Cable documentry pet peeves

[PhantomAce]

I know most of the docs on cable are for entertainment. But here is a short list of pet peeves I have regarding many of these shows

1. After a commercial break a recap of what has been already been covered. This recap gets longer as the show progresses cause there is more to recap!

2. Host's attend a training program or activity to learn more about the topic. Moves far away from what I expected from the program. Seen most often in historical docs.

3. Over dumbing down of the topic at times. The Universe

4. Draconian editing during interviews. Hey let the guy finish his point. Many times the guest will be commenting on the topic only to be "cut off" in mid sentence as the show gravitates away.

5. Overkill with graphic or audio effects.

Anyone have any other pet peeves on TV docs?

 

[Paul Kimball]

I know most of the docs on cable are for entertainment. But here is a short list of pet peeves I have regarding many of these shows

1. After a commercial break a recap of what has been already been covered. This recap gets longer as the show progresses cause there is more to recap!

2. Host's attend a training program or activity to learn more about the topic. Moves far away from what I expected from the program. Seen most often in historical docs.

3. Over dumbing down of the topic at times. The Universe

4. Draconian editing during interviews. Hey let the guy finish his point. Many times the guest will be commenting on the topic only to be "cut off" in mid sentence as the show gravitates away.

5. Overkill with graphic or audio effects.

Anyone have any other pet peeves on TV docs?

The term "documentary" is one that is overused in my opinion. For example, is UFO Hunters a documentary series? Not in any traditional sense; rather, it is perhaps best-described as infotainment, which is something different entirely.

A true documentary probably won't have any of the five "sins" you mentioned above. Most important, it should be able to be viewed straight through (even if on television its broken up into commercial segments... but then so is Star Wars when its broadcast) as a whole, and not a series of "segments" or "spots". Most important, there should be a narrative arc to it, in the same way that fictional films have a narrative arc. I would suggest having a look at the films of Errol Morris to see what I mean.

Of the films that I've done, for example, I would consider Stanton T. Friedman is Real to be a true documentary, while I would classify Best Evidence: Top 10 UFO Sightings as infotainment, although I always try to emphasize the "info" part more than the "tainment" part, if you know what I mean.

Paul

 

[PhantomAce]

The term "documentary" is one that is overused in my opinion. For example, is UFO Hunters a documentary series? Not in any traditional sense; rather, it is perhaps best-described as infotainment, which is something different entirely.

Thanks Paul. I was looking for the right word for the TV show's I was referring and infotainment is right on.

 

[Paul Kimball]

Thanks Paul. I was looking for the right word for the TV show's I was referring and infotainment is right on.

No problemo. Unfortunately, there are far more infotainment programs on UFOs out there than there are real documentaries. However, remembering that film and television is a business first and foremost, that's understandable... and there are good infotainment type programs out there, if not quite true documentaries then at least done with the same spirit and methodology as one would employ while making a doc.

Paul

 

[PhantomAce]

No problemo. Unfortunately, there are far more infotainment programs on UFOs out there than there are real documentaries. However, remembering that film and television is a business first and foremost, that's understandable... and there are good infotainment type programs out there, if not quite true documentaries then at least done with the same spirit and methodology as one would employ while making a doc.

Paul

How does a "infotainment" program actually get "pitched" to a network? Or let me put this way....

Is their sort of a "intellectual threshold" for a doc/infotainment program to be accepted by one of the mainstream networks? ie Science,History Channel?

Do these networks work with any specific data to show what their audience can consume when it comes to information?

I'm suddenly a little interested in the process these shows come to air. There must be a reason for my five pet peeves.

 

[Paul Kimball]

How does a "infotainment" program actually get "pitched" to a network? Or let me put this way....

Is their sort of a "intellectual threshold" for a doc/infotainment program to be accepted by one of the mainstream networks? ie Science,History Channel?

Do these networks work with any specific data to show what their audience can consume when it comes to information?

I'm suddenly a little interested in the process these shows come to air. There must be a reason for my five pet peeves.

When I was a musician, an older "vet" of the music industry gave me the following advice as a songwriter: understand that pop songs are 3 to 4 minute breaks between radio (or TV video) advertising, and you'll do fine. The same is generally true for television - the programming really serves as a prop for the ads, and not the other way around.

I can't speak to the US, other than to say that I think it's even worse down there than it is in Canada, a slightly less damn-the-torpedoes country when it comes to capitalism. But even up here, it's getting harder than it used to be to just sell a network on a good idea (i.e. less infotainment, and more doc). Space, which funded all of my UFO films from 2000 to 2007, told me recently that they aren't really interested in that kind of serious UFO doc anymore; instead, they now focus on infotainment films about zombies, and movies about zombies, and so forth. A recent one was about "scream queens" (not a bad film, mind you - just not terribly educational). On the other hand, a network like CBC, which is our national public network, and does fund serious docs, wouldn't touch UFOs with a ten foot poll, because it's not serious enough, at least to them. For that state of affairs, you can thank the likes of Steven Greer and Phil Corso and... well, it's a long list.

From hereon in I won't even be pitching UFO docs to networks. There's no point, and I don't really want to do pure infotainment as it relates to UFOs, because I take the subject seriously. The UFO films I do will probably be funded from my own pocket, or my company's, which means from the fees and corporate overhead I take from other, more mainstream projects.

Paul

 

[PhantomAce]

Thanks for your insights. I've heard you speak many times and was quite pleased. Where can one obtain your films?