What’s a TV Show?

 

Television was widely anticipated for a half-century before it finally appeared in the home. You see it as futuristic science fiction in films like Metropolis, Things to Come, Transatlantic Tunnel, and Modern Times. Someday it would provide to every American a front-row seat at public events, like the inauguration of a president, a horse race, or the World Series. There’d be live remote broadcasts from big city theaters, with dramas, operas, and vaudeville, as in International House, complete with pretty singers, leggy dancers, and black comedians. All of that would eventually come to pass, in one form or another. Live news events, sports, and variety are mainstays of television even today. But when we say the words “Last night I watched a TV show,” what we usually have in mind is different.

There was a blank spot in science fiction writers’ imaginations: scripted entertainment. One simple, obvious thing these tele-viewers of tomorrow never seemed to do in these futuristic visions was spend any couch time watching TV, at least in the sense that we know the term. The futurists of the 1920s didn’t anticipate that very soon we’d have a national habit of hanging out each week with the likes of the Ricardos and the Kramdens. Flash Gordon never kicked back with a cold brew to catch an episode of The Adventures of Superman. Inventing television was hard enough; inventing the kinds of programs and formats that people would want to see, week after week, took another kind of talent. In retrospect, it all happened quickly, but it didn’t happen overnight.

TV shows differ in all sorts of ways, but almost anywhere in the world even children recognize the basics (*): a fictional program, either dramatic or comic, that mostly features the same group of characters in every episode. It has catchy theme music, opening titles, and a closing list of people who worked on the show. It’s always aired at the same time of day, every week if it’s new, every weekday if it’s old. That time slot is either 30 or 60 minutes long, no more and no less.

Live television owes much to theater. But plays don’t have strict running times. You don’t go to a theater every week to see a continuation of last week’s play. Filmed television owes a lot to movies, with their camera angles, lighting, musical soundtracks, and editing. But neither theater plays nor movies are interrupted every ten minutes for announcements hawking the sale of cars or weight-loss pills. Television learned it from radio broadcasting, which invented time slots, commercials, and a continuing cast of actors. We’re all so familiar with the format that we’ve long since forgotten how artificial it is.

(* Naturally, there are always creative exceptions. There are anthology shows with different actors each week, like Kraft Suspense Theater or The Twilight Zone. There are entertainment offshoots like game shows, and oddball premises like Sing Along with Mitch, Candid Camera, and Bishop Fulton J. Sheen’s Life Is Worth Living. But I’m talking plain ol’ regular TV shows: Kojak and Sgt. Bilko, Father Knows Best, and The Shield.)

Hollywood had experience in visual storytelling, technicians, and equipment ready to go on location, warehouses full of bought-and-paid-for scripts, and access to big-name talent, if only they would play ball with the networks. But they wouldn’t, not at first. Big studios not only refused to produce new material for TV, they initially refused to sell broadcast rights to their film libraries. That’s why the schedules of local stations in my childhood were loaded with fourth-rate films from third-rate studios: because the majors wouldn’t do it.

Stepping eagerly into the gap, many smaller independent companies were formed to make film series for television, the ones the big boys wouldn’t do. Some of the most famous companies were owned by film actors, like Desilu (Desi Arnaz and Lucille Ball), Mark VII Productions (Jack Webb), and Four Star (David Niven, Charles Boyer, Dick Powell, and Ida Lupino).

In 1948, one of these new start-up companies, Imppro, (Independent Motion Picture Productions), signed a contract with CBS to produce 12 episodes of a detective show, The Cases of Eddie Drake, to be filmed on the west coast at a cost of $7,500 per half-hour episode, mere peanuts even by 1948 standards. By the end of the year, eight episodes were in the can, and then a mysterious interlude began. The show would have been one of the first, Hollywood-made film shows on the air, but it didn’t get there until DuMont, the runt of the network litter, bought it in 1952. Four years was an eon in early TV time. Like a fly in amber, it was by then a well-preserved fossil of a little-seen past. By ’52, there were plenty of filmed shows, and they’d started to develop a certain style.

But in ’48, they hadn’t, not quite yet. Eddie Drake doesn’t have an eye-catching animated opening with easy-to-remember theme music. It opens like a low-low-budget Hollywood feature of the late Thirties, with a stationary title card. Like a radio show, it has a framing device; each episode is supposedly a story being told by a hard-boiled detective to a psychiatrist writing a book about criminal behavior. Okay, all right, I’ll say it: “a beautiful lady psychiatrist.” Her main acting job is raising her eyebrows at descriptions of other women.

