Television industry contexts

 Independent: British viewers can't get enough of foreign-language dramas:

1) What does the article suggest regarding the traditional audience for foreign-language subtitled media?

Fifteen years ago, if you'd mentioned to a colleague that you'd spent Saturday night glued to a subtitled European drama, you'd have been quietly declared pretentious, dull and, possibly, a little odd. Skip to today and foreign-language dramas aren't even on-trend, they're fully mainstream. Now we are as likely to discuss the latest Danish thriller over a morning flat white at our desks as we are a new season on HBO.

2) What does Walter Iuzzolino suggest is the key appeal of his 'Walter Presents' shows?

The channels were "restaurants who had put a special on the board". Walter Presents makes the specials board the main offering – so you can't play safe with the televisual equivalent of a cottage pie.

3) The article makes an interesting claim for the popularity of subtitles in the multi-screen age. What does it suggest?

There may be something else in foreign TV's new popularity, too. It may sound prosaic but when we're frequently distracted from our TV viewing by Twitter feeds and a pinging WhatsApp, subtitles are a welcome enforcement for us to focus. "When you read subtitles, you have to be glued to the screen," says Deeks. "That concentration gives a particular intensity to the viewing experience. You just can't multitask when you're watching a foreign-language drama." And while foreign-language dramas are often remade for the Anglo-American market – Prisoners of War, or Hatufim in the original Hebrew, became Homeland, The Bridge became The Tunnel etc – the originals still dominate because they have something else: the locale that is such a fundamental part of their appeal. "We all love getting that insight into a different culture," says Deeks. "The unfamiliar setting gives a freshness to genre pieces."

4) What are the other audiences pleasures of foreign TV drama suggested by the article?

Iuzzolino agrees. "You develop a love for the distant world because while you're watching, you're in Sweden," he says. "If you see something amazing set in Argentina, then Argentina itself, the houses, the people, what they wear, what their voices sound like, the language, is one of the biggest appeals. There is a huge pleasure in that."

Film School Rejects: The foreign TV dramas you're missing out on:

1) What does the article tell us about Deutschland 83's release schedule?

Premiering on AMC Network’s Sundance TV in June 2015, the show was the first German-language TV series to premiere on a US network. The fact Germany’s commercial RTL channel received Deutschland ’83 five months after the US both signifies the series’ global appeal as well as foreshadows where the German crime thriller was (and is) to find its audience. 

2) The article contains important statistics on viewing figures in different countries. What were the German viewing figures for the first and last episode? What were Channel's 4's viewing figures for Deutschland 83?

Whilst Deutschland ’83 received significantly fewer viewers in the US than Germany, with its US premiere garnering 0.066 million viewers compared to Germany’s 3.19 million, the series proved more successful in the US than its homeland. The majority of German audiences did not like neither the show nor its premise, with the Guardian‘s Philip Oltermann observing the Cold War politics and “cool and sexy” style as factors that distanced them from the series. As previously mentioned, the German premiere had 3.19 million viewers. Each new episode saw that figure drop, and by the series’ conclusion the figures had fallen down to 1.63 million — it’s lowest figure.

3) Who are the two production and distribution companies behind Deutschland 83 and what did they announce in October?

After a period of uncertainty surrounding its renewal, SundanceTV and FremantleMedia finally announced in October that there will be a second series of Deutschland 83 (called Deutschland 86, more likely than not followed by the pivotal year of 89). What with its lackluster response in Germany, it’s apparent the US critical reception and UK’s record-breaking viewership have a role to play in renewing the show. With this foreign drama revival spurred on by the series’ foreign viewers, questions surrounding the power of American/UK audiences and critics arise. The spy thriller’a presence in American television signifies that there is not just room for foreign and subtitled drama in an era when TV shows are frequently becoming more daring than feature films, but that audiences both want it and have an impact into whether it comes back.

4) How does Walter Iuzzolino use social media to engage audiences in new international TV dramas? How does he suggest this has changed the reception of foreign productions in the UK?

Even if you’re weary of foreign drama, with Iuzzolino posting a “Weekend Pick” on his Facebook page and engaging with viewers on Twitter, it’s impossible not to become engrossed in the experience. As Iuzzolino says, in the UK subtitled and foreign productions are “relegated to the elite” and the art-house. His streaming service has certainly changed this perception in Britain.  For America audiences, it’s not so much filling a gap (Iuzzolino and his co-founders Jo McGrath and Jason Thorp in fact modeled the service on big networks like HBO) than promoting what is readily available.

The Guardian: How tech is changing television:

1) How have streaming services such as Netflix or Amazon Prime changed the way TV drama narratives are constructed?

