I pose a serious question about today's television landscape

[Amasov]

So, I got to thinking today.

As some of you around these parts may or may not know, I'm a HUGE admirer of classic television. Many of the series that my parents grew up watching, I consider among some of my favorites; The Bob Newhart Show, Mary Tyler Moore just to name a couple.

My question is, what is it about today that shows like these can't seem to exist anymore?

I watch a lot of the current series on the air; LOST, V, FlashForward, Curb Your Enthusiasm, and It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia. I love them. It's riveting television. I'm sure in the years to come, I'll consider them to be classics, but I can't seem them having the same stature as, say, The Mary Tyler Moore Show twenty years from now.

The TV landscape has changed to much over the last ten years. There are times that I really miss seeing a good, old fashioned traditional sitcom with the studio audience and the three cameras. I still maintain that the last great traditional sitcom was Frasier, which has now been off the air for six years. To me, that show was the golden standard of comedy. I still rank it, and probably will until the day I die, as THE funniest show ever to air on television. I just don't think any other show has ever come close to attaining that level of hilarity.

It saddens me that we can't seem to have shows like this anymore. I remember talking about the show over here not long after it ended and many of us agreed that we are never going to see another show like that on television again.

But when you look at, again, The Bob Newhart Show or Mary Tyler Moore, what is it about shows such as those that would make it hard for them to exist today?

In my opinion it's the talent. I feel that what passes for talent in Hollywood today is extremely poor.

People have asked me, "Why do you like older shows so much?" and I always tell them it all comes down to the cast. There just isn't anyone in television or film today that good anymore. It's not always the writing, though "Chuckles Bites the Dust" of Mary Tyler Moore and the booze-soaked Thanksgiving episode of The Bob Newhart Show were brilliant pieces of writing, it's the characters on the show. They're so good, they could turn any horrible piece of writing into something so entertaining and priceless. I just don't think that we have that today anymore. It's such a shame.

What do you guys think? Why can't classic shows like this exist today? I've only given what I think, but I'm sure you all have your reasons too.

Share!

 

[gh4chiefs]

Well at the risk of sounding like a cliche, I think a lot of has to do with how much society has changed. A show like "Two and half Men" litterally could not have been on the air during the classic era of TV sitcoms. The censors and the public would not have allowed it.

 

[RoJoHen]

In my opinion it's the talent. I feel that what passes for talent in Hollywood today is extremely poor.

I think these days the most talented actors in Hollywood tend to do movies instead of TV shows. In many cases, TV is a launching point for careers, but once a really good actor "gets promoted" to movies, they are unlikely to return to the small screen.

I doubt you're going to see someone like Tom Hanks starring in a sitcom anytime soon.

 

[Harvey]

^^
Until his career tanks or he gets too old for Hollywood. That's why Lawrence Fishburne, Robert Carlyle, Gary Sinise, and other leading film actors are now on television. Hell, that's why Charlie Sheen is on television.

 

[Geckothan]

I think these days the most talented actors in Hollywood tend to do movies instead of TV shows.

It's the opposite with writers

 

[Professor Zoom]

I think these days the most talented actors in Hollywood tend to do movies instead of TV shows.

It's the opposite with writers

That's true. TV is a writers medium. The shows are run by Producers, who, generally, have been and are writers.

In film, it's a director's medium. It's all geared to what a director wants to visualize. The director is King/Queen in film.

But to answer the question, I'm not sure why the classic shows couldn't survive now. The landscape is so different (Hundred's of channels) and the viewing audience is different (and TV competes with other interests like video games) and the advertisers might be more interested in reaching a different audience.

I do think in many ways though, certainly with the dramas, TV is better now than it was then. More complex stories, more complex characters. Again, primarily the dramas.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

My question is, what is it about today that shows like these can't seem to exist anymore?

Because the TV audience has split into two main camps:

1. People who just want to watch variations on the genres they are already comfortable with - cop/doc/lawyer shows, sitcoms, reality TV. They don't want anything fancy or demanding, just plain old comfort food.

