DARK SHADOWS FORUMS
General Discussions => Current Talk Archive => Current Talk '24 I => Current Talk '04 I => Topic started by: Mysterious Benefactor on April 27, 2004, 10:44:45 PM
-
** [5323] DIATRIBE WARNING **
I know focus groups are a fact of life in the entertainment industry, and we're not about to lose them anytime in the foreseeable future because networks and studios love them - with millions of dollars riding on their every decision, heaven forbid they should make those decsions based on their own gut feelings - but I'm just one of those people who thinks they're killing artistic vision. The fact that a bunch of people taken off the street can have an actor's entire performance removed from a film or TV show, or they can force a scene to be completely rescored is a very sad commentary on the way films and TV shows are produced nowadays. Heaven forbid a character or a music cue produce an emotion that these people might not be comfortable with, or a story not conclude the way they think it should. Whatever happened to remaining true to the vision the creative people behind a project had and letting that vision speak for itself instead of playing to the least common denominator? Profit has taken an almost exclusive forefront to art
And people wonder why so much of what's produced today has a sameness to it? ::)
::getting off my soapbox now::
-
deleted
Oops. It seems that while I was writing my diatribe Darren decided to delete the post that inspired it. So I just want to say that in no way was I responding to Darren personally. Part of his post simply went into the fact that the WB pilot would be shown to focus groups before the WB makes a final decision on it. ;)
-
I know focus groups are a fact of life in the entertainment industry, and we're not about to lose them anytime in the foreseeable future because networks and studios love them - with millions of dollars riding on their every decision, heaven forbid they should make those decsions based on their own gut feelings - but I'm just one of those people who thinks they're killing artistic vision.....
Unfortantely, it's just part of the business process. Anyone going into business these days has to do surveys. Focus groups are just one aspect of it. A focus group format let's the people get actual feedback to their product whatever it may be as opposed to just question and answers like a regular survey. There will also probably be a telephone surveys, etc. If you don't do this type of research and testing in the marketplace, you can find out later you had a real dog on your hands.
Everyone has to make money at some point, even an artist. Beethoven did not die a starving artist. The idea that an artist can't also be a business person making money or should make money is probably not a practical idea.
I think the problem with the networks is they are too quick to pull shows before they get a following or how much they publize the show. If you hide it under a bushel basket, then no one knows its there.
For me, the keys are: Product, Place, Promotion, Price. The four essential "Ps" of marketing. It can't be a stinker, they can't put it up against West Wing or American Idol or on Friday night, they must have a major ad, print, web, etc. campaign and it must be priced correctly (ie, the advertisers) to make money. These are all business planning essentials. Thus, the artistic does play a role, but not the entire picture.
Business lesson over..... :)
-
Everyone has to make money at some point, even an artist. Beethoven did not die a starving artist. The idea that an artist can't also be a business person making money or should make money is probably not a practical idea.
No, artists shouldn't have to die poor. But on the other hand, if they choose to compromise the art they make for the sake of market value, then they aren't artists...they're merchants. You simply can't have it both ways. The moment you change what you create solely for the sake of increasing it's monetary worth, you have ceased to create art and become a manufacturer of product.
The problem with film and television, of course, is the staggering sum of money it takes to produce. Too much money to spend on any concept that can't give some hope of success before it's even produced.....which explains why one successful new show breeds multiple replicas as fast as it is possible to crank them out: if it worked for someone else, it should work for us!!
-
A focus group format let's the people get actual feedback to their product whatever it may be as opposed to just question and answers like a regular survey.
Getting feedback is one thing. But having focus groups make artistic decisions is quite another.
Unfortunately, Darren's post is no longer here to give my post its full context. But let's lay out a hypothetical situation (that really isn't all that hypothetical because it actually happens all the time :(). Say a studio shows a film to a focus group. The group's feedback shows that they may not like a particular character or the direction the film's storyline takes or perhaps how the film ends, so the studio pressures the people behind the film to make changes to suit that group. Where is the respect for the original artistic vision? True, the changes might result in the film becoming more financially successful. But where's the respect for artistic success? And chances are there could be an audience out there who would understand and appreciate what the film was originally trying to say. But the sad thing is that audience will never get the chence if the studio forces the film to be alterred to suit the focus group's opinion.
That was the point I was trying to make. ;) It really had little to do with marketing the film.
However, so far as marketing goes, there's always going to be a market for any film. It might be big, or it might be small. But these days the studios are almost exclusively obsessed with marketing all films to the same audience with the hope of reaping the biggest profits rather than allowing a film to find its own niche. So few niche films are allowed to be made - well, unless the people behind them are willing to scrape the money together on their own and go into hock way over their heads. And that is actually a shame. :(
So, how did most of this relate to the DS pilot? Well, Darren had originally mentioned that the networks were spending this time showing their pilots to various focus groups for feedback and then possibly tweaking them accordingly. But my hope is that the WB DS pilot won't be so subjected to "creativity by committee" (which is what focus groups basically amount to) that it will lose all essence of what PJ Hogan, John Wells, DC and Mark Verheiden had originally envisioned...
