VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 19:23:39 11/25/02 Mon
Author: TRM
Subject: I apologize, but...
In reply to: Vickie 's message, "Now, now (said soothingly)" on 08:03:42 11/24/02 Sun

I suppose we are on the "all things debatable" forum. Much as I personally prefer ME shows to most everything else out there, I would not go so far as to say that:

There are just not that many people out there who demand that their entertainment be challenging, dramatically sound, and philosophically provocative.

Most people would rather veg out with a favorite beverage.

In fact, I often like to veg out with a favorite beverage while watching ME shows.

More seriously, I am generally wary of any generalizations, and while I understand that it was probably made more as a theatric gesture, I would argue that there are substantial portions of television programs that either fulfill your criteria or at least attempt to fulfill your criteria that are also widely viewed, all while acknowledging that there are plenty others which are generally very poor shows.

I will take the "philosophically provacative" standard as being the most stringent of the three, and try to examine whether any widely-viewed shows -- a show watched by an "average" television viewer -- fulfills that criteria. More specifically, I will consider the shows rated in the top 20 according to Nielsen statistics from the beginning of this season to date. NOTE: A prior warning about the accuracy of my assessment, however. I don't watch any shows regularly besides the ME trio -- I've probably watched at most 10 episodes of any one of these shows, but more like 2; so if you want to contest my knowledge, you have a pretty fair grounding to do so.

Scanning the list, I feel that there are three types of popular shows that are "philsophically provacative." Politically oriented shows, medically oriented shows, and legally oriented shows. An example of the first is West Wing which ranks 11th in ratings. I know very intelligent people who watch this show, and I will give the show credit for intelligence although I haven't seen it. ER (ranked 3rd), which I've seen perhaps 5 episodes of, seems to be generally a show about drama but occasionally throws in moral and ethical dillemas. There are three shows of the Law and Order lineage in the top 20 -- honestly, I don't know anything about this show, whether it's held more frequently on the streets or in the courtroom, but I would imagine legal debate to revolve on rather philisophical tenants as well.

There is a distinction between most mainstream shows and ME shows in terms of the type and manner in which philosophical questions are addressed. Primarily, most mainstream shows examine a subset of philisophical thought -- ethics and morality -- and tend to do so directly. Meeting of the chiefs of staff, arguments between medical professionals, courtroom statements, etc. But they are neither necessarily more nor less philosophically provacative than ME shows. As mentioned, "challenging" and "dramatically sound" are easier to fulfill (at least IMO) and I would think most of the aforementioned shows satisfy that sufficiently.

This means that, to survive, any ME show has to attract at least some people who are not really its target audience.

I also think its a little presumptuous to think that we are ME's sole target audience. It is possible for ME to have multiple target audiences and the continuation of the original argument actually serves to say as much. A piece can work on multiple levels, The Little Prince, Peter Pan, The Wizard of Oz, etc. I think that ME certainly aims to please various segments of the population and a focus on action (which is undeniably something ME cares about even if doesn't emphasizes in every episode) suggests an attention to these other elements of viewership. One might also argue that ME shows generally have a good balance of many elements (action, drama, comedy, intelligence, ...) but that simply means that ME has a broad target audience.

Responding to another post:

As for FOX, they're just stupid.

I've generally not jumped to Fox's defense, because I understand the antagonistic sentiment. On the offshoot, others have (and I may have as well) asserted the profit motive of the television stations. Fox has mismanaged Firefly, there's no question about that -- but it's likely due to the fact that Fox has other issues on its mind. I can't imagine Firefly being at all as important to the network as it is to us, and it is to be expected that they don't really handle it as well as they would handle, for example, baseball.

My general statement is that, Fox executives are not stupid. They are executives after all, and despite all the Dilbert-related mockery of high-powered business people and their lack of intelligence, that's generally not true. Also note that an argument of "it's a big 5 network and therefore doesn't appreciate television like ----" is also not really a good argument since it confuses correlation with causality. It's probably a big 5 network because it pays attention to the profit line and manages its viewership the best as well as understands its relationship with advertisers; not the reverse.

As for Fox's options regarding Firefly, it seems to me that they have several. They could keep it on the air, they could cancel it and cease production, or they could sell it to another network. If I'm not mistaken, Firefly like BtVS is produced by Fox.

Regarding the first option, Fox would only cancel the show if it sees an alternative show that would succeed better in the Friday timeslot -- they are aware that Friday is a horrible time slot, it's part of their job. Only if the replacement program is likely to outperform Firefly should they really consider it. On the other hand, if Firefly has a mediocre showing, Fox could put it "on hold" which is generally seen as equivalent to cancelling, but really isn't. It's actually a way for Fox to see whether another program would draw more revenues and give the executives a larger information base upon which to make its decision.

Cancelling Firefly on Fox does not mean that the company would lose all rents associated with the show if they could sell the show to another network. Fox earns money off of BtVS (even though it's shown on UPN). It could earn money on Firefly that way. There is an aspect of specialization, that exists on networks which may make Firefly more appropriate for UPN or the WB than it is for Fox. After all, the UPN has much more experience in advertising science fiction television and the WB has experience with Joss's brand of storytelling. Fox's incapacity to market the show may largely be due to a lack of experience. As a side comment, I feel that UPN is doing a horrible job with their teasers for BtVS. Indeed, perhaps it would be in Fox' best interest if another network picked up Firefly because they would earn rents from both that show and advertising dollars for whatever show they might replace it with. In this case, interest from other networks to air Firefly might motivate Fox to stop airing the show and not keep it on for reasons of "greed."

I suppose that was an unnecessarily long tirade, but I'm just a little sensitive when there is a suggestion that someone is ignorant or not fulfilling their duty when they really are. I have a horrible dislike of being misunderstood or having my actions misinterpreted, and I tend to sympathize with any group that I feel is being misunderstood.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.