Was TV better When just 3 Networks? (1 Viewer)

[Ronald Epstein]

Television was so much better when there

were only three networks.


People watched the same thing. When

there was a miniseries aired (such as ROOTS)

it became an EVENT.


These days it becomes a bit more difficult

to find co-workers or friends who are watching

the same shows you are. The office water

cooler is definately a lot less crowded than

it used to be.

 

[mattCR]

I'd argue that while you had some great, great years 1985 as an example.. that what has suffered is the interest by the Big3. At the same time, more unique and well written programming is available now then has ever been available. The kind of programming you wouldn't have had a shot in hell to see decades ago.

So, it's a mixed bag. I'm happier with the benefits of a broader platform that bring me the kind of programming I could never have had access to in the past (Dexter, Weeds, Sopranos, True Blood, The L Word as controversial examples)


I do miss the network rolling out big, incredibly well scripted shows that work decades later.. see: MASH.

But it is a trade off.

 

[Regulus]

Looking through my Vast Inventory of DVD Programming I find, of the over 300 TV Shows I own on DVD Only FOUR of them were produced for a Specific Cable TV Channel (And Three of them were for The Discovery Channel) All the Others were produced for either ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, WB/CW, UPN or Syndication.


Speaking of ROOTS, one of the most Humorous Incidents I ever heard about this Event occured when a Friend of mine went on a High-School Field Trip to a Water Treatment Plant in the Detroit, Michigan area. They were told that during the week the Mini Series aired a Worker brought in a TV Set so that Employees who worked on the Second Shift could at least "Hear" The Show if they couldn't watch it. (Bear in mind the Average VCR sold for almost $2,000.00 back then!)

 

[pitchman]

Originally Posted by BobO'Link

The truly better thing about the 3 network system was that a "marginal" program actually stood a chance of finding an audience since the networks would typically keep a underperforming series around for an entire season rather than only a few episodes. Mid-season replacements were rare and truly came into vogue along with the channel expansion/competition cable provided. If a show were being "tried out" it tended to be during the summer months and not during the regular season.

Good point, Howie. I think it's important to remember though, that what was considered a "marginal" ratings performer back then, would be a smashing success by today's fractionalized/segmented audience measurement standards. The primetime reality of today is that if a program does not succeed with an 18-49 audience, it is gone...plain and simple. This is the only ratings group that network advertisers look at, so therefore, it is the only group that the major networks cater to. There is no question in my mind that this affects program development across the board and limits the kinds of shows (risky or not) that ever make it to air today.


Also, re: mid-season replacements. I think what you say is correct. But, IMO the mid-season concept took hold prior to the proliferation of cable. I think ABC rewrote the playbook back in 1966 when after a DISASTROUS fall season launch, they scrapped a huge portion of their primetime schedule and in January (out of desperation) boldly announced their "Second Season", which, among other things, brought us the game-changing Batman series. From then on, I think networks embraced the idea of using mid-season as a viable launching pad for new shows or as a way to salvage a current season.

 

[Neil Brock]

Originally Posted by Ethan Riley

TV has never been "better."

Uh, no, it is not better. I could name you twice as many good shows on the 3 networks in 1963 than you could name on the 500 or so networks today.

 

[Regulus]

Originally Posted by Neil Brock





Uh, no, it is not better. I could name you twice as many good shows on the 3 networks in 1963 than you could name on the 500 or so networks today.

Going through my inventory of over 300 TV Series on DVD, I found I only have Six TV Series that originated on Cable Networks (2 each from The Discovery Channel and Court TV, 1 from Comedy Central and 1 from HBO) Of the rest, about 75% came from ABC, CBS or NBC, the remainder from FOX, WB/UPN/CW or Syndicated.

 

[RobertR]

I'm not quite sure what people are saying regarding the "good old days" of only three networks. If people are saying that the writers and other creative people were simply better back then, I wouldn't disagree. However, if people are saying that we'd be better off if there was an artificial restriction to only three networks, then I'd very much disagree. It would be like saying there should only be a select few types of toothpaste, or books, or anything else. Saying one doesn't like the available choices does NOT justify limiting the choices of others. If one includes the Internet, we have what amounts to thousands of choices, and I think we're much better off because of it.

