What does “passive” mean in this context?
For me it means that the TV is on and I'm vaguely aware of the program but I'm also doing something else at the same time. Preping dinner or loading the dishwasher or tweeting or reading PAS or reading Metro or ...
It isn't the whole of my attention and even at times not the majority of my attention, but it is on and I can probably tell you what happened in the last 5 minutes.
But that isn't true for all of the mainstream TV that I watch. And what is passive for me is active for someone else in the house and vice versa.
That might not be what Jason meant though.
But at least for me, a sign of a healthy culture is when every damn thing isn’t expected to even try being all things to all people all the damn time.
My taste is mine. It is demonstrably different from anyone else. There is great art I actively dislike yet still recognize as great art and valuable to society. That is why I think Russell is right and we need taxpayer dollars to make sure that there is a chance art can be made for small groups of society and not the commercially viable majority.
rubbing it’s hands together
Yeah a bunch of folks made money from that show, pity that didn't extend to the actual contestants. There were some pretty cynical business decisions made. Some of that is understandable given the risk associated with producing such a show but by halfway through they would have known that they'd turned a healthy profit so sharing that with "the talent" would have been nice.
I think that hard business cynicism evident in TV is one of the things that turn the youth off. Why spend your leisure time giving money to the suits when you could share your attention with your peers. They are more relevant and if there is any money to be made from hits then it goes to your peers rather than to some overpaid CEO.
basically for squares
Hey! I resemble that comment.
So I watched ALL of the block NZ. We got hooked by the Aussie version. We love renovation shows and while The Block NZ missed the mark on several points for us (really the oldest contestant was 30?) and I seriously HAD to fast forward through Alice's voice sometimes. But it was easy entertainment while prep'ing or eating dinner.
By contrast with the Aussie version the judges used were of um questionable taste and there didn't seem to be much time or money to incorporate really novel or exciting design into the houses. But it was fun to watch.
But we also watch Grand Designs (because Kevin McCloud) and a lot of the Media7/3 episodes and all of The Blue Rose and will get Harry to watch when it comes out on DVD and The Almighty Johnsons is on the stack of things to watch soon. We are consumers of NZ media even if the advertisers care not a wit about us.
Rather than worrying about getting "good" TV made in NZ, whatever that is? I am more worried about getting TV that is not simply lowest common denominator TV. There should be room for programs to be made that don't interest me but interest some other group, even if that group is fairly small. That's the part of the market that a public broadcaster is needed for, or at least a public producer that can afford to pay for things to be broadcast. I think it is when those "small interest" things get made that you have the chance to create, I guess I'd have to call it Art.
I'm glad The Block NZ was made and was a success. I'm sad that some of the folks on it have been harshly used. But I also want to see other things made and like Russell I'm just not sure I know who will make those other things and how they will be funded.
I saw a survey, probably in the last year or so, that covered what people say they want from TV and what they actually watch.
We have the same issue with food. You do a survey about what people want from new fruit cultivars and they say they want healthy fresh etc etc ... and then they walk out of the supermarket with 3 bags of chicken chips that were on special. You want people to buy apples? Make them taste like a burger ... sigh.
we're now outside the target demographic.
So do advertisers really expect me to not buy any different brand for the rest of my life ?
I think that might actually be the problem. By our age Brent, we aren't really swayed as much by advertising lies. We know some brands are shit and no amount of advertising will change that, we know how to research products we really want to get the best brand ... again no amount of lies will change that.
I watched ALL of the block, but there is still no way in the world I will drink Wild Bean coffee.
Our cities and towns aren’t doing the subsidization
Our country is smaller economically than many US cities.
Industrial subsidies in the US have had an awful record. Cities and towns have paid enormous amounts to attract businesses to their location only to have the business move on as soon as the subsidy runs out. It doesn't seem to matter what kind of business it is either. With that history I'd want to be pretty careful about what kinds of subsidies went into the industry and I'd want to know which companies can be trusted to stay on after the subsidy so we don't make mistakes more than once - it is my money after all.
In that sense I really don't like the idea of subsidies at all. But the point is well made that this govt loves giving subsidies out to men in suits so it's kind of difficult to understand why the film industry should be different in terms of deserving a subsidy.
But to me there does seem to be one difference about the film industry that makes it a valid target for help from the taxpayer. It does seem to be an industry of highs and lows. If the capability is allowed to disappear during a low there is no capacity to take advantage of a peak in demand.
It's the same logic that argues we help farmers during a drought.
Sexual desire is somewhat famous for clouding the brain.
One could argue that if it doesn't cloud the brain, you're doing it wrong.