There Is Something Wrong With My Television
by Schizoid MannThe way I see it television needs, among other things, the following:
1. Science Fiction/Thriller/Horror Channel
A short form/short film channel showcasing those genres. Independent producers, writers, creators could submit work to be aired. It wouldn’t have to be, nor should it be at the Sundance level of professionalism delivered on DigiBeta and starring Cameron Diaz doing a favor for the filmmaker because it’s her friend’s cousin, either.
We don’t want that. There’s plenty of that kind of venue and they turn down 99% of the stuff submitted anyway, mainly because it’s not the work of someone’s friend’s cousin. So forget that right away. It has to be underground, guerilla, shoestring and, most important, good. Very good. Damn good. But not expensive. How can you do that, you say?
With writing.
What happened to writing? What happened to story? What happened to acting, for that matter? Not wallpaper-chewing acting, but competent, believable acting. What happened to it? These are questions I am not asking alone. No, James Lipton is not asking them; he’s busy with that ridiculous list of moronic questions no one cares about except the extremely annoying acting students in the audience, and even they don’t care, merely pretending to so he’ll notice them. No, James might be wondering where great acting went, but he’s not really looking in the right place. But millions of viewers are. They’re asking these same questions every time they turn on the TV or go to the movies. What happened to good writing? Where are the movie stars? Where are the great character actors? People are asking. No one is answering.
The professionals are very good at the technical aspects of production. But when it comes to story, they can’t seem to get it right anymore. They can’t even get close to good. This is where lack of money helps. Focus on the writing, and of course the acting. Because good writing can be decimated by bad acting sure as there are little green apples and worms to ruin them. Then, people will take notice.
Now is a great time to write. Imagine trying to pen a script or play or short drama when Faulkner, Steinbeck, Hemingway, Hecht and the Epsteins were all at their typewriters doing the same thing. There’s no one close to that now writing for movies or television, or anywhere for that matter. No one even close. If you can write, or learn to, then start writing. The field is wide open. The problem is, no one is watching closely because they’re all trying to decide which movie to spend their money on that is least likely to disappoint and turn to regret before they’re back in their own driveway.
That’s not exactly the mindset the audience should be in, should it? That’s not the kind of thinking that the American movie-going public used to have, is it? We’re a nation of movie lovers because we were raised on the breakfast of champions, the Golden Age of Hollywood. The Golden Age is gone, but maybe not forever.
Back when the existing SciFi channel started, and it was still spelled the way Uncle Forry coined it, they aired a lot of really great stuff. Much of it was the 60s, 70s series we grew up on related to science fiction or horror (I mean the earlier horror, not the nauseating torture porn that defines the genre today). The channel aired well-known staples like Alfred Hitchcock Presents, The Twilight Zone, The Outer Limits and later series such as, Night Gallery, Tales from the Dark Side and The Ray Bradbury Theater. There was also another show, not nearly as well known as those, called Dark Room which aired in the early 80s. Produced with a much lower budget, it featured stories playing on the same genres, also cast with aspiring actors, many of whom often getting one of their very first gigs. I think Dark Room was a good concept that would work on an even lower budget, non-union, level today.
In terms of broadcast quality, since many might be wondering how a shoestring production is going to be up to suitable standards to air on television. Well, here’s an example from Japan, not exactly a backward nation of media technology. One of Tokyo’s major filmmaking schools has an hour long television show which airs student films. Films. Not digital video, film. Of course, they’re converted to analog or digital for airing. But these shorts were shot and edited on film. It’s wonderful, innovative stuff these students are producing with not a small amount of blood, sweat and fear. I realize there is no way you’re going to get American kids with iPhones working with a Bolex or Arri 16 today. Nor should we want or expect anyone to. It’s expensive, difficult and, obviously, there’s no need. I don’t want to do it again, either. But the concept of underground, unrepresented, amateur but polished works getting aired on television is needed. If creators, producers, writers, filmmakers know they have a chance at getting something shown where people can see it and respect it at the same time, and it’s in a mainstream venue, such as television, they will produce.
Sure, YouTube is excellent in this way, but it’s saturated with girls jumping on beds singing into their hairbrushes. And that’s the good stuff. No, there needs to be a better alternative between the exclusive, vast and varied festivals, so many now that even a winner at anything but the biggies may never be seen again, the high-end, yawn-inspiring programming on the misspelled SyFy Channel and the stuff that washes up on YouTube. Something professional that can expose the non-professional to the world of reviews, critics and, hopefully, agents and financing. It could work.
Which leads me to something that did work and now painfully does not.
2. Music Television
Yes, television with music videos. That’s right, the kind that used to play on that cable channel previously known as MTV before it was taken over by reality shows, soft porn, more reality shows and even more lesser-than-soft porn. The channel where they actually played music videos. Yeah, that one. It was also the same place where creative animators could contribute to producing music videos and even those short, inexpensive channel IDs that everyone loved and looked forward to seeing each and every time.
And speaking of inexpensive, remember when music videos were produced on a shoestring budget, looked like they were, and no one cared? In fact, they were all the more enjoyable for it. Look at any music video produced today. You’re talking about something that exceeds a budget for a major commercial for Nike, Nissan or Sony. And that’s really what it is, a commercial. Along with being too expensive to produce for a newcomer, they’re numbingly boring.
Seems to me, that with the proper contractual agreements, a small amount of palm-greasing, and a gun pressed against the right heads, so many of the great music videos from the past- and there are thousands (MTV only started with about 200) that are not being played anywhere but on YouTube, pending removal for copyright infringement, could and should be seen and enjoyed again on a television channel. As for those present up-and-coming musical artists, you don’t have to encourage them to produce their own music videos, they’re already doing that, but with little chance of MTV airing them, they all end up on, where else? YouTube! Again, not bad, but once again, they’re lost in the whirlpool of related videos of girls jumping on beds singing into their hairbrushes, part 2, 3, and 4. No, there’s got to be a better way, a better place.
Remember, there was.
Hire some of the old VJs that are still with us, (Rest in peace, J.J.) and add in some new blood to host those greats and some new unknowns as well, and that’s all folks want from a music channel. It really is. I constantly read, and I mean constantly, people posting comments on 80’s music videos on YouTube yearning like mad for their airplay on TV again and groaning at what became of the once great music television network and how it now leaves nothing to the imagination and everything to be desired. Does anyone aside from Ashton Kutcher actually watch MTV anymore? I mean, seriously, it’s complete and utter garbage. It would be healthier to air-drop a teenager into Chernobyl than to sit them down in front of today’s MTV for the same amount of time. Don’t get me started.
Television clearly needs a lot more than these two improvements. But this a beginning. It’s true, we used to have these things, and lots of other things, too. With enough passion we can have them again, maybe even better. Then we won’t yearn for what once was. We won’t have the time.
We’ll be too busy enjoying it.












Subscribe via RSS
132 Comments
The Horror Channel could also have that very underrated (but now on DVD) series Friday The 13th. It had nothing to do with Jason, and was a wonderful anthoogy series where the cursed item could be almost anything.
And I had such lust for Martha Quinn.
Yeah, what the hell happened to MTV? Was it a conscience decision to stop having anything to do with music, or did the execs just wake up one day to find "My Super Sweet 16" had taken over?
Freaking awesome post. That would be really cool, but I bet both of those ideas as described appeal more to 40 year old guys like me than to the always desired youth market. Kids tend to like the crap that MTV programs today. And the Family Guy Star Wars show is the height of sci-fi for some of them as well. There has to be enough 40 year old money around to float these channels somewhere on cable though!
I do recall a program that aired on the Sci-Fi Channel around ten years ago, give or take. I don't remember the title but it did show student films, including some by now famous filmmakers including George Lucas and Tim Burton.