The most prolific of the non-studio TV show factories was Ziv Productions, owned by a colorful, swashbuckling independent named Frederick Ziv. If you are film savvy, you’ve probably heard of Roger Corman. He was a moneymaking producer of cheap action and horror films, but often with a sense of class, a touch of style. Fred Ziv can fairly be called the Roger Corman of early television, before the big studios changed their minds about producing TV shows.

From 1950 through 1956, he produced The Cisco Kid, one of TV’s earliest westerns, and one of the first television series anywhere in the world to be filmed in color. This was expensive, by penny-pinching Ziv standards, and the introduction of color TV was delayed for years longer than expected. But once it did arrive, in the mid-Fifties, The Cisco Kid was one of the few color programs that small local stations could afford, so it finally paid off for Ziv.

One of Ziv Productions’ biggest-ever hits, I Led 3 Lives (1953-’57), was never on prime-time network TV, but it attracted high ratings for local stations all over the country. Only five years after the primitive-looking beginnings of The Cases of Eddie Drake, I Led 3 Lives is a great example of how much and how quickly TV producers had learned about making shows that kept viewers in seats.

Each episode begins with a dramatic musical and visual flourish as the show’s stark logotype swoops onto the cover of the book the show is based on, the memoirs of Herbert Philbrick, who infiltrated the Communist party for the FBI. The narrator intones the show’s premise, reminding the audience of the basics, and says a few words about tonight’s story.

Most episodes involve the hero foiling an act of Moscow-commanded, US Communist party sabotage or espionage. There are no gadgets, no stunt work, no gunplay, just a Dragnet-style procedural about the often-dull daily work of microfilming documents, updating cipher codes, and attending Party meetings. Ziv made a virtue of necessity, using real locations long before that was fashionable. He was too cheap to build sets.

The show was crafted to build tension and suspense before every break for a commercial. When the show came back from commercials, it featured a “bumper”—a short segment of film with that distinctive I Led 3 Lives logo again, to remind you where you were and get you back in its mood. ‘Bumpers” were a small, clever idea that stuck.

At the end of the show, the actor playing Herbert Philbrick said a few words about next week’s episode and then wished us good night. Note that at that time, there was no awareness that this show might be seen any other way than once a week, in the evening. Then the dramatic musical theme plays over the closing credit roll.

Now that’s what a TV show looks like. By then, other early shows like Susie, Topper, My Little Margie, and The Millionaire were mastering the skill of “speaking in television.” Later in the Fifties, the studios caved in, and were soon competing with each other’s new television production divisions. Hollywood films stopped routinely ridiculing their small-screen cousins, as in 1957’s Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter? This was roughly the point at which most American intellectuals decided that they despised TV. There would be exceptions; William Faulkner’s favorite show was Car 54, Where Are You?

The contents of TV writing have shifted with the culture, but the habits and conventions of TV shows have proven to be remarkably durable over the decades. Minor adjustments do get made, like minimizing the changeover point between shows so viewers won’t be tempted to change the channel. For a long time now, the unions and guilds have okayed speeded-up end credits of an outgoing show to be displayed at unreadable size in a small box within the big picture of the incoming show. Plus, the next show begins immediately, delaying its opening credits by a minute.

Today’s streaming era cuts TV loose from narrow selections constrained by broadcast or cable bandwidth, and from being anchored in specific show times. Yet despite new technology, like small high-quality cameras that can go anywhere, few attempts to alter the boundaries of what a TV show is have succeeded.

Fact is, whether we’ve ever thought about it or not, our unstated preferences make it clear that most of us don’t really want our TV shows to be too much like the real world.

We expect modern cop shows to be “dark,” “edgy,” “gritty,” exploring depths of evil. So CSI, set in one of the world’s sunniest major cities, often does its work in the stygian darkness of derelict buildings, basements, lethal meat lockers, and other places of nightmarish shadows, requiring intensely bright little flashlights.

And on the other hand, we expect comedy shows to subconsciously clue us into the fun with shiny, uniform brightness. Some of this is for technical reasons: for example, the bars even in the shows of our esteemed R> brother Rob Long, like Cheers and Sullivan and Son, can never be too real; after all, real bars adjust their 24/7 room lighting according to the “Nobody’s ugly at two a.m.” principle. Dimly lit barflies trying to hide their wedding rings just doesn’t signal “romcom” like a brightly lit, eminently presentable Sam and Diane do. Plus, there’s the issue of sound. Real bars have blaring jukeboxes and are crowded with loud people, often cheering a game on TV. Having to shout over the noise isn’t the best environment for precision joke-telling.

