FX chief: Even peak TV can be a 'sideshow' to internet
apnewsarchive.com
FX chief: Even peak TV can be a 'sideshow' to internet
1–10 of 16 posts
Re: FX chief: Even peak TV can be a 'sideshow' to internet
#2Yeah, and there are reasons for that. Focus groups kill creativity with group-think, and TV reeks of it. Standards and practices and other varieties of self censorship mean TV shall fight forever with one hand tied behind its back.
The internet is frequently better than TV, because merit is free to boil to the surface without being stifled. It’s not that the internet is free of bland tripe. But merely that it’s costly to force bland tripe to the front, and when the state-sponsored tripe gets upstaged by something better, it’s harder to bury the higher quality content.
The problem with the internet is the firehose of The Long Tail ultimately does bury absolutlely everything (good and bad), so once again, over time everything is obscured by default, leading to micro-generation gaps (maybe spanning as little as two years) and reasonably large subcultures that never see the light of day.
On some level though, the movie industry has proven that profits don’t matter, since we see that for the last decade, profitable movies are mostly unwatchable garbage.
So, even if TV manages to be profitable, it can surely deserve the same sideshow status as movies. The only thing the internet paradoxically lacks right now (despite massive unicorn companies with nigh unlimited resources) is the unrestrained budget movies enjoy. And this is because the most captivating things on the internet are authentic in real time, and cannot be “budgeted” in a traditional sense.
Re: FX chief: Even peak TV can be a 'sideshow' to internet
#3Yeah, and there are reasons for that. Focus groups kill creativity with group-think, and TV reeks of it. Standards and practices and other varieties of self censorship mean TV shall fight forever with one hand tied behind its back. The internet is frequently better than TV, because merit is free to boil to the surface without being stifled. It’s not that the internet is free of bland tripe. But merely that it’s costl…
> Yeah, and there are reasons for that. Focus groups kill creativity with group-think, and TV reeks of it. Standards and practices and other varieties of self censorship mean TV shall fight forever with one hand tied behind its back.
I would actually argue that FX has produced a lot of notable content which has been novel and high quality. Examples would include The Shield, Fargo, Louie, The Americans, Sons of Anarchy, and Atlanta. HBO and AMC have also made outstanding content.
Where you tend to see groupthink yielding safe, predictable crap is the major networks like CBS, FOX, and NBC.
Re: FX chief: Even peak TV can be a 'sideshow' to internet
#4Yeah, and there are reasons for that. Focus groups kill creativity with group-think, and TV reeks of it. Standards and practices and other varieties of self censorship mean TV shall fight forever with one hand tied behind its back. The internet is frequently better than TV, because merit is free to boil to the surface without being stifled. It’s not that the internet is free of bland tripe. But merely that it’s costl…
> Yeah, and there are reasons for that. Focus groups kill creativity with group-think, and TV reeks of it. Standards and practices and other varieties of self censorship mean TV shall fight forever with one hand tied behind its back. I would actually argue that FX has produced a lot of notable content which has been novel and high quality. Examples would include The Shield, Fargo, Louie, The Americans, Sons of Anarch…
Not all of TV sucks, and FX isn’t terrible. But given the commercials, TV feels like willful brainwashing in practice.
Consider the idea of paying for cable, and still watching commercials. It’s sort of like paying for the internet connection and still paying for the content. No thanks.
Re: FX chief: Even peak TV can be a 'sideshow' to internet
#5Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Yeah, and there are reasons for that. Focus groups kill creativity with group-think, and TV reeks of it. Standards and practices and other varieties of self censorship mean TV shall fight forever with one hand tied behind its back. I would actually argue that FX has produced a lot of notable content which has been novel and high quality. Examples would include The Shield, Fargo, Louie, The Americans, Sons of Anarch…
Not all of TV sucks, and FX isn’t terrible. But given the commercials, TV feels like willful brainwashing in practice. Consider the idea of paying for cable, and still watching commercials. It’s sort of like paying for the internet connection and still paying for the content. No thanks.
