Kyle Brady: Blog » TV

“An Ode to Childhood Lost” [Self]

Kyle Brady — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 07:48:47 +0000

New guest post at the Inquisitr:

The death of Fred Rogers in 2003 was a sad experience that dredged up memories of early childhood I didn’t even know I had, and I discovered I was still fond of the man and his commitment to well-rounded children. The recent cancellation of “Reading Rainbow”, due to a lack of funding, is no different: I knew intellectually that the show existed no longer, but it was not until I heard LeVar on NPR’s “Talk of the Nation” that I discovered how truly devastated I felt by the loss of such a cornerstone of my childhood.

Go check it out.

Age Bias In Media Reporting/Journalism [OpEd]

Kyle Brady — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 07:05:31 +0000

There’s a disturbing trend seen over the last decade: age has become a critical factor for a television news anchor, valued reporter, or any other position that involves direct interaction between “the people” and news services, occurring across all forms of Old Media. This trend of believing age is a factor in talent, skill, believability, or overall trustworthiness is not only disturbing, but is both ruining the experience of younger talents and contributing to the demise of Old Media itself.

The age of reporters has been increasing steadily since the debut of television news, and can be clearly seen with the announcement of Diane Sawyer, at the age of 63, to take up ABC’s World News anchor position. There are occasions when a person is kept because of their talent more than age, such as Tom Brokaw, but these are few and far between – more often than not, an anchor is held onto due to name recognition and their familiarity and not any specific set of talents or skills that could not be found in slightly fresher faces. In looking across all networks, the age of those involved in primetime television news averages near 40, and often eclipses it, and the average increases if local news outfits become the focal point. Television is not alone in this bias, as their also-dying brethren in newspapers have the same issue of pandering to older generations, and in-between publications such as TIME or Newsweek have similar, albeit lessened, problems. Why, then, is this the case?

It would seem that the answer may lie in the audience’s comfort level with familiar faces, even when those familiar faces are aging, untalented, and lack any basic intelligence. But by chasing ratings over talent, the companies are feeding the cyclical nature of their own demise: younger generations are going to be less interested in individuals old enough to be their parents or grandparents for the delivery of news or opinions, if they’re even interested in the activities of Old Media at all. Evidence for this fundamental truth can be found not only in human nature, but in the fact that while individuals under the age of 30 increasingly flock to the Internet as a source for news and entertainment, Comedy Central’s The Daily Show and Colbert Report continue to have wonderful ratings within that same demographic for infotainment - exactly what CNN, NBC, ABC, and others produce, no matter their higher minded claims.

Both of Comedy Central's news shows are spearheaded by men – Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, respectively - who are in their mid-40s, but appear to be much younger at heart and in mind than their network counterparts. But more to the point, their regular contributors and correspondents are typically younger comics, like John Oliver (age 32, debuted at 29), who are vibrant, full of life, and in touch with what the under-30 demographic are interested in – exactly opposite the major news outlets.

The fact that it takes a journalist an average of twenty years to reach any position of credibility or public visibility is quite likely a deterrent for many young journo’s interested in the field, who may choose to take their talents elsewhere. More importantly, by cultivating an increasingly older crop of journalists, those who are new or inexperienced are not allowed the very experience required for them to later reach exalted positions – a problem seen throughout most industries in today’s “need experience, not college kids” environment.

This bias is also pushing an increasing number of interested young-guns to New Media, where their age is seen as a perk and not a disadvantage, for blogging, Internet-video, and a number of other budding online news production outfits and methodologies. The rise of blogs, online news, YouTube, and others is no coincidence, and those who unconditionally embrace it are the future of media, no matter how hard Old Media outlets continue to push aged commenters on a passive audience – more specifically, this means younger, faster, and more savvy individuals will soon rule the journalism game, quickly turning the tables on their predecessors, bringing a new meaning to “journalistic age bias”.

Network news, newspapers, and magazines have created this culture where age is valued over talent, connections over ability, and name recognition over actual worth – now they must deal with its consequences.

“An Open Letter to the SyFy Network” [Self]

Kyle Brady — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 07:25:07 +0000

New guest post at the Inquisitr:

Not many people will publicly admit this, but I will: there’s a soft spot in my heart for the SyFy Network (formerly “SciFi”), and always has been. But just because I’m sympathetic to the cause doesn’t mean I unilaterally support your decisions, which is why this is being written.

Go check it out.

The Triumphant Return of Sarah Connor [OpEd]

Kyle Brady — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 07:05:08 +0000

…maybe.

