Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Television Entertainment

A Record High of 455 Scripted TV Shows Aired in 2016 (vulture.com) 189

Posted by msmash from the so-much-tv dept.
In case you wanted to ground your abstract TV FOMO in hard numbers, FX has data on the fact that, yes, there really is too much TV. An anonymous reader shares a report: The network, whose CEO John Landgraf coined the idea of "peak TV," has released its unofficial tally of the number of shows on TV, finding that 455 different scripted television series from broadcast, cable, and streaming sources aired in the last year. That's an 8 percent increase from last year, when 421 shows aired on TV; a 71 percent increase from 2011, when a mere 266 shows were on TV; and a 137 percent increase from 2006, when there were 192 shows on TV.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

A Record High of 455 Scripted TV Shows Aired in 2016 More

A Record High of 455 Scripted TV Shows Aired in 2016

Comments Filter:

  • nothing (Score:5, Insightful)

    by qQ7eBMsfM5gs ( 4756041 ) on Thursday December 22, 2016 @12:04PM (#53537571) Journal
    400+ TV channels, Netflix, Amazon Prime etc. and still NOTHING GOOD IS ON

    • Re:nothing (Score:4, Informative)

      by xxxJonBoyxxx ( 565205 ) on Thursday December 22, 2016 @12:14PM (#53537633)
      "Got thirteen channels of shit on the T.V. to choose from." - Pink Floyd 1979

      Only the number has changed.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dywolf ( 2673597 )

      Arrow
      Blackish
      The Blacklist
      Crazy Ex-Girlfriend
      The Expanse
      Flash
      Fresh Off the Boat
      Kimmy Schmidt
      Man in the High Castle
      Modern Family
      Shield
      Speechless
      The Strain
      Supergirl

  • Too Many my A** (Score:3)

    by Herkum01 ( 592704 ) on Thursday December 22, 2016 @12:06PM (#53537585)

    The problem is not quantity, it is quality. It amazes me how many shows that are absolute trash get put out and that is before we have reached these *peak* numbers. Maybe an increase in quantity, we can get new blood to see different or hopefully better shows.

    The last thing the world needs is to be locked up with the Michael Bay's of the world because they are too afraid to try anything new or different.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      The problem is that quality usually doesn't make as much money as shit.

      • Tell that to all the shows that are STILL in syndication today.

        Seinfeld?

        Star Trek: Next Generation?

        Die Hard airing on Christmas Day?

        Every time they air, they STILL make money.

        • Re:Too Many my A** (Score:4, Insightful)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Thursday December 22, 2016 @01:14PM (#53538105) Homepage Journal

          I said "usually". Don't forget that the original Star Trek was cancelled. I'd say the number of great shows that were cancelled far outweighs the number that eventually survived for their full "natural" duration.

        • Ever heard the expression "The exception that proves the rule"?

          • Ever heard the expression "The exception that proves the rule"?

            Yes, I have. I also know what it means. Do you?

            For those few who might care, the word "proves" in this case takes the meaning "to test," as in, e.g. the US Army Aberdeen Proving Ground. (where, gosh, things are *tested*).

            • What? No. According to Wikipedia, it's original meaning

              is that the presence of an exception applying to a specific case establishes ("proves") that a general rule exists. For example, a sign that says "parking prohibited on Sundays" (the exception) "proves" that parking is allowed on the other six days of the week (the rule). A more explicit phrasing might be "the exception that proves the existence of the rule."

              Which admittedly also doesn't directly apply to my usage, which is more in line with an alternate usage listed further down the page:

              Loose rhetorical sense
              A rural village is "always" quiet. A local farmer rents his fields to a rock festival, which disturbs the quiet. In this example, saying "the exception proves the rule" is literally incorrect, but it is used to draw attention to the rarity of the exception, and to establish the status of the village prior to the exceptional event.

              There are syndicated shows still making money, but the very fact that they're noteworthy proves that it's not the usual case.

              Don't make the mistake of assuming the meaning you've heard is the only one. That's the sort of logic that makes you defend the usage of "Begs the question" as implying circular logic - an anti-lite

              • You're not making any sense. The correct use of "begs the question" does in fact match the correct translation of "petitio principii," so what were you trying to claim?

                • The literal meaning of "begs the question", would be closer to "(re)raises the question" than "assumes the initial point". Which is how it's commonly used (and complained about).

                  Basically, the "correct" usage of "begs the question" bears no resemblance to what the words would mean without historical precedence based on mistranslation.

        • Its not christmas until Hans Gruber dies.

