In my mind, everyone wants to be famous. I don't mean everyone wants to be a movie star, I just mean everyone wants recognition for what they do. Not just a pat on the back from their boss either, they want full fledged hey-everyone-look-and-admire-me-for-the-great-things-I-do fame.
This is actually becoming easier to do than it was ten or twelve (because I will always think of ten years ago as being 2000) years ago. The internet, social media, YouTube and reality television have made becoming famous more of a reality for the average Joe than ever before. We are quickly coming to the day when every occupation in America is represented with its own reality television program. Remember when fishing was something hidden away on early Sunday morning television? Now people wait eagerly for each new season of "Deadliest Catch." Through blogs, Twitter feeds and YouTube channels we have become a generation of self starters who express our talents on the internet instead of the high school talent show.
However, to become truly famous there are three things person must do (can be completed in any order):
1. Guest-voice on "The Simpsons"
All of the items on this list are related to American media institutions. "The Simpsons" has been on the air for about as log as I have been alive, and there is no end in sight. In fact, as someone elsewhere on the internet pointed out yesterday, there is currently a race going on to see if the world will end before "The Simpsons" gets cancelled. Another common factor about this list is that none of these media institutions solely target music, movie, television or athletic stars. "The Simpsons" has had a wide array of guest voices during its 23-season run from business men to politicians to scientists and authors. A person who is able to make their mark on the world in some capacity has a good chance of being able to say a few lines in an episode. Plus, even if "The Simpsons" does get cancelled eventually the show will forever in syndication, and in turn, all those who have lent their voices in episodes.
2. Host "Saturday Night Live"
This is where the list gets a little more exclusive. "SNL" has produced over 700 episodes, but when you take into account many celebrities have hosted more than once, the number of actual hosts is smaller than that. That's less than 700 people out of 6 billion. That is a very exclusive club to belong to, and unlike "The Simpsons," "SNL" is a timely show. If someone only has 15 minutes of fame, part of that fifteen minutes can be hosting "SNL." Like "The Simpsons," "SNL" has had a wide variety of hosts, from prominent politicians to people who have had affairs with prominent politicians. they even held a contest one year with the grand prize being for an average American to come on and host the show. That contest is no longer held making the honor of hosting all that more hard to achieve.
3. Be on the cover of "Rolling Stone"
"Rolling Stone" magazine covers the music scene but sometimes a pop-culture event or icon comes along that is just too big to ignore. The magazine is an American media staple. It has in depth cover stories and often features surprisingly insightful political commentary. Being on the cover of any magazine is a feat in and of itself, but Rolling Stone carries a certain respect of finally "making it" when people appear on the cover. People who aren't part of the music scene that make it on the cover convey the message that what they are doing right now is more important than anything that is going on in the music world at that time.
Consolation Top Three:
1. Be mentioned on an episode of "The Simpsons."
2. Cameo on "SNL" either on a Weekend Update segment, Digital Short, or in some capacity in the opening monologue.
3. Appear somewhere inside an issue of Rolling Stone.
Bonus International Fame Item:
So you accomplish all three milestones set out above. You have achieved fame in America. But you aren't satisfied. No America isn't enough, you want the world. Luckily there is only one program that you need to appear on, unluckily it might be the most difficult one to get a spot on. "Top Gear," the car show that is produced by the BBC claims to reach an audience of 350 million viewers worldwide. That is a sizable audience. However, the show only produces six to twelve episodes per year. On top of that the show is produced by the BBC meaning guests are almost always British, and when they aren't, they are big name American stars like Tom Cruise and Mark Wahlberg. Making it on "Top Gear" means that regardless of your knowledge of cars, your name is big enough to draw an audience.
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Monday, August 27, 2012
Dedication Dilemmas
When trying to write a book in 26 days it is often difficult not to get ahead of yourself. Often I find myself leaping to the finished product, and I am not even to the part of the book that tells me I can start writing my own book yet.
My cross country coach used to tell me to "run in the present."
To me, that's good advice for living life in general. It doesn't pay to dwell in the past or to think too far in advance. Playing the what-if game is dangerous, time consuming, and (often) unproductive. The idea with living in the present is to assess what is going well and what can be improved. Determine how to continue doing the good things and focus on improving the things that aren't going well.
