Why do you say Hello Ladies has almost no commercial appeal? I really enjoyed it and thought there could have been a lot more character development, storylines, etc. I really like shows about the inner workings of Hollywood though, unlike a lot of folks, I never got tired of Entourage.

I went on a Ricky Gervais binge and watched Extras, Life's too Short and Hello Ladies and really enjoyed all of them but they were all pretty similar in their characters and the things they went through.

Haven't seen Derek yet, is it any good?

Saw 1/2 an episode of The Office (UK version) and I didn't have a desire to continue (never got into the US version either for some reason).

I don't enjoy the characters of Episodes as much as Extras, HL & LTS, for some reason the two british leads in Episodes kind of annoy me and as much as I like Matt LeBlanc, he is too dang type casted in my mind from watching him play Joey for so long. Still watching and enjoying, I just think the Gervais stuff set a high bar for my tastes

HL is super difficult to sell because it has no star in it (nope Merchant doesn't count) and its impossible to pair with just about anything else on tv.

You can interpret how cheap it was to make and broadcast. It was made by Disney ABC likely as part of a holding deal for Merchant and probably just about given to HBO who still didn't want a second season. I bet they tried to sell a second season around and no one else wanted it.

There is only really one international market for it too if they did keep it going. It helps that market is one where Merchant does have star power but even here in Britain he just can't compare to Joey from one of the biggest shows ever.

Oh and Derek is maybe the worst show ever made. I am unsure how much of that is hyperbole. Not a lot. It was so so bad.

Interesting points, thx for the reply. Are you involved in this business in some way?

I don't see why a show has to have a star to work, seems to me a good show can make a star(s). I don't believe any of the cast of Friends where "stars" when the pilot aired.

Despite really liking Gervais stuff, I haven't watched Derek because it sounded horrible from the description I read, I'm sure boredom will kick in at some point in the future and I'll give it a chance

HBO is a station completely subsidized by cable subscribers. That means ratings requirements are super low for renewal. This one couldn't even meet that super low standard. If your show has eyeballs, you're fine, if not, you're not.

I think networks need to rethink how they determine interest in their shows because I think many people are preferring to binge watch shows vs watch them as they come out on a week to week basis (i know I am plus I find the shows more enjoyable because Im not cliff hung from week to week and lose interest).

I never heard of Extras & Hello Ladies until they were already cancelled and then got hooked because I could binge watch and I suspect I'm not alone in that feeling

I think a lot of shows could sustain themselves if they weren't under pressure to perform immediately, hopefully the binge phenomena will be factored into future analysis so good shows don't get cancelled because not enough people knew they existed

Yeah, the network model may not be quite dead yet but it is in a coma from which it will never recover. Streaming and binging is the future of all scripted television. The networks will be for live news and sports.

Other than sports/news I only watch stuff off of my DvR. Even then if its something real good (ie Fargo) I will let them stack on my DvR until the season is over and binge it as I prefer binging quality shows. More disposable stuff like sitcoms I will watch weekly but when I want to not when it is scheduled.

People love the Netflix model and hate the network model and the network model will never recover.

That is such a hyperbolic post. I'd be pretty surprised if any binge watch type show (maybe the most popular would be House of Cards) has anywhere near the number of binge watchers that a decently performing network TV show has (2.0 ratings in the 18-49 demo). Most binge watching stuff is HEAVILY subsidized by subscribers, and it's very clear in most cases that the budgets are much smaller than what HBO would give something. Even a show like Bosch is probably nowhere near the budget of a typical 1 hour network drama, and might not even have as much of a budget as a show like The Americans.

Based on your idea of binge watching, it would mean that most people either don't watch a lot of TV, or they would watch a ton of TV. Keep in mind that DVRs have changed some of the mindset from live to within a few days. Just look at L+3 numbers (Live+3 day ratings) or L+7, and you can easily see that tons of people are still watching network TV. If these binge watching shows were capable of drawing in lots of viewers, they wouldn't be binge watching shows, and they wouldn't be in binge watching places. House of Cards would be a high performer no matter where it was put, but Netflix was the right place for it.

If you're talking 20 years down the road, I'd probably agree with you. If you're talking 10 years, maybe. Anything sooner than that is just never gonna happen. There are a ton of not well off people in this road, people who don't have cable, and don't have DVRs. Networks aren't going away for scripted programming. You might also have noticed that unscripted shows on networks are shrinking, not expanding.

Finally, let's say you watch 10 network shows per year (I wouldn't be surprised if the average amount of TV shows typical viewers watch across all mediums is no less than 15 and is probably closer to 20), and you let all of them pile up on your DVR. There are 22 episodes per season of each hour long drama (though this model is now starting to shrink for whatever reason). You now have 220 shows piled up on your DVR. Even if you binge watch, unless you have nothing but time on your hands, you're not getting through that amount of content in less than 30 days if you dedicate nearly 8 hours each weekend to it. If you were that obsessed, what else would you do with your time? There are certain shows I prefer to binge (The Walking Dead), and others I prefer to go week to week. Making a conscious effort to binge is probably not that common, and going week to week works for the vast majority of shows for me, and probably does as well for others.

