It's a Brave New World (for TV)

I wonder what the correlation is between # of nominations & cost to access each platform; i.e., is it really all about getting you to pay more to see them?
 
IIRC the Emmy awards is a TV show where half-naked women are on parade, right?
 
I only saw the first 3 on the news...


What is interesting is that PBS only got 11.... many people talk about how great the shows are on that channel... seems this group said 'NO'....

I usually only watch Motor Week, but also will watch a Frontline show every once in awhile...
 
By my count that's 491 nominations. It looks like an Emmy nomination is little more than a participation ribbon.
 
The Oscars (Academy Awards) show got seven nominations--that always makes me laugh, Hollywood honoring its own.
 
Texas Proud said:
I only saw the first 3 on the news...


What is interesting is that PBS only got 11.... many people talk about how great the shows are on that channel... seems this group said 'NO'....

I usually only watch Motor Week, but also will watch a Frontline show every once in awhile...
Click to expand...
We watch a lot of PBS. But if you look at the nominations by show (link above), it's pretty apparent then nominations favor provocation be humour over "quality." As much as I like PBS, their original mission no longer makes any sense, and there's no reason they shouldn't go commercial. They're going to have to do something to get in on bundled streaming providers, so far they're absent. They have a paid app, but I think they'll lose some audience if they insist on going it alone in the streaming world. YMMV
 
Bestwifeever said:
The Oscars (Academy Awards) show got seven nominations--that always makes me laugh, Hollywood honoring its own.
Click to expand...


I am reminded of a cartoon I saw ( I wish I had saved it).

Two working guys in overalls are tossing bags of trash into a dumpster. The first guy opens the dumpster and as he is about to toss his trash bag into it he says to the other guy, "Hey Joe, look what if found in here - Celebrity Opinions."
 
Last edited:
Midpack said:
We watch a lot of PBS. But if you look at the nominations by show (link above), it's pretty apparent then nominations favor provocation be humour over "quality." As much as I like PBS, their original mission no longer makes any sense, and there's no reason they shouldn't go commercial. They're going to have to do something to get in on bundled streaming providers, so far they're absent. They have a paid app, but I think they'll lose some audience if they insist on going it alone in the streaming world. YMMV
Click to expand...

To tell the truth, I do not stream so HBO, Netflix, Hulu etc. are things I do not watch... so I really do not know why there were nominated...


I also think PBS should go it alone... no more federal funding... I have no problem with them soliciting donations if they want.... BUT, it has been advertising for many decades... the one show I watch on a semi-regular basis is Motor Week... and there are ads at the beginning of the show and at the end.... and now they seem to have them in the middle as a 'piece'...

Just as a piece of trivia.... Houston had the very first public station!!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KUHT
 
Texas Proud said:
To tell the truth, I do not stream so HBO, Netflix, Hulu etc. are things I do not watch... so I really do not know why there were nominated...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KUHT
Click to expand...

Granted I don't watch too much TV, but I would guess that many of the original shows on Netflix and the such are actually GOOD and ORIGINAL. The broadcast shows have had the same genre for 50+ years and just changing actors and a couple of lines don't make it anymore entertaining.
 
ExFlyBoy5 said:
Granted I don't watch too much TV, but I would guess that many of the original shows on Netflix and the such are actually GOOD and ORIGINAL. The broadcast shows have had the same genre for 50+ years and just changing actors and a couple of lines don't make it anymore entertaining.
Click to expand...


I saw one guy on TV who said that it is the shows with naked women prancing around that get the nominations... I think it was a joke, but do not know...

I am sure some of them are good shows... but I did watch King of Thrones a couple of times when I got that channel for free one weekend and I did not see anything interesting except for the naked ladies...



However, your last stmt can be said for the movies... nothing new... just better graphics...
 
Texas Proud said:
I saw one guy on TV who said that it is the shows with naked women prancing around that get the nominations... I think it was a joke, but do not know...

I am sure some of them are good shows... but I did watch King of Thrones a couple of times when I got that channel for free one weekend and I did not see anything interesting except for the naked ladies...



However, your last stmt can be said for the movies... nothing new... just better graphics...
Click to expand...

I agree wholeheartedly about movies. I am just not sure how many more "Marvel" type movies can be released. I guess as long as the masses are spending gobs of money, they will keep putting them out. The last movie I saw was "Sully" and I saw it in an Imax theater...not for the story, but for the flight scenes.

The DW liked King of Thrones, but most of those period pieces bore the ever living hell out of me. The last "drama" series that I have really enjoyed was "The Americans" and I don't recall if there is any nudity in it... I will need to review. :D
 
Midpack said:
As much as I like PBS, their original mission no longer makes any sense, and there's no reason they shouldn't go commercial. They're going to have to do something to get in on bundled streaming providers, so far they're absent. They have a paid app, but I think they'll lose some audience if they insist on going it alone in the streaming world. YMMV
Click to expand...
Can you clarify "to get in on bundled streaming providers"? Are you speaking of PBS or your local affiliate? PBS is available free on Roku players (and probably others as well). You can also watch PBS shows at PBS.org, so I don't understand the comment.

Most of the fund-raising done at the local affiliate is done by PBS during segments of shows broadcast nationwide. Are some of those shows still great to watch? Absolutely. But most British shows are produced by ITV, and Hulu carries them as a broadcast channel. Not free - you have to pay Hulu.

Rita
 
Gotadimple said:
Can you clarify "to get in on bundled streaming providers"? Are you speaking of PBS or your local affiliate? PBS is available free on Roku players (and probably others as well). You can also watch PBS shows at PBS.org, so I don't understand the comment.
Click to expand...
I don't know if there is a standard term, but I'm referring to Sling TV, DirecTV Now, PlayStation Vue, YouTube TV and Hulu Live as "bundled streaming providers." They have all the channels we want in one package with integrated program guides, cloud DVRs, custom alerts, on demand libraries, etc. versus fooling around with a bunch of apps and TV sources that don't have all those features. We don't want to search 20+ apps separately with no DVR on Roku, Amazon, Apple TV or another device. And the free PBS apps I've seen offer spotty programming anyway, we'd want full access with a complete on demand library (if there's no DVR) maybe PBS Passport.

Why does PBS need to be different access than almost every other channel/network? YMMV
 
OK, Midpack, this makes sense for what you want.

As for PBS being different when negotiating with bundled streaming providers, don't know the thinking. Maybe no need to satisfy stockholders or investors.

- Rita
 
Gotadimple said:
OK, Midpack, this makes sense for what you want.

As for PBS being different when negotiating with bundled streaming providers, don't know the thinking. Maybe no need to satisfy stockholders or investors.

- Rita
Click to expand...
Right or wrong, my thinking was many cable/satellite cord cutters may find "bundled streaming providers" the easiest drop in replacement. If so, as they gain viewers and cable/satellite lose viewers, not all cord cutters will bother with OTA or a separate PBS app. If so, PBS may lose subscribers and donations. To avoid losing viewers, it seems they'd do well to consider getting on board with bundled streaming providers, for the same reason all the commercial networks have/are. Especially if their public funding comes under fire.

I may well have it all wrong...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom