Whither TV & Movies…a continuing series

TV execs are feeling panicked.   The recent Emmy awards were the lowest rated ones ever, and the ratings from returning shows are substantially down from last year. 

For ratings, some blame last year’s writer’s strike.  For the Emmys, various other scapegoats are gored.  The show was bad.  (It was.)  They are starting to lose upwards of half their potential audience because people are tired of stars–i.e., basically people who make millions because they are pretty–lecturing them on politics.  (True.)  But that misses the real reason, and the reasons behind low ratings for the Oscars and TV ratings in general.

The real answer is that TV is no longer a mass medium.  And it’s going to continue to diminish in that regard.  There are zillions more entertainment options now than before, and even for those who still watch TV, there are DVDs (what I watch a bulk of stuff on) and Tivo, neither of which show up on traditional ratings. 

Thirty years ago, the nominees for best dramatic series where The Rockford Files (winner), Family, Lou Grant, Quincy M.E., and Columbo.  Every one of those shows, even Family, undoubtedly drew more viewers than the highest rated network TV show now.  After all, there were only three networks back then, and no video games, home video, Internet, etc.

Here were the nominees this year: Boston Legal, Damages, Dexter, House, Lost, Mad Men.  Only two of those are hits, and that’s only by today’s massively reduced standards.  Three of them–including this year’s winner–are cable shows, and as hard as it is for the editors of Entertainment Weekly to understand, not everybody has cable or is even aware of what are basically boutique shows like this.  They get a lot of media coverage, but a woman just came into the library the other day and was bewildered when this year’s winner, Mad Men, was mentioned.   She’d never heard of it. Changes are there are a couple of other shows on that list she’s never heard of either.

Same for movies:

Oscar Best Picture Nominees 1978:  The Deer Hunter, Coming Home, Heaven Can Wait, Midnight Express, An Unmarried Woman.
Oscar Best Picture Nominees 2008:  Atonement, Juno, Michael Clayton, No Country for Old Men, There Will be Blood.

Notice that 1978 as a particularly arty year, lacking then recent blockbuster nominees like Rocky or Star Wars or Jaws.  Even so, all those movies were better attended and far more part of a national conversation than any one of this year’s nominees.  A couple at least were big hits. 

Perhaps all of the 2008 nominees were great films.  Maybe, but not one of them was seen by many people who don’t consider themselves arthouse-type people. I doubt the best attended of this year’s nominees was seen by as many people as the least seen of 2007’s.  Sometimes we get bigger nominees these days, like Titantic and Gladiator, but they are few on the ground.  In the ’70s, it was all Patton and Airport and Love Story and MASH and The French Connection and Fiddler on the Roof and The Godfather and Caberet and The Sting and The Exorcist…and that’s just 1970 through ’73.

For the 2000s, if you pull the three consectutive Lord of the Rings movies, than popularly seen films are sparse indeed.  Look at 2005:  Crash, Brokeback Mountain, Capote, Good Night and Good Luck, and Munich.  Brokeback easily made the most at about $83 million, which given ticket prices these days still means a fairly small number of attendees.

Again, this doesn’t mean they were good films (although many were in fact a tad pretentious).  However, it does show that there is a general disconnect now between what the critics like and what the audiences like.  I guess you can just blame this on degraded audience tastes, but really, is Hollywood offering films anymore like The Godfather and The French Connection?

Meanwhile, this still leaves the question of where TV goes as the current, advertiser supported model dies.  DVD at least directly makes money (although you can’t predict how much, really, and first you have to produce a show and sink upwards of fifty to a hundred million dollars into a season of it), but Tivo knocks out commercials and doesn’t offer any financial recompense in return.

The tale continues.

  • Petoht

    For what it’s worth, I’d never heard of “Mad Men” either…

    Of course, I don’t pay for my TV, so I’ll stick to House.

  • Danny

    I’ve said, quite a bit, that the FUTURE of television was smaller, nichier shows using the internet as a distribution medium. There’s actually been some attempt at this. hulu.com, a site I’m greatly in love with, offers a fairly decent selection of television programs and movies, and is utterly amazing for a free, ad-based service. NBC and Fox seem to be a bit ahead of the curve on this, though even Viacom seems to be getting around.

    Interestingly, most of the offerings tend to be either cult hits (Firefly, Arrested Development, Titan AE, the 1967 Casino Roayle) or movies that were bigs hits long enough ago that there aren’t tens of millions to be earned from them if left to traditional methods (The biggest movie, by far, is Close Encounters of the Third Kind, but there’s also stuff like Ghostbusters and Fifth Element).

    The only really big shows currently running up on the site are the Daily Show/Colbert report and Heroes. (And the Simpsons, but they have like 3 random episodes). The former is unusual in that it has a target audience much more likely to use the internet, and the latter only shows episodes between them being aired, and being available on DVD.

    There’s been a growing trend toward niches, and I think it’s where the future’s going. Smaller budgets, smaller audiences, a lot more variety (both in content, and in providers; Italian Spiderman wasn’t made by studio execs), and mostly over the internet.

  • BeckoningChasm

    I’d heard of Mad Men, but only because Lileks wrote about it. I haven’t had broadcast or cable TV in at least ten years, and I don’t miss it. Who needs it?

    The awards (Oscar and Emmy) seem to be going for the “it’s art, so it isn’t popular” thing lately. (By the time the Oscars aired, “No Country for Old Men” had barely made what “Transformers” made in its opening weekend.) That may be great for the folks involved, who love to feel themselves above the masses, but the shows need the masses to tune in, and they didn’t.

  • aphexbr

    I’d make the following comment: I’m glad these awards are like this!

    Why? Any decent awards ceremony is meant to reward *quality*, not commercial success. Having seen 4 of the TV shows mentioned and 4 of the movies from this years’ Oscars, I can say it’s doing its job.

    Put it this way: would you prefer an awards ceremony that said “well, we all think Mad Men was the best series of the year by a long way, but we can’t give them an award because the marketing people messed up”? No, it’s better the way it is. You hadn’t heard of Mad Men or Atonement before seeing these awards? No? Well now you have, rent the DVD and check them out. Better this way than throwing in something undeserving just because it played in more cinemas. What deserved more recognition? Juno or Transformers? The latter already had the box office receipts to celebrate…

    As for the TV model it’s got to change because less and less people are watching TV. Not just to watch the shows on DVD either – many simply don’t watch TV at all, preferring the internet, games or movie DVDs. It’s silly to compare the industry 30 years ago (where people had many less channels and the other options didn’t exist). The studios are experimenting with various ways of making money and gauging audience reaction – from Hulu and other internet broadcasts to the DVDs. It works as well- Firefly/Serenity, Futurama and Family Guy were all reborn when these sources revealed a larger than realised paying fan base.

  • Aphexbr — I’m not knocking the awards, I’m raising the exact issue you do–the fact that the current programming/movie-making model is untenable–and wondering what will arise to replace it.

    And Firefly was reborn, but failed again. The weird thing about Firefly to me is that fans continue to blame Fox for the show failing, when the real issue is that this is very little market for a space western. Like a lot of what we’re talking here, that show could never be successful when it costs two or three million dollars an episode to produce.

    And the idea that people are going to check out Atonement because it was nominated is naive. They just won’t watch the Oscars. Hollywood has to start producing great mass market movies again if it has any chance of surviving in its current mode of business. Remember, most great movies are ones that were commercially popular at the time. Look at that list of ’70s nominees again. The problem isn’t philistine viewers, it’s bad movies.

  • MatthewF

    Having been living with on demand TV (in the UK) for a couple of years know, I think this is clearly the future. Having a selection of 1000 plus movies, plus all of the last couple of weeks TV at the press of a button (some free, some not) is so convenient that I think it will drive everything else out.

  • RWA

    I don’t care how good MAD MEN is. I have such an overwhelming grudge against AMC, that I absolutely refuse to watch anything on it.

  • @ken,

    It’s funny that you should say that there’s little market for Space Westerns, since that includes nearly every science fiction show with rockets since Buck Rogers. Star Wars and Star Trek are both Space Westerns, Joss Whedon was just more obvious about it. As for blaming FOX: try airing the episodes of 90210 out of order, and see how many people stick with the show.

  • Sorry, Nathan, but that won’t fly. Firefly wasn’t a space western in some abstract sense, but in a literal one. It had many of the trappings of a frontier western series, even down to the dress of the main characters.

    The thing to remember is that, given that Firefly was on Fox, it would have needed substantially more viewers than Buffy to stay on the air. The odds of that happening were always next to nothing.

    I’m not sure why people get invested in the idea that because they love something, it would be popular if only it got a ‘proper’ chance. Fox busted its ass on behalf of Arrested Development like no network has for a series, ever. Some things are just not meant to be.

    Also, was there EVER a successful network space opera, even without the western thing? I can’t think of one (not saying there isn’t, but I can’t think of any). Star Trek doesn’t count, it was consistently low-rated and cancelled more than once.

  • The Rev. D.D.

    Would Babylon 5 or ST: TNG be considered network? Or successful? I don’t know if those syndicated-type shows would count or not.

    Just throwin’ it out there…

  • Well, it’s debateable, but to me network has to be one of the big four.

  • JoshG
  • Josh’s link goes to a story about the likelihood of an actor’s strike. Considering the state of the industry right now–and I don’t see it getting better–this would be suicide. Yeesh.