TV, eh? | What's up in Canadian television | Page 810
TV,eh? What's up in Canadian television

Reaction to CRTC’s Policy framework for Certified Independent Production Funds

By Anonymous 

UPDATE: If the intent is to attract “top talent” that will make all these new “American” Canadian shows more viable, the CRTC should probably know that even some of the most successful Canadians in L.A., like the showrunner/creator of Bones, isn’t impressed.

Hanson1

Hart2


Canadian Television is about to become slightly less full of Canadians, thanks to a major CRTC decision released quietly yesterday.

The CRTC is allowing the independent production funds (including the Shaw Rocket Fund, Rogers Fund, Cogeco Program Development Fund, Telefilm Canada, and the Harold Greenberg Fund) to reduce their “point system” for what determines Canadian-ness of a project from 8 to 6. The general effect of this will be to allow for the hiring of non-Canadians in key creation and starring roles (ie: Americans will be able to create and star in “Canadian” TV series).

This, in fact, by the CRTC’s own admission, was one of the points of the decision:

“The current criterion requiring eight out of 10 Canadian content certification points to qualify for CIPF funding is restrictive and excludes many productions that could otherwise be of high quality and qualify as Canadian. Moreover, a reduced requirement could help smaller and perhaps more innovative projects to qualify for funding. A reduced requirement of at least six points could also facilitate the hiring by production companies of non-Canadian actors or creators, who may increase a project’s attractiveness and visibility in international markets.”

Reaction from the Canadian creative community was swift, and critical.

Ellis

Zmak

McGrath

Senecal

Andras

What’s particularly unusual about this decision is that something with far-reaching implications was done as a “paper hearing,” ie: the CRTC did not hold any public consultations.

The last time something like this was proposed, the Writers Guild of Canada brought a group of screenwriters to Hull to appear before the commission. They made a convincing case as to why this “flexibility” wouldn’t lead to better quality Canadian programming. It seems that current chairman J.P. Blais was determined to not repeat this exercise.

Of concern to fans of actual Canadian TV shows, of course, is the fact that once again in no way was the audience consulted. The CRTC didn’t bother to seek out or try to understand the feelings of fans who celebrate unique Canadian points-of-view and creative directions on display in Canadian-created shows such as Orphan Black, Flashpoint, X Company, Letterkenny, Wynonna Earp, Lost Girl, Rookie Blue, Saving Hope, Motive, or many more.

As Peter Mitchell, executive producer and showrunner of Murdoch Mysteries explained on Facebook, even the premise of the CRTC’s decision is faulty:

Mitchell

The problem with the CRTC’s decision is that it really doesn’t advance any new idea. Many Canadian producers have been doing their level best to copy “American-style” shows for years, watering down the Canadian creative role as much as possible. They never seem to do as well as the original work such as Orphan Black or Murdoch Mysteries. That’s why you’re not seeing Season 4 of the forgettable XIII, and why Houdini & Doyle, which debuted to so much fanfare, died a quiet death.

The idea that Canadian producers will be able to attract top American talent is dubious at best. Because if you’re American, and you’re working in the American industry where there’s more money, and more prestige, why would you take a massive pay cut to work in Canada? Instead of top American talent, you’re likelier to get the people who can’t get hired anymore, who might have had credits in the 1980s or 1990s. And now the CRTC has blessed the idea that these marginal players are more valuable than the top homegrown talent who are responsible for the industry’s top successes.

Senecal2

Filia

There are other ways to approach the idea of creating hits, rather than this failed road. But the CRTC seems to be enamored with the fantasy that “flexibility” fixes all, rather than actually supporting talent.

WGC

And the best part? A government that ran at least partially on a platform of promoting culture is signalling to the next generation of storytellers not to bother—that it’s time to leave:

Morrison

Natty

So there’s nothing good here if you’re a Canadian writer or actor hoping to star in or create a Canadian show. Or if you’re someone who likes the unique point of view you see from Canadian TV shows. But the producer’s association loves it. I’m sure you’ll be getting something great from that writer who did one episode of Simon & Simon any day now.

McGrath2

Zmak2

Zmak3

Senacal4

Great news, isn’t it?

Facebooktwitterredditlinkedinmail

Link: Lola Tash previews Four in the Morning

From Heather M. of The Televixen:

Link: Lola Tash previews Four in the Morning
“I auditioned and at first I didn’t get it, and a year later I got a phone call that they wanted me for it. [Mitzi] is, at first, an emotionally withdrawn banker who is really easygoing and approaches everything with detachment and then you see that she is detached for a reason and gets hurt easily and cares more than she lets on.” Continue reading.

