TV’s dominance is dead

Steven Zeitchik, writing in The Washington Post, wonders if the TV hit isn’t just dying — it may already be dead.

His claim:

“The television hit — the most abiding of entertainment traditions — appears to be dying. That isn’t to say shows don’t have fans; they do, and some of them are more passionate than ever. But according to its long-standing definition — a universally recognized show that gathers a large, verifiable audience and becomes unavoidable in all the places people talk about television and endures well beyond its run — the TV hit is vanishing.”

This at a time when there are many more shows, but less people talking about them.

That’s not necessarily a bad thing. Steven says Ted Sarandos, Chief Content Officer of Netflix, “is fond of explaining on the company’s earnings calls that the service wants to have ‘everyone’s’ favorite show but is fine with those shows all being very different.

Hollywood producer Tom Nunan calls this ‘intentional narrowcasting.'”

An unauthorized Hollywood agent explains further:

“If you’re Netflix, it makes a lot more sense to have five small shows that are liked by five different family members than one show that all five family members can watch together. You’re much less likely to unsubscribe from the service in the first option. There’s always going to be something someone wants.”

Even Preston Beckman, a former FOX and NBC executive, says,

“For 50 years or so, TV was created based on its ability to aggregate large audiences and deliver that audience to advertisers. But I don’t think that has to be the case. I don’t get drunk thinking about how much better the good old days were.”

Steven quotes producer Michael Shamberg, nominated for the best-picture Oscar for broad cinematic events such as “The Big Chill” and “Erin Brockovich” and executive producer of television shows such as “Reno 911!” claiming:

“As a producer it gives you an incredible amount of opportunity, because it means you don’t need to worry about a large percentage of the viewing audience.”

My take: it would seem more niche stories are getting told, but to narrower audiences. No wonder U.S. society seems to be splitting into two camps, with nothing in the middle left to agree on.

Cinema not dead, just bloated — Schrader

As quoted in the Independent while talking about his new film Dog Eat Dog, Paul Schrader asserts:

“Don’t confuse the multiplexes with cinema. The multiplexes have run their course. That’s a 20th century phenomenon that has gone. But there is still obviously a lot of audio-visual entertainment – there’s a tsunami of product. You can’t really say cinema is dead. If anything, it is bloated and overpopulated at the moment. Cinema had a magical deal with capitalism for 100 years. If you’ll pay to see it, we’ll make it for you. Movies are now like painting, literature or music. What percentage of musicians make a living? Three or four per cent? We are now getting to that point where only maybe five per cent of filmmakers make a living.”

He continues:

“The reason I am doing press and going to festivals is to be number one VOD on our opening VOD weekend. If you can be the top VOD film at the (opening) weekend, then you make money. That’s where the economics of a film like Dog Eat Dog lie right now. You’re never going to make money theatrically.”

My take: It’s rather sobering to hear this from Paul Schrader, the man who wrote some of Martin Scorsese‘s best films, including Taxi Diver and Raging Bull. But it’s hard to argue with him that clicking on the top of a VOD queue hasn’t replaced queuing in line under a cinema marquee.