This a difficult philosophy to adhere to when writing because there needs to be an end game. In order to achieve that end game, there might be adjustments that need to be made in what has already been written. It is hard to simply keep plowing ahead, especially when problems are clearly evident.
But there are other things related to the end game that are hard not to think about as well, like the book as a whole. In addition to the story, there is a cover, a dedication page and sometimes a few pages acknowledging the people who helped the book come to fruition in the back of the book.
I have often thought about who I would dedicate my first book to, and that led me to thinking about what that process might entail.
Do I ask the person if it is ok to dedicate my book to them? What if they say no? I imagine this has to have happened to someone at some point in history. Out there somewhere is a bad writer, a nice person, but a bad writer, who for some reason or another feels compelled to dedicate their book to someone who really does not want their name associated with this person's writing.
That must be one of the more awkward conversation people can have:
Author: I just finished my book and it's going to be published!
Person: Congratulations! I'm so happy for you!
Author: Thanks for all your encouragement.
Person: My pleasure.
Author: I'd like to show my appreciation by dedicating the book to you.
Person:....Oh...noooo, that's ok. Thank you, but...nooooo
To avoid this, I think I will only dedicate my books to dead people. Dead people aren't going to care if my book is any good or not, and I can avoid shaming anyone who otherwise might not want to be associated with my writing.
Follow @cswiets
Thursday, August 23, 2012
Let's See How This Goes
I have wanted to be a writer ever since the eighth grade. That was when I first attempted to a novel. I filled up an entire notebook before writing myself into a corner and letting the project fall by the wayside. I have made many attempts since. I have what I believe to be many strong beginnings, but I lack any complete stories.
I took one class in high school and three in college focused on creative writing. The writing I did in those classes was valuable experience, but I was never able to write anything more than ten or fifteen double spaced pages. This does not a novel make.
The other day my mother came home with this book:
Typically, I scoff when I come across these kind of books in the bookstore. I have a hard time believing there is any secret formula to writing a novel. Either you have the ideas and drive to do to write, or you do not.
But I have an idea for a story that I think could be promising, and I don't want it to slip away. That, accompanied with the fact I just finished the book I was reading for fun, have driven me to pick this up and see what happens.
I began reading it last night; just the first couple of pages to get a feel for what direction it headed in. Here is what I have garnered so far:
I took one class in high school and three in college focused on creative writing. The writing I did in those classes was valuable experience, but I was never able to write anything more than ten or fifteen double spaced pages. This does not a novel make.
The other day my mother came home with this book:
 |
| First picture in a while, how exciting! |
But I have an idea for a story that I think could be promising, and I don't want it to slip away. That, accompanied with the fact I just finished the book I was reading for fun, have driven me to pick this up and see what happens.
I began reading it last night; just the first couple of pages to get a feel for what direction it headed in. Here is what I have garnered so far:
- The biggest piece of advice Melander has given so far is: Writers write. (Fair enough, I say)
- The book is written to give advice to people seeking to write both fiction and non-fiction. (For the record I am writing fiction)
- While I do not agree with all here theories and pieces of advice about writing, there are some very good inspirational quotes from established writers. (My favorite so far: You can't wait for inspiration. You have to go after it with a club. —Jack London)
- The book is written in a way that is trying to mimic a marathon training guide (hence the title). I am curious to see how long before that becomes an annoyance.
- Also annoying, the author's insistence on implanting a character named "Molly McAuthor," a stand-in to represent any author.
- The title of the book is a little deceiving. While the cover would have you believe that a book can be written in 26 days, Melander does not include the two weeks to a month training period.
My plan is to earnestly follow whatever this book tells me to do and see how it goes. This blog won't be turning into me writing about writing, but I will give periodic updates (if I feel like it).
Good hunting.
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
Covering the Comedy: Paul Ryan Edition (Vol. 1)
Over the weekend there was an exciting announcement. Paul Ryan, Wisconsin congressman, would be Mitt Romney's running mate for the upcoming election.
I wasn't excited about the fact that a politician from Wisconsin had the opportunity to become Vice-President of the United States (ok, maybe a little, I love anything that will boost Wisco recognition). I wasn't excited because I'm a huge fan of Paul Ryan's (I don't know enough about politics to have those kind of opinions), and I wasn't excited because I felt he could help (or hurt) Romeny's chances of winning the election.
