I started a thread about Manifest, but was really wanting to focus on this question. That was a bad title, so I'm starting another one.

My point was what is it about modern network TV that makes it instantly recognizable as such (by it's cheesiness)? For example, the Magnum PI reboot.... (I've only seen about 5 episodes of the new one.. so maybe it got better). By every measure, the new one SHOULD be less cheesy than the original. The cameras are better quality. They are no longer restricted by the episodic trend. I remember in the original, there was an episode where some dude was trying to run Tom Selleck off the road, and he was calling them "turkeys" (rather than "motherf***ers" or something else more appropriate). And YET, there is something about the old one that is still "sophisticated" compared to the new one. To me one of the most iconic moments of the original was the Ivan Sunrise. Are there moments like that on modern network TV? Truthfully, I don't watch much network TV anymore, but I can't think of any talked about on this board or on Youtube in general.

Is it that Tom Selleck is a better actor than Jay Hernandez? Maybe? But compare Blue Bloods to The Wire. Blue Bloods is not bad, but it still has that cheesy quality that is hard to explain. Did Tom Selleck become a worse actor? What about Donnie Wahlberg? He was awesome in Band of Brother. Surely he didn't forget how to act too? And in reality, Selleck and Wahlberg are good. It's something else. Like the plot, lighting, something...

I can't put my finger on it.

I have no idea if the facts agree with this theory... but I'll write it anyway:

My guess is that cable networks spend more money per episode than network TV. That Network TV has to spread their money across 3 hours of primetime 7 days a week (not to mention their daytime programming). Cable could throw a big chunk of money at 2 or 3 shows total. I imagine that Sopranos cost more per episode in the early 2000s than Law & Order or ER. So they could spend money on production, sets, etc.

Another thing... since cable TV channels each only had 2-3 big shows, they would replay the show several times during the week. So if you missed the premier on Sunday, you could always watch the replay on Tuesday or Friday. That allowed cable channels to go all in on the serial model. Unlike Network TV, it was easy always catch the weekly episode. Even if you missed the first airing. Serial television is vastly superior to episodic television.


However, with that said. I still can't put my finger on what exactly is on the screen that comes off as "cheesy". It's sorta like when I watch the "making of movie X". Those always look cheesy as hell. Yet when the movie comes out, it looks great. I have no idea what the editors (or whoever) does that makes cheese turn into great.

I think a big part of it is the focus on episode long subplots is much stronger with network TV, whereas, series and season plots are a much bigger focus with cable TV.

Supporting actors and the writing are likely inferior on network TV as well.

There's also something about the filming and editing that's just not as quality. A more extreme example is the bad lighting and writing that makes day time soaps instantly recognizable.

I think another part is cussing. Pretty much everybody drops an F-bomb on occasion. Especially under stressful conditions that tend to be the focus of TV shows. When they go out of their way to say "shucks" it ruins the believability.

i think a lot of it is the dialogue. it has to be written for the lowest common denominator to follow the story. having the characters explain what's happening (as if it's not super obvious), through dialogue with each other, drives me nuts and it's why i can't watch any of it.

aTmAg said:

---

Channels like AMC have commercials too. And they all need subscribers. Why wouldn't they have the same pressure as network TV?

---

It's not free like ABC. People still have to either stream or buy a cable service. There's way more pressure on network tv for mass viewership.

FCC and Janet Jackson's Super Bowl "malfunction" further neutered network TV at about the same time HBO had shows like The Wire and Sopranos.

Bruce Almighty said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Channels like AMC have commercials too. And they all need subscribers. Why wouldn't they have the same pressure as network TV?

---

It's not free like ABC. People still have to either stream or buy a cable service. There's way more pressure on network tv for mass viewership.

---

But network TV used to be pretty good. Magnum PI, Hill Street Blues, Miami Vice, NYPD Blue, etc. (there are more, I'm sure... those are the ones I'm familiar with). Back then they still wanted mass viewership. Yet somewhere along the way, quality took a nose dive.

aTmAg said:

---

Bruce Almighty said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Channels like AMC have commercials too. And they all need subscribers. Why wouldn't they have the same pressure as network TV?

---

It's not free like ABC. People still have to either stream or buy a cable service. There's way more pressure on network tv for mass viewership.

---

But network TV used to be pretty good. Magnum PI, Hill Street Blues, Miami Vice, NYPD Blue, etc. (there are more, I'm sure... those are the ones I'm familiar with). Back then they still wanted mass viewership. Yet somewhere along the way, quality took a nose dive.

