> Well, realistically, television exists to sell beer and ED medication. > That is its primary purpose. > > My response is essentially that of Harlan Ellison. In the world of > art, where television has the constant potential to exist, great art > should challenge the audience's sensibilities. It should push the > creative envelope and evoke strong emotion and stronger thought -- or > it isn't doing its job. Yes, it can enlighten and inspire and inform > and all the things listed in previous posts to this thread, but if you > have a potential audience of millions and you aren't trying to shake > them up (or wake them up), you are doing them a disservice. I do not > deny that television exists for other purposes, some nobler than > others. But, brother, if among those, you aren't trying to set the > world on fire, you're wasting everybody's time.
We pretty much agree. A couple of quibbles: - If you're a network trying to fill 22 hours of prime time a week, or a producer trying to produce 22 episodes of a series for the year, no matter how lofty your ambitions are, some of what you end up airing won't be so great. Obviously, this applies outside of prime time as well. - Sometimes the path of least resistance is to aim lower and capture a big enough audience to keep your show on the air long enough to make you rich. - There are times when I'm not looking to be especially engaged intellectually, and I can usually find something that works (and lots of stuff that's still beneath me). --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
