Yes - it really is. I shall give one instance below, but it is not uncommon for this to have happened. I do not own a TV any longer, but did so until about three years ago, and true enough, and time I watched anything from an entertainment programme to a political programme, that was for a US audience, it was obvious it was a much more simple narrative. That this exists is not in doubt. The question is why, and to what end? Clearly, most Americans may not even be aware it is the case, but it is. Are tv producers really saying Americans are less cerebral and with black and white thinking? Or is that how they wish them to be? One example and by no means the only one.. ** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_(1983_miniseries) Inspired by Sinclair Lewis' anti-fascist novel It Can't Happen Here (1935), directorproducer Kenneth Johnson wrote an adaptation titled Storm Warnings, in 1982. The script was presented to NBC for production as a television mini-series, but the NBC executives rejected the initial version, claiming it was too "cerebral" for the average American viewer. To make the script more marketable, the American fascists were re-cast as man-eating extraterrestrials
The US is the biggest exporter of Television content in the English speaking world. You have to keep the product simple for the foreigners.
While I agree that the majority of "stuff" being aired these days is crap, I would note that there still is good viewing out there and it is up to the person watching to control what they choose to watch.
One noticeable difference is the seemingly incessant advertising on US TV. For a British audience used to no ads on the BBC, or an average of 7 mins per hour, to a maximum of 12 mins in any 60, the stitched-up gaps in imported US series are all too obvious. If you put on "Lost" in an hour slot, the show actually runs for 42 minutes, the max advertising is 12 minutes, and the remaining 6 mins has to be filled with trailers and announcements. The alternative is other shows starting at weird times.
Uncle Ferd all for it... FCC mulls relaxing policy for TV indecency 4/01/13 - The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is considering making changes to its rules that bar TV and radio stations from airing indecent material.
About 12 years ago there was a writers strike. TV responded with what we now call "reality programming." It is far from reality and always pointed at the lowest of the low denominators. There are some good programs left. "Modern Family" "The Middle" and, of course, "The Simpsons" is still both entertaining and relevant. But, beyond that, thank goodness for Netflix and HULU.
I'd prefer instead of having ads interspersed throughout they show/movie on TV - they just played the entire show back to back - and then had 30 minutes worth of ads.
It has always been so .....If I had to watch US TV I would want to pull my brains out !!!!! Aaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
When Britain's "Downton Abbey" was exported to the US, it was dumbed down by having many bits of it cut out that were thought to be too complicated for Americans to understand. The whole of the first series was cut by two hours in case its intricate plot will baffle Americans. Rebecca Eaton, an executive producer for the PBS network which aired it admitted that American audiences demand a 'different speed' to their shows than the British. 'American audiences are used to a different speed when it comes to television drama and you need to get into a story very quickly,' she said. 'We also wanted to get to the point where Matthew Crawley [the family's middle-class cousin and unlikely heir] arrives on the scene much faster than in the British version. He is a pivotal character and his arrival brings with it drama and conflict. 'In the British version he doesn't arrive until episode two. In our version he is there in episode one.' The show's ten million British viewers will be well aware that much of the drama revolves around challenges to the 'entail' -the legal device which determines how the estate should be divided up - after Lord Grantham's heirs perish on the Titanic. But Ms Eaton said: 'We thought there might be too many references to the entail and they have been cut. It is not a concept people in the US are very familiar with.' However, that did not seem to faze British viewers, who would have been similarly unaware of the term before watching the series. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbi...ing-plot-baffle-US-viewers.html#ixzz2SRjfS7qv
Eastenders, Coronation Street, some of the chat shows....and breakfast tv in the UK. The latter in particular I found very peculiar when I last visited. But then I'm not going to trumpet some of the rubbish we produce in Australia either. One point I would make is that those network chiefs are probably looking at their demographic and pandering to it. Every population is going to describe a bell curve and the big bulge in the middle will get what it wants and since they are the big numbers and advertising revenue depends on those numbers they get pandered to. We're talking huge numbers here but, like in any bell curve, about 60% of a given population will be around that central area. I do detect a bit of nose-tweaking here though, so let me chip in with: The Sun 2,409,811 The Daily Mail 1,863,151 The Daily Mirror 1,058,488 and then The Guardian 204,440 The Independent 76,802 See what I mean?
Hmmm...My biggest gripe is sports programing : not the sports themselves, but the announcers - some of whom seem to feel the program at hand is merely a vehicle for their endless chatter. I've seen the announcers keep on talking about crap nobody cares about while potentially important stuff is going on in the playing field . The cameras remain focused on the blatherers in such cases. I believe there is a time and place for everything-and-at half time-instead of listening to these worthies babble, we should get to hear them scream, as they tread water in a tank of ----Bullhead sharks would be nice ; maybe a few Hammerheads for balance. Carry this strategy out a few times, and nobody will accept a job blathering at halftime---which means, if there are cheerleaders, or other entertainments, TV viewers can finally get to watch them.
That's downtime football for yyou. And downtime goes hand in hand with ads. You get 20 seconds of gameplay followed by 40 seconds of downtime and ads. If someone invented a recording device to splice out commercials condensing one hour's air time to 20 minutes of sensible content they would come off rich. Then you have the blockbusters dominated by smurfland, recycled content and, vampire flicks and action heroes such as batman, x-men and spiderman. Occasionally you see something original like tom cruise pitted against a sniper and hollywood does attract some outside talent with fresh ideas like the district 8 and 9 saga. The overall trend is towards lame science fiction and detachment from reality given that entertainment industry is so regulated if you depict down to earth stories perhaps inspired by actual events, you're bound to offend someone landing a lawsuit. All in all, the industry plays it safe but with sad results. The most appauling is what's been done with documentary networks such as a&e, tlc or the discovery channel. In part they have fallen under a directive spell of hysterical airheads and in part therre are too many networks spreading viewership thin with then tendency towards pathetic reality shows. Leading the pack is bbc with their typical feel of cheapness interwound with hysterics, witch hunts, and recycling/dumbing downits own classics to fit prevailing political moods and to show bbc has not totally gone over the edge but that it still retains something in common with the old bbc when it was somewhat more balanced.
What about classic shows? The old Outer Limits, Twilight Zone and Night Gallery were very intelligent shows that made one think.