Audiences prefer TV shows with situations and characters that ring true to life, sure, but ones that are in an artificially heightened comedy or action bubble that seldom encounters the real world. All over the world, (and in our part of the world, for three-quarters of a century), we want shows to be original and familiar, novel and predictable. Most of the time, we’re more or less satisfied with what we see, so we snap on the TV and keep watching.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 176 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Bishop Wash Member
    Bishop Wash
    @BishopWash

    Gary McVey (View Comment):
    There are also a few inside gags, like an episode of The A-Team that showed the team casting dubious looks at Dirk Benedict’s earlier TV show, Battlestar Galactica. You’ll sometimes see it in shows like The Dick Van Dyke Show‘s rare glimpses of the fictional Alan Brady Show

    DiNozzo constantly referenced movies on NCIS but I don’t think he ever referenced Marc Harmon’s Summer School. Kept waiting for that one.

    • #31
  2. iWe Coolidge
    iWe
    @iWe

    Gary McVey: All over the world, (and in our part of the world, for three quarters of a century), we want shows to be original and familiar, novel and predictable.

    This reminds me of Terry Pratchett’s observation that people may buy the newspaper, but what they really want to read is olds. The information they expect, that confirms what they already think, etc.

    • #32
  3. Addiction Is A Choice Member
    Addiction Is A Choice
    @AddictionIsAChoice

    Gary McVey: Television learned it from radio broadcasting, which invented time slots, commercials, and a continuing cast of actors.

    And for a fun, refreshing escape from television, joins us here every Saturday night for “Saturday Night Radio!

    Great post, Gary!  And I’m sorry for barging in with such a shameless plug, but the words “shameless” and “television” go together so perfectly, I was duty-bound to intrude. 

    • #33
  4. iWe Coolidge
    iWe
    @iWe

    Matt Bartle (View Comment):

    Bartholomew Xerxes Ogilvie, Jr. (View Comment):
    With bigger TVs and better home sound systems, not to mention higher production values for TV, it seems to me that the distinction between TV and movies is becoming rather fuzzy.

    I figure that when sitting a few feet from a 65 inch TV, the screen looks just as big as a movie screen does if you’re sitting a ways back.

    I used to think that projectors in glasses would be ideal. Then my eyesight got poorer. 

    • #34
  5. iWe Coolidge
    iWe
    @iWe

    BTW, another FANTASTIC post from Gary! I learn so much from you!

    I was a kid who grew up without television, so TV-watching more-or-less started in college. Think Friends and Cheers. Never enjoyed Seinfeld.

    • #35
  6. Miffed White Male Member
    Miffed White Male
    @MiffedWhiteMale

    Bishop Wash (View Comment):

    Gary McVey (View Comment):
    There are also a few inside gags, like an episode of The A-Team that showed the team casting dubious looks at Dirk Benedict’s earlier TV show, Battlestar Galactica. You’ll sometimes see it in shows like The Dick Van Dyke Show‘s rare glimpses of the fictional Alan Brady Show.

    DiNozzo constantly referenced movies on NCIS but I don’t think he ever referenced Marc Harmon’s Summer School. Kept waiting for that one.

    On Remington Steele, Pierce Brosnan would always solve the case by referencing an old movie with a similar plot.

     

    • #36
  7. Randy Weivoda Moderator
    Randy Weivoda
    @RandyWeivoda

    Addiction Is A Choice (View Comment):

    Gary McVey: Television learned it from radio broadcasting, which invented time slots, commercials, and a continuing cast of actors.

    And for a fun, refreshing escape from television, joins us here every Saturday night for “Saturday Night Radio!

    Great post, Gary! And I’m sorry for barging in with such a shameless plug, but the words “shameless” and “television” go together so perfectly, I was duty-bound to intrude.

    Hey, when an opportunity for promotion arises, you’ve got to jump on it.

    • #37
  8. MeandurΦ Member
    MeandurΦ
    @DeanMurphy

    Matt Bartle (View Comment):

    On my first trip to England, in the 90’s, I was surprised to discover that their TV shows did not always start on the hour or half hour. Don’t know if that’s still true.

    thats bleeding over here; like reruns of Law and Order SVU are routinely ended after the turn of the hour and it makes you miss the beginning of other shows on other channels, so you might as well stick with the current one…

    • #38
  9. MeandurΦ Member
    MeandurΦ
    @DeanMurphy

    Bartholomew Xerxes Ogilvie, Jr. (View Comment):

    I’d always assumed that TV shows were a natural evolution of the movie serial. But it hadn’t really occurred to me that the stubborn early rivalry between the film and television industries enforced a separation and meant that TV shows more or less evolved independently. Surely, though, there must have been some cross-pollination.