And another Sci-Fi Channel show I miss is Trailer Park which played vintage movie trailers (you can find them online now I'm sure). Tom Davis hosted and Star Trek II director Nicholas Meyer provided an afterword.
I could not agree with you more about good writing. How many times have we all said words to the effect that "in the good old days, they didn't have all the special efects they do now so they had to concentrate more on story and acting." As for the music channel, I have mixed emotions. I like the notion of live concerts being broadcast in hi-def. On the other hand, it was MTV that began to make how the artist looked more important than the actual music.
I always wondered the same thing about MTV. Was a gradual slide into reality TV (that road show and then Real World and then the next thing, etc.) or was it a re-branding decision made deliberately? Whichever, it sure sucks and has for a long time. VH1 was good for a while longer and catered to older people, but then they went the same way. We're not the big money anymore.
I always wondered the same thing about MTV. Was it a gradual slide into reality TV (that road show and then Real World and then the next thing, etc.) or was it a re-branding decision made deliberately? Whichever, it sure sucks and has for a long time. VH1 was good for a while longer and catered to older people, but then they went the same way. We're not the big money anymore.
Great article!
These channels should be available a la carte. I'd be willing to get cable if I can pick and pay for only the channels I want. The "package deals" that exist now encourage bad programming.
My cable (Time-Warner LA) already has a SF channel. 90-percent of the programming (all except for well-known movies) is pure junk, practically unwatchable.
The issue here is that writing, directing and acting are **NOT** crafts that most people can learn to do if they just apply themselves. They are art forms, and like all art, barely one person in a thousand has the ability to do it well. When well-intentioned amatuers write and act, the result is drek. We have enough drek already.
There are boatloads of low-budget productions of all lengths already available. Almost all of it feels like a second-draft effort from a "writer" who tried following the rules in a couple of how-to-write books (or attended a two-day McKee "Story" seminar, as in "Adaptation." Movie-making is not like carpentry or riding a motorcycle – it's not something you pick up "with a bit of practice." This truth will become painfully apparent as the bandwidth for movie distribution grows wider.
Glenn, about the only thing I find worthwhile on SyFy (WTF is that, by the way? The twerp teenagers couldn't figure out "Sci Fi"??) is the new Doctor Who.
Gods, Yes! No more "packages" of evil! I could hose EVERY unwanted "telenovella" channel that looks like a bad 80's re-do, get the "yawn" propagandist garbage dumped (MSNBC, CNN, etc.), add "Boomerang" without mortgaging the house, and beg for Military, Science, and a few other worth-whiles.
"Sci-FI" needs an "Invaders" night for the good old stuff, and they needed it yesterday. If I see one more ad for some "monster of the week" exclusive tripe of theirs, I swear, I will shoot myself with my phaser…
The old Outer limits was pretty good too. Each episode had a a budget of 29.95, but the stories were strong, and the aura creepy. Indeed it was the golden age.
Who is on Sci Fi?
No SyFy
What?
No Who
Who is what now?
Not What but Who is on SyFy!
You mean Sci Fi
No What is on Sci Fi. Who is on SyFy
What?
Nevermind……
I could never watch an all-Jane Fonda channel. Oh – Horror. Nevermind. (with apologies to Emily Litella).
I could never watch an all-Jane Fonda channel. Oh – Horror. Nevermind. (with apologies to Emily Litella).
And I thought that Martha Quinn was hot, also.
An all Jane Fonda channel would indeed qualify as a horror channel…but then the liberals will say that we use it for the Two Minute Hate.
Actually, Who's on first…
The only possible reason that I would be against "a la carte" is because, if you choose to buy only the channels you want, than it could prevent you from making an unexpected discovery. How many times have we flipped channels at night only to find some obscure movie on some even more obscure channel, then stayed up to watch the rest of it?
That's just me.
Other than that, if I could shave $40 off the cable bill by ditching HGTV and a dozen others, I'll have no problem with that (no offense to HGTV viewers!).
I love, love this idea.
Why don't you make it happen?
My questions are two-fold, how do you do it and how do you make the content a cut above (or should it be) above some of the stuff you find on public access. I live in Austin and we've got like three public access channels and some of the stuff is painful to watch.
I already have an idea for a series, we'll call it something like "Mortgage Movies" and we'll highlight movie/filmmakers that mortgage their lives to make that movie. Think about the content that's out there — heck you could premire John Nolte's movie.
Plus, plus, you have another show called "Festival Rejects." You send a scout to all the major and minor filmfestivals and pick up their rejects and give them a venue.
Goodness, I love this idea…whats the FCC number anybody have it on speed dial.
Andrew
Austin, Texas
Why a duck?
(I read that the reason the Sci-Fi Channel changed their name was so they could copyright it. They couldn't copyright Sci-Fi. I do however take that with a grain of salt.)
Why a duck?
(I read that the reason the Sci-Fi Channel changed their name to SyFy was so they could copyright it. They couldn't copyright Sci-Fi. I do however take that with a grain of salt.)
But they don't run those classics anymore. How many channels do you need for colon cleanse, Time Life collections, real estate crap, or the latest and greatest from Ron Popeel? I count at least fifty overnight.
True.
I stand corrected.
You forgot one of the best shows ever on SciFi channel..
Mystery Science Theater 3000!
My personal favorite show of all time. They would be having a field day with all the crap Hollywood is putting out nowadays…
I miss that show so much. It was original, creative and fun to watch.
I haven't made one of those accidental discoveries of awesome in over a decade….with over 200 channels (we're up to about a thousand on the standard package alone if you include the HD channels around here)…
I don't know if I'm just not watching at the right times or what, but you'd expect at least one in 10 years.
MST3K – excellent.
Regarding music videos, I get Fuse, CMT, Fuel, VH1-Classic, CMT and Great American Country. There's plenty of channels to watch music videos on (if you *must* get your vids on MTV, they show them most mornings around 4-7 or so).
Regarding movies of various quality, I – like 99 percent reading this – have access to AMC, TMC, IFC, Sundance, Fox Moive, and for almost nothing, six Encore genre options. I think if TV gurus think something could be remotely possibly, they would put it on the air.
Like many, I do miss SciFi.
Jack, I would really find it enlightening if an insider (listening BH) would do an in-depth analysis of the economics of the television industry. It seems to me, local government gets a pay-off to let a particular cable operator get the rates to your town. Typically, you have a choice of three providers, your cable carrier, DirectTV or Dish network. It becomes easy for them to price-fix with each other.
I happen to have Direct TV. At the time I signed up, I got about 5 channels in HD including what is now Universal/NBC and HD NET movies, plus ESPN, HBO< SHO, Discovery, and TNT. plus a ton of standard movie channels. They upped the price, gave me a ton of stations like weather channel, cable news, etc. in HD but took away Universal and Direct TV movies and increased the price.
I understand the pricing concept, very similar to cars. Put together packages to force the buyer to get more than he wants and pay more than he otherwise would. Look they have to make a buck and I appreciate that, but it would be interesting to get an insider's insite.
And it's my understanding that they'll no longer be carrying the new Dr. Who as the BBC has decided to keep it exclusive to BBC America. The only things I watch on Syphilis or whatever they're calling it this week is Eureka, Warehouse 13, and I suppose I'll at least check out the new Stargate series when it debuts.
Heck, they'd have a field day with all the crap SyFy is putting out. I'd love to hear their take on Mansquito.
True! MST3K doing nothing by SyFy original movies. Did anyone see Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus? Well I did. MY EYES!!!!!!
"Festival Rejects" sounds like a winner to me.
There's a grand total of two channels I want that is beyond basic cable: BBC America and Game Show Network. And I refuse to pay ($40 + converter box rentals + remote rentals)/month for two channels.
