Denis, I believe I have stated at more than one poker game that only death can cleanse the body. Burn it! Burn it! How many times must we hear the same promises from the CBC: bolder programming, riskier shows, new talent, blah, blah, blabibdy blah. If Getting Along Famously is a bold new direction in television programming then I would rather stick my head in an oven and have Louis Del Grande spank my ass with an Ouija board. I have no idea what that means but man, am I turned on! Clean the whole place out and start from scratch. Start with ideas and talent. Start with curiosity and fearlessness. Make me mad, angry, sad, happy - just don’t bore me. For god’s sake! It’s publicly funded programming so take some friggin’ leaps. Inspire me with some kind of passion instead of bureaucratically designed and dedicated shows that are created to fail. The CBC is one of the only places I know where you can fail upwards. Have a show that sucks and gets cancelled? Hey, don’t worry we’ll let you make a new one and, well, have a raise.
There are some ‘creative’ types there that have bought have paid their mortgages on the basis of not having one show that could be labeled above puke….man I need a drink.
I like the CBC, and I'll tell you why: because I know that, regardless of how many CSIs they come up with, no matter how much prime time television is dominated by foreign shows with foreign actors and foreign locales, the CBC will always ensure that there is a place for Canadiana (from whatever Drama "letter") on the boob tube.
I have no problems putting money towards the CBC.
That said, I think Jay Currie <*reference to another reply> is right: the CBC should toss ratings out the window - if the existence of your channel is ensured, why not go for the gusto?
If I'm not mistaken, some of the CBC's most successful, popular, interesting drama has come in the form of mini-series ("Trudeau", "Anne of Green Gables" etc.). So why not turn our backs on the American ideal of 100 shows for syndication and instead adopt more of the British model - create shows that are only MEANT to last 13-22 episodes - one season - win, lose or draw? Imagine that: you could bump off all the characters you wanted knowing that, well, they would have ceased to exist come the end of the season anyways. Now THAT would make for compelling television.
Of course we should not be throwing money at the CBC, but so long as the powers-that-be have their eyes fixated on the bottom line, that's exactly where the CBC will spend its existence: at the bottom.
This "interesting and not popular" stuff is as much twaddle as what the CBC is doing with metrics and quantifying the unquantifiable.
What you describe is an easily-killed PBS north model -- I know that the privates would dearly love this, but it's out of step with what a public broadcaster is supposed to be.
BBC is a bureaucratic nightmare, and the UK has roughly twice the population as Canada -- yet BBC does manage to commission dramas and comedies that do well. What do they do right? What does the CBC do wrong?
You can't put a formula on it and expect it to work. Emily's Reasons Why Not was an extremely high testing show in the US and it lasted one episode.
what you need is vision, and people in charge, making the calls who respect talent and allow them to craft shows that are appealing, and then get out of the way of them. The execs top job is to choose the talent. Then get out of the way of the talent - and let them make the @#%@ show. Then promote the show. If the show doesn't work, go on to something else.
What the calls for "why do drama series" and lets do 12 or 6 like the Brits miss is the fact that your promo costs to launch, and promote a new series or a one off doesn't go down. If you do it right and actually build word of mouth drama series can provide a lynchpin to your schedule because you're not constantly reinventing the wheel.
The problem is that the people who have been making the calls at CBC are, and continue to be, woefully out of touch.
If you don't understand that the Ron Maclean / Don Cherry combo is your biggest star draw (which CBC brass proved with the bumble of almost losing Maclean a few years ago) then you don't understand Canada.
They talk a lot about "the regions" and lord knows they love to put on those Newfoundland shows...but all these people camped in Fort Dork don't understand the country. They need to be kicked out on their asses and get people in there who do have a clue.
The Canadian defeatist "the CBC shouldn't try to be popular" types are wrong. The problem is that the CBC HASN'T TRIED TO BE POPULAR.
Saying you're doing a thing and doing it are two very, very different things.
There seems to be some confusion. My point was actually that the CBC SHOULD try to be popular, but by doing two things: a) not going toe-to-toe with American programming by following in their creative footsteps (which defeats the point of a public broadcaster) and b) not using a dollar-based formula (like those pinheads seem to be doing these days). I was actually encouraging the CBC to do what whats-his-name said they'd do: be bold.
And while a franchise can act as a lynchpin for your network and programming schedule (though who sticks to one network anymore?), what we're talking about here is branding. Successful mini-series like "Trudeau" and "Anne of Green Gables" give the CBC an identity while - get this - being truly "Canadian" in its scope. "This is Wonderland"? The ads make it look like a poor-man's Law&Order/Boston Legal/etcetc.
Sure, you may be trying to "re-invent the wheel" every season, but if your shows earn a rep for being - here comes that word again - bold (because a show running one season can be as wild as it wants to be), then that just might get people interested in your network again.
Besids, some shows need to take a page out of the James Dean/Kurt Cobain/Marilyn Monroe playbook: die young and leave them wanting more. Come season four, most shows get pretty tiresome. (24...24...I'm looking in your direction...)
