|
|
Post by snacky on Oct 27, 2014 2:10:05 GMT
Wouldn't it be cool if future Canadian shows were emulating the Murdoch Mysteries style?  Wouldn't it also be cool if future American shows were emulating MM style too?  I would just like to see them snubbed by it! I think Americans can do family-viewable shows and can do stylish shows, but they can't combine both. |
|
|
|
Post by Fallenbelle on Oct 27, 2014 2:38:07 GMT
Wouldn't it be cool if future Canadian shows were emulating the Murdoch Mysteries style? Wouldn't it also be cool if future American shows were emulating MM style too? That's just it, MM is unique and defies easy categorization, which tends to get it filed under cult classification. I'm glad to see that despite this classification process, MM has prospered. It reminds me of another tv show in the early 90's that had this problem: Homefront. Officially, it was about life in a small Ohio town immediately after WWII ended. But it wasn't that easy to classify. It dealt with racism, birth control, war brides, anti-semitism, sexism, unions, feminism, sexuality, and really did an excellent job of highlighting that the upcoming revolutions of the sixties didn't just happen overnight-American society changed big time after the war. But to call it a show about social change misses the point. It was beautiful, a time for dreaming, change, opportunity, heartbreak, and had plenty of romance too. When I was in 9th grade, there were several of us who watched it and it was always the topic of discussion in my English class (our teacher watched it as well) the following day. However, like I said, it was impossible to classify, the marketers didn't know how to showcase it, and ultimately, the advertisers didn't know which ads to show. Adored by critics, the show was cancelled after three seasons despite some aggressive campaigns by critics and fans alike-before the internet age. I do think at least MM has benefitted from that. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homefront_(U.S._TV_series) |
|
|
|
Post by snacky on Oct 27, 2014 3:00:57 GMT
Wouldn't it also be cool if future American shows were emulating MM style too? That's just it, MM is unique and defies easy categorization, which tends to get it filed under cult classification. I'm glad to see that despite this classification process, MM has prospered. It reminds me of another tv show in the early 90's that had this problem: Homefront. Officially, it was about life in a small Ohio town immediately after WWII ended. But it wasn't that easy to classify. It dealt with racism, birth control, war brides, anti-semitism, sexism, unions, feminism, sexuality, and really did an excellent job of highlighting that the upcoming revolutions of the sixties didn't just happen overnight-American society changed big time after the war. But to call it a show about social change misses the point. It was beautiful, a time for dreaming, change, opportunity, heartbreak, and had plenty of romance too. When I was in 9th grade, there were several of us who watched it and it was always the topic of discussion in my English class (our teacher watched it as well) the following day. However, like I said, it was impossible to classify, the marketers didn't know how to showcase it, and ultimately, the advertisers didn't know which ads to show. Adored by critics, the show was cancelled after three seasons despite some aggressive campaigns by critics and fans alike-before the internet age. I do think at least MM has benefitted from that. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homefront_(U.S._TV_series)I remember that show - though I was utterly unaware of "fandom" at the time! The tendency to categorize for marketing purposes has done a real disservice to the development of television as an artistic endeavor. The need to fit into those categories creates huge, flattening constraints. I was thinking about that as the problem with Facebook this weekend. Once everyone is on Facebook, they have to create "professional" Selves as an "acceptable" category that "fits in" with the public expectations of other people. Your facebook profile has to be "vettable" by future employers. What if you run for political office? What if you are in a lawsuit that's "for public consumption"? What if you become a "public figure" for any other reason? You have to have a "professional Self" that's suitable to hide behind. Television is the same way. TV has been reduced to several "marketable" categories - it's "professional Selves". Shows have to "fit in". If it didn't cost so much to make TV shows, individuals could have more control over making them, and they could be more "quirky". |
|
|
|
Post by Fallenbelle on Oct 27, 2014 3:12:43 GMT
