“There are plenty of techno pundits out there who are on a mission and rarely dip in to data to determine if reality is or is not cooperating with them.”

WADE

Crush a raw egg in your hand and rub the slimy mess with both hands thoroughly.

Rinse the egg from your hands with warm water (soap is optional)

Or — if you are in a hurry or out of eggs, just rinse your hands with soap and dry them.

Works as well today as it did in Grandma’s day.

WADE

Face it — Network TV is a dinosaur.  It is a Dead Man Walking.  It doesn’t know it has died and has not yet laid down in a grave.  The networks flail around trying to attract a public that is more interested in something that respects their intelligence and gives quality instead of pandering to advertisers.

One example is the three yearly broadcasts of Ricky Gervais hosting the Golden Globes awards Gervais is well known for his snarky style, and the producers obviously thought he’s got that “edgy” attitude that would bring about some excietment and some buzz to the awards show.  It did — and the feedback was usually that people were outraged by his behavior.  Perfect!  The awards show got attention and people would turn in to see what the bad-boy would do next.

Oscar producers tried the same strategy with Seth McFarlane.  He is far from an unknown quality.  McFarlane is one of the most prolific producers of multimedia comedy working today. He has at least three television shows in production and scored a huge hit with the theatrical film “Ted.”  So getting him to be host was obviously done with eyes wide open.

Looking at the resulting headlines tells the stories.  His opening number “I Saw Your Boobs” was offensive to women.  His “Ted” presentation with Mark Wahlberg was offensive to Jews.  His irreverent attitude toward Hollwood and Movies and Oscars was basically offensive to to everybody.  Or so the Outrage-Press would have us believe.

In other words — the strategy worked like a charm  Look for other programs to try this tactic now that it is well-proven.

WBW

From the New Yorker, June 2006

Part of the problem stems from the above reasons.  But ALL of the reason boils down to the reliance on commercial sponsors.

Since the dawn of TV, the sponsors have owned the programming and — as a result — the networks.  None of the major networks will dare to cross the advertisers.

How about the FCC?  No — networks challenge the FCC all the time.  Sometimes they have to pay fines.  But they seem to be OK with that.

The biggest problem is satisfying the advertisers that there will be people watching the programs that a Network puts on the air.

And not just any people — the RIGHT people.

Dividing the audience by sex, income level, age and other factors is called “demographics.”  TV

Networks worry about supplying the advertisers with the most desirable demographics.

If a program attracts “the wrong element” then it won’t last long.

The newest case in point is “Harry’s Law” — a popular and award-winning program starring an Oscar winning star (Kathy Bates: Misery) and a producer who has delivered numerous hits over the years (David E. Kelley: Chicago Hope, Ally McBeal).

Yet, even though “Harry’s Law” was either the most or second-most watched network TV program (that wasn’t a reality show) for the past two years, it was canned by the network.

Why?

Because  it was “unmanageably older-skewing” (TV Speak meaning the viewers were 55-years or older).

The marketing geniuses at the advertising agencies feel that the 18-34 and 18-49 year old audience is where the gold is.

Even the 25-54 demographic group acceptable.

By acceptable, this means that people in these age groups spend the most money.  They are the chief consumers in society.

But society is not a snapshot.  It is a movie.  It is dynamic, flowing and changing.

The Baby Boomers have driven marketing since the post-World-War-II era.  When a glut of babies were born, Americans bought more baby goods — diapers, baby food, formula, baby clothes, toys, etc.

Then the “boomers” became “youth.”  The products in demand for them were not only clothing and amusements (like movies and comic books), but television started creeping into more and more homes in the 50s and 60s.  Programming for children was an important part of the schedule — although the majority of programming was for Mom and Dad who were buying appliances and cars and household goods.

But in a few years, the “boomers” became car buyers, and home buyers and started raising their own children.

Somehow, subsequent generations didn’t reproduce as much and the Baby Boom was followed by a decrease in young people — a shift in demographics from young people spending all the money to older people spending the money.

Leave it to the advertisers and broadcasters to avoid changing because of fear.

If 18-49 year olds drove the market in the 60s and 70s, then why change in the 80s and 90s?

But the audience did change.  As they aged, the most important sector of the economy was real estate and financial instruments (insurance, stocks and bonds, etc).  Johnny Carson and Ed Sullivan gave way to Saturday Night Live and MTV.  Network news became outdated by the time it was on the air because of continual internet updates and non-network 24-hour news channels.

