Comments on: Crumbs: how to write a sit com http://cultureby.com/2006/01/crumbs_premiere.html This Blog Sits At the Intersection of Anthropology and Economics Thu, 17 May 2012 21:10:32 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Sam Ford http://cultureby.com/2006/01/crumbs_premiere.html/comment-page-1#comment-5260 Sam Ford Tue, 17 Jan 2006 09:28:14 +0000 http://localhost/wp_culture/?p=789#comment-5260 Grant, I really enjoyed the essay. I've been watching a lot of "conventional" television shows lately, some of the classic sitcoms that I've been collecting on DVD (preparing for a semester of studying the history of television). The thing about shows like "Bewitched" and "I Love Lucy" is very much that almost every episode springs from the same premise--a witch is married to a human, who doesn't want her to use or witchcraft; or, Lucy wants to get in the show but Ricky doesn't want her to, so she finds a way to sneak in anyway and it backfires. As some sitcoms have become more complex, they've become harder to predict--but, even more than that, you are right about the viewer gaining increasing influence on television programming. My thesis research at MIT is in the realm of the soap opera industry, and prior research I have done is on professional wrestling. In both sectors, it's quite amazing how much of an influence the Internet audience becomes on the product, in particular. It seems that, more often than not, producers gain a lot of new insight and a lot of good ideas by paying attention to audience reactions and suggestions and going with them... Speaking of such, it was interesting to see the shows that are taking home Golden Globes...<i>House</i> and <i>Lost</i>, among others, two shows that have been credited with belonging to the same type of television you're discussing, not just complex but much more viewer-driven than some situational comedies from the past. Grant, I really enjoyed the essay. I’ve been watching a lot of “conventional” television shows lately, some of the classic sitcoms that I’ve been collecting on DVD (preparing for a semester of studying the history of television). The thing about shows like “Bewitched” and “I Love Lucy” is very much that almost every episode springs from the same premise–a witch is married to a human, who doesn’t want her to use or witchcraft; or, Lucy wants to get in the show but Ricky doesn’t want her to, so she finds a way to sneak in anyway and it backfires. As some sitcoms have become more complex, they’ve become harder to predict–but, even more than that, you are right about the viewer gaining increasing influence on television programming.

My thesis research at MIT is in the realm of the soap opera industry, and prior research I have done is on professional wrestling. In both sectors, it’s quite amazing how much of an influence the Internet audience becomes on the product, in particular. It seems that, more often than not, producers gain a lot of new insight and a lot of good ideas by paying attention to audience reactions and suggestions and going with them…

Speaking of such, it was interesting to see the shows that are taking home Golden Globes…House and Lost, among others, two shows that have been credited with belonging to the same type of television you’re discussing, not just complex but much more viewer-driven than some situational comedies from the past.

]]> By: Tom Guarriello http://cultureby.com/2006/01/crumbs_premiere.html/comment-page-1#comment-5259 Tom Guarriello Mon, 16 Jan 2006 06:51:59 +0000 http://localhost/wp_culture/?p=789#comment-5259 I think Johnson's ideas about the complexity of modern television is a piece of the phenomenon you're describing, Grant. Another may be the idea at the center of his book: the "gaming" of modern consciousness. With so many in the audience familiar with the unfamiliarity/unpredictability of game worlds, making the game up as they go along, formulaic TV becomes Pong-like: fun "back in the day" but sort of goofy today. Auteurs from World of Warcraft and Second Life have little patience with the ready-made! Give them something they can sink their teeth into. "Lost" and "Battlestar Galactica" are two great examples providing not caricatures, but vivid archetypes in motion. I think Johnson’s ideas about the complexity of modern television is a piece of the phenomenon you’re describing, Grant. Another may be the idea at the center of his book: the “gaming” of modern consciousness. With so many in the audience familiar with the unfamiliarity/unpredictability of game worlds, making the game up as they go along, formulaic TV becomes Pong-like: fun “back in the day” but sort of goofy today. Auteurs from World of Warcraft and Second Life have little patience with the ready-made! Give them something they can sink their teeth into. “Lost” and “Battlestar Galactica” are two great examples providing not caricatures, but vivid archetypes in motion.

]]> By: Matt http://cultureby.com/2006/01/crumbs_premiere.html/comment-page-1#comment-5258 Matt Sat, 14 Jan 2006 02:44:04 +0000 http://localhost/wp_culture/?p=789#comment-5258 "The thing about formulaic TV is that it represents a kind of tournament approach to creativity. One idea takes all. We decide the show is about an odd couple. Hey, presto, the thing is done." And of course, once the audience draws the same conclusion, it saves them the hassle of actually _watching_ the show. “The thing about formulaic TV is that it represents a kind of tournament approach to creativity. One idea takes all. We decide the show is about an odd couple. Hey, presto, the thing is done.”

And of course, once the audience draws the same conclusion, it saves them the hassle of actually _watching_ the show.

]]>