Entertainment & Sports: July 2005 Archives
TV producer David E. Kelley is thinking of switching to cable to escape all the ads on broadcast television.
LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - The creator of Emmy-winning legal drama "Boston Legal" said Tuesday he's concerned about the amount of commercial time on primetime TV shows and raised the possibility of working in cable in the future."If the commercial encroachment becomes worse, it's probably something that we'll all consider," David E. Kelley told reporters during ABC's portion of the Television Critics Assn.'s summer press tour at the Beverly Hilton. He said he has no plans in cable right now.
Kelley said that when he worked on "L.A. Law," there were 48 minutes of show. That has been reduced over the years to a little more than 41 minutes. Kelley said that makes it tougher to create character-driven stories and tell emotional stories, particularly within the five-act structure that sometimes gives only eight minutes between commercial breaks.
Advertisers should really wonder whether or not the sheer quantity of ads is eliminating their effectiveness. Running more ads and charging the same price for each may work well for the broadcasters, but everyone I know with $5 a month to spare has a TiVo and doesn't watch any of them. If there were, say, 5 or 10 minutes of commercials per hour rather than 20 I might not even bother to skip them or flip the channel.
I'm sure advertisers will get smart eventually and realize that they aren't getting the eyeballs they've been promised. Just like newspapers and magazines have been facing scrutiny recently for inflated circulation numbers, it's only a matter of time before television stations are forced to deal with their own deception. Right now the stations are benefitted by poor measuring tools that don't really reveal what people watch and what they skip, but the same technology that currently helps viewers avoid commercials will eventually also pass that information on to the advertisers.
I'm surprised that some conservatives are defending Senator John McCain's decision to appear in what Drudge is calling a "raunchy boob-fest". Susan Estrich is right to point out McCain's earlier advocacy for cleaner movies and question the Senator's judgement. I watch R-rated movies, so I'm not necessarily angered by his participation in this one (though I have little desire to see Wedding Crashers). What irks me is the obvious hypocrisy. One of the primary things rightists like to nail leftists for is saying one thing and doing another -- form over substance -- so I resent such a prominent rightist politician giving ammunition to the opposition.
Steve from Disaster, Love, Vengeance and Dust says that a stint at the Hanoi Hilton entitles one to "hang out with your wang out as you see fit", but again, that's not the point. The point is that words and deeds should be consistent.
Art Green at Conservative Eyes dismisses the cameo and hypocrisy as not "something people will look towards when choosing someone for President". In my experience, people who lie and are insincere about little things will lie and be insincere about big things. We'd be smart to learn about a candidate before he has opportunities to make bigger mistakes as President.
I think Stu at Red State Rant best captures my own opinion. He points out that many conservatives already question McCain.
Ms Estrich ends with the statement ,"In the end, what may be at issue is not whether conservatives share McCain's sense of humor but whether they come to question his judgment." Don't get me wrong. There are plenty of things I like and respect about Senator McCain and find his life story fascinating and inspriring. In fact I think we probably share the same sense of humor. But even with that, what I think Ms Estrich fails to realize is that I, and many other conservatives, already began questioning his judgement and conservative credentials many years ago. Pity.
True enough, and I doubt the Senator from Arizona will ever get the Republican nomination for the Presidency. McCain is a "maverick" in the same way as Howard Dean (though to a lesser degree). He speaks to a certain niche of supporters, but can't appeal to the party as a whole. He could possibly win an election against Hillary, but he won't get the chance to try.
