Too Much TV: Your TV Talking Points For Tuesday, August 27th, 2024

More out-of-context streaming numbers. And a bit more about Adam Conover

Here's everything you need to know about the world of television for Tuesday, August 27th, 2024:

PRODUCTION NOTES
I wanted to give you a heads-up on this week's publication schedule. Assuming there is no unexpected big news, I'll be taking off Friday and Monday for the Labor Day Weekend. It's a slow news period in general and most people aren't going to want to read a newsletter anyway.

I'll post the weekend listings in Thursday's newsletter. I'm also going to include links to some stand-alone pieces you might not have seen if you are a recent subscriber. I'm getting a number of requests from people looking for more context about the streaming industry and those pieces are a good place to start.

ADAM CONOVER IS WRONG ABOUT STREAMING TELEVISION: THE FOLLOWUP
One of the challenges of writing a newsletter five times a week (roughly) for more than three years is that I continually struggle with the best way to resurface things I've written in the past. I don't want to constantly repeat myself and turn off longtime readers. But I am also adding a lot of new subscribers each month and they haven't read some pieces that I think bring important context to the conversations around TV and streaming.

I posted a link to Adam Conover's YouTube video about streaming yesterday and while I mentioned how much I loathed his point of view in it, I didn't get into specifics. Because I was afraid of going over some issues that I thought would be familiar ground for long-term readers.

But overnight and early this morning I received a number of messages and emails from readers asking if I would go into a bit more detail about Conover's video and what I found so objectionable:

This is a fair point and to be honest, if I had the YouTube editing skills to simply post a snarky response video, that's what I would do. Instead, I'll just quickly go through a few points in Conover's video that I find factually problematical. But just a few, because a full-blown takedown would require a five-part, week-long extravaganza:

* Conover claims that Netflix ruined Hollywood's golden era because Wall Street "showered it with money," which allowed it to run the traditional television business into the ground by encouraging cord cutting. The problem is that isn't exactly the truth. Netflix borrowed heavily to pay for first the licensed titles and then a wide-ranging slate of originals when the studios began clawing back some of their programming. 

Netflix was able to borrow the money at historically cheap interest rates and any of the major Hollywood media companies could have done the same thing. But they were more concerned with protecting their linear TV business, which was showing sides of weakness even before streaming became a major contributor. And Wall Street rewarded Netflix, because the consensus was that the company had a plan for a streaming future and was moving to execute it. As opposed to - well its rivals ranging from Paramount to Disney.

* Conover talks about the golden era of television and how linear television made shows such as Mad Men and The Walking Dead a success. He seems to forget that both of those shows were early recipients of the "Netflix Effect" and in both cases, having previous seasons available on Netflix helped boost the popularity of those shows. And the output deal The CW had with Netflix for its shows was the only thing that kept that network on the air.

* He also weirdly talks about how there haven't been any great shows created on streaming. Which is an odd comment, given that I suspect any of you could name a half dozen streaming-only shows that would qualify as "quality television." 

* He complains that most streaming shows are quickly canceled. But for those of you old enough to remember, the cancellation rate for broadcast TV shows back in the glory days was insanely high and it wasn't uncommon for shows to be canceled after airing only one or two episodes. Yes, most streaming shows have seasons that are six or eight episodes in length. But once they are streaming, they are on for at least a season. Which I would argue is better for viewers than two-episodes-and-gone. And let's not forget that those short-lived linear TV shows - even if they aired for a season or two - were usually never seen again.

* Conover discusses what he describes as the "Three Fatal Flaws Of Streaming." Which, to be kind, should be renamed "Three Things I Don't Understand, But That Won't Stop Me From Complaining About Them."

First up is "bingewatching," and Conover's rant is so over the top it's difficult to figure out exactly *why* he thinks it's a fatal flaw. He seems to believe that streamers want people to watch an entire season the first day, which isn't the case. One of the things they do care about is viewers finishing the season in a reasonable amount of time. What matters more than how quickly viewers watch a show is the completion rate once they begin. For a bit more on this, read this older piece I wrote about the various factors streamers use to determine whether to cancel a show. 

Conover accuses Netflix's rivals of all following Netflix's binge release idea, which is fairly clueless given that most of the high-profile streaming originals that aren't on Netflix stick with weekly releases. Ah, details, details.

Uggh...I can't do this anymore. Conover goes on to be wrong about everything from advertising to his claim that streamers are creating shows designed to be seen by "everyone." Watching it again is just infuriating, especially since I keep seeing the video shared on social media by Hollywood types breathlessly claiming ""See! Someone finally gets it!" And I suppose if by "someone" they mean "Not Adam Conover," then they are likely correct.

TWEET OF THE DAY

MORE OUT-OF-CONTEXT STREAMING NUMBERS
As I have often mentioned before, when a streaming company releases viewing data, there is almost certainly something the streamer isn't telling you. Either the numbers are lacking context or sometimes they are just cherrypicked in a way that makes them close to useless. 

