9月10日口譯文章：這是電視節目標黃金時期照樣多余時期
約翰·蘭德格拉夫(John Landgraf)的批評不啻為一聲驚雷。
這位FX電視網的首席履行官說，高管、觀眾與批評家們都感到到，現在的電視界存在著使人不安的感到。而這只有一個緣故原由：電視內容其實太多了。
8月初，他在電視批評家協會(Television Critics Association)的一次媒體運動上說，這類過多供給令電視節目很難“透過喧嘩，發明真正刺激的器械”，是以，“找到出色的原創故事，和有響應的水準能把這些故事保持下去的人材，就成為了偉大的挑釁”。
外面看來，這番斷言顯得很荒誕。究竟，批評家和觀眾們都喝彩此時是電視的又一個黃金時期。諸如《權利的遊戲》(Game of Thrones)和《嘻哈帝國》(Empire)等五花八門、大受迎接的電視劇，都是這類文化弗成消逝的一部門，它們令電視從二流位置一躍成為吸引頂尖演員和片子導演的序言。
然則蘭德格拉夫的批評並無被斥為荒誕誇大。正相反，他的話激發了嚴正的評論辯論，和大批的檢查，人們開端思慮，“過量”的度在那邊，電視的天下是不是真的湧現了甚麽題目。
“我一向都聽到這類話，”HBO台節目總監邁克爾·隆巴多(Michael Lombardo)說。“人們說，‘我不克不及再追新劇了，我沒時光再為另外一部新劇投入情感了。’聽到這個，我就明確了，我就懂了。”
羅姆巴多和其他行政職員說，現在，要為一檔節目樹立起觀眾群變得加倍艱苦，由於觀眾已有那末多的選取，並且隨時均可以點擊封閉。是以，行政職員們說，一檔節目要贏利就更不易。
《漂亮家庭》(Modern Family)和《酒囊飯袋》(The Walking Dead)等劇本電視劇大獲勝利，這是樹立在爭先占據地皮的基本上的。依據FX統計的數據，客歲，各家無線台、有線台和在線辦事投拍的劇集猛增至371部。蘭德格拉夫以為，本年這個數字應該會跨越400部，比2009年的211部多了快要一倍。
“年復一年，咱們走出去和觀眾們交換時，總會覺得電視在他們心目中變得再也不名貴，便是由於有太多電視節目了，”蘭德格拉夫在一次采訪中說。“那末多電視劇、電視節目、電視制造人，基本就不值錢。”
“今朝，在電視節目標制造與市場營銷上投入的資金，與其所吸引到的觀眾之間的比例其實不調和，”他彌補道。
這番失望而又充斥申飭的言辭脫口之時，正值多家電視公司轉型之際。8月初，傳媒股票迎來大跌，剖析人士稱，這是由於對過火膨脹與昂貴的有線類股票缺少信念而至。行業內賡續產生歸並，各祖傳媒公司都在盡力成長，試圖得到更多影響力。
電視收視率降低有些時刻確切是究竟，但這主如果由於技巧的挑釁，和收視習氣的轉變。蘭德格拉夫以為，收視率的降低部門是因為選取太多，無論節目有何等出色。這個意見和人們的直覺不太同樣。
對付節目制造者們來講，挑釁在於創作的層面：真的有那末多的人材嗎?對付有線台和無線台來講，則是另外一個題目：他們的買賣是靠告白來支撐的，以是，假如人們找不到合適本身的節目怎樣辦?