By the time “Harry’s Law” hit the airwaves, all the network shows featured thin, beautiful and racially-diverse young people — Friends, Seinfeld, Beverly Hills 90120.

The older people were served by shows like Matlock and Murder She Wrote.  And yet, even though they had a huge following, the demographics “skewed old.”

The networks cancelled them and viewers shifted to cable, satellite and internet programs.  Total audiences for network shows declined

In 2010, the audience for network news programs continued its quarter-century decline.

As long as networks serve the advertisers instead of paying attention to what their audience want, it will be difficult to hang onto quality programming.

Kathy Bates recently told Entertainment Weekly:

“It really bugs the crap out of me when I read online that this is the lowest-rated show on NBC, ’cause all they’re talking about is the demo. They totally disregard the number of viewers. And, you know, as somebody who’s 63 years old, I really take offense at that because we do have an audience of older viewers, I think, for the most part.”

”We do have a real faithful following, and I wish they’d just shut up about the GD demo. I mean, who cares?” she says. “It’s just like, we really are the highest scripted show on NBC. I mean, that’s been our status since we went on the air.”

POOF!  Then they are gone.

Who needs to vote? I've got MONEY!

The $100 million mark was expected to be broken on 5-14-12

According to Open Secrets –

Here’s one way to look at how much more is being spent in the 2012 cycle: A single super PAC, the pro-Mitt Romney Restore Our Future, has already spent more — $44.5 million — than all outside groups combined had spent by this point in 2008. That 2008 number, about $30.9 million, is roughly one-quarter of this cycle’s overall outside spending total of $122.7 million

For more details and an eye-opening info-graphic, go to the website.

WBW

There’s always free cheddar in a mousetrap, baby

— Tom Waits, “God’s Away On Business”

I feel more like the child who announced that the emporer has no clothes.  There are acceptable limits in the world of serious film (or “Fillum” as the snobs say) and you can get away with a lot of sins if you stay within those guidelines.

Then there are the guilty pleasures — the low humor and vulgar sex and politically incorrect topics that we can enjoy as long as we don’t publicly announce we”re admirers.

But although I can sit through the former and have a shameful stash of the latter, there is a classification of movies where some people liked and some didn’t like, but generally are accepted as OK.  The “didn’t likes” are basically told they didn’t understand — something was too sophisticated and intelligent.

So I just shout “B.S.”  and come right out and say — I didn’t like it and there’s nothing to like.

OK — there are many, and I’ve seen more than my share.  My first one is not the most egregious of the bunch, it’s just that I saw another article praising it in a “fillum” blog.

The Royal Tennenbaums (2001) received an 80% approval from critics and 87% from fans.  So I must be wrong, huh?

Well, I’ve long ago discounted the opinions of the people who are interested in shiny objects and quick movements, or those who are motivated by big-name actors, pretty faces and sexy figures (Gene Hackman, Luke and Owen Wilson and Parker Posey, respectively) and the rest who go along with the crowd — if it says the film it good, then it’s good!

No, I like to watch a movie and then decide whether to ask for my money back (I never do, but it’s the sentiment that counts) or whether I’ll watch it over and over again on home video (Die Hard!!!!)

Tell the truth, I’ve never really gotten into Wes Anderson’s films anyway (what’s up with “The Life Aquatic?”) but I would go see his next one just on the off chance he comes up with a winner.  Likewise I don’t boycott the Wilson brothers, although my admiration for them as actors is not quite at the Pacino/DeNiro level.

I just want to be entertained.  I want to sit up and say, “My, that was well-written!” and nod knowingly at some good direction that most audience members wouldn’t even notice.

Not with “Tenenbaums.”  I would even give it a pass if it were more weird than it is.  I can do weird.  But this isn’t weird enough.  Come on, a brother with a sister-crush? We can do better than that, can’t we?

I never really got into the Gene Hackman character. I never thought this was actually a comedy. (When was the last time Bill Murray was in a comedy? Yet casting him gives a movie company the right to call it a comedy).  Dysfunctional family flicks are a dime a dozen.  As are dysfunctional families.

If you loved this movie (or even liked it) — good for you.  But I just don’t see what all the fuss was about.

WADE