That's just it, MM is unique and defies easy categorization, which tends to get it filed under cult classification. I'm glad to see that despite this classification process, MM has prospered. It reminds me of another tv show in the early 90's that had this problem: Homefront. Officially, it was about life in a small Ohio town immediately after WWII ended. But it wasn't that easy to classify. It dealt with racism, birth control, war brides, anti-semitism, sexism, unions, feminism, sexuality, and really did an excellent job of highlighting that the upcoming revolutions of the sixties didn't just happen overnight-American society changed big time after the war. But to call it a show about social change misses the point. It was beautiful, a time for dreaming, change, opportunity, heartbreak, and had plenty of romance too. When I was in 9th grade, there were several of us who watched it and it was always the topic of discussion in my English class (our teacher watched it as well) the following day. However, like I said, it was impossible to classify, the marketers didn't know how to showcase it, and ultimately, the advertisers didn't know which ads to show. Adored by critics, the show was cancelled after three seasons despite some aggressive campaigns by critics and fans alike-before the internet age. I do think at least MM has benefitted from that. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homefront_(U.S._TV_series)I remember that show - though I was utterly unaware of "fandom" at the time! The tendency to categorize for marketing purposes has done a real disservice to the development of television as an artistic endeavor. The need to fit into those categories creates huge, flattening constraints. I was thinking about that as the problem with Facebook this weekend. Once everyone is on Facebook, they have to create "professional" Selves as an "acceptable" category that "fits in" with the public expectations of other people. Your facebook profile has to be "vettable" by future employers. What if you run for political office? What if you are in a lawsuit that's "for public consumption"? What if you become a "public figure" for any other reason? You have to have a "professional Self" that's suitable to hide behind. Television is the same way. TV has been reduced to several "marketable" categories - it's "professional Selves". Shows have to "fit in". If it didn't cost so much to make TV shows, individuals could have more control over making them, and they could be more "quirky". But that's how broadcasting has always been. Even since the beginning with radio programs, radio stations had to find a way to get make money to exist and this was creating programs that the people would tune into to make sure the people knew about their products. I think we're getting away from this easily classifiable formula nowadays with shows like Mad Men, GoT, House of Cards, The Affair, and even Downton Abbey, True Detective, etc. I would also include SATC in that as well. A show about independent women who enjoyed sex and wanted men as opposed to needed them? Horror! These shows are more difficult to classify and are therefore more complex than shows still shown on network tv because they're shown on networks that aren't as dependent upon advertisers demanding labels. |
|
|
|
Post by snacky on Oct 27, 2014 3:24:26 GMT
I remember that show - though I was utterly unaware of "fandom" at the time! The tendency to categorize for marketing purposes has done a real disservice to the development of television as an artistic endeavor. The need to fit into those categories creates huge, flattening constraints. I was thinking about that as the problem with Facebook this weekend. Once everyone is on Facebook, they have to create "professional" Selves as an "acceptable" category that "fits in" with the public expectations of other people. Your facebook profile has to be "vettable" by future employers. What if you run for political office? What if you are in a lawsuit that's "for public consumption"? What if you become a "public figure" for any other reason? You have to have a "professional Self" that's suitable to hide behind. Television is the same way. TV has been reduced to several "marketable" categories - it's "professional Selves". Shows have to "fit in". If it didn't cost so much to make TV shows, individuals could have more control over making them, and they could be more "quirky". But that's how broadcasting has always been. Even since the beginning with radio programs, radio stations had to find a way to get make money to exist and this was creating programs that the people would tune into to make sure the people knew about their products. I think we're getting away from this easily classifiable formula nowadays with shows like Mad Men, GoT, House of Cards, The Affair, and even Downton Abbey, True Detective, etc. I would also include SATC in that as well. A show about independent women who enjoyed sex and wanted men as opposed to needed them? Horror! These shows are more difficult to classify and are therefore more complex than shows still shown on network tv because they're shown on networks that aren't as dependent upon advertisers demanding labels. Yeah, but those shows that are difficult to classify are shown (first) on some niche cable station...and then they are gradually imported toward the center. It remains to be seen if that model will work for any but a few "superstar" shows. I only watched a couple of eps of Mad Men, so I didn't include it in my Manifesto, but I would guess that's another show where half the show was the style of the show. Frankly I think GoT could be on network television if they could tolerate the nudity. The nudity would have instantly made the fantasy "mainstream" hahahaha. I liked SATC - hmm, I think that kind have had a "style" as well. But considering all the fashion and shoes involved...Actually, I'm mad at SATC because cosmos used to be my drink, and then SATC made it sound like I was ordering THEIR drink...  |