No, I was excited because there was a new player that had just been thrown into the political comedy game. A new target with a history that was ripe for picking through. That's what I like most about the election season, the comedy that comes out of it. My immediate question when Ryan was announced wasn't: Why he had been chosen? It was: Who is going to impersonate him on Saturday Night Live this season?
That's where my priorities are. Politics is such a circus between the media coverage and the attack ads, that it's good to see the candidates be bought down to earth a little by comedians. However, since SNL won't start its new season until September, I was looking forward to new episodes of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report.
Before I dive into that I feel obligated to mention that there is another source of political comedy (there are actually many, but this is the only one I am going to mention) that takes politicians to task: late-night comedy talk shows. The difference between late-night talk shows and the other three shows I mentioned though, is that the late-night talk show hosts rely on singular jokes told in their monologues. It's pretty standard fair with a setup and a punchline. But that's the problem, it's a one off.
The Daily Show and The Colbert Report allow for a longer running commentary on what is going on in the world of politics. It's a more focused and critical approach. That's why I was excited to see what John Stewart, Stephen Colbert and their staff of writers had come up with to analyze the new VP pick.
The issue was that both shows had other obligations that distracted from being able to fully dive into Paul Ryan. The Daily Show focused more on the fact they had Robert Pattinson's first television interview since Kristen Stewart admitted to cheating on him. The Colbert Report on the other hand had to contend with its own weeklong musical festival, so it couldn't commit more than five minutes to Ryan. This was admittedly disappointing. Both seemed directionless and half-hearted in their attempts to find comedy in Ryan, but I think I know why.
The longer I watched last night the more I began to determine the difficulty they were running into, and it came down to one factor. Nothing had happened yet. Sure Ryan had been chosen, but there wasn't anything inherently funny about choosing a nominee, especially one like Ryan. And, while he has conservative views, simply pointing them out isn't enough material to do a show on without coming across as overly liberal (which they do most of the time anyway, but the point I am trying to make is that they just couldn't come out and call the guy crazy). The comedians were trying to familiarize themselves with Ryan just like the rest of the country was.
Stewart had a pretty good bit in the second half of his show deconstructing why the things that conservatives believed made Ryan a strong pick were the exact same things the liberals believed made him an awful one. The best part of this was the fact he was able to move away from Twilight jokes and get into some of the absurdity that was going to come out of this pick.
Colbert was able to have a little more fun with the pick since he plays off the conservative bent, but as a I mentioned, he was hindered by the time he needed to devote to the music being featured on his show.
Both shows will benefit from the passing of time as Ryan really begins to campaign and interview. I call this post Vol. 1 because there will certainly be more to come, specifically when SNL starts up again, if not sooner.
Until then, I'll keep watching, because now that all the players are in place, the fun really begins.
I wasn't excited about the fact that a politician from Wisconsin had the opportunity to become Vice-President of the United States (ok, maybe a little, I love anything that will boost Wisco recognition). I wasn't excited because I'm a huge fan of Paul Ryan's (I don't know enough about politics to have those kind of opinions), and I wasn't excited because I felt he could help (or hurt) Romeny's chances of winning the election.
No, I was excited because there was a new player that had just been thrown into the political comedy game. A new target with a history that was ripe for picking through. That's what I like most about the election season, the comedy that comes out of it. My immediate question when Ryan was announced wasn't: Why he had been chosen? It was: Who is going to impersonate him on Saturday Night Live this season?
That's where my priorities are. Politics is such a circus between the media coverage and the attack ads, that it's good to see the candidates be bought down to earth a little by comedians. However, since SNL won't start its new season until September, I was looking forward to new episodes of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report.
Before I dive into that I feel obligated to mention that there is another source of political comedy (there are actually many, but this is the only one I am going to mention) that takes politicians to task: late-night comedy talk shows. The difference between late-night talk shows and the other three shows I mentioned though, is that the late-night talk show hosts rely on singular jokes told in their monologues. It's pretty standard fair with a setup and a punchline. But that's the problem, it's a one off.
The Daily Show and The Colbert Report allow for a longer running commentary on what is going on in the world of politics. It's a more focused and critical approach. That's why I was excited to see what John Stewart, Stephen Colbert and their staff of writers had come up with to analyze the new VP pick.
