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

[Gary OS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TravisR

But it's not like the great elements of The Fugitive would have turned bad if they had cursed on the show.

Oh come on, Travis. This is very simple. Which of the following two scenarios has the greater potential to cost a show viewership:


1) The Fugitive as it was originally produced, sans any profanity?


2) The Fugitive produced, with added profanity?


We both know the answer is clear. No one sat watching the Fugitive thinking, "You know, I'm going to turn this off because Gerard or Kimble hasn't said *@!%* during this entire episode." No one is going to be turned off because of a lack of profanity. But turn it around and insert profanity and you immediately begin to lose viewers who don't appreciate having to hear that stuff. And the more profanity you insert, the more viewers you lose. The reverse of that is not true. So you're point isn't really valid.



Gary "if you can eliminate offenses and still tell a great story, it only makes sense to do just that" O.

 

[Rob_Ray]

I'm so with Gary on this one. I frankly don't like total realism in my entertainment. Even with crime shows, I want to see the world depicted as I would like it to be, not as it really too often is. That means no profanity and beyond that, a script in which all the characters are well-spoken and turn a few bit more clever phrases than anyone would in real life.


Does anybody actually talk like Laurence Olivier in "Sleuth?" No, of course, not. But don't you wish they did?

 

[TravisR]

Originally Posted by Gary OS

Oh come on, Travis. This is very simple. Which of the following two scenarios has the greater potential to cost a show viewership:


1) The Fugitive as it was originally produced, sans any profanity?


2) The Fugitive produced, with added profanity?


We both know the answer is clear. No one sat watching the Fugitive thinking, "You know, I'm going to turn this off because Gerard or Kimble hasn't said *@!%* during this entire episode." No one is going to be turned off because of a lack of profanity. But turn it around and insert profanity and you immediately begin to lose viewers who don't appreciate having to hear that stuff. And the more profanity you insert, the more viewers you lose. The reverse of that is not true. So you're point isn't really valid.



Gary "if you can eliminate offenses and still tell a great story, it only makes sense to do just that" O.

That's not the point that I'm making at all. My point is that if The Fugitive had used profanity, it would still be a great show due to the many other elements of the show that worked so well.

 

[Douglas Monce]

Originally Posted by TravisR



That's not the point that I'm making at all. My point is that if The Fugitive had used profanity, it would still be a great show due to the many other elements of the show that worked so well.

To be perfectly honest, I would probably not watch it if it were filled with profanity. I don't really know anyone who uses profanity with any regularity, and I choose not to hang around with those that do. Rightly or wrongly, I look at people who seem to need to use profanity as being somewhat less intelligent than people who don't.


Doug

 

[Andrew Pierce]

Do I wish everyone talked like Laurence Olivier in "Sleuth"? No, that would be horrible. I also don't want everyone to talk like Kevin Smith or Tarantino characters, but I appreciate that they are free to do so (in age appropriate venues). The look and language of Deadwood is probably more true to life (even if the actual profanities in question are updated to the modern equivalent) than that of a 60s TV western . For the bulk of the lucrative 18-35 demographic profanity is a non-issue. We find the harsh language amusing. And really, wouldn't it be ridiculous if a bunch of outlaws, prostitutes, tough guys, miners and generally rugged individualistic misfits all spoke like Gene Autry?


Best time for movies, music and television? Right now. DESPITE the fact that 98% of all of the above is unwatchable or unlistenable garbage. The 2% of good stuff is in greater quantity than 3 networks showing, lets say 20% good stuff. I'd say 20% is extremely generous.


Even if you don't care for anything made after 1975, with DVD and Netflix, you can spend an awful lot of time immersed in a pretty fair chunk of the classic, legitimately good stuff from the era of your choice. Often in better fidelity and more convenient than was ever available to you before. Sure it was fun to walk through the snow uphill (both ways) back in the old days. It built character. I'll take my 300 channels, Netflix and DVR, thanks.

 

[Douglas Monce]

Originally Posted by Andrew Pierce



Even if you don't care for anything made after 1975, with DVD and Netflix, you can spend an awful lot of time immersed in a pretty fair chunk of the classic, legitimately good stuff from the era of your choice. Often in better fidelity and more convenient than was ever available to you before. Sure it was fun to walk through the snow uphill (both ways) back in the old days. It built character. I'll take my 300 channels, Netflix and DVR, thanks.

I surely can't disagree with this.


Doug

 

[Professor Echo]

Originally Posted by Andrew Pierce Sure it was fun to walk through the snow uphill (both ways) back in the old days.

And don't forget you young people, that was in the summer!


Great post, Andrew. I find much to agree with there.


And Gary, as for THE FUGITIVE having profanity, it didn't need it, but there might have been a few occasions where it could have worked, perhaps none more than when Lt. Gerard handed in his expenses to Captain Carpenter:


"Now wait a minute, Phil. You traveled all the way across the country, spent all this money on transportation, lodging, reimbursed the yokel cops for gas and coffee, reimbursed your kid for missing baseball cards, wore out your shoes hitting all the hair dye stores and Kimble got away AGAIN?! #%$&@#@!!!!"

 

[JimKr]

Real life is full of sex, profanity, and anything else a puritanical society is not happy with. I've found in the last 15 or so years these are the types of shows I prefer, and I hardly even notice the cussing and half-naked bodies.


There are plenty of shows I like that have none of this, but they also tend to drop to the bottom of my priorities rather quickly. It's simply a matter of taste, even though others tend to make it a judgment of a person's morals.


To each his own, and I'm happy I live in a world where I am free to enjoy what I like, not what others want me to like.

 

[Rick Thompson]

Originally Posted by JimKr

I agree completely, as long as there's something for me to watch that isn't sex and profanity. I don't want what you like off the air; I DO want something I like available -- and sex, profanity and low-budget "reality" shows ain't it!

 

[Douglas Monce]

Originally Posted by JimKr

For me as an atheist, its not really a moral issue, but rather I find it unnecessary and lazy story telling. As others have said. I'm not apposed to that kind of programing, as long as there is also something to watch for those of us that don't enjoy that.


Doug

 

[DaveHof]

Which brings us right back to the original question. Throughout the entire 3-channel era there were fairly strict standards in place. And thankfully, most of the great shows from that era are now on DVD, where they can be enjoyed by those (like me) who believe it was possible to effectively tackle any subject matter without profanity or buckets of spilled blood. And for those who prefer their TV with sex, violence and profanity, there is plenty of it to be found in the 300-channel era. What's amusing is how, back in the day, something like 'Charlie's Angels' was considered scandalous and a sure sign that television had lost its moral compass. I wonder what those who felt that way now think of Tila Tequila, Johnny Knoxville and Snooki.