Most Internet content providers have advertising, sometimes invasive based on my browsing history — YouTube, I am looking at you — to offset costs or rack up profits. Therefore, your beef with broadcast networks based on advertising is on shaky ground. There are many reasons to dislike broadcast TV vs. Internet content, but advertising cannot be one of them because both mediums have it.
Re: FX chief: Even peak TV can be a 'sideshow' to internet
#6Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Yeah, and there are reasons for that. Focus groups kill creativity with group-think, and TV reeks of it. Standards and practices and other varieties of self censorship mean TV shall fight forever with one hand tied behind its back. I would actually argue that FX has produced a lot of notable content which has been novel and high quality. Examples would include The Shield, Fargo, Louie, The Americans, Sons of Anarch…
Not all of TV sucks, and FX isn’t terrible. But given the commercials, TV feels like willful brainwashing in practice. Consider the idea of paying for cable, and still watching commercials. It’s sort of like paying for the internet connection and still paying for the content. No thanks.
>> It’s sort of like paying for the internet connection and still paying for the content. No thanks.
Every streaming service works this way.
Re: FX chief: Even peak TV can be a 'sideshow' to internet
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not all of TV sucks, and FX isn’t terrible. But given the commercials, TV feels like willful brainwashing in practice. Consider the idea of paying for cable, and still watching commercials. It’s sort of like paying for the internet connection and still paying for the content. No thanks.
Most Internet content providers have advertising, sometimes invasive based on my browsing history — YouTube, I am looking at you — to offset costs or rack up profits. Therefore, your beef with broadcast networks based on advertising is on shaky ground. There are many reasons to dislike broadcast TV vs. Internet content, but advertising cannot be one of them because both mediums have it.
> advertising cannot be one of them because both mediums have it
Advertisers used to be in the dark about which half of their money they were wasting.
That let the media guys (journos, etc.) get away with some stuff.
No more. Delivery is the word.
Re: FX chief: Even peak TV can be a 'sideshow' to internet
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not all of TV sucks, and FX isn’t terrible. But given the commercials, TV feels like willful brainwashing in practice. Consider the idea of paying for cable, and still watching commercials. It’s sort of like paying for the internet connection and still paying for the content. No thanks.
>> It’s sort of like paying for the internet connection and still paying for the content. No thanks. Every streaming service works this way.
It isn't quite the same. You don't pay a video streaming service for your connection. You pay for a connection and optionally use it for a streaming service.
You pay for TV to watch TV, you can't do anything else with it other than view it.
Re: FX chief: Even peak TV can be a 'sideshow' to internet
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not all of TV sucks, and FX isn’t terrible. But given the commercials, TV feels like willful brainwashing in practice. Consider the idea of paying for cable, and still watching commercials. It’s sort of like paying for the internet connection and still paying for the content. No thanks.
Most Internet content providers have advertising, sometimes invasive based on my browsing history — YouTube, I am looking at you — to offset costs or rack up profits. Therefore, your beef with broadcast networks based on advertising is on shaky ground. There are many reasons to dislike broadcast TV vs. Internet content, but advertising cannot be one of them because both mediums have it.
I don't see Adverts online anywhere, I have no control of that with TV?
Re: FX chief: Even peak TV can be a 'sideshow' to internet
#10Yeah, and there are reasons for that. Focus groups kill creativity with group-think, and TV reeks of it. Standards and practices and other varieties of self censorship mean TV shall fight forever with one hand tied behind its back. The internet is frequently better than TV, because merit is free to boil to the surface without being stifled. It’s not that the internet is free of bland tripe. But merely that it’s costl…
> Yeah, and there are reasons for that. Focus groups kill creativity with group-think, and TV reeks of it. Standards and practices and other varieties of self censorship mean TV shall fight forever with one hand tied behind its back. I would actually argue that FX has produced a lot of notable content which has been novel and high quality. Examples would include The Shield, Fargo, Louie, The Americans, Sons of Anarch…
One can argue that HBO was the Internet of the 90s.
They had a separate subscription and being a premium channel allowed them to experiment with content that would not be valid or even allowed on basic cable yet alone broadcast TV.