The issue was that both shows had other obligations that distracted from being able to fully dive into Paul Ryan. The Daily Show focused more on the fact they had Robert Pattinson's first television interview since Kristen Stewart admitted to cheating on him. The Colbert Report on the other hand had to contend with its own weeklong musical festival, so it couldn't commit more than five minutes to Ryan. This was admittedly disappointing. Both seemed directionless and half-hearted in their attempts to find comedy in Ryan, but I think I know why.
The longer I watched last night the more I began to determine the difficulty they were running into, and it came down to one factor. Nothing had happened yet. Sure Ryan had been chosen, but there wasn't anything inherently funny about choosing a nominee, especially one like Ryan. And, while he has conservative views, simply pointing them out isn't enough material to do a show on without coming across as overly liberal (which they do most of the time anyway, but the point I am trying to make is that they just couldn't come out and call the guy crazy). The comedians were trying to familiarize themselves with Ryan just like the rest of the country was.
Stewart had a pretty good bit in the second half of his show deconstructing why the things that conservatives believed made Ryan a strong pick were the exact same things the liberals believed made him an awful one. The best part of this was the fact he was able to move away from Twilight jokes and get into some of the absurdity that was going to come out of this pick.
Colbert was able to have a little more fun with the pick since he plays off the conservative bent, but as a I mentioned, he was hindered by the time he needed to devote to the music being featured on his show.
Both shows will benefit from the passing of time as Ryan really begins to campaign and interview. I call this post Vol. 1 because there will certainly be more to come, specifically when SNL starts up again, if not sooner.
Until then, I'll keep watching, because now that all the players are in place, the fun really begins.
Monday, August 13, 2012
Further Evidence That I'm Actually 12
This past Halloween I ran into a problem.
It is, I would venture to say, the most common problem a person can face around Halloween. The question of what costume to wear. This past Halloween fell on a Monday, meaning there was as at least two days of celebrating to be had over the weekend, which in turn meant I might need to have two costumes.
I have one pretty good standby costume. I dress up as "Hawkeye" Pierce from M.A.S.H. I believe in simplicity when it comes to Halloween costumes, so if I can assemble a good costume by only purchasing a new shirt, that's what I'm going to do. So, while I had one costume ready to go, there were still two problems. First, I had used that costume the year before. Second, I was going out more than one night. Therefore, I needed, another costume.
I had a solid back-up in place, one I had been waiting to implement since my freshman year of college. I was going to go as Charlie Conway from my all-time favorite childhood movie, "The Mighty Ducks." The ultimate underdog story of kid's underdog sports stories, this was the movie that inspired me to play hockey as a child.
But Chris, you ask, aren't hockey jerseys expensive? Yes, yes they are, which is why I found a website that sells Mighty Duck shirts that look like jerseys. Name and number on the back and everything. Perfect, right? Right, except...
Before I went out on the second night, my friend and I were heading out to see a hockey game, which may or may not be ironic, and walked past some girls, all dressed in the exact same shirt I had purchased. This was a problem since I had no idea who these girls were, but knew they were heading out to the bars much as I was that evening. With so few bars at my college, I knew I was bound to run into them. In an effort not to seem like a creepers, I decided I had about 3 hours to come up with a back-up plan.
My idea was to stick with simple, so after the hockey game my friend and I went to Wal-Mart. I bought a shirt with a Superman logo and went as Clark Kent. (Fun fact: I actually wear glasses!)
Now, I don't normally buy superhero-themed graphic tees. I went through a little phase in high school, but then, who didn't? The point of this post is also not to discuss my past Halloween, but to discuss this shirt.
Wearing that shirt for the first time had an unexpected side-effect that is hard to describe. The reason it's hard to describe is that the feeling I got is stupid for a 22-year-old to have when he puts on a Superman shirt from Wal-Mart. I don't want to say I felt more confident, or invincible or stronger, but I did feel more at ease.
I'm a it of a high-strung person, and, again, I won't say it made me less high strung, but I did feel more relaxed.
I've watched Superman cartoons since I was a child. He is perhaps one of the most recognizable pop-culture icons. When I put on that shirt and saw I was the one wearing the shield, I felt different. I don't even like Superman that much. Ask any comic nerd and they will tell you the concept of Superman is boring. The invincible man who can fly and shoot lasers isn't very interesting at its root. But that root is exactly what is tied to that shield Superman wears on his chest, and when I put it on I couldn't help but connect that strength with myself.
