Where Are The Good Shows? (1 Viewer)

[Scott_F_S]

There just seems to be an attitude out there that "Whatever was on when I was a kid was great and whatever is on now is crap."

1.) You have very selective memories. 90% of TV in the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s was crap. You just remember the 10% that was good or that held a particular fascination for you.

2.) For some reason -- probably because you're too old and lazy or because you're too grumpy to want to change your attitude -- you don't want to take the effort now to find that 10% that is excellent and innovative today. I promise you that that 10% out there today is just as good and in a lot of cases much better than that 10% that was there in your youth.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Yes, I guess my rose colored memory fazed out all the Gangsta Rap, the Reality Shows, the Sex-obsessed sitcoms, and all those bleeps.

 

[Jay_B!]

I don't get it. There were great shows on in the 1960's, and there were crap shows in the 1960's. There were great shows on in the 1970's and there were crap shows in the 1970's. There were great shows on in the 1980's and there were crap shows in the 1980's. There were great shows on in the 1990's and there were crap shows in the 1990's.

Guess what...
There are great shows on now, and there are also crap shows on. Go around the dial sometime and watch something for what it is, instead of "well, this show can't be as good as Gunsmoke was". You'll never know unless you give it a chance. It's just like people who are musically stuck in a time capsule and won't give newer artists that they might actually like if they listened with an open mind a chance.

 

[Jay_B!]

umm... try HBO for Deadwood, try FX for Over There. Of course, you might not like either show, they aren't fossilized enough for your liking if anything post-1970 isn't worth hell.

Sorry if I came off as rude, but you just ripped that guy a new one for being older and actually not minding living in the present instead of dwelling on "what happened to the days of Leave It To Beaver?" because dwelling on the past isn't gonna bring it back. There's nothing wrong with liking the old shows and also enjoying the modern ones too. I actually told a friend off (my age) once who told me I am too old to listen to Fall Out Boy's music, considering he STILL listens to all the 90's pop-punk bands, so he looks stupid by not giving them a chance just because they're not from the era that he was listening to that music more. To me, that's the same thing as dismissing shows like Lost, Alias and Angel as crap (which they aren't), just because they didn't air in the 1960's.

 

[Bryan Krantz]

I'm 36 and am an avid and long established televion addict. I grew up watching shows in the 70s, watched re-runs of classic 60s sitcoms (didn't like the slam on Gilligan's Island by the way), watched as ateenager in the 80s, and as a young adult from the 90s on. I don't think television ever really had a "golden" age. There have always been a few gems scattered throughout a mine-field of drek. Determining which is which is up to the viewer. Every (or almost every) show that is named on one viewer's "best and greatest" will inevitably turn up on "worst and least" lists.The main problem I have with the way that the Tv series are released on dvd is the preference to new shows. I can watch episodes of LOST on televion every week, why do I need a DVD? I have only purchased dvds of shows that aren't being replayed anymore, and that includes some series that were cancelled too soon (looking forward to THRESHOLD).

 

[Jay_B!]

I think the presence of newer shows on DVD comes the profitability. However, it works out, the more $$$$ a show like Lost or Gilmore Girls generates on DVD, the more $$$$ is there to produce older series. The reason they release newer shows on DVD is because people buy them. For example, the first season of Grey's Anatomy, which is barely one year old, sold enough to be in the top 10 sales for several weeks, there are a lot of people interested.

Personally, I think it's a good thing so many current shows are out, it's an easier way for shows to pick up new fans instead of them waiting for the potential of syndication down the road. I have several friends who watched Housewives this year that didn't last year, because they were able to catch up on it from the DVD. Same with Lost, ratings increased this season, in no small part to latecomers using the DVD to catch up.

Now I do think more older shows need to come out as well, but I do understand the why's and how's that current shows get such good treatment.

 

[Michael Alden]

Okay, well here's the difference. The crap from the 50s and 60s wasn't offensive or vulgar. It wasn't embarrassing to have on the air. I tried watching The War at Home and I thought it was one of the most offensive things I'd ever seen on a network. And I do watch shows now except I find few that I actually like. See, here's where people always have a problem. Everyone thinks that because they like a show that makes it good. Well, that's not the case. There are plenty of shows I like that I know aren't good even though I like them. But too many people can't be objective and they think that because they like something (or because it's successful) that makes it good. You can like an Aaron Spelling show, and he's made billions because people do, but other than Family, you can't call any show he's ever done good. They're popular as hell but they're not good. I like plenty of cheesy 60s sitcoms but I don't argue that they are good. I just say that I like them. Too many people can't make that distinction.