Potentially legitimate rumors have surfaced that Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles will be returning to television, presumably with cries of joy from around the world, starting with a direct-to-DVD release prior to the next chapter in the Terminator movie saga, and a TV show potentially following – all starting some time in 2010 or 2011. The network sponsoring the direct-to-DVD process isn’t clear, although the WB was mentioned several times, not to mention the total silence on whether the TV show would appear on FOX. Either way, it seems that the important people in this dance listened to both the praise and wails of fans.

This news, if true, could prove to be a gamechanger for the future of television – TV networks that actually produce intelligent, thought-provoking, and deep shows that fans want, even if they don’t achieve the hyper-success of idiotic nonsense like American Idol. If the WB is the network for the future of Sarah Connor and her band of rebels, which includes one humanoid robot, FOX will be highly embarrassed should the show do well, but if FOX somehow manages to hold on to the baby they threw out the window, they will still have dirt on their face at the end of the day, and be subject to the emotionality of a rabid fanbase.

Even if the show continues thematically mostly on its own, despite rumors of being intertwined with the upcoming movies, TV as a whole will be all the better for it, and so will the Terminatorverse – Terminator: Salvation was a good action movie, and a halfway decent Terminator film, but it fell flat on the expectations of a smart and highly complex film that many hoped would have more in common with TTSCC than T3. The cast itself is critical component of the show's brilliance: Lena Headey is a much better Sarah than Linda Hamilton ever was, and Thomas Dekker has evolved from a whiny “emo” teenager into a very believable and intensely brilliant John – not to mention the characters played by Summer Glau, Brian Austin Greene, Richard T. Jones, and Garret Dillahunt that make a beautiful small-screen ensemble and help set the tone of the show.

Regardless of the acting prowess of Christian Bale, the simple fact is that barring an extreme change of pace and tone in the upcoming T5 movie, the Terminatorverse is likely to have a longer, smarter, and better future on television. All of that changes if the network behind the TTSCC decides to place demands on the writers, restrict the show’s budget, or act in other stereotypically ignorant behavior that is so often seen at FOX. However, if the show returns in “same or better” form than when it was canceled, fans will flock in droves to any network that cares to finance the triumphant return of Sarah Connor.

--- --- ---

Note: apologies on being a day late - on vacation and couldn't write this in time for early Monday.

Update (8/10/2009 12:20am PST): Reposted with permission at the Inquisitr.

Update (7/15/2009 11:10am PST): Another source confirms this, unrelated to the original by Lanie, courtesy of Lanie herself.

What’s Next for “Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles” [Self]

Kyle Brady — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 14:28:13 +0000

The word on the street is that "Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles" has been canceled. As much as this absolutely sucks and is in line with the entire history of anything good FOX has ever produced, it was semi-expected because FOX is a network that cares more about obscene big-ticket ratings than the value they put out.

The way I see it, TSCC as a collective has three options for their future:

Suck up to the FOX execs and hope things change at some point in the near future, maybe coming back in Spring '10. While this has happened in the past (Family Guy, anyone?), it's similar to betting all your money on the exact time and date Jesus returns for the Coming of the Apocalypse. I'm not saying it's (Jesus) ever happening, but still.

Find a bunch of money from a group of rich people, self-fund a full production of Season 3, and release it to DVD. I think this is a great idea, and would pave the way for the further collapse of the TV network paradigm, assuming they could raise enough money to continue the same level of writing, production, special effects, acting talent, etc. However, realistically, this is improbable. Unlikely, even. (Pink Panther nod!) We're talking about a huge amount of money spent from idea to DVD printing, and the series would sell for $50, at most, per copy. The number of copies sold would have to be astronomical to even break even.

Pull up the tent stakes from the FOX battleground, and shop the idea to other networks. TSCC has proven to have a nothing-if-not-loyal fanbase, just not with the gigantic numbers that could compete with brain-addling crap like American Idol that is so inexplicably popular among the low-to-average IQ range of American citizens. HBO and Showtime produce shows for a much smaller audience (comparatively), but seem to have no problem doing so, presumably because they produce revenue directly instead of being "OMG we need a larger audience!"-advertising dependent. Writers, acting talent, and everyone else could move over... as long as FOX will release the rights to its production, which is the biggest "if".

Option 3 is likely the one with the best outcome, and I really hope it happens. NBC could even potentially be approached for another season, since they have their fair share of violent "speculative fiction" shows already, and have a history of being more tolerant in ratings swings.

Here's the takeaway:

TSCC Crew, please talk to some other networks about immediately continuing production for their network, without any changes. We will follow you to your endpoint, even if it's FX.

FOX, give up the rights to the show's future. If you don't want to do another season, at least be reasonable about it, and let someone else who cares about the people that are considered their customers.