It's not a very mature thought, and probably highlights some issues within my psyche, but try it sometime, and let me know if those feelings don't crop up in some small form or another.
It is, I would venture to say, the most common problem a person can face around Halloween. The question of what costume to wear. This past Halloween fell on a Monday, meaning there was as at least two days of celebrating to be had over the weekend, which in turn meant I might need to have two costumes.
I have one pretty good standby costume. I dress up as "Hawkeye" Pierce from M.A.S.H. I believe in simplicity when it comes to Halloween costumes, so if I can assemble a good costume by only purchasing a new shirt, that's what I'm going to do. So, while I had one costume ready to go, there were still two problems. First, I had used that costume the year before. Second, I was going out more than one night. Therefore, I needed, another costume.
I had a solid back-up in place, one I had been waiting to implement since my freshman year of college. I was going to go as Charlie Conway from my all-time favorite childhood movie, "The Mighty Ducks." The ultimate underdog story of kid's underdog sports stories, this was the movie that inspired me to play hockey as a child.
But Chris, you ask, aren't hockey jerseys expensive? Yes, yes they are, which is why I found a website that sells Mighty Duck shirts that look like jerseys. Name and number on the back and everything. Perfect, right? Right, except...
Before I went out on the second night, my friend and I were heading out to see a hockey game, which may or may not be ironic, and walked past some girls, all dressed in the exact same shirt I had purchased. This was a problem since I had no idea who these girls were, but knew they were heading out to the bars much as I was that evening. With so few bars at my college, I knew I was bound to run into them. In an effort not to seem like a creepers, I decided I had about 3 hours to come up with a back-up plan.
My idea was to stick with simple, so after the hockey game my friend and I went to Wal-Mart. I bought a shirt with a Superman logo and went as Clark Kent. (Fun fact: I actually wear glasses!)
Now, I don't normally buy superhero-themed graphic tees. I went through a little phase in high school, but then, who didn't? The point of this post is also not to discuss my past Halloween, but to discuss this shirt.
Wearing that shirt for the first time had an unexpected side-effect that is hard to describe. The reason it's hard to describe is that the feeling I got is stupid for a 22-year-old to have when he puts on a Superman shirt from Wal-Mart. I don't want to say I felt more confident, or invincible or stronger, but I did feel more at ease.
I'm a it of a high-strung person, and, again, I won't say it made me less high strung, but I did feel more relaxed.
I've watched Superman cartoons since I was a child. He is perhaps one of the most recognizable pop-culture icons. When I put on that shirt and saw I was the one wearing the shield, I felt different. I don't even like Superman that much. Ask any comic nerd and they will tell you the concept of Superman is boring. The invincible man who can fly and shoot lasers isn't very interesting at its root. But that root is exactly what is tied to that shield Superman wears on his chest, and when I put it on I couldn't help but connect that strength with myself.
It's not a very mature thought, and probably highlights some issues within my psyche, but try it sometime, and let me know if those feelings don't crop up in some small form or another.
Thursday, August 9, 2012
Man Love: Matthew Perry Edition
Yesterday, I posted about my irritation over the excessive promotion of Matthew Perry's new NBC sitcom.
Last night, due to some coincidental channel surfing, I watched the sneak preview that aired at the end of day's the Olympic coverage.
As I said in yesterday's post, I like Matthew Perry. Chandler was my favorite character on Friends, and while Perry is a bit of a one note actor (in that he relies heavily on sarcasm for his laughs), I don't have a problem with that. I like that character and each new show or movie he finds himself in breathes new life into his tropes.
So is the case with his new series Go On. The show revolves around Perry's character, a sports radio host, looking to return to work a month after his wife's death. However, his boss believes it's too soon and will only allow him back after he completes 10 hours of group grief therapy.
Now, I read a few reviews of this show before watching it, and there have been some justified comparisons to another NBC show with a witty male lead, Community. However, Community, from the beginning, was able to spread the comedy around to most of the cast, even though the central story was focused on Joel McHale's Jeff Winger. The comedy here is resting heavily on Perry's shoulder. Not that this is a bad thing. In fact it's a rather smart strategy.
NBC is advertising this as a Matthew Perry show, so it would make sense that, especially in the first episode, most of the story and comedy is focused on him. The show will flesh out the rest of the characters as it moves forward.