    It is interesting to see some aspects of that old rivalry coming to life again. The movie industry long ago realized that TV was not going to put them out of business and that they could coexist peacefully. But then along came streaming, and then COVID, which sent a lot of movies straight to streaming without stopping off at theaters first. With bigger TVs and better home sound systems, not to mention higher production values for TV, it seems to me that the distinction between TV and movies is becoming rather fuzzy. There are some TV shows that are really just very long movies, edited into multiple parts.

    And so once again the filmmakers (especially old-school directors like Steven Spielberg) are worried that TV is going to kill movies. I understand their feelings, but personally I don’t really care if you call it a “movie” or a “TV show.” I don’t go to the theater if I can help it, so it’s all the same to me.

    just saw an MST3K that was 2 tv episodes mashed together to be a feature length movie; the result was horribly clunky.

    • #39
  10. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    “Reality TV” seems to me to break a lot of the basic concepts of a “TV show,” even if one concedes that the shows are not exactly reality.   While their demise has been predicted,  lots of them are still around.

    As television has evolved the method of transmission has changed—by means of cable and now streaming in which networks are bundled.  It appears that those 10-15 reality intensive networks exist because the shows are cheap to make and because lots of households have to subscribe whether they watch the station or not.

    The shows are frequently  “phony,” and lack many of the basics of what made TV great.  Yet there they are.  Hello Bravo, among others, once an “arts” network.   The producers should be happy that TV is not a la carte viewing any more.

    • #40
  11. Clavius Thatcher
    Clavius
    @Clavius

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    Gary McVey: It’s always aired at the same time of day, every week if it’s new, every weekday if it’s old. That time slot is either 30 or 60 minutes long, no more and no less.

    As mentioned above by the Judge, it’s a bit strange that this continues into the Streaming era. I wonder if it’s mostly out of habit, or because these shows are produced with the thought that maybe one day they’ll be syndicated or otherwise plopped into a format that’s more time-restricted.

    I’ve noticed from watching various streaming shows on Disney+ (don’t judge) that the length of episodes can vary by as much as 20 minutes. In a way, this helps the creatives because an episode can be as long as it needs to be. No need for padding, or no need for cutting.

    I’ve also noticed that some streaming shows have retained the occasional “fade out before commercial,” (even when there are no commercials) and others just power on through with no indication of where commercials might go. Are the fade-outs there out of habit, or are they thinking “someday this might be seen on commercial channels”?

     

    It’s better than a jump cut between scenes.

    • #41
  12. Clavius Thatcher
    Clavius
    @Clavius

    Bartholomew Xerxes Ogilvie, Jr. (View Comment):
    I understand their feelings, but personally I don’t really care if you call it a “movie” or a “TV show.” I don’t go to the theater if I can help it, so it’s all the same to me.

    I would say the difference is “episodic” vs. “feature.”  One has multiple episodes, the other is one and done.

    Whether you watch it in a theater or at home is a different question.

    • #42
  13. Miffed White Male Member
    Miffed White Male
    @MiffedWhiteMale

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    “Reality TV” seems to me to break a lot of the basic concepts of a “TV show,” even if one concedes that the shows are not exactly reality. While their demise has been predicted, lots of them are still around.

    As television has evolved the method of transmission has changed—by means of cable and now streaming in which networks are bundled. It appears that those 10-15 reality intensive networks exist because the shows are cheap to make and because lots of households have to subscribe whether they watch the station or not.

    The shows are frequently “phony,” and lack many of the basics of what made TV great. Yet there they are. Hello Bravo, among others, once an “arts” network. The producers should be happy that TV is not a la carte viewing any more.

    I wish the Weather Channel would go back to 24×7 weather forecasts.

    True story – back circa 1990 I had the weather channel on, they had a camera set up on the mall in Washington DC providing background video for a forecast and my brother walked by with a couple of his friends.

     

    • #43
  14. DrewInWisconsin, Oik Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oik
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Clavius (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    I’ve also noticed that some streaming shows have retained the occasional “fade out before commercial,” (even when there are no commercials) and others just power on through with no indication of where commercials might go. Are the fade-outs there out of habit, or are they thinking “someday this might be seen on commercial channels”?

