Has anyone given up on TV?

[JirinPanthosa]

Not always, but if you have a big story to tell, a movie gets about 90 to 150 minutes to tell it, while a TV series gets hundreds of hours to do the same.

You can tell a big story in 150 minutes, it just has to be a little more focused and with a tighter cast than Game Of Thrones.

I agree that other than live events like sports all TV will be on demand in a few years. I just hope some series stick to rolling out one episode at a time because nothing's more fun than discussing an ongoing show with everyone being on the same page with the same anticipation.

 

[gblews]

Ah. A statement only an ignorant millennial could make. At least you've let the rest of us know that your opinion on anything is worthless.

God, do I love the internet.

My TV experience started back in the '50's. and as Greg Cox wrote, TV from the '50's, '60's, etc gets glamorized by many who may not have been there to experience some of these shows in first run. Keep in mind, it's easy to watch them now "ironically" in reruns and think you really are seeing high quality (Batman '66, anyone?).

Yeah, the Twilight Zone, Playhouse 90, The Dick Van Dyck Show, were great, but for every one of those great ones, there were two or three (or more) clunkers like The Hathaways, a show about a family who owned a bunch of chimps, My Mother the Car, a show about a guy who's dead mother talked to him through a car, Mr. Ed, a talking horse, My Favorite Martian two talented leads, stuck in a badly written show, and on it went.

As I'm sure someone has pointed out to you by now, there were only 3 networks back then that put on first run shows. Today there are dozens of outlets for original programming. That is primarily the reason TV today is so much better than it used to be. Today, the competition to put on great show is fierce. Back in the day, the 3 networks knew they were the only game in town so they catered to the lowest common denominator because that's all they had to do.

When I occasionally see these "today's TV is terrible" threads pop up, the first thing I think is that maybe this is someone who fell asleep in maybe the 1960;s and just woke up.

Just this past week I polished off Crazy Ex-Girlfriend, a niche show, granted, but VERY good, the movie, Spotlight, a rewatch of the 4 Hunger Games movies, which I loved, and am currently on ep 4 of a Netflix show called Stranger Things and am enthralled by it. This was ALL on TV.

So, take my word for it bro, for a "millenial" who has been watching since the '50's, TV today is a revelation. We are currently living in the Golden Age of TV...maybe, because (brace yourself) it could get even better.

 

[Kor]

(Batman '66, anyone?)

Batman '66 was supposed to be tongue-in-cheek, wasn't it? That's how I've always understood it. It's like a moving piece of pop art.

Kor

 

[T'Bonz]

Well how about sitting out a ban, smartass? Email me if you want back in and I'll think about it.

 

[Greg Cox]

Just this past week I polished off Crazy Ex-Girlfriend, a niche show, granted, but VERY good, the movie, Spotlight, a rewatch of the 4 Hunger Games movies, which I loved, and am currently on ep 4 of a Netflix show called Stranger Things and am enthralled by it. This was ALL on TV.
.

Crazy Ex-Girlfriend is sublime, and that it got a second season is a TV miracle.

 

[gblews]

Crazy Ex-Girlfriend is sublime, and that it got a second season is a TV miracle.

Really glad to hear it is getting a second season. After watching the first episode on Netflix, I couldn't believe it was a network show. Although I think "officially" it's called a comedy/drama, it really is a one hour musical rom/com. It is absurdly funny, clever, with the most diverse cast this side of Hamilton (seems like they all sing and dance). Rachel Bloom is a mega-talent.

 

[gblews]

Batman '66 was supposed to be tongue-in-cheek, wasn't it? That's how I've always understood it. It's like a moving piece of pop art.

This is what has been said about the show in the years since it left the air. But this wasn't the way it was promoted when it first aired. As I recall, it was promoted as chronicling the exciting adventures of the caped crusader. No reason to think the show would not treat the main character with any less respect than what was given Superman. Batman, IMO, turned out to be an "adventure/sitcom" which made the main characters, B & R , look embarrassingly ridiculous.

I understand people like the show, but from my perspective, the show was a slap in the face to the characters and comic book fans in general. But in true 1960's TV form, I never missed an episode...because that was because there just wasn't anything else like it on the networks at the time.

 

[Mr Pointy Ears]

most of my tv viewing is done foxtel(paid tv),get nothing but reality cooking shows,house renovations show,and the bachelor etc,

 

[Ridcully]

TV.....died along time ago here.
Only stream stuff or watch DVD's or Bluerays these days.
Our youngest daughter had the TV box in her room the last 6 months we had it, asked her if she ever watched anything?!
Nopes no nothing she replied....cancelled the service and kept the Net only.
I grew up in the late 60's and 70's, saw some in the 80's....kept it to watch the occasional sci fi show, some nature programs, bikeracing...but all that went downhill in the 2000's....

