TV of 2018

[mfunk9786]

Futurama was never on a run where every episode was a home run, and each time it's returned there's been some high points to go along with the low, so as long as they keep batting at least .250, it seems worthwhile to add a few great episodes to the heap. My favorite episode of the series, "The Late Philip J. Fry," didn't come until the first batch of rebooted episodes, if I remember correctly.

Whereas with The Simpsons... well. It's been discussed to death, but. Yeah.

[Ribs]

I have this honest belief it would be possible, suddenly, for the Simpsons to be good again! Or at least, rebooted-Futurama-level good (so, mostly alright, sometimes great). But I just feel like Al Jean and whoever really crippled the show by sticking with it for just so long. Almost every other TV show to have ever existed switches showrunners every three years! I know he's had a somewhat reduced role. But, anyway, that's besides the point: I was more thinking that, had they ended the Simpsons at Season 25 or something we'd probably already be on a track of the upcoming Simpsons reboot. I'm actually somewhat intrigued by a lot of these reboot ideas, as it does strike me as a unique thing network TV can do to combat streaming and cable.

[Big Ben]

I had a very strict parent that wouldn't let me watch The Simpsons when I was younger so it wasn't ever really much of my life. I can say with certainty that the episodes I saw as an adult have been pretty awful. One in particular involving Werner Herzog was downright apalling. People's eyes just fall out of their heads mid episode and that's like, the episode. Futurama on the other hand was something I could catch on Adult Swim late at night when I wasn't being accosted at every waking moment. Which is where I fell in love with the show. It's not perfect and I'll readily admit that but I'll never not be nostalgic for it.

As much as I dislike Disney becoming more powerful through aquisitions I am hopeful that they'll do right by The Simpsons and put out earlier seasons correctly and with the fixins'. And yes maybe even Futurama too. Given Disney's propensity to milk properties like a cow I hope that's the case.

[mfunk9786]

I have this honest belief it would be possible, suddenly, for the Simpsons to be good again! Or at least, rebooted-Futurama-level good (so, mostly alright, sometimes great). But I just feel like Al Jean and whoever really crippled the show by sticking with it for just so long. Almost every other TV show to have ever existed switches showrunners every three years! I know he's had a somewhat reduced role. But, anyway, that's besides the point: I was more thinking that, had they ended the Simpsons at Season 25 or something we'd probably already be on a track of the upcoming Simpsons reboot. I'm actually somewhat intrigued by a lot of these reboot ideas, as it does strike me as a unique thing network TV can do to combat streaming and cable.

The Simpsons hit the skids for a lot of reasons, but the voice talent is no longer in the same room with one another, the animation is no longer hand-drawn, the writers are no longer motivated by having the most sought-after job in comedy writing, there are a thousand tiny cuts that would make a reboot just as worthless as a 35th season, it's not as if they could suddenly sew all that back up after a few years off

[Mr Sausage]

So long as they brought Rene Balcer back to showrun-- it's markedly noticeable how much better the flagship and Criminal Intent were when he was at the helm

Do he helm the final season of CI? Because that season was markedly better than the four or five preceding it.

[domino harvey]

He didn't, though Wikipedia says he rewrote the finale but remained uncredited. He did however co-write either the story or script for most if not the entire first five seasons, so his presence was well established early on. He also is responsible for the last seasons of Law & Order proper, which not only pulled the show out of a tailspin but gave us the best cast and scripts since the glory days at least a decade prior

[jazzo]

Not sure if it's because I was quite taken with the source novel, but two episodes into the AMC adaptation of Dan Simmon's historical horror, THE TERROR, and I'm kind-of loving it. Hopefully I'll have more to say when it's done, but so far, it carries all the menace of the novel, and we've barely touched upon the supernatural, instead hovering around the claustrophobic doom of the ice-bound Franklin expedition, itself.

Plus, y'know, Ciarán Hinds and Jared Harris always add a touch of class to their projects.

[flyonthewall2983]

Here And Now

...and gone

[thirtyframesasecond]

Not sure if it's because I was quite taken with the source novel, but two episodes into the AMC adaptation of Dan Simmon's historical horror, THE TERROR, and I'm kind-of loving it. Hopefully I'll have more to say when it's done, but so far, it carries all the menace of the novel, and we've barely touched upon the supernatural, instead hovering around the claustrophobic doom of the ice-bound Franklin expedition, itself.

Plus, y'know, Ciarán Hinds and Jared Harris always add a touch of class to their projects.

I can't get it over in the UK as ABC isn't on Sky (BT has it) but I do want to watch this. I assume it'll be for sale on Amazon once broadcast.

I've watched a couple of episodes of the Crossing, which is on Amazon Prime in the UK. It's going for that Lost-vibe. Steve Zahn's a small town sheriff and loads of refugees are washed up on the shore. I'd tell you what their story is, but imagine the most ludicrous thing it could be, and you're probably more or less right.

[Lost Highway]

I watched The Terror on Amazon, here it comes with Amazon Prime. It's pretty good but not great. Production values and acting are excellent, but it's a little drawn out and its supernatural menace is

SpoilerShow

a rather disappointing CG monster which never looks quite right in design or execution.

[flyonthewall2983]

Tim Allen could be the man to blame for Fox's recent comedy purge

[mfunk9786]

Network TV never felt like a super correct place for progressive television comedies to begin with, but especially not when everything is so spread around in 2018. The ABCs and FOXes of the world should be airing the Tim Allen and Roseanne shows, there are plenty of more relevant, relaxed places for shows that push the envelope a bit with regard to casting and plot. Especially with dramas - I would absolutely be watching that Christina Hendricks show if it were on premium cable or streaming, to name one example.

