Better Then or Better Now: Make the call on classic favorites (1 Viewer)

[JamesSmith]

Great Comments Guys:

I do have to wonder--for those of us who will be around in 20 years, what will we think of what's on television today and compare it with what's coming?

I notice that there are very few cartoon programs mentioned here (besides Bullwinkle). In some ways, current animated programs have progressed in terms of character development and having humor made more intrinsic to the show as opposed to having some verbal jokes just slapped unto the story.

Bullwinkle, Underdog, and a few other programs relayed on physical and verbal jokes for their humor. In some cases, the producers relied on just the voice actor's humorous sounding voice to carry the "ha-ha" element.

The Filmation cartoons of the seventies relied heavily on reused animation, canned laughter, and such to carry their shows. Compare that to today's films, and you do see some significant progress in terms of more "in" jokes, character development, and continuing plotlines that are resolved at the end of a season.

I know plenty of kids who will watch Kim Possible, the Penquins of Madgascar, Avatar: The Last Airbender, Ben 10 and such. But ask them to watch "old" cartoons and you are out of luck.

Any other opinions on cartoons.

James Smith

 

[Bob Hug]

You would have to include the original 1950s version (and, to a lesser extent, the 1960s version) of "Dragnet" if you're talking about a crime noir set in Los Angeles, though there's nowhere near the amount of location filming that you see in "Naked City." Thank goodness for the public domain releases of the 50s version because Universal has shown absolutely no interest in releasing this classic on DVD and even the 60s version has only its first season released to date. Also, "Adam-12," while not quite a noir (at least in my mind), does offer a bit more location filming of L.A. in the late 1960s. On the subject of "TV Noir," may I suggest this article which I came across at the UCLA Film and Television Archive . . . .


http://www.cinema.ucla.edu/pdfs/FTVS...ilm_NoirTV.pdf

 

[RickER]

I have all day to think about my choices. Good idea for a thread, Wayne.

 

[Dave Scarpa]

Well I have to Agree on Irwin Allen I was watching my S4 set of Voyage Last night the Episode Sealed Orders, god it was awful, the thing about this show I never realized is just how bad the acting is in the later Seasons. Baseheart stammers all over the place as does Hedison. It seems only the lesser actors could handle some of the Ridculous plots of later years.

The Comedy Stuff Like Jeannie, Hillbillies etc I find just as good today and as funny as when I was a kid, maybe moreso as I notice the Double Entendre stuff more.

 

[Dave Scarpa]

Plus the Laugh track was mostly gone by season 7, as were most of the laughs some would argue.

 

[Dave Scarpa]

Well it certainly showed Comedies could be more than sitcoms, and if it was'nt for Lear.. we probably would have the Dramedy as it exists today..for Good or Bad.. So yes it was entertainment..thoughtful entertainment.

 

[Gary OS]

Here's one opinion that will undoubtedly raise the ire of some:

Better Then: Any Norman Lear show. I noticed a few mentions of the name so I thought I'd throw my own opinion out here since that's what this thread is: Opinions.

I was just a kid or preteen when most of the Lear shows aired (born in '65, so you guys do the math) and as with many households, my family often tuned in to see the antics of Archie, Maude, George Jefferson and J.J. "Dine-o-mite" Evans. I laughed along with my mom and step-father and any one else that was in the room. But as I grew I came to really dislike the in-your-face, preachy tone of these series. They almost always seemed to slight religious people in one way or the other, and the liberal social agendas were rammed down our throats at every turn. Today I literally can't stand any of the Lear shows for that very reason. I'm probably the only one on the forum that feels that way, but still... this is an opinion based thread all the way and that's mine when it comes to the different Lear series.

On another note, something that I really appreciate more now than back when I was a kid are the series that make use of open air, location settings instead of stuffy studios. I think this is why a show like RAWHIDE has such appeal to me vs. some of the other westerns that relied more on sets with painted trees and mountains in the background. When I was a kid I never paid as much attention to such things, but now it makes a big difference in my viewing pleasure.

Gary "just my two cents - not intended to offend anyone" O.

 

[michael_ks]

Agree with you 100%, Gary, for all of the reasons you stated, so you're by no means the only one with that sentiment. The only comedy from that era that I could stomach today would be "Sanford and Son", and even then, only in small doses. In fact the ushering in of the Lear era marked the beginning of the end of my prime time TV viewing, save for the MTM series like "The Bob Newhart Show". But after 1974, basically nothing interested me anymore, whether comedy or drama. Exceptions are the few series that sporadically popped up here and there like "The Darkroom", "Ray Bradbury Theater" and "The Twilight Zone (1985).

And you are spot on regarding "Rawhide". I'm a sucker too for those expansive vistas of the open range and they are largely responsible for viscerally giving me that "you are there" feel which I enjoy so much. I want so badly for this series to continue on with additional season sets...!

 

[Gary OS]

We are two peas in a pod, Michael. Our cut off point for Prime Time viewing is the same. As with you, I too have some exceptions such as THE SIX MILLION DOLLAR MAN and QUINCY (although I freely admit this show can get preachy as well with agendas). But for the most part I'm drawn to the 50's and 60's over and over again. The Lear era really seemed to be the catalyst for a shift in what was and was not permissible on TV - and I just didn't find the results to my liking at all.

After watching RAWHIDE and then viewing some other westerns from that same era, I find myself feeling almost claustrophobic at times with the confining studio sets. Give me the wide open location scenes every single time. It really does make you feel like you are right there with Mr. Favor, Rowdy and the rest of the gang.