BTW, I don't dismiss Buffy and Alias as crap because they're new, I dismiss them as crap because they're crap. You want to argue in favor of modern television then at least pick something a little more worthy like Veronica Mars or Joan of Arcadia (1st season anyway).

 

[Jay_B!]

luckily I know I'm not the only person here who'll rip you apart for that comment Buffy is arguably one of the best shows of the past decade, same goes with Angel, and the majority of the board feels the same way. Actually, I'd argue two of the best shows EVER and they have the cult following that still obsesses over it even after they've been gone for 2-3 years to back it up. Maybe next you'll venture over to the music forum and talk about how much a certain foursome from Liverpool suck in your book.

It's one thing to say it's not your thing, but to just out and out say it's crap like your (minority) opinion is fact only gets a lot of people to laugh.

 

[Harry-N]

Some posters here seem to forget that the releasing of TV shows on DVD are not done in a vacuum. There are many factors at work - rights issues, availability of marketable prints, public demand, etc.

There is also no reason to stereotype anyone or any kind of TV show. People are individuals, and we all choose things differently. My favorite show of all time can be another persons garbage, and vice versa. That's not wrong - that's just life.

I sympathize with those modern viewers who are longing for JOAN OF ARCADIA and AMERICAN DREAMS. I found those two shows to be quite good, and might even consider buying them. (I'm in my mid-fifties, by the way.)

But I also see the need to bring out the older series that are languishing on shelves and in vaults out there. The people who remember them fondly are getting older every day. Yet I also understand the need for the studios to refurbish the old prints in order to make them more marketable. I don't want them if they're grimey old prints still cut up for syndication.

I guess the watch-phrase here should be "all in good time." Be patient, be polite, ask nicely and eventually, what you want will hopefully be delivered. Calling a fellow forum member's favorites "crap" doesn't do anyone any good, and doesn't get your favorite show released any faster. And remember that there are no guarantees in life. Just because you may want something, doesn't mean that you're entitled to it.

Harry

 

[Joe Karlosi]

So "majority" means "right"? Being a huge horror fan (and yep, the old stuff is generally much better there, too) the dopey BUFFY happens to be one of the newer shows I've watched and I'll join the "minority" in thinking it stinks. I'll take THE TWILIGHT ZONE (the original version of it, naturally), THRILLER, ALFRED HITCHCOCK PRESENTS, THE OUTER LIMITS, and KOLCHAK THE NIGHT STALKER (which was the original "Buffy", but minus the Dawson's Creek kidstuff) any day.

 

[JeffWld]

That's the kind of comment that comes from either someone who has sampled very little of broadcast's legacy or still needs to sit on a phone book to reach the keyboard.

 

[Carlos Garcia]

Hahaha...thank you Joe!

 

[Carlos Garcia]

I'll be fair here...alot of this argument does have to do with a generation gap. Example: I grew up watching and loving the Adam West Batman TV series as well as the George Reeves Superman series. To me these men were the only true Batman and Superman. However, I have since met people who say the only Batman and Superman were the ones who played them in the old movie serials of the 40s. So go figure. It all depends on when you grew up and the shows you grew up watching. I grew up in the 60s and 70s, so whether good or bad, it's the shows I watched during that time that I love, and I won't even acknowlege today's shows because I just can't get into them. To each generation their own I guess.

 

[Michael Alden]

Well yes and no. I didn't really watch the great dramas of the 60s when they were on as I was too young to be interested in them. However over the last couple of decades, through tape-trading, film buying and trips to broadcast museums and archives, I have watched many of the great shows like Naked City, The Defenders, East Side West Side, Mr. Novak, etc. All of which would technically be before my time and not considered my generation. However, those are great shows and that era was the best in TV history. Not because I experienced it then, which I didn't, but because I've seen the shows, as well as the shows from the 70s, 80s, 90s and 00s. It's my informed opinion, as opposed to the many uninformed opinions I read from people who have not seen anything other than the shows of their era.

 

[Jay_B!]

actually, all you have to do is search around on the boards.... go to any thread either about Buffy or Angel and you'll see 100's of replies, almost universally positive. One surefire way to initiate a hot thread here is to post "I'm just starting to get into Buffy", I've seen it so many times, Buffy/Angel fans love reliving their first time experiencing the show with newbie fans. The only people I've seen trash either series on here (outside of very uptight types who think everything needs to be as wholesome as 7th Heaven) are over-40's who see those shows for "young whippersnappers", and even then, I've seen plenty of over-40's who've given those shows a chance instead of thinking that because they were older than the target age group that it obviously can't be any good. I've seen plenty of people who don't LIKE either show, but at the same accept that they're good for what they are.