Your method of narrative must take into account the reality that viewers could watch the entire series at once. Therefore, the hooks at the conclusion of each episode are crucial. However, you also need to consider how you provide information. A recap usually begins each episode of a thriller on terrestrial television. With streaming video on demand, though, you can jump right into the action.

2) Why has the rise in streaming led to more complex storylines and an increase in cliffhangers?

According to Mercurio, the audience's ability to easily catch up on missed episodes has significantly affected the content of scripts that call for such concentration and recall. It wasn't that long ago when producers believed that viewers were so flimsy and erratic that you had to be cautious about how intricate your plot was lest they get sidetracked and never return. That's altered. You don't get editorial advice on the danger of including material that might not pay off until one or two episodes later. The new TV's surprisingly relative creative conservatism caught people off guard. Although theoretically streaming dramas may range anywhere from 60 seconds to 60 hours, there hasn't been any structural experimentation up to this point. The biggest successes of this revolution—The Crown, Stranger Things, House of Cards, and Transparent—have chapters that stick close to the half-hour or hour of regular scheduled television. Episodes within a series may vary in duration.

3) How have the "economics of production" kept TV drama largely sticking to the 45- or 60-minute episode format?

Are typically shot in blocks, regardless of how they will ultimately be processed. While one team is preparing the next scene for a drama, another team is recording the previous scene in order to make the most of the time and cut down on the expense of performers and crew. Therefore, even though a drama that is streamed technically does not need to be divided at all, it still makes logistical and financial sense to recruit on an episode-by-episode basis.

According to Shindler, we will always need to divide productions into time-groups. The difficulty is that filmmakers must believe they are delivering a complete tale in order to be enticed to shoot a block of episodes. So that also has an impact on structure. The secret is to have significant story arcs within the larger narrative.

4) How has "permanent 24/7 connectivity" changed both the production and consumption of TV drama?

Viewer responses have been drastically changed by permanent 24/7 connectivity. Live tweeting by viewers has democratised criticism in a beneficial way, but this new media interaction has also given the traditional media a rod to hit broadcasters with. Stories regarding purported uproar over confusing actors or violent action frequently turn out to be predicated on the fact that a tiny fraction of the millions of viewers tweeted negatively. "I talk to other showrunners about this," Mercurio claims. "It's the main factor that actually sets our clocks in motion. A certain segment of the press does it very purposefully. They only need to enter a few important search terms into Twitter, like "mumbling," to find a viewer who felt the dialogue was muffled. They employ a single, lone opinion to argue that something is failing when it isn't.

Media Magazine: Netflix and the Cultural Industries:

1) What does David Hesmondhalgh argue with regards to how the creative industries have changed since the 1980s?

The tendency for the first two bullet points began in the 1980s, and the Internet has made the latter two easier, especially with the widespread use of broadband connections in the twenty-first century. In the 1980s, media companies started to understand the value of synergy (see "Synergy rules OK?," MM 14), and governments in the west started to recognise the economic advantages of having a strong "cultural" sector (particularly the film, television, and music industries), as a result of the decline of manufacturing industries. Although the development of CDs in the early 1980s had the first significant impact on the music industry, it was the development of home computing and the World Wide Web that led to greater technological convergence because the digitisation of media made all media forms accessible on computers. This finally made it possible for tech companies to directly compete with media companies and, in some cases, even turn into media companies.

2) What is technological convergence?

The digitization of media, or technological convergence, made all media accessible on computers. 

3) How are technology companies challenging traditional broadcasters in the TV industry?

Recently, the chair of Ofcom proposed that Google and Facebook be controlled as publishers rather than being viewed as merely Internet platforms that bear no responsibility for the content published on their websites, as they prefer to be. For instance, extreme content is hosted on Google's YouTube, but if similar content were broadcast by traditional broadcasters, they risked fines or perhaps losing their licence.

4) The global nature of modern television means producers are having to consider international audiences when creating content. What example from Netflix does the article use to explain this?

Netflix also knew it would have to create its own material because traditional media businesses would soon learn they could create their own Internet distribution networks. This was even more cunning. Disney, for instance, has switched over to distributing all of its material on its own channel instead of through Netflix. Netflix expects to spend $8 billion on original content in the upcoming year, while Amazon's budget is anticipated to be $4.5 billion. Amazon opened in 200 countries in 2016, and Netflix simultaneously expanded its service to 130 additional nations, bringing its total to 190. Another benefit of producing their own content is that Netflix or Amazon already own the copyright for the programmes and do not need to obtain additional distribution permits. When a company goes worldwide, they must pay for the licence to broadcast specific series in different countries.