And from a commercial perspective it is actually a negative that they watch together rather than separately, because targeted advertising is what has made these new media behemoths so successful.
I also have issues with the idea that this dysfunctional TV family would have inherent appeal to real families whether watching as a group or separately. Dysfunctional families work as comedy, and isn't there a mountain of those sorts of shows around at the moment, but as an adventure? I fail to see the attractiveness of a b1tch mother and an imbecile father, let alone understand why this would be good family viewing.
I agree with you about dysfunctional families often being showcased in comedy, but there is usually some moral or redeeming thread. I see the same here in LIS. Based on your last line it seems obvious you are not seeing the same thing. :)
In the boomer decades marketing was relatively simple. There was a homogeneity to consumer choices that created iconic brands that are still mostly with us today. Levis, McDonalds, KFC, Coke, etc; these were almost synonymous with American, and Western society. So advertisers knew that they could put adverts in particular timeslots and reliably reach their target markets. Families really did watch TV together, so prime time TV not only gave bigger audiences it also allowed advertisers to reach multiple generations in the same hit. By the 90s this had changed substantially. VCRs, multiplex cinemas, malls, all these things gave people alternatives to sitting at home watching TV. Also, Generation X was emerging. This was originally a marketing term, driven by admen's frustration at being unable to pin down any kind of 'collective sale' for these teens.
Short version: Family TV that had been a staple right from the 1950s, almost completely disappeared because the ad dollars that had paid for it went to better targeted media.
If my family were to gather in the lounge room and my wife opens her Netflix account and we ALL watch LIS together, Netflix doesn't know that. From a data collection POV, and that is what advertisers are chasing, having 5 family members each logging onto their own Netflix feeds gives Netflix 5 times more data. Not much point trying to sell an SUV to a 12yo. The ads you see on the internet, unless you use adblock or such, are not accidental or random. They are the product of your internet browsing and purchases, and your media consumption. That is why I don't accept that an 'intention' to create a sit down family show exists. It runs 180 to the economic reality.
As for a redemptive arc in LIS 2018, there isn't one. Dad Robinson doesn't stop being (literally!) a crash test dummy. I still have no idea why Mrs Robinson disappeared with the kids, how they got back together, or why they are embracing at the end of series one. I don't think I missed anything. What it was, was conflict to create dramatic tension. But it was entirely irrational and mystifying.
If my family were to gather in the lounge room and my wife opens her Netflix account and we ALL watch LIS together, Netflix doesn't know that. From a data collection POV, and that is what advertisers are chasing, having 5 family members each logging onto their own Netflix feeds gives Netflix 5 times more data. Not much point trying to sell an SUV to a 12yo. The ads you see on the internet, unless you use adblock or such, are not accidental or random. They are the product of your internet browsing and purchases, and your media consumption. That is why I don't accept that an 'intention' to create a sit down family show exists. It runs 180 to the economic reality.
I see your point. Is that what is happening? Is Netflix tracking viewers habits then selling that to ad companies so they can display ads on other websites when you are browsing on that device? I plead ignorance. That is why I asked the question, as there are no ads on Netflix. Something else that might be vastly different is exactly how different users consume media. Granted, I am sure a majority watch on individual laptops, phones, tablets, etc, but there are also streaming devices, including built-in apps on Smart TV's that do make for communal consumption. As you infer, it's likely a small portion of the market, and perhaps not even their own desire, but it is there. Not to mention the (illegal) sharing of accounts among multiple households/devices/viewers. I don't do that, but know many who do. Such things mess with any "data" being collected.
But all that being said, more to the point was that I was not blown way by the creative material itself. I know the original series was campy (although, TBH I never watched it first hand), but I expected something different. That is why @JAYJAY1234 's thoughts brought some clarity for me...it's a family show. :)
As for a redemptive arc in LIS 2018, there isn't one. Dad Robinson doesn't stop being (literally!) a crash test dummy. I still have no idea why Mrs Robinson disappeared with the kids, how they got back together, or why they are embracing at the end of series one. I don't think I missed anything. What it was, was conflict to create dramatic tension. But it was entirely irrational and mystifying.
The moral through-line that developed in season 1, as I see it, is summarized in this line in the finale, "We're Robinsons. Live together or die together." This unity (and isolation) drives the characters into S2.
As we are learning from things like the Cambridge Analytica scandal, companies are using data in ways we never imagined. I really have no idea what Netflix does with the data it collects beyond using it to create programing. The House of Cards reboot was approved purely on the basis of viewer data. That's how dialed in that data analysis is. But with data on 500 million people it would be naive to assume that stuff is used just for programming. Ads are more than pop ups or 'and now a word from our sponsor'. There's a lot of product placement going on today for example.
Point is that Netflix measures things like how long you watch before pausing. If Fred asks Dora to pause LIS while he takes a whizz, that muddies Dora's viewing metrics.
I'm not sure the Waco mentality of 'live or die together' qualifies as redemptive. Isn't the very premise of the series that families are leaving a dying Earth so that at least some people, and therefore our species, will survive? When Maureen sacrifices the family's chance to rejoin the colony by diverting to rescue John and West, that isn't choosing collective death; it is a family looking after its members. The problem here is that Maureen was happy to leave John to his doom on Earth while she took the kids into space. We are not told why. Nor are we told how John ended up back with the family. These swings are never explained. The writers had an entire series to get this stuff covered, even if they drip fed us. But no, it just isn't there. And we might not get a second series. I think that qualifies as unsatisfactory writing.
