theories about television

i have a theory about this whole "lets cancel angel and firefly, but keep crappy shows like charmed and fear factor going" thing: tv stations are afraid of producing intelligent content. that's the only line that works. sure angel was dark, and firefly was odd, but have you looked at those other two shows? the only definitive difference here is that the people who watch the shows that got cancelled are people who like intelligent humour and plots that actually require thought to follow.

"but why would broadcasters want to do such a thing?" you might ask. it's all about lowering the bar my friends. producing crap like fear factor is cheap and easy, but writing a show that keeps people coming back is much, much harder and therefore, more expensive.

now we've seen intelligent tv survive in the past, but shows like csi and star trek appeal to a different audience: 30+. angel and firefly (and going further back, babylon 5 and farscape) all appeal to the 20+ group, a market much larger and heavily leaning toward an iq roughly resembling that of a turnip. how else can you explain why charmed is still around? and survivor? broadcasters can't let intelligent shows survive, lest they risk raising the bar and widening the audience for talented entertainment... and if that happened, the crap they're pushing now just might flunk out and they'd lose that cash cow started by "who wants to be a millionaire".

man i'd be happy to pay $40/mo for just three shows: angel, startrek & the monday report. screw the rest of the garbage. but if that were possible, they'd never make any more pacifying the idiot nation.

here endeth the rant.