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

[BobO'Link]

Originally Posted by 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.

Very interesting observation. I think that somewhere down deep I've always felt this way but never gave it much though until you put it into words. Looking over my movie collection I find the vast majority were made before 1960 with the ones from 1950-1960 being the "spectacle" type intended to draw audiences back into the theaters *or* grade "B" sci-fi/horror titles that graced many a Saturday matinee well into the 60's.


The "decline" of the theatrical movie does seem to somewhat mirror the "decline" of "network" TV right down to becoming more targeted and "riskier". Does that automatically make the older product better? Not really, but it *does* seem that post 1960 movies and post 1980 TV is more "formulaic" than the older product seems to be, not that the older product was *never* formulaic - it *was*, but it feels as if it wasn't quite as common as today. I think for many of us it comes down to the simple fact that when you've been watching movies/TV as long as many of us here you constantly get the "been there... seen that" feeling with more "modern" product.

 

[pitchman]

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.

FWIW, many of the shows you mention originally appeared on pay cable (HBO or Showtime) which is not subject to FCC "rules and regulations" regarding decency etc. This is not to discredit the programs in any way, since I agree that for the most part, they are excellent. It's just that to me it is more of an "apples and oranges" comparison and I don't know how applicable it really is. However, if you want to compare Rescue Me or The Shield to say The Untouchables or The Fugitive, then I think that is fair game.

 

[Regulus]

From 1963 (This is as far back as I can Remember) to 1980, living in the Detroit Area of Michigan, I had access to The Three Networks (2 NBC and 2 CBS if you counted the Toledo Ohio Stations) as well as PBS, Three Independant Stations and CBC, which was Windsor, Ontario's Station. Usually there was something decent on, and yes, there were times when some "Grumbling" occured, but it usually wasn't serious. (The three worst cases when people called to complain were all Sports-Related, the "Heidi Game" in 1968, the "Wonka Game" of 1975 and the "Sound of Music Game" of 1979 (NBC was Showing the Movie, the Detroit Station was committed to showing a Detroit Tigers Game, it didn't help that the team was in LAST PLACE. A Spokeperson for the Station said at one point they estimated they received 900 Calls AN HOUR from Irate Movie Fans!)


In the Fall of 1980 Cable TV arrived to the Detroit Area. We were promised TWO things if we subscribed.


1. More Variety. Channels that were Specialised to show certain Programming. Sports Channels, Science Channels, Movie Channels (These Cost Extra) etc.


2. Less Commercials. (The Movie Channels not withstanding) Since we were PAYING to watch these, there would be less commercial interruptions.


We all know what has happened since then, so I won't delve any further.

 

[Sam Favate]

It seems to me that television was also pretty young when there were only three networks. If you're talking about the 50s, 60s and 70s (basically, the time before cable and the Fox network), then you're talking about the first 20 years or so of TV (let's say, 1955-1975), and much of that was before color was widespread. Lots of exciting things happen when a medium is new. And it also happens to be before the corporate takeover of all the media companies, which started in the 80s, and IMO, diluted the programming. Having fewer choices meant that the audience was concentrated and that whatever was produced had greater cultural significance. Fortunately, much of what was produced in that period was really good -- and maybe that corresponds to the lack of influence from corporate execs, but that's another thread.


I agree that the list of shows above (Sopranos, Mad Men, Battlestar Galactica, etc.) are outstanding, mature programs, which would not have been possible in the 55-75 period. TV wasn't ready for shows like that. So, there are plenty of good things now (probably enough over the cable spectrum to fill out a three-network weekly schedule).


Also, I have to stress that I think one of the biggest problems with network programming today is that studios took a very long time to realize (and still kinda don't get) that they're not the only game in town anymore. As they watch their audiences shrink and shrink, they go for cheaper programming (reality shows) rather than realize that it's the diverse and quality programming on cable that is taking their audience away. Cable shows like the Sopranos and Mad Men winning the Emmys should have been a rude awakening. Instead of seeing themselves as "the big three" or "the big four," networks should start seeing themselves as everyone else does: Just another few channels among hundreds.

