TV Tuesday: Pinching Pennies

[yourlibrarian]

A recent article talks about the financial crisis in British TV. U.S. streamers also spent more lavishly on TV shows 5 years ago than they are now, with some shows never even being shown to an audience.

Are there things you would miss if budgets ended up being cut 30% or more from what we've seen in recent years? What sort of programming might you miss?

Comments

[jo]

This is difficult to answer (which might explain the dearth of replies) because I have no idea what the budget break-down is for most of the shows I watch. Meaning, is a lot of it salary if it stars really well-known actors? I assume for sci fi shows, a big chunk would be CGI/make-up and prosthetics/set design, etc. Is there a way they could balance things out by maybe leaving the CGI and other effects budget more or less intact and cast up-and-coming (aka largely unknown) actors rather than try to lure viewers in with big name (and big salary) actors? Can't say what I'd miss if cut when I don't know where the money goes.

[yourlibrarian]

That's true and it's also hard to know what the possibilities would be! From the article I'd guess less on location shooting and likely more standardized sets and more off the rack clothes.

I remember reading an article some years back talking about how costuming was suffering budget cuts. I think they used a Star Wars show as an example, of how fewer outfits involved any tailoring compared to looser, less fitted clothing because it was quicker and cheaper to make.

I know that one thing I noticed on Merlin in later seasons was that Arthur and the knights were always in armor and Gwen had more of the same clothes as well. I deduced at the time that this was due to cost cutting. It certainly wasn't actor preference as I remember one said that the chain mail was cold in the winter and hot in the summer. Additionally such outfits had loose fits and could in some cases be transferred from actor to actor.

[jo]

Terry Dresbach, who was the original costume designer for Outlander (and Ron Moore's wife) had a blog about the costume design on the show. One of the things they focused on was re-using/re-purposing and also repeatedly mending items not so much as a cost-saving measure (although I'm sure it did that), but because that is exactly what people would have done back in the 1700s. As she said -- it's not like they had a department store down the street where they could just go and pick up new stuff all the time.

[yourlibrarian]

It's something I wish would be done more often on other shows! I am all for re-using and scaling down when it makes sense for the story. For example on Supernatural why wouldn't these guys be shopping at Wal-Mart? And have like 6 outfits? (Although I could see new clothes regularly simply because it was a life of a lot of wear and tear)

[flareonfury]

Also where the heck did Sam & Dean keep the extra clothes if not in the trunk where all the weapons were? LOL

Honestly a thing about the newer shows from what I'd probably say the last 15 or so years (unless wearing a uniform/costume) I'd say most actors are wearing basically new outfits every episode, sometimes multiple times depending on the timeline of the episode. Now while, I get the reasonings behind it - for the most part - I think having actors who deal with modern clothing should have to wear the same outfits too & more than once in a season and definitely throughout the various seasons (if they even GET another season at this point). That would seem more normal to me, and more cost-effective definitely. It would of course suck for the costume design people, but they can always mix the clothes up or something like in real life? Plus if cartoons have to be stuck with same outfit episode after episode/year after year, TV shows should reflect that at times as well.

Not sure if anyone listens to the Pod Meets World podcast about the three actors from Boy Meets World, but I've listened to a lot of it, and they interview several behind-the-scenes people, including costume designs where they would actually go hunting for outfits at thrift stores or various places which I find very interesting and just something I hadn't considered they would do. The actors would also switch up the outfits, like the leather jacket that the character Shawn Hunter had was originally Eric Matthew's or/and Harley Keiner. A few other examples exist but I'm blanking on them. I'm not sure if costume design people still do that but that could be cost-effective?

I don't think I would mind if they were cut 30%, I mean I grew up on various levels of budgets/genres/types of shows and love them throughout the decades. Honestly as long as the level of acting and writing are excellent, everything else is just extra in my book.

I do think jo is correct on maybe casting "up-and-coming (aka largely unknown) actors rather than try to lure viewers in with big name (and big salary) actors". Like I really don't need another Nicole Kidman show, sorry she's the only one I can think of at the moment but she's not the only one that I feel like is in everything. Which I guess is good for her, but isn't there something about over exposure fatigue or something? Sometimes I even pointedly skip those types of shows depending on the actors.

Sorry signing off before I fall asleep.

[yourlibrarian]

Ha, yes! Not like they traveled with much.

Funny you should mention cartoons as there it's very rare to ever see someone in more than one outfit unless they are, say, doing undercover work or wearing protective gear of some kind etc.

Shopping at thrift stores strikes me as odd as well because you usually need at least two of the same outfit for a lead because of potential emergency problems. And if you were in SPN or Buffy etc. you'd need more for the stunt double. Might make more sense for background extras though. It would also explain why there are so few people of any size past 4 given the restricted availability of larger clothes.

Agreed that ultimately it's the story/characters and not the special effects, settings, etc. And also agreed about name actors, although interestingly I most notice this when older actors are being cast. Perhaps this is partly because they're the best known due to their time in the industry, although I suspect it's meant to try and broaden an audience that otherwise wouldn't watch older unknowns lead a show.

That said, I really appreciated the money spent on Andor which was considerable in terms of cast size, location shoots, special effects, set design and, yes, constuming. It would still have been a good story on a smaller budget. But perhaps the impact of that budget on screen was meant to generate more buy in from people confronted with a more challenging sort of Star Wars story.