- May 2, 2008
- Reaction score
My sentiments exactly. I agree that showing kids playing in abandoned construction sites doesn't work outside of the 70's, but other than that, Sesame lost its street cred in recent years. I've been joking about how Sesame Street has been gentrified with skits about Yoga (unironically) and making sushi. But this move to HBO first... funny how I made jokes about how no one should be able to afford to live there when it turns out, the ones getting pushed out of the neighborhood are the viewers.How ironic that a show that was originally designed to reach children of all income brackets is going to a premium cable channel.
I dunno... if HBO airs a full hour series and only gives the half hour version to PBS, that's...actually worse.Question: Nothing is really said in the articles about HBO that they'll be carrying the show as a 30-minute program. Is it too much to assume that HBO will air the show as 60-minutes, while PBS will shorten it to 30?
Off topic, but I agree to that and I have a problem with CN's only one night a week of new episodes and every night is the same line up. It's working for them, and it's keeping the awful live action shows away, so I can't complain about that. But I think about how they just burned through the Tom and Jerry Show episodes just to put the reruns on Boomerang.Another good case is Warner Bros.'s "Wabbit: a Looney Tunes Production" and "Be Cool Scooby-Doo" going to air on Boomerang, instead of regular Cartoon Network. Only a small percentage of people in America get Boomerang, so this means the shows may wind up getting low ratings.
On the subject of the half hour format... I agree completely that the whole trying to be the competitors with the programming block thing (though clearly influenced by international Sesame Street series) was a mixed bag. I'm not really a fan of how it turned out, and those expensive segments drained money from the rest of the show. And, obviously, it was too expensive to produce more than a handful of those segments anyway, leading to massive reruns wasting footage. Losing them does shorten the series up a bunch. So, that's a positive...even though Crumby pictures was good. It's weird that a half hour's too little and a full hour's too much.Eliminating the full-hour version is indeed disheartening, but to be fair, the show in recent years might as well have been called Sesame Street Presents: The Sesame Street Programming Block Extravaganza Starring Elmo and Abby. And the premieres on HBO are just as baffling. It's bad enough they kept Fraggle Rock all to themselves and didn't so much as allow other networks to air it on Saturday mornings, forcing kids to settle with a short-lived animated series instead.
Ah, yes. Newt Gingrich. Ol' bastion of moralities Gingrich who cheated on and later dumped his cancer stricken wife all the while going after Clinton for lying about sex. And is STILL a respected member of the GOP Gingrich. Yeah, small political rant, the PBS thing is spite and nothing but. Mainly because they have a liberal bias and, even though a huge cable news outlet, countless radio stations, countlessHaving connected the dots from other threads and circumstantial evidence, my assumption for the past few years has been that this all started when Newt Gingrich's Congress initiated dramatic cuts to PBS's budget. That would have been in 1995 or '96----maybe someone here knows for sure. It was very shortly after that that Sesame Street took its first major hit. They were still able to deliver 130 hours for the 1997-98 year----the last true season of the "old" show----but with the 1998 season it had been cut in half to 65. Then 50. Then 26. Very quickly.
Why are we teaching children to make transactions over the internet? You need a credit card to do that: are we teaching kids to swipe their parents' credit cards and risk not only ruining their credit scores, but making them vulnerable for possible credit fraud and theft of both credit and personal information?“Yesterday’s DVD is today’s SVOD,” he said, a reference to subscription video-on-demand services like Netflix and Amazon that have grown in popularity among children.
And yet, they aren't opposed to giving big fat cash subsidies to oil companies. I get the whole "government shouldn't govern" bit, but the PBS thing seems a little extra spiteful than most. I do indeed get the concept of not publicly funding the arts, and can sort of see that point of view, but with PBS, they seem to go from "government shouldn't waste money on culture" to "we need to get rid of these guys because we hate them that much." The fact that the programs are left leaning (and the fact that in the mid-00's try tried right leaning programming that failed miserably) does open things up to conspiracy. The Postcards from Buster episodes (gay couple and Muslim kids) playing into their hands. Not to mention that underground right wing gotcha "journalist" (who's name I can't recall at the moment) set up that sting operation to destroy PBS and NPR with his special brand of overly edited videos. So seriously, that's a lot of aggression towards "we shouldn't spend government money" focused on one outlet. I don't see what discrediting them and saying "they're brainwashing kids to be tolerant" has over "this is your money, wasted." There's a sinister angle if they're that opposed to it.It's not that they regard PBS as a "threat"----it's that they are simply ideologically opposed to the government providing any kind of funding for art/culture. (Just as they are opposed to Social Security, Medicaid, and all other such programs for ideological reasons----they do not believe, plainly and simply, that the government should, or even Constitutionally CAN, create such services. This stance has little to do with the results of the programs, which is why they are forced to manufacture distortions about their effectiveness and financial outlook in order to convince people of their position's credibility.)
I really think that entertainment companies home video divisions are systematically trying to sabotage their own physical media so they can go to much cheaper, much more sweathearty deals with streaming. I can go on a huge rant about how this is going to hurt them and how Brick and mortar stores are depleted and cost jobs... but all and all, streaming isn't a bad thing, but obsolete media does have a place when these deals strike out or the net's down. I'm sure a lot of SW's revenue did come from home video sales, and this is kinda a blow to them. But then again, they sat out the merchandising fiesta that would have been the 45th anniversary. While that probably wouldn't have saved them completely, some nice merch probably would have funded them enough to stave this off a year.Here's another article giving more detail as to why SW made this move:
Dwindling DVD sales really explains why everyone of their DVDs this year as been Elmo-centric.