For Charles Carmichael And Hollywood Producers

Well I'm da dream Docta. I'm one of few people interested enough to set much time to dream study and have uncovered some serious Gold that is fundamental to understanding the functions of the dream state, dream telepathy, interactive dreams and the few more things relevant to dream study.

I treat many of my findings like scientific theory that is milliseconds away from being declared a scientific law.

I wanted to tie a dream into a discussion about why most TV shows don't last and why most see a steady decline in viewers and then discuss a pure solution. Hollywood producer? This article may help you tremendously.

So Zachary Levi shows up in a dream last night... at least parts of his energy field did.

I say back and watched someone connected to Zach's former show playing out a scenario where he captures a good guy and holds the guy for ransom in exchange for what he's really after: A little more of the same.

On the television show Chuck this happened to some degree in most episodes.

Obviously it must have been a joke, right? Their show could have work under the right direction and writers. A true master at production knows how to direct each actor to his highest performance.

Wouldn't it be great to take an action adventure comedy drama and make it a success?

The reality is it would take a lot of innovation and passion just to make 1 season of pure quality in this genre. The easier genres are the ones that have more success. Murder mystery shows don't need to have much more than a few good actors and a few good plot twists to have much success.

I'm still waiting for someone to ask me to solve the problems of their business and Hollywood TV shows often fail for reasons that can be avoided.

It would be great if someone held a gun to my head and asked me to fix the problems with their approach to their TV show in exchange for some generous pay. Of course, that is, as long as they're just acting.

The office began to get a bit stale because of their approach to it. Parks and Recreation would have done a lot better if they would have exploited a very unique and effective way to make their show stand out as one of a kind simply by employing the kind of humor I didn't see until a judge denied Tom Haverford use his iphone for the small eternity that he was awarded.

Almost cartoon like humor, the show could have taken that niche and ran with it as long as they didn't over-exploit it. People want to see top of the top innovation and performance in television but it's very hard to do this with much success without breaking down how a cast can really carry their performance to the viewer. In the first few seasons I also noted that Amy Poehler was trying too hard. Trying too hard actually creates a toxic result. When it comes to performance any performer just needs to do their best with what's been given them. If what's been given to them kinda sucks then they have two choices: Contribute to come up with some better ideas as replacement or just watch the show drop in ratings and popularity.

Unique conceptual ideas can carry a production franchise only so far. Innovation with how to be creative is much more important but much more difficult to do properly. For Parks and recreation their idea to rule on Tom was a perfect example of how to innovate their show but although an avid fan will see a rise in emotion and entertainment this isn't enough to earn back old viewers.
What most Hollywood and TV writers don't realize is that to keep the audience's interest they must pay a constant upkeep cost in innovation, creative ideas and scaling performances by the actors.
The innovation needs to be audience grabbing.
The creative ideas need to be constantly expanding in a positive direction for the show. This can be very difficult and only a few shows pull it off, but not consistently. The Office pulled this off well in a few circumstances, but inconsistently. How do you know this in hind-sight? It's the episodes that people remember that this was done well. I can say that the Office's batting average was about 1/3 in good seasons and 1/5 in bad seasons. To keep viewers the number needs to be at least 1/2.

And the last thing that many shows fail to do properly is: Ask their actors to scale in performance. Don't just ask them, help them to materialize a better performance.
A good director can do this. Sam Rami appears to have pulled it off with the Spiderman movies he did.

The only way this can be done is through A) demanding it or B) inspiring it. Sam Rami appears to have had success this way because the actors wanted to remain on his good side.

I remember seeing Jared Padalecki's performance peak in the last season of Supernatural in just one episode. He went from the normal guy we know to a man able to summon pure convincing power and the Charisma to match it. 1 episode and I can't remember which one it was.

The inspiration route gets an actor to more joy-filled or convincing performances.
Most directors seem to operate under the premise that the actor needs to show up ready to be as good or better at what he does on his own but this is never enough.

So to answer the question as to why a show loses viewers and tanks is one more time: The producers and actors aren't willing to pay the upkeep cost for the show:

Innovation, scaling Creative ideas and scaling performances by the actors. Eventually a staff should call it quits once they've exhausted their ability to innovate and scale creative ideas consistently. The scaling performances by actors needs to be a constant and TV shows and directors will find the need to do these things absolute necessities to ensure their productions have success. The people that can't see and connect to these basic ideas will be left behind because those that see them will be bringing in the money because the pure success of their productions.
TheTristman TheTristman
26-30, M
Jan 11, 2013