Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:41 pm Posts: 23014 Location: NOT FLO-RIDIN Gender: Male
withoutrings wrote:
So the form, long-form serial narrative, is what makes "the newscaster idea in general" novel. It's not the concept, but the form?
Seems like splitting hairs, duder. The concept is defined by the form. There's a pretty huge structural difference between a movie and a serial TV show. There's not a single movie about the ongoing struggles of a news show...because no one would watch it...because that's not what movies are for. But it's perfect for TV. Newsrooms, especially in the post-OJ trial climate, are ripe for drama--so much cult of personality, false appearances, politicing, etc.. I know Sorkin's been working on this script since 2009 but I'm surprised no one like AMC or even one of the networks has brought a show like this to series before. Just seems like a "Duh" idea to me. But then again it's probably hugely expensive to produce (unlike a bullshit cop drama).
_________________
given2trade wrote:
Oh, you think I'm being douchey? Well I shall have to re-examine everything then. Thanks brah.
So the form, long-form serial narrative, is what makes "the newscaster idea in general" novel. It's not the concept, but the form?
Seems like splitting hairs, duder. The concept is defined by the form. There's a pretty huge structural difference between a movie and a serial TV show. There's not a single movie about the ongoing struggles of a news show...because no one would watch it...because that's not what movies are for. But it's perfect for TV. Newsrooms, especially in the post-OJ trial climate, are ripe for drama--so much cult of personality, false appearances, politicing, etc.. I know Sorkin's been working on this script since 2009 but I'm surprised no one like AMC or even one of the networks has brought a show like this to series before. Just seems like a "Duh" idea to me. But then again it's probably hugely expensive to produce (unlike a bullshit cop drama).
Maybe I was taking your original claim, the "newscaster idea in general," at face value. But Network did work with that concept and dealt with exactly the themes you reference--cult of personality, false appearances, politicing, about consumers of media eventually only being able to consume via bite-size phrases: "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore." (Being There continues that idea, but didn't work directly through the prism of TV. Instead they chose a character whose entire experience was mediated via television.)
Anyway, your third sentence hints at what I thought was your point. That, regardless of form, no one was toying with the concept and problems of the modern newscaster. And on that point, you're wrong.
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:41 pm Posts: 23014 Location: NOT FLO-RIDIN Gender: Male
withoutrings wrote:
Mickey wrote:
withoutrings wrote:
So the form, long-form serial narrative, is what makes "the newscaster idea in general" novel. It's not the concept, but the form?
Seems like splitting hairs, duder. The concept is defined by the form. There's a pretty huge structural difference between a movie and a serial TV show. There's not a single movie about the ongoing struggles of a news show...because no one would watch it...because that's not what movies are for. But it's perfect for TV. Newsrooms, especially in the post-OJ trial climate, are ripe for drama--so much cult of personality, false appearances, politicing, etc.. I know Sorkin's been working on this script since 2009 but I'm surprised no one like AMC or even one of the networks has brought a show like this to series before. Just seems like a "Duh" idea to me. But then again it's probably hugely expensive to produce (unlike a bullshit cop drama).
Maybe I was taking your original claim, the "newscaster idea in general," at face value. But Network did work with that concept and dealt with exactly the themes you reference--cult of personality, false appearances, politicing, about consumers of media eventually only being able to consume via bite-size phrases: "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore." (Being There continues that idea, but didn't work directly through the prism of TV. Instead they chose a character whose entire experience was mediated via television.)
Anyway, your third sentence hints at what I thought was your point. That, regardless of form, no one was toying with the concept and problems of the modern newscaster. And on that point, you're wrong.
Um..what are you not getting?
Quote:
But Network did work with that concept and dealt with exactly the themes you reference--cult of personality, false appearances, politicing, about consumers of media eventually only being able to consume via bite-size phrases: "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore."
Really--as a long-form serial narrative that gives extreme depth-of-character portraits and creates an entire inhabitable world? Or was that a 90 minute movie, and a satire at that?
Quote:
Anyway, your third sentence hints at what I thought was your point. That, regardless of form, no one was toying with the concept and problems of the modern newscaster. And on that point, you're wrong.
Actually, this was my point: "no one like AMC or even one of the networks has brought a show like this to series before?" What other TV show in recent memory has this as its backdrop?
_________________
given2trade wrote:
Oh, you think I'm being douchey? Well I shall have to re-examine everything then. Thanks brah.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum