From The Archives: "Television in 2010"

Let's face it. The late 90's and early 00's (the years, not fictional British Intelligence agents) were a golden age of sorts for television. But somewhere along the line, something went horribly wrong. The last couple of years have not been good for the state of TV, in every aspect you can think of. From the atrocious way that the commercial networks here have been treating viewers, to the atrocious way studios abroad have treated some good quality shows. And then there's this show, which I can only describe as "unforgivable".

There are many, many areas that TV can improve in, so here's what I think the rulers of TV-Land (both here and abroad) should do this year:


Stop Shifting Programs About On A Whim

The general premise behind this move is that it's supposed to move programs into a timeslot where they might get better ratings, or where they can move in another show that might get better ratings in the original timeslot, or both. While most networks are generally pretty good about this sort of thing, Channel Seven did keep pushing popular programs like Heroes and Lost until they were almost running in the witching hour. (Now that their second digital channel is here, they're promising to put those shows on in prime-time on 7TWO.)

But the main culprit is Channel 10. They seem to live for this sort of thing. If a show doesn't rate well in its first week, BAM, it's gone, or banished to some obscure time of the night you never even knew existed. If a show doesn't rate well in its second week, BAM. Third week? You get the idea.


Stop Airing So Many Damn Episodes of The Simpsons Every Week

One thing that makes a good TV landscape is variety. Channel 10 has not grasped this concept. It only seems to have enough money to buy the Simpsons back catalogue and the new episodes. If they banish a TV show, guess what replaces it 75% of the time?

If you want better ratings, take some risks, and show some different content. We're not going to watch an episode of a TV show we've seen a billion times before in the past three months.


Stop Jumping on the Bandwagon (Or On The Lost Island)

One thing that makes a good TV landscape is variety. Yes, we all know that shows like Lost changed TV. It showed us what can be done with a serialised TV show, and how audiences react to a show steeped in mystery and mythology. But that doesn't mean that straight out copying it is going to make your show successful. Look at the horror that was Flashforward for example. If only the producers of that show had been able to catch a glimpse of the future, perhaps they might have decided against signing off on that one.

Another mind-numbing example is the resurgence in shows with vampires, no doubt trying to cash in on the Twilight "franchise". The more we're saturated by vampires, the faster we're going to become phased by their presence on TV, which means your audience will have about as much interest in your show as an actual undead person.


But Don't Stop Taking Risks

I promise I'll stop saying it in a second, but: One thing that makes a good TV landscape is variety. We all know that some shows will fail. But occasionally there is that one gem of a show that picks up a devoted fan base because it's different, takes risks, and has a good gimmick (if it's a comedy) or storyline (if it's not). We need more of these shows.

And when you get one of these shows, be prepared for a niche market to grasp on to it, rather than aim for a broad spectrum of viewers. There's almost no such thing as a show that will appeal to a wide range of demographics anymore. Hell, audiences are so varied in their tastes these days that there's probably no such thing as a demographic anymore. Intelligent, high quality shows don't appeal to a mass audience. Conversely, mass appeal shows are so bad and do nothing than follow a formula that they bomb and don't get a large audience anyway. Stick with the intelligent ones, even if they're not as popular and don't rate as well as The Best Show In History (whatever that was).


Give a Show Fair Warning Before You Axe It For Good

The one thing that annoys viewers more than a cliffhanger ending is a cliffhanger ending that will never, ever be resolved. It doesn't do the show any justice, and it reflects badly on the studio that wielded the axe.

If you tell the writers that you may not renew the show for another year, then that means they can end the season on a note that resolves as much as needs to be resolved. If you don't then you get stuck with an audience that feels like they've read a novel only to find that the last 100 pages have been torn out. Fantastic.

If you need an example, look no further than My Name Is Earl, which ended with the full expectation that there would be more episodes. So now we're all stuck with an incomplete storyline that feels awkward and doesn't help anyone. And worst of all, we may now never see Earl finish crossing things off his list. (Actually he technically can't do that anyway, since he added an item he had no intention of ever crossing off.)

There are many examples of shows that did get it right, but most of those went out on their own terms and so didn't have the metaphorical axe hovering over their head. One show that didn't go out on its own terms but still managed to get it right was the ending to the second season of Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles, perhaps the only show with a longer name than My Name is Earl. The writers didn't know whether they would be coming back for a third season, so they wrote an ending that both resolved the current storyline but could be expanded upon if a third season came about. Just incase.


Give The Hosting Duty of Scrapheap Challenge Back to Kryten Robert Llewellyn

Okay, this one's a long shot given that they might not even make a new series, but it's still worth mentioning.


As Much As It Pains Me To Say It, Stop Making New Episodes of The Simpsons

Let's say it together one last time: "One thing that makes a good TV landscape is variety." Saturating the marketplace with Simpsons episodes doesn't do the TV world any good, and hasn't for a while now. I'm pretty sure that the only reason Fox keeps commissioning new episodes is because it gets them money. I'd call myself a Simpsons fan, but I'm not watching new episodes anymore. The quality's gone, and the only way such a long running series can be saved is to reboot it like they did with Doctor Who, but you can't do that with The Simpsons

When a show is being promoted purely on the dying hype generated by the fact that they are new episodes with a billion new guests stars and not being promoted on the storylines or gags, then you're pretty much staring the Grim Reaper of Television in the face, daring him to make his move and hand you the Notice of Cancellation he holds instead of that scythe. The new age of television was heralded with the introduction of interesting serialised shows like 24, Lost, the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica, etc.

The TV landscape won't be the same without this iconic show (The Simpsons, not the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica), but it's time to let it die with some dignity.


What Else?

This is by no means a definitive list of what should be done, but rather just the stuff I could think up some stuff to write about. There's plenty of other things that the controllers of the magic box can do to improve our viewing experience, such as:

• Ensuring more accurate, easy to read weekly TV guides are published in papers. Ones that list ALL the channels, and in particular, make digital channels easier to look up.
  
• Stop lying about HD channels being separate channels until they actually are separate channels.
  
• Fix current affairs shows by making them more accountable for the lies they broadcast, or get rid of them completely.
  
• Stop remaking Oliver Twist.
  

I'm sure there are plenty more I have missed that you can think up. So what do you think should happen to TV in 2010?

http://ieattoastintheshower.blogspot.com/2010_01_01_archive.html#7317383102380322674