Your Favorite Decade for TV on DVD (1 Viewer)

[Gary OS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TravisR

Like nearly everything in the world, it's not a black and white issue. I've got two sisters and neither of them have been pregnant and I certainly hope they get married before they do have kids. However, if they did get pregnant, I don't think they should be forced to wear the scarlet letter either or hide their face as they walk down the street.

I agree, Travis. But what 50's TV show advocated that type of societal response? None that I'm aware of.



Gary "I think that's sort of a strawman argument" O.

 

[TravisR]

     Quote:


I agree, Travis.  But what 50's TV show advocated that type of societal response?  None that I'm aware of.

 

 

Gary "I think that's sort of a strawman argument" O.

None that I'm aware of either but I was talking about how, as Dave pointed out, unwed pregnancy was a source of shame in 1950's society. So much so that it wasn't even discussed on TV. My point is that celebrating or acting like unwed pregnancy is no big deal isn't right but having to hide away for nine months so the neighbors don't find out isn't right either. Like I said, it's not black and white- you can't like back at the response to the problem in the 1950's and say that it was good and you can't look at today's response and say that it's really doing any good either.

 

[Gary OS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TravisR

None that I'm aware of either but I was talking about how, as Dave pointed out, unwed pregnancy was a source of shame in 1950's society. So much so that it wasn't even discussed on TV. My point is that celebrating or acting like unwed pregnancy is no big deal isn't right but having to hide away for nine months so the neighbors don't find out isn't right either. Like I said, it's not black and white- you can't like back at the response to the problem in the 1950's and say that it was good and you can't look at today's response and say that it's really doing any good either.

OK, thanks for the clarification. I understand what you are saying. I do think the Noonan quote from above about how "old America" would have responded to the unwed pregnant teen is correct though. Better than how we handle it today, but that's just my opinion.



Gary "good discussion" O.

 

[Professor Echo]

Incidentally, for those who might want to lump in ALL 50's sitcoms into the realm of simplistic situations and pat topics, they were not wholly without a social conscience. LEAVE IT TO BEAVER did an episode about the effects of divorce and one about the effects of alcoholism. I'm sure FATHER KNOWS BEST had some episodes that responsibly handled some of the issues of its time, but I'm not very familiar with that series. True that OZZIE & HARRIET never ventured beyond its own universe, as skewed as some of you might thank that was, but there were some minimal attempts elsewhere to at least occasionally say we are trying to position ourselves in the world beyond sets and make-up.

 

[Ethan Riley]

So many comments, so little time.  I just want to say I've really enjoyed reading what Joe, Brad, Travis and Glen have said.  Everyone is making great points.  One thing that I see happening is that Ethan is arguing from a point that no one in this thread is trying to make.  At least I don't think anyone has tried to make the point.  Namely, that they want to suppress minorities or encourage turning a blind eye to societies problems via TV censorship.  I know that I'm not advocating that.  So I think, to some degree, we've got a strawman argument going on here. 