|
|
|
Post by Fallenbelle on Oct 27, 2014 5:52:17 GMT
But that's how broadcasting has always been. Even since the beginning with radio programs, radio stations had to find a way to get make money to exist and this was creating programs that the people would tune into to make sure the people knew about their products. I think we're getting away from this easily classifiable formula nowadays with shows like Mad Men, GoT, House of Cards, The Affair, and even Downton Abbey, True Detective, etc. I would also include SATC in that as well. A show about independent women who enjoyed sex and wanted men as opposed to needed them? Horror! These shows are more difficult to classify and are therefore more complex than shows still shown on network tv because they're shown on networks that aren't as dependent upon advertisers demanding labels. Yeah, but those shows that are difficult to classify are shown (first) on some niche cable station...and then they are gradually imported toward the center. It remains to be seen if that model will work for any but a few "superstar" shows. I only watched a couple of eps of Mad Men, so I didn't include it in my Manifesto, but I would guess that's another show where half the show was the style of the show. Frankly I think GoT could be on network television if they could tolerate the nudity. The nudity would have instantly made the fantasy "mainstream" hahahaha. I liked SATC - hmm, I think that kind have had a "style" as well. But considering all the fashion and shoes involved...Actually, I'm mad at SATC because cosmos used to be my drink, and then SATC made it sound like I was ordering THEIR drink... See, I think GoT would have ended up on the CW if not for all the nudity. I think the fact that all these shows had their beginnings on expanded basic or premium networks is no accident. These networks have never looked for mass appeal like the big three have, and their success is a result of that. I think this might be the future of television, and it will ultimately lead to better shows. I think the marketing team behind MM has had trouble with this particularly difficult classification. In Canada it's main selling point seems to be it's Canadian, and people tuned in just to see what was what, and stayed because of the quality and detail. Outside of Canada, it's been harder. It's Victorian CSI, but not. It's steampunk fantasy, but not. It's social commentary, but not. It's religious, but not. It's historical period drama, but not. It's in the tradition of a classic British mystery, but not. It's a romance, but not. It's a psychological thriller, but not. I actually feel for Ovation-let's be honest, they'd love for this to be a highly successful show, but they're having a helluva time marketing it. They know it's a good show, but how do you convince your viewers that it is? What hook do you use to bring them in? Plus, it's gotta be short and catchy. I hope CBC does manage to make some nice money from distribution, because they're a public entity with a cash flow problem, and demand from abroad will fuel a demand for further seasons. I think it's good news that the show hasn't announced this will be their last season-it means that CBC and MM are entertaining the idea, and the numbers will tell the tale. How are the ratings in Canada? I've seen that they're hovering around 1,000,000 per episode this season, but I don't know how that rates. Not it for the first time, I wished CBC were like the BBC iPlayer that offered a paid subscription to their online content for those abroad. That's a great solution for those who don't want to wait to view content until it makes it to your country. |
|
|
|
Post by snacky on Oct 27, 2014 6:02:02 GMT
