is cable replacing the networks? - Sitcoms Online Message Boards

Dean Winchester · 05-23-2004, 09:41 PM

is there anyone else here who thinks that with the fact that networks are getting more and more obsessed with reality series, that cable outlets are starting to take the place of the networks?

here's some examples:
USA:
Monk has given Tony Shaloub an Emmy. It's getting great (for cable) ratings, and a lot of critics think it's the freshest detective show on teleivison:

The Dead Zone has also been doing great.

HBO:
The Sopranos may very well be the most popular drama on television today. The seasons are short, and timing is sporatic (usually 16 months between seasons), but when it airs, like it is right now, it is a big deal. It took America's fascination with the mafia to another level, because the fact it airs on HBO allowed it to have the violence that you would never see if it aired on CBS.

Sex And The City recently ended it's 6 year run. But this show showed that you could have a marquee sitcom that is not on NBC (or any network for that matter). Since it aired on HBO, it was able to be more sexually graphic and frank. I doubt the show would've been a sensation had it aired on NBC or something. It took the classic "4 women" concept perfected on shows like Designing Women and Golden Girls to a new level.

Deadwood is a current new hit for HBO. Networks such as CBS tried for years to try and bring the western back, to no such luck (the one exception being The Young Riders in the early 90's). However, with HBO, it's been able to do so, successfully, especially with the fact that the show is violent and has cussing, no longer cookie-cutting Bonanza.

Six Feet Under would've never caught on on a network. Everything about the characters from the family that puts the D in dysfunctional would've been toned down. The character of Rachel would've been ruined.

FX:
The Sheild is the hottest cop show on the planet right now. Puts NYPD Blue to shame. Michael Chiklis

Nip/Tuck is another series that is doing great on cable, but would be too risky for a network to air. The sex scenes are explicit, the surgery scenes are disturbing. It's great! Topics should as child molestation and gender reassignment surgery that has been covered in this show wouldn't make it on network tv.

Showtime:
Dead Like Me, much like HBO's Six Feet Under, plays into America's fascination with death. Plus, it put Jasmine Guy back into employment

Queer As Folk would never make it past a network censors. Making Will And Grace look like Full House, the show is the first (and so far only) unapologetic, graphic depiction of the life of gay men in America. The makers don't care that some people might be offended, because all they need to do is change the channel.

Soul Food is considered by many to be the finest "soap opera" style series regarding African-Americans. It just ended it's run, but it made it's mark. I don't think any network would take the risk of running a show like this.

Resurrecton Blvd, much like Soul Food and Queer As Folk, is a "no network would dare run this" depiction of the life of a Hispanic family.

anyone else know of any fairly recent groundbreaking cable series? Even tho the cable shows are more decisively "adult", I think cable networks are more willing to take risks on taboo subjects you would never see on ABC or CBS. And for that, I do think the future in television (at least for adults) resides in cable

James"Thunder"Early · 05-23-2004, 09:50 PM

Yes, because cable does not have to be censored at some point. HBO can show nudity and use profanity and not get in trouble. the reality show craze is hurting the network

tvfan0101 · 05-23-2004, 09:55 PM

I may be wrong but I seem to remember reading that the ratings for The Sopranos have been down quite a bit this season. Not sure if that's true or what it means if it is, but I thought I'd throw it out there.

As for the question, I'm torn. On the one hand, it seems fairly obvious that, yes, cable is leeching viewers away from the broadcast networks. On the other hand, as long as cable is pay-TV there are always going to be millions of people who opt not to pay for their television and only watch the broadcast channels, in other words, the networks.

Dean Winchester · 05-23-2004, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CoolCounty
the reality show crazy is hurting the network

yep, that sentence says it all.

I think the reason why shows on USA, HBO, Showtime, FX among others are getting so popular now is because people are flipping the stations there because the networks is so far into the reality show trend. Plus, nowadays they're beginning to lure in bigger names than who would've been doing cable shows 10 years ago. I don't think someone like Rachel Griffiths or Sarah Jessica Parker would've agreed to do a cable series 10 years ago.

Dean Winchester · 05-23-2004, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tvobscurities
I may be wrong but I seem to remember reading that the ratings for The Sopranos have been down quite a bit this season. Not sure if that's true or what it means if it is, but I thought I'd throw it out there.

I think the advent of "on demand television" has caused ratings for HBO shows to go down a little. Also, many stations who get the channels now can get west coast feeds also. So someone who is watching another series at 9 on Sundays, but likes Sopranos too, can just watch it on demand whenever they want to.

James"Thunder"Early · 05-23-2004, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BuffySlayer79
yep, that sentence says it all.

