Sequel Mania
I’m sure you’ve noticed it. It’s kinda hard to miss, though sometimes they tend to slip by without even realizing what they are. Is it really that hard to come up with something original?
The sequel craze infects virtually every content industry I can think of: books, movies, video games, music. It’s gotten to the point in some industries where the sequels outnumber the new entries, and in general, the sequels do much better than the new material.
Looking back, the sequel craze didn’t seem to really catch on until the last thirty years or so. George Lucas lucked out gaining the sequel rights to Star Wars, because 20th Century Fox didn’t think they were really worth anything. Some novels were published in a series, but it was a rare case that they were originally intended for a single release, being far more likely that they were written as a series, but were too lengthy for a single publication. Comic books are a notable exception, but they are a relatively new form of expression.
But what is it that draws us to these sequels, remakes, and rehashes of existing material? Perhaps it is a factor of familiarity. If I’ve seen and enjoyed Movie X, and they release a sequel, chances are good that I’ll enjoy the sequel. From a producer’s standpoint, that’s an incredible marketing advantage. Compare that to a new franchise, one that has just been created. I’d have little to no idea if I’d like it, so the producer would have to spend a great deal of money advertising the movie so that I’d gain enough curiosity and interest to put down my $10 to go see it.
Or perhaps it is merely a sign that people are no longer content with the neat and tidy little packages of life. That we are more interested in the ongoing trials of our favorite characters, in seeing what really makes them tick. The evolution of television shows with an multi-episode over-arcing plot, pioneered by Babylon 5, have given TV a new direction that defies the traditional advertising wisdom. It is a fact that such complex plot-lines tend to discourage or prevent new viewers from entering and enjoying the franchise mid-plot. The only conceivable reason that the studios have for creating these types of series is because they show a greater viewership than shows without the over-arcing plot.
I wonder about the effects that this trend will have on creative thought. Are we leading into an era where we won’t have any original ideas? Are we selectively weeding out those who challenge the limits of imagination? Or are we evolving a more refined sense of entertainment, one that requires a richer and more realistic portrayal of human nature?
August 10th, 2005 at 9:02 am
Given that anything that happens in a wide-spread way in any given market is driven by the desires of the customer base, I have to say that the sequel mania that you have noted has more to do with a brain-dead public than with any sort of demand for more refined or realistic entertainment. One does not have to look far to find proof of this: “reality” tv, which is the fastest-growing and most popular form of entertainment on the tube. The function of these programs is to provide the viewer with an unrealistic, but perpetual view into fabricated events happening at some exotic locale. Each show daisy-chains into the next, with another virtually identical show beginning after the current one ends. Some time slots on the program guide indicate that there are hours where several major channels have nothing but “reality” tv programs on…back to back to back to…sequel after sequel simply churns out more of the same garbage that keeps audiences riveted to their couches.
Certainly, the “factor of familiarity” has something to do with it. Or, to be more correctly stated, the “I already know the characters and most of what is going on, so I can sit and text-message with my girly-girl three rows back without missing anything” factor. Mayhap this is a function of advertising and that the trailers have put so much of the movie before the public even before it opens. Surely that is some of it, but in general, the market for mass media is an uncreative and uninspired group of sheep, complicated by the fact that there are so few of us with higher expectations for our entertainment dollar that we no longer matter.
August 10th, 2005 at 12:38 pm
I totally agree that “reality tv” in all it’s various forms is merely an opiate for the masses, the latest iteration of bread and circuses. However, I think the primary driving force behind the “reality” trend is the fact that they are so incredibly cheap to produce. Instead of hiring numerous actors, set builders, special effects teams, and writers at great expense, the studio merely has to shell out a fraction of that cost to rent an exotic locale and promise a few random people a big prize. I think one of the primary reasons that Fox cancelled the excellent series Firefly was due to the rising costs compared to a super cheap reality tv show. The risk in creating a reality tv show is virtually nothing compared to the costs of a “real” tv series, and thus we’re likely to see the continuation of the reality tv trend until the public grows bored with the format.
I also take exception to the fact that only “brain-dead” individuals stoop to watching reality tv. While I personally can’t stand the stuff, I’ve known numerous very intelligent people who like nothing better than to watch some reality tv show in their relaxation time. Does this mean those people are brain-dead? Or does it signify that these shows reach people on some not-fully-understood level? Perhaps it is merely a sign of laziness - there are definitely times where I’d rather just zone out in front of the television rather than attempt to be creative and productive 100% of the time.
I still assert that, reality tv aside, that some of the trends in tv production are positive, and tend toward greater depth. I’ll admit to being addicted to Smallville, which has excellent plot arcs spanning the four seasons. Babylon 5 was also excellent, and even shows like Star Trek: Enterprise were forced to break with the traditional static-plot premise and adapt to a more evolutionary design. Honestly, while Star Trek: The Next Generation was an excellent show, we see very little growth or change in the characters over the course of the series. Almost any episode from the final season could be transplanted to the first season, and other than the changes in makeup or special effects, you would be hard-pressed to tell the difference. Compare that to an episode of Babylon 5: while there are some episodes that could fit anywhere in the timeline, the vast majority would be exceedingly difficult to re-order.