---

Sure, but back then, people only had 5 or 6 channels to choose from, so networks could afford to take risks. Cable was around, but it was still in very few homes. By the 90s, more and more people had cable and a lot of the creators were going to cable networks where they could be edgier. By the early 2000s, more people had cable than did not, so network tv had to lower their standards to bring in more viewers, so you got things like Desperate Housewives and American Idol.

I'm not sure it's the networks' fault. Great shows could be found. Now other content providers will pay (as much? more?) with fewer creative restrictions. It's not hard to figure out who's gonna win.

Because they didn't have competition the networks were probably used to the best and brightest writers and performers coming to them. Cable companies did the work and spent the money to hire the best. Networks got complacent and let their talent get hired by someone else. Now that talent knows the better jobs and prestige aren't at Networks.

I assume it is because of the differences in business models (advertising vs subscription), but places like HBO and Netflix give a lot more control to the show creators. This in turn leads to the best creators wanting to work with those networks vs the over the air networks. For whatever reason, the execs at ABC, NBC, and CBS like to make a lot of suggestions and changes to shows.

Also, consider that the biggest difference in quality is in dramas and shows that benefit was excessive language and realistic violence. There aren't many family comedies or shows you can watch together with your kids on HBO and Showtime.

Quad Dog said:

---

Because they didn't have competition the networks were probably used to the best and brightest writers and performers coming to them. Cable companies did the work and spent the money to hire the best. Networks got complacent and let their talent get hired by someone else. Now that talent knows the better jobs and prestige aren't at Networks.

---

Even then, they had the same problem as now where individual executives could interfere w/ direction or cancel shows regardless of quality or ratings if they didn't like the image. The rural purge is a great textbook case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_purge

Cable, streaming, or even BBC shows usually don't have the same week-to-week threat and can plan a full season. Look at Mad Men, where they wrote several season finales as series finales because they didn't know if they'd be back the next year, but knew they could at least write a full season arc the way they wanted.

Having the plot needing to accommodate ad breaks probably doesn't help. Little mini fake cliffhangers all the time.

SJEAg said:

---

Having the plot needing to accommodate ad breaks probably doesn't help. Little mini fake cliffhangers all the time.

---

that's a good point and makes watching made for tv shows on streaming services funny. you can always tell where the commercial breaks were built in due to the mini-cliffhangers and music.

Breaking Bad pulled it off. Just don't make it a cliff hanger. If you have to cliff-hang before every commercial break to keep the audience from switching channels in the middle of your show, then it probably sucks.

Another thing that Breaking Bad did is semi-censor themselves. I think back then, they didn't say the F-word on AMC. But that didn't keep Breaking Bad from keeping it in the script. They just blanked out that word (like "I <silence> Ted"). Then on the stream, they had it uncensored. There is no reason that networks couldn't do the same thing. That way they could cover serious topics and not make themselves look stupid.

1. Network TV has tighter limits on language, sex, and violence than cable TV.
2. Cable TV is splitting the acting, directing, and writing with Network TV (and likely getting higher quality on all three).
3. The writing for Network does seem simplified for mass audiences or audiences who are more likely to pop in and out. When I watch network with my parents, I'm glad they reiterate everything that's happening over and over, because I only pay attention about 20% of the time. I see how that would be very annoying if you actually care about the show.

Is it because of conscious decisions based on imposed limitations? Or are they just bad at it?

For example, if they could rewind time, would they take Breaking Bad as is (but with censored cuss words) knowing what we know now? Or would FCC rules force them to make changes that would make it crappy too?

How much of this is perception?

I don't know if I'm alone in this, but now I honestly don't check out any network shows until a couple seasons are on a streaming service. Unless the show is advertised during a sporting event I'm watching, I don't know what is offered on the networks right now. And if a show like Ozark is pushed (on here, twitter, etc), I'll give it a try.


Also, regarding the cheese factor, I think there is some algorithm work that is helping here. The Networks obviously don't have the quality of a tool as Netflix has to recommend shows so a show that Netflix's algorithm thinks I'll like is placed front and center. Clearly, that's not happening with network TV so if I'm a Sopranos fan, and the networks are showing me ads for 2 Broke Girls and my streaming service is highlighting Boardwalk Empire, The Wire or Animal Kingdom, there's no comparison when it comes to what I perceive as less cheesy.



For those in industry, what are the salaries like for a writer on a network pilot compared to what Netflix, Starz, or Hulu might offer?

You know how when you watch a show on a Mexican station how it looks cheese? I'm not talking about the acting or anything like that. Just the lighting or something. What is it about those that give that cheese appearance? Magnum PI frpm 1982 doesn't have that quality even though it should, in theory.

