Most network execs, especially at the top level, don't hold onto their jobs very long and live in a world of constant fear.

So if they can say, "It's not my fault this new show bombed, it was a big hit in England/Japan/Australia/Israel," they are protected to some degree as they can blame the writer who adapted it. Of course when the writer who adapts it does a good job, the network exec takes the credit (that surely helped Ben Silverman, who brought in Ugly Betty and The Office, become head of NBC.)

Film has been this way for a long time. It's always been easier to get an adaption of something that was hit in another medium made then an original idea. So we get movies of hit TV shows, comic books, bestsellers, hit plays, etc. The execs at the studio can say it was already a hit and blame the talent, not themselves, for it not working out when translated to the big screen. And they'll also fire and hire several different writers on the project, especially hiring ones who were on a previous hit movie, so they can say, "Don't blame me. I hired the writer of ___ (big hit movie.)" It's all about protecting themselves and taking as little risk as possible.

Since the mid-90s when networks have been allowed to own their own programs, there's been less and less risk taking in TV and so now getting a TV show on the air is closer to getting a movie made. It's very hard for an original scripts to get through. Otherwise the network exec has nothing to fall back on except their judgment and instincts and who wants to be held responsible for that?

Yes.

Next question.

When everything's a commodity and the bottom is the only possible consideration, and like 4 dudes and a goat own the whole broadcasting club (over public airwaves, recall), then human creativity and the transcendant power of art end up on the cutting room floor.

Not that there aren't any good shows. But really.

add that to your list.

I thought the U.S. TV industry ran out of fresh ideas decades ago....

Something in the comparison between US and most international TV programs struck me as needing a bit more attention. When I first learned of Telenovelas, I was intrigued by how they introduce characters, narrate a compelling drama, and then reach a conclusion. Having been brought up in a world where soapoperas go on interminably, this was a revelation. A story that ends!

As a result, in the US we have in filmatic sequentialism (How many Rockies were there in the end or will there be?) and in television we have the phenomenon that we have with Lost whereby the purpose is to not tell a story as much to keep the franchise alive and the ad revenues coming back in until the series dies of its own unbelievabilty.

The only kind of entertainment market however in which this can survive is one that is able to exclude alternatives. It is therefore no surprise that cable television is where this trend is being bucked. It cannot help but think back to all the ado about the final episode of The Sopranos and realize that so much of the excitement was the unacknowledged disbelief that the series creator wanted to end the series while it was still profitable.

The executives who now get to surf Youtube in order to learn about the world outside the US, looking for the next big hit are clearly behind the wave. The fact is that a program like Kath and Kim is hilarious in the original. Would somebody tell the suits that Australians speak English so there is no need for translation! Producing a watered down version for the NA market will likely only boost DVD sales of the original series. I do hope, at the very least, that Turner and Riley get more name recognition for their efforts- along with that big royalty check. And yet the decisions of a few networks reinforce the label of American TV as a cultural wasteland of dreck and pablum, but now it is standardized and repackaged.

When have there ever been fresh ideas on Television.

I threw mine out shortly after Katrina.

Of course American TV has run out of ideas. Those who write and produce the shows have never lived beyond their own TV's or Computers. Fortunately there will be a great new crop of writers on the scene in a few years when the Iraq Vets return and start to write about the life that they've lived.

American Television had it heyday when those who created the shows were active participants in life. War, McCarthy, Communisim, poverty, Jim Crow, they all filled these folks with endless ideas and drive. Now our writers are raised on Flavor of Love and Wii.

I think you are completely correct in describing the atrophy that has settled into the Network TV industry. I do think however that there has been some interesting developments in Cable program development and also that on the Premium channels. Programs like "the Shield", "Rescue Me", "Sons of Anarchy" and "Burn Notice" are examples of somewhat risky themes for American Television. They are all well written with interesting plot lines. They rely on dialogue and the character development executed by the cats involved. Then the Premium channels provided excellent shows like "Dexter". I chose this one as an example, because the CBS network chose to release an edited version as filler after he writers strike. The Networks find the need to water down even American fare that did not originally come from their own development. Although it fared better than most of the schlock they normally have on their channel, they dropped "Dexter" after the strike. American Television is being strangled by the "what about the children" censorship that has been self imposed by the networks. If all shows have to meet the moral maturity and plot intricacy of a six year old, it is no wonder that the offerings would be putrid. So they steal successful ideas and convert the clever writing and dialogue to the six year old standard. Try to remember the last time you had appointment television. Where people hurried home on a Friday night to catch a particular show. Or had people meet at one house to share the experience of watching a particular show. Only on cable.