Never watched much tv as it was, I like books and such better.
Always thought that the media was too restricted to fully capture my intrest.
One thing I do miss is music on TV....
That has gone the way of no talents and No factor idiocy...

And I do live in a country where you could not get anything remotely interesting 95% of the time, so I had to buy VHS or DVD's back then.....today they are fading away in dust and such.....
Now and then I do pack out some old DVD's and watch those!
Especially in wintertime.

Back to the streaming, I have Netflix, HBO, Viaplay and so on....but to be honest it is kinda boring looking at endless series, movies are getting more and more repetitive and unimaginative, most series that is featured are just too stupid, I enjoy a few but only in small doses, my wife and second oldest daughter consume endless stuff though, it does not help on my growing dislike of modern stuff.....
Forced stuff and artificially clever, I have read way to much to enjoy that media to the fullest I guess??

Do watch some crazy Animé and such...because it is so different from the Western world....and I like the crazy humour.
Well I'll wait for the Grand Tour with the three Bristish Stooges
One cranky old man signing out for now.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

I've tried to get into anime in the past and found some series I loved but too much of it is bogged down in irritating tropes.

Not to mention that most of the anime intended for an older audience does not get official Western release and is only available through fansubs on shady torrent sites.

I had a friend like ten years ago who could point me toward the anime like Noir or Berserk that avoids the screaming hyper girls and emasculating gender cliches but haven't found much help since.

 

[Spot's Meow]

I feel like we're having two different conversations here:
1. Do you still use your actual TV set/cable/satellite?
2. Do you still watch new TV programming regardless of the method of delivery (streaming, Netflix, internet, etc.)?

As for myself, I no longer have cable, but I do use an antenna and Tivo to record over-the-air shows on the basic free channels. I also subscribe to Netflix and do a lot of streaming to my TV using a Chromecast.

So, have I given up on TV? In terms of using my actual TV set, no, I use it all the time. But I have given up on cable.

The deeper question in all of this is really, what do you think of the quality of modern TV programs? I have to agree with those who say we are in a sort of "golden age" right now. Things were a bit dire in the early 2000s, but in the past 5-10 years it has really improved. It picked up slowly at first, with shows like Lost pushing us towards more cinematic and arc-driven stories/characterization, and then seemed to explode when more streaming services delivered their own programming (with Netflix's Orange is the New Black and House of Cards proving that such content could be a success).

I've always been a bit of a TV addict, but I watch more now than I ever have before. There's so many good things on that I just can't keep up. There are a lot of awesome cable shows that are just now getting to Netflix that I'd love to watch, but I'm too enthralled with other shows at the moment. And then just when I do think I have the time, Netflix puts out a new season of one of their originals and I find myself binge-watching that instead.

What I appreciate most of all is the variety. There's the really gritty, dark stuff like The Walking Dead, hilarious comedies like The Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt, interesting crime procedurals with a unique draw like Elementary, the list goes on. Something for everyone. I know this isn't a popular opinion around here, but in addition to the more intellectual shows I am also a reality TV fan, more specifically strategic/competition games such as Survivor and The Amazing Race. Survivor has been doing as well as ever, and in fact has had a run of really great seasons lately. I wish people would get past the "reality" moniker and recognize that like any other genre there will be crappy duds and also more quality productions. Thankfully much of the crap like Jersey Shore or the Kardashians has seemed to die down recently.

Does that answer the question??

 

[RandyS]

God, do I love the internet.

My TV experience started back in the '50's. and as Greg Cox wrote, TV from the '50's, '60's, etc gets glamorized by many who may not have been there to experience some of these shows in first run. Keep in mind, it's easy to watch them now "ironically" in reruns and think you really are seeing high quality (Batman '66, anyone?).

Yeah, the Twilight Zone, Playhouse 90, The Dick Van Dyck Show, were great, but for every one of those great ones, there were two or three (or more) clunkers like The Hathaways, a show about a family who owned a bunch of chimps, My Mother the Car, a show about a guy who's dead mother talked to him through a car, Mr. Ed, a talking horse, My Favorite Martian two talented leads, stuck in a badly written show, and on it went.

As I'm sure someone has pointed out to you by now, there were only 3 networks back then that put on first run shows. Today there are dozens of outlets for original programming. That is primarily the reason TV today is so much better than it used to be. Today, the competition to put on great show is fierce. Back in the day, the 3 networks knew they were the only game in town so they catered to the lowest common denominator because that's all they had to do.