 

[Gary OS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pitchman

FWIW, many of the shows you mention originally appeared on pay cable (HBO or Showtime) which is not subject to FCC "rules and regulations" regarding decency etc. This is not to discredit the programs in any way, since I agree that for the most part, they are excellent. It's just that to me it is more of an "apples and oranges" comparison and I don't know how applicable it really is.

You're spot on with the "rules and regulations regarding decency" issue. That's certainly one of the primary reasons I tend to gravitate toward 50's and 60's programming. I know that no matter what dvd I put in from my library I'm not going to have to have my finger on the remote ready to fast-forward thru a overtly sexual scene with my kids watching, or cringe at a fart joke, hear any profanity, or just get slammed over the head with some perverted modern world-view. All those things come into play in increasing measure as you move up the scale from the 50's to 2010.

I agree as well that many of the shows that were initially mentioned up thread are pay cable shows and therefore not regulated, but as you said a show like The Shield didn't have to show up on HBO in order to use serious profanity, show glimpses of nudity from time to time, and be extremely and graphically violent. And I'd submit if you jumped in a time machine and brought someone forward from the 50's to today and showed them primetime network TV they'd still be shocked at what they saw. We've just become so desensitized to it, so accustomed to it, that we now think "Desperate Housewives" is tame because we are comparing it to HBO or Showtime series. I've always said that what one generations condones, the next will openly practice, and I think that applies to tolerance levels with TV decency as well. Anyhow, that's a major reason I generally prefer older material to most stuff on today. Occasionally something like Avonlea or Sue Thomas will be produced, but those type of shows are rare any more. Most everything produced today will have elements that would have shocked people watching TV even 25 years ago, much less 50 years ago.


Gary "the 'rules of decency', as you put it, are the real key when comparing shows of yesteryear to shows of today" O.

 

[TravisR]

Originally Posted by pitchman

FWIW, many of the shows you mention originally appeared on pay cable (HBO or Showtime) which is not subject to FCC "rules and regulations" regarding decency etc.

Just to be a nitpicker, the FCC has no regulation over basic cable (like USA or FX or AMC) either. The FCC only has control over broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, The CW, Fox, NBC). That's why so many talented people have left networks and with the talented people leaving for cable, the bulk of network shows are lousy.

 

[Regulus]

Originally Posted by Gary OS /forum/thread/301757/was-tv-better-when-just-3-networks/30#post_3705590

 

[Gary OS]

Hey, just go back to pre-code days (20's and early to mid 30's) and you've got a good bit of nudity in films. And I'm not talking about a 9 year old. The funny thing is, although just about everyone today bemoans and belittles the Hayes Code era, I find that the great majority of classic films I've always enjoyed were made during that time period. I don't look on those Hollywood years with nearly as much disdain as most of my modern day counterparts do. But that's just me.


Gary "just my two cents" O.

 

[Joe Lugoff]

For approximately the first ten years of network television (1948-1958), only the bigger cities had television stations, and only wealthier people could afford sets.


These people tended to be better educated than the average population.


So in the early days of television, there were things like NBC Opera, commissioning new operas written for television -- the Hallmark Hall of Fame, doing Shakespeare, Ibsen, Gilbert and Sullivan, etc. -- the Voice of Firestone, presenting classical music and opera -- lots of live dramas, many of which were very well-written and went on to become famous, award-winning plays and movies -- Leonard Bernstein's "Young Peoples' Concerts" -- "Omnibus," which dealt with every conceivable subject -- many documentaries dealing with issues of the day -- and I could go on and on and on -------------


As television spread into the rural areas, and almost every home had a set --- those days were over forever. By the end of the 1950s, most of the shows listed above were dead, and Westerns ruled the air. By the 1960s, TV was mainly "The Beverly Hillbillies," "Green Acres," "Bewitched," "The Munsters" type shows -- in other words, possibly funny but definitely dumb.


Looking through a TV Guide from the 1950s is like looking at an artifact from another Universe.

 

[jdee28]

Originally Posted by Joe Lugoff

For approximately the first ten years of network television (1948-1958), only the bigger cities had television stations, and only wealthier people could afford sets.


These people tended to be better educated than the average population.