Facebooktwitterredditlinkedinmail

Comments and queries for the week of August 26

Your Morning not a hit with fans

Watched the first show of CTV’s Your Morning for maybe 20 minutes and will not be back. Huge disappointment! I agree with previous comments re: The View and The Social ( two other very uninteresting shows). Also very disappointed that both CTV channels broadcasted the same content. I envision a large boardroom with some hired (big bucks) consultant presenting this wild idea to members who have no clue of their audience. You drank the Kool-Aid! Terrible show! Gather any remaining senses and bring back Bev, Marci, Anwar, Todd and Michael—at least they know how to connect with an audience and present information worth knowing. —CJ

This new show is such a letdown. Where is the actual news? Having to see and listen to Ben, and his harem of chatty ladies, is extremely annoying first thing in the morning. They seem to be speaking over one another in a quest to get the most attention. I have to admit that I was happy to say goodbye to Jeff and good riddance to his ridiculous videos, but this new team is too much! Surely, you can do much better CTV! —From Ottawa

Terrible! Used to watch every morning and loved it. I can’t stand the new version. Bring the old format back and the former hosts! Unless they change the format I will watch another channel/competitor! —Pat

Agree there no class on this show. Can’t stand The Social and this is what this is. If you only appeal to the young you will lose millions. The young watch the Internet for news, not TV. The Social is immature and yappy and so is this. Weather girl trying to compete with other noisy people. Not to criticize, but this generation has no intelligence emotionally, no sophistication and can’t pull off charm. And you can’t fake charm. —Sharon

Please cancel this new morning show! It is unbearable. I gave it a third chance! Couldn’t do it. Thirty minutes later and I switched channels again! It is terrible. Please bring back the Canada AM we all knew and loved in the mornings! Ben and the gals have to go! —F&B

I watched Canada AM every morning since the early 80’s. Sorry, not a fan of the new show. I also don’t like the change to the news channel. The whole point of a news channel is to watch the news, not some poor version of The Social. —April

I truly don’t understand the mindset of creating Your Morning! Our kids are thirtysomethings and watch Breakfast Television. One tuned in and found it “noisy” due to hyper-like chatter. We agree. If an updated format was needed, why not update Canada AM? It seemed a well-oiled machine, relaxed, great hosts! The Social is successful—why duplicate it? What is CTV trying to accomplish? It’s too early in the morning for this crew and the type of program this is! We’re now watching CBC. —Kathy

Very very sad when Canada AM was cancelled. I enjoyed starting my day with the the wonderful hosts and easygoing format. I was not able to enjoy a morning show when I was working, and once I retired Canada AM fit the bill perfectly! I think CTV made a mistake by trying to appeal to a younger age group. They are probably all at work and won’t be watching anyway. I decided to give Your Morning a chance and watched a few episodes—very disappointing :(. There is not much on TV  to appeal to 60-plus demographic anymore. I think I will probably turn off the TV and either read a good book or go for a walk instead! —Jane

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

Facebooktwitterredditlinkedinmail

CRTC: Policy framework for Certified Independent Production Funds

The Commission has reviewed its policy framework for Certified Independent Production Funds (CIPFs) to ensure that CIPFs contribute to the development of a robust Canadian production sector and that they have the flexibility necessary to operate in an increasingly multi-platform environment. A robust and forward-looking Canadian production sector will be better able to offer compelling high-quality content to Canadians and to global audiences. 

The Commission is making the following changes to its policy framework:

  • Eliminating the requirement that producers obtain a broadcast licence or development agreement to receive CIPF funding.
    This will foster innovation and provide flexibility to both the CIPFs and producers to fund and create a wide variety of productions, destined for all platforms. 
  • Redefining “new media content” to include only “non-programming digital content” and maintaining the 10% cap on funding for such content. No limits will be placed on the funding of programming regardless of the platform on which it may be broadcast.
    This will ensure CIPF funding is focused on programming content that will enhance and benefit the Canadian broadcasting system. 
  • Allowing CIPFs to fund productions achieving at least six Canadian certification points, and include the pilot projects recognized by the Commission.
    A reduction in the minimum Canadian certification points requirement will allow more productions to be eligible for CIPF funding. Canadian production companies will be able to benefit from expertise from abroad. 
  • Including co-ventures in productions eligible to receive CIPF funding.
    Permitting CIPFs to fund productions that are created in collaboration with non-treaty international partners will give Canadian producers involved in co-ventures access to a new funding stream and will assist in the discoverability of these projects and of the Canadian talent involved. 
  • Allowing and encouraging CIPFs to allocate funding for script and concept development.
    This type of funding will give producers the ability to produce higher quality and “exportable” productions by allowing them to better develop their project or concept at an earlier stage of production.
  • Allowing and encouraging CIPFs to allocate funding for promotion and discoverability.
    Funding promotion and discoverability is an important element in the success of a project.
  • Requiring all CIPFs to introduce a system to measure success.
    Instituting evaluative measures that examine the success of the projects funded will enable the Commission and the public to understand the manner in which public funds are expended and how they have benefited the Canadian broadcasting system.
  • Requiring that all programming supported by CIPFs, regardless of the platform on which it is distributed, be closed captioned and provided with described video.
    Making accessibility a consideration early in the creative process—not only in post-production—will help create a cultural shift that will result in accessibility becoming just another consideration in the regular course of doing business. 
  • Requiring that at least one member of a CIPF’s project selection committee is responsible for ensuring that official language minority communities’ (OLMCs’) reflection and issues are taken into account.
    This is to ensure that the needs of OLMCs are considered when projects are selected. 
  • Amending the governance rules relative to the composition of the board as well as to the funding decision criteria.
    The updates emphasize the importance of the board’s independence from all private funding entities, including broadcasting distribution undertakings, broadcasters and their affiliates, and the notion that CIPF funding should not be self-serving. 
  • Requiring all CIPFs to report annually on their activities to ensure transparency and accountability.
    This policy replaces the policy entitled Contributions to Canadian programming by broadcasting distribution undertakings. The revised policy will be effective 1 September 2016. 

Continue reading.

Facebooktwitterredditlinkedinmail