I think the reason why shows on USA, HBO, Showtime, FX among others are getting so popular now is because people are flipping the stations there because the networks is so far into the reality show trend. Plus, nowadays they're beginning to lure in bigger names than who would've been doing cable shows 10 years ago. I don't think someone like Rachel Griffiths or Sarah Jessica Parker would've agreed to do a cable series 10 years ago.

Right. I think viewers want an alternative. they want something that is not reality. we need a good balance of sitcoms, legal dramas, detective dramas, cop shows and nighttime serials.

James"Thunder"Early · 05-23-2004, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BuffySlayer79
I think the advent of "on demand television" has caused ratings for HBO shows to go down a little. Also, many stations who get the channels now can get west coast feeds also. So someone who is watching another series at 9 on Sundays, but likes Sopranos too, can just watch it on demand whenever they want to.

On demand is creating a problem too. with just a click of a button people can order a movie. piracy is a threat to television as a whole, as peer to peer networks like Kazaa offer tv shows for download.

Dean Winchester · 05-23-2004, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CoolCounty
On demand is creating a problem too. with just a click of a button people can order a movie. piracy is a threat to television as a whole, as peer to peer networks like Kazaa offer tv shows for download.

I don't see the problem with that. On Demand is only available for customers of HBO or Showtime. So if someone wants to watch a movie or series on those channels, but happens to be working or out or doing something when it's on, they can just click and order it for free to watch within a 24 hour period of their viewing.

I don't consider it piracy since people who pay their $12-15 a month for those channels have the right to customize and watch something that's on the current air roster for the network when they want to. HBO is quite flexible and I think networks should do it too.

James"Thunder"Early · 05-23-2004, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BuffySlayer79
I don't see the problem with that. On Demand is only available for customers of HBO or Showtime. So if someone wants to watch a movie or series on those channels, but happens to be working or out or doing something when it's on, they can just click and order it for free to watch within a 24 hour period of their viewing.

I don't consider it piracy since people who pay their $12-15 a month for those channels have the right to customize and watch something that's on the current air roster for the network when they want to. HBO is quite flexible and I think networks should do it too.

I was refering to on demand as people watching the shows when they want. and I was refering to piracy as P2P networks(not a huge problem yet). HBO is flexible as you said so they are more favorable to people than the network.

AKA · 05-23-2004, 10:28 PM

They networks have gone to hell, with programming that attracts the lowest common denominator. In the meantime, cable is becoming the place where the channels take chances. There's more cerebral fare that can be found on cable these days.

I find myself watching way more cable at this point than the networks. Right now, I can only think of two or three network shows that I currently watch.

Dean Winchester · 05-23-2004, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by AKA
They networks have gone to hell, with programming that attracts the lowest common denominator. In the meantime, cable is becoming the place where the channels take chances. There's more cerebral fare that can be found on cable these days.

I find myself watching way more cable at this point than the networks. Right now, I can only think of two or three network shows that I currently watch.

I think another reason a lot of cable shows are more risky than networks is the fact that usually the show's greenlighted for a complete season. If it fails, oh well, they still had 8-13 episodes to make their point. If a show on HBO or Showtime or FX underperforms, they will still air the complete season, as opposed to a network like NBC which can yank it off their airwaves in 2-4 showings.

Mr. Television · 05-24-2004, 12:33 AM

I'm looking forward to Monk and Nip/Tuck this summer. The networks right now are going for the quick fix but when Reality tv dies down and it will (because all genres die down eventually) They're really going to be in trouble.

jamesanthony · 05-24-2004, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BuffySlayer79
I think another reason a lot of cable shows are more risky than networks is the fact that usually the show's greenlighted for a complete season. If it fails, oh well, they still had 8-13 episodes to make their point. If a show on HBO or Showtime or FX underperforms, they will still air the complete season, as opposed to a network like NBC which can yank it off their airwaves in 2-4 showings.

This is very true. Years ago the broadcast networks would run a show for an entire season or at least for 13 weeks so the producers had time to develop what they wanted the show to convey.

I wonder if there is a way to produce something groundbreaking and innovative that falls within a PG rating though? Either on cable where it would not be subjected to cancellation-itis or on broadcast.

Ant-Lox · 05-24-2004, 04:53 PM

I like Cable shows like Curb Your Enthusiasm & Bulls--t. both could never be on any network.