[flyonthewall2983]

Aren't Roseanne's ratings not doing too well though?

[Murdoch]

They've steadied but still hold strong among 18 to 49 year olds.

As an aside, I've always been confused over how TV ratings work, even after reading about it multiple times (it's something I nod along to then immediately forget about after). Like Roseanne is supposedly No. 1 with 18-49 year-olds, but as a 30 year-old I couldn't tell you the last time I even watched a network comedy and I don't know anyone who has. Obviously that is highly anecdotal but is anyone really watching network comedies anymore?

[Werewolf by Night]

is anyone really watching network comedies anymore?

In short, no. The rating number itself is a willfully obscure figure that just represents fraction of the total number of television viewers at that hour viewing a given show. The actual number of live viewers or the average number of live viewers is more instructive (the latter of which in Roseanne’s case is currently 10.2 million). Nielsen estimates 304.5 million people above the age of 2 living in the U.S. in households with a television, which means that about 294.3 million of those people are choosing NOT to watch Roseanne. They are watching something else at that time or not watching TV at all. Really puts things into perspective, no? Even for its much vaunted premiere, fewer than 1 in 10 of these 304.5 million people tuned in (even when you generously include viewers who recorded it and watched it up to 7 days later).

[Murdoch]

That puts things into perspective, thanks for the explanation!

[Dr Amicus]

The recent BBC adaptation of A Very English Scandal about the Jeremy Thorpe / Norman Scott / Rinkagate affair turned out to be an absolute delight, one of the highlights of the year so far. The screenplay by Russell T Davies was one of his best, Stephen Frears's direction recalled his classy handling of Bennett's work back in the 1970s and the performances - Hugh Grant in something like career best form as Thorpe, Ben Whishaw as Scott, and many other fine character actors doing their thing - were wonderful, Grant in particular must be an early favourite for the BAFTA next year.

For those unaware of the events - and the series seems to have been popular with those who remember it and those for whom this is a total revelation - follows the fallout of the affair in the 1960s between Thorpe (a leading Liberal MP and later leader of the party) and Scott as it reaches levels of "surely not" farce (e.g. - the Barnstaple / Dunstable moment) and also, at times, is rather moving. It's notable that two of the moments which could easily have turned into "Author's Message" moments emerge from seemingly comic characters - David Bamber's Earl of Arran in the first episode and Adrian Scarborough's George Carman in the third.

[Werewolf by Night]

Premieres on Amazon Prime in the US on June 29.

[felipe]

is anyone really watching network comedies anymore?

In short, no. The rating number itself is a willfully obscure figure that just represents fraction of the total number of television viewers at that hour viewing a given show. The actual number of live viewers or the average number of live viewers is more instructive (the latter of which in Roseanne’s case is currently 10.2 million). Nielsen estimates 304.5 million people above the age of 2 living in the U.S. in households with a television, which means that about 294.3 million of those people are choosing NOT to watch Roseanne. They are watching something else at that time or not watching TV at all. Really puts things into perspective, no? Even for its much vaunted premiere, fewer than 1 in 10 of these 304.5 million people tuned in (even when you generously include viewers who recorded it and watched it up to 7 days later).

But do these numbers actually add up? Even if we're talking pre-streaming, you put together viewership from every network combined and how much have you got? 40 million people? So only 15% of Americans are watching TV during primetime?

[knives]

That actually sounds pretty realistic. Many people don't have television and even of those that do there is a large contingent doing other stuff at that time. It wouldn't surprise me if the number one television watchers are retirees or sports fans.

[felipe]

That actually sounds pretty realistic. Many people don't have television and even of those that do there is a large contingent doing other stuff at that time. It wouldn't surprise me if the number one television watchers are retirees or sports fans.

Really? I thought it was quite unusual for an American not to have a TV. I'm from Brazil, and everyone here who owns a TV turns it on at least once a day, even if it's just when they get home after work or right before they go to bed (of course nowadays many people use the TV to watch Netflix or Youtube instead)

[Werewolf by Night]

I don’t have the time or inclination right now to get too deep into this, but the four major broadcast networks averaged a total of about 31 million viewers during the 2017-2018 season, the vast majority of those viewers being 50 or older.

Then there are the hundreds of cable and satellite networks, the biggest of which (Fox News, MSNBC, TNT, TBS, HGTV, ESPN, CNN, et al) each pull in about 1-2.4 million viewers during prime time. But probably only about a third of TV-owning households (fewer than 100 million) in the US have cable or satellite service.

Speaking anecdotally, I work with many people who don’t own televisions or who own televisions but only stream movies and TV programs or watch physical media. In fact, the only person I know with a premium cable package is well over 50 and does not work (she lets me use her HBO Go login), but even she watches most of her programming via the on-demand service of the cable company.

[felipe]

Speaking anecdotally, I work with many people who don’t own televisions or who own televisions but only stream movies and TV programs or watch physical media.

And why do those people not own TV sets? Are they hipsters, they can't afford it, they live in college dorms, or are they simply against it?

[Murdoch]

And why do those people not own TV sets? Are they hipsters, they can't afford it, they live in college dorms, or are they simply against it?

I don't own a TV. I do all my watching on a rather large (40") computer monitor, since my Blu-ray player is in my desktop and I otherwise just stream.

[Werewolf by Night]

You don’t have to be a hipster, poor, or “against TV” not to own one. You just have to not care about it, which seems pretty easy to do these days.