"Once waiting is history, will quality television still pack the same cultural punch?"

[number8]

The strategy may gut some media conglomerates along the way and could prove too costly for even a cash-rich company like Netflix to sustain, but one thing is certain: It will make a lot of viewers—bingeing on brand-new shows made by the hottest writers, directors, and producers—deliriously happy. "This is the direction that storytelling is evolving, where you're going to have the most interesting story lines, the most interesting characters," says Spacey, who is also an executive producer of House of Cards. "What a company like Netflix is doing is the ultimate expression of individual control, proof of what people's attention span really is."

The heady rhetoric, of course, masks a few nagging questions: Once waiting is history, will "quality" television still pack the same cultural punch? Would Tony Soprano be Tony Soprano if we had been able to gorge on his life in a single weekend? How important are episode recaps and live-tweeting and the shared experience of everyone watching together?

"I don't know," says Spacey. "But I guess we'll find out really soon."

http://www.gq.com/entertainment/movi...urrentPage=all

Great stuff. Really looking forward to how this will, if not change, at least scatter the game.

[number8]

People love you when you're handing out the cash, and Sarandos, who looks the part with pressed jeans and a crisp white shirt but has one of the weirdest résumés in town (graduate of an Arizona community college, worked his way up in the DVD business from video-store clerk, landed at Netflix in 2000 to run distribution), has $6 billion to dole out over the next three years. Most of that is for licensing content from networks, cable companies, and movie studios, but about $300 million is for original programming. "There's not a lot of really great, deep, serialized television," he says, "and we can see from the data that that's what people want."

He hopes to make at least five new shows a year, he says, leaning back on a sofa in his Beverly Hills office in an anonymous-looking suite. His dream project: a Netflix series created by Warren Beatty. "He's great in long form," Sarandos says. "His only problems have been when he's constrained." Sarandos is also warming up Jodie Foster, who directed an episode of Orange Is the New Black. "The goal," he says, "is to become HBO faster than HBO can become us." His seductive pitch to today's new breed of TV auteurs: a huge audience, real money, no meddlesome executives ("I'm not going to give David Fincher notes"), no pilots (television's great sucking hole of money and hope), and a full-season commitment.

This just sounds absolutely crazy risky. I really hope it pans out, but man, it's kind of a nail biter.

This part, though, is why everyone should be excited:

Sarandos is hoping his big tent will attract creators who want to explore the boundaries of storytelling. Binge viewing obviates the need for recaps and other clunky narrative devices. He isn't even wed to uniform episode lengths. What's so magical about twenty-two minutes or even a hour? "I really think we have the chance to radically change the depth of character connectivity," he says. "I mean, a meaningful shift. It's going to further blur the line between television and movies."

[Skitch]

This is exciting stuff. I don't know that I really care one way or the other how the media is released (I'm patient for shows to hit Netflix), but I love there being multiple avenues or mediums for artists to stretch or for new artists to be revealed.

[Dukefrukem]

Even though in STEP 3 they fail to mentioned the PSN and XBL which are great PPV options too.

[Irish]

This just sounds absolutely crazy risky. I really hope it pans out, but man, it's kind of a nail biter.

It is crazy risky.

Netflix streaming is great for TV. It sucks for movies. I suspect their numbers back that up. Since the studios are already fucking them, this seems like a smart move.

The weakness in the strategy is that Netflix has no inherent "stickiness," either real or manufactured. Canceling an account and restarting it later is trivial to the enduser and costs that user nothing. That might be a problem for them, quarter on quarter, if they're releasing entire seasons at the same time and facilitating "binge viewing."

Platform exclusive content is always something of a short-term win. HBO can't become Netflix in the short-term, but then they don't really need to. They've got decades of experience producing their own content and they've got a revenue stream to support them regardless of how well any individual show does on their network.

That's an advantage Netflix doesn't have. Hastings has to rush now because he's very quickly running out of options.

[Irish]

Sarandos is hoping his big tent will attract creators who want to explore the boundaries of storytelling. Binge viewing obviates the need for recaps and other clunky narrative devices. He isn't even wed to uniform episode lengths. What's so magical about twenty-two minutes or even a hour? "I really think we have the chance to radically change the depth of character connectivity," he says. "I mean, a meaningful shift. It's going to further blur the line between television and movies."

I like how this quote ignores the presence of both advertising, ratings, and piracy.

Television is hobbled as a dramatic form because of the need for advertising. Nielsen drove the need, in part, to have shows at a certain length. Pirate versions of television shows have been doing what he's describing for the last ten years or more.

These are areas where HBO has had an ongoing advantage over more traditional broadcast television.