The other characters are where the Community comparisons seem to come in. The show is split between three main settings. Matthew Perry's home, his work and his group therapy sessions. The group therapy sessions are home to a cast of oddball characters that, so far only seem to be there for Perry to mock and bounce witticisms off of, and that is really what the show is missing. There is no one on the show to give it back to him as good as he is giving it out. They just kind of stand there and play along with him.
But that doesn't really matter as long as it's funny right?
Right.
Despite it's flaws (and many TV pilots have them) the show is still engaging and still made me laugh for most of the half hour. On top of that, it managed to find some real emotion without getting preachy.
One of the flaws with Community is its South Park-esque reliance on preachy speeches to sum up what was learned in the episode. But the biggest rule in story telling that is often left on the wayside is: Show, don't tell. Go On succeeds because it shows how its characters are taking steps to heal their grief rather than having Matthew Perry explain it to the audience.
(Again, I would like to reiterate I like both of these shows)
This is Perry's third attempt at trying to find success on television post-Friends, and I'm hoping this one sticks. Studio 60 was overpowered by the influence of Aaron Sorkin, and while I enjoyed Mr. Sunshine, it just couldn't get past having a slightly cartoonish feel to it.
Go On feels like it takes place in a real environment with real (albeit slightly eccentric) people. They are dealing with some heavy issues, but the balance is keen and as long as the show is able to maintain that balance of heart and comedy, it could easily grow into one of the best new shows of the season.
Watch the premiere below:
Last night, due to some coincidental channel surfing, I watched the sneak preview that aired at the end of day's the Olympic coverage.
As I said in yesterday's post, I like Matthew Perry. Chandler was my favorite character on Friends, and while Perry is a bit of a one note actor (in that he relies heavily on sarcasm for his laughs), I don't have a problem with that. I like that character and each new show or movie he finds himself in breathes new life into his tropes.
So is the case with his new series Go On. The show revolves around Perry's character, a sports radio host, looking to return to work a month after his wife's death. However, his boss believes it's too soon and will only allow him back after he completes 10 hours of group grief therapy.
Now, I read a few reviews of this show before watching it, and there have been some justified comparisons to another NBC show with a witty male lead, Community. However, Community, from the beginning, was able to spread the comedy around to most of the cast, even though the central story was focused on Joel McHale's Jeff Winger. The comedy here is resting heavily on Perry's shoulder. Not that this is a bad thing. In fact it's a rather smart strategy.
NBC is advertising this as a Matthew Perry show, so it would make sense that, especially in the first episode, most of the story and comedy is focused on him. The show will flesh out the rest of the characters as it moves forward.
The other characters are where the Community comparisons seem to come in. The show is split between three main settings. Matthew Perry's home, his work and his group therapy sessions. The group therapy sessions are home to a cast of oddball characters that, so far only seem to be there for Perry to mock and bounce witticisms off of, and that is really what the show is missing. There is no one on the show to give it back to him as good as he is giving it out. They just kind of stand there and play along with him.
But that doesn't really matter as long as it's funny right?
Right.
Despite it's flaws (and many TV pilots have them) the show is still engaging and still made me laugh for most of the half hour. On top of that, it managed to find some real emotion without getting preachy.
One of the flaws with Community is its South Park-esque reliance on preachy speeches to sum up what was learned in the episode. But the biggest rule in story telling that is often left on the wayside is: Show, don't tell. Go On succeeds because it shows how its characters are taking steps to heal their grief rather than having Matthew Perry explain it to the audience.
(Again, I would like to reiterate I like both of these shows)
This is Perry's third attempt at trying to find success on television post-Friends, and I'm hoping this one sticks. Studio 60 was overpowered by the influence of Aaron Sorkin, and while I enjoyed Mr. Sunshine, it just couldn't get past having a slightly cartoonish feel to it.
Go On feels like it takes place in a real environment with real (albeit slightly eccentric) people. They are dealing with some heavy issues, but the balance is keen and as long as the show is able to maintain that balance of heart and comedy, it could easily grow into one of the best new shows of the season.
Watch the premiere below:
Wednesday, August 8, 2012
An Open Letter to NBC
Dear NBC,
You have a problem.
Scratch that. You have many problems, but I am only going to focus on two of them. One problem has only cropped up recently, while the other has been plaguing you since Friends went off the air.
The first is your Olympic coverage; the second is your dismal prime-time ratings during the regular season.