So in the early days of television, there were things like NBC Opera, commissioning new operas written for television -- the Hallmark Hall of Fame, doing Shakespeare, Ibsen, Gilbert and Sullivan, etc. -- the Voice of Firestone, presenting classical music and opera -- lots of live dramas, many of which were very well-written and went on to become famous, award-winning plays and movies -- Leonard Bernstein's "Young Peoples' Concerts" -- "Omnibus," which dealt with every conceivable subject -- many documentaries dealing with issues of the day -- and I could go on and on and on -------------


As television spread into the rural areas, and almost every home had a set --- those days were over forever. By the end of the 1950s, most of the shows listed above were dead, and Westerns ruled the air. By the 1960s, TV was mainly "The Beverly Hillbillies," "Green Acres," "Bewitched," "The Munsters" type shows -- in other words, possibly funny but definitely dumb.


Looking through a TV Guide from the 1950s is like looking at an artifact from another Universe.

You see the same thing during the first decade of the talking movie, 1929-1939, this divide between the audiences of the big cities and the more rural areas, perhaps less of a class divide as in the case of television, but definitely a social divide. "Sophisticated," "pre-code" movies were gobbled up in the big cities, while more rural areas were aghast. Hollywood solved the problem by the middle of the 1930s through more of a use of ambiguity in their films. Audiences, no matter where they lived or how old they were, could read into the movie whatever they liked. In "Only Angels Have Wings" (1939), do Cary Grant and Jean Arthur, two people who've only just met and are attracted to each other, have sex during the course of the film? For that part of the audience who cared, that was for them to decide. Another part of the audience could ignore that fact completely, or for a younger audience not even be aware of it, and still come away enjoying the movie.


Ambiguity was the key to making films palatable to a general audience. As films become more and more aimed at specific segments, ambiguity was lost.

 

[Joe Tor1]

Every era has its classics and every era has its duds. The ‘60s had STAR TREK, the ‘00s had LOST. That’s not the issue. The issue is the frustration and annoyance I feel as I watch my wife numbingly surf through channel after channel of “contests to see which fat person can lose the most weight”, “pit bull-owning dwarfs”, and “despicably obvious political agendas disguised as news”. In the three-network days, there was NO ROOM for such garbage – even if it WERE to be allowed by the (higher) standards of the time! Conversely, now every Yankees and Mets game is on TV, and that was not the case in my childhood. This may be a question with no true answer, but I’ll lean toward the old days in mere opposition to today’s more often repulsive content.

 

[Hollywoodaholic]

The source material has been diluted over time. Early television writers, like screenwriters used books or plays as their source material or inspiration. We're about six degrees of separation from any literary sources at this point, with movies based on comic books or old television shows, and much of television based on the 'reality' behavior of unscripted morons.


Gee, I'm officially old now.

 

[Montytc]

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.

No, you can only name shows that you liked more from 1963, that doesn't mean they are better. This entire question comes down to personal taste. One persons "gritty, realistic drama" is another persons "offensive, vulgar garbage". It just isn't possible to say that "The Fugitive" is better written and acted than "The Sopranos", it is only possible to say that you like one better than the other.

I am 54 years old, and I am always amazed at the sharp divide on this forum when it comes to TV eras. There have been great and bad TV shows in every era from when I was born until today. Some folks like to be taken as far away from reality as they can get, while others can't connect with anything that doesn't seem honest and real. I think both can be fine if they are well written, produced and acted. I don't think TV was better with only three networks, but at times it was great during that era.

 

[Steve Armbrust]

Originally Posted by Montytc




No, you can only name shows that you liked more from 1963, that doesn't mean they are better. This entire question comes down to personal taste. One persons "gritty, realistic drama" is another persons "offensive, vulgar garbage". It just isn't possible to say that "The Fugitive" is better written and acted than "The Sopranos", it is only possible to say that you like one better than the other.

I am 54 years old, and I am always amazed at the sharp divide on this forum when it comes to TV eras. There have been great and bad TV shows in every era from when I was born until today. Some folks like to be taken as far away from reality as they can get, while others can't connect with anything that doesn't seem honest and real. I think both can be fine if they are well written, produced and acted. I don't think TV was better with only three networks, but at times it was great during that era.

Yes. For example, Douglas Monce and I seem to have very different taste in TV shows. I like newer, edgier fare more than I liked the classic shows of the past, even though I watched and enjoyed many of those shows then. I don't think either of us is wrong, just that our tastes are different. Where I do agree with the "TV was better then" folks is regarding the proliferation of reality TV, which I despise. Again, a matter of personal taste, I guess.

