I agree that streaming is now the mainstream and broadcast is essentially scraps, but then I'll also suggest that means the EMMYs would be better suited to move to streaming platform for their first run,

RadioActive wrote:

There's no point in watching an awards show

I realized this as fact long ago. Nothing more than industry wank sessions.

However, to your OP - how is it the award show's problem that you haven't kept up on the product? Not that I would watch the Oscars but I would only consider watching if there was a particular film I was interested in. I certainly wouldn't waste my time if I hadn't seen any of the nominees that year. You even mention the fultity of such but still sat down to watch anyway? Does not compute.

You've decided to not subscribe to the newer platforms where all these "award worthy" shows live and that's okay. There are a few I don't subscribe to either and I'm not missing their programming. The award shows are going to trend to what's popular and digital platforms are popular - just not with you or perhaps (y)our demographic.

Last edited by Binson Echorec (September 16, 2024 8:51 am)

Take a look at the nominees and which shows won. 

Emmy Winners List

Now ask yourself how many of the programs listed you've actually seen. I've heard of them all as a follower of this stuff. But I can honestly say not only haven't I watched them, but even if I did subscribe to the services that show them, I probably wouldn't tune in a lot of them. They just don't interest me. And to pay for that is adding insult to injury. 

Yes, I get that this is where the industry is going. But that doesn't make it a good thing. I believe the only reason the Emmys are still on broadcast TV despite almost no broadcast shows winning anything (or even being nominated) is because the networks own their own streaming services they want to advertise. 

The world has changed. The Emmys haven't. No matter how many services there are out there, most of us can't afford to subscribe to them all. Nor would I want to just to see one or two shows. There really needs to be separate awards shows for streaming and broadcasting. It's impossible to care about the Emmys if you haven't seen any of the programs they're honouring.

(To be fair, I have the same issue with the annual Tony Awards, which critics regularly praise as one of the best such shows of the year. But almost all of the winners are based on Broadway, hundreds of kilometres away from where I live. Why watch it when there's no way to see the plays that are being honoured? It never made sense to me and now TV is joining that conundrum, albeit in a different way.) 

I didn't watch the Emmys on Sunday for the first time in years. I don't feel like I missed anything. 

Shogun???? The big winner??

Haven't they beat this story to death??

But I looked it up referencing the years...

I read the book in the seventies. The Richard Chamberlain TV-adaptation was in the eighties. The Shogun-ish version with Tom Cruise, the Last Samurai, was in 2003.

That face in the mirror is getting old.
 

I don't generally watch award shows other than the opening monologue or number but my favorite is the Tonys for two reasons - theatre people know how to run a live stage show and it's a way for me to learn a bit about shows I haven't seen and occasionally may pique my interest in seeing it if it does come to town. The other award shows are mostly scorecards where you root for a movie or TV show (or actor) you like but don't actually find out very much about shows or films you haven't already seen.

I think part of the big push for streaming is the fact that most of them are still losing money.  Only Netflix and recently Disney have been profitable.  The conglomerates maybe feel that in the long run streaming is easier and a more efficient way to bring in cash.  Subscribers bring in a monthly fee, and many are willing to put up with at least some commercials.  This makes streaming a double dip, and less reliant on advertising revenue.  As Mr. Wonderful would say "it is all about the cash flow.." 

But my issue would be that many of the streamers are becoming more like cable channels, who also have subscribers but rely much more on advertising.  Maybe the goal with streamers will be the great libararies of content available on demand with much less new original and expensive programming.  Hulu, Paramount+ and Peacock seem to be content to run the "day old" programming from their network cousins to help pay for the production costs and have less original and pricey programming of their own. 

Here in Canada, both Crave and CBC Gem also have original productions, with Crave actually offering more than ever.  Both CTV and CBC promote watching their regular programming the next day on Crave or Gem. I have noticed that little of Crave's original programming ends up on CTV or CTV2, and more of CBC Gem original programming does eventually play on the main CBC network. 

paterson1 wrote:

I think part of the big push for streaming is the fact that most of them are still losing money.  Only Netflix and recently Disney have been profitable.  The conglomerates maybe feel that in the long run streaming is easier and a more efficient way to bring in cash.  Subscribers bring in a monthly fee, and many are willing to put up with at least some commercials.  This makes streaming a double dip, and less reliant on advertising revenue.  As Mr. Wonderful would say "it is all about the cash flow.." 

But my issue would be that many of the streamers are becoming more like cable channels, who also have subscribers but rely much more on advertising.  Maybe the goal with streamers will be the great libraries of content available on demand with much less new original and expensive programming.  Hulu, Paramount+ and Peacock seem to be content to run the "day old" programming from their network cousins to help pay for the production costs and have less original and pricey programming of their own.  

I may sound like a conspiracy theorist, but I fear what we're seeing is the coming of the end of all free TV as we know it. The U.S. networks each own their own streaming service, as you point out. 

I can see a day when they sign off the public airwaves and go streaming only - allowing them to not only ply you with commercials which you have to pay to see but also get fees just to get the "network" of your choice. And as a bonus, they'll be free of that meddlesome FCC keeping them honest. It will be exactly the same as what we have now OTA but with a subscription fee.

Hope I'm wrong. But I can see it coming.  

Viewers south of the border, while not exactly flocking back, did decide to take a look at the Emmys in greater numbers this year: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/emmys-2024-tv-ratings-1236004078/

RadioActive wrote:

paterson1 wrote:

I think part of the big push for streaming is the fact that most of them are still losing money.  Only Netflix and recently Disney have been profitable.  The conglomerates maybe feel that in the long run streaming is easier and a more efficient way to bring in cash.  Subscribers bring in a monthly fee, and many are willing to put up with at least some commercials.  This makes streaming a double dip, and less reliant on advertising revenue.  As Mr. Wonderful would say "it is all about the cash flow.." 

But my issue would be that many of the streamers are becoming more like cable channels, who also have subscribers but rely much more on advertising.  Maybe the goal with streamers will be the great libraries of content available on demand with much less new original and expensive programming.  Hulu, Paramount+ and Peacock seem to be content to run the "day old" programming from their network cousins to help pay for the production costs and have less original and pricey programming of their own.  

I may sound like a conspiracy theorist, but I fear what we're seeing is the coming of the end of all free TV as we know it. The U.S. networks each own their own streaming service, as you point out. 

I can see a day when they sign off the public airwaves and go streaming only - allowing them to not only ply you with commercials which you have to pay to see but also get fees just to get the "network" of your choice. And as a bonus, they'll be free of that meddlesome FCC keeping them honest. It will be exactly the same as what we have now OTA but with a subscription fee.

Hope I'm wrong. But I can see it coming.  

Hardly a conspiracy theory; it's what people want.

One you've made regular use of on-demand, portable TV, going back to linear broadcast tethered to your home seems quaint to say the least.

And besides, linear hasn't been "free" for most people for a long time.

Last edited by RadioAaron (September 17, 2024 10:47 am)

The eight or nine shows I regularly watch on network television are always PVR'd. 1. To avoid simsub. 2. I can watch at a convenient time for me.