I'll just buy the Doctor Who season sets for about $70 each and watch when I bloody well feel like it.
(I work nights and don't even watch enough TV to warrant getting a DVR.)
Flint:….I….Am Brahms..
Spock: And Davinci?
Flint:..Yes..
Top notch! You've been away far too long.. Alas,.. we all know the problem.. deep down..
"…they’re lost in the whirlpool of related videos of girls jumping on beds singing into their hairbrushes, part 2, 3, and 4."
LOL!
[...] More here: There Is Something Wrong With My Television [...]
the worst part is YOU CAN'T UNSEE IT!!!!!!
and i am out of brain bleach
I agree. I really want to have BBC America and Boomerang but I'll be damned if I'm going to shell out for an entire tier of channels just to pick up those two. Not when I can see the shows I want to see via Netflix.
Lamenting the lack of really intelligent, creative writers and story plots can be extended to the comedy genre. The current crop of 'comedians' have learned nothing about their craft other than gratuitous 4-letter words with every breath and insulting to the best of their limited abilities political persuasions contrary to theirs.
Where are the Hopes, the Carson's, the Benny's, the Gleason's, the Caesars, the Burns and Allen's, the Martin and Lewis's, and on down the list of true comedians that knew intelligent humor and comedy and KNEW HOW to deliver it?
Gone the way of the audience is my guess. Today's audiences require little more than obscenities and foul language spewed in a constant stream by so-called comedians uttering their limited vocabularies. Which reflects as much on the lack of intelligence of the audience as it does the lack of intelligence of the cookie-cutter 'comedians'.
You are spot on. Please let this happen!!! I have 144 channels of "Nothing". With the exception of sports ..my channels should read: .Nada, zip, lead balloon. Are they purposely "dumbing" us down?
This is the thing. If I thought that, I probably wouldn't whine so much about it. But so far, my experiences, and check it out, there are 18 year old kids and younger writing comments on MTV videos from the 80s screaming for that stuff. Of course there's us, but there's tons, really, no kidding, tons of youth, kids and young adults who want this. That's why I really feel it is needed AND would be successful (and also because I want it
.
Exactly! The only thing that's been awesome for awhile has been the bill…
Good catch on the KB shot. I specifically chose it because of the level of quality on that pre digital music video. (with, I might add, one of D. Sutherland's best performances).
Do you know what I blame for the lower quality of modern entertainment? Microsoft Word.
Back in the good old days when people used paper, pencils, and typewriters and revising, rewriting and editing was a lot harder, a screenwriter or author or anybody who had to write things down for a living had to be damn talented and damn dedicated to his craft to be willing to go through all that effort. Modern word processing have made writing easier and allows more people to become writers without having as much talent. A greater volume of work from less talented writers is created and this makes it more difficult for the truly talented to be noticed.
Sounds like what I do…
For those in the industry…IF you want us to stay in front of the big glass eye, you had better start coming up with content. Modern society is affording us all sorts of ways to glean content…and that means a la carte. Get with it, or spend your time crying in front of a demonic commitment to "El Sabado Gigante" with no one watching…
Heh. All that just to try to sell to me useless tote bags…
Guess they have to develop some kind of revenue stream…the "made for" movies are such high quality that, <sarcasm> "they're just impossible to keep on the shelves". </sarcasm>
Couldn't be any worse than what's on public access now…after all, Wayne and Garth got picked up…
NOOOH! No more "Mansquito…."!
(Fires the phaser….)
"Stupid stun settinggg…(thump)
(Snore)
No.
Programming is now at the level of the program department team. A pasty, low forehead, single eyebrowed lot of Neanderthals; with all apologies to the Geico Cavemen.
They are entertained by the Magic Box when it shows a test pattern…which is what most programming is nowadays…and why I thank the tech gods for the DVD…
There ya go! A man of my own heart. You 'get it'. Sorry, I hate that phrase almost as much as I hate the word 'drek'!
Hawkeye: "Ok, Radar, write that down, that's one 'yes'.
I wasn't into that show and only really discovered it once it was off the air. However, it contains some of the most informed, cleverest writing on TV I've ever seen. Hilarious. (Though I still love Marooned and wish they didn't riff that one, but that's another story.)
Right, SciFi USED TO air that show as well. In fact, they exec produced it for awhile, so you can say, the old SciFi channel kept it on the air. There was a real paradigm shift in programming and philosophy at SciFi Channel. Not sure what happened. New management I guess. TNT was great with Joe Bob Briggs, Our Favorite Movies, etc. They went way downhill. So did AMC. So did TVLand, Nick at Nite. A lot of really bad changes on cable. TCM is the only good thing for this kind of stuff.
I wasn't into that show and only really discovered it once it was off the air. However, it contains some of the most informed, cleverest writing on TV I've ever seen. Hilarious. (Though I still love Marooned and wish they didn't riff that one, but that's another story.)
I've become a belated Mystie big time.
Right, SciFi USED TO air that show as well. In fact, they exec produced it for awhile, so you can say, the old SciFi channel kept it on the air. There was a real paradigm shift in programming and philosophy at SciFi Channel. Not sure what happened. New management I guess. TNT was great with Joe Bob Briggs, Our Favorite Movies, etc. They went way downhill. So did AMC. So did TVLand, Nick at Nite. A lot of really bad changes on cable. TCM is the only good thing for this kind of stuff.
But do those music channels air Men at Work, Human League, early U2?, Thompson Twins? Do they have hosts who are actually hosts interested in the music? Do they do interviews with artists? Do they air new music from unrepresented bands?
You said, "I think if TV gurus think something could be remotely possibly, they would put it on the air. "
Never trust TV executives to choose wisely. Ever.
I watched all the classic sci-fi and horror show of the 60s…and the ones that were still running from the 50s, plus whatever came up in the 70s if that decade really even matters.
Lots of good writing, but lots of hack writing, too. Many of the T-Zones are one joke shows and awful preachy. The Hitchcocks are paced very slowly and always have Big Al apologizing at the end and letting the evil doer be punished.
ROUTE 66 in memory is a great show, but I recently watched the entire first season and they are horrible examples of writing. The car and Buzz and Tod and beautiful America in 1960 save the show…at least in the first season.
THE FUGITIVE with David Janssen – in memory – fabulous. In reality they had some dreadful episodes. I have all 120, so believe. Even at the time it was either Quinn Martin or Alan Armer of the FUGITIVE episodes – "A 1/3 of them are great, a 1/3 of them are good, and a 1/3 of them we make because we have to make them."
TV 'drama' today stinks, but many of the sit coms are pretty funny.
Oh, well…………..
Cool. Is that only in CA?
It's movies, only though, right? (w/ TZ, Hitch, TFTDS?)
That's a bit high octane (personally, I think they shouldn't have gore on the channel I am describing, it's more for everyone. With the horror being of the psychological kind (Hitchcock, Arch Obler, etc., (and Chiller doesn't have any 60s, 70s SciFi ) but still it looks much better than SciFi channel's lineup.
There used to be Chiller Theater which was a monster/horror movie show on WPIX in NYC.
I watched all the classic sci-fi and horror show of the 60s…and the ones that were still running from the 50s, plus whatever came up in the 70s if that decade really even matters.
Lots of good writing, but lots of hack writing, too. Many of the T-Zones are one joke shows and awful preachy. The Alfred Hitchcox are paced very slowly and always have Big Al apologizing at the end and letting the evil doer be punished.
ROUTE 66 in memory is a great show, but I recently watched the entire first season and they are horrible examples of writing. The car and Buzz and Tod and beautiful America in 1960 save the show…at least in the first season.
THE FUGITIVE with David Janssen – in memory – fabulous. In reality they had some dreadful episodes. I have all 120, so believe me. Even at the time it was either Quinn Martin or Alan Armer who said of the FUGITIVE episodes – "A 1/3 of them are great, a 1/3 of them are good, and a 1/3 of them we make because we have to make them."
TV 'drama' today stinks, but many of the sit coms are pretty funny.
Oh, well…………..
Wow – It would not let me spell out the last name of the "Master of Suspense"! Alfred Hitchxxxx
Right. So you make my point about writing in another reply. Not all are masterpieces, even if they are written by great writers. It's hit and miss sometimes. But saying, 'don't write, amateurs, leave it to the professionals' really gets my back up.
Every series, including short run ones which were stopped before they went down like Seinfeld or Mary Tyler Moore Show or Barney Miller have great episodes and not so great. But the overall show is great. That's showbiz.
QM or AA and probably Irwin Allen would be satisfied with getting that 1/3 'in the can' and seen by the public. If you have to make 2/3 to get 1/3 great, I think that's a bargain.
The show I thought had the most interest for me was Cold Case. I really liked the production, the Philly setting, the acting, writing, and music. A well done series. That means it'll be cancelled.
That was my next installment.
I'm a huge fan of those shows, and variety shows.
You are very probably correct. Same thing that made bad visual artists: video. I learned on film, and man, I don't want to go back. But still, it teaches you very expensively how to compose shots, focus, etc. that video cameras simply allow one to, as a prof once said, 'hope something interesting happens in front of it.'
But then again, when the typewriter came out, I'm sure pen and ink masters were saying the same thing, as were quill users when pens were invented.
The really good stuff is in stone and chisel!
Just havin' some fun, I do agree that word processing has changed the face of (type) writing, wholesale.
But at the same time, I'm a believer in good is good.
So, when I see all the innumerable venues, channels, satellite, cable, online, you name it, that show programming 24/7. When I see all that, all the millions of hours of film and video being produced analog and digital, and shown far, far more than compared with the 50s, 60s, or 70s when I see all that, I think as you mentioned. I think, wow, how is anyone going to notice anything of real substance. And you know what? They do.
They really do. Reading those comments inspired me writing this article: The amount of comments I've read on the old TV shows, 80s MTV and older, B movies that are in pieces or whole on youtube, etc. Comments by regular people, many of whom had never seen them before and were only just seeing them now. These same people, absolutely love those older, good programs of substance.
Good is good. If you create good, people will notice. It really is true.
Don't give up.
I do recall a program that aired on the Sci-Fi Channel around ten years ago, give or take. I don't remember the title but it did show student films, both from unknowns and now famous filmmakers including George Lucas and Tim Burton.
And another Sci-Fi Channel show I miss is Trailer Park which played vintage movie trailers (you can find them online now I'm sure). Tom Davis hosted and Star Trek II director Nicholas Meyer provided an afterword.
I know a lot of this stuff is on DVD but I get a little envious when I listen to filmmakers like Tim Burton, Joe Dante, or John Landis talk about their childhoods and how they were raised on a healthy diet of Harryhausen flicks and z-grade sci-fi and horror films, all of which seemed to air on "channel 13." We don't have that anymore.
"Enter text right here!My personal favorite show of all time. They would be having a field day with all the crap Hollywood is putting out nowadays…"
Actually, they are. http://www.rifftrax.com
I traded my TV for the Internet. I can find the writing and stories I want and not support cause I disagree with.
Alcoa Presents John Newland's "One Step Beyond" or Boris Karloff's " Thriller" Rod Serling's " Twilight Light Zone" There was more drama more humanity and at times more Terror and Horror and fine storytelling than what's on T.V. and in half of what's on the big screen today. Boy do I miss those guy's and day's.
Excellent post.. saw the picture (right above the '2. Music Television' heading) and thought 'where did I see this image? Then I remembered the video for Kate Bush's Cloudbusting… her music often had well written stylistic sci-fi themes.
I miss Rod Sterling… that man could write.
What’s up Schizoid Mann! Kids need to get out from in front of video games and start doing the real thing again. Get a camera and set up scenes and story lines in the back yard and have fun. Get rid of Guitar Hero and Rock Band and actually learn to play the instrument. Write and develop stories and if it’s your passion devote yourself to it. If you paint get the brushes, paints, canvasses out and paint. We are slowly losing our esthetic, the modern world must find its way forward by looking back at the past and learn the disciplines, or be doomed to mediocrity. I think a lot of this can be blamed on the diminishing belief in American Exceptionalism or even Western Exceptionalism. We must move forward or the demise of our culture will be chronicled by, the dial it in “art” of our time. There are exceptions.
The only possible reason that I would be against "a la carte" is because, if you choose to buy only the channels you want, than it could prevent you from making an unexpected discovery. How many times have we flipped channels at night only to find some obscure movie on some even more obscure channel, then stayed up to watch the rest of it?
That's just me.
Other than that, if I could shave $40 off the cable bill by ditching Lifetime and a dozen others, I'd have no problem (no offense to Lifetime viewers!).
What I meant was that writing, acting, the creative side of filmmaking, is not something that is going to benefit if, say, 5000 movies were made each year and were available for viewing on a cable system or Internet 3.0 streaming-media system. There aren't enough people who can write, act, and make movies WELL.
Think of it this way. There is a huge market for how-to-write-novels books. Hundreds of thousands are sold each year. It's possible to self-publish a novel, promote it over the internet, and distribute it cheaply using print-on-demand. People do this all the time. Nevertheless, this has not put Borders out of business and it has not revolutionized fiction books, and the reason has nothing to do with technology. The reason is that 99.99 percent of those self-published novels are TERRIBLE, and not worth the time to read them even if they were free. This is because the skill and creativity to write a satisfying novel is extremely rare, and it will stay rare, regardless of the distribution channels. This is why if we ever get to the point where thousands of movies are made each year, the number of GOOD and GREAT movies will remain roughly contant. Hope that clarifies -
Sit coms today and even yesterday – success rate varies even for the greats – there's a handful of the original 39 HONEYMOONERS that miss the bullseye or have floperoo jokes. Such is life, but the writers knew what they were doing.
vs
Some of today's shows which are truly awful. The T-Zome revivals with Forest Whitaker were uniformly terrible. The writers simply didn't 'get it'. The pay off was so very lame in all the episodes I have seen and FW's monologues – awful/pointless.
I sometimes think that the writers of some of todays shows simply dont respect the genre they are writing in. I've seen a few episodes of some Merlin mid-evil type of show where the writing is atrocious and the 'acting' even worse. This show doesnt have to be bad, but it is b/c someone is blowing it off as tripe.
I like Cold Case, but dont watch it on a regular basis. A few shows i have seen have played fast and loose with time lines that would have made the protagonists 100 years old if you did the math, but appeared to be in their 70s or 80s.
THE FUGITIVE – the producers assessment of the ratio of great to good to lame is pretty accurate. I'd rate the 'great' shows at 25% of the output and the rest – whatever. They really only have a small handful of truly bad episodes where even David Janssen looks bored out of his mind. None of them are masterpieces the way a great film is, but they knew how to rope you in and stay true to the character and the concept of the series – which was something the remake TV series with Tim Daley near totally missed.
Some shows today surprise me – SUPERNATURAL, for one. Violent at times and gory, too, but well conceived and witty when they want to be, plus loads of TV and film homages…in a series that realizes it;s about two brothers who drive around like Buzz and Tod and Link in a cool car, but kill demons and such.
THE KING OF QUEENS – Another surprise that I thought would stink, but Kevin James is great at physical comedy and many of the laugh lines were things I wish I had thought of. The episode where he buys a house with a dumbwaiter had moments that rivaled classic 20s silent comedy.
Well – nice chatting with you, who ever you are. I'll keep this tab open in case you want to reply.