-
No, artists shouldn't have to die poor. But on the other hand, if they choose to compromise the art they make for the sake of market value, then they aren't artists...they're merchants. You simply can't have it both ways. The moment you change what you create solely for the sake of increasing it's monetary worth, you have ceased to create art and become a manufacturer of product.
Exactly, Rainey. And the sad fact is that of late the studios and networks seem to be trying to turn artists into merchants rather than respecting their art and letting it stand on its own as it was originally conceived to be...
-
No, artists shouldn't have to die poor. But on the other hand, if they choose to compromise the art they make for the sake of market value, then they aren't artists...they're merchants. You simply can't have it both ways. The moment you change what you create solely for the sake of increasing it's monetary worth, you have ceased to create art and become a manufacturer of product.
Shakespeare and Dickens come readily to mind as two writers who often shaped some aspects of their work to please the masses. Of course Shakespeare was also a shrewd business man and lended at interest; Chaucer was forever filing lawsuits; Dickens re-wrote the ending of "Great Expectations" at a friend's suggestion to make it more upbeat ... L. Frank Baum, arguably the greatest American children's fantasist, shamelessly sought the pulse of what his readers and theatre-going public wanted -- if one reads the biographies of these artists, one sees that they often had an eye on the market as well as on eternal verities and Art ...
-
I'm sure that after a network has viewed each pilot, they probably place it a category that ranges anywhere from "very possible" to "no chance in hell" that it'll make the schedule. But one would hope, anyway, that they don't make a final decision on any pilot, no matter how good or bad, until after they've seen all their pilots so they can make a comprehensive comparison. If that's the case at the WB, the ultimate fate of both LIS and J&B is probably still up in the air...
Just wondering how a focus group will react to viewing a completed polished L.I.S. pilot as compared to viewing a very rough cut of the DS pilot. After all they are only human. Maybe victoriawinters will find a way to sneak into the screening room and participate in the focus group. lol Trying to predict how the WB will make its final decision is like predicting how a jury might find a verdict. I look at this from a quasi-political perspective. If the WB rejects the DS pilot, they would in essence be saying NO to John Wells. Despite Wells having a developmental deal with the WB, he may not be so inclined in the future pitch quality projects to the WB and instead perhaps shop them to another network. You would think it would be in the WB's best interest to keep him happy.
-
Trying to predict how the WB will make its final decision is like predicting how a jury might find a verdict.
Exactly. There are just too many different variables at play to really be able to predict. It's fun to second guess - and even more fun to read what the so-called experts (like the TV critics) think might happen. But probably the best thing to do is simply to hope for the best and just wait for the WB's announcement of their fall schedule.
If the WB rejects the DS pilot, they would in essence be saying NO to John Wells. Despite Wells having a developmental deal with the WB, he may not be so inclined in the future pitch quality projects to the WB and instead perhaps shop them to another network. You would think it would be in the WB's best interest to keep him happy
Well, more than likely Wells wouldn't let a pass on the DS pilot stop from doing future business with the WB if an opportunity came along down the road somewhere. Do many people even remember his short-lived series "Trinity" from back in '98? The fact that NBC canceled it didn't stop him from bringing "The West Wing" or "Third Watch" to them. Rejection is simply an every day part of the entertainment business. Anyone who can't deal with it and move on shouldn't be in it. And something tells me that, even as successful as he is, Wells has faced rejection more than once in his career...
-
A focus group format let's the people get actual feedback to their product whatever it may be as opposed to just question and answers like a regular survey.
Getting feedback is one thing. But having focus groups make artistic decisions is quite another.
... But the sad thing is that audience will never get the chence if the studio forces the film to be alterred to suit the focus group's opinion.
So, how did most of this relate to the DS pilot? Well, Darren had originally mentioned that the networks were spending this time showing their pilots to various focus groups for feedback and then possibly tweaking them accordingly. But my hope is that the WB DS pilot won't be so subjected to "creativity by committee" (which is what focus groups basically amount to) that it will lose all essence of what PJ Hogan, John Wells, DC and Mark Verheiden had originally envisioned...
Perhaps, we misunderstand each other here. A focus group as I understand a focus group is to get feedback on a product one is attempting to bring to the marketplace. With said feedback, one can predict a performance in the marketplace. I'm sure there will be more then one group because one would want to test the various demographics and you can't do that in a small one time group.