 

[drobbins]

Over the years I have never been one who is much for following "shows" on the 3 networks. Anything with pre-recorded laughter tracks usually gets the channel changed with in the first few minutes. With that being said, favorite shows were Cheers, Taxi, MASH, and Seinfeld. Over the past few years I have not gotten ABC, CBS or NBC due to them not being provided by Dish Network. I haven't missed them either. Currently my viewing habits are shows like MythBusters, Dr Who, Modern Marvels and watching movies that I wouldn't think to buy or rent. Like those low budget, ill produced "B" (or"C") movies shown on the Syfy channel. (good for laughs) My wife loves TMC, those Hallmark movies, and reruns of the Golden Girls. My daughter likes the Nickelodeon, Disney, MTV style shows. My son much of what I like. And the Mother-In -Law loves the game show channel.

So I am glad there are over 250 channels to choose from, even though I watch only a handful of them. With the 5 members in my household, there is enough verity to choose from for all of us.

 

[Jeff Willis]

Originally Posted by RobertR
I'm not quite sure what people are saying regarding the "good old days" of only three networks. If people are saying that the writers and other creative people were simply better back then, I wouldn't disagree. However, if people are saying that we'd be better off if there was an artificial restriction to only three networks, then I'd very much disagree. It would be like saying there should only be a select few types of toothpaste, or books, or anything else. Saying one doesn't like the available choices does NOT justify limiting the choices of others. If one includes the Internet, we have what amounts to thousands of choices, and I think we're much better off because of it.

My guess is that some here are saying that they feel, on the whole, the writing/content was better back in the 3-network days. Although I enjoy shows from all decades, the overall # of those shows, for me, has decreased significantly when compared to the earlier generation during the network-cominant era.

 

[Gary OS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Willis

My guess is that some here are saying that they feel, on the whole, the writing/content was better back in the 3-network days. Although I enjoy shows from all decades, the overall # of those shows, for me, has decreased significantly when compared to the earlier generation during the network-dominant era.

Exactly, Jeff.

Gary "the ratio of very good/great shows leans heavily toward the 3 network era" O.

 

[Neil Brock]

Which teams in the NHL were better, the ones pre-1967 when there were 6 teams in the league or now when there are 30?

 

[Tory]

I can't say though I will say that watching Hockey is a lot easier in Louisiana now that cable is around. Still, I find that being a couch potato in the older days gave you more culture than being a couch potato today.

 

[DaveHof]

Apart from any debates over whether the shows were better with three networks, I think part of the reason some of us miss that time is (and I know I'm not the first in this thread to make this point) there was more of a shared experience feel to prime time television. From the 1950s to the 1980s, a fairly significant percentage of Americans were all watching the same TV shows, and it's still fun to share the memories of them so many years later. I don't believe in moping about "the good old days," but I do find it sad that such moments will no longer be possible.

 

[Douglas Monce]

I have to agree that in the days of the big 3 networks, TV shows and specials were an EVENT. I remember that you couldn’t escape The Winds of War for the week that it was on. I remember waiting for the Fall Preview issue of TV Guide and planning out my viewing for the whole winter. For me network TV shows lost their appeal with the advent of multiple story lines and long story arcs, which I believe started seriously with Hill Street Blues. When I was a kid most TV episodes were self contained. If I missed an episode, I wasn't lost for the rest of the season. I could pick right back up with the next episode. Interestingly the USA networks shows feel to me more like big 3 network shows of the old days. Shows like Burn Notice and Royal Pains seem to be more about the characters than some high concept premises. For me over the long haul of a TV show, interesting characters keep me watching. In the old days watching TV was like spending an hour with some good friends. So many shows today are filled with so much angst that I just can’t deal with for a full 24 episodes. The last show I followed with any regularity was The X-Files. Today I don't really watch TV beyond Mythbusters, House, and a few shows on USA. Even those I just catch a show every now and then. I haven't watched any of the big 3 networks in probably 15 years. Doug

 

[jdee28]

An analogous question would be "were movies better back in the age before television?" There are many parallels between the history of movies and the history of television, with perhaps the most important being in terms of the general audience. The rule of thumb seems to be that the more options that the general audience was given, the more it became fragmented, and the more producers would respond by creating entertainment that appealed to specific groups, not to everybody.


In the 20s, 30s and 40s, if you wanted to be entertained by moving images, going to the movies was the only option. Because of this, movies were tailored to a general audience; everyone, no matter who they were or how old they were, could enjoy the same film and not get offended. With the advent of television, people now had a choice as to where to go to be entertained by moving images, and most chose to stay home. Movies responded by making films that appealed more and more to specific segments of the audience, those more likely to come out of the house. This made them money. Making movies for smaller groups of people meant that they could include things that a more general audience would find objectionable or offensive.


The entertainment of a general audience was then passed on to television. The same pattern happened with the addition of many more channels. The general audience was splintered and producers responded by making programming that would appeal to specific segments of it, no longer to everybody.


