Posts by Rob Stowell
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Great pics- thanks for sharing :)
-
You’ve probably seen this? :)
-
Hard News: Media3: Where is Broadcasting?, in reply to Kyle Matthews,
We’re comparing Public Service TV with a critically acclaimed HBO series which was a ratings failure?
Well, I haven’t :)
Boring is relative; a live telecast of a conference of medieval historians would bore most people to tears, but some historians would be fascinated. (I’m not advocating for this, just to be clear. It’s an example.
And I’m NOT saying shows __should_ _ be boring. I admire entertainers- all power to their elbows. Who doesn’t like being entertained?)
But there’s something bland about most TV’s relentless focus on being entertaining (and popular). Amusing ourselves to death, very old idea.
I reckon public service TV, if such a beast ever again be seen on our shores, should aim differently. Inform and educate first and second. Satisfy niches. Do long interviews. With wonks. Build quality slowly and patiently.
That would probably not make it a ratings winner. It’d take a minister who backed it squarely. And maybe it’s too late: by the time any such beast could be hatched, TV will be over. Still worth a shot, though. -
Hard News: Media3: Where is Broadcasting?, in reply to Kyle Matthews,
The point of TV shows is to be watched and inform, educate, entertain. They can’t do that they’re incredibly good shows that no one saw.
The flip side of that: even a handful of people being informed and educated by a programme adds MORE to the information and education of Aotearoa than a million people watching Project Runway.
I’m not saying: keep forever funding things noone watches. Or ‘forget the viewer- make it as boring as possible!’ That would be stupid.
But I am saying ratings don’t tell us anything about how informed or educated people were by a programme- they should never be the prime driver of public service TV. Even a small number of people who are well-informed can make a difference- raise the level of conversation.
And really good shows can build, they can be repeated, they tend to find an audience even if it takes time. How many people here have seen The Wire? How many watched it live-to-air at 12:15 am on a Tuesday? Bet the Nielsen ratings weren't that good... -
Hard News: Media3: Where is Broadcasting?, in reply to Joe Wylie,
Yeah. IF someone goes to the bother of fully costing (and presumably that means being very clear about what exactly they have in mind) it'll be interesting- and demonstrate someone is doing the thinking. Otherwise. Another minister, another drawn-out bamboozlement.
-
Hard News: Media3: Where is Broadcasting?, in reply to Stephen Judd,
“Labour will take a fully-costed policy into the next election to establish a sustainable new public broadcaster.”
Good! Be interested to see the detail, but it's a firm statement of commitment.
public service television no more has to be “boring” than the commercial stuff had to be tasteless
Jeez, of course it doesn't have to be boring :)
Just when the goal is to be informative first, and educative second, and to entertain is a distant third, you'll get some straight-up programming that's hardly entertaining at all. And sometimes, dammit, that's worth it. Even if only a handful of people watch. -
Hard News: Media3: Where is Broadcasting?, in reply to Russell Brown,
sell the 700MHz spectrum to telcos and pocket the proceeds after DSO. But there are major, major problems there.
Radio mics widely used in television production currently inhabiting that spectrum being just one…
ETA: talking about the state of public broadcasting in NZ is almost too dispiriting. And it's not just a simple matter of voting for it: not TOO long ago, it was a cross-party consensus that public broadcasters brought value to the national conversation. I've talked to plenty of National voters who still back the idea. But where are the political parties now?
TVNZ7 was a great initiative, but Labour aren't committed, as far as a I know, any public service television. Despite there being much more bandwidth and new ways of creating programming.
The key will be to insist that it's public service television, it's allowed to sometimes be boring, it's never infotainment or half-and-half commercial- and commit to it long-term without looking at the ratings every five seconds. -
Hard News: A few (more) words on The Hobbit, in reply to Russell Brown,
if Equity wanted public support for actors’ demands, then it should have gone to the public.
Yep. But first: consolidate the base (that's the actual actors!) Then get the techies on-board with what you want. Then get some writers to craft a decent story- with a clear, achievable climax/set of goals.
Then hire a producer :) -
Hard News: A few (more) words on The Hobbit, in reply to Russell Brown,
It was the position of the wider production industry for a long time before the Hobbit dispute
In the sense that most everyone was/is a contractor, yes. But nor was it a completely de-regulated contractual free-for-all. There was widespread adherence to both the ‘blue’ (craftspeople) and ‘pink’ (actors/front of camera) books (which are more contract guidelines than rules, but established some benchmarks) by many productions. Just not all- and the exceptions were occasionally egregious.
Plus, both were, at that point, somewhat dated and in need of a re-write.
Plenty of reasonable voices on the production side here (asking for casting notes is beyond cheeky: it smacks of petty authoritarianism.) MEAA/Equity certainly stuffed this whole thing up.
But the actors basic position wasn't (in my rather biased opinion) unreasonable. Nor, since both books are widely followed, would it have been terribly disruptive for them to become codified. -
Hard News: A few (more) words on The Hobbit, in reply to Russell Brown,
pursuing employee status for actors as a means to collective bargaining was a really dumb move for Equity. It wasn’t going to happen.
If that’s what they were after! Maybe there’s too much murk in the water to be sure.
The hope (AFAIR- possibly way wrong :)) was for a collective agreement, but one that would apply to contractors (the ‘pink book’ but with legal teeth).
WETA claimed this would violate some section of the commerce act designed to protect us all from cartels. Chris Findlayson jumped on board, waving the crown law opinion, but not letting anyone see it.
Kelly has always insisted this is a nonsense (I asked her at a public meeting why it couldn’t be tested in court, and she said she didn’t think it needed to be, it was rubbish.)
That’s why the crown law opinion (still withheld, though WETA and Warners seem to have seen it) is another key element in the farce. Whatever the relevant section of the commerce act says, it clearly wasn’t INTENDED to prevent lower-level contractors like actors from collective bargaining- still less, to prevent someone in Peter Jackson’s position even talking to Equity (which he said would be illegal).
As someone who contracts from time-to-time in television, I’d like this sorted out.