2. People whose tastes have been "spoiled" by the like of The Sopranos, Deadwood and Dexter. They expect TV series to have the same sophistication and complexity that the best movies have, with the added demand that these "movies" last for years, and maintain the same high quality.

The Mary Tyler Moore Show is too smart and demanding for group #1, and too corny and limited for group #2. Anyone wanting to do a show like that needs to dumb it way down and put it on CBS or smarten it way up and put it on AMC or HBO.

and the booze-soaked Thanksgiving episode of The Bob Newhart Show

Did you see the Thanksgiving episode of Dexter? That was also brilliant, but a lot more edgy, violent, disturbing and insane than you'd ever expect from Bob Newhart. Still, it proves my point - if you want to see great writing on TV, you can't shy away from go-for-the-jugular shows.

I still maintain that the last great traditional sitcom was Frasier, which has now been off the air for six years. To me, that show was the golden standard of comedy.

I'll take your word for it, but I got bored of it after a year or two and stopped watching. The funniest show on the air now is Archer, which has a very raw and nasty sense of humor. Once again, the good writing requires a certain tolerance level, regardless of whether it's drama or comedy.

I think these days the most talented actors in Hollywood tend to do movies instead of TV shows.

Until they get too old and "ugly" for movies, and then they gratefully do TV. Time after time, I see actors on TV in roles that are way beneath them - for instance Robert Knepper for most of Prison Break's run (only S1 was good), Heroes and now SG:U. But in movies, there are plenty of actors of ahem modest talents, such as Gerald Butler, who nonetheless get cast in fairly high profile parts. Who the heck thought that guy should be in romantic comedies?!? He should stick to grunting barbarians.

 

[ToddPence]

I think these days the most talented actors in Hollywood tend to do movies instead of TV shows.

It's the opposite with writers

I do think in many ways though, certainly with the dramas, TV is better now than it was then. More complex stories, more complex characters. Again, primarily the dramas.

Ummm . . . no.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

It's the opposite with writers

I do think in many ways though, certainly with the dramas, TV is better now than it was then. More complex stories, more complex characters. Again, primarily the dramas.

Ummm . . . no.

Depends on whether you watch CBS or AMC/HBO. It's a real mixed bag nowadays. You can easily watch just the 5% of TV that is worthwhile, ignore the rest, and get the impression that "TV is really good!" It's not that - it's that cable has expanded the number of options that viewers can get just what they want. There's plenty of both wheat and chaff to go around.

I'm trying to think of what kind of shows might still exist that fill the "traditional quality show" category. Maybe Chuck - it's well written and well acted but doesn't at all push the boundaries of what the audience will accept, and has a restricted premise that keeps it predictable. And it's very telling that it struggles in the ratings. It's too sophisticated and too naive at the same time.

 

[RoJoHen]

I'm trying to think of what kind of shows might still exist that fill the "traditional quality show" category. Maybe Chuck - it's well written and well acted but doesn't at all push the boundaries of what the audience will accept, and has a restricted premise that keeps it predictable. And it's very telling that it struggles in the ratings. It's too sophisticated and too naive at the same time.

No wonder it's my favorite show. That describes me perfectly!

 

[Checkmate]

I'd say a show like Scrubs is easily on the Mary Tyler Moore plateau. It won't be heralded as such for a number of reasons (the most notable being that they didn't have a captive audience who only had three or four channels to choose from), but it often had great acting, clever writing, nicely structured stories, and more than its fair share of genuine comedy and drama.

Today's shows and movies also have a weird fetish for close-ups. The camera is always right on top of the actors and panning across the set, as opposed to shows of old where the cameras were way back and you saw the entire set in practically every scene. It was closer to watching theater because of that one simple fact and, psychologically, that plays a big part in the way those shows were perceived compared to the ones shown today. Mary Tyler Moore, The Bob Newhart Show, Happy Days, Laverne and Shirley, Mork and Mindy... they were all like that.

