Shawn Williamson, producer with B.C.'s Brightlight Pictures, tells Playback that reducing Cancon criteria would make it "easier for us to package things that are going to be more palatable, if we can attract talent that's already known internationally."
File that under prevailing wisdom. But is it true?
Let's look at the two top-rated Canuck dramas, as listed in the CFTPA's Profile 2007: Degrassi: The Next Generation and Instant Star, both from Toronto's Epitome Pictures and both made with CTF cash. Both are 10 out of 10 shows, and both continue to enjoy successful runs at home and abroad. In the eyes of U.S. broadcaster The N, these entirely Canadian-made shows can do no wrong. If we jump over to comedy, CBC's CTF-supported Little Mosque on the Prairie has had no problem garnering international attention, which, more recently, has translated into international sales.
And the most important, most true statement ever made about TV vs. Movies:
Cinema needs stars. TV makes them. Top U.S. shows like CSI and Grey's Anatomy came out of the gate with no real stars and have dominated the ratings. It is the writers and showrunners of these and other hit series that are the true behind-the-scenes stars of TV.
If Canadian shows require Hollywood talent, they don't have to look very far, because Hollywood is full of working Canucks who straddle the border, whether it's the directors of Degrassi or Little Mosque thesp Carlo Rota, who pulls double duty on 24. Sure, if a Canadian show could land a star of the caliber of say, George Clooney, or one of Hollywood's top scribes, no doubt that would lead to a boost in a show's ratings. But how many shows reliant on CTF cash could afford them?
CTF-supported shows could only bring in mid-level foreign talent on par with so many Canadians who are currently not working.
Remember, you have til July 27 to file a response to the report on the CTF.
Will has a step by step guide of how to do that, here.
There are 1800 members of the WGC. If 1/3 wrote letters...that would be something. Please do it today.
4 comments:
I am adamently against the proposed changes ... but ... who are these producers fooling? What sort of "star power" do they imagine they are luring north with the sort of dough they spend.
Cinema needs stars. TV makes them.
I really wonder if anyone at the CRTC truly understands that. Even Lost and House and Ugly Betty and Desperate Housewives had no 'stars'...yes, some actors with TVQ so as to have someone to promote or highlight, but I don't imagine too many viewers tuned in just to watch Matthew Fox or Hugh Laurie or Teri Hatcher or America Ferrara at the beginning. The 'show' is the star.
James Woods in Shark? Maybe. But we've also witnessed innumerable examples in past several years of shows selling stars tanking...Jeff Goldblum in Raines? Geena Davis in Commander In Chief? Ray Liotta in...etc.
I wish we had some producers or cablecasters commenting to get their spin. But, if I was to speculate...I think they'd say they could raise more money via a US or foreign sales with that 'star' attached (thus that's how they'd pay/afford them). Which may be true, but nary a hit could be guaranteed.
And I'd be really wary of the type of shows and where they'd need to be set in order to attract those sales and/or any 'stars' of any magnitude.
Or they just go after mid-level LA showrunner writers to create/pen the shows who will staff and/or run it from LA and that won't really do any of us writers still living and trying to work up here any good.
Just vote no.
I don't think it's fair to hold up Degrassi and Instant Star as examples of shows that worked without big name stars.
Degrassi was based on a franchise that had an incredible track record on air and in merchandise, so re-launching it was not so much of a risk because there was a formula in place and a nostalgia factor with the generation that was the parents of their audience.
As for Instant Star, the development track on that show was backwards ... the folks at Epitome developed it with The N first and CTV was the last one at the table when the concept was essentially locked. That is a rare situation for a Canadian producer, and only came to be because Degrassi was their #1 show and the network realized they wanted more from such a fantastic creative hive.
I think the US market can live with a show without big stars. Don't get me wrong, someone they've heard of never hurts, but they're seeing that great talent is often undiscovered talent. And from a business standpoint, they see the value in investing in talent when they're still affordable (and locking them into a contract!).
That being said, hopefully you've got your budget covered out of Canada and the US. Ergo, you are looking to international for profit. And if there's no local tie in (ie: a British personality for Britain) or it isn't incredibly high concept, you'd better have a star in place. Because otherwise, the competition in the world marketplace, even in drama, is staggering. Way tougher than even five years ago.
I am not speaking here as a producer specifically, but as the girl who had to flog shows from Australia to Yemen.
Post a Comment