They've aready lost me. The Jupiter 2, Chariot and robot are all WRONG!!!!!
What do you mean by “all wrong” ?
Both shows are over 40 years apart so there is bound to be artistic direction differences
The original was a corny. But was charming little show. This is just boring and overly melodramatic like everything on TV now a days. It dosn't have to be exactly like the original show. But it could actually somewhat entertaining. Its not in any way. The characters are flat as cardboard.
Jacinto Cupboard 的回复
于 2018 年 05 月 02 日 7:33下午
In the boomer decades marketing was relatively simple. There was a homogeneity to consumer choices that created iconic brands that are still mostly with us today. Levis, McDonalds, KFC, Coke, etc; these were almost synonymous with American, and Western society. So advertisers knew that they could put adverts in particular timeslots and reliably reach their target markets. Families really did watch TV together, so prime time TV not only gave bigger audiences it also allowed advertisers to reach multiple generations in the same hit. By the 90s this had changed substantially. VCRs, multiplex cinemas, malls, all these things gave people alternatives to sitting at home watching TV. Also, Generation X was emerging. This was originally a marketing term, driven by admen's frustration at being unable to pin down any kind of 'collective sale' for these teens.
Short version: Family TV that had been a staple right from the 1950s, almost completely disappeared because the ad dollars that had paid for it went to better targeted media.
If my family were to gather in the lounge room and my wife opens her Netflix account and we ALL watch LIS together, Netflix doesn't know that. From a data collection POV, and that is what advertisers are chasing, having 5 family members each logging onto their own Netflix feeds gives Netflix 5 times more data. Not much point trying to sell an SUV to a 12yo. The ads you see on the internet, unless you use adblock or such, are not accidental or random. They are the product of your internet browsing and purchases, and your media consumption. That is why I don't accept that an 'intention' to create a sit down family show exists. It runs 180 to the economic reality.
As for a redemptive arc in LIS 2018, there isn't one. Dad Robinson doesn't stop being (literally!) a crash test dummy. I still have no idea why Mrs Robinson disappeared with the kids, how they got back together, or why they are embracing at the end of series one. I don't think I missed anything. What it was, was conflict to create dramatic tension. But it was entirely irrational and mystifying.
Daddie0 的回复
于 2018 年 05 月 03 日 6:02下午
I see your point. Is that what is happening? Is Netflix tracking viewers habits then selling that to ad companies so they can display ads on other websites when you are browsing on that device? I plead ignorance. That is why I asked the question, as there are no ads on Netflix. Something else that might be vastly different is exactly how different users consume media. Granted, I am sure a majority watch on individual laptops, phones, tablets, etc, but there are also streaming devices, including built-in apps on Smart TV's that do make for communal consumption. As you infer, it's likely a small portion of the market, and perhaps not even their own desire, but it is there. Not to mention the (illegal) sharing of accounts among multiple households/devices/viewers. I don't do that, but know many who do. Such things mess with any "data" being collected.
But all that being said, more to the point was that I was not blown way by the creative material itself. I know the original series was campy (although, TBH I never watched it first hand), but I expected something different. That is why @JAYJAY1234 's thoughts brought some clarity for me...it's a family show. :)
The moral through-line that developed in season 1, as I see it, is summarized in this line in the finale, "We're Robinsons. Live together or die together." This unity (and isolation) drives the characters into S2.
Jacinto Cupboard 的回复
于 2018 年 05 月 03 日 11:17下午
As we are learning from things like the Cambridge Analytica scandal, companies are using data in ways we never imagined. I really have no idea what Netflix does with the data it collects beyond using it to create programing. The House of Cards reboot was approved purely on the basis of viewer data. That's how dialed in that data analysis is. But with data on 500 million people it would be naive to assume that stuff is used just for programming. Ads are more than pop ups or 'and now a word from our sponsor'. There's a lot of product placement going on today for example.
Point is that Netflix measures things like how long you watch before pausing. If Fred asks Dora to pause LIS while he takes a whizz, that muddies Dora's viewing metrics.
I'm not sure the Waco mentality of 'live or die together' qualifies as redemptive. Isn't the very premise of the series that families are leaving a dying Earth so that at least some people, and therefore our species, will survive? When Maureen sacrifices the family's chance to rejoin the colony by diverting to rescue John and West, that isn't choosing collective death; it is a family looking after its members. The problem here is that Maureen was happy to leave John to his doom on Earth while she took the kids into space. We are not told why. Nor are we told how John ended up back with the family. These swings are never explained. The writers had an entire series to get this stuff covered, even if they drip fed us. But no, it just isn't there. And we might not get a second series. I think that qualifies as unsatisfactory writing.
Nygma-0999 的回复
于 2018 年 05 月 23 日 10:37下午
The original was a corny. But was charming little show. This is just boring and overly melodramatic like everything on TV now a days. It dosn't have to be exactly like the original show. But it could actually somewhat entertaining. Its not in any way. The characters are flat as cardboard.