They also had the advantage of drowning the audience in reruns. Combine that with the captive audiences and lots and lots of time for it to seep into the general psyche, and it's not really a big shot that some people marvel at the "golden days" when, really, there's plenty of great shows on the air now. They're just different and, arguably, more sophisticated. Especially since most of them maintain a certain amount of a story arc through seasons (even if only slightly), as opposed to the almost constant stand-alone nature of those older shows. The only time they really changed was when they had to replace someone on the cast.

 

[Canadave]

It's the opposite with writers

I do think in many ways though, certainly with the dramas, TV is better now than it was then. More complex stories, more complex characters. Again, primarily the dramas.

Ummm . . . no.

Personally, I'd say that televised drama is better now than it ever has been. TV was always very limited in the past, and rarely used the medium to its advantage. Then, in the 90s, television producers started to realize that you could do a long-form drama on TV, and I think programming has only improved since then. Sure there's a lot of crap out there, but there's always been crap on TV. The difference is that the top-tier of television is now much, much better than it ever has been in the past.

 

[RoJoHen]

For every awesome show, there are 2 decent shows, 5 mediocre shows, and about 27 shows that make you wonder who the hell is in charge of putting that crap on the air.

 

[Joeman]

Then is it safe for me to assume that you are as disappointed in TV Land as I am? They used to do a decent job at showing a good mixture of classic shows (although they still omitted shows like Bob Newhart, Mary Tyler Moore, Odd Couple, etc.).

I couldn't believe when they started advertising their first "reality" show. Now they have a bunch of them (all dreadful of course). What little bit of sitcoms they do show are the same ones driven into the ground over and over. I mean I love Roseanne and Andy Griffith, but they've shown them so much I've about gotten tired of them. So what do they do now? They bring Everybody Loves Raymond into the lineup. Not that I hate that show, but it's already on two or three other channels (on my cable anyway), and it's far too recent to be considered "classic" television.

I've been bitching about reality TV since The Real World, and TV Land
was my "go to" channel for many years. As it got worse and worse, I usually turned to TV Land for some Leave it to Beaver, Green Acres, Munsters, Brady Bunch, Addams Family etc. to escape the bullshit. Now that I don't have that outlet, I usually watch DVD's when I can't find anything good on.

I assume that airing old TV shows must be too expensive, too difficult to get the rights to, or just not lucrative ratings-wise. There are so many great old sitcoms that never seem to make it to air anymore, and haven't in many, many years. You pretty much have to buy the DVD's to see them.

Die TV Land. Die.


P.S. Yes there is some great TV going on now, but not much of it is in the sitcom genre. Most of what is good in the sitcom genre today are animated shows.

 

[Harvey]

Today's shows and movies also have a weird fetish for close-ups. The camera is always right on top of the actors and panning across the set, as opposed to shows of old where the cameras were way back and you saw the entire set in practically every scene. It was closer to watching theater because of that one simple fact and, psychologically, that plays a big part in the way those shows were perceived compared to the ones shown today. Mary Tyler Moore, The Bob Newhart Show, Happy Days, Laverne and Shirley, Mork and Mindy... they were all like that.

That's because, in a technical sense, it was theatre. Those shows were filmed with multiple cameras in front of live audiences. It's impossible to get the camera close in that shooting environment.

 

[Checkmate]

I'm aware. I was just pointing out that's why there's been such a huge change in the "feel" of television shows. It's not the necessarily the shows themselves, but the way they're filmed, and that has a huge if only subconscious effect on one's perception of a show.

 

[Amasov]

Then is it safe for me to assume that you are as disappointed in TV Land as I am? They used to do a decent job at showing a good mixture of classic shows (although they still omitted shows like Bob Newhart, Mary Tyler Moore, Odd Couple, etc.).

I couldn't believe when they started advertising their first "reality" show. Now they have a bunch of them (all dreadful of course). What little bit of sitcoms they do show are the same ones driven into the ground over and over. I mean I love Roseanne and Andy Griffith, but they've shown them so much I've about gotten tired of them. So what do they do now? They bring Everybody Loves Raymond into the lineup. Not that I hate that show, but it's already on two or three other channels (on my cable anyway), and it's far too recent to be considered "classic" television.

