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

[ThePlashyBubbler]

Btw, I find it extremely easy to separate my assessment of a show's commercial standing and what I think of it as an artistic pursuit. When I'm in the mindset of the latter, the concepts of ratings, visibility and expectations literally do not exist. The only thing that matters is if the show achieved its merits in its artistic pursuit. In the case of Deadwood, it's one of the most complete explorations of an idea that I've seen achieved, so it gets a super big yes from me.

Fully agree with all of this.

I guess I see where you're coming from, Irish. But while I can logically acknowledge that tv programming exists as a vessel for advertising, my viewing experience and appreciation for the medium have nothing to do with commercial success. Maybe I have an aversion to "business," but I prefer to approach tv (and film) from the perspective of its artistic content. Most of the people who create (what I find to be) the best shows are, I think, concerned with telling their stories first and foremost. Of course, the nature of the process means they have to consider commercial factors to some extent, but I believe (particularly with HBO shows) that their ultimate goal is for the product to be judged on its artistic merit.

[Irish]

Btw, I find it extremely easy to separate my assessment of a show's commercial standing and what I think of it as an artistic pursuit. When I'm in the mindset of the latter, the concepts of ratings, visibility and expectations literally do not exist. The only thing that matters is if the show achieved its merits in its artistic pursuit. In the case of Deadwood, it's one of the most complete explorations of an idea that I've seen achieved, so it gets a super big yes from me.

I think that's mostly an intellectual exercise.

The problem is that the commercial market permeates the entire medium, and always has. There is no 'alternative' TV. There is no 'punk' TV. There is no 'DC Vertigo'-style TV. NBC has never aired "The Stan Brakhage Story Hour" and it never will. It's all mainstream. There's a great deal of play within these restrictions, but the restrictions still exist and make it nigh impossible to make the kind of separations you're talking about on a meaningful level.

This is a medium that only changes and grows when the financial needs change and grow (witness: HBO).

[ThePlashyBubbler]

That's right, it's an intellectual exercise. But I'm watching TV as a leisure, entertainment activity. Nowhere does the need come in to alter my emotional/intellectual response based on the financial reality of a show's production process.

[number8]

I think that's mostly an intellectual exercise.

Obviously. The end goal is to talk about it on movie forums or write an essay on it.

[Irish]

Most of the people who create (what I find to be) the best shows are, I think, concerned with telling their stories first and foremost.

Sure. I didn't mean to suggest that there weren't real artists working in the medium. David Simon and Louis CK are two of them; they both have something urgent and specific to say and they say it wonderfully.

Doing what they do is all fine & good, but it also means a necessarily smaller audience ('Louie' would not survive 10 episodes on a broadcast network, for instance).

So part of the other problem with the medium is that it doesn't support a narrower focus and smaller audiences very well at all. If you're concerned with 'Art' with a capital-A, that's mildly alarming and kinda disappointing.

[Milky Joe]

What is Irish even arguing? I don't understand. He is talking about TV shows as if they are all produced the exact same way by a bunch of robotic, invisible "producers" to make money. This just isn't always true, particularly when it comes to David Milch. Also, HBO doesn't have commercials.

[ThePlashyBubbler]

Sure. I didn't mean to suggest that there weren't real artists working in the medium. David Simon and Louis CK are two of them; they both have something urgent and specific to say and they say it wonderfully.

Doing what they do is all fine & good, but it also means a necessarily smaller audience ('Louie' would not survive 10 episodes on a broadcast network, for instance).

So part of the other problem with the medium is that it doesn't support a narrower focus and smaller audiences very well at all. If you're concerned with 'Art' with a capital-A, that's mildly alarming and kinda disappointing.

Right, so all I'm saying is that it's the work of those artists that garners my interest and I think merits discussion on its own terms. I gauge my response to films/tv based on how the work affects me, thereby making it an audience of one. The knowledge that certain shows I find affecting aren't commercially viable doesn't alter my response.

Are we arguing different things here? I don't disagree with the things you're saying about the business of television. The "problems with the medium" are worth talking about, sure, but I'd be interested how many people watch shows for reasons that have anything to do with their commercial viability.

[Irish]

Are we arguing different things here?

