As far as the car placement, you mentioned Mercedes, but have you ever noticed Mercedes often don't have any badging in the shows? That's because Daimler won't sponsor TV shows. They let their cars speak for themselves. And speak they do. I'll put the quality of my 2009 C300 4Matic up against anything Detroit, Korea, or Japan produces today.

BMW, doesn't quite feel the same so they do sponsor shows. Ford obviously does
(all Fords in Almost Human) as does Dodge (NCIS), but not Mercedes. You really have to look to catch a glimpse of a badge or nameplate when it's a Benz.

I understand the industry, the big-shot CEO's making big bucks commissioning this crap. I can understand that. But what about all the talented artists who decide to write and produce this crap? Have you no love for your profession? It's the CEO's boss to make money, so he does that, it's a directors job to make a good movie, so do that!

There must be some talent out there who is currently wasting his talent on these fruitless bs series and that is a shame. Strive for more then how many viewers you can get, or how much money. Any talented guy that writes this shit probably can't stand to watch it himself, but he does it for the money. And that's gotta change imo.

If you keep the people crap for entertainment, they will start to love crap and start to crave it, if you give them art for entertainment they will start loving art and learn to appreciate it. So in the end they can make just the same amount of money, only the world would be less of a shit-hole.

I don't know much about history, but I do know the Romans decided to give the public there brutal arena games, and the Greek decided to promote theater. In both cases these things were popular among the masses, and I think it is easy to decide which would be more preferable.

Weird, because in blacklist I noticed a lot of slick-splinter new Mercedes'. Including the logo on the motor-cap. I can't imagine they would show them just for the hack of it. Maybe they do not sponsor it actively, but I would imagine at least on of the producers got a car for free or something like that.

"it's a directors job to make a good movie, so do that! "

No, it is a director's job to make money for the producers so that he makes enough he can eventually *be* a producer. You don't understand the industry after all.

Double check the Blacklist stuff. Yes, Red has a Mercedes S class he rides around in. You'd expect nothing less from an uber-rich arms dealer who owns his own jet. But many of the other vehicles are Chrysler or Ford in it. And the new Chrysler sedan's grill looks *just* like a Mercedes S-class while Ford's newest front end looks like an Aston Martin.

Covert Affairs has Mercedes in all the European scenes, especially Germany, but then Mercedes is the vehicle of choice for rentals, cabs, and limos throughout mainland Europe and especially in Germany. So that is realistic and also where I found they literally removed the tri star logo from a steering wheel in an interior shot.

I disagree. In the end you might say it all revolves around money, and that is a view I won't fault you for. But excluding other views, such as that it is ones job to fulfill his function the best he knows to, is something I'd hold against you.

A director is in many ways an artist to me. And an artist should never be beholden to money, simply because it will limit his freedom. Of course in the end we are all bound by the limits of our finances, but within those limits you should strive for the best, and not for what will generate the most money. A director might be hired by a producer to generate money, but a director would betray himself and his profession if he would seek to make the largest amount of money instead of a product he is proud off.

If I were rich I would never hire a director out to make the most amount of money, because I know his motives will be flawed and therefore the end-product will never be good.

There are directors out there doing what you talk of, lopt. But most of them are doing movies, not TV, and they are shown at Sundance and Cannes. The TV directors strive for that, but are wise enough to realize they need to reach a certain point before they try that then they move into movies. Look at Joss Whedon. He has moved on from TV and into movies and his recent take on Much Ado About Nothing is quite excellent. TV is the proving grounds where the directors *make* their money then move onto doing their *art* elsewhere.

And the director seeks to make the largest amount of money *for the producer*, not himself. That is why he is hired by the producer whose only goal is money.

A producer should hire directors to make good series, because good series will eventually catch on. Also, Boardwalk Empire is I believe, being directed by Martin Scorsese.

I feel like series are perhaps above and beyond movies, as they allow for much more space to develop a story, characters, etc. As is really demonstrated by a House of Cards, with which Netflix released all episodes at once, so that it could be watched just like a movie.

But I feel we are drifting a little off-course here, my main point was that directors should take responsibility for there products and not produce this crap anymore. If the masses no longer consume this crap, producers will eventually be forced to take on directors who did not betray themselves, but that's the story of the chicken and the egg, will consumers be the first to change or directors and producers? I feel producers and directors have more knowledge of what they are doing so they should be the first to show the right way.

The first to change must be the audience. Demand drives supply, not the other way around and that applies to entertainment (and don't confuse art with entertainment, they are different).

I suppose my grasp on the English language is not sufficient too make that distinction. To me art can be entertaining, and entertainment can be like art.

Demand drives supply in a purely capitalistic world, yes. But I'm not from the opinion that such a world would be best. In my country we have state-sponsored networks who provide (hopefully) meaningful programs, even if these programs could not exist on there own. The state also sponsors museums and such. I feel there must be an active counter-movement to the degradation of our society, and obviously this counter-movement cannot be supplied with demand initially. If we go off demand only, we will end up in the gutters eventually because the general demands are in constant degradation.

IT's more a difference in concept than language. We call it arts and entertainment for a reason. Arts can be entertainment and entertainment can be artistic, but the two need not be one in the same.

And as far as demand driving supply... Hollywood *is* capitalistic. The center of the TV industry is Hollywood, California, part of capitalist USA. So that si why supply drives demand. If you want higher quality, go to the UK where the BBC rules and the people eat what they are fed. I actually think shows like Doctor Who, Torchwood, and Orphan Black are superior to anything made for free/basic cable TV on this side of the Atlantic.

Lopt - I suggest you catch up on season three of GoT. Season four is only a few months away, and it's gonna be big.

If you like BBC shows, you might enjoy Life on Mars and Ashes to Ashes. They have the series plots too.

Wasn't a big fan of Life on Mars, but I do like Luther and am looking forward to the new Fleming series even if I know enough fact to point out the fiction presented I. The commercials already (for instance, James Bond is the author of Birds of the West Indies and Fleming used the name cause it was reasonably non-descript.