A Quote by Jason Katims

How do you do something where you're able to be specific and edgy enough to compete with what the cable networks are doing and, at the same time, appeal to a broader audience? That's the line that everyone in network television is trying to tread.
With the rise of cable, network is clearly floundering because the characters on cable are far more fascinating than they are on network. Network television is trying to figure it out. Network television really relies on story rather than character, and cable relies on character.
For me, I think there's a lot more room in cable television to tell broader stories. NBC and the networks, they're all very mainstream, and they're a little more conservative in how they approach storytelling.
I don`t control the schedule of the networks. We have three of our debates that are on network television, and those are on Saturday nights. We have three other debates that are during the week. And unfortunately, broadcast network programming is less flexible than cable network programming.
I think its going to be continually tougher on the big networks as more cable channels do really interesting television. The big networks have a choice to make: Do we try to be all things to all people and get the shows that will deliver 20 million viewers a week? Are we the McDonald's of television? Or are we going to try to be more specific?
When I was trying to find work after drama school in London, it felt like the same actors always got the plum roles, especially in television. We have a smaller market place, vastly fewer drama-producing networks, and they seem to compete for the same established names for those projects.
Most of the network television audience now is primarily women, but I think that's because the shows are developed to appeal to women. I don't know that there are too many shows that appeal to guys anymore. I'm not sure why that is, but I think that it may have something to do with the fact that most development staffs are women.
This is the evolution of television. It just keeps evolving from three networks, four cable networks, satellite. Now there's Internet channels and the phone.
I'm not interested in doing something edgy with a capital E just so everyone knows, 'Oh, OK, now he's showing us he can do edgy.'
Cable has come along; many all-news 24 hour cable outlets in the United States. They have cut deeply into the traditional networks' viewing audience.
When I did 'Ugly Betty' it was very similar to working on 'Mad Men' - great group of people in their own little world. But I don't really see a lot of difference. Of course, on the cable shows, you can tackle subjects and be more specific, because networks have to appeal to the masses, but that's constantly changing and evolving.
There are not going to be hundreds of cable networks doing original programming; they won't be able to sustain the model.
People are sophisticated viewers, as evidenced by the risks that are taken in cable television, and I think network has to do the same thing.
Obviously, it's not cable, it's streaming, but it's the same format. It's the same 10 episodes. It feels like cable as opposed to network.
Everyone talks about reality TV and that there are no roles left. That's false. Years ago, there were three networks. Now there are 20 cable networks and so many ways for films to be exhibited. It's an exciting time for actors, writers, directors, and producers.
Human attention is limited, and a massive number of newly browsable books from the long tail necessarily compete with the biggest best-sellers, just as cable siphons audience from the major networks, and just as the Web pulls viewers from TV.
Prior to 'The Shield,' basic cable was just a wasteland of reruns and NASCAR. When we came along, I think there was a collective, 'Hey, if they can do that, why can't we?' from the basic-cable networks of the world. We ended up being the cornerstone for a network, and a great one.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!