Omg...I never said any such thing. It's all in your head. And yet you make that statement and turn around in post #83 and say that the 1950s way of dealing with unwed mothers was "better." What they did was basically censor that girl out of society. She'd be shunned--she'd either be shipped off to an aunt on a farm somewhere until the baby comes or she'd go and have an abortion from a back alley doctor and risk her life too in the process. That's better? I don't get it. Some of the persons in this thread seem to the think the issue and the way society deals with it has swung completely around. Whoever you were quoting in post #76 recites the anecdote of a pregnant girl in graduation gown, and the audience applauded. I think that person seems to feel that they were applauding her pregnancy, when in fact they were applauding her bravery. It was obvious that the girl was doing the right thing--she was facing her troubles like an adult. She was saying 'hey--life happens. I made a mistake. I'm dealing with it. You can too.' She was making a bold statement by accepting her diploma like that. She was clearly doing the right thing by society--she didn't have an abortion and she didn't hide from the public in shame. I don't see any problem with that. It's better for her, it's better for the baby and it's better for the town she lived in. That is what you call progress. And yet--some here are confusing the issue by claiming that this progression is actually a "loss of innocence." It's not. It's a loss of naivety is what it is. It's a sign that society is more capable of dealing with its problems in an adult fashion rather than pretending if they ignore the problem it'll go away. That logic didn't work then, and it wouldn't work now. The world is no more or less brutal today than it was in the 1950s, despite what some people choose to "remember." And don't forget the #1 residual fallout of unwed pregnancies: the bastard offspring. In the past, those children would be endlessly shunned by their classmates; someone's got to be at the end of the pecking order and it was always the bastard who received all the teasing and tormenting. That's pretty much a thing of the past too--another positive progression of society. The kid's not responsible for the mistakes of his or her parents and other children should understand that. They didn't in the past; now they do. And this is a bad thing? How? Because? And then the mother would be shunned as well for the next 18 years and wouldn't be able to get a decent job because everyone in town knew she had a "bastard" at home and how shameful is that. So they'd be forced to remain in poverty and that didn't do any good for anyone either. Yeah, all of this still goes on but at least society tolerates and understands this problem far better than it did. Yeah, so let's improve the world by re-adopting the old way of shunning unwed teen mothers and then shun the eventual kid for the next 18 years while we're at it. That'd be a great world to live in.

 

[Gary OS]

Ethan, you think I'm going too far in one direction and I think you go too far in the opposite direction. It's a stalemate in that sense. But for the record, you are taking the worst case scenario as it regards to the pregnant girl living in the 50s. Yes, there's no doubt some took the option to ship the girl off to another town until the baby was born, but that wasn't the point of the article and it's certainly not my point. I should have used another phrase other than "handle it" in my last post. I meant to say that I preferred the way these issues were portrayed and discussed in the 50's. I wasn't talking about how an individual girl was dealt with. I'm talking about the same thing the writer was talking about. What one generation condones the next will openly practice. That was the point. The writer made it clear that there should be help and compassion for the girl, but that at the same time society as a whole tried to maintain the stance that unwed teen pregnancy wasn't a desirable goal for any young lady. I thought that point was very clear in the article. And as for the applause, the writer made it clear what she meant and I'm not going to run around in circles with you about it. We have radically different worldviews and that brings us back to the topic here: why do you like or dislike certain decades better than others when it comes to TV on DVD viewing. Much of it undoubtedly has to do with which worldview one embraces. It's not a fast and hard rule, but judging by the posts in this thread it plays a pretty big part in the equation.



Gary "I still say you're arguing strawmen with your extreme examples of the worst of that decade" O.

 

[Joe Lugoff]

I liked the way shows like LEAVE IT TO BEAVER and OZZIE AND HARRIET dealt with the "little" problems in life, because those things affect everyone, all over the world, at all times. Not everyone (thank goodness) had a pregnant teenage daughter or a son addicted to drugs -- but can't we all relate to a phony like Eddie Haskell? Or having a so-called friend dare us to do something stupid? Or the beloved staple of sitcoms of the era, overhearing one side of a conversation and jumping to the wrong conclusion? Also -- and I'm not sure if this has been mentioned yet, because I honestly haven't read every word of this incredible thread -- one of the worst aspects of today's television are those court shows where people with depressing lives take their case to a rude, obnoxious judge. I think Judge Judy is one of the worst things on television today. She's just a flat-out RUDE person, and there's no other word for her. She would NEVER have been on television in the 1950s, and today, not only is she on, but she gets paid $45 million a year! It might be more now, since she recently signed a new contract. (And she only works six days a month!)

 

[Gary OS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Lugoff

I liked the way shows like LEAVE IT TO BEAVER and OZZIE AND HARRIET dealt with the "little" problems in life, because those things affect everyone, all over the world, at all times. Not everyone (thank goodness) had a pregnant teenage daughter or a son addicted to drugs -- but can't we all relate to a phony like Eddie Haskell? Or having a so-called friend dare us to do something stupid? Or the beloved staple of sitcoms of the era, overhearing one side of a conversation and jumping to the wrong conclusion?

