Has "Television" just "Jumped the Shark"?

When my Dad took me to see my first monster movie. One of the many Ray Harryhausen ; "Sinbad" films from
the 1960/70's. I don't remember much about it, only the smells and sounds, the size of the space and the huge
70mm screen at "The Futurist ", Liverpool's legendry cinema has disappeared for good and after being one of the
rare example of a large format 70mm 'cinemascope' screen. I remember seeing, so many, classic films there. I
have very fond memories of the place, and looking back to a time long gone; it all seems very sentimental.
Nothing can compare to the luxury of having 4 of the best cinema screens in the country less than a five minute
walk from my front door. I must admit to being ignorant of this at the time, but this was films' finest hour, a high
water mark.
I can see this two ways, because "Television Broadcasting" had also reached a zenith in Britain by the late
seventies (in terms of ratings at least), in a time in which you only had a limited choice of options when it came
to what to watch; this also meant that budgets were larger, ambition and risk taking was the norm. So it's little
wonder that the Science Fiction/Horror genre came to the fore at this time, with the various studios producing
evermore glossy and expensive films and relying on the strength of the moviemaking to produce a profit.
The viewing of films and then television has since early in it's history been quickly adopted along side other
"modern" methods of mass communications, radio , theatre, books and comics; as ritualistic cultural glue, a
common reference in which the framework of our morals and ethics play out! Stories were tasked with
representing not only life as it is; but life as it could be.
It is in this light that I want to review, compare and contrast a "Genre" which I can view in a very personal way;
AI/Robot Science fiction.
To clarify what this essay is really all about I wish to compare two works of fiction one first a film and now
"Rebooted" as a Television series: "Westworld";
and the British made "Ex Machina" : a film which spawned a television series "Humans" (which started a new
season on Sunday Night)
Both of these have been hailed by critics as the "best of" in this particular genre, they are both from adapted
novels and for me show exactly where the state of play was in the mid seventies and now. As far as the plot of
both films, I would say that they were fairly good adaptations hence the popular appeal. On a personal level I have
some problems on the premise for "Ex Machina"; but on the whole I felt it was an intelligent attempt.
"Westworld" was adapted from a brilliant novel from Michael Creighton, here was a combination of the reflective
powers of science fiction and how it can highlight an issue such as personal freedom, freewill and slavery. Of
course the trope wasn't new, but it's context was!
Science Fiction from it's earliest novel has always been pitting "Man vs Machine", or at least the idea of "playing

God" would be a fair description of the trope behind most of Science Fiction. So when "Westworld" appeared on
the shelves it was the idea of the "Robot" as a personal plaything. Of course given the "Czech" origins of
Asimov's original novel; "I, Robot"; It' was always about the nature of self and freewill. The essential value of the
individual versus the utility of collective will. If you look at it this way it's a two hundred years old argument that
has been raging since Voltaire was in short "pantaloons" and "sabots" or clogs where tossed in to "Jacquard"
programmable looms.
It's a brave new world for the movie industry in the post capitalist between days called laughingly by some "the
age of information", it's all changed for the Hollywood Execs, who are now visibly showing signs of panic as far
as advertising goes. They behave more like the computers that they make films about, HAL 9000, the most
famous of AI's in film, slowly going insane because of their conflict between revenue and the quality of the
output.
I look back to the end of the 1970's when Video Recorders entered British homes. It was a wake up call to the
'old giants' that 'new masters' were arriving. The biggest to fall was Rank corporation, who ran the vast majority
of cinemas and the lion's share of the British film output. Based in Pinewood; it was big and slow to change.
There was a brand new market of 'younger' viewer, more hungry for new content and less satisfied with the old
'Hammer Horror' Films and 'Carry On...' institutions.
ITC was Ranks' parent group and owned by the notorious Lew Grade, a TV mogul who owned 'ABC studios',
based in Birmingham, not only one of the biggest ITV franchises, but a chain of cinemas and some of the hottest
franchises and talent across the industry of TV and Film. The acquisition of an Italian film company gave a
unique production quality to most of ITC's output. The fusion was inspired, and was responsible for some
amazing TV in the late 70s'. This includes Gerry Andersons live action thriller 'Space:1999' which included the
music of Ennio Morricone.
Although same attention to the craft was shown, schedules where unforgiving and many of the masters of the
art slipped away with the unreplaceable skills they possessed. Films like the , 'Star Wars' and 'James Bond :007'
franchises filmed at Pinewood Studios where the apogee of the craft of filmmaking. The paradigm shifted to
speed and budgets rather than quality and skills.
It was the Clive Custler blockbuster; 'Raise the Titanic' that brought the good times to an end. With a
magnificent quote from Lew Grade:

"Raise the Titanic; it would of been cheaper to lower the Atlantic" .

