Roger Ebert: TV is the future, not film

Post Reply New Topic

In a recent article by Roger Ebert, he expresses his disdain for all the unoriginality in the film industry, with the studios showing too much preference for franchise films and remakes. He makes the claim that there's more original stuff on television now, namely on cable. He even goes further by saying the Academy Awards should start recognizing made-for-TV movies and not just theatrical releases. What do you think?

I agree with him, but I also think that the glory days of the major broadcast networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, et al) are over (maybe that's a good thing). Scripted material has taken a backseat to reality television and game shows on the broadcast networks, who won't hesitate to cancel a show if it has less than ten million viewers. The cable networks, while they may produce less original material and make most of their money through syndication of old TV shows, usually acquire a loyal fanbase in their audiences, and are more willing to keep a show on in spite of its smaller (but devoted) viewership. I believe in the not too distant future, most original scripted material will be on cable. Most of the shows I watch (South Park, Dexter, Shameless, Burn Notice, White Collar) are on cable.

Most of the shows I watch are on the major networks. Shows such as; criminal minds, csis, ncis's, bones, house and tons of others. I watch also cable shows. My favorites are burn notice, leverage, psych, Memphis Beat. I love television. Also I dont think that movies have become unoriginal. They just have morphed into a lot more action than in previous decades. Roger is just too old to appreciate what movies are coming out now.

I don't know if TV is the future, but I agree with you that the glory days of the major networks is coming to an end. They may have the numbers, but today all the quality and intelligent shows are on cable, with a few exceptions. Soon channels like Fox will be showing nothing but reality shows. Quality shows like the recently cancelled (but hopefully not completely dead) Chiacgo Code on Fox are cancelled despite averaging between 7 and 8 million an episode, that's not enough for Fox. What really made me mad was when the president of Fox said that the audience that Chicago attracted was older than they wanted, so what older people don't matter anymore. None of this is helped by the outdated ratings system that they rely on.
I think the cable channel TNT is a good example of how to have a balance between critically acclaimed shows and more commercially succesfull shows.

It might be high in overall viewers though I doubt that would be the case all season if it was cancelled. But it was pathetic in ideal viewers. 18-49 year olds. Actually the week before the series finale of the chicago code it only was in the 5 million viewer range. So no it regularly was not between 7 and 8 mill. It looks like regularly the chicago code was in the high 5's or below.

that is about the only thing of which i could ever agree with him. the writing was on the wall when moviemakers started using video, first by comedian jerry lewis as a framing/editing aid, then later on by many others as a master for dubbing onto film for theatrical release. tv is the "future-is-now" of movies and holographic video is the future of tv.

Actually most weeks the numbers were just above 7 million, do you not understand what averages means. Out of 13 episodes the majority of them had numbers between 7 and 8 million. Only a few of them had numbers just under 6 million.

Besides these days with the popularity of watching TV online, live viewing numbers and DVR numbers aren’t exactly representative anymore. And how can the ratings be accurate when not everyone has a Nielsen box. The only way in which the ratings could be remotely accurate is if everyone who owned a TV has a Nielsen box as well.

And just because a show doesn’t have great numbers it doesn’t mean that it’s not a good show. I suppose a perfect example would be Southland, NBC cancelled it and it found a home on TNT where it gets decent ratings for a cable show and in terms of quality it is much better than when it was on NBC.

The Chicago Code has two main problems, firstly it’s an intelligent long game kind of show which actually requires you to tune in every week and pay attention and remember what happened last week or a month ago. Secondly it’s not a very good fit on Fox, which isn’t exactly known for intelligent shows (with the exception of Fringe, and it’s a miracle that Fox has not killed Fringe yet).
The bigger problem is not just an issue with Fox though, it’s with all the major networks, in that they are too impatient and they don’t give shows time to find an audience. The Chicago Code doesn’t have horrible numbers and Fox could have been patient, given it a second season (in fact it didn’t even have a complete first season, 13 episodes may be a full season on cable but not on the major networks) and allowed it grow. Not everything is, or has to be an instant hit. For example NCIS wasn’t an instant hit, when NCIS started most people hadn’t even heard of Naval Criminal Investigative Service, its numbers were nothing special in its first season but they gained momentum when the episodes were repeated in the summer and now NCIS is one of the most popular crime shows on TV and has been for the last 8 years. Now imagine if CBS hadn’t showed a little patience, they would have missed out on that.

I disagree with him. There is nothing original on television. What isn't a reality show is either a criminal justice or medical drama, and what isn't a drama is a sitcom about some average family or couple and their "hilarious" misadventures. I primarily enjoy sci-fi and fantasy shows, which aren't given much of a chance on network TV these days. That's why Netflix is so wonderful - they have a lot of sci-fi/fantasy shows available to stream instantly from their website, for only $8 a month.

Note that most of what I said applies to cable television in the United States; I don't know what television is like in other countries.

Its all in what you like. Fringe, new show coming out grimm. Grimm is about a grimm who starts seeing who the evil people really are. They are fairy tale characters. I only know of 2 shows on the major networks which really have anything to do with the medical field. House and Greys Anatomy. If you enjoy comedies NBC is where you go or cbs. How I Met Your Mother, Big Bang Theory, Community. Yes there are some supposed reality shows like dancing with the stars or survivor. Though I see much more reality on TLC. Yes I defend major networks because I love their programming more than cable. My favorite shows such as House, Bones, Criminal Minds, NCIS all are on major networks. Also with major networks I get 22 or 24 episodes a season rather than the average between 13 and 16 episodes. And finally with major networks we get a whole night of tv while tnt and usa usually have nothing on at eight. And usually nothing on fridays that is new.

I love my major networks. Other people love only cable. I would prefer that they dont censor major networks but I cant change that. I just love all tv and movies so for me neither of them are going down the drain.