There are few things in this world that are criticized more than the quality of television programming, and you have not only decided to major in it but also have thrust yourself into the position of producing more of it! In this culture, television, as opposed to books and “good cinema,” is largely considered a low-brow medium. So, you might think it would be reasonably easy to create it.
But when you read through Evan Smith’s Writing Television Sitcoms or Lindheim and Blum’s chapter from Inside Television Producing, you will likely walk away with a different impression of how “easy” this junk is to write.
Could you please resolve this tension by sharing with a layperson why television storytelling still works 50+ years after DesiLu. In other words, “What could possibly be so hard about writing for television?” Center your discussion around at least one good example from a show we share in class including some indication of what makes it good.
Blogging Instructions:
You have two options when you comment. You can either directly address the question of the week, or react/respond/interact with another student’s entry or entries. You can interact with words, pictures, videos or anything that adds to the conversation. There is great value in either approach, but the more of the latter, the more the discussion will become “our own.”
Go to tvproduction.wordpress.com. To comment on the blog, go to the bottom of the bottom of the post and click where it says “X Comments>>.” Enter your name and your syr.edu email address. Entering your email address ensures the WordPress server that you are a person and not a spammer, and it will allow us to keep track of who has and has not commented.
READING MATERIALS THAT MIGHT HELP YOU ON THIS TOPIC
- HAND-OUT – Selections from Inside Television Producing, by Lindheim and Blum. [Anatomy of a show concept]
- HAND-OUT – Evenings At The Improv: Don’t get me rewrite! TV comedies are finding ways to get laughs without a script, Poniewozik, James From Time.com – Sunday, October 20, 2002.
- HAND-OUT & ON RESERVE – Writing Television Sitcoms, by Evan Smith. An excellent guide for our episodic experience.
- HAND-OUT – Can This Man Save the Sitcom? By Ari Posner. New York Times: August 1, 2004.
- ON RESERVE – The Showrunners by David Wild.
OTHER THINGS THAT MIGHT HELP YOU ON THIS TOPIC
- Watching lots of episodes of a television show and considering the dynamics of their relationship.
- Carefully and critically analyzing our television pick of the week beyond its surface.
- Asking good questions when we discuss this question for the first time.
September 24, 2007 at 1:07 pm
Blog-4 What Makes TV “Good”
I can understand why some people perceive television as “low-brow” entertainment, however this does not mean I agree with them. I would argue that television has done more to shape the social climate of this country, over the last fifty years, then any other medium. Good television should be respected in the same way that good art or film is. The reason I believe television is considered “low-brow,” is because of its extremely large and diverse audience. Also television is a much more pervasive medium and things that “flop’ on television are seen by many more people than bad art or film
Shows like the “The Surreal Life,” and “The OC” are by many people’s standards the definition of lowbrow. While these shows may lack the artistic aesthetic of a “Raging Bull,” by no means, makes them artistically worthless. I would challenge that producing a hit television show is just as difficult, if not more then creating a fine piece of art or film.
Unlike art or film, television is a joint experience that creates a sense of community amongst its viewers. Television characters evolve over many years, over time the audience begins to feel connected to the characters on screen as if they are real people. We feel connected to the characters on screen as if we know them, this I believe comes from the amount of time we spend watching them. A good film runs for about two hours, a good piece of art is viewed for twenty minutes, but good television can have hundreds of hours of programming. Having to write that much material is a challenge in itself, but making the quality of each episode standup is a true artistic achievement. Having to make the same characters, in the same settings, interesting week after week is unbelievably difficult. For example Seinfeld (in my opinion the best show of all times), took the same 4 characters, put them in the same handful of settings, and still delivered inventive programming for ten years. The film industry can hardly make a sequel worth watching, imagine how bad eighty installments of Rush Hour would be! Television has the challenge of keeping the same thing fresh and interesting every week. Characters must change and evolve on a weekly basis to keep things fresh and interesting, however not change so much as to lose their identity. I believe the scripts of Seinfeld, should be considered among the great literary achievements of our time. In many ways these scripts capture the essence of our times better than any great novel. Fancy words, and eloquent soliloquies are great, but how many people can actually appreciate their value. Seinfeld is able to transcend race, religion and color, affecting people of every creed equally.
One of televisions greatest attributes is its appeal to the masses. Sadly in our society, something that appeals to the general public cannot ever be considered art. Why must something only appeal to a small niche audience, of the upper class and educated, before its considered art? I admit that everything on television, isn’t a great work of intellectual achievement. But the same can be argued about thousands of pieces of art hanging in museums. (http://www.philamuseum.org/collections/permanent/85707.html…this is not a joke)
In my opinion, something considered art should be innovative, timely, thought inducing, and of higher quality then its peers. In other words, a medium is not inherently art, but rather some of its examples may be. In my opinion many television shows fit the aforementioned requirements of artistic merit, and deserve to be treated as so.
September 25, 2007 at 3:11 pm
So Kleinman beat me, as always, and wrote a lot of what I was originally going to write. I’ll try not to repeat too much.
To sum up, I completely agree that television gets a wholly undeserved bad rap. I can’t count the number of times I’ve heard people lament “Ugh, there’s nothing good on TV” (After which, I usually resist the urge to have a hissy fit, and instead calmly point out some options they should check out. That’s a lie, I usually just yell)
Just as often, I hear people haughtily inform me that they “Don’t watch much TV” or “Don’t have time for TV”. These same people usually spend their free time on Facebook or some other equally time-wasting activity. Why is it considered high-brow to not watch TV? In the past few years I’ve seen more quality on TV as a whole than I have at the movie theater, yet movies are automatically considered art just because of the medium.
