Movie Addicts. Celeb Dishers. Gamers. We're All Here.

Back in the days of Sex and the City and The Sopranos, HBO was the king of TV. At least, that’s what Stuart Levine of MSNBC claims. It’s not hard to believe; Sex is one of the most talked-about shows of the past decade, while The Sopranos has a user rating of 9.5 stars on IMDB. But now, HBO’s hemorrhaging viewers, and everyone wants to know why.

This March, head of programming Carolyn Strauss was let go, having been blamed for the recent drop in ratings. But, as with most things, the reasons behind falling viewership are many and varied. And they’re probably not anyone’s fault.

Levine points out that HBO’s programming - according to critics, at least - hasn’t fallen in quality. Shows like In Treatment, while barely scraping by in the ratings, are still considered to be the cream of the crop. Why don’t they have the same kind of appeal that some of HBO’s big hits have garnered?

Of course, some of HBO’s famous shows never had the kind of ratings that would keep a show running on network T.V. The Wire, too complex and plot-driven for the average viewer to follow, stayed on the air for five seasons to feed its small fanbase. The underappreciated Flight of the Conchords has been renewed for another season, and all the while, HBO is having to compete with with copycats like Showtime and FX.

It’s entirely possible, Levine admits, that HBO will never have another Sex or Sopranos. But that doesn’t mean that the network should change the way it does business. HBO has the unique advantage of not answering to anyone but its stockholders, and it should use its power to put quality programming on the air - no pandering to the riff-raff. They can keep watching their free television.

Popularity: 5% [?]

Categories: TV stories //