My guess is they've already had a focus group or two about the show or it would not have been even considered for a pilot. Why spend the money on a pilot you already know no one is interested in?
I just can just tell you as a business person, there is no way, no how, I would ever bring a product to the market without doing some kind of test or survey for it. It would be complete and total suicide.
I also think you make some assumptions here that any tweaking by a focus group suggestion is all bad. I don't necessarily find that to be the case 100% of the time. When I performed the survey I did when I started my business, it helped me determine how to focus my service. What the concerns were, etc. Without that, I would have walked into the entire thing blind as a bat. :)
Also, in my context of the four Ps, product (that is the artistic elements in this case) are just as important as the other three, not less so. The inner workings of the TV industry are possibly a total mystery to me on many levels. However, I do know how to operate a business that turns a profit and is "artistic" on many levels. It's a balancing act. No one thing is more important then the other.
I believed you were saying that conducting a focus group was all bad and perhaps you meant that having "uneducated" persons tweak with artistic license is a bad thing. However, all artists (myself included), can use a good constructive kick every now and then.
(http://home.pacbell.net/cbsbiz/Victoriaquill.gif)
-
The fact that a bunch of people taken off the street can have an actor's entire performance removed from a film or TV show, or they can force a scene to be completely rescored is a very sad commentary on the way films and TV shows are produced nowadays. Heaven forbid a character or a music cue produce an emotion that these people might not be comfortable with, or a story not conclude the way they think it should.
Though it was a product of screenings with preview audiences, so not as small as a focus group, one of the most notable instances of this that I'm familiar with, just so we have a concrete example on the table here, involves the conclusion to Fatal Attraction which had to be completely reshot.
Here's an explanation of the original ending, which was included as a bonus on some of the later video releases, courtesy of the IMDb (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093010/alternateversions):
[spoiler]Original ending had Alex committing suicide while dressed in white, and Dan being arrested for her murder. Dan's wife, while looking for the phone number of her husband's lawyer, finds a cassette tape recorded by Alex in which she states her intention to commit suicide. The wife runs out of the house with the tape (presumably going to the police) and the film ends with a flashback of Alex slashing her throat in the bathroom while listening to "Madama Butterfly".
When preview audiences hated this ending, a new one was shot (where Alex is killed by Dan's wife with a gun). The original ending still appears in the Japanese release and was added to the US video and laser editions.[/spoiler]
-
And the best example I know of in which a focus group (preview audience) was dead wrong and ignored by the "creators" in favor of staying true to their original vision, is The Mary Tyler Moore Show. It was (one of) the lowest rated preview audience shows of all time (according to all involved). And the rest, as they say, is history.
-
This whole thread just illustrates why television today is not just trashy or tasteless, it's above all a crashing bore.
And it illustrates why, discussing people I'd had in mind for the casting of Julia in The New WB DS, I commented to my roommate last night: "Of course, Helen Shaver would have been magnificent. And she would have been way too good for what the WB are going to produce here."
Although he's a diehard fan of a currently airing WB series, he agreed with me.
G.
-
Perhaps, we misunderstand each other here.
I understood what you're saying and I respect it so far as marketing a commodity goes. But when it comes to a discussion of art, I think we're coming to the discussion from two opposing philosophical perspectives - perspectives that are probably bound to clash. And with that in mind:
My guess is they've already had a focus group or two about the show or it would not have been even considered for a pilot.
Isn't that a frightening prospect. And here:
I just can just tell you as a business person, there is no way, no how, I would ever bring a product to the market without doing some kind of test or survey for it. It would be complete and total suicide.
I also think you make some assumptions here that any tweaking by a focus group suggestion is all bad. I don't necessarily find that to be the case 100% of the time. When I performed the survey I did when I started my business, it helped me determine how to focus my service. What the concerns were, etc.
We part company when it comes to art.
I can fully understand why anyone would want feedback before they bring a product/service to market. The whole point there is to provide something that a maximum amount of the public at large will want to use/take advantage. One would hope that the provider is interested in bettering the consumer's life in some way, but let's face it, the main objective is their own bottom line. They want to make a profit. If not, they'd simply provide the product or perform the service for free. ;) And they'll use focus groups to help reach the maximum amount of people and to maximize their profit.
Art, however, should not be treated as a commodity. Art is still art regardless of whether it appeals to a large portion of the public or not, or it makes a maximum profit or not. There's more to art than its bottom line. And if in some way focus group feedback compromises the artistic integrity and the original artistic vision of a film, TV show, book, etc. simply to provide mass appeal and to maximize profit, then it is a bad thing because it is reducing that art to a commodity.
-
Firstly, I'd point out that this is "Dark Shadows", not high art. The original series was shamelessly mass-market entertainment - that doesn't mean that it was facile or dumb (well maybe sometimes), and there's no reason to assume that the new series can't be the same.
