I pose a serious question about today's television landscape
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
I can't tolerate shows with laugh tracks. Even if the jokes are funny, I have to change the channel. 
I also want to say: we look at history with a nostalgic lens. Especially TV history. There was a LOT of crap then, as there is a LOT of crap now.
Personally, I think that stuff that's REALLY good now is better than the stuff that's "stood the test of time." Again, especially the dramas. What a drama from the 70s, even one that's considered great, and it's nowhere near as good as West Wing was.
(Of course, that's perhaps my nostalgic lens, too. In 10 years time, West Wing might be forgotten. But, I really doubt it.)
Personally, I think that stuff that's REALLY good now is better than the stuff that's "stood the test of time." Again, especially the dramas. What a drama from the 70s, even one that's considered great, and it's nowhere near as good as West Wing was.
(Of course, that's perhaps my nostalgic lens, too. In 10 years time, West Wing might be forgotten. But, I really doubt it.)
I'd say that works just as much the other way though. There is no way you could do All In The Family on television in today's climate.
No, but there was a strong tradition of live performance among comedy performers. They liked to have the audience's response to tell them what was working, and many felt more "energy" performing for a live audience. Not all, though. Andy Griffith specified a single-camera, film-like setup for his show so the performers would concentrate on the material as written rather than playing to the audience for laughs. But by the conventions of the time, of course, that necessitated a laugh track.
Don't be surprised. Hill Street Blues, St Elsewhere and Lou Grant were every bit as good as The West Wing, but don't even merit full DVD releases today.
As for the OP question, I think that it's partly perspective, that old shows that are still watched have "survived" because they were very good. And partly it's dilution of talent. Like in baseball, back when there were only sixteen ML teams a batter was more likely to face a strong pitcher in a game than he is now with 30 teams. With only three network channels, it was easier to put together really good writers, directors, cast, crew and so on. With dozens and dozens of media outlets to supply with content, there is going to be more crap out there than there used to be (and there was a lot of crap back in the "good old days," too).
--Justin
Put it on cable, and you could do something that was far more politically incorrect. In fact, it would probably be a requirement. The original is too tame for cable.
You're right about that. It's kind of like everytime I see Blazing Saddles. I'm like "How in the hell do they get by with that?"
I guess I didn't finish my thoughts. I think TV is different now because people will tolerate things on TV that wouldn't have been tolerated 40 years ago. Also today's audiences can't relate to a show like "Leave it to Beaver." That's "corny" to them and silly and stupid. And therefore "crap." They just can't fathom that's how people actually lived.
I reject the notion that just because TV is more real or more gritty now that somehow it's better. Just because people jump in the sack at the drop of a hat, or say "Fing this" or "Fing that" ala Deadwood every 5 seconds, or just because there's much more graphic violence, doesn't mean it's better. It's just different.
I've recently been watchng DVDs of Hawaii 50 and yeah there are some clunkers in there, some of the acting at times is way over the top, but there are also some pretty damn good stories in there too.
There's one reason why shows used to "stand the test of time" in the sense that everybody remembers them:
lack of choice
You had a bunch of people watching just a few channels. There was very little choice.
The 1990s and 2000s, on the other hand, have been filled with choice (more channels, more variety of content, the ability to watch whole shows on DVD, etc.). I find the 1990s and 2000s a vast improvement over the past.
Of course, that's my opinion about the television landscape. The film landscape is another story entirely. I agree that television has become the medium for writers, so that's where I tend to spend most of my time watching.
lack of choice
You had a bunch of people watching just a few channels. There was very little choice.
The 1990s and 2000s, on the other hand, have been filled with choice (more channels, more variety of content, the ability to watch whole shows on DVD, etc.). I find the 1990s and 2000s a vast improvement over the past.
Of course, that's my opinion about the television landscape. The film landscape is another story entirely. I agree that television has become the medium for writers, so that's where I tend to spend most of my time watching.
I'd argue that the average quality of television was highest in the 1950s, but agree that the very best individual programs have been on in the last two decades. (The West Wing, Band of Brothers, Law & Order, Frasier, and ER would be my nominees. Televised cartoons probably reached their peak in the 1990s, on average.)
These statements represent about as indefensible a position as I've seen offered up in a while. I can only attribute it to the posters' ignorance of television drama pre-1965.
You can argue whether TV was better in 1960 or 2010. It really just comes down to what your preference is.
Pre-1965? Well, that's your prerogative, but I find TV drama from before the mid-60s to be pretty stilted. It's really just the fault of the medium being brand-new, and writers not knowing how to use it to its full potential. Shows like Dexter simply couldn't have existed at the time—not just because of the subject matter, but simply because no one knew how to make a long-form, multi-part drama like that in the fifties and sixties.
I can certainly appreciate early television (I love TOS, for example), but to me, there's no real comparison. Modern TV is just more sophisticated, and it appeals to me on more levels.
This makes no sense.