    It’s better than a jump cut between scenes.

    I must not be explaining properly. It’s not just a scene transition, but actual fade outs, long pause on black, then fade back in. Longer than a scene transition.

    I notice the commercial fade-outs when I’m watching Star Trek: Discovery. (A terrible show, but for some reason I’m watching it anyway.) Perhaps because they’re also sold overseas to commercial channels? Or are they?

     

    • #44
  15. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    “Reality TV” seems to me to break a lot of the basic concepts of a “TV show,” even if one concedes that the shows are not exactly reality. While their demise has been predicted, lots of them are still around.

    As television has evolved the method of transmission has changed—by means of cable and now streaming in which networks are bundled. It appears that those 10-15 reality intensive networks exist because the shows are cheap to make and because lots of households have to subscribe whether they watch the station or not.

    The shows are frequently “phony,” and lack many of the basics of what made TV great. Yet there they are. Hello Bravo, among others, once an “arts” network. The producers should be happy that TV is not a la carte viewing any more.

    I wish the Weather Channel would go back to 24×7 weather forecasts.

    True story – back circa 1990 I had the weather channel on, they had a camera set up on the mall in Washington DC providing background video for a forecast and my brother walked by with a couple of his friends.

    I don’t want to go too far afield here, but do you remember the woman with the big blonde hair who was something of a Weather Channel star back when they mostly covered the actual weather.?  Those were the days.

     

    • #45
  16. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    “Reality TV” seems to me to break a lot of the basic concepts of a “TV show,” even if one concedes that the shows are not exactly reality. While their demise has been predicted, lots of them are still around.

    As television has evolved the method of transmission has changed—by means of cable and now streaming in which networks are bundled. It appears that those 10-15 reality intensive networks exist because the shows are cheap to make and because lots of households have to subscribe whether they watch the station or not.

    The shows are frequently “phony,” and lack many of the basics of what made TV great. Yet there they are. Hello Bravo, among others, once an “arts” network. The producers should be happy that TV is not a la carte viewing any more.

    Have you ever sat at a lunch table where everyone  else is a fan of one of those shows?

    I think they cause brain damage.

    • #46
  17. Miffed White Male Member
    Miffed White Male
    @MiffedWhiteMale

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    “Reality TV” seems to me to break a lot of the basic concepts of a “TV show,” even if one concedes that the shows are not exactly reality. While their demise has been predicted, lots of them are still around.

    As television has evolved the method of transmission has changed—by means of cable and now streaming in which networks are bundled. It appears that those 10-15 reality intensive networks exist because the shows are cheap to make and because lots of households have to subscribe whether they watch the station or not.

    The shows are frequently “phony,” and lack many of the basics of what made TV great. Yet there they are. Hello Bravo, among others, once an “arts” network. The producers should be happy that TV is not a la carte viewing any more.

    I wish the Weather Channel would go back to 24×7 weather forecasts.

    True story – back circa 1990 I had the weather channel on, they had a camera set up on the mall in Washington DC providing background video for a forecast and my brother walked by with a couple of his friends.

    I don’t want to go too far afield here, but do you remember the woman with the big blonde hair who was something of a Weather Channel star back when they mostly covered the actual weather.? Those were the days.

     

    CNN Headline news with a 30 minute rotation of news/weather/sports (no opinion/talk shows) would be a welcome return too.

    Who was the dark-haired news anchor mon that channel?  Bore a [very slight] resemblance to actress Katey Sagal.

    • #47
  18. Gary McVey Contributor
    Gary McVey
    @GaryMcVey

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    Gary McVey: At the end of the show, the actor playing Herbert Philbrick said a few words about next week’s episode and then wished us good night. Note that at that time, there was no awareness that this show might be seen any other way than once a week, in the evening.

    I believe the 1960s Adam West Batman show aired two nights per week. Did any other first run prime-time shows do that?

     

    Can’t think of one offhand, but for one year NBC aired The Man From U.N.C.L.E. and The Girl From U.N.C.L.E. on different nights of the week. Each was an hour-long show. 

    • #48
  19. Gary McVey Contributor
    Gary McVey
    @GaryMcVey

    Gossamer Cat (View Comment):

    Internet’s Hank (View Comment):

    Gary McVey: There was a blank spot in science fiction writers’ imaginations: scripted entertainment. One simple, obvious thing these tele-viewers of tomorrow never seemed to do in these futuristic visions was spend any couch time watching TV, at least in the sense that we know the term.

