I pose a serious question about today's television landscape

[Harvey]

In fact it's not just tv shows actually. It's also films.

I was about to say. Though television certainly has its fill of beautiful people who can't act.

Yeah. I personally find it offensive that they think of me has some sort of an idiot that will take any crap has long as there is boobs involved. Sadly to many idiots are exactly like that. Even if they have access to the internet.

It's not just actresses with a nice pair of breasts. There are plenty of males on TV who are talented only as far as they are eye candy, too.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Yeah. I personally find it offensive that they think of me has some sort of an idiot that will take any crap has long as there is boobs involved. Sadly to many idiots are exactly like that. Even if they have access to the internet.

I might be wrong, but a having a nice set of boobs has been a key ingredient of entertainment since forever. This is not a recent development.

Women and men short on talent and long on looks getting jobs in Hollywood? I'm SHOCKED!!!! Shocked I tell you!!!!

The worst thing is that it SHOULD be shocking. But it's not. It's like having a random ethnic minority or female character in a group.

Why should it be shocking? What's actually shocking is anyone thinking this is a recent development. It's not like Jane Russell was hired because of her acting skills.

 

[RoJoHen]

I might be wrong, but a having a nice set of boobs has been a key ingredient of entertainment since forever. This is not a recent development.

Women and men short on talent and long on looks getting jobs in Hollywood? I'm SHOCKED!!!! Shocked I tell you!!!!

The worst thing is that it SHOULD be shocking. But it's not. It's like having a random ethnic minority or female character in a group.

Why should it be shocking? What's actually shocking is anyone thinking this is a recent development. It's not like Jane Russell was hired because of her acting skills.

It should be shocking because I don't think it should be that difficult to find people who are both a) hot and b) good actors.

 

[Snaploud]

It should be shocking because I don't think it should be that difficult to find people who are both a) hot and b) good actors.

I think they grow them in giant vats in Hollywood. The unprofitable actors don't get their regular injections. That's why you always hear about actors with drug problems. It's what happens when you don't get your regular injections. Cocaine is a poor substitute for the good stuff, but they don't have many other options.

 

[Nerys Myk]

The worst thing is that it SHOULD be shocking. But it's not. It's like having a random ethnic minority or female character in a group.

Why should it be shocking? What's actually shocking is anyone thinking this is a recent development. It's not like Jane Russell was hired because of her acting skills.

It should be shocking because I don't think it should be that difficult to find people who are both a) hot and b) good actors.

Probably, but I've never tried casting a film or TV show. So I really cant say.

 

[RoJoHen]

All I know is I've met plenty of actors in person who are better than a lot of the actors on TV.

 

[Snaploud]

All I know is I've met plenty of actors in person who are better than a lot of the actors on TV.

Yes...but are they easily manipulated into pre-packaged careers with poor contract terms...? Studios like control.

 

[Nerys Myk]

All I know is I've met plenty of actors in person who are better than a lot of the actors on TV.

They need to get a better agent.

 

[RoJoHen]

They need to act professionally. Most of them I knew in college and have since gone on to do other things.

 

[Professor Zoom]

Why not name a few shows from that period that are as sophisticated as contemporary serial dramas? I'm curious to take a look at some of them.

Very well. I'll list fifteen that leave today's TV in the dust as far as sophistication is concerned:

12 O'CLOCK HIGH
BEN CASEY
THE BREAKING POINT
BUS STOP
CHANNING
CHRYSLER THEATER WITH BOB HOPE
COMBAT
THE DEFENDERS
THE FUGITIVE
HAVE GUN WILL TRAVEL
IT'S A MAN'S WORLD
MR. NOVAK
NAKED CITY
ROUTE 66
SLATTERY'S PEOPLE

West Wing
Dexter
Breaking Bad
Damages
Mad Men
X-Files
ER
NYPD Blue
LA Law
Six Feet Under
The Sopranos
The Practice
Dead Wood
Lost
Battlestar Galactica

 

[Dorian Thompson]

TV execs today are slaves to the advertisers who insist on the youth market/demo. Entertainment for youth translates as "dumb/shallow/hyper sexual." America is less well educated today than it was in the 1970s. Public schools and society expects less. Mary Tyler Moore....I dare say a lot of young people wouldn't comprehend why it's funny. A lot would, but the writers and Hollywood make the assumption that eveyrone is stupid.