August 11th, 2005 at 10:39 am
I think that reality TV on every channel has far less to do with what is cheap to produce than it does for the huge ratings that it receives; basic supply and demand. TV execs don’t care so much about the cost to produce the shows, but the amount of advertising dollars that they can make on the show…which is purely a product of the ratings and perceived popularity. The basic amount that is charged over a season for advertising is going to cover the expenses of airing the show, and a show that is popular to the masses (expressed as ratings) garners a higher price per second of advertising, and draws those companies that are willing to pay those prices. Many otherwise good programs, like Firefly, have been cancelled simply because the advertisers were unwilling to buy the time…which is the only way that a program pays for itself. If you, and ten million of your closest friends, watch a show…it will play forever. The program directors do not tell us what we are going to watch, it is the demands of the masses that tell them what to play (or keep) on the air.
My contention with “brain dead” is that, given the premise behind the shows, a person has to completely suspend any idea that he/she has of the most basic premise of the show in order to enjoy it. Mayhap “brain dead” could be better phrased as “a person who possesses the ability and willingness to disconnect reason from their minds for hours on end in order to enjoy a program that disqualifies any sort of reality that could be connected to the show”. To that end, I think viewing this sort of programming requires a deliberate and dedicated effort at shutting down normally active portions of the human brain, so I would have a hard time buying laziness. Mayhap I am the brain dead one that lacks sufficient power over my own cognizance to be able to ignore what I know and what I expect, from what I see played out before me. I tried to watch a show or two, to see what others see in the program, but I couldn’t get past facts such as: in one show, during a swim race (that was supposed to have something to do with the contestants being able to eat, but they were really never in any danger of starving), more than eighty percent of the shots were of body doubles and were actually filmed several days after the event just so they could get the extra camera angles. I can’t get past the idea that in a so-called “reality” show, the contestants have stunt doubles and body doubles; or that a show which is supposed to represent a group of people living together in a “normal” house includes everything but a normal house (show me an actual house with a double-railed balcony, a safety measure you will only see if you expect people to be climbing around on the railing but you still want to keep them from falling). As you can tell, my hang-up on reality TV is that it is no closer to reality than soap operas, but somehow people are able to completely disavow any difference between what is presented and what it is portrayed as.
Give me a survivor show where fifty contestants have cameras with audio strapped on, toss them out of an airplane above the Amazon basin, and pronounce the first one to get to the water walk in El Paso, TX as the winner. If more than one makes it at the same time, split the prize. No scripts, no cushy SUVs to take them from place to place on an island most of us could never afford to visit, no voting, and no assurance that some as yet unknown blowgun-using tribe of cannibals isn’t going to cancel someone before the end of the season
For the serials that are sequels to the original Star Trek story line, or any other series that has a plot, I agree that character depth and that there is a lot of re-watch value to many of them. Admittedly, I probably watch less than 1 hour of TV during the week that isn’t specifically news or some other informative program, or a movie. I enjoyed TNG, DS9, and pieces that I saw of the other Trek sequels, as well as the original series, but absolutely hated the mega-PC Voyager from the beginning. Personally, I would like to see shows continue on a trend of deeper plots and better developed characters…and second showings so that I can watch essential plot development should I miss it earlier in the evening.
August 12th, 2005 at 1:36 pm
While the ratings a reality TV show can net are certainly a factor, I still think that the low cost of production is the key. The risk in creating a reality TV show is much lower than for a standard show. You don’t have the same outlay in funds, and you still stand a good chance of reaping substantial rewards if that show does garner good ratings. Looking at the relative ratings for the past season, reality TV shows only hold 7 of the top 20 spots (though Survivor and American Idol hold 4 of the top 10), so they aren’t a guaranteed source of income. The odds of recouping the cost of production are much greater.
Compare CSI (a “normal” television series) with Survivor: Palau (a “reality” series). Over the last season (statistics found on Wikipedia), CSI outperformed Survivor in terms of raw ratings. Presumably, given those ratings, an advertiser would be willing to pay more to advertise during an episode of CSI. Let’s throw some (completely arbitrary) figures around and say the advertiser will pay $2000 for a 30-sec spot during Survivor, and $2500 for a 30-sec spot during CSI. Now, let’s say that an episode of Survivor costs $4000 to make, while CSI costs $10,000. Survivor pays for itself in only 2 ad sales, while CSI takes 4. Plus, in the off chance that a season of Survivor stops the trend and no longer nets the big ratings, CBS faces a much smaller loss than it would if the same thing happened to CSI.