There actually is a horror/sci-fi channel. It's called Chiller, and I love it to death. The line-up shifts periodically but they show a lot of great stuff, from the TV series Friday the 13th to Tales From the Darkside to Twilight Zone to even Millenium. They also show horror films as well, a great mix of old and new. Since AMC decided to ruin Monsterfest I'm now taking regular uses of Chiller as a substitute.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdwTHxV04T8
Alcoa Presents John Newland's "One Step Beyond" or Boris Karloff's " Thriller" Rod Serling's " Twilight Zone" There was more drama more humanity more lessons about the human condition and at times more Terror and Horror and fine storytelling than what's on T.V. and in half of what's on the big screen today. Boy do I miss those guys.
StanH is right: "I think a lot of this can be blamed on the diminishing belief in American Exceptionalism or even Western Exceptionalism."
The stories we are fed by TV and Hollywood are hollow because their writers, producers and actors are hollow.
With people like Danny Glover actively rooting in real life for the bad guys who want us dead (Hugo Chavez, Castro), how can that not flow over to become a mediocre performance on film? The man, and many like him in Hollywood, believes in despots. Am I to believe him on screen when he plays a guy fighting for liberty?
What I meant was that writing, acting, the creative side of filmmaking, is not something that is going to benefit if, say, 5000 movies were made each year and were available for viewing on a cable system or Internet 3.0 streaming-media system. There aren't enough people who can write, act, and make movies WELL.
Think of it this way. There is a huge market for how-to-write-novels books. Hundreds of thousands are sold each year. It's possible to self-publish a novel, promote it over the internet, and distribute it cheaply using print-on-demand. People do this all the time. Nevertheless, this has not put Borders out of business and it has not revolutionized fiction books, and the reason has nothing to do with technology. The reason is that 99.99 percent of those self-published novels are TERRIBLE, and not worth the time to read them even if they were free. This is because the skill and creativity to write a satisfying novel is extremely rare, and it will stay rare, regardless of the distribution channels. This is why if we ever get to the point where thousands of movies are made each year, the number of GOOD and GREAT movies will remain roughly contant. Hope that clarifies –
During Hollywood's golden era 30-50s, the average studio actor, such as Jimmy Stewart, Cary Grant, Randolph Scott, whoever, acted in roughly ten times the amount of films an actor of similar stature does annually today. Ten times. Character actors in those days could be acting in twenty movies a year or more. Studios cranked out films. Cranked 'em out. Those films were superb, great, good, fair, and sometimes, though rarely, pretty bad. The scripts themselves were about twice as thick as they are today. About twice as much spoken dialogue on screen.
Movies were more talky and there were a lot of them. I'll name ten great films off the top of my head. Gone with the Wind, Casablanca, Gunga Din, Red River, It's a Wonderful Life, Maltese Falcon, An American in Paris, The Apartment, The Wizard of Oz and Ox Bow Incident. That's ten films. Pick one. Now delete the remaining nine. Get rid of. Imagine they never existed. Gone. That's what you are saying is preferable. That more equals more garbage, so make less. But you fail to see the other side of the coin. That more equals more greatness, too. Regardless of total amount.
You even say: "This is why if we ever get to the point where thousands of movies are made each year, the number of GOOD and GREAT movies will remain roughly contant."
So why worry? If the good films remain a constant ratio from the mass of films released, why worry about it? You're getting more good films, too.
Look, I don't want to see garbage, either. That's why I stressed good writing was key. I'm tired of bad writing, bad speaking, bad everything from American media. Watch Dalton Trumbo's bio on PBS's American Masters (I think) for a treat. Fine writing from a man who knew how to put words on paper AND speak.
As far as the learning process, I don't see why you have a problem with people learning to write. Dalton had to learn. So did Steinbeck. So did William Goldman, Larry Kasdan, and everyone who writes well. How do you think they will learn if they have a gift for writing unless they try to write?
And here's where you really lose me: "There aren't enough people who can write, act, and make movies WELL."
No kidding! That's the point!!
And how do you get writers, actors, filmmakers to do the voodoo they do so well? Again, by magic? Wishful thinking? BY WRITING!! BY ACTING!! BY DOING!!
About your book example, if these self-published terrible novels haven't put Borders out of business, what makes you think adding more what you fear will be 'drek' is going to put your TIME/WARNER cable channels out of business? You won't see it if it's amateur, just like you don't read the self published novels. Right?
And by the way, the drek that you say your cable channels are filled with right now was made by pros, not 'well-meaning amateurs'. Arthur Conan Doyle uses that very same phrase, well meaning amateurs, and puts it in the mouths of bumbling 'pro' investigators or snobbish noblemen who have disdain for Sherlock Holmes and his abilities simply because of his amateur status. Obviously Doyle went on to illustrate how wrong they were.
And where do pros come from?
They come from amateurs who create something worthy of others' time and money. How do amateurs do this? By practicing what they do. I'm not certain where you're coming from here worrying about 5000 movies coming out and not overwhelming cable like the thousands of self published books that haven't overwhelmed Borders. I don't get it.
I'd rather have too much food than too little. Too much water than too little. Too many movies than too few.
I cut off a celebrity roast show on Comedy Central just for that.
I mean, the target was "Larry the Cable Guy", fer cripes sakes!
I have NEVER seen a miss like where the buck walks up and puts the gun barrel in his mouth. Easy shot, right?
Until then. Bang. Low and outside for a ball. Pathetic.
At least Don Rickles has the sense to stay away from these losers…
Yes, the second image above is from The Outer Limit's episode: Nightmare. One of my favorites.
I LOVE The Outer Limits,it's what schizo is writing about here,all in one program.Oh,and while we're heading this way,how about a follow up to ST-Voyager.I mean,it'd be a start.
He forgot one great classic sf/fantasy show from the Golden Age, the hour long horror/suspense anthology series "Thriller" hosted by the unreplaceable Boris Karloff. How can that not be available on DVD? (An inferior Brit show of the same title from the 1980s is, however, go figure.)
"Believe me, folks, this one's a THRILLER!"
I totally disagree. Here's why.
Well first, a question:
Do you think Rod Serling was born able to write? Do you think he published and dramatized on film his first efforts? Or Ray Bradbury? They didn't. All great writers from Flaubert to Shakespeare to Trumbo were great re-writers, not particularly great writers. By that I mean, their first efforts in any endeavor of putting words on paper were not satisfactory, not what they wanted. They achieved what they wanted or close enough to it, after re-writing and more re-writing, and more and more and more. No writer, and that includes Kerouac, too, is satisfied with his first words, first draft in anything. Any writer who says so is lying. And any writer who says it's a born talent and others shouldn't attempt it is worrying about losing his job.
It's a skill, albeit, some are better than others at it, and some are born with abilities to make them become better writers than others, but it's a skill, like playing the piano, like performing brain surgery, like putting paint on canvas. And some will become, with practice (key) and something to say (very key) excellent writers who move and inspire others, often times, to take up writing themselves.
You said: "When well-intentioned amatuers write and act, the result is drek. We have enough drek already. "
Why you are seeing, as you say, drek (which is itself, no offense, a very seminar term if I ever saw one and is used 99% of the time to describe poor writing) is because those productions are what got produced.
Why? Because there is nothing better that was pitched.
Why? Because no one is writing better.
Why? Because many people feel they can't do it
Why? Because they follow others' advice and become discouraged and don't write, therefore don't pitch, therefore don't get published or aired. They don't give themselves (and the audience) a shot at maybe being that one in a thousand you describe.
Don't do that, please. Don't discourage others. You have no idea what abilities others have nor the odds. If you are trying to write, great and good luck. If not, don't dissuade others from trying their hand, from making their mark, for contributing their verse to the grand play.
