MIA: My TV shows
I have a handy little widget in my Dashboard that tells me when the next episode of shows I’m watching are airing. There are about 22 series listed in there, 19 of which should be current shows (assuming that Bionic Woman, Journeyman, and Reaper are all dead). This is what it looks like right now. Man, is that depressing. Add in the list of spring premiere dates that AICN just put up, which lists about 70 shows, about half of which are reality programming. An interesting point raised by one site that I read: note that despite the amount of gaps on the schedule, most of that room is being filled by reality entertainment programming and not, say, news programming, which there’s an endless supply of that doesn’t require writers. Not surprising, perhaps, but certainly interesting.

6 Comments so far
Leave a comment
But but but but Dan, JUDIE’S IN THE BEDROOM INVENTING SITUATIONS! Now’s the chance to cross the picket lines yourself and start your own local programming. I’ll work the camera, Jason will work the lights (once he finishes his dissertation) and you’ll be famous to fifteen. We’ll disassemble notions of a shared media culture. The WGA Serves Imperialism!
Alternatively, you could realize that The Wire the only show worth watching.
By Jacob on 12.31.07 3:04 pm
How on earth did you find 22 shows worth watching in the first place?
I think the writers shot themselves in the foot by not taking the earlier offer—you know, the one that implied, “We’ll give you money, but not respect.” Did it not occur to them that they’re pretty easily replaceable by cheaper content and non-union writers? (I hear that the late-night shows are going back on the air with jokes written by the latter soon.)
On the bright side, maybe video games will actually get a boost in decent dialog and clever plots.
By Jason on 01.01.08 1:19 pm
On the bright side, maybe video games will actually get a boost in decent dialog and clever plots.
I think this exact same suggestion came up at Tony’s house today at the same time that you posted it here (I was wondering what all those clandestine video cameras at his place were for). But we also wondered if it might have the opposite effect – introducing cheesy sitcom plotlines into otherwise interesting games.
By Jordan on 01.01.08 9:27 pm
@Jason: Some of the shows are British, so that helps. But there are a surprising number of pretty good shows on the air. Not all of them ones on my list are A+++ series, but most of them are better than the average dross.
Also, I’m interested in where you heard that non-union writers were going to be writing late-night jokes. As far as I know, Letterman and Craig Ferguson are the only ones going back on the air with writers, and that’s because Letterman struck a deal with the Writers’ Guild. The rest of the talent: Leno, O’Brien, Kimmel, Stewart, and Colbert are all going back on the air with no writers period. Which should be interesting. In the way that watching a python eat a live chicken is interesting.
By Dan on 01.01.08 11:33 pm
For once, when someone asks me where I heard a bit of apocryphal information, I can say something other than “um, the internet.”
I heard it at a party.
Here is a CNN article which says the shows are going back on air without their writing staffs. The only indication I saw indicating that this meant there would be no writers at all was a quote by Conan suggesting that the show would be “unwritten” and may take on another form. I have no intention to watch these shows, but I’d be curious to see what form they end up taking, and whether that form hints that someone outside the union is getting paid to pick up the slack.
By Jason on 01.02.08 10:21 am
My hope is that the late night shows will take on a Sabado Gigante vibe. And if they do, boy howdy will I watch!
By Kristen on 01.02.08 1:52 pm
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>