I think the marketing team behind MM has had trouble with this particularly difficult classification. In Canada it's main selling point seems to be it's Canadian, and people tuned in just to see what was what, and stayed because of the quality and detail. Outside of Canada, it's been harder. It's Victorian CSI, but not. It's steampunk fantasy, but not. It's social commentary, but not. It's religious, but not. It's historical period drama, but not. It's in the tradition of a classic British mystery, but not. It's a romance, but not. It's a psychological thriller, but not. I actually feel for Ovation-let's be honest, they'd love for this to be a highly successful show, but they're having a helluva time marketing it. They know it's a good show, but how do you convince your viewers that it is? What hook do you use to bring them in? Plus, it's gotta be short and catchy. I hope CBC does manage to make some nice money from distribution, because they're a public entity with a cash flow problem, and demand from abroad will fuel a demand for further seasons. I think it's good news that the show hasn't announced this will be their last season-it means that CBC and MM are entertaining the idea, and the numbers will tell the tale. How are the ratings in Canada? I've seen that they're hovering around 1,000,000 per episode this season, but I don't know how that rates. Not it for the first time, I wished CBC were like the BBC iPlayer that offered a paid subscription to their online content for those abroad. That's a great solution for those who don't want to wait to view content until it makes it to your country. You forgot the X-Files, but not! I don't feel bad for Ovation. They were almost universally dropped by all cable/satellite networks and ordered to shape up via some original programming. MM was that show. Anyone would have trouble marketing, but Ovation doesn't do much in the way of marketing at all: they are just a really, really cheap station - so cheap they are practically local. It would be interesting to know if different local markets emphasize different aspects for the tastes of their own audiences. That direct subscription is a good idea, especially if it means people could view the show immediately. In fact if the show were offered a bit before the Canadian airing, it's possible CBC could have Canadian subscribers. 1 mil would be low in the US context, but I think the Canadian audience is smaller. The problem is the numbers are usually greater at the start of the season and then go down. The International success has to be factored in, too, I think. The question would also have to be: does CBC have anything more successful? |
|
|
|
Post by Fallenbelle on Oct 27, 2014 6:16:34 GMT
I think the marketing team behind MM has had trouble with this particularly difficult classification. In Canada it's main selling point seems to be it's Canadian, and people tuned in just to see what was what, and stayed because of the quality and detail. Outside of Canada, it's been harder. It's Victorian CSI, but not. It's steampunk fantasy, but not. It's social commentary, but not. It's religious, but not. It's historical period drama, but not. It's in the tradition of a classic British mystery, but not. It's a romance, but not. It's a psychological thriller, but not. I actually feel for Ovation-let's be honest, they'd love for this to be a highly successful show, but they're having a helluva time marketing it. They know it's a good show, but how do you convince your viewers that it is? What hook do you use to bring them in? Plus, it's gotta be short and catchy. I hope CBC does manage to make some nice money from distribution, because they're a public entity with a cash flow problem, and demand from abroad will fuel a demand for further seasons. I think it's good news that the show hasn't announced this will be their last season-it means that CBC and MM are entertaining the idea, and the numbers will tell the tale. How are the ratings in Canada? I've seen that they're hovering around 1,000,000 per episode this season, but I don't know how that rates. Not it for the first time, I wished CBC were like the BBC iPlayer that offered a paid subscription to their online content for those abroad. That's a great solution for those who don't want to wait to view content until it makes it to your country. You forgot the X-Files, but not! I don't feel bad for Ovation. They were almost universally dropped by all cable/satellite networks and ordered to shape up via some original programming. MM was that show. Anyone would have trouble marketing, but Ovation doesn't do much in the way of marketing at all: they are just a really, really cheap station - so cheap they are practically local. It would be interesting to know if different local markets emphasize different aspects for the tastes of their own audiences. That direct subscription is a good idea, especially if it means people could view the show immediately. In fact if the show were offered a bit before the Canadian airing, it's possible CBC could have Canadian subscribers. 1 mil would be low in the US context, but I think the Canadian audience is smaller. The problem is the numbers are usually greater at the start of the season and then go down. The International success has to be factored in, too, I think. The question would also have to be: does CBC have anything more successful? But remember, Ovation doesn't have the cash reserves that a bigger, more established network would have. So their job is that much harder, and I do appreciate the type of programming they've tried to showcase-it was very much like the old A&E -which would have been a good choice, but in order to become a network with more resources, they sold their soul to the reality tv gods. Same with TLC and the History Channel. They're hardly recognizable from what they were in the mid90's. There clearly is a demand for programming like MM, but we still live by the rules of advertises, and how the hell do you define that demographic? |