Also -- and I'm not sure if this has been mentioned yet, because I honestly haven't read every word of this incredible thread -- one of the worst aspects of today's television are those court shows where people with depressing lives take their case to a rude, obnoxious judge. I think Judge Judy is one of the worst things on television today. She's just a flat-out RUDE person, and there's no other word for her. She would NEVER have been on television in the 1950s, and today, not only is she on, but she gets paid $45 million a year! It might be more now, since she recently signed a new contract. (And she only works six days a month!)

Thanks for another great post, Joe. And thanks for bringing some sanity to the discussion. You've raised a great point in that not everyone is going to deal with the "biggies" that were so often portrayed in 70's shows. Not every woman is going to be raped. Not every man is going to have an affair. And not every family will have their home robbed. But everyone can relate to an Eddie Haskel. That's an excellent observation!


Gary "never watched those judge shows" O.

 

[Ethan Riley]

Ethan, you think I'm going too far in one direction and I think you go too far in the opposite direction. It's a stalemate in that sense. But for the record, you are taking the worst case scenario as it regards to the pregnant girl living in the 50s. Yes, there's no doubt some took the option to ship the girl off to another town until the baby was born, but that wasn't the point of the article and it's certainly not my point. I should have used another phrase other than "handle it" in my last post. I meant to say that I preferred the way these issues were portrayed and discussed in the 50's. I wasn't talking about how an individual girl was dealt with. I'm talking about the same thing the writer was talking about. What one generation condones the next will openly practice. That was the point. The writer made it clear that there should be help and compassion for the girl, but that at the same time society as a whole tried to maintain the stance that unwed teen pregnancy wasn't a desirable goal for any young lady. I thought that point was very clear in the article. And as for the applause, the writer made it clear what she meant and I'm not going to run around in circles with you about it. We have radically different worldviews and that brings us back to the topic here: why do you like or dislike certain decades better than others when it comes to TV on DVD viewing. Much of it undoubtedly has to do with which worldview one embraces. It's not a fast and hard rule, but judging by the posts in this thread it plays a pretty big part in the equation.



Gary "I still say you're arguing strawmen with your extreme examples of the worst of that decade" O.

Okay, but now we're again confusing two different issues: the decade of the 1950s and the decade of the 1950s as it was portrayed on television. Those are two extraordinarily different things. TV of the 1950s did not accurately reflect the real world that it was supposedly portraying. That said, I never took the time to condemn those same shows for doing so. I instead illustrated the many political and societal factors involved with shaping the tv shows of that era. I explained why 50s shows were the way they were. I never condemned, nor did I say I did not enjoy them for what they were. On the contrary--I love lots of 50s shows and the only lament here--which is one I'm sure you strongly agree--is that far more 1950s shows have not been released on dvd. Every decade had its good and its bad. The 50s had censorship and societal constraint. The 60s swung too far in the opposite direction. The 80s settled some of these issues, and yet showed great ignorance and intolerance in dealing with the Aids crisis. The 90s saw the Berlin Wall fall, the Aids crisis at least become accepted and understood and yet gangs and drugs grew out of control. Society is always settling and things improve in one sector only to stir up heat in another. Maybe if we keep working together to solve our problems, the United States really will resemble the utopian society that it showed us on television 60 years ago. Or an even better one. But yeah, it takes a lot of work. And we can't work on our problems if we ignore them as we have in the past. To answer the original topic I have to admit that I cannot. That's because I embrace tv on dvd for all it's worth, meaning that I pick and choose shows from all decades, judged on their relative worth and entertainment value to me. And I like shows from all across the spectrum. I can't choose just one in particular because they all had good shows that I enjoy. I might say that I enjoy 70s shows the most, simply because of sentimental childhood reasons. (But there's still a dearth of my personal favorites, so I'm at a loss there, due to my inability to adequately collect them. You often cite the same problem when discussing 50s shows--they don't all exist on dvd so there's nothing for us to collect). But I can't center just on 70s shows because there's tons of 90s shows in my collection and even more from the 60s and 00s. The 50s and 80s are the most lacking on dvd as I'm sure we're all aware, so we wait and hope. Bottom line--I can answer the question honestly when far, far more television shows are released on dvd. When I somehow get all the shows I want (or might want) then I can place them all on a wall and count. I can then tell you the largest number of shows I've collected from every decade. Whichever decade winds up with the most shows in my collection would therefore be the winner. But my collection and therefore my answer must always remain incomplete until some far off time when all those shows are readily available to purchase.