I don't mean to heap on the criticism of the Olympics, because I have been enjoying them thoroughly. Time delayed broadcasts aside, I have loved every live event I have watched. Not to mention the genius choice of having Doc Emrick commentate the U.S water polo matches.
However, that enjoyment is hindered every time I see a promo for Matthew Perry's new sitcom during every commercial break. Same thing with The Voice. Same thing with Revolution. Same thing with Animal Doctor or whatever you are deciding to call it.
Don't get me wrong I love Matthew Perry, and I'm game for any new high concept sci-fi show looking to fill the Lost hole in my viewing schedule. And yes, I understand the strategy of trying to promote your new shows while the entire country is tuned into your network. No one will fault you for that. That's a solid marketing strategy.
What I don't understand is why you are only promoting your new shows, and the only show you air that is already a ratings hit.
Now I don't watch The Voice, and I most likely never will. Showing a promo of four judges leaping on a button isn't any more likely to encourage me to tune in.
You have some shows that are seriously struggling to garner a viewership. Good shows like Parks and Recreation and Community. Shows that could really benefit from some exposure during the Olympics. Where are the promos with the premiere dates for these shows? Where are clever, Olympic related ads featuring their cast members?
These shows deserve a chance to prosper from the Olympics as much as the new shows. Your chief complaint is that some of your shows aren't broad enough to reach a large audience. Well, nothing is broader than the Olympics. It's a staple in almost every possible realm: sports, pop-culture, business, advertising, patriotism, etc.
Everyone is glued to NBC right now, and with a couple of weeks to fill between the end of the Olympics and the beginning of the fall TV season, viewers might take the opportunity to catch up with a series on Netflix or Hulu before a new season premieres. I mean, just look at what that strategy did for Mad Men. It's fifth season returned to its highest ratings ever after a prolonged absence. But what happened during that absence? All four seasons became available on Netflix.
Coincidence? I think not.
Believe in yourself NBC. You can't bring back the 90's, but you can try and improve the 10's.
Sincerely,
The Narrator
You have a problem.
Scratch that. You have many problems, but I am only going to focus on two of them. One problem has only cropped up recently, while the other has been plaguing you since Friends went off the air.
The first is your Olympic coverage; the second is your dismal prime-time ratings during the regular season.
I don't mean to heap on the criticism of the Olympics, because I have been enjoying them thoroughly. Time delayed broadcasts aside, I have loved every live event I have watched. Not to mention the genius choice of having Doc Emrick commentate the U.S water polo matches.
However, that enjoyment is hindered every time I see a promo for Matthew Perry's new sitcom during every commercial break. Same thing with The Voice. Same thing with Revolution. Same thing with Animal Doctor or whatever you are deciding to call it.
Don't get me wrong I love Matthew Perry, and I'm game for any new high concept sci-fi show looking to fill the Lost hole in my viewing schedule. And yes, I understand the strategy of trying to promote your new shows while the entire country is tuned into your network. No one will fault you for that. That's a solid marketing strategy.
What I don't understand is why you are only promoting your new shows, and the only show you air that is already a ratings hit.
Now I don't watch The Voice, and I most likely never will. Showing a promo of four judges leaping on a button isn't any more likely to encourage me to tune in.
You have some shows that are seriously struggling to garner a viewership. Good shows like Parks and Recreation and Community. Shows that could really benefit from some exposure during the Olympics. Where are the promos with the premiere dates for these shows? Where are clever, Olympic related ads featuring their cast members?
These shows deserve a chance to prosper from the Olympics as much as the new shows. Your chief complaint is that some of your shows aren't broad enough to reach a large audience. Well, nothing is broader than the Olympics. It's a staple in almost every possible realm: sports, pop-culture, business, advertising, patriotism, etc.
Everyone is glued to NBC right now, and with a couple of weeks to fill between the end of the Olympics and the beginning of the fall TV season, viewers might take the opportunity to catch up with a series on Netflix or Hulu before a new season premieres. I mean, just look at what that strategy did for Mad Men. It's fifth season returned to its highest ratings ever after a prolonged absence. But what happened during that absence? All four seasons became available on Netflix.
Coincidence? I think not.
Believe in yourself NBC. You can't bring back the 90's, but you can try and improve the 10's.
Sincerely,
The Narrator
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)