|
|
|
Post by snacky on Oct 27, 2014 6:21:58 GMT
But remember, Ovation doesn't have the cash reserves that a bigger, more established network would have. So their job is that much harder, and I do appreciate the type of programming they've tried to showcase-it was very much like the old A&E -which would have been a good choice, but in order to become a network with more resources, they sold their soul to the reality tv gods. Same with TLC and the History Channel. They're hardly recognizable from what they were in the mid90's. There clearly is a demand for programming like MM, but we still live by the rules of advertises, and how the hell do you define that demographic? If you talk to scientists, especially in biomedical fields, they have the same problem: their agenda is dictated by powerful patient lobbying groups who channel the money. So money pours into, say, AIDS, or breast cancer, and orphan diseases that might actually be cured are completely ignored. The closer science comes to be funded by "the private sector", the more the agenda becomes skewed toward the most powerful interest groups. Of course your sympathy starts to interest when you realize the scientist whine about "money" involves millions of dollars while families in poverty are expected to scrape by on pennies. |
|
|
|
Post by Fallenbelle on Oct 27, 2014 6:33:56 GMT
That direct subscription is a good idea, especially if it means people could view the show immediately. In fact if the show were offered a bit before the Canadian airing, it's possible CBC could have Canadian subscribers. 1 mil would be low in the US context, but I think the Canadian audience is smaller. The problem is the numbers are usually greater at the start of the season and then go down. The International success has to be factored in, too, I think. The question would also have to be: does CBC have anything more successful? That might work, but I suppose it would go over like a lead balloon as CBC is taxpayer funded, and many Canadians probably wouldn't take kindly to being forced to pay for that access. But rather than trying to stop the dam of internet technology by plugging a hole in the dike with a wad of gum, more need to embrace it like BBC and try out new business models. I just looked at average viewership of Mad Men ( a good comparison show, IMO) and it's averaging about 2.5 million per episode-in a country of 318,000,000 vs. 1,000,000 for MM in a country with a population of 35,000,000. Pretty impressive, if you ask me. |
|
|
|
Post by snacky on Oct 27, 2014 7:06:51 GMT
That direct subscription is a good idea, especially if it means people could view the show immediately. In fact if the show were offered a bit before the Canadian airing, it's possible CBC could have Canadian subscribers. 1 mil would be low in the US context, but I think the Canadian audience is smaller. The problem is the numbers are usually greater at the start of the season and then go down. The International success has to be factored in, too, I think. The question would also have to be: does CBC have anything more successful? That might work, but I suppose it would go over like a lead balloon as CBC is taxpayer funded, and many Canadians probably wouldn't take kindly to being forced to pay for that access. But rather than trying to stop the dam of internet technology by plugging a hole in the dike with a wad of gum, more need to embrace it like BBC and try out new business models. I just looked at average viewership of Mad Men ( a good comparison show, IMO) and it's averaging about 2.5 million per episode-in a country of 318,000,000 vs. 1,000,000 for MM in a country with a population of 35,000,000. Pretty impressive, if you ask me. Is this the height of Mad Men's popularity? Or is it on the verge of cancellation? That would also make a difference. |
|
|
|
Post by Fallenbelle on Oct 27, 2014 7:37:24 GMT
That might work, but I suppose it would go over like a lead balloon as CBC is taxpayer funded, and many Canadians probably wouldn't take kindly to being forced to pay for that access. But rather than trying to stop the dam of internet technology by plugging a hole in the dike with a wad of gum, more need to embrace it like BBC and try out new business models. I just looked at average viewership of Mad Men ( a good comparison show, IMO) and it's averaging about 2.5 million per episode-in a country of 318,000,000 vs. 1,000,000 for MM in a country with a population of 35,000,000. Pretty impressive, if you ask me. Is this the height of Mad Men's popularity? Or is it on the verge of cancellation? That would also make a difference. Th ratings have been fairly consistent from what I've heard. The final few eps will air in the Spring, but that's been by design from what I've heard. If you watch the show (don't know that you do), people have always known that Don's eventual implosion has been coming since the beginning it's just a question of when, how and who will be collateral damage. It's a modern Greek tragedy-boy from nothing schemes his way to the top, then self-destructs and harms those close to him as well. |