    One of the innovations The Simpsons made was to show the cast watching television (as opposed to the occasional plot-relevant news cast or gimmicks like George Burns’ magic TV). Generally I think shows avoid showing that because watching people watch television is boring. You want to see Jim Rockford out solving crime, not laying about his trailer.

    In the Simpsons’ case I think it came of the determination to make a realistic, unflattering portrayal of American life. Going to work each day really cuts into Homer Simpson’s drink-beer-and-watch-TV time and he’ll complain about it.

    Ed Norton on The Honeymooners and the Ricardos on I Love Lucy both had episodes revolving around a TV and I think I Love Lucy did have episodes where Ricky was trying to watch the fights or where he invited Fred over to watch TV.

    In episodes like that, you rarely actually see the screen. The reason was technical and financial. Film runs at 24 frames a second, TV runs at 30 frames a second, so there’s a very distracting rolling picture effect. Every time you see a “TV picture” in one of these old shows, it’s actually a film visual effect. They “matte” the picture in, which costs a little money. 

    • #49
  20. Gary McVey Contributor
    Gary McVey
    @GaryMcVey

    RightAngles (View Comment):

    I love these posts of yours, Gary.

    The posts love you right back, RightAngles!

    • #50
  21. Miffed White Male Member
    Miffed White Male
    @MiffedWhiteMale

    Gary McVey (View Comment):

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    Gary McVey: At the end of the show, the actor playing Herbert Philbrick said a few words about next week’s episode and then wished us good night. Note that at that time, there was no awareness that this show might be seen any other way than once a week, in the evening.

    I believe the 1960s Adam West Batman show aired two nights per week. Did any other first run prime-time shows do that?

     

    Can’t think of one offhand, but for one year NBC aired The Man From U.N.C.L.E. and The Girl From U.N.C.L.E. on different nights of the week. Each was an hour-long show.

    Might have been because many/most of the Batman episodes were two parters.  “Tune in tomorrow night, same bat time, same bat channel”.

     

    • #51
  22. Gary McVey Contributor
    Gary McVey
    @GaryMcVey

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    Gary McVey: It’s always aired at the same time of day, every week if it’s new, every weekday if it’s old. That time slot is either 30 or 60 minutes long, no more and no less.

    As mentioned above by the Judge, it’s a bit strange that this continues into the Streaming era. I wonder if it’s mostly out of habit, or because these shows are produced with the thought that maybe one day they’ll be syndicated or otherwise plopped into a format that’s more time-restricted.

    I’ve noticed from watching various streaming shows on Disney+ (don’t judge) that the length of episodes can vary by as much as 20 minutes. In a way, this helps the creatives because an episode can be as long as it needs to be. No need for padding, or no need for cutting.

    I’ve also noticed that some streaming shows have retained the occasional “fade out before commercial,” (even when there are no commercials) and others just power on through with no indication of where commercials might go. Are the fade-outs there out of habit, or are they thinking “someday this might be seen on commercial channels”?

     

    When I used to run film festivals, we often showed a short film before the main feature. It was an extra treat, and gave starting filmmakers a chance. But we eventually dropped many of them, because the shorts got too long; they expanded to 22-24 minute length so they might be able to be used as half-hours on TV (including time for commercials). Movie audiences didn’t like them at that length. 

    • #52
  23. Judge Mental Member
    Judge Mental
    @JudgeMental

    Gary McVey (View Comment):

    Gossamer Cat (View Comment):

    Internet’s Hank (View Comment):

    Gary McVey: There was a blank spot in science fiction writers’ imaginations: scripted entertainment. One simple, obvious thing these tele-viewers of tomorrow never seemed to do in these futuristic visions was spend any couch time watching TV, at least in the sense that we know the term.

    One of the innovations The Simpsons made was to show the cast watching television (as opposed to the occasional plot-relevant news cast or gimmicks like George Burns’ magic TV). Generally I think shows avoid showing that because watching people watch television is boring. You want to see Jim Rockford out solving crime, not laying about his trailer.

    In the Simpsons’ case I think it came of the determination to make a realistic, unflattering portrayal of American life. Going to work each day really cuts into Homer Simpson’s drink-beer-and-watch-TV time and he’ll complain about it.

    Ed Norton on The Honeymooners and the Ricardos on I Love Lucy both had episodes revolving around a TV and I think I Love Lucy did have episodes where Ricky was trying to watch the fights or where he invited Fred over to watch TV.