The money will probably start moving toward some of the binge watching shows (Master of None looked like it cost about .30), and their production values will increase over time. I just don't think it will be less than 10 years before anything resembling what you say will come to pass. There is too much time in the year, and a whole lot of people don't watch sports.

The kids don't watch tv on a tv. They watch it on a tablet or a phone or a computer. They watch Netflix and Hulu and Amazon prime. They are never gonna watch live tv the way we did back in the day. And those old people will watch off of DvRs. There is a better way to watch now and it will never reverse.

You love watching your rating numbers but they don't mean **** anymore and never will again.

just to be clear, gervais had zero involvement in hello ladies. which probably explains why it's much better than anything he has done in the last 8 or so years.

I realized that after watching Stephen Merchants stand up.

I lumped them together because I found the characters, plot and writing style very similar to Extras (which IIRC, Merchant is credited as being a writer).

Kids today, man there are a lot of adults. There are a lot of people watching TV on the same day it airs in the 18-49 demo (the prized demographic). To prove this, here are Monday's live numbers (overall viewers, not 18-49 necessarily) for the night (all networks and CW, prelim numbers for half hours):

8pm: 31.099m
8:30pm: 31.369m
9pm: 30.482m
9:30pm: 29.370m
10pm (no FOX or CW): 19.178m
10:30pm: 16.746

Granted a lot of those numbers are inflated by live programming, but there are even more 18-49 year olds (and overall viewers) watching in the L+3. Is network TV getting ratings anything like they were even 5 years ago? No way, but to call the model dead is lol. They're still getting tons of ad dollars, and budgets on network TV shows haven't gone down in that period. They're just now starting to realize that there are probably 15 to 20 shows they shouldn't have canceled as quickly as they did, since their ratings crush the ratings of most shows today, but weren't good enough.

When the networks get the same amount of money for advertising on the web as they do for TV, your model will become successful. You're just forgetting the networks are driven by advertising, and the advertisers won't pay the big bucks for those mediums yet...yet. Advertisers drive the game, or subscriptions do. Don't you think the networks would love to produce their shows for less? They can't, because then the advertisers will think the product is diluted and put it somewhere else.

Just take a look at cable. 3 years ago, if you had a 0.7 in the 18-49 demo, you were firmly a bubble show. If you were above that, you would NEVER get canceled if you didn't want to leave. Now, scripted shows pulling in 0.4s in the 18-49 demo are routinely being renewed, and if a show like The Americans gets renewed at a 0.3 and less, it would be laughable. The problem is choice. There is too much good stuff out there, which is diluting the networks' power to drive ad revenue higher. So, they look for the stuff that brings the big eyeballs. If stuff drops below that number they need, they'll go find something else, and rinse and repeat until they find the next Empire or Modern Family or The Big Bang Theory.

The problem is that the producers are skipping network TV (which used to be the prestige place to go), because they don't feel like their shows will get a long enough leash. For every Hannibal that nonsensically gets 3 seasons, there will be plenty of shows that had mediocre ratings (way above Hannibal's) that won't. So, they'll go to where the money has gravitated, places like HBO, FX, and AMC. And they get the benefit of a longer leash due to lower ratings requirements. The networks don't own prestige anymore, and haven't for a long time. But they still hold the most eyeballs by a wide margin other than for huge outliers.

yim,

you should watch 'the ricky gervais show'. it's based on the podcasts (which aren't as good as the old XFM shows), but the animation adds so much. it's just a thoroughly enjoyable show.

Thanks for the tip. For whatever reason, I am not drawn to animation and would have never given it a shot, I'll be Q'ing it up soon.

nunnehi,

Enjoyed your very detailed post.

Are you in the biz or just have a special interest in the industry?

I am not involved in the industry in any way.

Star power is important because its easier to sell abroad.

Friends had no real stars when it began but it did very quickly and increased its audience by over 50% in its first season. And yeah its really comparing apples and oranges but HL did badly by any real metric.

TV is cut throat, but HBO is the most forgiving and even they didn't want to continue with the show.

And yeah lots of shows I've loved didn't get beyond a season and a couple didn't even get that. Terriers, how that show wasn't renewed I'll never know.

also yim, i'm sure you have seen, but you realise there is a hello ladies 'movie' right?

In the business, Post-Production Sound Mixer

That stuff is a side passion.

For as dead as the past of tv is, big bang theory, empire and walking dead make all the money.

Most shows would kill for the viewing figures for talking dead (not a typo) and syndicated big bang too.

I love the Netflix binge release model but we all need to come to terms that is the only part that can survive beyond the short term and its a flawed business model that relies on the networks doing the heavy investing in the first place.

