Everything about Featured, eh?

Comments and queries for the week of June 12

When does Season 4 of Saving Hope start? —Terri

Production on Season 4 of Saving Hope began June 1 in and around Toronto and continues until December. The season is comprised of 18 episodes with Kim Shaw and Max Bennett joining the cast. Rookie Blue star Travis Milne will pop in for a four-episode arc.

Now to answer your question: CTV announced last week that Saving Hope returns to Thursdays this fall, but an actual date has not been revealed. Here’s a teaser on what to expect when Season 4 does return:

“Season 4 picks up nine months after the devastating accident, as the Hope Zion staff continue to deal with the aftermath of the death of their colleague and friend, Dr. Joel Goran. Alex is back at work following maternity leave, trying to balance motherhood and a busy O.R. Meanwhile, Dr. Charlie Harris continues to be haunted by his ghost-seeing abilities and the looming question of whether or not he is Baby Luke’s biological father.”


Martin Sheen to star in new Anne of Green Gables TV-movie

This series should have been left alone and the movies could have expanded on Anne’s later life. It’s too early to do remakes of this movie when it has already been done and was done very well. There’s no reason why kids of today cannot enjoy what was already made. —Mel


Review: Orphan Black – The Six

You’ve mentioned Cosima dying a couple of times now. The Internet also seems awash with speculation that Delphine is a goner. (Nooooo!) However, I have a theory I thought I’d toss out here just on the off chance it’s correct: why not kill Alison?

My reason for considering it is that OB needs to up the stakes with the death of a core clone. Sarah can’t go, obvs, and Cosima is such a fan favourite (and a lesbian—there’s a sad history of killing lesbians on TV) that it seems OB would risk a ratings tank it can’t afford with her death. Also, who could step into her needed science role? Delphine and Scott could sadly carry on without her, but there is no clone available to take her place in both function and tone.

But with Alison, there is now Krystal. Assuming she can be saved, exploring Krystal’s world instead of Alison’s would offer the same light-hearted tone but perhaps in a lower-key Kimmy Schmidt-way rather than the Desperate Housewives/Weeds-way Alison’s world employs.

And Alison has been delving into some deep doo-doo (I feel she would use that word) with murders and drugs for three seasons now, and it’s all been played for laughs. I think she has some reality coming her way and most would never see it coming.

As for Kristian Bruun, let him stretch and get out of the constant comedy mode and play the shocked and grieving husband. He can have comedy again later (platonically with Helena or Krystal or whomever).

Anyway, I’m sure I’m wrong, but killing Cosima seems too obvious and too difficult to recover from. Plus, like I said, there’s no clone replacement standing by for her. So maybe she’s a great big red herring (complete with red coat). Alison has gotten away with a lot and lived in her own world, which more and more seems to have no connection to the central plot. Killing her would finally make her relevant and shake everyone up for S4 and S5, which is supposedly the last season.

Go ahead, tell me I’m crazy! LOL :)—Ellie

 

Got a question or comment about Canadian TV? Email greg@tv-eh.com or via @tv_eh.

Facebooktwitterredditlinkedinmail

CanCon 101 – Part 2

In the first part in this series, CanCon 101, I wrote about what makes a show Canadian (i.e. point system, spending, ownership etc.). This post takes it to the next step – what are a broadcaster’s obligations when it comes to airing Canadian programming. Not to worry – I won’t lose myself down the rabbit hole of detail on broadcaster CRTC commitments but will try to stick to a top level explanation.

First, there are (still) both expenditure requirements and exhibition requirements. I say still because there are misconceptions out there that we are in a total on demand world and scheduling doesn’t matter (tell that to people trying to avoid “Game of Throne” spoilers on Twitter Sunday evenings) and that exhibition regulation no longer exists. Prior to the 2010 TV Policy there were only exhibition requirements for ‘priority programming’ and an overall day quota for exhibition and the result was a lot of cheaply made Canadian programming. Expenditure requirements were brought in to ensure that not only was there sufficient quantity of Canadian programming but also sufficient quality.  The Talk TV decision limited exhibition requirements to prime time (down from both the prime time and all day quota) as of the next licence renewals in 2016.

Another important concept is that we now have group-based licensing. So Shaw, Bell, Corus and Rogers are licensed as corporate groups. This allows those broadcasters to pool their Canadian Programming Expenditures (CPE) across the group and spend more on one service and less on another. Each service has a CPE that takes into consideration its genre of service (e.g. a higher commitment for children’s services, lower for third language services) but as a group their CPE is 30%.

