I just posted a thread about TV shows in which I called them “serial entertainment” because, given the modern world of options, it’s not really accurate to call many shows “TV shows” anymore. Not only are they not being watched by the public on television sets, in many cases they are not even being produced by television producers for television itself, such as Amazon’s “Transparent”.
In any case, what alternative terminology might be used, something less cumbersome than “serial entertainment” but more accurate than “TV show/series”?
Not that I think anything will ever come into use… I figure “TV show” will just continue to be used and understood to cover all the series programs that would, in the past, have only been possible on television. I know there are other terms in English that used to mean one specific thing that have come to include similar but not exactly the same things, I just can’t come up with any examples right now. And I think that is what will continue to be the case for “TV show/series”.
(How is the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences defining “TV show” for the purpose of Emmys? I haven’t looked at the nominations this year or read anything about them, so I don’t know if it’s been mentioned. I shall google after I click “submit”…)
In a world where we still dial phone numbers and use other anachronistic terms, I think we can hang onto the term “television.” It just has to be expanded to include the variant distribution channels.
If it’s serial or regularly scheduled or multiple-episode, and available for selective viewing on a mass-market medium… it’s a television show.
A distinction I have found useful in this era is content vs. commodity. If the show is nominally ‘free’ because of support funding from advertising, it’s content - and the sole purpose of content is to draw advertising eyeballs, no matter how you want to spin it.
If you pay for the programming directly, as you do on HBO or other premium-tier options, it’s a commodity. Both can be “television shows” but I think it’s both stretching the term and confusing the issue to call, say, Game of Thrones a TV show. It’s on that distinction that we need to start differentiating the term, not on what particular tech medium it rides.
I recently read the entry on television in an old pocket encyclopedia I have lying around.
It defined TV really old school: 525 lines, analog, CRT displays, etc. Just about everything it said about television has changed/extended. And yet we still call broadcast TV “television”.
So what if some is watched at a time of one’s choosing or if it arrives over an Internet connection? (Which is still coax for many people. Just like our family had in the 50s.)
We watch virtually nothing in real time on our DVR. Why would we distinguish something we recorded a week ago from something we stream to the same device and watch in the same way?
The world has evolved, the meaning of the term has evolved. There is no need to replace it.
Eh, Game of Thrones is a television show. It’s mainly watched on television. Even people streaming it from online can be watching it on a television in this day of various gadgets.
I think the content vs commodity thing is a difference without distinction to most viewers. For that matter, what about shows that cross the line? If I watch How I Met Your Mother on Netflix, is it a significantly different experience than watching it on TBS? When HBO put Sex & the City into syndication, did that make a difference? How about when HBO starts putting out “first run” Sesame Street episodes months before PBS shows them? What if you purchase a DVD set (or the digital equivalent)?
In most cases, I doubt the viewer really cares and just calls it a television show.
It’s still television. You don’t have to watch television on a television set. There’s no need to consider another generic term, we’ll just add modifying terms as we already have.
MTV is on the right track. It’s the nature of the show, including how it’s paid for, that determine the category. The technical delivery medium has become largely irrelevant - especially now that ads have crept into formerly “free” channels like YouTube.
I am changing the dialogue a little here - if you want to call any mass programming that appears on a screen a “television show,” I won’t argue… but in fewer than ten posts, this thread is already arguing that pipelines that aren’t grandma’s television may or may not be “watching television” - even when watching television shows complete with ads. That’s why I think the real argument is in the categorization of the shows themselves, and not in how they’re delivered to eyeballs.
Genres are very much a subcategory, though. If it’s entertainment meant to draw ad-views, they’re in the same category, be they about beef haunches or wannabe supermodel haunches.
In other words, the medium is no longer the message. The message is the message, especially when paused for “these important messages,” and the medium - media - are essentially irrelevant.
Exactly. The Avengers is a “movie” whether I see it on a cinema screen, television screen or tablet. Likewise, TV shows are TV shows even if I stream them to my smart phone or onto my computer monitor.
Stuff on HBO (or Hollywood movies, etc) is still filled with advertising. Those Audi chase scenes and refreshing Coke cans don’t just magically appear on their own.
Quite true. But I maintain that the main dividing line is whether you are paying for the product directly or [del]getting it free[/del] paying indirectly with ad views. It’s not a subtle difference, as being ad-supported completely determines the show’s nature, pacing, focus and whether or not you ever (or continue to) see it. Being ad-supported is a powerful gravitational force that warps every detail.
Simple example: shows on HBO can have completely uninterrupted narratives, or easily hold 20-30 minute scenes when necessary, and not have to hit a* Gasp! What’s Next!* every fourteen minutes. Or meet arbitrary (ad revenue/sponsor demand) ratings levels if the channel decides there are other reasons to keep it in the schedule.
That’s a fair point. Although I’m sure we’ve all seen movies or even premium content cable shows where you can say “Ok, commercial will go there… and there…” based on the plotting and fade outs. So I agree with your basic point but I don’t think it’s as true as it could be.
Yeah, I saw a Sluterizer 2000 Rape Rack sitting quietly in a room in one of the bordello scenes and thought, “No way they had such advanced rape rack technologies back then!”
Study program structure more. Shows that absolutely have to fit between commercial breaks have a considerably different pacing and story progression, and those OhNoes! moments have to be jammed in at specific intervals. One of the reason cheesy shows come off so cheesy is because they’re inept about that pacing; the “high quality” dramas bound to commercial showing manage a little more subtlety and plot deference, most of the time.
Shows for HBO certainly have dramatic breaks and cuts and halts, as does nearly every visual form… but they are neither mandated nor bound to a specific pacing. Huge difference.
The dramatic breaks in commercial programming are also specifically crafted to hold the viewer through the break and keep them from switching channels, a practice that has gotten more frantic and heavy-handed as viewer choices multiply and attention spans shrink. Breaks in non-commercial material can be considerably different in tone since there won’t be two Swiffer commercials and thirty seconds of Flo to get through right after.
(Hell, back in 1969 David Gerrold wrote, “Did I say screenwriters were prostitutes? We’re crib girls, banging and climaxing every 12 minutes.”)
But even producers on broadcast channels are playing with the length of scenes (and putting commercial breaks in unheard of spots) nowadays. I remember more than a decade ago that Alias used to open with an uninterrupted 15-20 minute scene and often wouldn’t air the opening credits until after this scene ended.
You missed my point: Often you can tell that programs created for an uninterrupted media (cinema, premium cable) are still structured much like programs created for broadcast media. Presumably because they assume/know that one day it will be syndicated or sold to broadcast television. Simply originating in one format doesn’t mean that it’s not affected by the other.
It has nothing to do with me “studying program structure more”. Noticing it would suggest that I already understand the structure.