Which brings me this Hollywood Reporter piece "‘Chimp Crazy’ on Pace for Multi-Year Viewer Highs for HBO Doc Series." Sounds impressive, huh?:

The second episode of Chimp Crazy on Aug. 25 drew 350,000 first-night viewers on HBO and Max. The show’s premiere episode, meanwhile, has grown to 2.3 million viewers across platforms over a week, putting on pace to outdraw any HBO doc series in the past four-plus years. Chimp Crazy’s premiere is running a little ahead of another recent high-profile docuseries on the channel: The first episode of The Jinx Part 2 delivered 2 million viewers over the same amount of time.

Now, if you have a good memory, you might think "Hmm..what about that Quiet On Set documentary? Are they saying Chimp Crazy is doing even better than that popular docuseries? Um...maybe not. First, Quiet On Set also aired on Investigation Discovery, not HBO. Which allows the fine folks at Max to dodge that comparison. And even if you were to dig up the numbers for Quiet On Set, there's no easy way to compare it with Chimp Crazy. Even though Quiet On Set was described as a Max series by a lot of reporters:

The show, which streamed on Max concurrent with its on-air premiere on ID, had 1.25 billion minutes of viewing for the week of March 18-24. That’s the largest weekly total for any series on Max in the nearly four years of Nielsen’s streaming rankings, edging out the 1.19 billion for The Last of Us in early 2023. (It’s worth noting that Quiet on Set debuted four episodes on March 17 and 18, whereas The Last of Us had a weekly release schedule.)

So which docuseries has been watched by the most people? Well, given that Chimp Crazy is newer, it's likely in second place. But given that Max released first week viewing numbers for Chimp Crazy, but depended on Nielsen to report viewing numbers for Quiet On Set, we just don't know.

THAT DARN JOHN WELLS
If you saw the headline today about the estate of Michael Crichton suing WBTV, Noah Wylie and John Wells over a new show that sounds suspiciously like E.R., you might have blown it off. Because while E.R. was a distinctive show, there have also been lots of TV shows since that plowed similar creative fields. So how close can this new hospital show called The Pitt really be to E.R.? While we can't say for sure, what I do know is that negotiating with the Crichton estate and THEN deciding to a similar show isn't the best idea:

The suit charges that it was audacious and illegal for WBTV, Wells, Wyle and Gemmill to engage in a protracted negotiation with the estate on an ER sequel, only to set up a show shortly after talks broke down, with similar concept and the same creative participants. There were three differences, basically: the location of the medical drama changed to Pittsburgh, Wyle’s character was no longer Dr. Carter, and the Crichton estate was excised from the mix.

I'll point out that this is not the first time Wells has been sued for creating a show that appeared to be a bit too similar to someone else's idea. Early in his career, Wells was sued for creating a show that seemed to be based on the David Simon book that was in the process of being turned into Homicide: Life On The Street:

Simon, a crime reporter for The (Baltimore) Sun, says entire accounts, dialogue and characters were lifted from his book by "Polish Hill" screenwriter John Wells.

"I called CBS and said, `How can you put this on? This is stolen material,"' Simon said in an interview. "Two of his (Wells') three murders are directly out of the book."

In one scene of the "Polish Hill" script, he said, "Every single line of dialogue was copied verbatim - including vernacular."

Wells is a very successful writer/producer. But one of the things I learned while covering last year's WGA and SAG-AFTRA strikes is that a fair number of WGA members really dislike him. More than once, he has publicly spoke out in an effort to convince striking writers to return to work. And in 2019, Wells released a statement publicly endorsing a dissident WGA slate, which at the time was embroiled in a  bitter dispute with Hollywood agents.:

Wells, a prominent showrunner and two-time WGA West president, issued the statement of support in an email Sunday to members. He urged members to vote for the Writers Forward Together slate, which is running on a platform that highlights the need for the WGA to resume negotiations with the major agencies after staying away from talks since early June.

Wells was also the president of the WGA from 2009-2011, and he was considered by many WGA members at the time to be excessively pro-studio.

ODDS AND SODS
* Apple TV+ has renewed Acapulco for a fourth season.

* Today, Crunchyroll announced the acquisition of Bananya Around The World, the third season of the adorable series featuring kittens living in bananas. Beginning in October, the show will be available to stream on Crunchyroll worldwide except Asia, but including the Indian subcontinent.

* The Max original movie Sweethearts, starring Kiernan Shipka and Nico Hiraga, premieres on Thursday, November 28th. According to the streamer, the film is about "two college freshmen who make a pact to break up with their high school sweethearts over Thanksgiving break, leading them on a chaotic night out in their hometown that puts their codependent friendship to the test."

WHAT'S NEW TONIGHT AND TOMORROW

TUESDAY, AUGUST 27TH:
* Adam Sandler: Love You (Netflix) 
* American Masters: Blake Edwards: A Love Story In 24 Frames (PBS)
* Counting The Vote: A Firing Line Special With Margaret Hoover (PBS)
* Don Matteo Season Thirteen Premiere (MHz Choice)
* Horror's Greatest (Shudder)
* Only Murders In The Building Season Four Premiere (Hulu)
* Untold: Sign Stealer (Netflix)

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 28TH:
* After Baywatch: Moment In The Sun (Hulu)
* Face To Face With Scott Peterson (Peacock)
* Killer Lies: Chasing A True Crime Con Man (NatGeo)
* Odysseus Returns (PBS)
* Toby Keith: American Icon (NBC)
* Untamed Royals (Netflix)

SEE YOU ON WEDNESDAY!