--- --- ---

Update (4/15/2009 2:50pm PST): Apparently TSCC's producers are saying it isn't canceled yet, and that the information floating around the 'net is faulty... and the "reporter" has a history of bad-mouthing TSCC. Let's hope.

Tom Green Takes on The World [Expose]

Kyle Brady — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 23:45:41 +0000

With all the news of "old media" failing, Tom Green has apparently decided it's time for him to take over.

After 4chan's /b/ getting riled up recently about Tom Green, and a few misguided Anons trying to start memes over him (or was Tom trying to amuse to them?), he has reached out an olive branch - perhaps in response to getting raided recently in his chat room on his live broadcast.

It seems he wants to use the raiding power and nerd dominance of /b/ for his own purposes:

I am extending an olive branch to /b/. Guys and gals at /b/... Help me fight the good fight. Lets take on the man.

Although he does know what he's talking about, and has obviously visited the board more than a few times:

Find the haters. Search. Destroy. Fail. Lulz. :)

I think this is going to appeal to alot of /b/tards, since it not only incorporates making someone miserable, but an offbeat weirdo comedian as well. It's a case of like-attracting-like if there ever was one.

Tom's goals aren't exactly clear, but it looks like he first wants to make himself visible in the public eye again, while simultaneously taking on all of the mainstream media and big networks in an attempt to ... get his live broadcast on a network? Tom's message back to me helps make things more clear. He's not interested in "taking on the media", but rather distributing attention and wealth to those who deserve it, and not the networks. Apply the concepts of music piracy, and how it doesn't actually effect the artists that much, to TV shows, and you'll get the basic point.

I agree that things could/should/would be done alot different, if the networks didn't have such absolute control, but there's a line- shows like "Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles" just simply wouldn't be the same if they were done on an independent budget. However, I think the world would be alot better off with less network-controlled brainwash crap (American Idol or Survivor, anyone?)... the talkshow-type programs should leave the networks first, since they're easier to produce, followed by the more scripted/planned shows. For example, Conan O'Brien could easily flourish in an online/independent format, as well as "It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia", a cheap-to-produce comedy/sitcom.

I'm not sure this is the tipping point, yet, even though Tom seems to think so... but I think it's coming. Between independent content creators/publishers and sites like Hulu that allow a more user-oriented viewing experience, change is coming.

And it's not just Barack Obama that's bringing it.

--- --- ---

Update (3/12/2009 5:40pm PST): I sent Tom a message after writing this and got a response back. Details above have been edited to reflect his clarifications:

Thanks Kyle. I read your blog. Let me be a bit more clear. No this is not about getting my show on a network. This is about becoming the network. And giving all of you the opportunity to do the same. Most shows on TV cost a million dollars an episode to produce if not more. Why? Because the network has massive costs and overheard. Indy broadcasters don't have that. SO we don't need 50 million viewers. We can do really well with 1 million viewers. But if 50 indy broadcasters suddenly had a million viewers each, then this is going to cut into the TV ratings. SO the big biys are trying to keep The Channel down. They don't want this to work. All independent thinking rebels online should unite! Lets go after the big guys! Just like I get bigger lulz watching somebody prank CSPAN on the phone, then when they prank here. Because they really don't get it. I do get it. We have to go after the people that don't get it. This is about creating a business model for independent artists that works. Then we can all take our slice of the media, and end TV networks as we know it. All the networks control is the talent. But this is because they control the money. If the talent can go directly to the consumer, because of the ability to do so on the internet, then the big networks will eventually become obsolete. Just like musicians can now go directly to the consumer, this will end the big record companies as we know it. So here is the deal. We need to all collectively support people online who are doing non conventional independent stuff. You wonder why AOL Time Warner is attacking this website in the blogs online? TMZ etc? Because they don't want this web show to work. We get double the ratings of TMZ.com on our video downloads. People are downloading 40 million videos a month. They don't even come to tomgreen.com to do so. They are downloading and watching through embedded files all over the internet. This is the reason why Alexa has TMZ ahead of us, when really more people are watching video on The Channel. Alexa doesn't account for embedded downloads... This is our biggest viewership. Lets go after the big boys. We have them running scared!! If this works, others will copy. And they will lose control of the content. Then They will lose control of the media. This is happening fast now. Sorry if I am not being totally clear. The main point is this. Any blogger who works for the big broadcasters or media outlets who is trash talking little guys like me, well, they deserve to be schooled. They should do their research and stop stomping on the little guy when he is down. Ahhhhhhhh! Charge!!!! All skateboarders and rappers and punk rockers charge!!! Because at the end of the day! We don't give a FUCK!!!! This is the FU generation! So FUCK OFF!!!! TG

Hulu Letter Update [Self]

Kyle Brady — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 23:04:08 +0000

I got back a response from "Rebecca" at Hulu, in regards to my email to them:

Hi Kyle,
Thanks for your email. It's good to know our users are still pulling for shows
like TSCC and Dollhouse. Hulu provides viewership reports to all of its content
partners. Our partners can view this information on demand whenever they like --
so, in other words, viewership on Hulu should be taken into account when networks
determine the next steps for their series.