    • This problem, and the TV networks, is going away. Eventually each TV show will have a team making it, paid for by (direct) payments of the watchers of the show. Once we get rid of the networks forcing us to watch what they want, only the popular shows will survive. (where popular = viewership pays for show, so cheap shows can get by with fewer watchers).

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Hadlock ( 143607 )

      With the price of quality cameras and LED lamps coming down under $100 each, Final Cut Pro is $300 if you find some community college acting students you can put together a series you write yourself for under $10,000.

      There's that show about couples that view three homes each and buy one at the end of the episode... how much could that possibly cost? Camera man, microphone guy, lighting guy, director and show host * 8 hours + equipment + van rental + gas. Probably the hotel bill is higher than the re

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by guises ( 2423402 )
      Everyone here seems to be missing the really important word in the summary: scripted. 455 scripted television series doesn't mean more TV, necessarily. It could also mean less unscripted TV (i.e.: reality television). I can only think that this is positive news. Either reality TV is in decline, or total TV is increasing - either way it should increase the small number of shows which are actually worth watching.

  • All these stuff (Score:4, Informative)

    by Lirodon ( 2847623 ) on Thursday December 22, 2016 @12:11PM (#53537621)
    Yet every Canadian broadcaster just takes 15% of them and spreads reruns of them across multiple channels that provide the illusion of variety.

  • Too much TV, yeah right (Score:5, Interesting)

    by OzPeter ( 195038 ) on Thursday December 22, 2016 @12:11PM (#53537623)

    Saying that there is too much TV implies that I should be trying to watch every show on TV. But if different segments of the population watch different types of shows then who cares how many shows there are on TV? That's simply called having a choice.

    Unless of course you mean all those "reality" shows that have* to die.

    * note that my list of shows that have to die may differ from other peoples lists. But here on /. I'm pretty sure that I can safely say that every damn ghost hunter/big foot hunter/alien hunter etc reality show needs to die a painful death.

    • Saying that there is too much TV implies that I should be trying to watch every show on TV.

      "Nobody needs twenty three different kinds of deodorant!!!!"

      These bone-headed know-it-alls think they know what's best for everybody (an obvious failure of hubris over information).

      If a show can find a niche audience and produce more revenue than it costs, then it's a good show for some people. And, guess what? That's how all shows are going to be once the network model fully dissolves.

      Who wrote this article? Wher

      • Re:Too much TV, yeah right (Score:4, Interesting)

        by totallyarb ( 889799 ) on Thursday December 22, 2016 @12:46PM (#53537891)

        "That's how all shows are going to be once the network model fully dissolves."

        Couldn't agree more. I realised the other day that roughly 50% of the "shows" I regularly watch these days are my YouTube subscriptions. And most of the rest are on Netflix. The era of running "TV channels" is all but over; the concept of "primetime" is on the way out too. Now it's all about content producers going directly to their target audience, who watch as and when it suits them.

        Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that *broadcasting* is dead. Rather than one single signal going out to millions of people, we have millions of individual signals, which may or may not have the same content. And of course that's going to encourage diversity.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jedidiah ( 1196 )

        TV is living off of the largese of monopolies and oligopolies. This manifest in the absurdly high cable bill. Everyone in the chain is trying to push the number higher and higher. TV revenue in general is probably massively inflated and is probably due for some sort of market correction.

        When that happens, will 90% of the dreck be sustainable anymore?

        Meanwhile, the back catalog continues to grow. Simple rabbit ears are more feasible than ever. Gratis internet video is eating into mind share.

        You could probabl

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by c ( 8461 )

      I'm pretty sure that I can safely say that every damn ghost hunter/big foot hunter/alien hunter etc reality show needs to die a painful death.

      Somewhere, there's a network exec poring over a script for a reality television program in which a ghost hunter, big foot hunter, and alien hunter are stuck on a remote island and have to fight each other to death...

      I... I might watch it.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Nidi62 ( 1525137 )
        Well, there was already that one Finding Bigfoot episode where they split up and investigated with 2 different groups: one of whom thought bigfoot was supernatural/paranormal and the other that thought it was aliens. So we are already almost there.

  • With good reason! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Gravis Zero ( 934156 ) on Thursday December 22, 2016 @12:23PM (#53537699)

    The basic issue is there is a war being waged between media companies. The basic issue is that old media companies like the fat checks they get from cable providers but new online services cannot afford to write said fat checks. The result is that online services began creating their own content because it was much cheaper than licensing it. When there was some exclusive hits like on Netflix, old media decided they needed to quash the rebellion by putting out something that is equally as attractive to avoid people jumping ship. Both sides are upping their game so that customers won't be tempted to switch media providers and thus the media company war.