It's very easy for us as fans to say "this is right" or "that is wrong" - if we're proved incorrect in six months time, no one is going to hold us to account. We're not the ones making choices that our careers and millions of dollars are riding on. And were we in that position, I doubt most of us would be quite so forthright.
Focus groups are part of the television process, and have been so for a long time. And, applied and responded to intelligently, they can have a valuable role to play. I really don't get what all the fuss is about.
Never forget that this is called show business.
-
I understood what you're saying and I respect it so far as marketing a commodity goes. But when it comes to a discussion of art, I think we're coming to the discussion from two opposing philosophical perspectives - perspectives that are probably bound to clash.
What you're getting at here, whether or not art is a commodity, is something that is discussed in one of the texts on my exam reading list. The Gift: Imagination and the Erotic Life of Property by Lewis Hyde deals specifically with art as it fits into the gift vs. commodity scheme. The basic argument of the book:
"[T]here is an irreconcilable conflict between gift exchange and the market, and, [. . .] as a consequence, the artist in the modern world must suffer a constant tension between the gift sphere to which his work pertains and the market society which is his context."
I think focus groups are a manifestation of that tension, though Hyde is more concerned with writers like Walt Whitman and Ezra Pound, so he never specifically discusses them.
My point (do I have one? ;D) is that what MB and victoriawinters are arguing here is an old and long debate. This isn't simply a product of Hollywood.
Ever since patronage has existed, whether or not an artist is compelled to manipulate his/her product to suit the whims of an audience or a financial backer has been an issue. Go back to a "pure" time when this didn't happen on any level, and you're likely to find an artist without means of distributing his/her work at all.
Does that mean I like what focus groups do and all the decisions they make? Not by any stretch of the imagination. But I think they're probably an unavoidable and necessary evil. ::)
-
I really don't get what all the fuss is about.
Never forget that this is called show business.
Well, yes, of course. And my original diatribe really had little to do with the DS pilot, which is why I've since split the discussion out of that thread.
As I mentioned to vw in my last reply to her, I suppose this is more of a philosophical discussion than anything else. Of course, not every film, TV show, book, etc. is going to be high art - or was even conceived as such. And, of course, as you rightly point out, the entertainment business is just that, a business. But in the quest for the almighty dollar (or in England's case, the almighty pound ;)), many in the entertainment industry seem to have lost sight of the fact that it's often best to let art speak for itself rather than tweak it into a mass appeal commodity. I suppose that's all I'm trying to say...
-
It's all a question of perspective. If you totally obliterate your concept because a focus group says so, you either don't believe it yourself, or know deep down that it doesn't have an identity of its own, I think.
People with good stories to tell and belief in their work will fight for the fundamental stuff regardless - it's those fights that encourage and propagate good work and ideas... I think it's totally healthy for DS or any other show, in that respect.
-
Does that mean I like what focus groups do and all the decisions they make? Not by any stretch of the imagination. But I think they're probably an unavoidable and necessary evil. ::)
Agreed. And that's why I made the point of beginning my diatribe by (unfortunately) conceding that point. :(
Every once in a while it's nice to have a purely philosophical discussion here on the forum. They generally spark interesting debate (as this one certainly has) and perhaps they allow people to look at a situation differently than they might otherwise - be it focus groups in this instance or aspects of the DS storylines, as has been the case with others. I suppose we'll just have to blame it on the fact that I'm a teacher and I love nothing better than to stimulate a good debate. ;) (Something I'm sure, MsCiseyde, you can more than relate to. [wink2]) Speaking of which, I just wish I had the opportunity to take part in your class that includes the reading of The Gift: Imagination and the Erotic Life of Property. It sounds like it would be fascinating. [thumb]
-
I still do not understand how a randomly chosen group of strangers can provide greater insight to how a work should "be" than the creators themselves can.
Randomness does not guarantee objectivity, understanding, taste or insight. Who are these "chosen" that they should be allowed to determine how a creative work should be made?
Just look at how we argue aspects of the original DS around here.....we go at each other over small details and major plots. We love and hate different things constantly.
I'll use myself as an example.....I despise the character of Barnabas......a minority opinion if there ever was one. But what if I, and the odd few others who felt the same way just "happened" to be in the focus group? What would have been the outcome of our response to that character? And what would it have meant to the final product?
Either the creators know what they're doing, and BELIEVE in what they are doing, or they don't.....and I can't imagine allowing a group of random strangers that much input into any thing I really cared about......
Unless, of course, what I REALLY cared about was how much money I was going to make off this thing.
-
Either the creators know what they're doing, and BELIEVE in what they are doing, or they don't.....and I can't imagine allowing a group of random strangers that much input into any thing I really cared about......
