February 18, 2012
An interesting story of interest that caught on world wide is the reported death of actor Neil Hope best known for the character of Wheels on the original Degrassi High. The fact that the death took place nearly five years ago, and was just reported this week give an example of some the pitfalls of the acting profession, and the enduring popularity of Degrassi.
I never really have bought into Degrassi myself. I was in elementary school when Degrassi Junior High was becoming all the rage. All through out my school days it was a a huge hit either the new epiosdes or repeats. The only time I really watched was the whole Spike's pregnancy storyline which was being plubicized like crazy. However I never really enjoyed soaps. Never got on the bandwagon and didn't watch for much longer though my class mates did.
Hope's life pretty much read like a Degrassi story line. Both his parents suffered from alcholism, his father dying of serocious. While the rest of the cast managed to stay connected he seemed to drop out of everything. In the articles written about him there were people trying to get in touch with him and were unsucessful. Basically those who did know had kept his death a secret until now.
Degrassi's popularity worldwide I find staggering. Degrassi was a huge hit on the CBC, but at the titme wasn't airing anywhere in the US. It was wasn't until years later that the shows began apearing on PBS stations. I was not aware of the American popularity of Degrassi until Kevin Smith began refering to the show in his films.
Saturday 18 February 2012
Friday 10 February 2012
The continuing Americanization and devaluing of Canadian television
February 10, 2012
Later this spring Canadian viewers will have even more channels to select on their digital television packages, but if they are expecting anything new and original they are mistaken. That being said, if they like a certain show they can get more of it.
Most of the new wave of upcoming channels are repackaged versions of well known American brands whoes programing is already commonly seen on Canadian television. All we are getting is same American shows with the American brand name, and less Canadian content.
The first is ABC Spark which will launch March 26. This Corus-Disney partnership will estenially rebroadcast the ABC family channel's lineup of teen soap operas including The Secret Life of the American Teenager and Switched at Birth, which already air on Bell owned Much. In addition to the established shows Spark will air many new offerings from ABC Family which continues to expand its lineup of dramas aimed at young audiences.
An odd twist in this is Corus's involvement in the new station. As mentioned a lot of ABC Family's shows have been airing on Much, owned by Bell. The former 24 hour music station has been airing an increasing selection of dramas not only from ABC family, but from other American broadcasters such the CW and their own productions including Degrassi. It is a lucractive market but it surprising that Bell did not enter this market.
A more logical move was Astral owned Teletoon exporting the american channel Cartoon Network/Adult Swim to Canadian digitial broadcasting. For those unfamilar the once 24 hours Cartoon Network in the US converted their programing from 9pm to 6am to live action and animated subversive comedy. Most of it has been airing in on Teletoon under the heading of teletoon at night. However CRTC regulations prevented Teletoon from airing live action shows such as Childrens Hospital. That being said most live action Adult Swim shows have wound up on G4 television. No air date yet has been set for the launch of Cartoon Network/Adult Swim.
Both of these channels will be available on digitial platform, persumable free for a limited period of time before being offered in upper tier pacakages.
Later this spring Canadian viewers will have even more channels to select on their digital television packages, but if they are expecting anything new and original they are mistaken. That being said, if they like a certain show they can get more of it.
Most of the new wave of upcoming channels are repackaged versions of well known American brands whoes programing is already commonly seen on Canadian television. All we are getting is same American shows with the American brand name, and less Canadian content.
The first is ABC Spark which will launch March 26. This Corus-Disney partnership will estenially rebroadcast the ABC family channel's lineup of teen soap operas including The Secret Life of the American Teenager and Switched at Birth, which already air on Bell owned Much. In addition to the established shows Spark will air many new offerings from ABC Family which continues to expand its lineup of dramas aimed at young audiences.
An odd twist in this is Corus's involvement in the new station. As mentioned a lot of ABC Family's shows have been airing on Much, owned by Bell. The former 24 hour music station has been airing an increasing selection of dramas not only from ABC family, but from other American broadcasters such the CW and their own productions including Degrassi. It is a lucractive market but it surprising that Bell did not enter this market.
A more logical move was Astral owned Teletoon exporting the american channel Cartoon Network/Adult Swim to Canadian digitial broadcasting. For those unfamilar the once 24 hours Cartoon Network in the US converted their programing from 9pm to 6am to live action and animated subversive comedy. Most of it has been airing in on Teletoon under the heading of teletoon at night. However CRTC regulations prevented Teletoon from airing live action shows such as Childrens Hospital. That being said most live action Adult Swim shows have wound up on G4 television. No air date yet has been set for the launch of Cartoon Network/Adult Swim.