 

[Gary OS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ethan Riley

Okay, but now we're again confusing two different issues: the decade of the 1950s and the decade of the 1950s as it was portrayed on television. Those are two extraordinarily different things. TV of the 1950s did not accurately reflect the real world that it was supposedly portraying. That said, I never took the time to condemn those same shows for doing so. I instead illustrated the many political and societal factors involved with shaping the tv shows of that era. I explained why 50s shows were the way they were. I never condemned, nor did I say I did not enjoy them for what they were. On the contrary--I love lots of 50s shows and the only lament here--which is one I'm sure you strongly agree--is that far more 1950s shows have not been released on dvd.

Okay, I see where you are coming from. I thought you had a much less favorable view of 50's TV in general. Glad that's not the case. Regardless, we can agree that we can always use more representation on dvd.



Gary "not seeing Ozzie & Harriet season sets is probably my number one disappointment at this point in the game" O.

 

[Ethan Riley]

     Quote:


Okay, I see where you are coming from.  I thought you had a much less favorable view of 50's TV in general.  Glad that's not the case.  Regardless, we can agree that we can always use more representation on dvd.

 

 

Gary "not seeing Ozzie & Harriet season sets is probably my number one disappointment at this point in the game" O.

No, no no, Gary! I want to see everything on dvd, and that includes 50s shows. I think I mentioned on another thread I would like to see more sitcoms like I Married Joan one of these days. I also believe I mentioned that I had enjoyed the two eps of My Little Margie that I've seen so far. I want to see the whole series now. So much of 50s television other than Lucy hasn't seen the light of day in 50s years. I guess the main reason is that the shows were not in color, therefore the second tier titles presumably couldn't cut it in daily syndication once the late 60s hit and everyone was trying to make the best of their new color sets. I think we are all fortunate that at least the most popular shows continued to air throughout the 70s (and some onwards), but there's no dearth of shows we haven't seen at all since they originally aired. There's a lot of interesting-sounding shows that are languishing away in vaults, ready to make an appearance. We're getting more and more Westerns due to Timeless and their efforts, but more has to be done with sitcoms. And that's not just the 50s--the 80s are suffering from a lack of sitcom dvd love too. So some 50s shows suffer because they're in black and white and nobody remembers them anymore--no name familiarization, therefore no dvds. 80s shows suffer mainly because of music rights, I believe--not due to lack of ongoing popularity. And so we wait, and I do applaud the small trickle of shows that do manage to make an appearance. You know what--I can sort of answer the original topic question, if I add in my wish list of potential dvd releases. That would make it the 70s, because there's a ton of shows I want that we don't have yet. Shows like Angie, Alice, Chico and the Man, Courtship of Eddie's Father...if they released them all and I added them up it would mean a lot of shows added to my collection that were "70s" shows, and they'd configure a greater part of my (dream) collection than any other decade. Strangely, the decade that I have the least interest in is the 80s. I was in high school and college during those years, and could barely stand to watch a lot of what was airing at the time. I don't even know why--I guess I was either bored with tv or too busy doing other things. In any given 1980s tv season, I was regularly watching a total of about three shows, and catching other semi-favorites on a highly irregular basis. I think shows from the 60s were very unique and original while 70s shows were more fulfilling. 80s shows seemed a tad bland in comparison and I tuned out. The 90s, however, brought a good deal of interesting shows. All of my 90s favorites but the most obscure exist now on dvd.

 

[Joe Lugoff]

It wasn't so much "censorship" in the 1950s as it was good taste, which might be an ancient concept few people understand any more. In those days, the ones who really called the shots were the ad agencies, and they bent over backwards not to offend anyone, which could hurt sales of their clients' products. Given those restraints, it's amazing how much high quality television was produced in that decade! I just refuse to believe that I LOVE LUCY would have been a better show if there had been episodes dealing with Lucy being raped or Fred having erectile dysfunction. In fact, the very idea is nauseating, and I'm sorry I typed it!