You're assuming that the creators are the ones who appoint the focus groups - they're not. Audience focus is largely the network's domain, as it's a marketing issue, not a creative one.
I think fresh opinion is useful. Doesn't mean it's always right, but it's useful. If you're working on something and absorbed with it, you automatically have total tunnel vision... particularly on pilots, where deadlines and crucial decisions are happening all the time. It's healthy to have the concepts and ideas challenged - if the work's good enough, it stands on its own two feet unassisted, as it should.
Any mass-media product has to find an audience - the focus group is no different from an audience greeting "Dark Shadows" on their TV sets come the fall. Testing is important, but it's not a question of changing stuff fundamentally to fit an audience. It's an altogether more subtle process, and the results can easily be as much a positive contribution as a negative one.
-
As is so often the case, you've hit all of the salient points dead on, Rainey. ;)
It's quite frightening for those of us who do like the character of Barnabas to even try to imagine how a group of people such as yourself, who, shall we say, are "less than thrilled" with the character of Barnabas, might have affected his inclusion on the original DS had focus groups been as influential in the decision making process as they are today.
(That having been said, it has often been mentioned that DC often used audience feedback as a way of dictating what direction individual storylines would take. Though, at least the audience was comprised on people who actually watched DS - as opposed to a group of random people brought in off the street who may have never seen the show in their lives. And, of course, had the audience never actually gotten a chance to see Barnabas, they wouldn't have been writing in about him and greatly influencing the direction DS would take from that point on...)
-
I think fresh opinion is useful. Doesn't mean it's always right, but it's useful. If you're working on something and absorbed with it, you automatically have total tunnel vision... particularly on pilots, where deadlines and crucial decisions are happening all the time. It's healthy to have the concepts and ideas challenged - if the work's good enough, it stands on its own two feet unassisted, as it should.
Any mass-media product has to find an audience - the focus group is no different from an audience greeting "Dark Shadows" on their TV sets come the fall. Testing is important, but it's not a question of changing stuff fundamentally to fit an audience. It's an altogether more subtle process, and the results can easily be as much a positive contribution as a negative one.
And Stuart makes some excellent points for the other side of the argument. ;)
However, one could argue that in the case of "Fatal Attraction," the alterred ending (which MsCriseyde did so generously provide us) did indeed substantially change the original concept. And who's to say that the original ending wasn't good and that it shouldn't have been left to stand on its own two feet, as it were. There is a clear case where the results were far from subtle and where a completely new vision/ending was obstruded to suit the mass market because of focus group/test audience reactions...
-
I have no problem with criticism of a work even while it's ongoing....but I question the usefulness of criticism by people who really aren't qualified. Shouldn't the critics at least have a working knowledge of the art form at hand? Isn't it better to have the opinions of people you trust to be objective AND knowledgable?
And the point about the audience at large making a final judgement about a work is exactly what doesn't happen if a focus group has already had first shot at altering the show...the millions of potential viewers may have already been denied something they would have liked, by the very few who happened to be in the focus group. In the end, if the opinions of a focus group have altered the show, and the show eventually fails....how does anyone ever know if the original concept might not have been the right one after all?
-
The problem might not be focus groups themselves but rather what kind of audience the network is trying to "sell" the show to. We all know the WB is a network geared towards young people, just as "WE" and "Lifetime" are networks geared towards women, "Spike TV" is geared towards men, etc. So my fear would be that a focus group for the WB would consist entirely of teenagers and their responses would guide the network to make the show more teen-worthy.
The thing about all these specialized cable stations popping up though is that it does allow for more "niche" programming. I would think the Sci Fi channel is a more likely home for Dark Shadows, or the proposed Horror Channel I keep hearing about if they did original programming. In those instances the focus groups would consist of Sci Fi and/or horror fans of all ages, not just young people, whereas my original concern about a WB version of Dark Shadows remains the same. I'm not sure it's the right fit or what the WB might do to it to make it the right fit.
I think most DS fans are in agreement that we don't want a kiddie version of DS.
-
Actually, in several recent articles in the trades, the WB has been touting how such shows as "One Tree Hill" has been bringing in high 18-34 year old demos and how pleased they are with that. In fact, it's pointed to as one of the key reasons why the show was renewed.
Of course, most of the original DS fans don't fall anywhere within the age rang of 18 to 34. ;) But the point is simply that worry that the WB DS might only be geared to the 12-18 year old demo isn't as likely as some might think...
-
Gone With the Wind was submitted to test audiences before it was completed. So I guess it happens to all of 'em.