Gary "darn... now I'm having withdrawal symptoms knowing this show is presently stalled" O.

 

[Montytc]

I agree the Lear shows all had a very strong political agenda that dates them, and I don't enjoy them in this day and age either. For me they definitely fit in "The better then than now" category.
I don't however feel they ruined TV forever, and many of my favorite shows today come from the last 30 years. That even includes a few current things.

 

[Charles Knox]

If you're talking mainly about the HB/Filmation television animation, then I can agree with you the majority of it is boring. Classic theatrical shorts and features on the other hand, still have the power to captivate and grab the attention of modern audiences.

 

[michael_ks]

And we both faithfully watched "The Untouchables" with our parents in the 1970s!

I have to admit I did enjoy 6M$M back in the day (and to a lesser extent "The Bionic Woman") but in the 70s if any television premise remotely featured a fantastic/science fiction theme, I was there. Overall though with the coming of comedies videotaped in front of live audiences, "lightweight" dramas like "CHiPS", "Fantasy Island" and "Charlies Angels", I just immersed myself in as many 50s-60s era tv as I could uncover (which wasn't a whole lot as so many of the great shows that finally made it to DVD were not surfacing on late afternoon tv).

Another series that's better to me now than back then: "Columbo"--I can appreciate the detailed writing ever so much more now.

 

[Jeff Willis]

Gary, add me to the non-Lear list. I agree with you and Mike. I never saw much in those shows either for the same reasons as you listed.

 

[Joe Lugoff]

I agree with Gary O. about the Lear shows.

The worst thing about that era was it ended up taking the fun out of sitcoms. I can't believe for a second that "I Love Lucy" would have been a better show if there had been episodes dealing with Lucy getting an abortion, Ethel going through menopause or Fred getting prostate cancer.

Given the choice of shows about "social issues" or talking horses, I'll stick with the talking horses.

 

[Tim Tucker]

Whew! Glad to see I'm not the only one with an aversion to Norman Lear.

 

[Hollywoodaholic]

My 2 cents on the Lear comedies (particularly All in the Family and Maude) is that they were distinctly a product of their time. It was a conservative government with a paranoid reactionary leader named Richard Nixon in power, so it was perfectly natural that counter protest voices had to pop up within the media and the fourth estate instead, and Lear used television quite effectively at the time by making a bigot the star of a show. Instead of preaching for liberalism, he just made a reactionary white guy look ignorant. Ironically, Archie softened and became a beloved TV icon.

Just as conservatives hated Lear's show that popped up in response to a conservative, pro-war government, I think liberals today find media loudmouths Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck (who get louder and angrier during a progressive government) equally repellent.

BETTER THEN and NOW:

Burke's Law Burke's Law works for any baby boomer relishing a calvacade of stars that defined their parents' era. I didn't see this show first time around (1964), but watched it in reruns on summer break from college a decade later. The guest stars of the show, who were always the suspects, were not MY stars, but I knew them all from my parents' world as huge stars of the screen from the '30s, '40s and '50s.

Today I watch the show and love it for it's parody of the narcissistic Hollywood culture and all the kookiness involved. Having experienced that world, it's funny just how accurate it all is. Actresses really DO live in their own deluded worlds of caviar and king charles cavaliers. Directors and writers really ARE driven to murderous rage over who gets credit for something. It's all so hilariously petty. And Gene Barry becomes a part of it and also above it, kissing a starlet goodbye and crusading around in his Rolls Royce investigating the damage out-of-control egos can do.

 

[TravisR]

Yeah, those shows play as dated, to me, but they were making a comment on their time rather than trying to be timeless (unlike, say, I Love Lucy or Mr. Ed where their one point was to make the audience laugh).

 

[Gary OS]

Wow, great to know others feel the same way I do about the Lear shows. Nice not to be alone here. I definitely agree about the comedies in general in the 70's. There was just a flavor to almost all of them that doesn't "taste" good to me. Growing up during that decade it was all but impossible for me to ignore all the shows at that time, but looking back now there's really very little from that time that I enjoy, especially when it comes to sitcoms.

Gary "and yeah, I watched 'The Untouchables' with my parents in the 70's Michael" O.

 

[Ray_R]

Better then and now: Quantum Leap
I used to watch this show off and on during the original run and syndication. I received Season One as a late birthday present, watched all of it. Then I ordered Seasons Two and Three from Amazon UK since they retain the original music and received them yesterday. This show seems timeless, including Al's wacky clothes he wears, since he helps people from his lifetime. This show could've just kept on going. I loved hearing the music, cars and everything else as to the dates Sam Beckett went on. Makes me wish the show had a total of 6-8 seasons actually that's how strongly I enjoy it.

EDIT: I found out I own all 13 of the comic books! I'll be buying the novels from Amazon Marketplace. Sad I couldn't make it to the convention in March. There's always next year!

 

[Joe Lugoff]

Well, I feel the same way about Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck as I do about Lear. I don't care for anyone who sees everything from one extreme point of view and demonizes the other side.

Given that these shows are all fantasies in the first place, I much prefer the fantasy view of families in shows like "Father Knows Best" and "Leave It to Beaver" than in "All in the Family" and "Maude."

If life has to be portrayed either better than it is or worse than it is, I'd prefer "better than it is," because at least it might inspire us to be better people.