Besides, do you realize how many great writers never intended to be writers and only became so out of circumstance or failing at something else or the need to pay the bills?
And it's worth pointing out that most good television writers, whose work we generally consider to be the standard of excellence, like Serling, Beaumont, Chayefsky have admitted they were not very good at formal narrative.
No, writing, particularly writing for television, writing short form drama can be learned, and learned well with practice. It needs to be learned due the fairly strict time constraints, formating, etc. inherent in the medium.
And it doesn't have to be what you call 'drek'. Gosh, I hate that word.
What made Serling et al great writers was not their born talents, as you imply, but rather their life experiences which provided them the crucible to write from. Each of us has different experiences and each of us can express them differently. Many can do that through writing. All of us are artists. All of us. Some are better at conveying the message, others are better at manipulating the instrument of choice, and most never even try for fear of failure or hearing the words of discouragement from others too loudly in their ears.
Theodore Sturgeon, another great writer, came up with his Sturgeon's Law that 99% of everything is crap. If you agree with that, and it sounds like you do, there is no reason why more people shouldn't try their hand at it, right? It adds more to the pool, the greater good, yes? I mean 100 works of art out of a 10,000 is better, better for all of us, than 1 out of 100.
As for the SF channel you have on cable, my point was that the existing one isn't cutting it. A lot of people have SyFy (used to SciFi) on cable. It stinks. That's why I wrote this. We need another one or the old one back. I have a music station on my radio, it stinks, too. That doesn't mean I shouldn't have another or more music stations, right? I'm just not getting your thinking, brother.
By the way, ironic that you mention Bob McKee, or not, that's the pic above, from Adaptation. Actually, thank the editors for the inclusion, mine was another from Kate Bush's Cloudbusting. Every writer has an editor!
Thanks for the input.
Peace and good luck.
I agree. It's what's missing, really. The randomness of stumbling upon things like you would on TV. With DVDs and view on demand and TIVo and all the rest of it, convenient as they may be, are driving us further and further into niches and pigeonholing our tastes more and more and making us repeat words constantly. Constantly.
But seriously, the tailoring of product to consumer has big downsides, which no one seems to notice (yet).
True. MTV did do that. Image over music. But why was the music so much better, more clever, and more fun just a short time ago with a lot less technology?
We're stuck with it now. And now the music stinks.
No, both DISH Network and DirecTV offer Chiller.
Another bonus – it also shows the (vastly underrated, IMHO) "Special Unit 2".
SU2 is brilliant stuff! Melodramatic "MiB"!
MS Word is not the problem.
The problem is the lack of concentration.
With the "old" tools, you had to buckle down and really, really work at what you were doing. You neither had vast amounts of time or reams of paper to do re-writes. You concentrated on what you were creating, trying to distill the "drek" out early, and by the time your first re-write was done, your articles were becoming tight, fast-paced, and cogent if you had any skill or talent at all.
The new tools allow for vast amounts of space requiring filling. Re-write edits now require adding to your stories, rather than crucible burn-off. I've watched people I know personally adding fill to their story to get it up to a working script, rather than burning off the waste.
Beautiful article that I couldn't agree with more. We have lost so much culture because people expect less and less everyday in all aspects of entertainment, we all really will be like Dax Sheppard in 'Idiocracy' watching 'Ow my balls' in a hundred years and that's so sad. But there are good stories and good actors out there in the ether, they just need to be let into the club, but untill we as consumers demand it we wont get it.
Personally I am finishing up on a novel I have written and will be trying to work on getting it published, People I have shown it too all have agreed that it is entertaining and well written, now hopefully a publishing house will agree haha.
All that said….air-dropping a teenager into Chernobyl ….hmm….sounds like you just gave MTV their next reality show Schizoid!
You know what I'm waiting for? The Leigh Scott comment on this article.
Absolutely! What the hell is with running crapola like "Ghost Hunters" anyway? Was there a perceived need to cater to the "ludicrously stupid, 18-34" demographic or something?
As for my current pet peeve, the "SyFy" name change, it's probably better if I just choke all THAT bolus of bile right back down.
Yes, and not just cable, satelight also. When we were signing up for satelight the family made a list of the channels we wanted (two per person), if we wanted to get all of the channels we would of had to buy the most expensive package available. We compromised. Also CNN, MSNBC … were all on every package, FOX News only available on the top two.
Recently FOX News was brought down to all packages so we could downgrade our package to save money.
Let me pick my channels, I will gladly pay for what I want.
Mansquito!! What the hell is wrong with that stupipd SciFi/SyFy channel? I'm actually glad they changed their name, because they rarely showed any actual Science fiction, and when they did, it was cheesy crap starring that guy from 90210 or Lucy Lawless.
Once in a blue moon, they have something decent on (even a stopped clock is right twice a day). "Dog Soldiers" was OK as a horror-ish movie. "Tin Man" was inventive. I loved the new Battlestar Galactica, and liked one or two other shows. Mostly, though- total crap.
Comparing today's film industry with films of the 1930's and 40's is an apples-to-oranges comparrison. In the days before televison and cable, studios did produce more than the thousand features each year – but from those, we watch only the best one percent today – the cream, the classics. The rest were terrible! They made money because the people of those times had far fewer entertainment alternatives. All movies were special because they were movies and they got you out of the house – that's why most folks went to the movies two or three times per week! What was considered pretty good in 1935 would be drek now – remember, the vast majority of features made back then are NOT shown today – they're slowly desintegrating in a Burbank warehouse because they're not good enough to be re-watched and preserved. We remember and re-watch a highly selective subset as "classics."
Last time I stepped through the channels was when I had chicken pox, I did not really care what was on it was something to do to take my mind off of the maddening itch. Not I program the guide channel to only show the channels I want. (Why are there 6 infomercial channels anyway)
It's movies & TV shows. Last night they were running the Blob remake and then turned around for some Tales from the Darkside
I'm going to disagree. It's not the mechanics. Whether you have a pen and paper or a word processor, the material has all got to come from the same place- your head.
People have become lazier mentally. They don't THINK as much, question as much, imagine as much. They consume. News is fed in little sound-bites. News tells us NOTHING. When the mind suffers, all creativity suffers too.
And the marketers only want safe, formulaic stories/actors/themes. So writers write safe stories. Actors take safe roles. We get the same, same, same, maybe with a twist here and there for spice, but then the twists are re-used until they too become "safe".
When we consume, we "vote". Vote for quality in writing, programming, thought, creativity. Reject the rest. Maybe the marketing geniuses will figure out the plan if enough of us demand a return to the kind of quality we USED to get.
This is crazy! I always whittled stuff down in successive drafts to get to the pith whenever possible. Less is more. More verbage does not equal more substance!
I do need to write. I can. I just need to run with an idea and do it.
My teenagers think that MTV in its current format has little to recommend it.
In the DC area, we had channel 20 and it aired Creature Feature on Friday and Saturday nights with Count Gore De Vol. He was a great horror host and he showed those great old b7w horror and sci-fi classics. Channel 20 would also run a block of those same kind of movies on Saturday afternoons, with some Kung Fu flicks thrown in. I have a lot of those old movies on DVD and I still love them, but it's just not the same as watching them with the Count. Hell, I'd even be happy to put up with the commercial breaks.
Don't forget the original "The Outer Limits". Boy, did that one make an impression on me when I was a kid!
CaliforniaDave,
I could be wrong, but I remember reading somewhere that the suits at the Sci Fi channel wanted to be able to copyright the name, which they couldn't with "Sci Fi". Hence the retarded faux hip atrocity we have now. I stopped watching that channel when they started doing away with the old classics.
Couerl, love the reference to Star Trek's "Requiem for Methuselah"
How about those old Dean Martin Roasts? Funny and classy without any vulgarity and the insults were just enough to zing the roastee.