“有《絕命毒師》(Breaking Bad)看，我為何要看約翰·蘭德格拉夫在FX拍的新劇呢?”BTIG媒體剖析師裏奇·格林菲爾德(Rich Greenfield)說。“我大概會去看約翰的劇，但我大概不會連續看三年。對付那些大部門貿易模式都是環繞電視告白樹立的公司來講，假如你在上映後的三天裏不看這部劇，從告白的角度而言，它就一錢不值了。”
不外映時台(Showtime)總裁大衛·內文思(David Nevins)說，他認為觀眾不會太擔憂選取過量的題目。
“無論他們多愛好眼下正在看的劇，他們總會說，‘我還能再看點甚麽?’”他說。“他們總想看更多。”
AMC台總裁查理·科利爾(Charlie Collier)說話更猛烈。“‘電視節目太多’聽上去像屈膝投降，”他說。“究竟上，對付太多的電視節目，謎底永久是下一部出色的劇集，一部讓全部觀眾都能放動手頭全部工作，一到時光就去看的劇集。”
另有人指出，電視節目標大暴發為各類演員和題材發明了更多的機遇，好比《童貞情緣》(Jane the Virgin)、《透明家庭》(Transparent)和《女子牢獄》(Orange Is the New Black)。馬丁·諾克森(Martin Noxon)是Lifetime台《夢幻泡影》(UnREAL)與Bravo台《閨蜜仳離指南》(Girlfriends’ Guide to Divorce)的主創，她說曩昔五年裏產生了“天崩地裂翻天覆地”的變更。
“五年前，我弗成能在電視台獲得那兩部劇，”她說。“只對少數觀眾談話的聲音得不到充足的機遇。現在，許多電視台都在盡力打仗一些人群——並非全部人群。是以女人和其他曾被拒之門外的人有了極大的機遇。”
電視節目標膨脹也為行業內的人材供給了平台，Starz台的首席履行官克裏斯·阿爾布萊希特(Chris Albrechet)說。他還說，好的節目是“優良作者的好的練習場，可以幫他們成為優良的劇集主創”。
這類繁華氣象遭到幾個身分的刺激：電視業內的一季現在以一年為周期，新劇從炎天就開端上映。不論是有線台照樣亞馬遜或Netflix等流媒體，它們的節目制造者都在大批突起(“本年，我終究再也不有才能存眷每一個腳本節目界的制造者的情形，”蘭德格拉夫在電視批評家協會的運動中說)。
然則Hulu如許的流媒體再也不知足於制造新劇，它們還在舊劇中尋寶。《明迪煩事多》(The Mindy Project)不受觀眾愛好，第三季以後被Fox砍掉。然則樹立在付費會員制基本上的Hulu從新拾起了它，它的第四時將於下月在這家流媒體辦事網站上映。
“題目不在於節目，而是在於選取太多。咱們為此有點愉快，”Hulu內容部分的賣力人克裏格·厄維奇(Craig Erwich)說。“咱們的一條代價觀便是觀眾至上，咱們願望用各類選取吞沒他們，讓他們決議本身該怎樣辦。”
另外一個龐雜的題目是，各類節目不止是相互競爭，並且也要和亞馬遜、Hulu和Netflix存檔的老劇競爭。以是《醜聞》(Scandal)如許的新劇也要和《前線》(The Wire)如許的老劇競爭。
蘭德格拉夫說，他以為行業的壓縮行將到來。他預言，電視劇的數目會在將來幾年遲緩降低到每一年325部，主如果因為有劇本的電視節目太昂貴。
“這是一項大工程，”他說。“鏡頭、音響、外景、保險、卡車、演員、劇組、導演、編劇。這不是一個能以分歧方法權衡的家當。YouTube在一間堆棧裏就可以以相對於廉價的經費做出另外一種電視內容，然則專業劇本電視內容是本錢麋集家當，是以須要大批觀眾。”
傳媒公司以各類情勢應答日趨增加的挑釁。蘭德格拉夫說，FX台正在踴躍制造和獲得屬於本身的劇集。
HBO台不須要依附告白，是以也有本身的做法。羅姆巴多說，如今他花許多時光看其他範例的節目，由於劇本節目太多了，他說，“觀眾開端對有本性的節目見責不怪。”
“咱們還須要再拍一部情節持續劇嗎?”他說。“不，除非它有成為巨大作品的潛力。咱們如今想做的，是供給各式各樣的電視文娛感受。”
他援用了《紐約災星》(The Jinx)這部記載片，它是關於流亡者羅伯特·德斯特(Robert Durst)的;另有像約翰·奧利佛(John Oliver)主持的脫口秀;和行將上映的，有比爾·西蒙斯(Bill Simmons)參演的節目，這些都是克日來激發他更多存眷的節目。HBO台比來還獲得了《芝麻街》(Sesame Street)的各項版權。
“曩昔幾年裏，咱們想打造一部巨大的情節劇，就比爾·西蒙斯的劇集做了許多嚴正的評論辯論，”他說。“來歲的重磅大戲是甚麽?我花了很多多少時光思慮，也花了很多多少時光和編劇們在房間裏評論辯論。”蘭德格拉夫的電視台拍出了《路易不易》(Louie)、《冰血暴》(Fargo)和《美國諜影》(The Americans)等勝利劇集，他說觀眾們會“隨處瞎看”，以是對優良劇集堅持忠實對他們來講就更不易。
他說，有些劇集須要時光，好讓制造人進修如何去制造，也讓觀眾進修如何去觀賞。
“有些最棒的器械，好比《宋飛正傳》(Seinfeld)一開端都不為人接收，由於它的看法太激進了。”
如許的劇集已再也不可以或許具有奢靡的時光，他說。
“現在的《宋飛正傳》要想經由過程觀眾這一關，會碰到許多貧苦，”他說。
【參考譯文】
John Landgraf’s comments arrived like a thunderbolt.