 

[PorthosShadow]

Let me throw in my two credits here and say or rather write that Television has changed since it's inception. I won't bother reciting decades of history but simply this, there are more choices now. I think back when there were maybe 3 to 5 channels to choose from with a fairly small choice of shows to choose from you could pretty much say TV sucked or didn't suck.

Flashfoward (no pun to be found here) to 2010 and there are so many good and bad things on TV. Though I will say the ratio of crap to quality or visa versa is debatable. I'm 30 years old and I can tell you I've never had trouble finding some show worth getting into. While I think that TV would be much better off with out reality TV it's probably not going anywhere anytime soon.

Bottom like, there are a lot of shows and channels to choose from. I don't believe there has ever been a time in the history of TV when something good hasn't been on. What I think it is is that TV audiences have become to impatient to either seek out something good and just say "well that sucks, whats in my DVD or Bluray collection"

Finally, watching the shows my parents watched when they were growing up and watching TV now, I would not want to go back to 50's TV or I might kill my self or just ask Dexter to do it for me

 

[Nerys Myk]

TV execs today are slaves to the advertisers who insist on the youth market/demo. Entertainment for youth translates as "dumb/shallow/hyper sexual." America is less well educated today than it was in the 1970s. Public schools and society expects less. Mary Tyler Moore....I dare say a lot of young people wouldn't comprehend why it's funny. A lot would, but the writers and Hollywood make the assumption that eveyrone is stupid.

Do they? A lot of todays dramas are in the long story form with labyrinthine plots and large casts. Not sure about sitcoms, I only watch a few. Is "30 Rock" any shallower or dumber than "Mary Tyler Moore Show"? And isn't the cast of "30 Rock" for the most part over 30? I compare the two because they are both about single women of a certain age in the TV industry.

Looking at the ratings for last week I see "The Big Bang Theory" is the top rated sitcom. Is this a "dumb/shallow/hyper sexual" show in your opinion? I kinda like it myself. There are some sexual references, but then there are also references to physics and pop culture. The physics is over my head but I get most of he pop culture references.

 

[RoJoHen]

TV execs today are slaves to the advertisers who insist on the youth market/demo. Entertainment for youth translates as "dumb/shallow/hyper sexual." America is less well educated today than it was in the 1970s. Public schools and society expects less. Mary Tyler Moore....I dare say a lot of young people wouldn't comprehend why it's funny. A lot would, but the writers and Hollywood make the assumption that eveyrone is stupid.

Do they? A lot of todays dramas are in the long story form with labyrinthine plots and large casts. Not sure about sitcoms, I only watch a few. Is "30 Rock" any shallower or dumber than "Mary Tyler Moore Show"? And isn't the cast of "30 Rock" for the most part over 30? I compare the two because they are both about single women of a certain age in the TV industry.

I think "30 Rock" is an example of a great sitcom. And no, it's not any dumber than Mary Tyler Moore. I think people sometimes see modern TV that's full of cheap dirty jokes and call it "dumb," but as a society we're just a lot more comfortable with that kind of humor than we used to be. It's not dumb; it's timely.

 

[Canadave]

TV execs today are slaves to the advertisers who insist on the youth market/demo. Entertainment for youth translates as "dumb/shallow/hyper sexual." America is less well educated today than it was in the 1970s. Public schools and society expects less. Mary Tyler Moore....I dare say a lot of young people wouldn't comprehend why it's funny. A lot would, but the writers and Hollywood make the assumption that eveyrone is stupid.

Do they? A lot of todays dramas are in the long story form with labyrinthine plots and large casts. Not sure about sitcoms, I only watch a few. Is "30 Rock" any shallower or dumber than "Mary Tyler Moore Show"? And isn't the cast of "30 Rock" for the most part over 30? I compare the two because they are both about single women of a certain age in the TV industry.

I think "30 Rock" is an example of a great sitcom. And no, it's not any dumber than Mary Tyler Moore. I think people sometimes see modern TV that's full of cheap dirty jokes and call it "dumb," but as a society we're just a lot more comfortable with that kind of humor than we used to be. It's not dumb; it's timely.