Both of these channels will be available on digitial platform, persumable free for a limited period of time before being offered in upper tier pacakages.
Monday 6 February 2012
Can you keep up with the changes to your signal provider?
Use to be the question was cable or antenna. It was a simple choice to make at times, especially depending on where you live and what channel you wanted to watch. However in the last couple of years consumers not only have more options, but digitial braodcast has made the antenna viable again, and the internet has put most of the top shows on the internet. There is now insentives not pay monthly for television (especially if your paying monthly for internet) at a time when so many choice for cable, satelite, and broadband.
The day after a big Super Sunday launch Shaw rolled out it's new EXO service only weeks after unvieling it's Gateway service to compete with the telecoms. Telus continues their marketing push of Optik with the launch of computer and tablet service. Satalite is loosing out on the hype factor, but still offer larger channel lineups (and potentially higher rates) than the locals.
So what is all this anyway? What is EXO? EXO is called an 'upgraded network" which simly allows more information to be passed through the system. More signal leading to higher quality pictures, and a 1080p picture, at a time when most braodcasters do not braodcast at 1080p. Of the many hyped features includes more on demand programing and a faster top internet speed, along with the ability to watch on demand prograing on tablets and smart phones.
In many ways it was more of the same. The same shows and movies you could already see, but viewers now have the ability to see it from more devices any time they want.
The weird thing with Shaw it is not a case of getting customers, it's hanging on to those they already have. Most houses and apartments are already wired or were wired at some point with Shaw's equipment, as they were also wired with the phone company's equipment. EXO and gateway is Shaw's way of hanging onto customers that Telus, MTS, and Bell will try to take way.
While some people are sheding their teleivsion they will still need internet and Shaw and telus have a lock on that in Vancouver. Telus in many ways have the upper hand with introductary rates, and gifts. This is of course in exchange for a three year commitment, by then who knows what the landscape will be like. All Shaw can promise is no comitments and a competetive rate. But in many ways broadband and television through cable is more reliable service.
Are you sticking with Cable or going to the phone company?
The day after a big Super Sunday launch Shaw rolled out it's new EXO service only weeks after unvieling it's Gateway service to compete with the telecoms. Telus continues their marketing push of Optik with the launch of computer and tablet service. Satalite is loosing out on the hype factor, but still offer larger channel lineups (and potentially higher rates) than the locals.
So what is all this anyway? What is EXO? EXO is called an 'upgraded network" which simly allows more information to be passed through the system. More signal leading to higher quality pictures, and a 1080p picture, at a time when most braodcasters do not braodcast at 1080p. Of the many hyped features includes more on demand programing and a faster top internet speed, along with the ability to watch on demand prograing on tablets and smart phones.
In many ways it was more of the same. The same shows and movies you could already see, but viewers now have the ability to see it from more devices any time they want.
The weird thing with Shaw it is not a case of getting customers, it's hanging on to those they already have. Most houses and apartments are already wired or were wired at some point with Shaw's equipment, as they were also wired with the phone company's equipment. EXO and gateway is Shaw's way of hanging onto customers that Telus, MTS, and Bell will try to take way.
While some people are sheding their teleivsion they will still need internet and Shaw and telus have a lock on that in Vancouver. Telus in many ways have the upper hand with introductary rates, and gifts. This is of course in exchange for a three year commitment, by then who knows what the landscape will be like. All Shaw can promise is no comitments and a competetive rate. But in many ways broadband and television through cable is more reliable service.
Are you sticking with Cable or going to the phone company?
Wednesday 1 February 2012
Happy Aniversary Dave!
Today marks David Letterman's 30th aniversary in Late Night Television. Yes it was this day in 1982 that these images were first chucked into the airwaves, a world where all the phony glitz of showbiz was revealed for what it is.
From the creepy opening from ex night nurse Calvert DeForest to the glitzy Rainbow Room opening the early signs of Letterman's ground breaking humor are in full display in this first show.
Letterman's humor and style have evolved in the three decades since this aired. I could sight the top ten changes in Dave's style but I'll just stick to three.
1. Tightness
Many argue that Dave has gotten tame as time progressed. THe reasons for the argument is that the outlandish expariementing that Dave attempted in the early NBC days is not evident in the current show. In addition the show's move to 11:30pm in 1993, plus the advent of cable with comedians like Jon Stewart and Bill Maher makes Dave seem like a creature of the past.
