The next time you bemoan the state of TV today...

[Kegg]

Of course, you're looking back at the 1960s with plenty of nostalgia. It was in 1961, after all, that FCC chairman Nestor Minow declared television to be a "vast wasteland."

And it was in 1961 that Ireland began its first stateside television broadcasts.

TV's come a long way since the 1960s, and the rise of critically acclaimed and creatively ambituous cable shows in the United States over the past decade is probably quite important there.

 

[Christopher]

Christopher is absolutely right. The 60s were a cornucopia of creativity in Pop Culture, from TV and movies to comic books and literature, to music and art. There was color and variety and insanity and social relevance and comfort and challenge; not to mention an explosion of unique creators. Now most everything is dull and gray and homogenous, and the audience is terrified of anything adult or thought-provoking-- because that would be "cheesy."

That is absolutely not what I was saying. I wasn't saying everything then was better than it is today. I reject such kneejerk nostalgia, since I'm fully aware that it's a fallacy. There was just as much good TV and bad TV in the '60s as there is today; it's just that the bad and forgettable shows haven't endured in our memories, so when we look back on what is remembered, it's biased toward the stuff that stood out from the pack, creating the illusion that there was more such stuff then than there is now. But it's naive to buy into that illusion, and if you think that's what I was saying, you're completely wrong.

All I was saying was that I personally found the sitcoms of the '60s to be more imaginative and diverse in their concepts and formats than the sitcoms of more recent decades. I wasn't comparing "everything." I wasn't comparing dramas or movies or literature or comics or music or art. I was only comparing live-action television situation comedies. And I wasn't even saying that modern sitcoms aren't well-made; I was just saying that there doesn't seem to be as much diversity or experimentation (or specifically as much fantasy, science fiction, action-adventure, or absurdism) in their premises, or at least there wasn't back in the '90s.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Modern sitcoms are so bad, I wouldn't even know what they're like. I gave up watching a long time ago. But you do have a point, I can't envision a sitcom doing an unusual topic like "WWII POW camp that is actually a nest of spies" or "astronaut meets genie."

 

[Greg Cox]

Yeah, it would be a mistake to romanticize the glorious golden age of, er, The Flying Nun.

While there are as many bad and forgettable shows today as there were back in Sister Bertille's heyday, I think that, in general, the writing and production values have gradually approved over the decades. Nor is experimentation dead. Today alone you've got Dexter, Glee, The Walking Dead, Survivor, The Daily Show, as well as any number of less ambitious but smartly-written shows like Castle, Warehouse 13, Vampire Diaries, etc.

Would you really rather watch I Dream of Jeannie or Munsters reruns?

I mean, I watched all that old stuff as a kid, too, but let's not pretend that it was more innovative or sophisticated than a lot of today's programs. Nostalgia only goes so far.

Now I'm going to go downstairs and watch the new episode of Teen Wolf . . . .

 

[Christopher]

While there are as many bad and forgettable shows today as there were back in Sister Bertille's heyday, I think that, in general, the writing and production values have gradually approved over the decades. Nor is experimentation dead. Today alone you've got Dexter, Glee, The Walking Dead, Survivor, The Daily Show, as well as any number of less ambitious but smartly-written shows like Castle, Warehouse 13, Vampire Diaries, etc.

Sure, but none of those experimental shows you mentioned are situation comedies. Again, I wasn't making some blanket generalization about all of television, I was talking specifically about the category of sitcoms. I still watch plenty of television, and there are plenty of shows that I love, but it's been a long time since I've been interested in watching a current, live-action, American situation comedy. Although, granted, a lot of hourlong "drama" shows these days have comedy as a large part of their content, such as Pushing Daisies, Eureka, Warehouse 13, Castle, etc. So maybe that's where the experimentation has shifted.

 

[Nerys Myk]

The lines between comedies and dramas have blurred a bit. With comedy shows tackling serious topics ( and not always in a funny manner) and an uptick in the comedic elements in drama.

 

[RJDiogenes]

If you want a series that isn't afraid to venture into claymation, you should watch Community. It's a brilliant sitcom that did an entire episode in claymation this season.

Cool. I'll have to track that down.

Christopher is absolutely right. The 60s were a cornucopia of creativity in Pop Culture, from TV and movies to comic books and literature, to music and art. There was color and variety and insanity and social relevance and comfort and challenge; not to mention an explosion of unique creators. Now most everything is dull and gray and homogenous, and the audience is terrified of anything adult or thought-provoking-- because that would be "cheesy."

That is absolutely not what I was saying. I wasn't saying everything then was better than it is today.