|
|
|
Post by snacky on Oct 27, 2014 7:52:18 GMT
Is this the height of Mad Men's popularity? Or is it on the verge of cancellation? That would also make a difference. Th ratings have been fairly consistent from what I've heard. The final few eps will air in the Spring, but that's been by design from what I've heard. If you watch the show (don't know that you do), people have always known that Don's eventual implosion has been coming since the beginning it's just a question of when, how and who will be collateral damage. It's a modern Greek tragedy-boy from nothing schemes his way to the top, then self-destructs and harms those close to him as well. Ah, an American Tragedy, Dreiser-style. I don't watch it - mainly because I haven't had that channel for most of Mad Men's run, and now it's really too late to get into it. (unless you dangle another MM-style OTP)... |
|
|
|
Post by Fallenbelle on Oct 27, 2014 8:49:33 GMT
Th ratings have been fairly consistent from what I've heard. The final few eps will air in the Spring, but that's been by design from what I've heard. If you watch the show (don't know that you do), people have always known that Don's eventual implosion has been coming since the beginning it's just a question of when, how and who will be collateral damage. It's a modern Greek tragedy-boy from nothing schemes his way to the top, then self-destructs and harms those close to him as well. Ah, an American Tragedy, Dreiser-style. I don't watch it - mainly because I haven't had that channel for most of Mad Men's run, and now it's really too late to get into it. (unless you dangle another MM-style OTP)... I've never truly gotten into it, but it's still a very well-made, well thought out show. A little too tragic for my tastes, but I can understand why that's compelling for some folks. It's a little too real for me however-I prefer the charm of MM myself. But hey, that's okay. GoT isn't really my thing either, but I can't fault them for it's execution-it's also a carefully made show. Sorry, no OTP. Which raises the question...can you even cast or plan for an OTP, or are they organic? |
|
|
|
Post by Hodge on Oct 27, 2014 14:41:18 GMT
I hope CBC does manage to make some nice money from distribution, because they're a public entity with a cash flow problem, and demand from abroad will fuel a demand for further seasons. I think it's good news that the show hasn't announced this will be their last season-it means that CBC and MM are entertaining the idea, and the numbers will tell the tale. How are the ratings in Canada? I've seen that they're hovering around 1,000,000 per episode this season, but I don't know how that rates. Not it for the first time, I wished CBC were like the BBC iPlayer that offered a paid subscription to their online content for those abroad. That's a great solution for those who don't want to wait to view content until it makes it to your country. I'm not sure the CBC would get anything from distribution, they buy the programme from Shaftesbury and whilst they may be a factor in whether there's another season or not it doesn't mean they own the rights to it outside Canada. The ratings have been lower this season but I think that's because it's up against Gotham which started a couple of weeks sooner ... good move on their part. I watched the first two episodes of Gotham but it didn't catch my attention quite like MM and as soon as S8 started I was back. Unfortunately some people that perhaps watched MM before have stayed. Gotham is getting around 1.6M viewers, MM around 950K, last season it was around 1.4M. Still good ratings for Canada and MM is still top of CBC shows. Just out of interest Strange Empire is only around 250K. Just found this on TV, eh?: "CBC saw it’s top drama, Murdoch Mysteries, pull 1,029,000 on a Thanksgiving Monday. Strange Empire followed at 9 with 312,000." Perhaps MM is getting back to last seasons numbers. Unfortunately Canadians don't seem to think Canadian shows are very good, perhaps that's because some of them are too intelligent for the ever increasing numbers of intellectually bankrupt viewers. CBC is looking at getting more into online stuff but I'm not sure what that means right now, not sure they do. CBC has always been a complicated and contentious issue and successive governments (especially Conservative who feel the CBC is too liberal, small and capital L) have consistently de-funded them to the point they had to start commercials a few years back. Sad day that was! If you read the CBC mandate, www.cbc.radio-canada.ca/en/explore/mandate/ and the broadcasting act, laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/B-9.01/ you will see that they have an obligation that never decreases on an increasingly shrinking budget. It's an impossible situation for them. |
|