[number8]

Huh? But that's what he's saying. Netflix has no advertising and no Nielsen schedule, so they have the freedom to let creators set their own pace. If Fincher decides that episode 7 needs to be 2.5 hours long and episode 8 can be told in 20 minutes, he's free to do so. Current TV creators have to trim or pad running time because of the standard form of scheduling not present on Netflix.

[Irish]

Huh? But that's what he's saying. Netflix has no advertising and no Nielsen schedule, so they have the freedom to let creators set their own pace. If Fincher decides that episode 7 needs to be 2.5 hours long and episode 8 can be told in 20 minutes, he's free to do so. Current TV creators have to trim or pad running time because of the standard form of scheduling not present on Netflix.

They could do 20 minute episodes and 2.5 hour episodes or whatever, but my guess is that they won't. It would be far too confusing on the consumer end, and more importantly to Netflix, it would limit this content's appeal in secondary markets. (On the creative side, I've long felt that constraints, in either time or budget, are what makes things interesting and what produces good work. Nothing turns into a clusterfuck of self-indulgence faster than a creative project removed from constraints).

The rest of it ('meaningful shift,' 'character connectivity', 'blur the line') smells like PR bullshit, and I'm objecting to his positioning of the situation as something unique to Netflix.

[MadMan]

I watched all of Season 4 of Lost online because I worked the night it aired, and it still packed a punch. I do agree that this is more interesting in terms of how it affects Netflix and network TV, especially since the latter is losing heavily to cable TV, which despite its own limitations is still satisfying overall since it has fewer limitations. I will say I'm for anything that enables the FCC to lose power and not be able to censor the shit out of TV like they've done for decades.

[number8]

Here's a great article from AVClub about this subject.

But it still seems as if any artistic success Netflix achieves will be wholly accidental, rather than as part of a twinned artistic and business strategy. Create a show a lot like the serialized, dark dramas its viewers like, then pick up the fourth season of a beloved cult sensation? Easy enough to do. It’s when it comes time to green-light the Enlighteneds and Wires of the world that things become more difficult, and that’s where HBO has always excelled. I have less faith Netflix would take a chance on something bracingly uncommercial, yet artistically necessary. (Though that’s because HBO has always had the spare cash to pursue such a strategy; like many online companies, Netflix is operating on an imagined future of huge profits that haven’t arrived yet.)

http://www.avclub.com/articles/netfl...-age-tv,92230/

[Lucky]

I completely agree with the last phrase. And I predict they won't see the magnitude of profits that they expect.

[Sycophant]

Let me know when they release their shows on DVD. Lol.

[Irish]

Here's a great article from AVClub about this subject.

Eh. It's a bit hysterical in its conclusions, especially:

The show neatly splits the difference between being just good enough and never trying anything risky enough to turn off large portions of its audience.

Congratulations. You've just described 99% of commercial television.

(The Andrew Leonard article about 'Big Data' is worse. He posits that predictive algorithms will be the death of creative television. I'd say we've already been there for a long while. Leonard overlooks the fact that most of what Netflix knows about you, your cable company, and likely local theater, know about you too.)

Edit: These guys, and apparently the marketing bozos at Netflix, are overlooking the promotional downside. Netflix is getting an enormous boost on "House of Cards" because of the novelty of it. That won't be the case several series and a few years down the road.

[number8]

Yes, he said that in the article, comparing it to the likes of NCIS. That was his point.

[Lucky]

Netflix is getting an enormous boost on "House of Cards" because of the novelty of it.

Have you seen numbers? Everything I've seen says Netflix hasn't commented on this.

[Irish]

Yes, he said that in the article, comparing it to the likes of NCIS. That was his point.

No. You've misunderstood. He was making the argument that Netflix won't take risks, and this is exemplified in "House of Cards." He's also saying that cable networks like HBO will 'take a chance on something bracingly uncommercial, yet artistically necessary.'

I'm saying he's wrong. Nobody in commercial television takes any risks at all. HBO doesn't, unless we're considering "Game of Thrones" and "True Blood" somehow necessary and 'risky.'

Note that counter programming against broadcast TV isn't necessarily risky. It's filling a market.

Have you seen numbers? Everything I've seen says Netflix hasn't commented on this.

I was talking about the marketing. Every publication is writing about "House of Cards," and across different verticals. That will happen with less frequency going forward, once the novelty wears off. A year from now and five shows later, you won't see this kind of coverage.

[number8]

HBO most definitely take risks commercially, though obviously they're banking on the awards/press to recoup the loss by earning them their critically acclaimed rep. Nobody only monetarily concerned would give The Wire 5 seasons and Treme 3 seasons, and also continually renew Enlightened, a show that virtually nobody is talking about other than at niche forums.