 

[Jeff Willis]

Originally Posted by Steve Armbrust
Yes. For example, Douglas Monce and I seem to have very different taste in TV shows. I like newer, edgier fare more than I liked the classic shows of the past, even though I watched and enjoyed many of those shows then. I don't think either of us is wrong, just that our tastes are different. Where I do agree with the "TV was better then" folks is regarding the proliferation of reality TV, which I despise. Again, a matter of personal taste, I guess.

...and you're not alone .


^^ I agree with a point that Monty made earlier but, just my guess here, I think that some of us are of the view that majority of shows from past decades are the ones that reside in our collections as compared to shows from the past ~decade or two. I have several shows from the mid-90's to recent years in my collection but the vast majority of me collection are shows from the 50's thru 80's.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

I would join the side arguing that TV has never been better. The last decade has given us some of the best shows of all time. This past season, I could point to one of my favorite shows on virtually every night. The production values blow previous television programming away.


TV Land captures all of television's classics from "I Love Lucy" through the late nineties in one place. But one of the local stations in the Albany area broadcasts Retro on one of its digital substations. It's proven to me that there was a lot of inane shit produced over that same period.

Originally Posted by Tim Gregerson

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.

This I will agree with. The 1990s were the last decade for watercooler television. The media landscape's just too fragmented these days.

 

[TravisR]

Originally Posted by Adam Lenhardt

This I will agree with. The 1990s were the last decade for watercooler television.

I think of it more like the talk has migrated from watercoolers to the internet.

 

[Jefferson]

I do find it interesting that when I was growing up in the 70's, I enjoyed the tv shows and films from the past, even ones from decades before I was born. I still like them.

I am not sure that today's teens have any nostalgia or interest in the shows of past eras, as my generation did.

But then again, they have a lot more to do after school than I did, certainly.

I will qualify my original post here and say that I enjoyed television more in the twentieth century than I have so far in this one.

 

[BobO'Link]

Originally Posted by Sam Favate

...Fortunately, much of what was produced in that period was really good -- and maybe that corresponds to the lack of influence from corporate execs...

You didn't make that statement straight faced did you?


Early TV was rife with influence from corporate execs, just not the network ones so much (although Paley ruled CBS with an iron hand... so much so that upon learning that "Gunsmoke" was threatened with cancellation in 1967, he demanded that it be reinstated, which led to the cancellation of "Gilligan's Island," which had already been renewed for a fourth season).


*Many*, if not all, early shows had *full* corporate product sponsorship typically with only one sponsor. The product was pitched in the program itself, many times having very prominant placement (i.e. would be seen on tables, in the kitchen, etc.). Even as this practice faded and more commercial matter was added a show would typically have a "major" sponsor who'd lean on the producer(s)/network frequently if the direction/tone did not fit the corporate image. Often this is what would keep "quality" in place as a corporate sponsor wouldn't stand for anything that diluted the product since it also reflected poorly on them. "Sponsorship" of an entire program, where you'd see the sponsor logo and/or a mention during opening/closing credits, pretty much went away by the mid 70's. Still it was a ratings game for the most part and over the years it became less and less important what a "sponsor" thought unless they were paying the majority of the production bill.

Many of the corporate sponsors wanted "high brow" type entertainment and/or something the family could watch together. Most certainly the "Big 3" were better when they were the only game in town. If you take away the cable channels and concentrate on *only* NBC, CBS, and ABC you'd probably find there's far less worth watching on them now than even 20 years ago.

 

[JimKr]

I'm 50, and one event I noticed was in about 1973 or so some shows switched from film to video tape. Happy days is one that comes to mind, I loved the first season, lost track, then it seemingly became videotaped with live audiences and truly sucked for me in the space of a short time. It feels like much of TV Land from the mid 70's until 10 years ago or so is simply rotting away on magnetic media that was crap to start with, unlike real film.


Ive bought all 3 seasons of Mannix on DVD and love it, but I have to say much of my fascination is looking closely at the cars, styles, and city backdrops where they filmed. The production values are pretty lame by todays standards but I enjoyed the 3 seasons so far and hoping they continue. 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.