Tim, I'm so sorry. I really hate the business end of your art. I am always looking forward to what comes out of your lovely brain, next.

Tim, do the networks decide that your shows are just adverts for the forthcoming DVDs?

Last year a friend & I were speculating that this is The Future, especially with declining audiences and the networks more interested in co-owning the shows they air. More short-run, low-cost series aired with an eye toward luring DVD buyers. Apply the singles/album concept to television shows, basically.

This is something I wouldn't mind seeing. All series could start out as mini-series. They'd get their 13 episodes, and that would be that. There would be a complete arc for six or 13 episodes, because most creators are not as kind as Tim, and a lot of the time, I'm left hanging off a cliff at the end of a season, deeply in love with a show that never returns.

The contracts for minis could be structured such that if a mini did very well, the talent would be obligated to continue into a regular 22 episode/season series. But then... there could be some new sort of an option, such that if the series did well enough that a network wouldn't mind running new chapters of it, every once in a while, then new chapters could/would be produced occasionally, maybe during the off-season. Of course, that would only work if/when the behind and in-front-of scenes talents were available and willing to regroup now and again. There'd probably have to be some incentive in the contracts for the original mini. And my head is getting muddy, because I really hate the business side of show business. That said, if this ever happens, I want some sort of royalty for Occasional.

Where is Amber Benson's episode, in the line-up? Also, is Scott's episode likely to air?

Why do all the good shows die young?

Because too many people like to watch mindless, mind-numbing TV instead of intelligent, witty and provocative shows.

People watch television for different reasons, one of which is mindless escapism. And that's not so much a negative thing. The world is a scary place, the country is tense and angry and depressed, and so what's fluffier than watching B and C list "stars" make jackasses out of themselves in sparkly costumes? It's ridiculously surreal.

For me, personally, it's not just boring but also irritating. I want to be told a story before bed. Something creepy, dark, and rich like a cake served up by Edward Gorey.

There's less of me than there are of them, but I don't hate on them for it.

What Allyson said.

Now personally, I'd much rather read a book, than watch most of the fluffy fun stuff like the Celebrity dancing thing. I feel the same way about unscripted shows (aka "reality shows" but that term pings fans of some of the unscripted shows, who point out there's too much diversity for it really to be a genre in and of itself).

That said, I also couldn't bring myself to watch episodes two and three of The Inside, despite my Tim love, because there were elements of it that were too upsetting for me to watch, particularly in a straight drama. I swallow darkness much more easily, when it's dressed up in high concept.

I feel like I sit on both sides of the fence on this one.

I do watch mindless escape tv. Some of the silliest crap there is. There are rainy Saturdays when I'm so worn out and 'blah' that I'll put in a load of laundry, see a marathon of 'America's Next Top Model', and do my best to put myself into a coma.

But that's not 'appointment' tv. It's more like background music to me, or staring at a campfire. The (fewer and fewer) shows that I will make plans to watch, or Tivo, need to grab me and make me think about them when they aren't there.

Lilty, I actually think you're the majority. People like variety. They like humor (high and low), music, dramatic stories, and silly diversions. Actually I like those things too, I just don't look to TV for some of them. You're really upholding what Allyson said, you just enjoy a broader range, than either she or I do.

John Rogers on fourth generation media.

Something that stuck out:

To stay on the air, in order to generate enough perceived value for advertisers (for the network) and syndicates (for the studio), a show needs, regularly, ten million consumers a week. Five or seven on a smaller network.

In order for a show to create a profit on DVD (the fat pipe model of the present), it needs one million consumers.

Even goofy reality shows can have redemptive moments, or surprise you. Viz: [link] , which is an indie rocker/music critic's (favorable) impression of Hit Me Baby One More Time, or indeed America's Next Top Model, which in its sheer divaness helped me and my cousin laugh through a difficult time.

If I ran the networks, there'd be room for both the abyss and the dancing on the edge of it.

Which makes me wonder what the problem is. Why do so few smart, well-crafted shows survive?

I look at the differences between me and a friend. If all the fluffy crap were gone tommorrow, I wouldn't care. I'll turn on the iTunes while I clean the living room. My friend would gladly see 'The Inside', 'Lost', 'Veronica Mars', etc. thrown to the flames so long as 'Laguna Beach' and 'The Real World' weren't going anywhere.

People watch television for different reasons, one of which is mindless escapism. And that's not so much a negative thing.

I understand that, it's just that I have little tolerance for all the reality based, call-in to vote type shows. I enjoy stories and there doesn't seem to be much of a plot.

But that's not 'appointment' tv. It's more like background music to me,

I can understand this too.

My perspective is this: I watch very little television. There are only a few shows that make time to watch (Lost, Medium, The Inside, Alias). Because of how little I watch I want what I see to be thought-provoking while fun (or thrilling). I have very little patience for the antics of people who are trying on their 15 minutes of fame.