One caveat is that conventional services can allocate a maximum of 25% of their CPE to specialty services, which is to prevent broadcast groups from moving all of the Canadian programming to the specialty services, where they would get smaller audiences (leaving the mass audience spots for their U.S. programming). The benefit is that broadcasters are free to air a program on a specialty first and then on their conventional service (e.g. “19-2” airing on Bravo and then CTV) or vice-versa (Global’s “Rookie Blue” airs on Showcase) to maximize the audience. The downside is that these programs are broadcast across the entire group for one licence fee, reducing potential revenues to producers and potential new programming for audiences.

The other expenditure requirement is for Programs of National Interest (“PNI”), which are defined as dramas, documentaries and award shows that promote Canadian works. Note that drama is a defined term that includes comedy and feature film. The level of PNI expenditure is based on a group’s historical spending in most cases (Rogers has had to increase their spending as they acquire more channels in their network).

The result of these regulations is a system that provides broadcast groups with flexibility in their spending and exhibition but requires minimum spending on PNI in prime time. So how does Shaw get away with no new Canadian drama in the fall schedule? Exhibition regulations do not require original programming so can be filled with reruns. The prime time exhibition requirement covers 6pm to 11pm so is also fulfilled by news, entertainment magazine shows, reality programming (i.e. “Big Brother Canada”) and sports. Expenditure requirements also do not specify original programming but it is a lot harder to spend PNI dollars on licensing old programming so tends to be spent on new programming. However, expenditure requirements are reported on an annual basis based on when the money is spent (i.e. during the show’s production) and not when it airs.

So the broadcaster is free to decide to air all of their Canadian drama and documentaries in the summer (when fewer people are watching TV but also there is less competition from US shows) or spread them out around the year. They can commission shows one year and not air them until the next year or later. The CRTC has consistently stayed away from ‘micro-regulation’ and insisted that broadcasters know best how to program their schedules.   Shaw can decide how it wants to spend its money, and it tends to spend it on one or two big budget dramas like “Remedy” and “Rookie Blue” rather than a number of smaller budget dramas.

So how is that Bell Media consistently has more Canadian drama than Shaw? Diane Wild alluded to the answer in her assessment of the fall schedules – benefits spending. When a broadcast licence changes ownership, the CRTC requires that a percentage of the purchase price has to be spent on programming (and off screen benefits as well) to benefit the system as a whole and this ‘benefits spending’ has to be incremental to what they are already required to spend.

Bell has acquired more other services (Bell buying CTV twice, CITY specialties and Astral) than Shaw (Global and taking over the obligations from Global buying Alliance Atlantis) or Rogers (the CITY conventional channels and a few smaller specialties). Some notable examples of benefits spending have been on “Corner Gas”, more episodes of “Degrassi” and the development of “Flashpoint”. Over the years the benefits spending has also triggered more Canada Media Fund allocations, which are in part based on historical spend (as well as audience success, regional spending and digital media investment), resulting in more money to spend on Canadian drama, documentaries, children’s and performing arts shows (the four categories supported by the Canada Media Fund).   It will be very interesting to see whether Bell’s level of support of Canadian drama (they do very little documentary work) continues once their benefit spending expires in 2018.

Facebooktwitterredditlinkedinmail

Think outside the pink toy box, Nelvana

When the Nelvana and Topps Company television series Mysticons was first announced in 2013, the head of Topps’ parent company – ex-Disney CEO Michael Eisner — said in a media release: “Nelvana has a strong history of success in building and launching hit boys action properties and the partnership with Topps sets the stage for Mysticons to be the next big global boys action franchise.”

Yesterday, Corus Entertainment’s Nelvana sent another media release about the reworked series, still in partnership with Topps, calling it an “epic animated series for girls 6+” and using the phrase “Girls Action series” throughout.

I have some questions.

Why the proper noun for Girls Action? But more importantly, why is it necessary to specify in a media release that the show is for girls, any more than it was necessary to specify in a media release the show was for boys?

I guess the answer to both questions is in a tab on Nelvana’s website called Boys Action. They are going for broke in putting a gender to their action shows, at a time when corporations like Eisner’s former employer Disney and Toys R Us are removing gender labels in response to consumer demand.

Of course demographics are everything when selling a show to advertisers. Demographics will tell you where you’ll get the most bang for your marketing buck. All of that is important to advertisers and marketers … behind the scenes. Not to media. And by specifying before you’ve even produced the show that your marketing and advertising will target girls, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy when boys shy away from it.