Good. Neither did I.

All I was saying was that I personally found the sitcoms of the '60s to be more imaginative and diverse in their concepts and formats than the sitcoms of more recent decades. I wasn't comparing "everything." I wasn't comparing dramas or movies or literature or comics or music or art.

And I expanded on the concept, stating that it was an overall more creative time-- because it was.

While there are as many bad and forgettable shows today as there were back in Sister Bertille's heyday, I think that, in general, the writing and production values have gradually approved over the decades. Nor is experimentation dead. Today alone you've got Dexter, Glee, The Walking Dead, Survivor, The Daily Show, as well as any number of less ambitious but smartly-written shows like Castle, Warehouse 13, Vampire Diaries, etc.

While at least some of these shows are good, I wouldn't say they are terribly experimental. While I enjoy Vampire Diaries, it's basically a new take on Dark Shadows. Warehouse 13 is one of my favorites, but it's pretty straightforward adventure (unless you count the Steampunk elements as innovative for TV-- Sanctuary and Eureka also incorporate those elements). Daily Show is The Tonight Show. I suppose Walking Dead could be considered experimental because it combines a Romero universe with mature (in the true sense) writing. So, sure, there are some good shows around, but there's just not the same sparkle.

 

[Harvey]

Daily Show is The Tonight Show.

Conan is The Tonight Show. The Daily Show is quite different. For one thing, it's far more political, to the point that politics has become the show's primary focus. For another, it's far less guest-oriented than talk shows modeled after The Tonight Show. There's no band, and there's rarely a musical guest. As far as television satire goes, it's been on the cutting edge for several years and remains there.

And I expanded on the concept, stating that it was an overall more creative time-- because it was.

I have to balk at your assertion that the 60s were a more creative time for television than the present. If that were the case, programs like The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour or The Monkees would have been long-lasting successes, and represent the norm of television during the decade. Instead, they were short-lived programs atypical of television from the 1960s. We just remember them because the crap tends to sink to the bottom.

And, for every one of those, I could point to The Wire, Mad Men, Breaking Bad, etc. It's just easier to remember recent crap because it's, well, recent. But in twenty years nobody but television scholars and old timers will remember those shows.

 

[Christopher]

^Exactly. Like I said, the belief that the past was better is an illusion arising from the fact that the mediocre stuff gets forgotten. Not just because mediocre shows don't get rerun, but because our own memory of the less pleasant or less important things in our lives tends to fade. Stress actually interferes with memory retention, so we remember the good things in our past better than the bad things -- while the mediocre things just sort of blend into white noise. Nostalgia is a trick of neurology.

Personally, I believe the present is generally better than the past in a lot of ways. We've gained more experience, more knowledge, more sophistication, and that lets us climb farther than our forebears. Yes, there's a lot of bad and stupid stuff in the mass media today, but there always has been. But the heights we can rise to are higher. It's just that such things aren't uniform. A few isolated things can go downhill even while the general trend is upward. Television dramas at their best are certainly better, richer, and more creative than they were 40 or 50 years ago (although there are certainly mediocre and bad dramas still, and modern advances like greater serialization are often taken to excess), but for whatever reason, the sitcom form of today doesn't appeal to my sense of humor or my imagination.

 

[Kegg]

You know what was a very good sitcom recently? The Inbetweeners. I enjoyed that a surprisingly large amount, particularly as I seldom warm to British comedies, let alone shows about teenagers. As far as creativity goes, it's rare to see a sitcom that depressingly honest about its own premise.

As far as American fare goes, there's those two new Onion TV series. 22 minutes pretty much designed like the deadpan internet shorts they've done. Enjoyed that a lot.

Personally, I believe the present is generally better than the past in a lot of ways.

I'd agree with that. It's first season isn't even over yet, but I'd be hard pressed to name, for example, a fantasy TV series I'd consider better than Game of Thrones.

 

[Warped9]

The last sitcom I genuinely enjoyed was Frasier. Two psychiatrists committed to helping people yet their own lives were so royally screwed up.

Recently rewatched the first season of Bewitched. Still damned funny and charming. As is All In The Family and M*A*S*H.

 

[RandyS]

The last sitcom I genuinely enjoyed was Frasier. Two psychiatrists committed to helping people yet their own lives were so royally screwed up.

Recently rewatched the first season of Bewitched. Still damned funny and charming. As is All In The Family and M*A*S*H.

Agreed all around, except I never cared much for All in the Family.

