Stupid Corporations, Audiences Hate You

Evening kids, it's your good old pal Sketch E. Whiteface reporting from his new home to pollute the beloved Internets with a mass of text to be read by one person who will spend six hours after crying for reading so much about something that could be very mundane. Please take this moment the stretch your eyes after that eyesore and the coming one. For those who don't know how to stretch your eyes, sorry, but you're on your own.

Hit the jump for the full article.

And we press onward to the meat of the matter, the heart of it if you will. For a while now I've been hearing complaints from everyone I know saying how there's nothing original being put out in TV, music and more specifically movies and how the content that IS being put out is very stupid. I've also heard from people, and neither this nor the previous is anything new, that people are stupid and therefore the content is geared toward them. Although I disagree with the first half of that statement, the second part is spot on. What's being put out sucks not because audiences are stupid but because the powers that be green lighting this thinks we're stupid.
On October 1, 1993 comedian Bill Hicks was scheduled to appear on "The Late Show with Dave Letterman" to fill in last minute for a guest who had canceled, ironically he had been bumped from the show the week prior. (This would be his final television performance as he would die from pancreatic cancer five months later.) He did an eight minute long set before a live studio audience recorded for the show. Cut to a few hours later, Hicks' set was not included in the broadcast having been removed by Letterman and the producers who denied being responsible. Although the show or CBS never commented on why it was removed Hicks stated, amongst other reasons, that they felt the viewers at home were too stupid to realize that "they're just jokes" even though the studio audience laughed at his material. The following is a phone call Hicks received to let him know his set had been removed by CBS' "Standards and Practices," a mere hour after the taping had finished, taken from Hicks' 23 page hand written letter to John Lahr.
"Well why do you think the crowd at home is different than the one in your studio? They're all watching your show," said Hicks.
"Bill, you have to understand our audiences," said producer Robert Morton.
"What do you grow them on farms? Your audience is comprised of 'people', right? Well, I understand 'people,' being a person myself. People are who I play to every night, Bob, and we get along fine."
...
"We taped the show the show at 5:30 in the afternoon, and your audience had no problem with the material then. What... does the audience become overly sensitive between the hours of 11:30 PM and 12:30 AM? And by the way, Bob, when I'm not performing on your show, I'm a member of the audience for your show. Are you saying my material is not suitable for me? That doesn't make sense, why do you underestimate the intelligence of your audience?"

