Do you consider this the 'Golden Age of TV' like it has been called?

[Jayson1]

I got to say that I think it really is that label. Right now we have more options and options worth watching ever before and thinks to cable and places like HBO that kind of started it all you have shows that don't have to deal with government censorship which means they have more creative freedom which doesn't just means things like nudity,violence and cussing. It means you can tell stories about things other being just another cop,doctor or lawyer show, though when they do those kind of shows they also tend to be better than the network options.

I will say that this isn't quite the golden age of sci-fi tv. I think that JC Cowen guy I think he is called on Youtube was right in one of his video's and that golden age was between 1987 to 200 5 or so which I think allows enough room to also cover Firefly,Battlestar Galatica,Stargate Atlantis and Lost. Comic book shows and more fantasy based stuff like Game of Thrones,Walking Dead seem to be bigger right now and i'm not sure if they count as pure sci-fi or if they do they tend to belong to other labels more clearly.

Jason

 

[JirinPanthosa]

I would agree that since all the boundaries on storytelling have been removed due to streaming services and premium networks, we are in the best age of television.

About science fiction, I guess it depends how you demarcate the eras. We do have Westworld now, but yes, 1987-2005 is the era of long running long season scifi.

 

[Velocity]

Maybe not TV, but entertainment.

 

[Jayson1]

Maybe not TV, but entertainment.

I'm not sure if I would go that far because i'm not impressed by modern music and while movies are still good for the most part I still think the 70's and 90's were the golden age of movies. Comic Book movies and shows though I think are better now than they ever could have been in the past. The internet though is something new to mix and I am thinking that if removed the angry fighting you still have something special with it. Not sure about books or comic books. I need to find time to read more. I am pretty sure I am getting those two Mark Altman books about trek for my birthday this month so that seems like a good place to start.

Jason

 

[JirinPanthosa]

I'm not sure if I would go that far because i'm not impressed by modern music and while movies are still good for the most part I still think the 70's and 90's were the golden age of movies. Comic Book movies and shows though I think are better now than they ever could have been in the past. The internet though is something new to mix and I am thinking that if removed the angry fighting you still have something special with it. Not sure about books or comic books. I need to find time to read more. I am pretty sure I am getting those two Mark Altman books about trek for my birthday this month so that seems like a good place to start.

Jason

There's good music coming out, it's just mostly not the music that's selling copies.

Agree about movies, I think 60s and 70s had the strongest concentration of great films, though all eras had plenty of gems.

TV though really does have a massive difference in quality between pre-Sopranos and post-Sopranos. Netflix changes everything since now networks know they don't have to make every episode completely standalone. Miss an episode you can just watch it at your leisure any time in the week.

 

[Push The Button]

The Sopranos
Breaking Bad
Mad Men

Is this the golden age of television?

Hell yes.

 

[Non Sync]

The golden age of television was the early days. While technically, the shows are nowhere near what we can see today, remember they were working with the bare minimum and early versions. But most of what they did was live. Look up Ernie Kovaks and some of the early camera gags that he figured out.

 

[Jax]

For drama in particular, it's a 24 carrot gold era and comic book fans have plenty to digest but genres like Space esq Sci Fi shows and Sitcoms lack the quantity & quality we used to get.

 

[tomswift2002]

I would disagree that this is the golden age of TV. Since about 98 I’ve been finding that a lot of TV shows have been about special effects over story, or about “reality”.

And I would disagree with TV and films getting better with the removal of censorship. I’ve actually tuned out of shows because of the language. A lot of HBO’s shows, I find, cross the line and are nothing but porn shows.

But I’ve also found that a lot of dramas, cartoons and science-fiction shows have been, “dumbed-down” because of government regs. When I compare, for example, the various Spider-Man cartoons, I find the shows made between 1967 and 1987 are more violent than their counterparts from 2000 to 2017. Or even when you compare the 1930’s to 1960’s Looney Tunes versus the newer Looney Tunes, the new ones don’t have anywhere close to the level of violence and their jokes fall flat.

 

[Jayson1]

For drama in particular, it's a 24 carrot gold era and comic book fans have plenty to digest but genres like Space esq Sci Fi shows and Sitcoms lack the quantity & quality we used to get.