    The funny thing is, the old media companies could have avoided all of this if their demands weren't so unreasonable.

  • Sturgeon's Law or Sturgeon's Revelation (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bmo ( 77928 ) on Thursday December 22, 2016 @12:24PM (#53537711)

    "90 percent of science fiction is crud because 90 percent of anything is crud."

    So to apply that to this number, there are only 45-46 "good" shows to watch.

    And this is why a bajillion channels on Cable are useless.

    --
    BMO

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Kjella ( 173770 )

      When you put it that way, it sounds plenty... really who watches 45 shows? Personally I feel there's only so much time I want to passively waste as a couch potato and there's no shortage of decent-ish shows to fill the time. I think Netflix found the same, good catalog or bad catalog we end up taking our fill from the best of what's available.

    • "90 percent of science fiction is crud because 90 percent of anything is crud."

      So to apply that to this number, there are only 45-46 "good" shows to watch.
      And this is why a bajillion channels on Cable are useless.

      I draw an opposing conclusion from the same data. This is why a bajillion channels (on Cable, or major services on the internets, or wherever) are necessary. If 90% of everything is garbage, then you need at least ten shows to be made before anything is on. If you account for taste, for which there is no accounting, you have to take into account the fact that not everyone is going to want to watch the same shows no matter how competently they are made. That means we need dozens of shows to exist for there t

    • Sturgeon wrote 90% crud.

      Don't think so? Then you cannot believe his quote.
  • With that kind of diversity who do you market too? There is only so many dollar to spend. So which one gives you the return and which one is wasted money. Especially when a lot of these shows are experimental. Then you have the break out hits on Netflix where there no commercials. Its bleak for advertisers.

    • And it's especially bleak when they're paying for advertising that is being "played" to fake users with fake social media profiles visiting fake web sites hosting fake news.

      It's good thing that the ads feature products that make fake claims by fake real people for fake results.

    • And the crowd cheers wildly!!!

      Seriously, advertising is evil in almost every manifestation and can't die fast enough. It's entire purpose is to generate false poverty so that you'll go out and buy something you don't need to satisfy a want that didn't exist before you saw the ad.

      • Marxism is not a good state of mind.

        • How exactly do you imagine that's a Marxist position? (I'll grant you that, within the context of a capitalist society, Marxism is likely to make you more discontent with being a member of the working class)

          Plenty and choice are good things. Ads designed to inform you of available choices are also good things, or at worst neutral. Modern advertising though is carefully and intentionally designed to create artificial desire through a large number of psychological manipulation techniques. The goal being

  • There may be more actual scripted shows, but there are less episodes of each show.

    .
    For example, TBS's comedy show People of Earth had only 10 episodes.

    Many of the cable-network scripted shows have only 6 to 10 episodes per season.

  • Turn it off (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kcdoodle ( 754976 ) on Thursday December 22, 2016 @12:49PM (#53537917)
    It is really hard to stop watching TV. I have cut down to 3 shows a week.

    I also stopped playing video games, especially on my phone.

    These things are a big time-suck, a vacuous hole of waste.

    Instead of video games, I have apps that are game-like, but educational. DuoLingo, MemRise, PianoSightReading, etc.

    Instead of TV, I practice guitar, bass guitar, piano, and recently, violin. Also I workout and run everyday.

    Basically, I am taking my previously wasted time and trying to better myself.

    Try looking back. Did it really matter if Gilligan ever got off of that stupid island?
    Did Hawkeye Pierce save more people because you tuned in?
    Do you care if Al and Peg Bundy's kids ever moved out?

    Twenty years from now, will you care if Sheldon every marries Amy?
    Will you care if Mike Ross goes to jail or really becomes a lawyer?

    Or, in twenty years, will you say, I should have been healthier, I should have read more, I should have learned a language.

    • Re:Turn it off (Score:4, Insightful)

      by apoc.famine ( 621563 ) <apoc.famine@NOSPAM.gmail.com> on Thursday December 22, 2016 @03:34PM (#53539127) Journal

      You've given a great example of what's wrong with the modern world.

      I am taking my previously wasted time and trying to better myself.

      So you've always got to be "on". Always need to be productive. Always need to go, go go. Look, if that makes you happy, great. I'm a firm believer that everyone should do what makes them happy, as long as it doesn't negatively impact those around them. But get the fuck off your high horse lecturing to the rest of us.