We're fans of TSCC and Dollhouse ourselves, so we'll continue to do our best to
support the shows by promoting them on our home page and TV page.

Thanks,
Rebecca

An Email to Hulu [Self]

Kyle Brady — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 16:00:36 +0000

I just sent off an email to many different contact email addresses to Hulu because there are already whispers that Dollhouse's premiere "tanked" and the return of Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles "fell"... with complete and utter disregard for the fact that a large portion of the very immense, and devoted, audience watches the content through methods that are not on a "live TV" distribution schedule.

I believe it is Hulu's duty, as the first legitimate and popular, online TV distribution system to convince the networks that the online viewers are no different than those who watch it when the network believes people should.

Otherwise, shows will continue to be canceled despite large audiences and cult followings, and regardless of the high quality of the show itself.

The email:

I wanted to point out something obvious, in case you guys haven't thought of it.

"Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles" is one of the best TV shows in existence right now, let alone the fact that it's SciFi. But TV networks are full of retards who jump off a bridge at the first sign of a non-mainstream audience.

And for shows like "Dollhouse", and "Terminator", a majority of the viewers are nerds. Which also means you're probably seeing very high views through your service on each new episode within, say, a week of it's premiere on TV.

What I'm getting at is this: FOX has moved "Terminator" to Friday nights, and "Dollhouse" started on Friday nights... they're not even giving the ratings a chance. But in addition, I don't believe they include the viewership from legitimate services like their online distribution, or Hulu itself. And people are already whispering about how "Dollhouse" "tanked" in the ratings, and "Terminator" "fell". I bet your stats would disagree.

This needs to be something that you impress upon your content suppliers. Not only should you provide them statistics, weekly, on what is watched, and by how many people, but you should also be constantly repeating that these viewers count no less than the "live TV" version does. If a network cancels a show because they don't get enough live viewers, when a large part of their audience actually watches it online, that's complete crap.

Networks need to realize that the future of video media is not schedule-based TV, but rather "on demand" content, with the Internet as a viable and legitimate source. And by continuing to kill and maim, intentionally, some of the best shows, they are reinforcing the Old World media mindset that nothing but the-night-of views count.

Which, again, is crap.

“Smallville”… A Kyle Brady Success Story [Self]

Kyle Brady — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 03:27:59 +0000

Remember my letter to the CW?

It turns out they listened to me, and are going to have at least one more season (Season 9) after this one concludes sometime in the Spring.

A Letter to the CW [Self]

Kyle Brady — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 06:34:14 +0000

Since I am an avid follower of Smallville, but do not watch it on the TV itself, per se, I wanted to somehow contribute my two cents to both the network and the show... the rumors that this is the last season are far too depressing, given how amazing the last 8 episodes have been, to let them be true.

So I wrote them a note expressing just these feelings.

I just wanted to let you know that this season of Smallville is BY FAR the best season yet, no matter what some of the critics say.

This is what I have been waiting for: seeing Clark Kent start to develop the Superman character, and slowly realize what that means... along with the "Lois and Clark" dynamic that is so absolutely crucial to the characters of both Clark Kent and Superman.

I would even go as far as to say that having Lana, Lex, and Lionel out of the picture is a good thing (despite how I felt at the end of the last season), because this allows more room to focus on the core of the show, and the reason it was created in the first place: Clark Kent -> Superman.

I'm a little sad because I know that Chloe will most likely die by the end of this season, or the next ("God willing" there's another season), because of the continuity, but I understand this. Do not let fan emotions cloud the judgment that is necessary to execute both fully and properly the needs of the show.

I believe that this should NOT be the end of Smallville, but rather the beginning of the end, giving Clark time to fully develop into Superman. Another season, at minimum, would be required to do so in a believable fashion, and I hope that both you (the network) and the writers realize this.

The ratings for the past seasons may have been slowly slipping, and I'm not aware of the current ratings, but I hope not being "the top slot" does not dissuade you from completing what is, at this point, very obvious and necessary to both the legions of fans and the mythos of Superman himself.

In my eyes, and the eyes of many others, you have done for Superman what the recent Batman movies have done for him: reinvigorated a concept that had fallen on hard times, allowing those of us who grew up with these characters to once again find them all too real.