There’s a malaise in TV these days that’s felt among executives, viewers and critics, said Mr. Landgraf, the chief executive of FX Networks. And it’s the result of one thing: There is simply too much on television.
The glut, he said at a Television Critics Association media event earlier this month, has made it hard to “cut through the clutter and create real buzz” and has presented “a huge challenge in finding compelling original stories and the level of talent needed to sustain those stories.”
On the face of it, the assertion seemed absurd. After all, critics and viewers alike have hailed this as another golden age of television, where shows as diverse and popular as “Game of Thrones” and “Empire” have become an indelible part of the culture, elevating TV from second-class status to a medium attracting top actors and film directors.
But Mr. Landgraf’s comments were not dismissed as absurd or hyperbolic. Instead, Mr. Landgraf ignited a serious conversation, and no small amount of self-reflection, about how much is too much, and whether something is seriously out of whack in TV land.
“I hear it all the time,” said Michael Lombardo, the president of programming at HBO. “People going, ‘I can’t commit to another show, and I don’t have the time to emotionally commit to another show.’ I hear that, and I’m aware of it, and I get it.”
Mr. Lombardo and other executives say it is harder than ever to build an audience for a show when viewers are confronted with so many choices and might click away at any moment. As a result, executives say, it’s hard to make money off that show.
The success of scripted shows like “Modern Family,” “The Walking Dead” and others has set off something like a land grab. The number of scripted shows produced by networks, cable networks and online services ballooned to 371 last year, according to statistics compiled by FX. Mr. Landgraf believes that figure will pass 400 this year, which would nearly double the 211 shows made in 2009.
“What I’ve seen for years and years and years, when we go out and talk to audiences, is that television is less precious to them because there’s so much of it,” Mr. Landgraf said in an interview. “Television episodes, television shows, television programmers are all a dime a dozen.”
“There’s a mismatch right now between the capital allocation of making and marketing TV shows and the audience they’re generating,” he added.
The hand-wringing and cautionary words come at a time of transition for many television companies. Media stocks tumbled earlier this month over what analysts said was a lack of confidence in cable bundles that had become too bloated and expensive. Consolidation has taken hold in the industry as media companies try to grow and gain more leverage.
Diminished ratings in television have been a reality for some time, but that has largely been credited to technological challenges and changes in viewing habits. Mr. Landgraf, counterintuitively, attributes declining ratings, in part, to too much choice, no matter how good the show.
For programmers, the challenge is a creative one: Is there really that much talent to go around? And for cable channels and the networks, it’s another problem: They have ad-supported businesses, so what happens when people can’t find their shows?
“Why should I start a new series that John Landgraf creates on FX when I can go start ‘Breaking Bad’?” said Rich Greenfield, a media analyst with BTIG. “I may get to John’s show, but I may not get to it for three years. And for companies where a huge part of the business model is built around TV advertising, if you don’t watch it in the first three days, it’s worth nothing from an advertising standpoint.”
Showtime’s president, David Nevins, however, said he thinks viewers are hardly troubled by the extensive menu of offerings.