I agree about Sci Fi shows but to me the sitcoms have simply been upgraded to things like "The Office" "Veep" or "Silicon Valley" were you get humor from places beyond people hanging around the living room couch or kitchen or at work were you basically see just one work area at that place of work. "Wings" for example was at a airport but you almost always see them around that bar area I think it was. If you see them in a plane it would be some tiny cockpit.

Jason

 

[JirinPanthosa]

I would disagree that this is the golden age of TV. Since about 98 I’ve been finding that a lot of TV shows have been about special effects over story, or about “reality”.

And I would disagree with TV and films getting better with the removal of censorship. I’ve actually tuned out of shows because of the language. A lot of HBO’s shows, I find, cross the line and are nothing but porn shows.

But I’ve also found that a lot of dramas, cartoons and science-fiction shows have been, “dumbed-down” because of government regs. When I compare, for example, the various Spider-Man cartoons, I find the shows made between 1967 and 1987 are more violent than their counterparts from 2000 to 2017. Or even when you compare the 1930’s to 1960’s Looney Tunes versus the newer Looney Tunes, the new ones don’t have anywhere close to the level of violence and their jokes fall flat.

I would agree network TV has gone down the tubes, but if we're being completely honest, were sitcoms *ever* actually good or did we just see them as better because they were on in our childhoods? I liked Full House when I was 10, but as an adult, it's not any less shitty than modern sitcoms.

I also would agree some HBO shows have a lot of nudity for the sake of nudity, but hey, if porn were that well plotted would it matter it were porn?

Older shows were never really about story either. For every Twilight Zone there were twenty cookie cutter sitcoms with interchangeable stories and forced laughs where one dimensional gimmick-driven characters learn to never be ambitious, never try to improve their lives for the better and learn to feel good embracing the culturally accepted status quo, then completely forget what they learned a week later.

And for every classic episode of Columbo there are five episodes of Columbo where the murder was so overly elaborate they'd have been better off just walking up and shooting them and the final trap made no sense that it should actually work.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

My experience with a lot of old TV shows is that they seem brilliant when you've only watched the top classic episodes but when you try to watch the whole series sequentially it doesn't hold up nearly as well.

 

[suarezguy]

I got to say that I think it really is that label. Right now we have more options and options worth watching ever before and thinks to cable and places like HBO that kind of started it all you have shows that don't have to deal with government censorship which means they have more creative freedom which doesn't just means things like nudity,violence and cussing. It means you can tell stories about things other being just another cop,doctor or lawyer show, though when they do those kind of shows they also tend to be better than the network options.

I don't watch a lot of newer television but from what I have seen it doesn't seem clearly better, in fact it's hard to understand the view that it's a lot better. From their first seasons I don't see how (for example with crime-drama or thriller) Breaking Bad or Homeland or American Crime Story were clearly better than The X Files or Law & Order or (with comedy) The Office was better than early The Simpsons or Seinfeld.
Nudity or violence or especially having the option of including them can make something better but it certainly doesn't necessarily mean more depth and having just having a mild amount of them can go a long way and be enough. I also think some of the prestige/cable shows (for example Nip/Tuck, Big Love) are mostly just characters acting awfully which usually isn't interesting or entertaining.

 

[Jayson1]

I don't watch a lot of newer television but from what I have seen it doesn't seem clearly better, in fact it's hard to understand the view that it's a lot better. From their first seasons I don't see how (for example with crime-drama or thriller) Breaking Bad or Homeland or American Crime Story were clearly better than The X Files or Law & Order or (with comedy) The Office was better than early The Simpsons or Seinfeld.
Nudity or violence or especially having the option of including them can make something better but it certainly doesn't necessarily mean more depth and having just having a mild amount of them can go a long way and be enough. I also think some of the prestige/cable shows (for example Nip/Tuck, Big Love) are mostly just characters acting awfully which usually isn't interesting or entertaining.