What VanDerWeff said is that HBO is good at dependable shows like GoT and Boardwalk Empire and such, and Netflix is mimicking that capably enough, but he is asking if Netflix's current model would encourage them to make decisions that led to HBO's aforementioned more eccentric output. We'll see what happens down the line, of course, they may very well do that, but of the 5 shows on Netflix's slate this year, certainly none of them sound as out there as Oz and Sopranos were when HBO first broke into public consciousness—especially Oz, I think, which was a real experiment in TV format—or Treme and Tell Me You Love Me did later on.

[EyesWideOpen]

I've seen most of the HBO shows you're talking about and I don't find any of them to be really high risk. Most of the HBO shows I would consider high risk they cancel after a season or two.

[Irish]

HBO most definitely take risks commercially, though obviously they're banking on the awards/press to recoup the loss by earning them their critically acclaimed rep. Nobody only monetarily concerned would give The Wire 5 seasons and Treme 3 seasons, and also continually renew Enlightened, a show that virtually nobody is talking about other than at niche forums.

HBO is letting shows find their footing and not axing stuff right out of the gate. That's a business risk, not a creative one (and not much at that given HBO's financial advantage). Years ago, broadcast networks did that too (eg: "MASH," "Cheers," "Seinfeld," etc).

HBO has a big subscriber base (four times the size of Netflix). They're able to sell their shows overseas almost immediately (some shows syndicate for $800K per episode), and DVD sales bring in huge revenues (a single season of "True Blood" costs around $50MM, while that season's DVD box set will generate half that almost immediately).

Granted, HBO shows cost a little more ($6MM per episode for the genre stuff), but not by much. "NCIS" and "Fringe" cost around $4MM (which would be, oddly, the same rough cost as "House of Cards").

We'll see what happens down the line, of course, they may very well do that, but of the 5 shows on Netflix's slate this year, certainly none of them sound as out there as Oz and Sopranos were when HBO first broke into public consciousness—especially Oz, I think, which was a real experiment in TV format—or Treme and Tell Me You Love Me did later on.

Yeah, Van&c was kinda skipping over the 15 years that HBO was producing original shows before "The Sopranos" hit the air.

Out of the last ~10 years, I could probably count on one hand the number of times cable was risky: "The Sopranos" for buying into a genre everybody thought was dead, the first ten minutes of the first episode of "The Shield," and "Deadwood's" use of language.

Other than that? Ehhhh .. not so much. Producing different genres (based on highly popular prior art, natch) doesn't make them creatively 'risky.' If it does, then USA has been equally 'risky,' at least in the sense that they're counter programming against the broadcast networks just like HBO is.

[number8]

First ten minutes of The Shield? You mean the last, where the twist happened?

Also, Tell Me You Love Me showing explicit ejaculation during a handjob was probably a risk—not sure what kind of a risk exactly, but no other show has really done it since (Californication showed female ejaculation, that was the closest).

[Irish]

Dammit, I knew I forgot one:

"Breaking Bad" for [

Show Spoiler

actually showing a little kid getting shot on screen. The only people crazy enough to do that in the past, in a similar way, have had names like 'Leone' and 'Peckinpah.'

]

Re: "The Shield" [

Show Spoiler

No, when Vince (?) shoots somebody in the face, point blank, right at the start of the very first episode. That's an enormous creative risk as you can seriously put off your entire audience before they know anything about your hero. It's almost like they were daring people to change the channel.

]

[number8]

Re: "The Shield" [

Show Spoiler

No, when Vince (?) shoots somebody in the face, point blank, right at the start of the very first episode. That's an enormous creative risk as you can seriously put off your entire audience before they know anything about your hero. It's almost like they were daring people to change the channel.

]

You're misremembering, which is not a surprise, since you got the main character's name wrong. :lol:

[

Show Spoiler

Vic doesn't shoot anyone at the beginning. The pilot begins with the Strike Team chasing a drug dealer, then they corner him, and Vic (in front of women and children watching) pulls the guy's pants down, they laugh at his dick, then Vic beats him.

You're thinking of the ending to the pilot, where he shoots Terry in the face, and that was a huge twist (and certainly a creative risk, I think), because Spike originally misled people, including the press, by promoting the show as a "good cop takes down corrupt cop" show, with Reed Diamond billed as the lead in the marketing. When they screened it to critics, Spike begged them to not spoil the surprise in their write-ups. They wanted people to go WTF at the fact that they killed the main character of the show in the first episode.

]

[Irish]

You're misremembering, which is not a surprise, since you got the main character's name wrong. :lol:

:lol: Bite. How many years ago was this?

[

Show Spoiler

Also, I think "Vince" might be his character's name on "Vegas," haha.

]

[number8]

BTW, who else has read Alan Sepinwall's book?

[amberlita]

BTW, who else has read Alan Sepinwall's book?

I've read most of it. I skipped the chapters on shows I haven't seen, like FNL and Deadwood.