Looking at your definition of “brain-dead”, and I quote: “a person who possesses the ability and willingness to disconnect reason from their minds for hours on end in order to enjoy a program that disqualifies any sort of reality that could be connected to the showâ€, it seems awfully close to the definition of “suspension of disbelief.” Given that you and I share an interest in fantasy role-playing, isn’t that somewhat analogous to the Pot and the Kettle? Granted, most rpgs don’t attach the “reality” moniker, and I’ll also grant that there are undoubtedly some who can’t tell that “reality” tv isn’t any more real than any other series (and as such earn some right to the “brain-dead” descriptor). But the vast majority of people I know (and I’ll admit I’m probably biased toward the deeper end of the intelligence gene-pool) know very well that the show isn’t “real”, and still choose to watch it for the same reason they watched normal tv series, because it was entertaining to them.
I think it’ll be a cold day in hell before you see your dream-version of Survivor. Finding someone willing to sign the various liability waivers in exchange for just a chance at earning a cash prize is unlikely, at best. You will probably get your wish for shows with deeper and more intricate plots and characters who can grow and develop over the course of a series, as the trend is already visible in some series. I’ll also second the option for second showings, since I can’t always be there for the shows I want to see. Of course, our good friend TiVO (or something similar) could make the second showing unnecessary.
August 13th, 2005 at 4:41 pm
Suspension of disbelief connected with RPGs hinges on the idea that it is, by definition, fantasy, and still requires active thought processes to enjoy. Reality tv, rather, requires that a person can passively absorb what is going on without questioning or considering it. When I have attempted to engage these shows, I have found that they thwarted any effort of reasoning how they became what they are. A lot of it is expectations on my part. I do expect a show called “Survivor” to have something to do with survival of the fittest, and a show called “Bootcamp” to have some similarity to an actual bootcamp (of which I have participated TWICE). Maybe a show called “the Real World” (the #2 rated cable tv show according to Neilsen’s Top 10) may actually contain some of the essential components, like “real” people in a “real” house with “real” jobs and “real” relationships. You know, things that happen in the “real world” as opposed to semi-scripted and heavily edited docu-drama stuff common to all of these programs. Though, as I have mentioned before, I watch precious little tv with the intent of simply occupying my time through an entertainment medium. I normally watch for the purpose of gaining information, which is exactly the opposite of what is done with regard to most popular tv programs. Even the forms of pure entertainment that I enjoy, like RPGs, cannot be passively absorbed. Glad I’m not part of a Neilsen household?
As for the advertising component: if the viewership is not there (and growing), advertisers will not buy time, and the shows will ultimately go away. Viewership is everything. What stays on tv is what gets more viewers than the other option because more viewers equals more exposure for advertisers, and this mass exposure is the only reason that advertisers are willing to pay anything at all for time on a show. Basic supply and demand. To parallel, Pepsi doesn’t stick with its flagship product because it is something that they *want* people to buy, but because people *are* buying it enmasse. If people stopped buying the product the company would stop making it, not the other way around. The same works for advertisers and programming. If an advertiser determins that their advertising dollar is not reaching the numbers and demographics that they want, they stop using that medium and move to something else. They do not buy time on a program because it is what the producers feel like putting on the air, but because it has the numbers to support their advertising needs. If producers aired programs with the idea of minimizing losses, we would see nothing but gameshows because they cost almost nothing to produce, draw a solid number of viewers (Wheel of Fortune and Jeopardy are #1 and #2 for synidcated television programs), and can run for decades without a facelift (read: no additional investment). However, the combined viewership of these two programs is 25% less than the top two CSI-based programs which are considerably more difficult and expensive to produce. Do we have Wheel of Fortune: Miami (except when the show is on tour)? No. It’s not popular enough for that and there is no demand for the same show in another setting. On the other hand, there seems to be no end of CSI and CSI-like programs because they are popular, not because they are expedient to produce. Viewers want, viewers get.
August 15th, 2005 at 12:40 pm
This may be a chicken-egg argument, but I still think the cost/risk analysis is the most telling reason why we see as many reality TV shows as we do. Consider that for every successful reality show, there are numerous failed adaptations. The same holds true for regular TV programming or the syndicated game shows. The game shows you mention are more the exception to the rule, since the vast majority of game shows have neither the solid viewership or the longevity of either Wheel of Fortune or Jeopardy. Game shows in general should be considered a low cost, low risk, but low potential return on investment. It doesn’t cost much, but it isn’t likely to pay off well either. A standard TV series is more of a high cost, high risk, high potential return, while a reality-tv series is a low cost, low risk, high potential return. When considering the odds of the bet, it doesn’t take much to determine the optimal choice in creating a new series. Even if the rate of successful reality-tv shows is lower (which I believe is the case, but can’t find statistics to back up the claim) than that for standard TV series, it has to be significantly so in order to be less profitable (on average).
I’ll agree that television and most other forms of modern entertainment require very little participation from the user. I’ll also agree that the “reality” descriptor applied to so many shows these days is ripe for a court case of false advertising. That said, I don’t think that reality tv requires any less brain activity than an episode of CSI or Friends. It is the medium, rather than the specific genre of that medium, that separates it from the (arguably) more cerebral pastimes such as RPGs or literature.