I don't know. We might be. Feels like we're drifting a bit.

I don't disagree with the things you're saying about the business of television. The "problems with the medium" are worth talking about, sure, but I'd be interested how many people watch shows for reasons that have anything to do with their commercial viability.

I sometimes watch shows that have a certain buzz ("Better Off Ted"), to see how they approached the same old narrative problems ("Sex and the City"), or to try and get a read on a certain demo or perspective (I used to watch a lot of 'black' television). But, like you, the stuff I get really wrapped up in doesn't have anything to do with that.

My initial arguments were really about how (1) television takes no chances and that (2) "Deadwood" made a fatal mistake by expressing its themes by using a rigid genre in a commercial medium.

I'm not sure where that leaves us at this point.

[ledfloyd]

Commercial television is the fast food of film art. People are not looking for coq au vin or edamame. They want burgers and fries, same as they had before.

So you're criticizing Deadwood for not being burgers and fries? For aspiring to something greater? Because that's kind of bizarre.

Westerns are really proto-action pictures. They require movement, specific and well timed story beats. They require crescendoes of falling action and they require resolutions. They require an adherence to tradition and an acknowledgement of the past, both the mythic past and the past that exists in the movies. If you watch most Westerns carefully, from "Stagecoach" through "Unforgiven," the really big ones, the great ones, are all referencing each other.

They only require these things because you insist they require these things. One of my favorite westerns, Rio Bravo, is basically three guys hanging out for two-and-a-half hours. Sure, the willingness to go against convention may have been a reason Deadwood wasn't financially successful, but that doesn't really have anything to do with whether or not it's a good show.

But I can't get too irked by all of this because you're enjoying Friday Night Lights.

[ThePlashyBubbler]

I sometimes watch shows that have a certain buzz ("Better Off Ted"), to see how they approached the same old narrative problems ("Sex and the City"), or to try and get a read on a certain demo or perspective (I used to watch a lot of 'black' television). But, like you, the stuff I get really wrapped up in doesn't have anything to do with that.

My initial arguments were really about how (1) television takes no chances and that (2) "Deadwood" made a fatal mistake by expressing its themes by using a rigid genre in a commercial medium.

Fair enough. The constrictions of television definitely mean that the vast majority of the product is either rote, shitty, or both. In that context, it only makes me appreciate something singular like Deadwood even more. Like led says, we seem to have opposite responses to those shows that try to aspire to something greater than the same old.

[Irish]

So you're criticizing Deadwood for not being burgers and fries? For aspiring to something greater? Because that's kind of bizarre.

I'm criticizing them for not respecting the audience and ignoring the genre, yes. Intellectually, I can admire the attempt. Realistically, watching "Deadwood" makes me yell and throw things at the TV.

They only require these things because you insist they require these things.

Much as I'd like to take credit, these ideas did not originate with me.

One of my favorite westerns, Rio Bravo, is basically three guys hanging out for two-and-a-half hours. Sure, the willingness to go against convention may have been a reason Deadwood wasn't financially successful, but that doesn't really have anything to do with whether or not it's a good show.

Three guys 'hanging out' is a weird way to describe "Rio Bravo." Contrary to your point, "Bravo" has a traditional structure, several narrative arcs, and at least one major character arc. It may have a unique setting and story, but the way it's written is extremely traditional (and that's good).

But I can't get too irked by all of this because you're enjoying Friday Night Lights.

[Irish]

Fair enough. The constrictions of television definitely mean that the vast majority of the product is either rote, shitty, or both. In that context, it only makes me appreciate something singular like Deadwood even more. Like led says, we seem to have opposite responses to those shows that try to aspire to something greater than the same old.

I think my problem is that I don't always view 'different' as automatically being 'greater.' It can be, but most of the time it seems more ego driven than anything else, and can come off as amateurish.

[Milky Joe]

So, respecting the audience would be to give them the same easily-digestible crap they're already pre-conditioned to want, while it's disrespectful to give them something that challenges artistic norms and encourages the audience to think for themselves. Got it. I'll think of that the next time I'm reading, say, William Faulkner or Herman Melville, and be sure to throw the book down in disgust.