When I occasionally see these "today's TV is terrible" threads pop up, the first thing I think is that maybe this is someone who fell asleep in maybe the 1960;s and just woke up.

Just this past week I polished off Crazy Ex-Girlfriend, a niche show, granted, but VERY good, the movie, Spotlight, a rewatch of the 4 Hunger Games movies, which I loved, and am currently on ep 4 of a Netflix show called Stranger Things and am enthralled by it. This was ALL on TV.

So, take my word for it bro, for a "millenial" who has been watching since the '50's, TV today is a revelation. We are currently living in the Golden Age of TV...maybe, because (brace yourself) it could get even better.

I keep hearing this "golden age" comment, and I just don't get it. Why is show after show of dark, brooding, angst ridden characters a "golden age"?

 

[Jedi_Master]

I watch more TV now than I ever did - but I don't watch it in a "traditional" manner. I watch virtually everything "on demand" other than the occasional live sporting event or award show.

 

[mos6507]

Batman '66 was supposed to be tongue-in-cheek, wasn't it? That's how I've always understood it. It's like a moving piece of pop art.

Kor

Yeah, if people like things such as Archer these days you can't bash Batman '66 for being self-parody.

 

[Mudd]

You can tell a big story in 150 minutes, it just has to be a little more focused and with a tighter cast than Game Of Thrones.

You can't make any money on it.

Not enough to offset the considerable risk.

 

[Ridcully]

I watch most of them through paid streaming service with subs in English...
They have all kinds of stuff, from silly to all out gore!

 

[JirinPanthosa]

You can't make any money on it.

Not enough to offset the considerable risk.

As we know, Lord of the Rings and The Dark Knight were all huge flops at the box office.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

I keep hearing this "golden age" comment, and I just don't get it. Why is show after show of dark, brooding, angst ridden characters a "golden age"?

Because that's only a small percentage of the shows on TV?

It's a golden age because all the restrictions about what kinds of stories you're allowed to tell have been removed. You don't have to tell short, pat stories where characters learn valuable lessons at the end, you can tell any sort of light or dark, ambitious or simple, political or silly story you damn well please.

 

[RandyS]

Because that's only a small percentage of the shows on TV?

It's a golden age because all the restrictions about what kinds of stories you're allowed to tell have been removed. You don't have to tell short, pat stories where characters learn valuable lessons at the end, you can tell any sort of light or dark, ambitious or simple, political or silly story you damn well please.

Yes, but those "short pat stories where characters learn valuable lessons at the end" should be preferred.

 

[HaventGotALife]

Currently, I am watching music videos on Youtube. Earlier today, I was watching President Obama's Speech at the DNC, and some behind-the-scenes videos about Kacey Musgraves' sophomore album, "Pageant Material." My favorite apps on my television are NBA (as of two weeks ago, the 2015-16 season was still available), Spotify Premium (listen to my music on my TV, as opposed to my tablet), Youtube, and Amazon Prime. Prime has been used, since "Beyond" came out, almost exclusively for my favorite "Star Trek" episodes, spread over the first 3 series. Before that, I was watching NBA Championship videos I don't own on DVD (2011 Dallas Mavericks, 2005 San Antonio Spurs, and 2008 Boston Celtics, namely). I sampled "Transparent" and found it rather jarring (camera work), not funny, and a little insulting that they put porn stars next to gay people to show how "crazy" we all are.

The Blu-Ray player has been playing "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" re-runs (from a conversation I had with my brother about the best seasons of Buffy and Angel, ranked) I have on DVD, and some movies I have in my collection (Atonement and The Bicycle Thief, namely), which is rather extensive.

I went to see "X-Men Apocalypse" a couple of months ago, "Star Trek Beyond," last Friday. I want to buy "A Little Chaos" and "The Woman in Gold," but I am a little irritated I have to buy them, and not rent them, so I haven't done it yet.

All of this is to say, I am satisfied with my entertainment. I fill my time on this site, Facebook, reading news stories (the last was a Salon commentary about how lacking President Obama's speech was last night).

I don't miss TV. I don't miss commercials. I don't miss the mind-numbing, boring TV I used to just veg out, and watch. I don't miss leaving a TV station on all-day, and seeing them run the same thing over and over again, able to quote the "I love the 80s" on VH1 or "Sportscenter" scripts because I just left it on. I don't miss having to dodge programs I don't want to watch (reality television). You can call this the golden age all you want, the shows are overly-dramatic, almost campy, and the truth is, if this is as good as it has ever been, that says a lot about the boob tube. Raise the bar.