Multi-part dramas existed BEFORE television, back when people would gather around the radio and listen to the continuing saga of 'fill in the blank'. The idea is nothing new to television (ever see "Peyton Place"? The 60's wasn't just TOS and Leave it to Beaver, even if they are better known)
It really IS the subject matter these days. Adding in the grays, the darkness, the ambiguity that wasn't really there back during The Lone Ranger days. Good guys were good guys. Dexter did not fit at all back then. But things have changed. Most say for the better.
Me personally? I hate Dexter. I hate how flawed our heroes are, how corrupt our role models have become. Sure, this may mirror real life. But that's not entertainment to me. Dark, crazy and immoral does not equal complex to me. People throw out the cure-all term "sophisticated", but most times it seems they don't really know what that means, it simply makes them feel better about what they're arguing and that word alone should end the debate, so it's thrown out there. "My show is more sophisticated, I don't know how, it just is, next topic."
Of course, your mileage may vary.
This is true, I made that statement a little too sweeping. All the same, television of the time was a different beast. And soap operas have always been in a bit of a different category from prime time dramas, so it's a little hard to compare the two.
To address the rest of your post, I guess it does come down to taste. I dislike it when things are totally black and white, for the most part. I want my characters to be people, not perfect role models. Of course, this doesn't necessarily equate to "dark, crazy, and immoral," as you suggest. Take Scrubs: there's a lot of complexity there, and real, flawed characters, but it's rare for it to get truly dark.
I'll let that pass, because it's obvious that you know next to nothing about television drama of the golden age (otherwise you could not possibly have made the statement "modern TV is more sophisticated."), and that's not really your fault since hardly any of that stuff gets aired nowadays. But it's sad that you really believe your statements.
These three quotes make up your entire contribution to this thread. If you have something to say, then fricking say it. Tell us what shows were awesome back then and why. Defend your position, man.
There are a number of reasons why television doesn't breed classics like it used to, from the fragmentation of the medium to the way that talent is cultivated to the darkening of the audience. That we are going through a Dark Age where Pop Culture is geared toward a nearly pathologically insecure viewership is probably the primary reason. It's no longer sufficient to merely have a well-written and performed show, like Mary Tyler Moore or Bob Newhart, or a show that pushes the boundaries, like M*A*S*H or All In The Family-- now shows must rely on shock value, i.e. making adolescents giggle at the political incorrectness of it all. No doubt this will eventually pass, as it is inevitable that a rebellious generation will come along and reject the familiar level of lowest-common denominator pablum.
That said, there are a number of shows that I think will endure as classics. Monk, for example, is a great quirky detective drama that will be remembered with the likes of Columbo. Lost and Supernatural will be remembered in the same category as Babylon 5. And the first two Stargates will be hang in there in the same way that Star Trek has. And there are others; it's not entirely bleak.
That said, there are a number of shows that I think will endure as classics. Monk, for example, is a great quirky detective drama that will be remembered with the likes of Columbo. Lost and Supernatural will be remembered in the same category as Babylon 5. And the first two Stargates will be hang in there in the same way that Star Trek has. And there are others; it's not entirely bleak.
Ugh yeah, Nick at Nite. I hardly ever find myself on that channel anymore. I used to watch it all the time.
I didn't know that. That really sucks. The same thing happened with Leave it to Beaver. It certainly appeared that after the release of the first two seasons, the remaining seasons would not be released, ever. This summer the entire series will finally be out, so maybe there's hope for Bob Newhart, but I guess it'll be awhile.
That was one of my favorite shows as a kid, and it's one that still very much holds up for me. I remember that it came on Saturday nights (maybe Friday). In fact, a lot of big shows in the 70's came on on the weekends. That's certainly way different than TV works today.
WGN Chicago does a better job showing classic shows than TV Land, especially with their Sunday Night Retro Night. They show Newhart, which I liked at the time, but seems quite dated now. I really wish they would show the better Newhart show. So close!
I was thrilled when they brought that show on board and gave me a break from Roseanne. It sure felt like they abondoned it pretty quickly though, and went back to showing 50 episodes of Roseanne a night.
I can't tolerate shows with laugh tracks. Even if the jokes are funny, I have to change the channel.
I can usually tolerate them, but sometimes they bother me to distraction. I guess I've pretty much trained myself to tune them out for the most part though.
Married With Children is the absolute worst. I like the show, but that studio audience is a nightmare. I can certainly understand why people have a problem with them, especially the ones in which the audience laughs at everything that comes out of the characters mouths, which is a lot of them. That's why I have a special appreciation for shows that opt to not have the studio audience; Malcolm in the Middle, Andy Richter Controls the Universe, My Name is Earl, and Curb Your Enthusiasm come to mind (along with all the animated comedies). I think that the people who produce sitcoms without the studio audience are nothing short of visionaries.
For me, I always thought that that was the one thing that could have made Seinfeld much better. I think Jerry and Larry David actually fought with the network to do it without a studio audience, but lost the battle. Too bad.
On a side note, my biggest classic TV guilty pleasure is that I really like Wings. A lot.
As far as the oldest show that I still enjoy, I think The Honeymooners holds up well, and always will.
Last edited:
Similar threads
