XPost: rec.arts.tv, alt.tv.scifi.channel   
   From: jimgysin@geemail.com   
      
   Obveeus sent the following on 11/15/2010 6:36 PM:   
   > "Jim Gysin"  wrote:   
   >   
   >> And without at least one competitor, the company with the monopoly will   
   >> *never* have an incentive to sell his widgets at a minimum price of any   
   >> kind.   
   >   
   > In the case of TV, competition might improve the quality of the shows (since   
   > that is the only way to drasw more viewers), but...   
      
   Might?  It absolutely will, unless one of the channels/shows doesn't   
   want to survive for long.   
      
   >> Two separate entities producing comparable widgets *is* "true   
   >> competition."  This is macro 101 stuff.   
   >   
   > If there are X sci-fi fans then two channels producing comparable stuff will   
   > mean that each gets X/2 audience.   
      
   *If* they produce comparable stuff.  And since the stuff that the   
   audience is gonna tend to be drawn to is quality stuff, then the   
   competition will lead to more quality stuff, because having X/2 audience   
   is better than only having X/4 or X/6 of the audience.   
      
   In the short term, one channel could get 95% of the audience while a   
   certain show from its lineup is playing, while the other channel could   
   get 95% an hour later for one of *its* shows.  And over time, out of a   
   desire to get 100% of the audience 100% of the time, both channels would   
   be producing the sort of programming that the audience wants to see,   
   based on the ratings for various shows.   
      
   > That isn't a good thing in a current TV   
   > environment that indicates that even the whole X isn't enough people to keep   
   > the channel going.  X/2 audience will just mean a quicker transition to   
   > additional shows about ghosts and wrestling.   
      
   Based on the success of SF movies, I believe that a large part of the   
   reason why there isn't a larger demand for SF on television is a lack of   
   quality options.  And again, with competition comes more quality   
   options.  Either that, or competitors quit trying altogether.  And if a   
   channel isn't committed to competing, I'd just as soon see it go away   
   now, rather than later.   
      
   > You economics of getting a cheaper widget for the end user equates in this   
   > case with what might simply be a cheaper TV show (as in lower production   
   > costs) for the viewer.  Lower production costs likely means the opposite of   
   > 'higher quality' in most cases.   
      
   When I have problems with a SF show, it's almost always over the   
   writing, rather than production (especially effects) issues.  Similarly,   
   when I *like* a SF show, it's almost always because of the writing,   
   rather than production issues.  What draws me to SF is the issues that   
   it addresses and the geek possibilities that get explored; it has little   
   or nothing to do with who has the latest FX bells and whistles.   
      
   And I don't think that I'm alone in that.  Yes, I like a cool effect as   
   much as the next person, but I can't remember the last time I had an   
   ongoing discussion with another SF fan over an effect from a movie or a   
   television show.  You experience it, go "Wow!" and move on.  It's the   
   characters and the plotlines that end up getting the ongoing discussion   
   treatment, because (IMO) that's what matters most to most SF fans.   
      
   One example: I've had countless discussions with others over how well   
   (or poorly) the new Trek cast did in their roles and interactions, and   
   I've *never* exchanged more than a passing comment with anyone over the   
   movie's special effects.  Nothing ongoing about whether the drill was   
   realistic, but lots about how Pine portrayed Kirk.  Nothing ongoing   
   about the technical merits of the initial space fight sequence that took   
   the life of Kirk's father, but much about how well the actors/characters   
   handled the scene.  And it's not just Trek; it's that way with pretty   
   much every SF show or movie I've talked about.  A second and current   
   example is the many WALKING DEAD threads here in the past few weeks.  In   
   them, I think that there have been a handful of references to the makeup   
   effects and the like. Everything else has been about the story lines,   
   the characters, their motivations, their choices, etc.   
      
   In short, when it comes to SF, effects seem to get a one-time (or at   
   least very modest) bit of acknowledgment, if any, but the writing and   
   the acting and the themes get looked at in much more depth.  And since   
   that's the case, I don't agree with your suggestion that lower   
   production costs equates to lower quality.  Most people who liked Trek   
   liked it because of the story and the actors and the characters, not   
   because the new Enterprise was (or wasn't) up to snuff.  Most people who   
   like WALKING DEAD like it because of the story, not because the zombies   
   look particularly cool. And so on and so on.   
      
   --   
   Jim Gysin   
   Waukesha, WI   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)