 

[Christopher]

I liked some things about Frasier, but I didn't much care for the heavy focus on Frasier's romantic/sexual pursuits. That part bored me. I was more interested in Niles's unrequited feelings for Daphne, which made for a much sweeter, more sympathetic character arc.

 

[Top41]

Television is a lot different than it was even in the 1990's, not to mention when the "Flying Nun" was on in the 1960's.

Now, there is almost infinite choices in what one wants to see, and that they can see what they want when they want to watch it. Cable networks are churning out great original series, and some awful ones as well.

I live in China and watch my content over the internet or I buy pirated DVD's. I like Modern Family too, and I can get it here on Thursday morning about 10 AM China time from a website. In the United States, one can watch www.hulu.com, or network programming from the websites themselves (www.nbc.com for example) anytime. I cannot, because of a (stupid) copyright law than disallows content to be streamed outside the country.

In short, if I lived in the United States, I would never buy cable, I like watching shows with no commercials and DVD's. I hope in the near future, television and the internet can merge together and just show their content online with commercials. For example, there could be a website called CBS/Portugal that shows CBS shows with Portugese commercials and an option of local subtitles or dubbing of the series. Maybe one day this will happen, probably not though.

I like this website to watch new series. No commercials. Go nuts.
*snip* last link a bit dodgy

Removed the last link as it's not entirely kosher for here. Remember when posting links, make sure they're to above board sites like Hulu or NBC.com. Thanks!

 

[Kegg]

I liked some things about Frasier, but I didn't much care for the heavy focus on Frasier's romantic/sexual pursuits. That part bored me. I was more interested in Niles's unrequited feelings for Daphne, which made for a much sweeter, more sympathetic character arc.

I'd agree Nles had a more sympathetic character arc (I'm not really sure I'd call Frasier balding, struggling to win more recognition for his radio show and endlessly failing in love an 'arc' per se), but I just thought Frasier's endless failed pursuits were pretty funny.

And their natural climax - in "Don Juan in Hell" - is one of the high points of the series.

 

[Greg Cox]

While there are as many bad and forgettable shows today as there were back in Sister Bertille's heyday, I think that, in general, the writing and production values have gradually approved over the decades. Nor is experimentation dead. Today alone you've got Dexter, Glee, The Walking Dead, Survivor, The Daily Show, as well as any number of less ambitious but smartly-written shows like Castle, Warehouse 13, Vampire Diaries, etc.

While at least some of these shows are good, I wouldn't say they are terribly experimental. While I enjoy Vampire Diaries, it's basically a new take on Dark Shadows. Warehouse 13 is one of my favorites, but it's pretty straightforward adventure (unless you count the Steampunk elements as innovative for TV-- Sanctuary and Eureka also incorporate those elements). .

Oh, I agree with you 100% where Vampire Diaries is concerned. It's basically a younger, snarkier version of Dark Shadows. That's why I didn't list it among the more experimental shows, but simply as "less ambitious but smartly-written." Ditto for Warehouse 13, Castle, etc.

The point being that there also plenty of modern shows that, while not being groundbreakers, are as slickly done and enjoyable as anything from the sixties. I have to reject the idea that tv as a whole has gone downhill over the decades, unless you really think that The Flying Nun is superior to, say, The Big Bang Theory . . . .

 

[RJDiogenes]

Conan is The Tonight Show. The Daily Show is quite different. For one thing, it's far more political, to the point that politics has become the show's primary focus. For another, it's far less guest-oriented than talk shows modeled after The Tonight Show. There's no band, and there's rarely a musical guest. As far as television satire goes, it's been on the cutting edge for several years and remains there.

Well, it's on the cutting edge in terms of topicality, but I wouldn't call it innovative in any way. It has predecessors that include Tonight Show, other talk shows, Laugh-In, et cetera (including Smothers Brothers). I'm not saying it ain't good-- Jon Stewart is hilarious.

And I expanded on the concept, stating that it was an overall more creative time-- because it was.

I have to balk at your assertion that the 60s were a more creative time for television than the present. If that were the case, programs like The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour or The Monkees would have been long-lasting successes, and represent the norm of television during the decade. Instead, they were short-lived programs atypical of television from the 1960s. We just remember them because the crap tends to sink to the bottom.

Well, Smothers Brothers was the victim of sponsor panic; I don't know why Monkees didn't do better. But there was still plenty of outlandish stuff that was successful to a greater or lesser degree; there was just a manic energy in the air that I don't see happening now.

And, for every one of those, I could point to The Wire, Mad Men, Breaking Bad, etc. It's just easier to remember recent crap because it's, well, recent. But in twenty years nobody but television scholars and old timers will remember those shows.