I agree with Gothic: television, at least prime-time (and even a good deal of cable), is a crashing bore. The only prime-time show I watch without fail anymore is The Simpsons. (Maybe that doesn't say a great deal of positive things about me.) I remember, years ago, when I knew what every show was, what it was about, who was in it, blah-blah-blah, even if I didn't watch it. Today, people talk about various shows and the names don't even ring a bell. I'm just not interested. I'm probably one of the few people left in America who has never, ever seen an episode of American Idol or even a snip of it. Survivor? What's that? Never saw it. Couldn't care less.
Gerard
-
I don't think it's true that viewers who fall into the catagory of "original fans" are adverse to shows with young characters and performers. Quite a few of us are "Buffy" and "Angel" fans and those are "young" shows indeed!
I think we're adverse to the idea of THESE characters and performers being younger. We were children when we met these characters, and now we're grown-ups. That requires a complete change of perspective and perhaps we resent that.
(And no, Gerard....you are NOT the last person in American who has never watched a moment of "American Idol" or "Survivor" ;) )
-
I think we're adverse to the idea of THESE characters and performers being younger. We were children when we met these characters, and now we're grown-ups. That requires a complete change of perspective and perhaps we resent that.
There might be some truth in that. But I honestly thought that once casting of the WB DS got underway and fans began to see which actors were being cast in each role, most would have put aside their fears that it was going to be comprised of a much younger group of characters than the original had been. Honestly, the only character who would appear to have been made younger is Julia (though at 36 Kelly Hu isn't all that much younger than Grayson Hall was (or should I say how old she claimed to be ;)) when she was first cast), and Hu's casting may have more to do with Alec Newman's casting as Barnabas than anything else. As hard as it is to believe (or to be swallowed ::)) the original DS indicated that Barnabas had been born in 1770, which would have meant that he was supposedly only 25(!) when he was cursed in 1795. Newman is 29, so truthfully his casting will be a more accurate depiction of the character than Frid's casting had been. And who knows, very little background was ever provided about Julia, so for all we know she, too, was supposed to have been much younger than she appeared. (I have a feeling Grayson might have liked that idea ;D)
When it comes to mostly all of the other characters, they seem to fall into the same basic age range as the originals. (Well, maybe Willie is another example of a character who's been made younger. But personally speaking I was shocked when I first learned that John Karlen had been well into his thirties when he played the part because to me Willie just seemed to be about the same age as characters like Joe, Maggie, etc. Though, again, for all we know, it might have been a case that Willie was supposed to be younger than the actor portraying him.) If anything, it appears that once again Vicki will actually be older than her original couterpart had been...
-
Speaking of which, I just wish I had the opportunity to take part in your class that includes the reading of The Gift: Imagination and the Erotic Life of Property. It sounds like it would be fascinating. [thumb]
Actually, it wasn't for a class. Stumbled across it while compiling my reading list for my PhD exams. I do a lot of stuff with concepts of exchange and reciprocity in Old English and Anglo-Latin literature, and so Hyde's text has to go on the list because he talks about the exchange of language for money which is somewhat related to issues that come up with the scop's (a scop is like a bard, sc pronounced as sh, the o is long) relationship with his lord.
Are we all bored now? [rleyeg]
-
....Well, maybe Willie is another example of a character who's been made younger. But personally speaking I was shocked when I first learned that John Karlen had been well into his thirties when he played the part......
Which begs the question: why are we interested in the age of the performers at all? It's the age the characters appear to be that makes all the difference.
-
As a performer, I always hope for that glimmer of art to sparkle. But, true art is not achieved. Practice is inevitable. One never achieves the true goal. Otherwise, there is nothing to strive for. The striving is the true art. Along the way, compromises may be made for the commission. However, one hopes not too often. But, even if so, that is not the real art anyway. It must remain elusive, never in one's reach. The heart pounding must never stop.
Thus, on a true philosophical level, business and art can exist in equal tension to one another. It may not always be a match made in heaven. Occasionally, compromises are made for one or the other. Hopefully, more in favor of the art then not.
But, the true art is the struggle to get there. Even, if a focus group has disassembled it, I probably would have done it anyway.
I remain philosophically yours,
vw
(http://home.pacbell.net/cbsbiz/Victoriaquill.gif)
-
Which begs the question: why are we interested in the age of the performers at all? It's the age the characters appear to be that makes all the difference.
Thank you, Rainey, for putting into words my thoughts about the casting. They all appear very young, beautiful and unreal. DS full of Ken and Barbie dolls. I have tried to keep an open mind but I have never been invited to a focus group but I do have the option of rejecting what they attempt to spoon feed me.
-
But, the true art is the struggle to get there.
Probably one of the reasons I feel so passionately about this (not to mention why I love philosophical discussions):
...
Like just 4% of the population you are an ARTIST (DIAF)--creative, adventurous, and deep. ...