It's lighting

Quote:

---

Soaps and other lower-budget shows also look "off" because they're often evenly lit across the entire set to facilitate simultaneously shooting with more than one camera. This lighting/shooting method means the actors can move around and the lights don't have to be reset for every shot. This allows for fewer takes and costs less, but it also means more diffuse, less natural-looking lighting in the final product.

---

https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/25169/why-did-soap-operas-look-different-other-tv-shows

No idea if this is accurate or not, but I found this site interesting

https://www.telltalesonline.com/34499/expensive-tv-shows/

(per episode)

Cable Notables (excluding HBO, et al):
The Walking Dead - 2.75MM
Breaking Bad - 3.5MM
Mad Men - 3-4MM
Vikings - 4MM

Network Notables:
Lost - 3-4MM
Fringe - 4MM
Frasier - 5.2MM
Big Bang Theory - 9MM
Friends - 10MM
ER - 13MM

Quad Dog said:

---

It's lighting

Quote:

---

Soaps and other lower-budget shows also look "off" because they're often evenly lit across the entire set to facilitate simultaneously shooting with more than one camera. This lighting/shooting method means the actors can move around and the lights don't have to be reset for every shot. This allows for fewer takes and costs less, but it also means more diffuse, less natural-looking lighting in the final product.

---

https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/25169/why-did-soap-operas-look-different-other-tv-shows

---

Thanks. I've always wondered about that.

jenn96 said:

---

Quad Dog said:

---

It's lighting

Quote:

---

Soaps and other lower-budget shows also look "off" because they're often evenly lit across the entire set to facilitate simultaneously shooting with more than one camera. This lighting/shooting method means the actors can move around and the lights don't have to be reset for every shot. This allows for fewer takes and costs less, but it also means more diffuse, less natural-looking lighting in the final product.

---

https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/25169/why-did-soap-operas-look-different-other-tv-shows

---

Thanks. I've always wondered about that.

---

Also being shot on videotape, rather than film.

MW03 said:

---

No idea if this is accurate or not, but I found this site interesting

https://www.telltalesonline.com/34499/expensive-tv-shows/

(per episode)

Cable Notables (excluding HBO, et al):
The Walking Dead - 2.75MM
Breaking Bad - 3.5MM
Mad Men - 3-4MM
Vikings - 4MM

Network Notables:
Lost - 3-4MM
Fringe - 4MM
Frasier - 5.2MM
Big Bang Theory - 9MM
Friends - 10MM
ER - 13MM

---

There goes my cost per episode theory.

aTmAg said:

---

MW03 said:

---

No idea if this is accurate or not, but I found this site interesting

https://www.telltalesonline.com/34499/expensive-tv-shows/

(per episode)

Cable Notables (excluding HBO, et al):
The Walking Dead - 2.75MM
Breaking Bad - 3.5MM
Mad Men - 3-4MM
Vikings - 4MM

Network Notables:
Lost - 3-4MM
Fringe - 4MM
Frasier - 5.2MM
Big Bang Theory - 9MM
Friends - 10MM
ER - 13MM

---

There goes my cost per episode theory.

---

Not necessarily. Network TV has higher salaries.

Quad Dog said:

---

It's lighting

Quote:

---

Soaps and other lower-budget shows also look "off" because they're often evenly lit across the entire set to facilitate simultaneously shooting with more than one camera. This lighting/shooting method means the actors can move around and the lights don't have to be reset for every shot. This allows for fewer takes and costs less, but it also means more diffuse, less natural-looking lighting in the final product.

---

https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/25169/why-did-soap-operas-look-different-other-tv-shows

---

Is lighting THAT expensive where prime time network TV can't afford the same lighting as a show on AMC?

aggieforester05 said:

---

I think a big part of it is the focus on episode long subplots is much stronger with network TV, whereas, series and season plots are a much bigger focus with cable TV.

Supporting actors and the writing are likely inferior on network TV as well.

There's also something about the filming and editing that's just not as quality. A more extreme example is the bad lighting and writing that makes day time soaps instantly recognizable.

---

I think there is a huge part of this that drives the conversation. Networks expect anyone to turn on any episode of one of their shows and be able to watch it. I remember one show that was going to get cancelled off network unless they went away from the season long plot and only focused on the week over week plots.

aTmAg said:

---

Another thing that Breaking Bad did is semi-censor themselves. I think back then, they didn't say the F-word on AMC. But that didn't keep Breaking Bad from keeping it in the script. They just blanked out that word (like "I <silence> Ted"). Then on the stream, they had it uncensored. There is no reason that networks couldn't do the same thing. That way they could cover serious topics and not make themselves look stupid.

---

Did they actually self-censor? For some reason they got one F word per season, and that might have just been where it was used that season.