“No matter how much they like whatever show they’re watching right now, they’re saying, ‘What else should I be watching?’ ” he said. “They want more.”
Charlie Collier, the president of AMC, was even more forceful. “ ‘Too much TV’ sounds like surrender,” he said. “Actually, the answer to too much TV is and has always been the next great series, the one that makes viewers drop everything and show up for the event.”
Others also point out that the explosion in programming has created more opportunity for shows with diverse casts and topics, such as “Jane the Virgin,” “Transparent” and “Orange Is the New Black.” Marti Noxon, the showrunner for Lifetime’s “UnREAL” and Bravo’s “Girlfriends’ Guide to Divorce,” said there’s been a “sea change” in the last five years.
“I couldn’t have gotten those two shows on TV five years ago,” she said. “There was not enough opportunity for voices that speak to a smaller audience. Now many of these places are looking to reach some people — not all the people. That’s opened up a tremendous opportunity for women and other people that have been left out of the conversation.”
The proliferation of TV shows has also created a pipeline for talent in the industry, said Chris Albrecht, the chief executive of Starz. Good shows, he said, become good training grounds “for good writers who then become good showrunners.”
The boom has been spurred by several factors: The television season is now a year-round event, with new shows coming on the air even in summer. And the number of programmers, whether on cable or streaming services like Amazon or Netflix, has risen tremendously. (“This year, I finally lost track of the ability to keep track of every programmer who is in the scripted-programming business,” Mr. Landgraf said at T.C.A.)
But streaming services like Hulu aren’t just producing new shows, they’re also salvaging old ones. “The Mindy Project” was rejected by the audience, and Fox canceled it after its third season. But Hulu, which relies on paid subscriptions, picked up the show, and its fourth season will debut on the streaming service next month.
“It’s not a glut of programming, it’s a glut of choices. And we are happily part of that,” said Craig Erwich, Hulu’s head of content. “One of our values here is we put the viewer first, and we want to overwhelm them with choice and let them decide what they want to do.”
Another complication is that shows not only compete against one another, but also against old series that live on in the archives of Amazon, Hulu or Netflix. So a new season of “Scandal,” for example, is also competing against old series like “The Wire.”
Mr. Landgraf said he thinks a contraction is coming. He predicted that the number of shows would slowly return to about 325 over the next few years, in large part because scripted television is expensive.
“It’s a big operation,” he said. “Cameras, sound, locations, insurance, trucks, actors, crew, director, writer. It’s not a business that can be scaled in a different way. YouTube can make a different kind of television content relatively inexpensively in a warehouse, but professionally made scripted television content is capital intensive and therefore requires a large audience.”
Media companies have responded to the growing challenges in different ways. Mr. Landgraf said that FX has been aggressive in producing and owning its own shows.
HBO, which does not depend on advertising, is responding in its own way. Mr. Lombardo said he spends much of his time with other kinds of programming since scripted shows are so prevalent, adding that his “audience is becoming inured to the distinctiveness of a show.”
“Do we want to do another drama series?” he said. “No. Unless it has the potential to be great. What we’re looking to do is offer a variety of kind of television entertainment engagement experiences.”
He cited documentary series like “The Jinx,” about the fugitive Robert Durst, and talk shows like those hosted by John Oliver and a forthcoming show featuring Bill Simmons as examples of programming that gets more of his attention these days. HBO also recently picked up the rights to “Sesame Street.”
“Over the last few years, we had as many serious conversations about a Bill Simmons as we would the next great drama series,” he said. “In terms of what are the big things coming up next year? I spend as much of my time thinking about that as I do in rooms with writers.” Mr. Landgraf, whose network has created successful shows like “Louie,” “Fargo” and “The Americans,” said there’s a “fussiness” among viewers that is making it more difficult for them to become loyal to great shows.
Some shows take time, he said, for the producers to learn how to make, and for the audience to learn how to watch.
“Some of the best things — ‘Seinfeld’ would be an example — are shows that people don’t get at first, it’s just too radical an idea,” Mr. Landgraf said.
Shows like that no longer have the luxury of time, he said.
“The ‘Seinfeld’ of today,” he continued, “would have a lot of trouble of getting past the filter of audiences.”
市場價：HK$ 92
