Was TV better When just 3 Networks? - Page 6

Quote:

Originally Posted by Point-Blank 

That's interesting, Travis.  I had heard Milch was on the beginning of THE COMPLETE SERIES box set or at least one of the Extras on the last season set, claiming that he was planning on finishing the series and tying the loose threads left by the third season finale. 

Milch wrote essays about the show and characters for a book that came out after the show ended. If I remember correctly, he says that he had lots of ideas for stories for some characters, none for others and no master plan for the series despite what he had said previously (and given the quality of work that they were putting out, I don't see a problem with 'making it up as they go along'). Long story short, there was no definite plan or number of seasons that the show was set to run or grand conclusion that he was going towards. That being said, I'm sure if they had done the telemovies or they knew that S3 was the last one, there would have been much more final endings for the characters than actually happened.

I borrowed the book (entitled "Deadwood: Stories Of The Black Hills") from a friend but I always meant to pick it up. I'd definitely recommend it to any big fan of the show.

Thanks for the added information, Neil and Travis. 

I'm never one to read too much about a production while I'm watching a series and I only recently finished DEADWOOD. I like to experience the drama and/or comedy as fresh as I possibly can, and too I find the ego trips on many of those "behind the scenes" bonus features and commentaries to be excessive at times. That's why  to date I haven't ventured much into the actual production aspects of DEADWOOD. However, after the third season ended I did watch the extra about the real history of Deadwood and there were definitely signs in that about where the series would have gone, given that they in essence based a lot of the show on actual historical incidents, however much dramatic license was taken.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimKr 
Hawaii - Five 0, on the other hand, lost me in a hurry. I rented season 1 from Netflix and was amazed at how crappy the acting and cinematography was. I was still fascinated with the cars, styles, etc from the era but I didn't rent any more seasons.

Oddly enough, I've had an altogether different experience from "Five-O." It has held up for me very well through seven seasons' worth of it. The difference between you and I, I think, is that I was looking at it as someone who hadn't seen much of it; I tried it when my mother got the first release for me, and from that point, I was hooked. I'm only 29 years old, and my main focus is the older series ('60s, '70s, '80s). "Star Trek: Voyager" is the only really modern series I've actually happened to like in one form or another (although I don't have season 2, the one that had the infamous "Threshold" episode). Other than that, like I said, it's been generally '60s, '70s, and '80s for me. But then, of course, people are different.
 

Well, considering the original question, the two TV eras are very different, but I'm still not sure which is better. I miss the the sense of community, the "water fountain moments" when it seemed like everyone at school or work had watched the same show the night before and enjoyed rehashing it the next day. When I stop and think about it, there are very few nights that I even scan through the offerings of the major networks these days. I am much more likely to check out a couple of favorite cable channels or just grab a DVD set off the shelf.

I have fond memories of the variety shows of the 1960's and 70's but I can see why they would be hard to do in this day and age. My sons use a remote control like Luke Skywalker uses a light sabre. They would never make it through an entire Ed Sullivan show like I did as a kid. As soon as the first act came on that they didn't like they would move on to another channel. They would never see the guy spinning the plates or playing a song with bells.

I think there are great and bad shows from both eras and I enjoy both. The biggest difference now is that there are more of both and the audience has become very fragmented.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmasters9 

Oddly enough, I've had an altogether different experience from "Five-O." It has held up for me very well through seven seasons' worth of it. The difference between you and I, I think, is that I was looking at it as someone who hadn't seen much of it; I tried it when my mother got the first release for me, and from that point, I was hooked. I'm only 29 years old, and my main focus is the older series ('60s, '70s, '80s). "Star Trek: Voyager" is the only really modern series I've actually happened to like in one form or another (although I don't have season 2, the one that had the infamous "Threshold" episode). Other than that, like I said, it's been generally '60s, '70s, and '80s for me. But then, of course, people are different.
 