I've been bitching about reality TV since The Real World, and TV Land
was my "go to" channel for many years. As it got worse and worse, I usually turned to TV Land for some Leave it to Beaver, Green Acres, Munsters, Brady Bunch, Addams Family etc. to escape the bullshit. Now that I don't have that outlet, I usually watch DVD's when I can't find anything good on.

I assume that airing old TV shows must be too expensive, too difficult to get the rights to, or just not lucrative ratings-wise. There are so many great old sitcoms that never seem to make it to air anymore, and haven't in many, many years. You pretty much have to buy the DVD's to see them.

Die TV Land. Die.


P.S. Yes there is some great TV going on now, but not much of it is in the sitcom genre. Most of what is good in the sitcom genre today are animated shows.

You are absolutely right. TVLand has frustrated me to no end over the last three or four years, and don't even get me started on Nick at Nite. I can recall as far back as early 2005, Nick would show non-stop marathons of Fresh Prince nearly every single night of the week.

TV Land is where I discovered a lot of those classic shows. Sadly, they've all vanished from the schedule. You would think given how beloved The Mary Tyler Moore Show still is to this day, TV Land would show. The Bob Newhart Show is the one I want to see return the most. I own four seasons on DVD and FOX has announced they have no plans to release the last four seasons. The streaming episodes on Hulu only go as far as the end of season three. I can't count on FOX to release them or TV Land to air them either.

There almost needs to be a TV Land 2. As I recall, when I first got the channel back in late 1996, those two shows as well as Taxi, The Odd Couple, and many others from that era were in regular rotation. Hell, not that I have an interest in seeing it, but I clearly remember them airing Love, American Style.

But like you, I love many of the shows TV Land airs; 3rd Rock from the Sun and The Cosby Show, but I've see the reruns a million times on local channels and as far back as when those shows were still airing in first run on NBC.

The best thing for me to do if I want to see the remaining seasons of The Bob Newhart Show is to look for one of those online stores that sells the un-official copies of the show.

I hate you, FOX Home Entertainment. I am disappoint.

 

[I Grok Spock]

Today's shows and movies also have a weird fetish for close-ups. The camera is always right on top of the actors and panning across the set, as opposed to shows of old where the cameras were way back and you saw the entire set in practically every scene. It was closer to watching theater because of that one simple fact and, psychologically, that plays a big part in the way those shows were perceived compared to the ones shown today. Mary Tyler Moore, The Bob Newhart Show, Happy Days, Laverne and Shirley, Mork and Mindy... they were all like that.

That's because, in a technical sense, it was theatre. Those shows were filmed with multiple cameras in front of live audiences. It's impossible to get the camera close in that shooting environment.

I had thought that the classic 3-camera sitcom was a dying breed (with a few notable exceptions like Three and a Half Men and How I Met Your Mother) but I just saw a promo for a new one this week (the name escapes me).

I was in my single-digit years in the 70's but I do remember MTM and Bob Newhart's shows. I did like them (though I know I didn't get alot of what was going on). Ted Baxter was my favorite character. After all, he was at about the same level of emotional maturity.)

Ultimately, there were many classics in the 50s - 80s, but there was a lot of crap too. Just like now. Plus, I find it hard to watch a lot of TV shows (even ones I loved) from the 70s and 80s these days - they just seem so dated and hokey. That stuff is best left a fuzzy, pleasant memory.

BTW, if you're lamenting Frasier - try Modern Family. Two Frasier alums (Christopher Lloyd and Steven Levitan) are the exec producers. Very, very funny show, with a great cast.

 

[Amasov]

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xee-B92bXrw&playnext_from=TL&videos=JvO__K9XdtU[/yt]

 

[Starbreaker]

I think those shows have stood the test of time because

1. Almost everybody watched them when there were only 4 channels.
2. Several shows (Bewitched, I Dream of Jeannie, MTM, Dick Van Dyke, etc.) had resurgences on Nick at Nite.