Its extremely vampiric and relies on networks making content first. Netflix made eleven dramatic shows ever. Ten comedy shows all one season only so far. A couple cartoons and some kids stuff goes on top. They picked up a further eight shows in their entire history most for a single season mostly as a loss leader to juice the value of the other content they bought.



Without the networks streaming will cost a lot more or have heavy advertising to monetise content otherwise (which then makes viewing figures important again). Because today it relies on picking up sloppy seconds mixed with some highly selective original content only a small amount of which is expensive to make.

Claiming people will watch on a computer or tablet than a tv is missing the most important problems. Its also not true for tv style content. Its only short form stuff people regularly watch on tablets and phones.

Yes sir, I watched it at Showtime online during my binge (left wanting more but apparently my taste is an outlier). It felt more like an extended finale to me but then I've read everyone referring to it as a movie. Was it released to theaters?

That's cool, are you in LA?

Being homebuilder where I got to basically be a dictator, unless I was working for a client (absolutely horrific experience btw and I will no longer do it), I'm fascinated by the creative process involved with that industry. I think its compelling to see how so many people with conflicting motivations, ambitions, etc work together (or not) to produce a movie.

I love Project Greenlight and The Chair but if those shows have proven anything (to me), its that making a good movie is incredibly difficult (or perhaps, I'm a sucker and they never cared if they made a good movie as that was just fodder for the show plot).

I own my own business, and I'm based out of another city, but do all my work remotely for clients based out of either L.A. or New York, though largely out of L.A.

It's a tough business. My part of the process is generally the last part of any production, so people are usually either happy for it to be over or are at their wit's end and beyond stressed. To give you an idea of how stressful the job can occasionally be, I worked on a show for A&E that was still mixing when I left for the day at 3pm. It had to be on air at 6pm PT (9pm west coast feed). When I got home later that night, I turned on the TV fully expecting it to have missed the air date, but it didn't. When I worked on the final day of the 2010 Vancouver Olympics, I had to mix a 30 minute show that was to air at 9am. I received the show at 5:30am. I blazed through it (I was responsible for approving my own mixes there), finished a little after 8am, and the show was airing by the time I got home.

Part of my job is to make people feel like the project is getting completed and that they have nothing to worry about. It's about helping them relax. When I worked for other companies, I had far less interaction with people above me in the process than I do now (it was usually just a bunch of people gathering for the final approval). Now, I'm involved right as stuff is getting out of the shooting stage, just so I can verify that there aren't any problems (sometimes I'm also asked to give notes on early edits), and sometimes am involved in an audio consulting role in pre-production. The best part of being independent is that I get to choose how much time I spend on my projects (I flat rate everything). It's much more fun that way, and I know my clients feel the same way on their end of the process too. When you're working for a company, they're often constantly nickel and diming your time in ways that are usually completely unnecessary.

But, in the best part of the world, a bunch of people get together who work well together and collaborate frequently. If you look at a lot of celebrated directors in the business, you'll find out they work with a lot of the same people over and over and over. It's a much easier process when people are aligned in vision, and everyone likes each others' work to begin with. When visions aren't aligned it's one of the least fun times you can have, in my opinion.

On the best days, it's great, on the worst, it's like Alonzo in Training Day when he says, "What a muh fuh'n day. What a muh fuh'n day!"

Good stuff Nunn.

Did you see the 60 Minutes special tonight about China and their influence over the movies?

I thought it was interesting when the reporter asked about censorship and was told that the chinese side has figured out what the government will censor so they never shoot the scene and the big American studios are going along with this because China is such a big market they have to appeal to.

Made me wonder how that's going to effect the quality of movies in the future.

They also interviewed some Chinese billionaire who created a huge movie set on 100's of acres and they believe they will be competitive with US studios in 5 years.

It hasn't aired here yet, I just recorded it.

It's tough to say what kind of impact that would have. There are going to be filmmakers that will out and out reject being told what to shoot. There will be others who are blinded by money who won't care. The main thing to never forget is most of the studios are not "really" in the movie making business, they're in the money making business, so anything is possible.

If you're looking for an interesting history analogy to that kind of talk, do research about The Production Code. Prior to 1931, there was no censorship in movies. As the technology evolved to be more mainstream, Hollywood (with others) began to police it. The Breen Office would review scripts and force cuts. Or movies would be slashed in certain parts of the country. It didn't take long for filmmakers to figure out ways around the Code in the scripts, and as anyone can tell you, most of the people doing censorship aren't the best at getting jokes filled with innuendo. So, if you can shoot it over their heads, you can get away with it. Things will probably be the same in China. They'll start pushing the line to see what they can get away with, and then the line will move again. Right now, they're just trying to establish themselves by doing what's required.

Thats what concerns me

Re: working around censorship:

I hope it plays out like you described and what you referenced is encouraging. It appears the consequences could be more violent or deadly in China but I hope that's incorrect and China will continue to move away from the oppressive ways of their past.

Just the fact that some of the movies that are there are there should be very encouraging.