Unfortunately, you didn't take part in the thread, but one hopes that you don't fall into their definition of THE BUSINESSMAN. :o
[b003]
(Thankfully, the site intends that much of what comes up in some of the results is meant to be taken as a joke - otherwise, in quite a few of the instances, it could be quite insulting. :D)
-
But, the true art is the struggle to get there.
Probably one of the reasons I feel so passionately about this (not to mention why I love philosophical discussions):
See, we agree on some things.....
(http://home.pacbell.net/cbsbiz/Victoriaquill.gif)
-
Probably one of the reasons I feel so passionately about this (not to mention why I love philosophical discussions):
See, we agree on some things.....
[wink2]
-
I liked alot of what Dr. Eric Lang said.
Here's a question, back when DS was orig. on, I wonder how so many of our mothers who watched felt about SYT Carolyn, Maggie & Victoria. Wasn't that a kiddie version?
It would be equally interesting if in said proposed focus group they split it down the middle; (5) 15yr olds, (5) 35 yr olds. If they really want a full spectrum, throw in (5) 50 yr olds!!
Except for my wonderful :-* cousins on here, I don't know very many men who watch horror (at least not explicit in your face think NoDS/HoDS) yet alone read horror/mystery.
Patti
-
Which begs the question: why are we interested in the age of the performers at all? It's the age the characters appear to be that makes all the difference.
Thank you, Rainey, for putting into words my thoughts about the casting. They all appear very young, beautiful and unreal. DS full of Ken and Barbie dolls.
Well, apart from the three characters that I'd mentioned (Barn, Julia & Willie) who are (or at least in Willie's case, appear to be younger) (and we've discussed why that might be), I can't say that any of the other characters appear to me to have been made any younger than they were in the original DS because of the actors who been cast in the roles. Characters like Liz and Roger were middle-aged - they still are. And a character like Joe was early to mid-twenties - he still is. If anything, the characters of Carolyn and Vicki appear to have been aged, not made younger. ;)
-
And a character like Joe was early to mid-twenties - he still is. If anything, the characters of Carolyn and Vicki appear to have been aged, not made younger. ;)
Jason Shaw will be 31 years old this year in November. Joel Crothers was 25 in 1966. Apparently, he got older. If IMDB has Alexandra Moltke's year of birth in 1947 is correct, it would have made her 19 in 1966 whereas Marley Shelton just turned 30 this month.
(http://home.pacbell.net/cbsbiz/Victoriaquill.gif)
-
According to this 4/5/04 article, " Several networks rely at least in part on the response from focus groups but gut feeling plays a role."
WB's head of drama develpment then responds,"We pick up shows that we love."
So who really knows how much of an impact a focus group may have on the DS pilot, but hopefully the WB will use its gut feeling and previous declarations of its love for DS and place DS on its fall schedule. We will know soon.
http://walttv.tbo.com/walttv/MGAFXGUTNSD.html
-
So who really knows how much of an impact a focus group may have on the DS pilot
Apparently none [clap] I just received this article in my e-mail (and I particularly love the parts I've highlighted):
MEDIA & MARKETING
Trusting Gut Instincts, WB Network Stops Testing TV Pilots
By BROOKS BARNES
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
May 3, 2004; Page B1
The WB Network is firing its guinea pigs.
Bucking decades of industry tradition, the Time Warner Inc. television network has quietly decided to stop using test audiences to gauge which fall pilots look like hits, and hence which shows it should buy.
Rather than rely on a few dozen viewers to dictate the fate of everything from characters to story lines, WB executives say they will now go with their own gut instincts. "What 60 random people in Las Vegas think about a show can be a huge distraction," says Jordan Levin, the network's co-chief executive officer.
The move is a major departure for the risk-averse broadcast industry, in which big decisions usually are made by consensus or committee. Ever since the black-and-white days of "The Dick Van Dyke Show," audience testing has played a crucial role in what shows make it to the air. When sample viewers cheer a pilot, executives feel confident to spend millions to buy the show and millions more to promote it. If a show doesn't do well, executives can use test results to explain why they didn't pick it up.
By abandoning the practice, the WB -- king of the teen drama -- acknowledges a fact that is well documented, but largely ignored: Testing often doesn't work. Mr. Levin notes that more than 80% of all shows fail whether they receive high marks in audience previews or not.
This time last year, for example, the WB won focus-group raves for its much-hyped "Tarzan," only to watch the show implode after five episodes. Going back further, a WB test of "7th Heaven" in 1996 was knocked by teenage girls for its wholesome premise. The show, about a minister and his family, is now in its eighth season.
"We could have panicked and changed the direction of the show based on those results," Mr. Levin says. "The lesson is that the objectification" of research "can be very dangerous."