05-23-2004, 09:41 PM	#1
Dean Winchester Member Forum Star Join Date: Sep 28, 2003 Location: Louisville KY Posts: 14,803	is cable replacing the networks? is there anyone else here who thinks that with the fact that networks are getting more and more obsessed with reality series, that cable outlets are starting to take the place of the networks? here's some examples: USA: Monk has given Tony Shaloub an Emmy. It's getting great (for cable) ratings, and a lot of critics think it's the freshest detective show on teleivison: The Dead Zone has also been doing great. HBO: The Sopranos may very well be the most popular drama on television today. The seasons are short, and timing is sporatic (usually 16 months between seasons), but when it airs, like it is right now, it is a big deal. It took America's fascination with the mafia to another level, because the fact it airs on HBO allowed it to have the violence that you would never see if it aired on CBS. Sex And The City recently ended it's 6 year run. But this show showed that you could have a marquee sitcom that is not on NBC (or any network for that matter). Since it aired on HBO, it was able to be more sexually graphic and frank. I doubt the show would've been a sensation had it aired on NBC or something. It took the classic "4 women" concept perfected on shows like Designing Women and Golden Girls to a new level. Deadwood is a current new hit for HBO. Networks such as CBS tried for years to try and bring the western back, to no such luck (the one exception being The Young Riders in the early 90's). However, with HBO, it's been able to do so, successfully, especially with the fact that the show is violent and has cussing, no longer cookie-cutting Bonanza. Six Feet Under would've never caught on on a network. Everything about the characters from the family that puts the D in dysfunctional would've been toned down. The character of Rachel would've been ruined. FX: The Sheild is the hottest cop show on the planet right now. Puts NYPD Blue to shame. Michael Chiklis Nip/Tuck is another series that is doing great on cable, but would be too risky for a network to air. The sex scenes are explicit, the surgery scenes are disturbing. It's great! Topics should as child molestation and gender reassignment surgery that has been covered in this show wouldn't make it on network tv. Showtime: Dead Like Me, much like HBO's Six Feet Under, plays into America's fascination with death. Plus, it put Jasmine Guy back into employment Queer As Folk would never make it past a network censors. Making Will And Grace look like Full House, the show is the first (and so far only) unapologetic, graphic depiction of the life of gay men in America. The makers don't care that some people might be offended, because all they need to do is change the channel. Soul Food is considered by many to be the finest "soap opera" style series regarding African-Americans. It just ended it's run, but it made it's mark. I don't think any network would take the risk of running a show like this. Resurrecton Blvd, much like Soul Food and Queer As Folk, is a "no network would dare run this" depiction of the life of a Hispanic family. anyone else know of any fairly recent groundbreaking cable series? Even tho the cable shows are more decisively "adult", I think cable networks are more willing to take risks on taboo subjects you would never see on ABC or CBS. And for that, I do think the future in television (at least for adults) resides in cable

05-23-2004, 09:50 PM	#2
James"Thunder"Early Whoever's In New England Forum Veteran Join Date: Feb 23, 2004 Location: The Apollo Posts: 7,088	Yes, because cable does not have to be censored at some point. HBO can show nudity and use profanity and not get in trouble. the reality show craze is hurting the network
	Last edited by James"Thunder"Early; 05-23-2004 at 10:00 PM.

05-24-2004, 12:33 AM	#12
Mr. Television 23 Years at Sitcoms Online Forum Icon Join Date: Jun 06, 2003 Location: Somewhere you're Not Posts: 62,144	I'm looking forward to Monk and Nip/Tuck this summer. The networks right now are going for the quick fix but when Reality tv dies down and it will (because all genres die down eventually) They're really going to be in trouble.
	__________________ Sonny

05-24-2004, 04:53 PM	#14
Ant-Lox Cloud Watcher Senior Member Join Date: Feb 18, 2004 Location: Philadelphia, PA Posts: 1,824	I like Cable shows like Curb Your Enthusiasm & Bulls--t. both could never be on any network.
	__________________ Currently Watching: Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee Sports Allegiances Philadelphia 76ers Philadelphia Flyers Philadelphia Phillies Philadelphia Eagles Detroit Red Wings New York Football Giants

05-23-2004, 09:55 PM	#3
tvfan0101 Member Forum Regular Join Date: Sep 29, 2003 Posts: 961	I may be wrong but I seem to remember reading that the ratings for The Sopranos have been down quite a bit this season. Not sure if that's true or what it means if it is, but I thought I'd throw it out there. As for the question, I'm torn. On the one hand, it seems fairly obvious that, yes, cable is leeching viewers away from the broadcast networks. On the other hand, as long as cable is pay-TV there are always going to be millions of people who opt not to pay for their television and only watch the broadcast channels, in other words, the networks.

05-23-2004, 10:28 PM	#10
AKA In mono (where available) Forum Star Join Date: Dec 17, 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 16,844	They networks have gone to hell, with programming that attracts the lowest common denominator. In the meantime, cable is becoming the place where the channels take chances. There's more cerebral fare that can be found on cable these days. I find myself watching way more cable at this point than the networks. Right now, I can only think of two or three network shows that I currently watch.