      Or, in twenty years, will you say, I should have been healthier, I should have read more, I should have learned a language.

      In my case, absolutely not. I'll be damn glad that I put my feet up, had that third scotch, and dicked around on the internet. Why? Because I need that down-time. I need to shut my brain off and let it rest. I've got a demanding job that requires coding and math, people skills, negotiation, and creativity. I can't do any of that well on a fatigued brain.
       
      Maybe for you brain down-time is a "vacuous hole of waste", but for a lot of people it's necessary. I hope 20 years don't go by before you figure out that you need it too.

      • I feel somewhere between the two of you.

        What I *want* is to have a well-enough rested brain that I get bored and start doing creative productive self-directed things. I would most like for my entire life to be filled with the kind of passionate creative energy I had when I was younger and far less busy, where I was constantly thinking of new things and working on projects and would stay up into the middle of the night neglecting sleep and meals because meh I can catch up on them later if I need to right now

  • I haven't had subscription cable/satellite for many years. How are ABC, CBS, & NBC faring through all of this? I would think inertia would carry them for some time given their size but that they're sickly otherwise. I can't imagine they compete well given over-the-air decency restrictions and a corporate culture stuck in the 20th century.

    • I don't know how they're doing, but I can't think of a single show I watch on NBC or ABC. I do watch 60 Minutes on CBS, if they don't postpone it for sports. Everything else is cable, Netflix, and maybe Youtube.

      • You can count on most old people to keep doing what they're doing (aiming the clicker at the teevee) up until they die, or get sent to a home and someone takes the clicker away from them. However, "TV viewing by 18-24-year-olds [marketingcharts.com] [...] has now fallen by 38% since 2011." (Oct. 5, 2016) And "In 2015, Netflix accounted for about half [variety.com] of the overall 3% decline in TV viewing time among U.S. audiences [...] Total viewing of networks from Time Warner, Scripps Networks Interactive, AMC Networks and Discovery Communic

  • Only 455? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by totallyarb ( 889799 ) on Thursday December 22, 2016 @01:00PM (#53537987)

    FX are *way* under-counting. There are an awful lot more than 455 scripted television shows out there. Hell, there are more than that on YouTube alone.

    Their mistake is to assume that something only "counts" as a TV show if it's in standard half-hour-with-ad-breaks format, and it's "broadcast" on something that they recognise as a TV channel. But a looser definition - say, "scripted video content released on a recurring basis" would include literally thousands more, and it's a bad sign for FX that they apparently haven't acknowledged this fact.

    What FX are doing is the equivalent of an oil company not realising that they're in the *energy* business (and therefore subject to competition from solar power and the like), or a car company not realising they're in the *transportation* business (and therefore subject to competition from rail, motorcycles and so on). Or perhaps a better comparison is the phone company not realising they're in the *communications* industry, and therefore failing to expand into mobile and internet provision until it was too late.

    • Methinks you do not understand the meaning of the word "television". I would readily believe that there are only 455 scripted *television* shows out there, since you can't count Netflix, Hulu, Youtube, etc. exclusive shows in that total as they never go anywhere near a television broadcast. "Television show" != "episodic video show"

      Yes, they absolutely have outside competition in the "episodic video show" market, and you'd better believe they know it. Which is no doubt why the number of shows is increasin

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Megane ( 129182 )
      They are also probably only counting English-language shows. Half of what I watch in any season is likely to be from the other side of the world, though music gets a larger fraction than that because Western music has been lame since the '90s. Also, I don't watch cable TV or subscribe to Netflix, Amazon, etc., so I don't even have access to much of that 455, nor do I care enough to pirate them. These days it's basically Brooklyn Nine-Nine, Agents of SHIELD, Fox's Sunday night animation block, and Nova, alon
  • Folks:

    Please tell me that something is scrambled up in my brain!

    I am making an assumption that the average (or mean) TV show is 60 minutes. There are some 30 minute shows. There are even some 15 minute shows (Three Stooges and Popeye are examples) and there are the 2 hour movies. Put the whole shebang together and I believe that the average/mean is 60 minutes.

    There are 24 hours per day. Times 7 days per week. That is 160 hours per week.

    In the old days (I am 63 years old, so I am talking about my chi

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by sinij ( 911942 )
      Commercials, re-runs, and dead air 3am to 7am.

