I'd always thought that 'NYPD Blue' really would open those doors. While I think it created a much broader template for cable, I don't think it really did that much for network television.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Even though shows like NYPD Blue are soaps in my opinion, but they're individualized to an extent that you can still follow what's going on if you miss a week.
I actually think there's a potential, a crazy potential, that network TV could become something valuable and worthwhile, just because of fear on the part of the networks.
I think that the problem with network television is that they cling to the whole business model like they are clinging to the side of a cliff.
I think for business reasons, fiscal reasons, I think these cable networks can take greater risks and I think with a risk comes better programming. And I think USA has got an amazing identity to it now that is clearly defined with its 'Characters welcome' tag.
I think cable has been under-appreciated for its contribution to society.
We're closer to HBO than we are to the entire grid of cable on demand.
For years, the defenders of television have argued that the networks are only giving the people what they want. That might be true. But so is the Medellin cartel.
With the advent of cable and such, you guys are calling it the golden age of TV in terms of the writing and stuff. But it's like different branches of a big tree that TV has become.
The territory has changed, and a lot of really good actors want to do cable series, but they don't necessarily want to do network TV and make the commitment of 22 episodes or whatever. They find that the liberties and the creative freedoms that you get in cable is more interesting to them than the censorship of a network show.
Cable had a latitude to move which created less censorship and bestowed upon the artists, the writers and the creators, more liberty to create their shows.
No opposing quotes found.