As the above blog states, a TV show has to uphold its quality for about 22 episodes a year. The writers alone have to uphold quality writing for a vast amount of material while worrying about character development, plot, setting, exposition etc. all while keeping the viewer interested and trying to deal with network input. Movies only have to run 2 hours, and don’t have ratings or the FCC to worry about.
But when television is good, fans can grow invested in a show a way they can’t with a movie or a play. Week after week, viewers feel like they’re getting to know the characters. They defend their shows and try to get other people to watch them. Overall viewer engagement is much higher.
Achieving the level of quality that causes fans to react this way, though, is extremely difficult. Programmers are always trying to find that magic formula, obvious from the way they copy proven formulas like crazy. Its much harder, though, than just knocking off the latest hit on another network. You know quality when you see it, but its extremely hard to capture or predict.
Even when a show has all the right elements, it can still be a bad show. And sometimes good shows go bad. Or a show will go through creative ups and downs. Or a weaker show will find footing over time, and become a quality show. Television is so volataile, and with so much material needing to be written and produced, shows are almost never fantastic all the time.
To me, a good show needs excellent and smart writing, well developed characters with a talented cast to bring the characters to life, interesting, believable plots (in the realm of the show at least). Everything must be organic to the show’s vision. Characters can’t become caricatures, plots can’t seem convoluted, and the show should never seem to be trying too hard. Of course, this is all easie said than done.
Take for instance the recent standoff between Studio 60 and 30 Rock. Both on the same network, about the same environment, and both with numbers in their titles. Most thought Studio 60 would take the higher marks. All the elements were there: Aaron Sorkin, a proven writer/creator, a great cast, an interesting premise. The show should have worked.
The elements were there, but they weren’t working, because they weren’t organic to the show. The tone became too preachy for a show about sketch comedy, the sketches on the show weren’t funny, the characters were hard to relate to. Aaron Sorkin’s “Sorkin-ness” went too far this time. The show ended up being canceled.
On the other hand, after a slow start, 30 Rock hit its stride and continuously produced highly entertaining episodes filled with engaging characters and hilariously absurd situations. The show could have been too over the top, but the absurdity was extremely well written and the characters were entertaining while also being relatable. While the ratings are still horrible (sadly…you should all watch it this season), the show was renewed and even took home the Best Comedy Emmy last weekend.
I think this situation shows just how hard it is to capture television magic. A good show is extremely hard to produce even when it has everything going for it. Not to mention all the shows that don’t have anything going for them. One only has to look at the rotating comedies NBC tried to stick behind Friends for 7 years. The network thought any old sitcom would work, even after repeated failed attempts to capture the Friends success. Even network execs don’t understand how hard quality television is to create.
September 25, 2007 at 5:15 pm
The blog asks us to contrast the so-called “low-brow” medium of television with books and “good cinema.” Because apparently, compared to books and “good cinema” television just doesn’t compare. First off, I don’t think it’s fair to compare ALL TV to “good cinema.” I think we need to look at bad cinema as well, because there is a lot more bad cinema than good. And on that note, if we are calling TV “low-brow” compared to the romance novels in a grocery store aisle, then we need a serious reality check.
I also don’t think the term “low-brow” is acceptable. “Dumb and Dumber” is a low-brow movie. It is also hilarious. So what’s wrong with that? Kleinman pointed out “The Surreal Life” as an example of low-brow television. I watched the first season of “The Surreal Life” and I enjoyed it. So what’s wrong with that? I have never read a low-brow book, and I probably never will, because when I read a book I want something substantive, or at least worth my time. But this is not to say that there is a lack of low-brow reading material. There are low-brow forms of every medium. The problem is that TV gets all the attention. The reason for this is simple: it’s the most accessible. When you go to see a movie you shell out upwards of $10 and up to 3 hours of your life. When you have a book you want to read you purchase it for $20 or so, and then spend hours of your life reading it. We make more of a commitment when we watch a movie or read a book, and because of that we generally have higher standards. Some people LOVE crappy movies. My roommate saw “Transformers” 3 times in the theaters this summer, and is planning on spending $30 to buy it on Blu-ray when it comes out. But “Transformers” (in my opinion) is one of the worst things I’ve ever seen.
TV is a different story. As I’m sitting here writing this blog I’m thinking of ways to procrastinate, and what better than turning on my TV? One push of a button and I can get lost in a world of “Room Raiders” or “America’s Most Wanted.” When you want to watch “Next” on MTV instead of doing your homework you turn on the TV, seemingly for free, and sacrifice a single half hour of your life. And because it’s so easy to do, many, many people watch these shows. And because so many people watch these shows, extra attention is brought to them. Yes there are these terrible, mind-numbing (yet sometimes engaging) shows, and yes, people watch them. But that is not to say that all TV is bad. Again to draw on what Steve said, “Seinfeld” is the Sistine Chapel of TV shows. It is fantastic in every aspect. If anything, the medium of television HELPED because it made this fantastic program so accessible. How many people have seen the Mona Lisa, and how many people have seen Elaine dance? I think that TV is labeled as “low-brow” just because there is an elitist view that any average schmuck can watch. And yes it’s true, a lot of people can watch TV. A lot more than can make it to the Louvre or the Vatican. And it’s also much easier to watch a crappy TV show than to spend time and money on a book or a movie. That’s why when we watch movies and read books we focus on (we hope) better quality ones. And that’s why when we watch TV, sometimes we tune in for pure crap. But a lot of the time we tune in for “Seinfeld.”
January 7, 2008 at 4:40 am
I was lucky enough o get my credit card information stolen. My credit history was messed up. It took me awhile to solve the problem. After that I didn’t want to use credit cards online because I didn’t want to screw everything up again. Now I need a new one and I’m thinking about applying for one at
discovery monogram credit cards
Ne72Ma9rod