    • I'm 56, and I remember when they didn't have 24 hour TV (if I got up early enough I could turn on the tube and get that fancy test pattern). So the number of shows was less than your figures. But I agree with your point. 455 isn't too much.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by PCM2 ( 4486 )

      Remember they are only counting scripted shows. Another way to say that would be "fiction" shows -- dramas, soap operas, and comedies -- which does not include news broadcasts, chat shows, gameshows, sports broadcasts (of which there are many), talent contests, interviews, and so on (regardless of how scripted any of the above might actually be).

  • Too much, or a large selection? I'm going with option 2

  • The network, whose CEO John Landgraf coined the idea of "peak TV"

    I would like to coin the idea of "peak dork"

  • There are plenty of watchable shows on Netflix and Amazon Prime available anytime. My wife and I enjoy the wide selection. It's true that most is shit. But, with "millions" of choices, there has to something that any one person would enjoy. If you're not sure what to watch, start with The Good Wife, Downton Abbey, Daredevil, Jessica Jones etc. The CW has a lot of very good shows that you can stream online. There is no way that nothing good is available at any time today.

  • 455 includes what? (Score:3)

    by tomhath ( 637240 ) on Thursday December 22, 2016 @02:04PM (#53538497)
    Does that 455 "scripted" shows include all the reality shows and professional wrestling? It should.
  • Sure isn't me! Other than 2-3 weekly comedy or drama shows I watch on the network tv, I either just leave it on MeTv, AntennaTV, Cozi, etc, or just watch a movie from Amazon Prime.

  • If you look at the graph shown in the article link, it turns out only online scripted shows have increased in the last year. The other 3 media (broadcast, paid cable and basic cable) all actually fell in 2016. Considering online scripted show 2016 quantities only sit half way between paid cable and broadcast quantities, then really all the article should had said is that there's a trend towards more online scripted shows.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by hackel ( 10452 )

      Are you counting Netflix/Amazon programmes as "online shows?" These are quite a bit different than what has traditionally been an online show. The former are produced by professionals—the same companies that make network shows. There's literally no difference. The online shows are usually a string of 10-minute short clips, filling time with obnoxiously long credits on each "episode," and generally of questionable quality. I wouldn't count these at all.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by voidstin ( 51561 )

      Basic Cable dropped from 188 in 2015 to 181 in 2016, up from 66 in '09. Not much of a drop. And separating those out doesn't really make sense - everyone is bidding on the same pitches from the same writers and production companies. Increased competition is driving up costs. It's not like there's a million brilliant writers with series ready to go. And even when you get an amazing show, that doesn't mean the next show/ season will be as good (True Detective, The Bastard Executioner, Mr. Robot). Ain't n

  • FX has data on the fact that, yes, there really is too much TV.

      literally stated as fact.

  • The number of shows isn't a particularly relevant metric. What matters more is the number of individual episodes, and their durations. A scripted network comedy might be a mere 20 minutes long, compared to, say, an average WestWorld episode that is three times that. Also, network trash typically runs full American-length seasons of 20+ episodes per year, compared with the much shorter runs of British and decent U.S. programmes. I personally think that *more* shows with fewer, longer episodes is the way

  • Nothing good on? Bullshit. (Score:5, Informative)

    by voidstin ( 51561 ) on Thursday December 22, 2016 @05:01PM (#53539609)

    Nothing good on? Bullshit. Here are the show only on FX in the past year, with their RT ratings:

    Atlanta 100%
    Fargo 98%
    Always Sunny in Philadelphia 97%
    Archer 97%
    People vs. OJ Simpson 97%
    The Americans 96%
    Better Things 94%
    You're the Worst 92%
    Man Seeking Woman 90%
    American Horror Story 77%
    Baskets 70%

    That doesn't count all the great shows on HBO (GoT, Westworld, Insecure), AMC (Better Call Saul, Walking Dead), Netflix (Stranger Things, The Crown), Amazon (Fleabag, Good Girls Revolt), and many others.

    Also, RTFA - 455 this year is counting only NEW, SCRIPTED (not reality) shows on TV and OTT services like Netflix and Amazon. There's even a chart. Landgraf knows what he's talking about.

    Also, many of you are making his point for him. Nobody wants to pay for this (ie watch commercials or subscribe). Each hour of high end TV (not twitch, not pewdiepie, not unboxing, but real scripted TV that can compete in this landscape) costs roughly $2.5 million. So, I just mentioned roughy 170 hours of content above - that's 425 million dollars. Where is that money going to come from?

Slashdot Top Deals

FORTRAN is not a flower but a weed -- it is hardy, occasionally blooms, and grows in every computer. -- A.J. Perlis

Close