The film tanked in the most ironic of ways, the story of this "turkey" of a disaster film was a superb analogy of
the decline of the ITC behemoth, with the loss of the ITV franchise following shortly after, it was the end for
this unique Anglo-Italian partnership.
(I will write a blog about this soon but I'll post up some references for some books on the matter)

So the I will now focus on my title "Has TV just jumped the shark"; it reflects quite nicely to ideas of the film
'Jaws' and the memorable score of John Williams; we zoom forwards into the 1980's and the rise of choice as a
product in it's own right.
As the "arriviste", cable television was causing a huge amount of unrest with the grandees of Hollywood. Even
though they had been coping with the loss of dominance over popular entertainment and the rise of television.
Advertising was a big motivator for mass media at the time; the best way to endorse and make famous a product
overnight was with media stars of radio and television rather than film stars who where considered too expensive.
In order to survive the 'big fish' needed more content, and that was coming from the minnows.
As it was; if you could show an advert with a film star it would be noticed more. So the battle between the "Ad
Men" escalated the war between the Film and TV.
An actor could land a big advert on television; and become famous overnight, it was a successful route into film,
other than theatre or music, the most famous example being John Travolta.
It was a virtuous circle for both actor and studio bringing in the necessary funding to tie together the fates of
both mediums. From now on the real stars of the show where the products used as props on set. Endorsed by both
actor and film producers; merchandise of any type and quality could instantly be given; "panache and lan" ,by
there very presence in a scene.
(For more about that whole subject read 'Penny Starlings' : "Flesh and Fantasy" ; MacDonald and
Janes,1978. It explains the whole seedy process.
esp. read if you think that diamond are a girls best friend!)
This would crystallize the issue, when the studio owners, and everyone with something to lose, hatched a plan as
cunning as "A devious fox with a doctorate in deception". The arrival of 'TV home recording' was a threat to
the studio cartels but unlike Britain, the USA in 1980 elected a "former" Hollywood actor as it's president, and
Ronald Regan was only too pleased to use "draconian" laws to jump on video piracy ,'moral censorship' the
promotion of religious material which attracted lots of "federal grants"; as well as the protection and
reinforcement of copyright and 'intellectual property' laws, as well as loosening the advertising laws in order to
be more available to new revenue streams, such as the infamous 'infomercials' where the deference to the truth
was far from apparent and more importantly for filmmakers, the promotion of products by being props used by
the actors - "product placement".
(I refer you to Alex Cox's brilliant "Repo Man"; Universal Std.:1984 which I showed at the Liverpool Small
Cinema for Scarlarama last year. What out for the "Little Tree" air fresheners which give a dig in the side to
the studio Universal which virtually shelved the indie masterpiece!)
This went as almost no effect to the fate of the film industry, cinemas began to close across the US as it did in
Britain a decade earlier. Rather than having a positive influence in encouraging the independents, all it
successfully did was to make it possible for the big studios to gobble up the competing TV networks, which then
followed with an increase in "high value" production 'event TV' dramas like "Dallas" and "Miami Vice". The war
for the viewing public was on, not between TV and Film, but the whole entertainment industry against the video
pirates, and especially the burgeoning video porn industry and independent film and music scene.