All those just kind of blur together for me; same with stuff like The Shield and nuBSG and that Denis Leary show and so on. It certainly feeds the current appetite for lowbrow, corrupt characters, but I don't feel any spark of creativity.

While there are as many bad and forgettable shows today as there were back in Sister Bertille's heyday, I think that, in general, the writing and production values have gradually approved over the decades. Nor is experimentation dead. Today alone you've got Dexter, Glee, The Walking Dead, Survivor, The Daily Show, as well as any number of less ambitious but smartly-written shows like Castle, Warehouse 13, Vampire Diaries, etc.

While at least some of these shows are good, I wouldn't say they are terribly experimental. While I enjoy Vampire Diaries, it's basically a new take on Dark Shadows. Warehouse 13 is one of my favorites, but it's pretty straightforward adventure (unless you count the Steampunk elements as innovative for TV-- Sanctuary and Eureka also incorporate those elements). .

Oh, I agree with you 100% where Vampire Diaries is concerned. It's basically a younger, snarkier version of Dark Shadows. That's why I didn't list it among the more experimental shows, but simply as "less ambitious but smartly-written." Ditto for Warehouse 13, Castle, etc.

Oh, I see. I thought you were listing them all as experimental.

The point being that there also plenty of modern shows that, while not being groundbreakers, are as slickly done and enjoyable as anything from the sixties. I have to reject the idea that tv as a whole has gone downhill over the decades, unless you really think that The Flying Nun is superior to, say, The Big Bang Theory . . . .

I'm not really familiar with Flying Nun specifically, but Big Bang Theory is a great show. And you're quite right that there are shows that are as good as anything from the 60s; Warehouse 13 is one, certainly. But I think, overall, pop culture-- inclusive of TV, movies, comics, music-- is in a dark age. I think we're ripe for a revolution.

 

[Harvey]

Well, it's on the cutting edge in terms of topicality, but I wouldn't call it innovative in any way. It has predecessors that include Tonight Show, other talk shows, Laugh-In, et cetera (including Smothers Brothers). I'm not saying it ain't good-- Jon Stewart is hilarious.

Smothers Brothers (what I've seen and read about it, anyway) could be very topical with its sketches, and often featured controversial and topical guests, but did it ever send a correspondent to Iran during a crisis, or even one to the Democratic or Republican National Convention? Did The Tonight Show do the same? Not from what I've seen. In that sense, The Daily Show really is a cutting edge program.

Well, Smothers Brothers was the victim of sponsor panic; I don't know why Monkees didn't do better. But there was still plenty of outlandish stuff that was successful to a greater or lesser degree; there was just a manic energy in the air that I don't see happening now.

Smothers Brothers was killed by the network. They didn't like the controversy of the program, and when an excuse arose allowing cancellation, they took it (which didn't stop them from being successfuly sued for breach of contract by the Smothers brothers).

The Monkees was cancelled when the group wanted to take the show in a different direction, which NBC didn't care for. They preferred a more conservative approach. Both of these situations indicate how aberrant these programs were at the time. The manic energy you so admire wasn't the norm in the 1960s any more than it is the norm today.

All those just kind of blur together for me; same with stuff like The Shield and nuBSG and that Denis Leary show and so on. It certainly feeds the current appetite for lowbrow, corrupt characters, but I don't feel any spark of creativity.

Rescue Me is garbage, but if you're just going to categorically dismiss programs with "corrupt" characters, then a lot of the most creative stuff on television isn't going to appeal to you. But that doesn't mean it's not creative. Has a show ever produced a teaser as inventive as the music video that precedes "Negro Y Azul," a second season episode of Breaking Bad? Has there been a sitcom as self-reflexive as Community?

 

[Kegg]

Rescue Me is garbage, but if you're just going to categorically dismiss programs with "corrupt" characters, then a lot of the most creative stuff on television isn't going to appeal to you. But that doesn't mean it's not creative.

Indeed.

To track back to an earlier comment, I defend Seinfeld as creative - I didn't say I thought it was that funny. I'll just assume the humour loses somehting in the transatlantic translation.

As far as corruption goes, I'd argue the strength of a series like, say, The Wire, is seeing just how blurry that definition can be. Honour and morality really are quite important in that series, but that can be for a guy who steals from drug dealers as much as it can be for a cop.

 

[Christopher]

To track back to an earlier comment, I defend Seinfeld as creative - I didn't say I thought it was that funny. I'll just assume the humour loses somehting in the transatlantic translation.

There are certainly those of us on this side of the Atlantic who didn't find Seinfeld funny at all.