    In episodes like that, you rarely actually see the screen. The reason was technical and financial. Film runs at 24 frames a second, TV runs at 30 frames a second, so there’s a very distracting rolling picture effect. Every time you see a “TV picture” in one of these old shows, it’s actually a film visual effect. They “matte” the picture in, which costs a little money.

    If it’s real TV, you’ll likely see a listing for “24-frame TV” in the credits.

    • #53
  24. Bishop Wash Member
    Bishop Wash
    @BishopWash

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    “Reality TV” seems to me to break a lot of the basic concepts of a “TV show,” even if one concedes that the shows are not exactly reality. While their demise has been predicted, lots of them are still around.

    As television has evolved the method of transmission has changed—by means of cable and now streaming in which networks are bundled. It appears that those 10-15 reality intensive networks exist because the shows are cheap to make and because lots of households have to subscribe whether they watch the station or not.

    The shows are frequently “phony,” and lack many of the basics of what made TV great. Yet there they are. Hello Bravo, among others, once an “arts” network. The producers should be happy that TV is not a la carte viewing any more.

    I wish the Weather Channel would go back to 24×7 weather forecasts.

    True story – back circa 1990 I had the weather channel on, they had a camera set up on the mall in Washington DC providing background video for a forecast and my brother walked by with a couple of his friends.

    I don’t want to go too far afield here, but do you remember the woman with the big blonde hair who was something of a Weather Channel star back when they mostly covered the actual weather.? Those were the days.

     

    CNN Headline news with a 30 minute rotation of news/weather/sports (no opinion/talk shows) would be a welcome return too.

    Who was the dark-haired news anchor mon that channel? Bore a [very slight] resemblance to actress Katey Sagal.

    Lynne Russell?

    • #54
  25. Gary McVey Contributor
    Gary McVey
    @GaryMcVey

    Judge Mental (View Comment):

    Gary McVey (View Comment):

    Gossamer Cat (View Comment):

    Internet’s Hank (View Comment):

    Gary McVey: There was a blank spot in science fiction writers’ imaginations: scripted entertainment. One simple, obvious thing these tele-viewers of tomorrow never seemed to do in these futuristic visions was spend any couch time watching TV, at least in the sense that we know the term.

    One of the innovations The Simpsons made was to show the cast watching television (as opposed to the occasional plot-relevant news cast or gimmicks like George Burns’ magic TV). Generally I think shows avoid showing that because watching people watch television is boring. You want to see Jim Rockford out solving crime, not laying about his trailer.

    In the Simpsons’ case I think it came of the determination to make a realistic, unflattering portrayal of American life. Going to work each day really cuts into Homer Simpson’s drink-beer-and-watch-TV time and he’ll complain about it.

    Ed Norton on The Honeymooners and the Ricardos on I Love Lucy both had episodes revolving around a TV and I think I Love Lucy did have episodes where Ricky was trying to watch the fights or where he invited Fred over to watch TV.

    In episodes like that, you rarely actually see the screen. The reason was technical and financial. Film runs at 24 frames a second, TV runs at 30 frames a second, so there’s a very distracting rolling picture effect. Every time you see a “TV picture” in one of these old shows, it’s actually a film visual effect. They “matte” the picture in, which costs a little money.

    If it’s real TV, you’ll likely see a listing for “24-frame TV” in the credits.

    In old movies, they usually did the same thing–fake a TV picture–but occasionally you’d get a director who went to the trouble of doing the real thing. Sidney Lumet had directed live TV, so Seven Days in May (1964) is full of monitors, TV sets, and a video conference line between the White House and the Pentagon. In Marooned (1969) the astronauts have a video camera, and the pictures on the ground are actual video. The TV sets in All the President’s Men (1976) have real pictures on them. 

    • #55
  26. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    “Reality TV” seems to me to break a lot of the basic concepts of a “TV show,” even if one concedes that the shows are not exactly reality. While their demise has been predicted, lots of them are still around.

    As television has evolved the method of transmission has changed—by means of cable and now streaming in which networks are bundled. It appears that those 10-15 reality intensive networks exist because the shows are cheap to make and because lots of households have to subscribe whether they watch the station or not.

    The shows are frequently “phony,” and lack many of the basics of what made TV great. Yet there they are. Hello Bravo, among others, once an “arts” network. The producers should be happy that TV is not a la carte viewing any more.

    I wish the Weather Channel would go back to 24×7 weather forecasts.