However the modern Late Show still makes a lot of moves out of left field and in many ways Dave contains the same edge as the modern comedian but has never lost his goofiness. The big differences is that what would have been a silly expariment that would last several minutes, perhaps even the entire show are not cut down to thirty or sixty seconds. In addition the easy going style seems to have given way to more sharper improvised wit. Instead of a host that seemed to be stunned about the sillyness of what was going on he takes command of it. He has gotten much better at imrpvoising stories, and taking up host chat reminisant of his TV heroes Jack Parr and Regis Philbin.
On NBC guest would not show up or leave early leaving Dave with nothing to do but be very silly in the chaos. That dosent' happen much any more, but when it does happen like when Jaquin Phoenix's stunt apearence was backfiring he siezes the moment to make very exciting television.
2. Adapting to Success
The stage and budget is much bigger but Letterman has always maintained an underdog attitude to the show. For the most it has been justified. Having visited Studio 6H in Rockerfeller Plaza I was amazed how cramped it is. Waiting out in the hallway to enter the studio makes you that you are in the 7 1/2 of the building in "Being John Malkovich". Inside insn't much larger either. I visited the studio in 2000 the night after I had been to David Letterman's current home at the Ed Sullivan theater and the level of luxuriousness and size was light years ahead of where they use to be. Letterman thrived in the cramped suroundings and busy activity of his environment at NBC. However he adapted to the suroundings of 51st and Broadway quite well brining the same energy to the bigger stage.
Now it has helped that Letterman is not the #1 show. Being #2 has helped Letterman keep some cynical edge.
3. The brain works
Letterman has adapted to success by controling his cynicism. In the NBC days the chances a serious guest would get on would be long. Today it is common for a government official or someone making innovations to come on the show. He still has a skeptism and even a pesimism at times and challenges the guests, but it is in a more consturctive fashion. In many ways he has learned from the man he was grooming to be his sucessor, Jon Stewart in the art of challenging the establsihment.
He is now free to express his views and has become friends with the Obama administration, but also the UN's World Food Program and other environmental cuases. He does have a genuine fear of things going wrong. He also has a sense of patriotism which has been obvious since 9/11.
From the creepy opening from ex night nurse Calvert DeForest to the glitzy Rainbow Room opening the early signs of Letterman's ground breaking humor are in full display in this first show.
Letterman's humor and style have evolved in the three decades since this aired. I could sight the top ten changes in Dave's style but I'll just stick to three.
1. Tightness
Many argue that Dave has gotten tame as time progressed. THe reasons for the argument is that the outlandish expariementing that Dave attempted in the early NBC days is not evident in the current show. In addition the show's move to 11:30pm in 1993, plus the advent of cable with comedians like Jon Stewart and Bill Maher makes Dave seem like a creature of the past.
However the modern Late Show still makes a lot of moves out of left field and in many ways Dave contains the same edge as the modern comedian but has never lost his goofiness. The big differences is that what would have been a silly expariment that would last several minutes, perhaps even the entire show are not cut down to thirty or sixty seconds. In addition the easy going style seems to have given way to more sharper improvised wit. Instead of a host that seemed to be stunned about the sillyness of what was going on he takes command of it. He has gotten much better at imrpvoising stories, and taking up host chat reminisant of his TV heroes Jack Parr and Regis Philbin.
On NBC guest would not show up or leave early leaving Dave with nothing to do but be very silly in the chaos. That dosent' happen much any more, but when it does happen like when Jaquin Phoenix's stunt apearence was backfiring he siezes the moment to make very exciting television.
2. Adapting to Success
The stage and budget is much bigger but Letterman has always maintained an underdog attitude to the show. For the most it has been justified. Having visited Studio 6H in Rockerfeller Plaza I was amazed how cramped it is. Waiting out in the hallway to enter the studio makes you that you are in the 7 1/2 of the building in "Being John Malkovich". Inside insn't much larger either. I visited the studio in 2000 the night after I had been to David Letterman's current home at the Ed Sullivan theater and the level of luxuriousness and size was light years ahead of where they use to be. Letterman thrived in the cramped suroundings and busy activity of his environment at NBC. However he adapted to the suroundings of 51st and Broadway quite well brining the same energy to the bigger stage.
Now it has helped that Letterman is not the #1 show. Being #2 has helped Letterman keep some cynical edge.
3. The brain works
Letterman has adapted to success by controling his cynicism. In the NBC days the chances a serious guest would get on would be long. Today it is common for a government official or someone making innovations to come on the show. He still has a skeptism and even a pesimism at times and challenges the guests, but it is in a more consturctive fashion. In many ways he has learned from the man he was grooming to be his sucessor, Jon Stewart in the art of challenging the establsihment.
He is now free to express his views and has become friends with the Obama administration, but also the UN's World Food Program and other environmental cuases. He does have a genuine fear of things going wrong. He also has a sense of patriotism which has been obvious since 9/11.