Spoken like a man who's never actually written anything in his life. Word processing doesn't make writing any easier — it makes typing easier. The essential qualities of the craft — characterization, structure, dialogue — are no easier on a computer.
The one thing that Word et al does make easier is REwriting. You don't have to type the whole thing over again, or cut and paste, to make substantial changes in a draft. But that makes for better writing, not worse.
The problem with movies is not the quality of the writers. There are some brilliant screenwriters out there today. The trouble is with the people who buy scripts and greenlight movies. Transformers and GI Joe and G Force are terrible not because their writers suck, but because the studios want them that way. They pay talenter writers — lots of them — tons of money, then direct them to turn it all into this crap.
Oh, and if the original poster really wants to start this TV station — what's stopping you? You don't need a cable channel anymore. Host it on the web.
You could say that about film editing, too. Back when filmmakers edited on flatbed machines with actual film in their hands, they had to be more discerning with what to cut out and what to leave in. But with digital non-linear editing systems like the Avid and Final Cut Pro, all you have to do is hit a few keys on the keyboard. (It also explains why films today have so many quick cuts. It's just easier to do now.)
You called it. I remember both of them. The Short Film series and Trailer Park with JIm Davis (of Franken and Davis).
Yup, the idea that they're on TV really makes all the difference. We can all watch DVDs but isn't it far better to catch it on TV, knowing there are others out there watching, enjoying it too? That's the secret.
I usually don't do this, but check out: The Cinemated Man
I tried to bring back some of that magic online. Next up Treasure Island.
Oh Yeah. Another Goody.
Not to mention, they zinged the roastee, not the other roasters… (Something I"ve never understood about comedy central's roasts.)
I've gotten into this debate before..SciFi (I refuse to call it the other name) actually does hit the mark on occasion with it's TV Sci-Fi series….
And it does have the know-how on occasion to put together some good stuff The Tin Man "mutlipart movies" was absolutely a brilliant take on an old tale (IMO), and gave me hope at one point.)
as for music television part.. I've given up hope for anything there…
exactly… I've got 4 channels i want (Smithsonian, boomerang, BBC America and science) , but i have to pick up TWO entire new tiers to get them.. fuhget about it!
…The Horror Channel could also have that very underrated (but now on DVD) series Friday The 13th
It'd would have to compete with Warehouse 13.. since they have a similar premise.
Schiz will probably disagree with me… but honestly that (Video games). is the "new medium" for good stories
Look at some of the recent games and you can see some very good script writing in there when you look past the "game factor" (Ratchet & Clank and Uncharted being two that come to mind)…
Some of those games have budgets that match that of the movies, and sometimes it shows, with better writing and storylines than what you see on the big screen.
During Hollywood's golden era 30-50s, the average studio actor, such as Jimmy Stewart, Cary Grant, Randolph Scott, whoever, acted in roughly ten times the amount of films an actor of similar stature does annually today. Ten times. Character actors in those days could be acting in twenty movies a year or more. Studios cranked out films. Cranked 'em out. Those films were superb, great, good, fair, and sometimes, though rarely, pretty bad. The scripts themselves were about twice as thick as they are today. About twice as much spoken dialogue on screen.
Movies were more talky and there were a lot of them. I'll name ten great films off the top of my head. Gone with the Wind, Casablanca, Gunga Din, Red River, It's a Wonderful Life, Maltese Falcon, An American in Paris, The Apartment, The Wizard of Oz and The Ox Bow Incident. That's ten films. Pick one. Now delete the remaining nine. Get rid of 'em. Imagine they never existed. Gone. That's what you are saying is preferable. That more equals more garbage, so make less. But you fail to see the other side of the coin. That more equals more greatness, too.
Look, I don't want to see garbage, either. That's why I stressed good writing was key. I'm tired of bad writing, bad speaking, bad everything from American media. Watch Dalton Trumbo's bio on PBS's American Masters (I think) for a treat. Fine writing from a man who knew how to put words on paper AND speak.
As far as the learning process, I don't see why you have a problem with people learning to write. Dalton had to learn. So did Steinbeck. So did William Goldman, Larry Kasdan, and everyone who writes well. How do you think they will learn if they have a gift for writing unless they try to write?
And here's where you really lose me: "There aren't enough people who can write, act, and make movies WELL."
No kidding! That's the point!!
And how do you get writers, actors, filmmakers to do the voodoo they do so well? Again, by magic? Wishful thinking? BY WRITING!! BY ACTING!! BY DOING!!
About your book example, if these self-published terrible novels haven't put Borders out of business, what makes you think adding more what you fear will be 'drek' is going to put your TIME/WARNER cable channels out of business? You won't see it if it's amateur, just like you don't read the self published novels. Right?
And by the way, the drek that you say your cable channels are filled with right now was made by pros, not 'well-meaning amateurs'. Arthur Conan Doyle uses that very same phrase, well meaning amateurs, and puts it in the mouths of 'pro' investigators or noblemen who have disdain for Sherlock Holmes and his abilities simply because of his amateur status. We know how wrong they were.
Arthur C. Clarke once said that the difference between a professional writer and an amateur is an amateur waits for inspiration to write, a professional has to be able to write without it. That to me, sounds like skills, discipline and practice rather than the 'gift' of art that you are relying on to provide us with writers and creators. So-called 'artists' usually haven't a talented bone in their bodies nowadays but more than their fair share of ego. I'll take the skilled craftsman over the whimsical artist any day.
Pros are amateurs who create something worthy of others' time and money. How do amateurs do this? By practicing what they do. I'm not certain where you're coming from here worrying about 5000 movies coming out and overwhelming cable even though the thousands of self published books haven't overwhelmed Borders. I don't get it.
I'd rather have too much food than too little. Too much water than too little. Too many movies than too few.
Well they created MTV2, which did really well and had good rating by playing hard rock and metal. So of course MTV had to change that and start putting on hip hop crap. So now the ratings are in the toilet again and no one I know even watches MTV, except Saturday nights when they still have a "version" of Head Bangers Ball.
Good god, this HACK is back again, lamenting a profession he can't break into. There are TONS of great stories being produced. There are also dumb stories being produced because there's a market for that, too. You might think Bjork is the bomb, I say, meh. The fact is: there are fewer than 100 screenwriters on the go-to list, and they are paid handsomely to tell stories because no one else seems capable of doing it. Writing for this business is a DECISION-MAKING process and a highly collaborative experience from development folks, producers and directors.
I can't tell you how many awful writers there are in this town trying to peddle their stories as if they were genius.
Add this smug whining wannabe to that latter group.
VH1 Classic actually does – they have their show "Totally 80s" which is perpetually running 80s videos and such. Fuse is good for current music specials – they had a week of Dave Matthews, including a 3-hour, commercial-free live show from The Beacon Theater when the latest album came out (as a DMB fan, this got a lot of goodwill from me, and I tend to watch Fuse more than I used to, which still isn't very much).
Your point is well-taken and I get where you're coming from – my point was that there are things out there if you look for them. Personally, I wish there was a channel that showed nothing but Roger Corman/Russ Meyer/Chop-Socky/Blaxploitation/Sexploitation flix all day.
Thanks Schizoid Man. I need to get back to work on finishing my sci-fi short stories and novellas.
I already do.
Run!
The thing about VH1 is, it's MTV. It's Viacom. It's part of the problem. I'd love to wrestle that genre away from them. They are controlling far too much of our culture, present and future. And they're not doing a good job of it at all, intentionally.
Yup. I hear ya bigtime. That's why I started The Cinemated Man!
And actually movie hosts was a future article topic I wanted to post here. Hope nobody beat me to it.