    True story – back circa 1990 I had the weather channel on, they had a camera set up on the mall in Washington DC providing background video for a forecast and my brother walked by with a couple of his friends.

    I don’t want to go too far afield here, but do you remember the woman with the big blonde hair who was something of a Weather Channel star back when they mostly covered the actual weather.? Those were the days.

    Alexandra Steele.

     

    • #56
  27. DaveSchmidt Coolidge
    DaveSchmidt
    @DaveSchmidt

    Bartholomew Xerxes Ogilvie, Jr. (View Comment):

    Judge Mental (View Comment):

    Gary McVey: That time slot is either 30 or 60 minutes long, no more and no less.

    It’s curious how firmly this has stuck, first through the cable years (including premium channels) and now through streaming.

    I’m not sure it has stuck all that firmly. Yes, there are plenty of streaming shows that adhere to the old format, probably for the reason you suggest (the possibility of syndication). But there are also plenty of streaming shows that have abandoned such time constraints.

    Disney does a lot of this; their recent Marvel and Star Wars shows have episodes that vary considerably in length. An episode might be a little over half an hour, or more than an hour; it takes as long as it needs to take. The Orville, which started on broadcast, moved to Hulu for its third season, and most of those new episodes flirted with feature-film length. The last season of Netflix’s Stranger Things consisted entirely of movie-length episodes.

    It’s a trend I have mixed feelings about. On the one hand, I like the idea that the producers can take whatever time the story requires. On the other hand, time constraints necessitate an economy of storytelling that can be a real improvement. And, as a viewer, especially on a work night, I probably don’t have time for a movie.

    Run time and garlic share at least one characteristic.  

    • #57
  28. DaveSchmidt Coolidge
    DaveSchmidt
    @DaveSchmidt

    Matt Bartle (View Comment):

    Bartholomew Xerxes Ogilvie, Jr. (View Comment):
    With bigger TVs and better home sound systems, not to mention higher production values for TV, it seems to me that the distinction between TV and movies is becoming rather fuzzy.

    I figure that when sitting a few feet from a 65 inch TV, the screen looks just as big as a movie screen does if you’re sitting a ways back.

    Occasionally I like to sit in the middle of the front row. 

    • #58
  29. DaveSchmidt Coolidge
    DaveSchmidt
    @DaveSchmidt

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    “Reality TV” seems to me to break a lot of the basic concepts of a “TV show,” even if one concedes that the shows are not exactly reality. While their demise has been predicted, lots of them are still around.

    As television has evolved the method of transmission has changed—by means of cable and now streaming in which networks are bundled. It appears that those 10-15 reality intensive networks exist because the shows are cheap to make and because lots of households have to subscribe whether they watch the station or not.

    The shows are frequently “phony,” and lack many of the basics of what made TV great. Yet there they are. Hello Bravo, among others, once an “arts” network. The producers should be happy that TV is not a la carte viewing any more.

    The History Channel has certainly evolved.  

    • #59
  30. Bartholomew Xerxes Ogilvie, Jr. Coolidge
    Bartholomew Xerxes Ogilvie, Jr.
    @BartholomewXerxesOgilvieJr

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):

    My take is this. Most movies are going to be at least as enjoyable watching at home as at a movie theater. For one thing, I can control the volume so I don’t have to suffer through ear-damaging levels of sound. There are some pictures which are grand visual spectacles that are going to be appreciated most on the big screen, like the Lord of the Rings trilogy or a Star Wars movie. But a typical comedy is going to be just as funny at home.

    Even that last point is often debatable. A lot of multiplex screens aren’t big enough to give you a truly immersive experience, and sometimes the projection is too dim or the focus isn’t quite right. Sure, if everything is done right, the theater experience can be awesome, but it’s a roll of the dice, and it’s completely out of my control.

    Some people expressed concern about the possibility of needing a restroom break during Avatar: The Way Of Water (which runs more than three hours in length). Someone asked James Cameron about when viewers should go to the restroom, and his response (in my opinion) was flippant and arrogant. “Any time they want,” he said. “They can see the scene they missed when they come see it again.” So basically he doesn’t care about the fact that I don’t like to miss part of a movie. I find it distracting, and it undermines my enjoyment. He doesn’t care (and he also assumes that I’m going to buy another ticket and come see it again).

    I was actually considering going to the theater to see The Way Of Water, because I’ve heard good things about the visuals. But Cameron pretty much made up my mind. I’ll wait until I can watch it the way I want to watch it.

    • #60
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.