"Dancing With the Stars" waltzes off ABC to Disney+

[Brad Beam]

https://ew.com/tv/dancing-with-the-stars-leaves-abc-for-disney-plus/


Sent from my iPhone

[Kevin M.]

Yet another show I won’t be watching on Mouse+

On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 1:07 PM Brad Beam <b.b...@suddenlink.net> wrote:

https://ew.com/tv/dancing-with-the-stars-leaves-abc-for-disney-plus/


Sent from my iPhone

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tvornottv+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/5E488B66-4B87-4800-8C95-DE0BE5DC216E%40suddenlink.net.

--

Kevin M. (RPCV)

[Bob Jersey]

Like the Emmys story the other day, because football.

Expect plenty of affiliates to be p*ssed unless they come up with better Monday programs at the upfront next week.      B

Brad Beam, April 8th:

https://ew.com/tv/dancing-with-the-stars-leaves-abc-for-disney-plus/

[Mark Jeffries]

Seems to me that the "Bachelor" franchise on Monday nights year round might quiet the affils.

Mark Jeffries
spotl...@gmail.com

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tvornottv+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/16e2ff88-6bf2-4a74-86cc-266de1bd3894n%40googlegroups.com.

[Adam Bowie]

There's a really interesting question now about what ends up on networks versus their corporate parent's streaming service. Does anything deemed as "good" make it to network TV anymore - at least outside of news and sport? 

Perhaps the best comedies are still on network rather than streamers? But it'd be hard to argue that's true of drama any more. That said, I suspect that the NCIS's of this world still do numbers that would make Netflix very happy - but these shows aren't likely to trouble Emmy voters too much. 

Shifting reality is interesting because streamers need that as well - not least because it's much cheaper, and can be produced in relatively high volumes. Quite how that'll work with a show that needs a week by week audience voting to determine outcomes is going to be an interesting case in point. But as Wall St prioritises quarter on quarter growth in streaming subscriber numbers over the millions that are generated by legacy over-the-air networks, then we're surely going to see more reality formats shift to streaming exclusively in the future.

Adam

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAJ_uKi8tJVmeEueopWxanRo%3D3%3DMTQR2jx1efN20XEpUUiujKXg%40mail.gmail.com.

[PGage]

It is an interesting question as to where one of the broadcast networks would place their best new show (linear vs streaming). Streaming is not responsible for a loss of quality dramas on broadcast - it has been a long time since broadcast was the home of the best shows on television. The last broadcast drama to win an Emmy was “24” in 2006. The only broadcast drama to even be nominated in the last ten years is “This is Us” (2X). The last time as many as two broadcast dramas were nominated in the same season was 2011 (“Friday Night Lights” and “The Good Wife.”).

So streaming is unlikely to steal quality dramas from broadcast TV, since there really have been no quality dramas in broadcast TV for more than a decade.

But I think we are on the brink of two profound transitions:  1: Quality dramas will be leaving basic (AMC) and premium (Showtime) cable for streaming (HBO of course is in most respects a streamer itself now). If you were coming up with “Homeland” or “The Americans” today, would you really want them on Showtime or AMC, instead of Netflix or Apple+?

The second change though is with lower brow, mass appeal programming. Early on Netflix had a feel as the home of quality TV, and most of its early projects were prestige. But for some years now Netflix has been churning out a high number of really schlocky shows, as they don’t really want to be a boutique operation catering to the elite (though maybe Apple+ does); Netflix wants everybody. If you had the next NCIS Netflix would be fighting CBS hard for it - and I see Shonda Rhymes is already in bed with them.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAD_sJGDOX8844hjB78S6M0JTNHUigLFyopSgjS80e%3DqaFONEhw%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Sent from Gmail Mobile

[Adam Bowie]

Perhaps even talking just about where quality drama ends up is changing now. If you're ABC and someone comes to you with a procedural that could be pretty popular, do you actually think long and hard about whether to air it on ABC or make it a Disney+/FX original? There is still juice to be squeezed from network TV of course, and the likes of Dick Wolf does very well from it. 

But I guess that today "The Americans" would end up on the streaming bit of FX rather than the linear bit. "Homeland" I'm not so sure wouldn't still be on Showtime. The fact that Paramount is still holding onto Showtime as something separate and distinct from Paramount+, and is still programming it separately probably says more about the management of the company than anything. I'm sure premium cable channels still earn good money from older viewers who happily pay for them even as they're not totally sure where they can get HBO Max or whatever, so you have to keep a level of programming up. But otherwise I'm not sure.

I'm unclear about AMC's longer term. It feels like they've been left behind a bit, rinsing things like The Walking Dead for everything it's got, and letting things like Killing Eve run slightly too long. I know they have interesting and smart niches like Shudder, but Breaking Bad probably wouldn't make it to AMC today.

Netflix is leaning heavily into trashy reality, I suspect in large part because it's cheap. But also viewers like it. And I believe that over time, shows from Discovery that filled that gap, were pulled back by Discovery so they had to commission lots to fill a hole. It does mean that where once I opened Netflix and saw a lot of premium fare on the tiles, today I see a lot of trash, with bits and pieces of better stuff hidden within. At the moment, Netflix still commissions and produces programming at such a rate that I don't have to think twice about stumping up the extra money when they up my subscription. But that could change in time.

I think Apple, on the other hand, is trying hard to be HBO for the 21st century. Everything they make has a sheen of quality - even when it's not actually very good. They steer clear of some areas that HBO would have leant into - no sex or nudity. But otherwise, they're turning out shows at a slower pace and you might at least check out everything they're doing. (I am very much enjoying Slow Horses based on a series of novels, a couple of which I've read). But then the actual rationale for Apple TV is complicated. My suspicion - which I've heard others say - is that when Apple reports massive "Services" revenues, they can put up slides showing Jennifer Aniston or Jason Sudeikis to suggest that it's their premium TV offering, when in fact, it's millions of people paying in-game for Candy Crush or whatever. That's not as sexy, but that's what really drives that revenue. Plus Tim Cooke gets to go to the Oscars and needle Reed Hastings when he comes away with Best Picture :-)

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKGtkYK6K3aj3iq%2BwfNbWw0VGz2S6rMZJYsbHSwpppFgZLn7TA%40mail.gmail.com.

[JW]

> But for some years now Netflix has been churning

> out a high number of really schlocky shows, as they

> don’t really want to be a boutique operation catering

> to the elite (though maybe Apple+ does); Netflix

> wants everybody.

Give Apple time. Unless Apple+ is entirely about selling hardware, they'll start chasing audiences, too.

I think about how so many cable channels have evolved. They start by targeting a particular niche, be it science fiction fans, people who want a weather forecast, women, or viewers looking for a half-hour newscast. Once the channel is established, it's "How do we keep people for longer than looking to see if it's going to rain where they are?" and the Weather Channel ends up showing infotainment about tornadoes, or SciFi becomes SyFy and adds wrestling. It's like every channel is going to end up showing Law And Order reruns, because that's where the audience and the advertising revenue is. For streamers, it's subscription revenue, but the same dynamic is likely to apply.