If it’s truly self-evident that a show with girl characters is more appealing to girls, let it be self-evident and therefore unstated publicly, especially in a time when that casual normalizing of this kind of gender division is under siege by the very people affected by it: kids.

There are rules about how you can advertise to children because they’re impressionable, not yet formed. And it shouldn’t be up to Nelvana to form kids along an unnecessary gender line. There should be in-house rules for production companies and broadcasters on how to publicly discuss a show without excluding boys from Dora the Explorer and Doc McStuffins and girls from Beyblade and Di-Gata Defenders.

We’re talking an age where companies like Lego and Disney are being reminded, loudly, that not all girls like pink and some boys like to play with dolls. Some girls want to dress up like Darth Vader and some boys like Elsa from Frozen. The kids themselves will let you know when you fail them.

Nelvana, you’re failing them.

Facebooktwitterredditlinkedinmail

TV, eh? podcast episode 184 – Full of Newsy Goodness

The team is at full strength and covering a lot of breaking news in the Canadian industry, including the cancellation and return of Degrassi, Martin Sheen joining the Anne of Green Gables TV-movie, Corus’ reboot of ReBoot and Season 1 and 2 of Blackstone heading to CBC for the summer.

Also discussed: Saving Hope gets a plum spot on CTV’s fall schedule, X Company and Strange Empire are available to binge-watch on Netflix Canada and Diane and Greg recap Rogers, Shaw and Bell Media’s fall schedules.

Want to contribute to the discussion? Post links and discussion topics on our Reddit page.

Listen or download below, or subscribe via iTunes or any other podcast catcher with the TV, eh? podcast feed.

Want to become a Patron of the Podcast? We’ve got a Patreon page where you can donate a small amount per podcast and get a sneak peek of each release.

Facebooktwitterredditlinkedinmail

Dark Matter launches Canada’s summer of sci-fi

Call it Canada’s summer of sci-fi. That’s certainly how it’s shaping up, with Space’s newbies Dark Matter and Killjoys and Showcase’s returning Defiance all gliding across our screens for the upcoming couple of months.

The first out of the gate is Dark Matter, a space opera created by Joseph Mallozzi and Paul Mullie, the duo behind the Stargate franchise. Starring Anthony Lemke (19-2), Roger Cross (Continuum) and Zoie Palmer (Lost Girl), Friday’s debut catches up with a group of people who awaken from a deep sleep to find themselves on a space ship and with no memory of how they got there … or who they are. The idea for Dark Matter first came to Mallozzi back when he and Mullie were deeply entrenched in Stargate: Atlantis; they turned the idea into a graphic novel first before shopping it to networks as a series.

Mollozzi is quick to highlight a feature of Dark Matter that kept him enthralled in projects like Farscape and Firefly: humour.

“There is a lot of dark sci-fi out there that is great,” he explains. “But a lot of fans are missing a fun sci-fi series and there hasn’t been one on a ship-based show for awhile. We set out to make a fun show with a sense of humour while at the same time putting viewers on the edge of their seat every week.”

Space

It doesn’t take long for either of those plot points to appear in Friday’s debut. After awakening from sleep, the crew—One (Marc Bendavid, Bitten), Two (O’Neil, Broadway’s Les Misérables), Three (Lemke), Four (Alex Mallari Jr., Robocop), Five (Jodelle Ferland, The Cabin in the Woods) and Six (Cross)—begin to investigate their surroundings. Three is a sarcastic lover of weaponry who likes to shoot first and ask questions later, a rogue Mallozzi likens to Han Solo, Five is energetic and full of snark and One provides the leadership the squad so badly needs. The ragtag group uncover a seventh individual aboard: the ship’s android (Palmer), who makes a memorable first impression.

Who are they? Where are they? Where are they going and what the heck is locked behind a massive steel door in the bowels of the ship? The answer to the first question is delivered by the end of the debut while leaving things open for character evolution.

“Going back over my writing over the years is this idea of redemption,” Mallozzi says. “Nature vs. nurture. Are you born bad or are you a product of your environment? People form the strongest of friendships with their former enemies and the strongest of enemies with their former friends. It’s fascinating to me.”

As for what’s lurking behind that massive door? Mallozzi promises that will be resolved halfway through the season.

“We’re not going to string you guys along,” he says with a laugh. “There are setups and payoffs along the way. We’re going to find out the answers to two mysteries this season: who wiped their memories and what is behind that big metal door.”

Let the summer of sci-fi commence.

Dark Matter airs Fridays at 10 p.m. ET on Space.

Facebooktwitterredditlinkedinmail