And not just at the WB. In 1981, sample audiences gave NBC's genre-defining "Hill Street Blues" dismal reviews, saying the plot was "too murky," says creator Steven Bochco. Other successful shows, such as "All in the Family" and "The Beverly Hillbillies," also tested poorly. Even "Seinfeld" flunked. According to Warren Littlefield, former president of NBC Entertainment, the show was one of the worst-testing shows of all time. (A report of the damning results, signed by the cast, now hangs on Mr. Littlefield's office wall.)
It's no surprise that most producers abhor testing as intrusive to the creative process. "The networks always tell you it's simply a 'tool,' but testing has an enormous amount of influence," says Mr. Bochco, who has a drama under consideration at ABC called "Blind Justice." Still, some producers note that testing also has saved shows from the network ax. One example: The 1993 western "Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman" had few supporters at CBS until sample audiences cheered. It ran for six seasons.
The nine-year-old WB has its reasons for straying from the industry's entrenched testing methods. The network is coming off one of its worst fall seasons ever, with total viewership down 11% from the prior year, according to Nielsen Media Research. When networks face such losses -- Walt Disney Co.'s ABC is in a similar slump -- they are more willing to shake things up.
Of course, eliminating the tests also saves money. Depending on the scope of the research, a network can pay more than $100,000 to test a single show.
But some industry experts also view the WB's decision as an attempt to boost creativity. With less outside feedback, shows are more likely to retain their original DNA and avoid major revamps. That could pay big dividends, since generic, watered-down material is often blamed for viewer flight to cable channels. "This is a gutsy move," says Laura Caraccioli-Davis, a senior vice president at Starcom Entertainment, which buys ad time and is part of Publicis Groupe SA. In a business that is changing rapidly, she says, "you can't keep doing everything the way it has always been done."
The bigger, more established networks aren't racing to follow the WB's lead. They say audience tests still add value, and that viewer reaction can yield helpful clues about how to tweak and improve a script. "Research is an important component in the decision-making process," says Mitch Metcalf, NBC's senior vice president of program planning. "It helps us understand the strengths and weaknesses of a show."
In fact, now is the height of testing time in Hollywood. With filming completed on this year's crop of 122 pilots, TV executives must soon decide which new shows to present to advertisers later this month. Between all the networks, fewer than three dozen new shows will make it onto the air.
Another technique involves recruiting volunteers around the country to watch a new show on an "empty" cable channel. Staffers conduct phone interviews soon afterward. ABC, in particular, favors this kind of testing, which is considered the most realistic method because people view the pilots the way they would normally watch TV -- on the sofa, with the phone ringing. Convening traditional focus groups of as many as 200 people is another style.
Viacom Inc.'s CBS is regarded by producers as the most rigorous. Three years ago, the network built a 5,000-square-foot testing facility inside the MGM Grand Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas, a popular city for marketing research due to the wide array of visitors it attracts. General Electric Co.'s NBC uses an independent testing firm located inside Las Vegas's Venetian Resort, though not as extensively.
As the WB bows out of traditional testing, some industry players warn that the move could backfire. Specifically, they say that network executives will no longer be able to cite lackluster testing results as a reason for walking away from a project. Mr. Levin dismisses the notion: "I think the people we're dealing with are grown-ups and they realize there's subjective decision-making going on here." Plus, the executive has a tiny escape hatch: He says he doesn't rule out "limited testing" of shows once they join the WB's prime-time lineup.
Write to Brooks Barnes at brooks.barnes@wsj.com1
-
The indications of the testing not working and the reasons why all make sense. How wonderful that they're actually willing to abandon it!! I'm assuming that's a positive indication for DS, but I guess we won't know until we see if they do program the show and how it turns out.
-
Rather than rely on a few dozen viewers to dictate the fate of everything from characters to story lines, WB executives say they will now go with their own gut instincts. "What 60 random people in Las Vegas think about a show can be a huge distraction," says Jordan Levin, the network's co-chief executive officer.
I suppose we give him a kudo for this action. However, this is the same guy that cancelled Angel. [5363] [bawling2] [smash]
(http://home.pacbell.net/cbsbiz/Victoriaquill.gif)
-
this is the same guy that cancelled Angel.
True - but he's supposedly also high on DS. And as much as I love Angel and will certainly mourn its end (as a weekly series, anyway - there's some slight hope of it continuing in made-for-TV movie form), if it really is a programming decision that came down to an either or choice, personally, I'd much rather have a new DS.
(Of course, wouldn't the kick in the pants be if we get neither? But let's not even go there...)
-
I'll agree that I'd want to end up with neither either. It was my hope to have both. But, alas that is not going to be the case.
(http://home.pacbell.net/cbsbiz/Victoriaquill.gif)