They each still typically get more audience on any given night that any measured channel. By that I mean cable channels and channels that subscribe to some audience measurement service. The subscription channels such as Netflix don't care if you watch as long as you pay.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
The Oscars: What did YOU think?
- Thread starter davideduardo
- Start date
They each still typically get more audience on any given night that any measured channel. By that I mean cable channels and channels that subscribe to some audience measurement service. The subscription channels such as Netflix don't care if you watch as long as you pay.
Netflix is the reason network tv is suffering.
Network tv began losing audience when independent channels surged over 40 years ago, and then cable offered even more choices. Netflix just added to he competition.
There really was nothing worth watching on cable until about 20 years ago when they began making better programs.
There was plenty even in the 80's. I had a somewhat limited cable system in Guaynabo, Puerto Rico, and had over 50 channels including the US mainland networks, local stations, CNN, and quite a few channels with either movies or rerun series or even ones like HBO that had original content.
Before The Soprano's was HBO known for it's original programming? AMC didn't take off until Mad Men. FX became known for its dramas after years of reruns.
Absolutely. HBO created original programming starting in 1982, with Not Necessarily The News. But CNN and MTV began with the start of the 80s and they attracted subscribers with 24/7 original content.
Early on, mostly HBO had movies well before networks or stations did. And they had so many you could watch every evening and not run out. But, as Big A says, they began originals nearly 40 years ago. Most of the original stuff was nowhere near as good as "real" movies. Only in very recent years has it come close.
Sure there was. MTV once had high quality Music Programming like the "Unplugged" series. There was plenty of good content available in the 90s on Cable.
Writers found new opportunities for original shows on Cable when the 4 networks would turn them down. Seinfeld may have been one of the last shows to get massive ratings on a network. The audience is too fragmented now with so many choices. You'll never see ratings like MASH, All In The Family, and some others that dominated in the 70s. Totally different era...
Last edited:
MTV started the reality tv craze in what was The Real World.
MTV wasn't always SH**. Stuff like that and Pregnant Teen, Jersey Shore and other garbage is what they became. They once actually had Quality Music Programming, but few can remember it now.
CBS had Survivor as a Summer fill in show and that also became a "Reality" hit. Networks loved cheap crap like that because costs are low...
It was a different show in many ways. The use of a smaller venue was well-executed – the Oscar logo on the lampshades was a nice touch – though the cocktail-lounge lighting left something to be desired at times. There's something to be said to seeing the face of the speaker on television. I haven't been in Union Station, but I have been in the Beverly Hilton ballroom, where the Golden Globes are staged, and that would have been a better fit. But AMPAS would never mimic the Hollywood Foreign Press Association.
The producers' choice of "filmlook" never seems to go well in high-definition. Maybe because it was on ABC, which is 720p in the first place, but there was a bit of judder in motion shots and there's no need for that. They should also have chanced Anthony Hopkins' offer for a Zoom hookup rather than say no.
It wouldn't have been a bad idea to have a host for the entire show, just for continuity's sake. And changing the batting order of the finish on the presumption that Boseman was going to win was a bad move. Best Picture is the fat lady of the Oscars and should always go last. I thought I'd missed 20 minutes when Best Picture came up. Instead, 20 minutes to go.
The pre-Oscar show, with the nominated (I presume) songs, I thought was a better show than the Academy Awards themselves.
The producers' choice of "filmlook" never seems to go well in high-definition. Maybe because it was on ABC, which is 720p in the first place, but there was a bit of judder in motion shots and there's no need for that. They should also have chanced Anthony Hopkins' offer for a Zoom hookup rather than say no.
It wouldn't have been a bad idea to have a host for the entire show, just for continuity's sake. And changing the batting order of the finish on the presumption that Boseman was going to win was a bad move. Best Picture is the fat lady of the Oscars and should always go last. I thought I'd missed 20 minutes when Best Picture came up. Instead, 20 minutes to go.
The pre-Oscar show, with the nominated (I presume) songs, I thought was a better show than the Academy Awards themselves.
I think you hit on something there. I was speaking to a TV producer the other day, and he said "These 3 hour shows are too long." He was talking about attention span. He's right. I saw all I had to see in about an hour. Now the realist in me knows you need a bigger canvas to cover your costs. So perhaps we're talking about spreading out one of these shows into for smaller shows on different channels and see which one wins. Sell the cumulative audience to a few major sponsors. Try to entertain. I think that was missing.
That's not Steven Soderbergh's thing. That's one reason why he was the wrong producer.
I can't think of a single movie he did I liked. Even the Oceans series were plodding.
Not having a host was a big mistake.
Cable networks from the early 80’s just did what they could to expand revenue. Didn’t matter what their current format was. No restrictions meant go with the flow. This explains MTV and many others.
Pretty much all businesses do what they can to expand revenue. “Formats” evolved, because businesses aren’t generally static. Adapting to the ever changing world “explains” MTV e
What “restrictions” are now in place that weren’t in the early 80s?
Your taste doesn’t reflect everyone else’s. Networks like any business will like what works for their bottom line results. And “reality” programs were hardly new. They’ve been a staple since the dawn of the medium.
I didn't notice "filmlook".
And Zoom isn't a bad thing if some people can't attend. Sometimes on the other awards shows that has been a good thing because the person accepting was in a nice room.
On the other hand, Jodie Foster accepted her award in her PJs. This wasn't going to be allowed on the Oscars.
- Status