Since I'm not a professional writer (yet), I have no experience with having my work forcibly altered for the sake of acceptance. I imagine that such a thing must be awful, unless the writer is purely mercenary.
Regarding the need for a forum, all I can say is "Thank God for the Web!" What sites presently operating come close to your ideal for such a thing?
Comparing today's film industry with films of the 1930's and 40's is an apples-to-oranges comparrison.
I'm comparing because you have stated most of what is made today is 'drek' or terrible. I agree. So… we go back to when it wasn't for a comparison. Fairly straight forward.
In the days before televison and cable, studios did produce more than the thousand features each year – but from those, we watch only the best one percent today – the cream, the classics.
So, once again, we're back to the 99% factor. You're saying only 1 percent is good, the rest, 99% 'are terrible'. Do I have that right? Dude, I think you're at the wrong site. And I think I'm probably wasting my time.
All movies were special because they were movies and they got you out of the house "
As compared to today? (scratches head).
that's why most folks went to the movies two or three times per week!"
Liking Movies or movie stars had nothing to do with it? Wow.
What was considered pretty good in 1935 would be drek now
Oy vey. This is getting repetitive.
remember, the vast majority of features made back then are NOT shown today
And you know this…how?
We remember and re-watch a highly selective subset as "classics."
You really should refrain from the 'We' here. You don't speak for me. Nor many others, I would wager.
You know, no offense but I'm not enriching myself by our discourse and it's taking away from the points I make in the piece.
And your belief that writing can't be learned, that 99% of Hollywood's golden era was terrible, too, and that there will be no increase in quality with increase in writers (because they can't learn how to do it) is beyond my pay grade.
So, like Bob Ross, we'll call this one 'finished'.
Peace.
Good luck.
And now back to Drek Patrol.
Yes, I agree with this. People are definitely lazier, but that's human nature.
I also agree that there are many good writers out there and the stuff they write gets altered, rewritten, watered down, or not even used.
Hence, my article.
We need a place where good writing can be read. Where good ideas can be produced and where the public can see it all.
Not a festival. An outlet. A forum where short form productions can be aired.
I hear ya. That's where the title of this piece comes from. It plays off of The Outer Limits' famous opening 'There is nothing wrong with your television'
Are you speaking for a series of short stories, or first draft material, or polished scripting, or all of that?
I am very intrigued by this idea….
Could Internet copyright rules give someone enough protection? What gets someone in?
Many questions I have. But this sounds really, really good…
You could say all of it. There's a place for all of it, I think. As long as you inform the viewer of what they're getting. So if you had a very rough production of a great story, that had no money to make it better, but wanted others (hopefully financiers) to see it, it would show on this channel. Otherwise, you'd have to physically visit agents, prod companies, etc. and w/out an agent. forgetaboutit. They won't see you.
So, yes, all of it.
Wow.
I have absolutely no idea how to do this.
But I would be gratified if I could get read…(make that freakin' exuberant!).
It would be great to have some of these outlets; and I would try like the devil to keep the drek out.
Mine was the old NBC Mystery Movie night, the "McCloud", "Columbo", "Banacek", "McMillian and Wife" etc. wheel show night.
I KNEW I was in for a good time when that silhouette figure with the flashlight and the haunting whistling set to that 70's country folk music started to play.
I like a lot of them. Obviously the king of uploading video content is tada!…Youtube. But there are obvious problems with it. In fact, the same thing that plagues Youtube is what another poster here is worried will happen with more content being created, more drek. If drek is to mean bad quality rather than a klingon term for oatmeal, Youtube is king again.
Certainly, I like, make that love! Youtube's existence. I use it considerably for my own work and for enjoying other stuff. But for the most part, I watch old clips on Youtube. I stay clear of 'Director' videos usually. (some exceptions). I think the last clever thing I saw on Youtube was that guy who made the literal version of Take on Me and the Tears for Fear music video. That was talented, creative and very funny. Plus, a first (afaik)
Also, I'm a big fan of station IDs, TV movie presentation logos, etc. There are tons of stuff on there, many of them I haven't seen since I was kid. Beautiful. A couple of my faves: (interesting trivia behind both of them)
4:30 ABC Movie: (cameraman ID)
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2es-lfRSDOI” target=”_blank”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2es-lfRSDOI
ABC Movie of the Week
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rM-Vkd7On2Q” target=”_blank”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rM-Vkd7On2Q
Here's the opening to Chiller from WPIX I mentioned somewhere here in comments:
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asO97gdn2oo” target=”_blank”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asO97gdn2oo
Of course these were all pre CGI, before CG took over. I'm not anti-CG, I do a little of it myself, but it clearly became the tool used by most if not all. And it looks it.
This represents the kind of Station IDs that a channel I describe should have. Not only are they fun, but they give creators a place to show their stuff (and hopefully get recognition and further work).
Youtube is great, but there's just too much on there. So, it's easy to get pulled away to other stuff. Plus, 10 min limit.
I use Blip.tv and used to use Google Video (while they still allowed uploads). Hulu doesn't play in Japan, so I can't use that, though I'd like to.
Ha. I just watched that one. Clear memories of that. I always preferred McMillian and Wife ( I liked her football jersey nightshirt
One of the first people to use the typewriter for professional writing was Samuel Clemens AKA Mark Twain. somehow it didn't stop him from being productive. Several decades later Jerry Pournelle first word processed a successful novel on a machine now in the Smithsonian that cost over $10,000 to build back in the 70s. That machine and software would be regarded as arduously difficult to use by anyone who got their start in the 80s or later.
Writers write. The tools are far less an issue than the talent. From there it is a question is whether the publishing structure is amenable to quality works. For a few bucks month anyone can put their work on a website with a PayPal link for contributions. Nobody needs anyone's approval to get published this way. Anybody able to hold down a job that keeps a roof over their head and food on the table can also afford to have their own virtual printing press with ink bought by the mega-gallon. But they do need talent to build a base of readers.
It is similar to the situation faced by would-be musicians. Any group of guys with decent jobs can afford to own recording and editing gear that would make 'Dark Side of the Moon'-era Pink Floyd look like they were working with wax Edison cylinders. Aside from the web for distribution, the cost of getting several thousand CDs printed with decent packaging, suitable for selling at a good profit at any performance, is minor for anyone not already on the verge of penury.
Being an artist is more accessible to more people than ever before. The only requirement is the one item where there is a genuine scarcity. Talent.
Good points.
But if all it was talent, as you say, that with today's tools, only talent is required (aside from the nominal cost of web tools, etc) then there would be a lot more musicians, novelists filmmakers, (talented ones) making more than the grocery money they are making today, if that.
And what is talent, really? I think it's an interesting topic. In my opinion it's passion multiplied. No one can tell me that Frank Capra wasn't passionate about telling stories, John Ford wasn't passionate about the plight of man, that Preston Sturges wasn't passionate about the hilarity of human beings trying to be serious. I think a passion, rolled over in ones mind and soul, forges talent, like a katana blade forges strength. In this way our soul creates talent. Others will say you're born with it.
I know of so many people who are considered by their peers to be extremely talented, able to do what others cannot, who were, to be honest, quite awkward in their field initially. A fact unknown to others. Their relentless dedication and interest in it, their passion, brought out their talent.
We are all talented to some degree. It's a matter of being able to tap into that reservoir by your passionate heart and soul.
Just my two cents.
Because, in my opinion, no one knows about them.
I miss that program and remember it fondly. Used to make sure I stayed up late for the short films that played. They also used to play good, solid anime – not the junk they put out now. The SciFi channel also had a website with various shorts and series that were watchable.
Chiller is a good channel. They finally brought over into our cable market. I haven't caught Friday the 13th on it yet – good to know they're playing it.
You must be logged in to post a comment.