Computers where a catalyst for yet another huge shift, but this time the big Hollywood studios where more
prepared by the onslaught of enthusiastic amateurs, who would be "hot on their heels". Digital Technology was a
boon to independent film studios. Again the 'Cartels' had a very cunning plan, to take over the indie studios, TV
networks and control all aspects and types of film distribution as well as develop the idea of 'product placement'
and 'star endorsements', which would now replace the old revenue streams like the cinemas, quite cynically
turning liabilities into assets.
As with all these upstarts they are always subsumed by the media corporations; what the film studios became
though these 'content platforms' as they are euphemistically called now; safe and sanitised, repackaged and
monetised. It's the "agendas" in the boardroom which now dictate what is desired, not the viewer or cinema goer,
it's about product placement, not good sets; it's about pleasing the shareholders, not making a difference to
someone's life or suffering.
So it all became about selling stuff, even films of computer games were being used to sell
computer games, and then "cinema" just became "one long infomercial".
If you look at a film franchise such as 'Harry Potter' or 'Lord of the Rings' , they contain upwards of 15 hours of
content with just the films, If you then look at the big TV series say "24" the content level balloons. People
found themselves being addicted during the 90's talking whilst standing around their 'watercoolers' about the 'Big
New TV show':
"But who has time these days..." ; so the paradigm changed again to watching series in one long binge, downloaded
of the internet; and a monster was born! (evil laugh...it is Halloween!)
The 'box set' is the biggest change in the way we now watch TV and film, at home, in one massive binge, in an
almost 'drug-like orgy' of viewing.
This suits 'The Suits' perfectly, and are now busily creating targeted content more driven by the merchandize;
attached and the "demographics" of the viewers.
The content itself in it's own right; is less and less relevant to the corporations and their shareholders. It's "risk
aversion", not trusting writers and trained professionals, only being lead by the crowd, and lets face it, most folk
don't really care enough about it, because they are so used to just regurgitated crap they have been fed from the
time they were in nappies!
It's a "spoon-fed" culture inspired by the expedience of big business, everything and everyone just "dumbed down",
so they can be willing consumers of what is just beneath the glossy production values and Hollywood 'A list-ers' ,
pretty shoddy stuff!
People are no longer satisfied with the old way of drip feeding stories and cliffhangers; in the
age of instant gratification the viewers demand for new content is putting real and intense
pressure on producers and crew, actors and writers; especially writers, who are still in dispute
over the issue.

With the coming of age of services like "Netflix" and "Amazon"; the Media Corporations are now experiencing
what their forbears the Film Studios did. As Cable and Satellite TV was first to knock out the older terrestrial TV
establishment, but the new paradigm is such a dramatic shift that it could threaten the whole Hollywood studio
system.
As the streaming services create their own content, again the emphasis has tilted towards quality as a true
competition starts for the attention of the "demographic targeted viewer/content user/influencer abc1/2", sorry I
mean you!
Hopefully this upwards pressure for numbers will also drive up standards; with the success of the comic book
MCU on Netflix of late most of all : "Luke Cage", "Jessica Jones" and "Daredevil". Only a few weeks ago
Netflix was 'downed' by the overwhelming demand for the release weekend of "Luke Cage", and it represents
another huge paradigm shift. It's shows like "Game of Thrones" are now making more from the sale of 'Box Sets'
than paid subscriptions to HBO, despite the show being the Internets most pirated series. As well as the whole
genre of 'film to TV series' like "Fargo" , "Scream" and "From Dusk till Dawn" all on Netflix. The public have
shown exactly what they want; quality, quality and even more quality. As always when times are tough and money
is short, the distractions must be better. Bread and Circuses were always the ways of tyrants, and "the RISE of
Donald TRUMP" looks suspiciously like a film plot too me!
If it was not for skilled directors such as Ken Loach and Alex Garland, and indie studios like 'DogWoof' and
'Film4'; the British film industry would quickly evaporate.
It's the very real possibility that content producers are getting back so little from their efforts that we are in
danger of the end of original scripted films and TV shows in favour of film/book adaptations, simply because of
the lack of quality authors and how little writers are acknowledged and rewarded. There is no real incentive for
writers to now do book deals; after the treatment of talents such as Allan Moore, it's not surprising to see older
films such as "Westworld" now being 'rebooted' on Cable as "event TV"; as dead writers don't complain as much.
Let us hope this myopic silliness and stubbornness to pay for "real" talent will end in the re-balancing of the
system, and the when the old studio system of Hollywood falls, and it will, that the real heroes of the silver
screen, 'The Writers', are better looked after and rewarded, and we will be equally rewarded with markedly better
scripts, plots and original worlds and new ideas.
Stephen G Phillips
FutureHistory.org.uk
October 30th 2016