 

[DaveHof]

It wasn't so much "censorship" in the 1950s as it was good taste, which might be an ancient concept few people understand any more.

That pretty much says it all.

 

[Ethan Riley]

It wasn't so much "censorship" in the 1950s as it was good taste, which might be an ancient concept few people understand any more. In those days, the ones who really called the shots were the ad agencies, and they bent over backwards not to offend anyone, which could hurt sales of their clients' products. Given those restraints, it's amazing how much high quality television was produced in that decade! I just refuse to believe that I LOVE LUCY would have been a better show if there had been episodes dealing with Lucy being raped or Fred having erectile dysfunction. In fact, the very idea is nauseating, and I'm sorry I typed it!

No, it was not called "censorship," it was called "Standards and Practices" which amounts to the same thing. Television writers had no choice but to follow those highly stringent guidelines based on tastes and morals of the day. And that's what I don't like about that era--that the artists involved had no choice but to follow someone else's guidelines. There was no artistic freedom. I find it almost ironic--and Professor Echo said much the same thing--that tv writers were able to come up with such quality regardless. But they weren't allowed their own voices and who knows what they would have written had standards backed off. If you look at that era from today's viewpoint, it's almost like you lose the true voice of an entire generation of artists because they weren't able to speak their minds. Then again, "Lucy" did get away with dealing with a real-life controversial subject in every single episode--interracial marriage.

 

[LeoA]

There was no artistic freedom for producers, writers, and so on because a corporation like CBS had a standards and practices committee to self police themselves in regards to things they didn't want portrayed on their shows? I don't intend any disrespect towards you, but I think that's nonsense. An individual or company can display some self restraint and still provide artistic freedom to their employees creating entertainment. Artistic freedom doesn't require a blank slate with no rules, policies, or standards to respect. Just because a company has established some standards and they're not totally left up to individuals like producers and writers to decide, is hardly a bad thing or stifling to their artist, if you ask me. And much of what such a group would police was related to legality. Things like making sure you didn't use another companies' trademark without permission, for instance, was as much their job as making sure the moral and ethical standards of the corporation were respected. If free will to do whatever you want is what you think artistic freedom is, there isn't an individual in the world that actually has artistic freedom, per your qualifications, at home or at work. And even as relaxed as it has become in recent decades, I'm sure there are still such things as standards in some areas that must be followed and restrictions that must be respected (Although it's hard to spot any evidence of it when you're just going through the channels). There was plenty of freedom in television and in Hollywood back then. If anything, some standards being put in place alllowed them to get the best out of their artist. Watching most modern television and movies, it's evident they rely on things like violence, sex, vulgarity, rudeness, repulsiveness, and so on since they're free to do so and it's easy and cheap while attracting the mindless masses. Back when such things weren't such the option they are today, both because of corporate standards and the morals and ethics of the artist involved, the focus was instead on quality. They relied on the talent of their employees to succeed at a level you hardly ever see these days, due to the shift away from quality to the easy checkmarks that sell you to the masses. They don't need their talent or skills to be honed to a fine edge like they once did since things like sex sell your production at a fraction of the cost, effort, and skill needed to do it the "obsolete" way. I'd rather the focus be placed on important areas like the plot, be it something attempting to deliver a deep message to the viewer while entertaining us or just something meant to be clever and make us laugh. That should be where their attention was at, but instead it often isn't. Their focus on the important areas back then, in part due both due to personal standards and corporate standards, is why people still watch things like 'The Bishop's Wife' from the late 1940's or 'Leave it to Beaver' from the 1950's, today. Their focus on quality allowed them to get the best out of their artist such as Fred MacMurrary or Lucille Ball. The environment honed their skills, it didn't stifle them. The focus was on the important areas of entertainment, rather than taking the easy way out like they're able to these days to sell. They routinely created high quality productions that are timeless and still enjoyable to this day, in part, due to the policies you're trying to villainize Hard to imagine the latest movie or television show starring someone like Jennifer Aniston ever having the same lasting impact decades down the road. Our media is more disposable than ever before, just like things like the products we buy in Wal-Mart and so many other elements of our society are. That's not a good thing and it has happened due to the erosion of our values and the negative attitudes so many people hold against things like morals and ethics and towards holding those ideals in esteem rather than trying to stifle them as something undesirable that should be broke down.