Today we're in a whole new era of splintered entertainment, where most people don't watch the same thing. It's going to be hard capturing everyone's attention. The era of the general audience, which lasted most of the twentienth century, first in radio and motion pictures in the earlier half, than in television in the latter half, is pretty much dead. Are we, as a culture, better off because of the demise of the general audience?


It's a trade off. Today it's possible to make entertainment that is more realistic and more intelligent, but most people won't see it, either because they don't know it exists or find some element in it offensive. It's much more harder these days to talk to people at the watercooler; most people aren't enjoying the same things.

 

[Steve Armbrust]

Just because more people watched a particular show back in the day does not mean the shows were better. There were fewer choices, so audiences were naturally larger. As for quality programming, how about: The Sopranos, Sex and the City, The Wire, Battlestar Galactica, Rescue Me, Sons of Anarchy, Damages, Mad Men, Breaking Bad, Dexter, Treme, The Shield, Band of Brothers, Curb Your Enthusiasm, True Blood, Justified. I could go on and on. I know people's tastes are different, but I couldn't imagine going back to a three-network state after experiencing the breadth of interesting and groundbreaking programming that the cable networks have introduced. And though the seasons are shorter now, there is new programming all year long. And all I have to do is set my DVR to find it. No more enduring three to four months with nothing on but reruns. Summer may have lighter fare, such as Secret Life of an American Teenager, or Make it or Break It, or Burn Notice, but to me, that's a lot better than watching reruns of Gunsmoke or Get Smart.

 

[Jefferson]

I can weigh in on this since I am in my 40s and remember when channels were limited to the networks and a few pay stations, like HBO.


For me, I think television was better in some ways. There was still stupid tv, and smart tv, as there is now, but I think the smart tv outweighed the stupid.
More choice is there today, but is it something I want to see?

TV history shows that certain genres take over the airwaves for awhile (Westerns, Variety Shows, etc). Today it is "reality" shows.
I take exception to the fact that a vast majority of TV today are those types of shows that are not written by writers and performed by actors.

I am happy there is room for some more edgy adult fare than I had growing up in the 70's, but does it all have to be edgy and adult? Because there are more channels, they have to fill them up with something, and that adds to the sameness. The lid is off the jar now, and it will never go back to before, but I miss the way it was.

 

[JimKr]

Variety is the spice of life. If there were only 3 networks still we wouldn't see the likes of the Sopranos, The Wire, The Shield, Rome, BSG, etc.


I pay $12 per month for my cable TV and get only the locals. All the cable shows are simply that much better when they arrive on DVD from Netflix and I can watch without the pesky commercials.


Also, I have rented several seasons of 60's and 70's shows and have been horrified at the poor acting, production values, and storylines. Television these days pretty much makes a movie theater mostly useless to me.

 

[Douglas Monce]

Originally Posted by Steve Armbrust

Just because more people watched a particular show back in the day does not mean the shows were better. There were fewer choices, so audiences were naturally larger. As for quality programming, how about: The Sopranos, Sex and the City, The Wire, Battlestar Galactica, Rescue Me, Sons of Anarchy, Damages, Mad Men, Breaking Bad, Dexter, Treme, The Shield, Band of Brothers, Curb Your Enthusiasm, True Blood, Justified. I could go on and on. I know people's tastes are different, but I couldn't imagine going back to a three-network state after experiencing the breadth of interesting and groundbreaking programming that the cable networks have introduced. And though the seasons are shorter now, there is new programming all year long. And all I have to do is set my DVR to find it. No more enduring three to four months with nothing on but reruns. Summer may have lighter fare, such as Secret Life of an American Teenager, or Make it or Break It, or Burn Notice, but to me, that's a lot better than watching reruns of Gunsmoke or Get Smart.

Of those shows, I only find Mad Men and Band of Brothers interesting. Frankly if those are my choices, yes I would rather watch re-runs of Get Smart, and often do on DVD.


Doug

 

[Ethan Riley]

Originally Posted by Neil Brock

Uh, no, it is not better. I could name you twice as many good shows on the 3 networks in 1963 than you could name on the 500 or so networks today.

I didn't say that today's television is "better." I said that tv has always been pretty much the same--you have good shows, and you have bad shows. And "better" is just a matter of taste anyway. And the "golden age of television" is whenever you want it to be. For me it was about from 1977-1985. For others it's the 50s. For still others, it's now. And I said that with the advent of tv-on-dvd, you get to pick and choose what's best for you.