TV Movie--Survivor or Casualty in Ratings War?

Brian Lowry’s sleuthing concerning the demise of the network TV movie is accurate but not complete. There are many factors that have contributed to the severe cutbacks in the number of movies produced for the major broadcast networks, but the major one is economic. The network movie is no longer financially viable for either the network or the producer.

The TV movie was created as a programming device to fill the slots that were not occupied by successful series. It was impossible for the networks to program a television season with seven nights of popular drama, sitcom and variety shows.

So the TV movie came about as a way to plug the holes, as well as showcasing television stars in different vehicles that they could make during their series hiatus. There was little crossover from feature films to television at that time, and television stars rarely moved to the large screen.

The TV movie was an opportunity to explore different subject matter and different roles for the TV talent pool. And because there was a large audience watching their favorite stars in series TV, there was ample opportunity to promote network “specials” during these series, and the audiences came to the party.

The economics of the TV movie were, for the most part, a break-even deal. License fees paid to producers for two network runs covered most of the production costs, and the producer made a little money because he owned the film and could sell it both domestically and internationally after the network had its two runs. But it was a limited market, since each picture was not worth much individually on the open market.

Network license fees for TV movies remained essentially the same from the early ‘80s through the late ‘90s. Production costs rose, salaries increased, and the small profits producers realized became practically nonexistent. Corners were cut. Similarly, audiences were eroding for network television with the advent of cable, videos and the Internet. Since the one-shot movies were not the bread-and-butter of the network and didn’t bring in a great deal of advertising money, it didn’t make sense to promote the television movie to the extent necessary to make each one an “event.” It was much more important for the networks to build audiences for their ongoing series, since the economic rewards for a popular series were much more lucrative.

And then there were the other factors: The need for “eyeballs” to the screen created an atmosphere of fear for network executives, so they chose the safety of previous success and imitated it over and over instead of taking chances that might have attracted new viewers. And then the whole deal changed. Cable television provided many more movie slots, often with higher budgets and no content barriers. TV stars were crossing over into features and were no longer interested in TV movies and miniseries during their hiatuses. Since casting was the major factor in attracting audiences to TV movies, networks reached out for feature actors. But feature stars were much more interested in cable, where they had more creative freedom and were not seen as “slumming.” So networks glorified the talent they could attract, and any “Beverly Hills, 90210” cast member could drive a movie for TV. Not the script, not the director, not the producer, but the on-screen talent. Content became unimportant. Managers became producers. Network executives became producers to teach the managers how to produce. Ratings became much more important than quality or content.

But something else was happening. Remember, TV movies were invented to fill the slots between successful series. New forms of programming that were less expensive to produce were introduced ... and, lo and behold, these new programs could fill the slots that movies had taken! Not only that, but these newsmagazines told many of the stories that had been topics of the TV movie, and they told them in 15 minutes instead of two hours, and there were none of those pesky and expensive actors to deal with!

And then came the game shows, the nature shows, the contests, the reality shows, etc. All of these were less expensive, more rewarding financially, and they attracted the demographically correct viewer, which meant more bucks from the advertisers. No wonder the TV movie was not a survivor! It’s the economy, stupid!

And with last season’s threat of a strike, new alternatives were developed that were even cheaper to produce. Though the strikes didn’t materialize, we lost ground in quality development. We are starting to hear that the successful drama series such as “ER,” “The Practice,” “The West Wing,” “Law & Order” and all their clones are becoming too expensive for the networks.

Are we heading toward a dearth (or death) of narrative and character because they’re too costly? Will the only drama left on network television be that which is the least expensive to produce? The real drama will then be the audience tuning out. The demise of the network TV movie may be just the beginning of a slide downhill.

It’s a slippery slope, but until we find an economically viable way to create programming that appeals to the largest audience, networks will continue to commission or create the most that they can for the least amount of money. Content be damned! And we are all the worse for it.