 

[Albert_M]

I don't see how DVD is even relevant to this discussion as it played out. I'm not going to waste my time going through this entire thread, but will add something to a recent comment.

One difference - they were actually funny.

To each his own, but Beaver and Father Knows Best etc were not funny and are actually cringe worthy. Honeymooners, Lucy, you bet, because they actually were funny, but a lot of the 50s stuff is pretty bad.

 

[Montytc]

I would vote for the 1970's. IMHO this is the decade which offered the greatest variety in television history. If you liked sitcoms there was a wide variety to choose from including family fair like The Partridge Family, The Brady Bunch and Happy Days. If you liked them a little more adult you had MASH, Mary Tyler Moore and Bob Newhart. If you wanted edgy you had the Norman Lear stuff. For drama there were choices ranging from the Waltons and Eight Is Enough, to all the great crime and medical dramas of that decade like Mannix, Barnaby Jones, and Marcus Welby to name just a few. The variety show was still alive and well with some good ones hosted by Dean Martin, Carol Burnett and Flip Wilson along with many others. There were safe and tame shows like Love American Style and Love Boat, and not so tame shows like Saturday Night Live. In addition, at the beginning of the decade legends like Red Skelton, Ed Sullivan and Glen Campbell were still hosting shows, and Here's Lucy was still on as were great westerns like Gunsmoke and Bonanza. All in all I would say the 1970's offered something of quality no matter what your taste. If someone limited me to one decade, the 70's would be my pick.

 

[LeoA]

Don't forget the nice Jack Webb programs. Most of Adam-12's run took place in the 1970's and all of Emergency! did. Two classics that are among my highlights for that decade. Glad to see both represented so well on DVD. My Three Sons long run extended into the 70's as well. Wasn't quite as good then, but it was still very watcheable (I never cared for Belvery Garland's addition to the cast, Polly, or Dodie). Lots of junk that decade that I never liked, but there are easily 7 or 8 of my favorite programs that had their start during that decade and several more that I consider 1960's programs extended into the 70's before cancellation. My 3rd favorite decade for television, although the 80's with shows like Newhart isn't too far behind in 4th.

 

[Gary OS]

Thanks for the contributions, Tim and Leo. I'm happy to see the thread get back on track. If it goes off-topic again I'll report it to the mods myself. This has been a great discussion and there's no need in it getting derailed because of one individual.


Speaking of Jack Webb, I've always been fascinated by the write ups I've seen about a 50's show he produced called Noah's Ark. It's about a veterinary hospital and sounds interesting to me. Of course, it may have been horrible. I have no way of knowing since I've never seen any episodes, but it peaked my curiosity. And of course, we can't have a Jack Webb discussion without mentioning his 50's version of Dragnet.


Gary "good point about the variety found in the 70's" O.

 

[Mike Frezon]

I have just removed several posts from this thread -- including the instigating post by Sky Captain.


It is a shame I had to remove a post of such length and breadth...but it repeatedly violated a number of HTF rules which could not be ignored.


A simple reminder:

4. No politics or religion. We do not permit the discussion of politics or religion at HTF. However, there is a narrow exception to this rule. If the subject matter of a movie or television show includes politics and/or religion, then they may be discussed insofar as they pertain to that specific movie or television show. We stress, however, that such discussions are carefully monitored and will be moderated if it appears that any participant is using this narrow exception to introduce a broader political or religious discussion than is warranted by the movie or television show under discussion. Also, anyone who has not seen a particular movie or television show is disqualified from discussing its political and/or religious content under this rule.

Thank you to those members who reported the post for its violations of our rules. if there are any questions about the rules, please feel free to check them out by clicking on the link in my signature. If anyone wants to discuss this matter with me, feel free to send me a PM and I will be glad to explain my actions.


The discussion of the topic is good...but doing it with a number of unnecessarily negative political and religious remarks is not good. Please continue the discussion.