I think the main arguments isn't that you didn't have good shows in the past but you have more in the present. Also the creative freedom away from network tv lets you try and do different kinds of stories like arc's and setting you would never see on network tv and do it in away you can't on network tv. For example you could never do Walking Dead,Sopranos or OZ just to name a few on the networks. PLus a underated thing is I feel modern shows are even able to lure better talent to shows. I don't know if a Kevin Spacey or William H Macy after they have become movie stars would do a tv show in the 1990's. I don't think tv has that old stigma with actors like it used to.

Jason

 

[suarezguy]

True that there is more quantity and more ability to have new kinds of settings, I just think a lot of the new and acclaimed series often seem limited in other ways, they're either dark for the sake of dark or they are serialized with so many plot strands that some of the plots (too often the most interesting ones) get forgotten or have underwhelming resolutions.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

That criticism applies to the kind of shows that get talked up the most on a science fiction message board, but you also have shows like Transparent, Insecure, Atlanta, Master of None, etc which are character driven without being complicated or dark. There's really something for everyone in modern TV. Even in the 90s you couldn't have a gay character on the show without the character being totally defined by their gayness.

I also think that although Simpsons has inarguable classics, it's exactly the kind of show that is remembered nostalgically based on its best moments that doesn't hold up as well trying to watch every episode in sequence.

And, try watching 1970s SNL. Not a best of compilation, the actual show that aired, uncut. Then tell me it's as good as people remember.

It's not to say there weren't actual great shows in the past. Just their greatness was confined strictly within guidelines. You had to appeal to the entire audience at once, so your show was required to have centrist values, never require memory, and never have a story that can't be fully understood on the surface. Jerry Seinfeld and Larry David had to fight to have a show where characters didn't learn trite simplistic lessons at the end. That what makes current TV great. You don't have to appeal to everyone a little, you can try to appeal to a few people a lot instead.

 

[tomswift2002]

I think the main arguments isn't that you didn't have good shows in the past but you have more in the present. Also the creative freedom away from network tv lets you try and do different kinds of stories like arc's and setting you would never see on network tv and do it in away you can't on network tv. For example you could never do Walking Dead,Sopranos or OZ just to name a few on the networks. PLus a underated thing is I feel modern shows are even able to lure better talent to shows. I don't know if a Kevin Spacey or William H Macy after they have become movie stars would do a tv show in the 1990's. I don't think tv has that old stigma with actors like it used to.

Jason

I would disagree with the creative freedom. A lot of times with rules in place you get more interesting stories, as the writers need to be more creative to work within those rules.

 

[Jayson1]

I would disagree with the creative freedom. A lot of times with rules in place you get more interesting stories, as the writers need to be more creative to work within those rules.

To me the rules only matter when it comes to internal logic of your show. If you establish that a character can fly for example you want to establish some rules such as maybe he can only do it for 2 hours at a time or that he needs tobe hit with electricity to do it. Some of the network rules tend to be more about trying to dumb down something so as not confuse a audience. Not to mention they worry about offending people with anything risque.

It's possible to get around this a little bit but I think it also holds down a shows potential to point were most shows will fail and only small portion of them will have any success. I like the modern way were even if a show fails you at least can't say they didn't have a chance for their full vision to be tried and also with so many places to watch good tv it's okay for more shows to fail because if it does it doesn't mean that much because you still got 15 to 20 great shows out their to watch instead.

Jason

 

[JirinPanthosa]

The only case where restrictions force more creativity is the case where they are restricted from relying on tropes and cliches like with TNG and Seinfeld. Usually the restriction was to use more cliches.

 

[mos6507]

I also think some of the prestige/cable shows (for example Nip/Tuck, Big Love) are mostly just characters acting awfully which usually isn't interesting or entertaining.

This.

I think there is a novelty aspect in being able to do television as basically an extended R-rated miniseries that has a cinematic widescreen feel to it. And while at first you think "gee, this is a step up" it's also...tonally monochromatic. I also think a lot of the back-patting that's done over the unrestrained content is to some extent covering up some underlying graphic exploitation. Not every nude/sex scene in your GoT type of thing is motivated by anything more than the fact that guys like to see boobs and sex scenes. At its worst it's sort of a Silk Stalkings for snobs.

So today's TV is not the be all end all because it just doesn't have the variety.