6 comments:
Denis, I believe I have stated at more than one poker game that only death can cleanse the body. Burn it! Burn it! How many times must we hear the same promises from the CBC: bolder programming, riskier shows, new talent, blah, blah, blabibdy blah. If Getting Along Famously is a bold new direction in television programming then I would rather stick my head in an oven and have Louis Del Grande spank my ass with an Ouija board. I have no idea what that means but man, am I turned on! Clean the whole place out and start from scratch. Start with ideas and talent. Start with curiosity and fearlessness. Make me mad, angry, sad, happy - just don’t bore me. For god’s sake! It’s publicly funded programming so take some friggin’ leaps. Inspire me with some kind of passion instead of bureaucratically designed and dedicated shows that are created to fail. The CBC is one of the only places I know where you can fail upwards.
Have a show that sucks and gets cancelled?
Hey, don’t worry we’ll let you make a new one and, well, have a raise.
There are some ‘creative’ types there that have bought have paid their mortgages on the basis of not having one show that could be labeled above puke….man I need a drink.
But then who would they hire? The programming director of Showcase Diva?
My reply to Antonia's post:
I like the CBC, and I'll tell you why: because I know that, regardless of how many CSIs they come up with, no matter how much prime time television is dominated by foreign shows with foreign actors and foreign locales, the CBC will always ensure that there is a place for Canadiana (from whatever Drama "letter") on the boob tube.
I have no problems putting money towards the CBC.
That said, I think Jay Currie <*reference to another reply> is right: the CBC should toss ratings out the window - if the existence of your channel is ensured, why not go for the gusto?
If I'm not mistaken, some of the CBC's most successful, popular, interesting drama has come in the form of mini-series ("Trudeau", "Anne of Green Gables" etc.). So why not turn our backs on the American ideal of 100 shows for syndication and instead adopt more of the British model - create shows that are only MEANT to last 13-22 episodes - one season - win, lose or draw? Imagine that: you could bump off all the characters you wanted knowing that, well, they would have ceased to exist come the end of the season anyways. Now THAT would make for compelling television.
Of course we should not be throwing money at the CBC, but so long as the powers-that-be have their eyes fixated on the bottom line, that's exactly where the CBC will spend its existence: at the bottom.
And here's what I wrote there to that:
This "interesting and not popular" stuff is as much twaddle as what the CBC is doing with metrics and quantifying the unquantifiable.
What you describe is an easily-killed PBS north model -- I know that the privates would dearly love this, but it's out of step with what a public broadcaster is supposed to be.
BBC is a bureaucratic nightmare, and the UK has roughly twice the population as Canada -- yet BBC does manage to commission dramas and comedies that do well. What do they do right? What does the CBC do wrong?
You can't put a formula on it and expect it to work. Emily's Reasons Why Not was an extremely high testing show in the US and it lasted one episode.
what you need is vision, and people in charge, making the calls who respect talent and allow them to craft shows that are appealing, and then get out of the way of them. The execs top job is to choose the talent. Then get out of the way of the talent - and let them make the @#%@ show. Then promote the show. If the show doesn't work, go on to something else.
What the calls for "why do drama series" and lets do 12 or 6 like the Brits miss is the fact that your promo costs to launch, and promote a new series or a one off doesn't go down. If you do it right and actually build word of mouth drama series can provide a lynchpin to your schedule because you're not constantly reinventing the wheel.
The problem is that the people who have been making the calls at CBC are, and continue to be, woefully out of touch.
If you don't understand that the Ron Maclean / Don Cherry combo is your biggest star draw (which CBC brass proved with the bumble of almost losing Maclean a few years ago) then you don't understand Canada.
They talk a lot about "the regions" and lord knows they love to put on those Newfoundland shows...but all these people camped in Fort Dork don't understand the country. They need to be kicked out on their asses and get people in there who do have a clue.
The Canadian defeatist "the CBC shouldn't try to be popular" types are wrong. The problem is that the CBC HASN'T TRIED TO BE POPULAR.
Saying you're doing a thing and doing it are two very, very different things.
The orchestra is on the deck singing Nearer My God to Thee
There seems to be some confusion. My point was actually that the CBC SHOULD try to be popular, but by doing two things: a) not going toe-to-toe with American programming by following in their creative footsteps (which defeats the point of a public broadcaster) and b) not using a dollar-based formula (like those pinheads seem to be doing these days). I was actually encouraging the CBC to do what whats-his-name said they'd do: be bold.
And while a franchise can act as a lynchpin for your network and programming schedule (though who sticks to one network anymore?), what we're talking about here is branding. Successful mini-series like "Trudeau" and "Anne of Green Gables" give the CBC an identity while - get this - being truly "Canadian" in its scope. "This is Wonderland"? The ads make it look like a poor-man's Law&Order/Boston Legal/etcetc.
Sure, you may be trying to "re-invent the wheel" every season, but if your shows earn a rep for being - here comes that word again - bold (because a show running one season can be as wild as it wants to be), then that just might get people interested in your network again.
Besids, some shows need to take a page out of the James Dean/Kurt Cobain/Marilyn Monroe playbook: die young and leave them wanting more. Come season four, most shows get pretty tiresome. (24...24...I'm looking in your direction...)
Post a Comment