I read two interesting pilot scripts. One was called SURGEONS which played like high school in a hospital and the other was LOST, a seriously twisted GILLIGAN'S ISLAND. Both of these scripts were solidly written but I couldn't ignore that nagging feeling of Deja Vu.
In scripted television concepts are recycled. SURGEONS which became GREY'S ANATOMY and LOST were blatant extractions of specific shows from the past.
GREY'S, with it's stories revolving around medical interns and their insanely tough mentors, reminded me of a CBS show from the '70's called, well, THE INTERNS. That show was created by veteran television scribe, William Blinn, and starred a group of up and coming youngsters at the time including Mike Farrell (Pre-Mash). Rounding out this group of idealistic youths you had the swinging single guys, the embattled doctor and nurse marriage, and the earnest black doctor. Broderick Crawford was the crusty mentor with a soft spot. Because this was the early 70's stories dealt with were racial prejudice, pyschotic war vets, and the spread of VD often in somber soapbox fashion.
GREY'S, conceptually the same, is quikier. Instead of one black intern, you have black mentors in charge. Though Shonda Rhimes, the creator is African-American, the racial angle is not played up---there's no need to. Meredith Grey is the main character but everyone is given room for growth and depth as they deal with social and political issues of the day. Progress?
In 1969, THE NEW PEOPLE, created by Aaron Spelling and Larry Gordon and developed by Rod Serling became one of two 45 minute shows to air. It concerned a group of exchange students who crash land on an island in the South Pacific. Richard Kiley, the one adult, dies in the pilot episode so the young people must fend for themselves and build their own society. Fortunately the island is an abandoned government installation so there are supplies but no way to leave. The show was bursting with relevant themes like rape, gun control, women's rights, racial pride, and touted a diverse cast of characters. (That means one black guy!) The group was diverse in social class also including, hippies, establishment squares, hard core militants and druggies. Add to this that one creepy episode where the kids discover shallow graves on the far side of the island leading them to believe they may not be alone.
It's no surprise that JJ Abrams, the guiding force behind LOST, is a Rod Serling fan. While LOST deals with a diverse group of people who crash land on a seemingly deserted island, they use flashbacks to inform us of the characters motivations and comment on the theme. Also as the show progresses it moves farther into science fiction territory. If not always credible, the show is mostly compelling.
Three decades plus later, our society is still dealing with war, race relations, the conservative/liberal clash, drugs, and greed. No wonder THE NEW PEOPLE and THE INTERNS have been re-invented. Besides computers and other technological advances, it's the '70's all over again.
In scripted television concepts are recycled. SURGEONS which became GREY'S ANATOMY and LOST were blatant extractions of specific shows from the past.
GREY'S, with it's stories revolving around medical interns and their insanely tough mentors, reminded me of a CBS show from the '70's called, well, THE INTERNS. That show was created by veteran television scribe, William Blinn, and starred a group of up and coming youngsters at the time including Mike Farrell (Pre-Mash). Rounding out this group of idealistic youths you had the swinging single guys, the embattled doctor and nurse marriage, and the earnest black doctor. Broderick Crawford was the crusty mentor with a soft spot. Because this was the early 70's stories dealt with were racial prejudice, pyschotic war vets, and the spread of VD often in somber soapbox fashion.
GREY'S, conceptually the same, is quikier. Instead of one black intern, you have black mentors in charge. Though Shonda Rhimes, the creator is African-American, the racial angle is not played up---there's no need to. Meredith Grey is the main character but everyone is given room for growth and depth as they deal with social and political issues of the day. Progress?
In 1969, THE NEW PEOPLE, created by Aaron Spelling and Larry Gordon and developed by Rod Serling became one of two 45 minute shows to air. It concerned a group of exchange students who crash land on an island in the South Pacific. Richard Kiley, the one adult, dies in the pilot episode so the young people must fend for themselves and build their own society. Fortunately the island is an abandoned government installation so there are supplies but no way to leave. The show was bursting with relevant themes like rape, gun control, women's rights, racial pride, and touted a diverse cast of characters. (That means one black guy!) The group was diverse in social class also including, hippies, establishment squares, hard core militants and druggies. Add to this that one creepy episode where the kids discover shallow graves on the far side of the island leading them to believe they may not be alone.
It's no surprise that JJ Abrams, the guiding force behind LOST, is a Rod Serling fan. While LOST deals with a diverse group of people who crash land on a seemingly deserted island, they use flashbacks to inform us of the characters motivations and comment on the theme. Also as the show progresses it moves farther into science fiction territory. If not always credible, the show is mostly compelling.
Three decades plus later, our society is still dealing with war, race relations, the conservative/liberal clash, drugs, and greed. No wonder THE NEW PEOPLE and THE INTERNS have been re-invented. Besides computers and other technological advances, it's the '70's all over again.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)