Your avatar is the perfect example. The Simpsons is a show that was often written off as dumb and silly, but (at least during it's prime) it was quite intelligent, witty, and had a pretty big heart. But because the show pushed a few boundaries at the time, many people had difficulty seeing that.

 

[Star Wolf]

Let me throw in my two credits here and say or rather write that Television has changed since it's inception. I won't bother reciting decades of history but simply this, there are more choices now. I think back when there were maybe 3 to 5 channels to choose from with a fairly small choice of shows to choose from you could pretty much say TV sucked or didn't suck.......


Finally, watching the shows my parents watched when they were growing up and watching TV now, I would not want to go back to 50's TV or I might kill my self or just ask Dexter to do it for me

It is not only that more choices exist put today everybody has his/her own screen. The goal is no longer to get more of everybody then your two competitors but to break out a small demographic and win that.

When kids were forced to watch adult fare they grew up to see those shows as classic. The next generation, with TVs in their bedrooms grew up to look at Saved By The Bell as the show of their youth.

 

[PorthosShadow]

Let me throw in my two credits here and say or rather write that Television has changed since it's inception. I won't bother reciting decades of history but simply this, there are more choices now. I think back when there were maybe 3 to 5 channels to choose from with a fairly small choice of shows to choose from you could pretty much say TV sucked or didn't suck.......


Finally, watching the shows my parents watched when they were growing up and watching TV now, I would not want to go back to 50's TV or I might kill my self or just ask Dexter to do it for me

It is not only that more choices exist put today everybody has his/her own screen. The goal is no longer to get more of everybody then your two competitors but to break out a small demographic and win that.

When kids were forced to watch adult fare they grew up to see those shows as classic. The next generation, with TVs in their bedrooms grew up to look at Saved By The Bell as the show of their youth.

I never considered that as a possible evolution of TV. Might it be someday that networks adjust their programming to small groups of people. They have demographics now but those are large samplings of people. I think given the diversity of the Television landscape and how it's evolving audiences are going to be increasingly broken down into even smaller demographics.

 

[Dusty Ayres]

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.).

Bob Newhart, Mary Tyler Moore, Odd Couple are all on DVD, as is The Andy Griffith Show, Gomer Pyle, Green Acres, The Munsters, Addams Family, Gilligan's Island. Showing those shows again when they're on DVD is silly, that's why they're not being shown anymore-they've all been overshown, you could say. What I'd like to see on TV Land are rare shows like
East Side/West Side,
Slattery's People, He & She and a couple of other rare 60's shows, but TV Land won't show them.

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.

The reason Everybody Loves Raymond, Roseanne and Andy Griffith are on is because in the case of the first two, it's been ten/twenty years since they've been on TV-high time enough for them to be in reruns on TV Land. I agree with you about the reality TV shows, though.

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.

That's a better idea than watching them on TV anyway.

 

[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.).

Bob Newhart, Mary Tyler Moore, Odd Couple are all on DVD, as is The Andy Griffith Show, Gomer Pyle, Green Acres, The Munsters, Addams Family, Gilligan's Island. Showing those shows again when they're on DVD is silly...

Really? So it's just assumed that everyone can afford to purchase on DVD every show that's ever been made? I'd need a DVD shelf the length of California, not to mention a much larger bank account.

Most movies are on DVD, so no more movies on TV either?

Sounds like your vision of TV is that it should be limited to only what's not out on DVD. Interesting perspective, but not one I agree with.

The reason Everybody Loves Raymond, Roseanne and Andy Griffith are on is because in the case of the first two, it's been ten/twenty years since they've been on TV-high time enough for them to be in reruns on TV Land. I agree with you about the reality TV shows, though.

Raymond just finished it's production run in 2005, and has been heavily syndicated ever since. I hardly think it's anywhere near due to be categorized as "classic tv".

I can't speak for your TV market, but in mine I've had plenty of TV access to Roseanne and Andy Griffith for years. Great shows, but heavily over-aired, as compared to how many countless shows there are that have gotten no air time in many, many years.

 

[I am not Spock]

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.

Butler becoming the go-to guy for rom-coms strikes me as one of the greatest mysteries of recent times. Stick to action films, Gerard.