I've actually added more seasons of Hawaii Five-0 to my Netflix queue simply to see if it gets better for me as the series progressed. Mannix, for some reason, is still amazing to me and I am now waiting to see if they hopefully release season 4. This tough economy has ruined the fun for many TV DVD enthusiasts like me, Mannix ending abruptly may become another example of this.

Mission:Impossible is another series from that era that I hope to resume shortly, I bought seasons 1-3 and hope to resume seeing the rest from Netflix.

As a fan of the "three network days" there isn't much I can add that hasn't already been said. The fact that all the channels seem to be the same,the proliferation of reality shows and the fact that a lot of shows will use vulgairty and sex,basically,as marketing tools,etc are the reasons why I have hardly watched any shows religiously in around twenty years. One thing I will say,on a slightly unreleated note, is that the studios today throw the word "HIT" around far too freely. Shows that don't crack the top thirty and come in #54, in the year end ratings (Cougar Town) are not hits. Shows that finished #54 in the ratings,back in the three network days,were cancelled without so much as a second thought.

IMO, TV wasn't necessarily better in the network days. Sure, there were a lot of hits back then, but probably just as many misses.

And, yes, the classics from that era do stand the test of time. But still, we look back on that era and fondly remember the classics, not My Mother The Car.

IMO, the best era was about 10 to 15 years ago. The Niche networks still showed the programming they were created to air, classic reruns were plentiful, and the audience hadn't yet become so fragmented that there could still be events (as so many of you wish there were). Most everyone watched the final episode of Seinfeld. In fact, TV Land gave up that night and aired nothing, IIRC.

And speaking of TV Land, 10 years ago, they stilled aired TV Classics, as did Nick at Nite. The Game Show Network still aired classic game shows, Sci-Fi still aired Sci-Fi, and HBO had already began producing shows like The Sopranos, for those of us who enjoy the newer programming. The niche networks hadn't been homogenized into one vast, bland wasteland. Things were good on TV between 1990 and 2001.

     Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Willis 

Kudos to Gary   .  I will say that he's not alone on this particular forum.  Everyone has the right to voice their opinion and that's what I'm doing as well.

 

Imo, it's not necessary to use an overabundance of certain language and words to convey a story on a TV series.  There are other ways to portray a story.  I get that, to many viewers, that adds to the "realism" of a show, but there are plenty of current shows available to satisfy that viewership.

 

During the 50's-60's era and (imo) most of the 70's, those shows managed to do very well at telling a serial story without using certain wording that's offensive to more than a few viewers.

Thanks Jeff.  That's my point exactly.  I realize that there are a few instances here and there where profanity might be served to accentuate a point/plot, but for the most part its use is unnecessary to further the storyline.  That's all I'm saying.  The Fugitive, one of the greatest if not the greatest drama of all time didn't use a lick of profanity but no one can deny how compelling and well done it was.  The same could be said for many, many other shows not only in the 50's and 60's, but in the 70's, 80's, 90's and 2000's.  There aren't nearly as many on today that abstain from the use of at least occasional profanity, but there are still some series that do.  Kudos to them.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Point-Blank 

I agree that the prevailing "overabundance" of profanity in a lot of our media is used simply to shock or for even more juvenile reasons, that of "let's see how much we can get away with."

 

Now, you wouldn't even elicit a smirk with that word or any other profanity in any media, unless perhaps an elected official uttered it, but even then it wouldn't cause much of a stir beyond a day or two of over-hyped newscasts. The sad fact is that Gary and Jeff are right, profanity as a tool has been misused so often that any power it might have had, either dramatically or satirically, is gone and that's really a shame because in effect it has neutered something that in its proper context could produce a very visceral and even empathetic reaction, as it did with that memorable moment in BULLITT.

Thanks for understanding my point, Walker.  You stated that perfectly.

Gary "back to the LITB set again" O.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary OS 

The Fugitive, one of the greatest if not the greatest drama of all time didn't use a lick of profanity but no one can deny how compelling and well done it was. 

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

     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.

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?

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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

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.

Quote:

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

Quote:

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?! #%$&@#@!!!!"

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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!
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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

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.