Hicks was completely distraught with what had happened and continued to do that same banned set for audiences in clubs who laughed, and nobody at any point felt offended or upset by the material. Last year, marking the 15th anniversary of his death, Dave showed the removed segment on his show saying how there was nothing wrong with it. (The clip can be viewed here.) Although this incident was widely publicized in the last 17 years the mentality of the networks and studios remain the same, probably even more so in the last ten years with the boom of the digital revolution. The corporations (which is what they are as that is what the networks and studios are owned by) belittle the public's intelligence and fail to acknowledge their natural born right of choice. However, with something so vast one corporation cannot be blamed nor can one single act or aspect of how the business is run.
Going from the last line we start our exploration - "Business." Film and TV is indeed a business however there is such a thing of running it "too business like", IE running solely the numbers. When it comes to audiences, they are composed from all walks of life so studios can only rely on generic references and bullshit statistics based on things such as polls, test audiences or focus groups, and other number based Intel turning the people they are producing for into cogs in the machine. Now in one instance it's not entirely a bad thing; however, it's how they process the information and use it where they go wrong.
How a test audience works is they will present the show or movie to a group of 10 to 20 people and ask questions afterward getting feedback from them. Again, on the base level not a horrible thing but depending on how the group "scores" they will often tell the creator to change the final product so it can appeal to everyone and "guarantee" everyone will go see it and they will make back their investment. Here is where we go wrong because first, you're gathering information that is based on a very tiny group of people's PERSONAL OPINIONS in an effort to gauge how the rest of the country (if not the world) will react to this. I do believe feedback from people who may or may not see it is important as it can help shape its full potential but to assure a few extra bucks makes little sense to me. Second, not everyone has the same tastes in entertainment as we are all gentle and unique snowflakes. So trying to change something to appeal to EVERYONE is in fact impossible. Third, it provides a certain aroma for the creators that maybe the producers and people who green lit this don't have a lot of faith in the project because it means that, assuming this is a wholly original work, they do not believe in it which make no sense cause otherwise why put in money to make it? And if it is a remake and it tests negatively then does this mean the previous version sucks or just this one, as it required already a pre-existing audience for this to be made?
This is one of the many reasons why there are so many remakes and adaptations being put out more often than original content in the mainstream; because with material that already has a following they know they are going to grab those people and possibly some others along with it. Original works they are skeptical about because they don't know if they'll pull it off. So many people's complaints that there is nothing original being put out are false. There is original content out there however the powers that be do not believe that you, the audience, have the capacity or ambition to view new material and therefore they are not making that a priority along with the uncertainty as to whether or not people will see it and more importantly, they will get back their money. If any industry players happen to be reading this (and I doubt it) I will share you this face and share it to the world: if you shit in a bucket, there is an audience for it. I mean Jesus, look at how many genres of porn there are out there. You type in any one word in YouTube and you can get a bevy of different videos of varying styles and genres. You won't know if it'll work until you actually try and throw it out there, test screenings only distract and create an illusion for those in power. People will like whatever they want and not whatever you force on them, my advice to you is deal with it.
Another reason for originality's declination in mainstream is because of the boom of the internet, mostly born out of the writer's strike a couple years back. Because of the immediate access to original content via the internet, which churns it out at such an alarming rate, studios are finding it hard to keep up with it and are trying to find other more elaborate reasons as to why some things have become a huge success and how they can mimic such things. This is why there is static between when something internet born gets to a studio to go mainstream because often they will look at all the flashy lights and buzzers and fail to see the story (as is the case for video game movies, almost all of which have been a critical failure within the gamer community.) More on the internet VS mainstream clash will be addressed in another entry as that is another solid 80 pages.
Now after all that has been said some of you could still argue that audiences are indeed stupid as could explain why that twat Tyler Perry and King Of Twats Michael Bay still have jobs and rake in money. However I believe that because the corporations view us as being stupid they impose their beliefs on us, the masses, either by saying it subtly through the art by dumbing it down heavily (one reason why in Europe there is a different cut of the cinema epic known as "Revolver." No sarcasm, I love that movie) or having scores released, which seldom happens, or by various articles in regards to certain pieces. Either way, they push that image about us onto us and slowly we start to concede to their remarks until ultimately the truth becomes lost and the truth is this -- people, whether you believe it or not, are quite intelligent and reasonable and know when they're being bullshitted, and they definitely know that they can TURN OFF WHAT THEY'RE WATCHING. End of story, I don't care what your cynical beliefs may rest on the collective, it's a fact now you may stop the discussion. The only concern is the few individuals who push and falsely present upon the collective. ("You are free to do as we tell you!") I mean hell, Conan O'Brien was ripped off the air because a bunch of greedy, stupid INDIVIDUALS thought that PEOPLE weren't liking him and decided to either make room for the unfunny former host or get gone. And because of the collective, the masses, the people, speaking out and saying, "No, we like Conan. You're wrong," that he is coming back in November.
But one question I've yet to address is how can the voice of many be heard by the ears of so very few who don't really care about our actual interests? Outside of diligence and actually speaking out, I cannot provide an answer but I'll guarantee you this, I sure as hell won't give up on my pursuit for art nor my defending of my fellow man and neither should you. By the way, I tested this in a group and it scored low so I'll be rewriting it to be full of hate and cynicism. Enjoy that, cocksuckers.

=Sketch/Ed