It's been interesting reading lately seeing the differing reactions to the axing, commissioning and extending of various TV programs. Big Brother and Sunday have been axed as has Nightline, Sea Patrol, the Gruen Transfer and Hollowmen have had new series' commissioned and there are a bucketload of new Aussie based dramas in production or pre-production.

Personally, I don't give a flying fig for rubbish like BB, Sea Patrol makes me gag with its unlikely plot lines and characters and I prefer Lateline to Nightline any day. The Gruen Transfer was excellent, both as entertainment and as a serious look at the machinations of advertising, and Hollowmen - well, Working Dog can do no wrong can they?

However, there are many who disagree with me, particularly when it comes to BB, claiming that it was "riveting" or "entertaining". Other programs that have no creative merit at all (in my opinion at least) include "The Farmer Wants a Wife", "America's Next Top Model", "Judge Judy", "The One" and other similar crap.

So why are they on? Why is there not more serious drama or quality entertainment?
The simple answer is money. These shows are as cheap as chips to make. Take Judge Judy for example. Build a set of cardboard, throw in a few lights and a camera and presto! Even the talent is mostly free. The fact that the whole thing is concocted codswallop is neither here nor there as the punters lap up the storyline in the same way that Jerry Springer does in a different format but same basic substance.

Voyeurism also comes into play (BB, The Farmer ..., America's Next ... etc), where either titillation - or the hope there of - plays a major part.

Quality, sadly, costs. If you have watched Dr Who and the accompanying Confidential series, you can see the incredible amount of work, personnel, equipment and time that goes into such things, and traditionally, only networks like the ABC and BBC have been "brave" enough to take on such projects. And don't forget they get nothing back in advertising revenue and have to rely on selling programs to other networks. They are very much a long term investment. I remember an interview with Lenny Henry who says he still gets cheques from the BBC 10 years later for something like €5 for repeats still being shown in Lichtenstein or something.

About 12 years ago, I made a pilot on the beginnings of the Internet and consumer tech that was initially intended for the 10 network. In the end they declined, so it was punted around the other networks. Vividly, I remember the senior programmer from one of them saying "bring me a package of 3 months (12 shows) and a million bucks in advertising support, and we'll talk!"

So what must "big" dramas such as "Spooks" cost?

Effectively, TV stations are now purely broadcasters, not program creators and don't even sell basic advertising anymore. Of course today, sans KP, Channel Nine specifically is even less so; they are an "investment". They are playing safe and leaving the creation of programs to specialist companies (and the accompanying risk). The circle goes around - they will make the cheapest they can to subject themselves to the smallest exposure of possible failure.

A potential saviour here is Channel 31. If you have any interest in serious film-making, want to learn about or expand on your production abilities, checkout the websites in the various states. You may not know, but this is how such luminaries as Rove McManus and Eric Bana started this very way!