Realistically, reading Irish's posts in this thread makes me want to yell and throw things at the computer. I'd still like to know what hero Deadwood supposedly ignores and what plot points it supposedly skips over. I think he has me on ignore though, so whatever.

[ThePlashyBubbler]

I think my problem is that I don't always view 'different' as automatically being 'greater.' It can be, but most of the time it seems more ego driven than anything else, and can come off as amateurish.

Yeah, I'm almost the opposite. With the number of shows on tv that adhere to the familiar model, almost anything that distinguishes itself as different at least draws my interest. Maybe it's ego-driven, but those shows that bare the unmistakable mark of their creators (Mad Men, Deadwood, Community, The Wire, to name a few) seem to resonate with me the most. I've got a thing for creative ambition, even if it doesn't hit the mark every time.

When I hear that a new CBS procedural has "really perfected the format" or something, I couldn't care less.

[number8]

Add two more new shows on Netflix's plate:

Turbo F.A.S.T: A series that will continue where the upcoming Dreamsworks movie Turbo leaves off.

Narcos: A drama about Pablo Escobar created by Jose Padilha. Looks like they want this to be their Sopranos.

[Lucky]

Narcos: A drama about Pablo Escobar created by Jose Padilha. Looks like they want this to be their Sopranos.

Or they're taking a page from the new Republican strategy and trying to appeal to the Hispanic demographic.

[number8]

By the way, is it unfortunate that Netflix's original shows got so much attention when Hulu already did it first yet nobody paid any attention to their shows?

[Irish]

By the way, is it unfortunate that Netflix's original shows got so much attention when Hulu already did it first yet nobody paid any attention to their shows?

Hulu's masters always seemed deeply ambivalent about its existence, and that conflict has only gotten worse in the last few years. Didn't Hulu give away its shows for free? At the time, it made those shows feel too similar to the stuff on YouTube like "The Guild." Or Canadian TV.

Also, Netflix's first attempt at original content went largely unnoticed last year ("Lilyhammer"). Maybe that's a star or director problem, or maybe just bad PR.

[EyesWideOpen]

By the way, is it unfortunate that Netflix's original shows got so much attention when Hulu already did it first yet nobody paid any attention to their shows?

Nothing netflix releases is going to compare to The Booth at the End.

[number8]

Nothing netflix releases is going to compare to The Booth at the End.

That's not made by Hulu. They just have the exclusive US broadcast rights.

[EyesWideOpen]

That's not made by Hulu. They just have the exclusive US broadcast rights.

I was under the impression that's how all hulus exclusives worked.

[number8]

I was under the impression that's how all hulus exclusives worked.

They have actually made several of their own original shows. A Day in the Life, Battleground, Up to Speed, that stupid Kevin Smith show...

[EyesWideOpen]

They have actually made several of their own original shows. A Day in the Life, Battleground, Up to Speed, that stupid Kevin Smith show...

Didn't know that. I just figured those shows didn't get deals elsewhere or fell through and hulu picked them up.

[DavidSeven]

By the way, is it unfortunate that Netflix's original shows got so much attention when Hulu already did it first yet nobody paid any attention to their shows?

I don't think Hulu had the market share to pull it off. Netflix has access to an insane number of eyeballs.

Netflix captured 33 percent of prime-time Web viewing based on Internet traffic in September, eclipsing Amazon.com Inc., Hulu LLC and Time Warner Inc. (TWX)’s HBO Go by a multiple of at least 18, Sandvine Inc. said in its “Global Internet Phenomena Report” released today. By comparison, Amazon (AMZN)’s market share amounted to 1.75 percent in September, while Hulu garnered 1.38 percent and HBO Go had 0.52 percent, according to the study.

Hulu also didn't have Spacey, Wright and Fincher working on the same show. That mix of talent in itself was going to generate more interest than anything Hulu has ever produced. As Irish mentioned, even at Netflix, this model didn't get much attention until marquee talent became involved.

[Irish]

I don't think Hulu had the market share to pull it off. Netflix has access to an insane number of eyeballs.

This depends on how you look at it.

Hulu is in the top five video sites on the web (behind Google, Fox, and Yahoo). About 30 million people watch their streams every month. Only 3 million of those are Hulu Plus subscribers.

By contrast, Netflix has around 25 million members.