I don't see any of the older posters giving Michael hell for acting like his opinion is fact about that show, when a lot of people here disagree (there's a difference between "it's crap because it's crap" and not "it's crap because I dislike it"). If he posted on any of the hundreds of threads relevant to either show with his "factual" opinions, there'd be 3 or 4 pages instantly telling him off and telling him that his television preferences are crap too.

 

[MikeLi]

24 is a good one to have on hand as most every episode makes you want to watch the next even though you can kind of guess what happens they through you for a loop once in awhile.

 

[Jay_B!]

it shows how many of these shows you've even WATCHED when you lump Everwood in with the others. Everwood is one of the most wholesome shows on television, quite possibly THE most wholesome show now that 7th Heaven has ended, my 60-something mother (someone who was very picky about shows to watch because she didn't like what she considered "vulgar") even enjoyed watching that show. Just because it had teens on the show and it wasn't preachy like 7th Heaven didn't automatically turn it into The OC. One Tree Hill is actually a decent prime-time soap bogged down only by the fact that Chad Michael Murray is a horrible actor, hardly trashy either.

Stop being so defensive and so "us vs. them". You have no idea just how many people under 30, hell just go to certain boards and you'll find a lot under 20, who have joined the fanbases of Lucy, Bewitched, Jeannie, Archie Bunker, MASH, Happy Days, Bob Newhart, etc... The only reason you don't see under-30 fans of certain older shows may very well just be caused by the fact that they have never seen those shows. You act like all anybody under 30 watches is Jerry Springer, I have never watched Springer once in my life.

 

[Jeff Willis]

I'd say emotions tend to run a little high when the inevitable "then vs now" comparisons are posted. Me, I'm another one of those "50's" (early, that is) guys Being an average-to-avid TV/DVD collector, almost all of my buys are from my "past" but, after borrowing 'Firefly' from my nephew, I'm enjoying that series. I haven't seen any eps of the more-popular present-day series (Buffy, Angel, Lost, 24, etc). so I don't have an opinion on current TV series. The issue that I run into, is 'Time'. I don't have enough of it to check out current series. I look at it this way: I can try a Season-1 set of one of the present-day series sometime in the future. That way, I have the best of "both worlds". What we need is another "Time Tunnel" that really xports us back a year or two to add some viewing time....right, Harry-N?

 

[JoshuaB.]

So much hostility in this thread! There's a lot of banter back and forth about supposed golden ages and "wholesome" programs, but most comments on here are highly subjective. I would love to see a lot of the vintage TV shows from the 60s and 70s make it to DVD (The Fugitive, Get Smart, Man From UNCLE, WKRP, Six Million Dollar Man, etc.), but I'll remain patient that many of these programs will eventually reach DVD.

And as for contemporary television, I rarely watch network fare, but the success of TV on DVD can be primarily attributed to contemporary shows. If not for the success of The X-Files (the first TV show to use the now-standard season-set format), Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Sopranos, Sex and the City on DVD, we might not have gotten season sets of older shows. Recent short-lived TV shows like The Job, Undeclared or Freaks and Geeks are released because they have cult followings, critical acclaim and are in recent memory. Older short-lived shows have faded from memory, save for the fans who remember.

And as for trashing programs like Buffy or Angel as crap, well, to each one's own. I enjoy Buffy, Angel and Alias because they place post-modern spins on standard genres. Joss Whedon and J.J. Abrams are fans of many of the old sci-fi/horror/spy TV shows and their programs are reflective; I don't see these shows as tarnishing the legacy started by The Twilight Zone or Thriller, but continuing it, adding more adult themes to the mix. As a writer I enjoy the playful, rich dialogue, the ambitious season-long story arcs and the fact that these shows don't cater to genre fans exclusively.

I happen to think The Fugitive is the finest drama series made to date, but I also crave the adult fare found on cable and I want shows from both eras on DVD.

 

[Jay_B!]

Night Stalker was actually the original X-Files and Chris Carter himself has given Kolchak the right amount of praise and props to prove so... if you're gonna liken Buffy to an older series, Dark Shadows seems to be the more fitting one. I know a lot of BTVS fans who went back and fell in love with DS, and a lot of DS fans who checked BTVS out and loved it.