Hope or a never ending telefon?
On January 31st the CRTC granted a class B licence to a new cable channel called the Philantropy Channel. The station will go on the air on December 12th this year. Here is an excerpt from the station's press release.
"This channel is the first of its kind", said Peter Clarke, founder and President. "Launching The Philanthropy Channel in Canada is especially appropriate because Canadians are world leaders in philanthropy." More than 160,000 charities and non-profit organizations are registered in Canada, over $1.5 billion is dispersed annually by more than 3,000 Canadian philanthropic foundations, and more than 12 million Canadians offers his or her services as a volunteer every year.
Among other things, the network will offer programming about the philanthropic interests of private individuals and foundations, as well as pop-culture icons such as Bill Gates, Bono and Oprah Winfrey.
"The Philanthropy Channel is where like-minded people will be able to share their stories and passion for giving and helping at all levels," Clarke said. "As an independent Canadian broadcaster, we are excited to provide a service that gives voice to those people and organizations that shape social change in our communities and around the world. The Philanthropy Channel will appeal to the philanthropist in all of us."
What the channel seeks to be exactly is kind of foggy. If I am interpreting the press release properly the station is meant to be an outlet for non-profits to promote themselves. Now this is nothing new. Organizations such as World Vision and Foster Parents Plan have been given air time for decades. On a soggy afternoon we've seen Rob Black and Mehgan fellows with strugling families in the third world. Not to mock the work done by these organizations put repetition leads to some cynicism. If the new channel were to give us new orgnaizations and new prespectives there may some impact. Other wise it can easily turn into white noise.
It is certainly a daring concept with many pluses and minuses. To be the home of inspirationaly programming has been the aim of other channels in the past. When Vision launched it seek to a spiritual and inspirational channel, a philosophy it eventually migrated from as it moved up to the triple digits of cable. One and I Channel also seeked for insipiration and have amanged to stay on the air in digitial but have never developed a strong audience. Inspiration was the main goal of the Oprah Winfrey Network (OWN) when it launched in 2011. All it has lead to has been short lived series, many paniced executives, and a money pit.
The intention of the Philanthropy channel are nobel, but easily mocked if it is nothing but 24 hours of starving people played to an endless of loop of Sarah McLoughlin's most melancholly songs. If this is meant to expose viewers to a new world and new ways to give it needs to be selective and careful as to who and what they air. It is all in the execution.
"This channel is the first of its kind", said Peter Clarke, founder and President. "Launching The Philanthropy Channel in Canada is especially appropriate because Canadians are world leaders in philanthropy." More than 160,000 charities and non-profit organizations are registered in Canada, over $1.5 billion is dispersed annually by more than 3,000 Canadian philanthropic foundations, and more than 12 million Canadians offers his or her services as a volunteer every year.
Among other things, the network will offer programming about the philanthropic interests of private individuals and foundations, as well as pop-culture icons such as Bill Gates, Bono and Oprah Winfrey.
"The Philanthropy Channel is where like-minded people will be able to share their stories and passion for giving and helping at all levels," Clarke said. "As an independent Canadian broadcaster, we are excited to provide a service that gives voice to those people and organizations that shape social change in our communities and around the world. The Philanthropy Channel will appeal to the philanthropist in all of us."
What the channel seeks to be exactly is kind of foggy. If I am interpreting the press release properly the station is meant to be an outlet for non-profits to promote themselves. Now this is nothing new. Organizations such as World Vision and Foster Parents Plan have been given air time for decades. On a soggy afternoon we've seen Rob Black and Mehgan fellows with strugling families in the third world. Not to mock the work done by these organizations put repetition leads to some cynicism. If the new channel were to give us new orgnaizations and new prespectives there may some impact. Other wise it can easily turn into white noise.
It is certainly a daring concept with many pluses and minuses. To be the home of inspirationaly programming has been the aim of other channels in the past. When Vision launched it seek to a spiritual and inspirational channel, a philosophy it eventually migrated from as it moved up to the triple digits of cable. One and I Channel also seeked for insipiration and have amanged to stay on the air in digitial but have never developed a strong audience. Inspiration was the main goal of the Oprah Winfrey Network (OWN) when it launched in 2011. All it has lead to has been short lived series, many paniced executives, and a money pit.
The intention of the Philanthropy channel are nobel, but easily mocked if it is nothing but 24 hours of starving people played to an endless of loop of Sarah McLoughlin's most melancholly songs. If this is meant to expose viewers to a new world and new ways to give it needs to be selective and careful as to who and what they air. It is all in the execution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)