Totally agree about the bloated run times, as I think we discussed with the
Woody “Doc”. I have had a couple of No Shows today at work, so almost done
with “This is a Robbery”. Clearly it would be much stronger at under 2
hours than closer to 4.

Your closing point is my main point as well. I am not in favor of banning
bad or pseudo documentaries, but it is pissing me off to see bad docs
passed off as good ones. I don’t think it would be that hard to set some
basic criteria, then come up with a term that refers to “real”
documentaries, and another, non pejorative term, that refers to the other.

On Mon, 12 Apr 2021 at 3:23 PM Adam Bowie <[email protected]> wrote:

> I think that it's pretty clear that quite a few things have changed in the
> documentary genre, but like everything, there are good ones and bad ones.
>
> My personal bete noire is the over-extension of stories into multiple
> episodes when the story just doesn't deserve it. I guess that this all
> follows the success on Netflix on series like Making a Murderer, and then
> more recently Tiger King. The former was a well told narrative, made over
> years, and deserving of the series length they delivered. But I believe
> that Netflix only came on board fairly late in the day. It was a massive
> success, at least by Netflix's metrics, where keeping audiences coming back
> for many hours is critical for maintaining subscribers. The worst case of
> this I came across recently was the HBO series on McMillions. It was a
> decent story, but could have been told in 90 minutes instead of six hours.
> I didn't make it to the end I got so frustrated with it. (SNIP)
>
> I think some of the problem is that the same broadcasters/streamers
> produce both good docs - the kind that win Oscars, BAFTAs and Emmys - and
> tabloid trash. The same glossy "sheen" is applied to all of them, and it's
> really hard to tell in advance, without knowing at least something of the
> makers and perhaps their previous output, whether we're going to get
> something good, or something trashy.
>
>
> Adam
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 6:55 PM PGage <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I am watching “This is a Robbery...”, like many, I always like a good
>> (sometimes even a not so good) art heist story.
>>
>> The story here is interesting, but there are elements of the documentary
>> style that I dislike (musical and sound effects, and some visual effects,
>> added to create cheap drama). But what is really interesting to me is how
>> this relates to the state of TV (especially cable and streaming)
>> documentaries. After the shit show that was ‘Allen v Farrow’, I did some
>> reading and found that there is a general sense that the skyrocketing
>> popularity of documentaries on places like Netflix and HBO has been
>> accompanied by a plummet in credibility and journalistic integrity. That
>> helped me place the Allen project in a better context: more infotainment
>> than actual news documentary.
>>
>> It does seem that someone, perhaps news divisions at the TV networks, or
>> outside sources like Columbia School or Journalism, needs to define a sub
>> genre of news documentary, and establish criteria and best practice
>> guidelines. Then we could have like entertainment documentaries, that would
>> perhaps contain a disclaimer of something like “inspired by real events”,
>> and news documentaries, that would indicate it was produced based on
>> accepted journalistic standards.
>>
>> I’m only halfway through “This is a Robbery”, and so far think it is not
>> as entertaining as a Ian Pears novel, and about as credible as a
>> documentary on the History channel.
>>
>> On Mon, 12 Apr 2021 at 7:16 AM Mark Jeffries <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> For the Sunday after Easter: (Snip)
>>>
>>> 2.  THIS IS A ROBBERY:  THE WORLD'S BIGGEST ART HEIST--The Netflix
>>> original true crime docu-mini about the 1990 theft from the Gardner Museum
>>> in Boston of $500M of art works dropped Apr. 7 and has an 88% RT
>>>
>> --
>> Sent from Gmail Mobile
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "TVorNotTV" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to [email protected].
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKGtkYKUdHTias49H%3D1YLLYdBZnYTnGHEWB5urZmcwLcBofNTA%40mail.gmail.com
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKGtkYKUdHTias49H%3D1YLLYdBZnYTnGHEWB5urZmcwLcBofNTA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "TVorNotTV" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to [email protected].
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAD_sJGDYkgbompChc8qEEa1jksH6LW8O68bMgbgeCvxoesSsEA%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAD_sJGDYkgbompChc8qEEa1jksH6LW8O68bMgbgeCvxoesSsEA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>
-- 
Sent from Gmail Mobile

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKGtkYLmkiPTh3UmnyvvCwg37ri_%2B1v1dBOSqZqmWq1sO6xNZA%40mail.gmail.com.

Reply via email to