Why are TV dramas so expensive to make?

[Bijou_Drains]

In a way it’s surprising it took TV this long to find cheaper ways to make a buck. Every other industry has been cutting costs for decades.

[Belowjob2.0]

High production value US TV programs still dominate the world TV market. CSI Miami was considered the world’s most popular TV program. Now House is.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/12/house-becomes-worlds-most_n_214704.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/5231334.stm

http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/tv/csi_earth_no_show_WKDOqHHYXBgcnKFGWy2xaP

Canada, European countries, and Oz watch huge amounts of US made TV, to the point where most countries have native content laws which require a certain amount of programming to be made locally.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_content

[Bijou_Drains]

You mean the world is not beating down doors to watch Albanian sitcoms? Or dramas made in Turkey or Nepal?

I asked someone from India what surprised her the most about the US. She said she had no idea there were poor people here because she never saw any on US TV shows. My brother said many Swedes had the same idea - they thought we all lived at the beach in fancy houses.

[Belowjob2.0]

@Slade

The independent film director Alex Cox has a little maxim which he recites to any potential backers: “Quick, cheap and good. Pick two.”

Because if it’s quick and cheap it won’t be good, if it’s quick and good it won’t be cheap and if it’s cheap and good it won’t be quick.

True.

And the people who can work fast while delivering a quality work product cost more. You have to pay for experience, and if the possibility of good pay disappears, you lose talented young people entering the business.

[BrainGlutton]

@Bijou_Drains

]I asked someone from India what surprised her the most about the US. She said she had no idea there were poor people here because she never saw any on US TV shows. My brother said many Swedes had the same idea - they thought we all lived at the beach in fancy houses.

So, are there poor people on Indian or Swedish TV shows?

[Belowjob2.0]

@Bijou_Drains

You mean the world is not beating down doors to watch Albanian sitcoms? Or dramas made in Turkey or Nepal?

I asked someone from India what surprised her the most about the US. She said she had no idea there were poor people here because she never saw any on US TV shows. My brother said many Swedes had the same idea - they thought we all lived at the beach in fancy houses.

The people who run the networks and studios pretty much all do live on the beach. Everyone else, tract houses in smoggy valleys. (An exaggeration, but not by much.)

[Bijou_Drains]

It doesn’t really matter if there are poor people on Indian or Swedish shows, they got their impression of the US from US shows.

I can’t really think of many US shows that showed poor people. I guess Good Times is one, they lived in a housing project. Fred Sanford lived in the poor part of LA but he did run his own business.

[RealityChuck]

@Markxxx

A key reason also is that there is not much future in syndication.

Do you really think Leno has any syndication value?:dubious:

Syndication is still very lucrative for dramas and comedies; just on cable networks instead of individual TV stations.

And DVD sales have replaced and surpassed any drop in syndication income. Dollhouse was renewed last season – despite having the lowest ratings of any show in TV history that had been renewed – because Fox gets a cut of the DVD sales.

No one’s going to shell out for “Leno: the Complete First Season”; it would cost a fortune. There could be “Best of Leno” DVDs, but since his humor and guests are so topical, they’re not going to be major sellers.

Basically, the show is dirt cheap to make (like reality TV shows) and you can make back a profit solely through ad sales (even if your ratings aren’t the greatest). It’s good business, but ultimately poor television.

[Belowjob2.0]

@RealityChuck

Do you really think Leno has any syndication value?:dubious:

Syndication is still very lucrative for dramas and comedies; just on cable networks instead of individual TV stations.

And DVD sales have replaced and surpassed any drop in syndication income. Dollhouse was renewed last season – despite having the lowest ratings of any show in TV history that had been renewed – because Fox gets a cut of the DVD sales.

No one’s going to shell out for “Leno: the Complete First Season”; it would cost a fortune. There could be “Best of Leno” DVDs, but since his humor and guests are so topical, they’re not going to be major sellers.

Basically, the show is dirt cheap to make (like reality TV shows) and you can make back a profit solely through ad sales (even if your ratings aren’t the greatest). It’s good business, but ultimately poor television.

Yeah. It’s NBC giving up, retreating to a safe position rather than risking some to gain more.

[Justin_Bailey]

@Belowjob2.0

The point of the complaints is that the 10 PM hour has primarily featured scripted programming for decades. If not for Leno, the cancelled shows would have been replaced with new scripted shows.

It’s a fact that Leno in prime time takes away jobs for writers and actors. No one in the industry debates this. That’s part of the reason why Leno’s cheaper.

@Belowjob2.0

It’s NBC giving up, retreating to a safe position rather than risking some to gain more.

Except, this isn’t the first time NBC has burned away a lot of their scripted shows to show something cheap. Do you remember when Dateline was aired four and five times a week? How is that any different than what Leno is doing now?

[Bijou_Drains]

Hollywood take risks? Guess you missed all the sequels they make and other stuff like making movies out of old TV shows. When they try something new they are likely to get a big name to star such as Tom Cruise, Will Smith, Will Ferrell, Julia Roberts, etc.

[Belowjob2.0]

@Justin_Bailey

Except, this isn’t the first time NBC has burned away a lot of their scripted shows to show something cheap. Do you remember when Dateline was aired four and five times a week? How is that any different than what Leno is doing now?

It probably is. I don’t remember if Dateline was replacing first run programming or reruns. If it was replacing first run programming, then it took away jobs.

Hollywood take risks? Guess you missed all the sequels they make and other stuff like making movies out of old TV shows. When they try something new they are likely to get a big name to star such as Tom Cruise, Will Smith, Will Ferrell, Julia Roberts, etc.

Any new scripted programming is a risk, because most new scripted programs fail, after an outlay of millions of dollars for the pilot and what is typically a thirteen episode order.

Sure, they try to manage the risk by using established stars and slight variations on the storylines that worked before, but it’s still risk. The old business model was to make up the losses with profits from the hits. This isn’t working so well anymore, hence the move to cheaper but more reliable (in theory) programming.

The amazing shows coming out of premium cable are also Hollywood, and they represent what a lot of people believe is a new golden age of TV- the Sopranos, Mad Men, Dexter, the Wire, Breaking Bad. The writers on these shows started out writing on shows we think of as forgettable crap. Number one, there’s a market for forgettable crap, and number two, you gotta start somewhere. There’s a lot of good stuff being made in Hollywood, and a lot of really popular stuff.

[Ike_Witt]

@Belowjob2.0

It’s a fact that Leno in prime time takes away jobs for writers and actors. No one in the industry debates this. That’s part of the reason why Leno’s cheaper.

It may be a fact but what sort of impact is it really? I can see a bigger uproar in 1979 or even 1989, but as someone pointed out there are MANY more outlets for TV writers now then there were 30, 20 or even 10 years ago.