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

[Paul_Scott]

I went off on a bit of a tangent with my previous post and never really gave an answer to the OPs basic question, so I'll do that now.


No. TV was not better back in the three network days.


There was plenty of crap beaming through the airwaves, most of it now completely, justifiably, forgotten. I'm not saying the wheat to chafe ratio is greater today, but that's only because there is soooooo much content today. For every hour of Lost or Mad Men you have 30 or 40 hours of scummy reality shows, bad syfy network movies, sensationalized tabloid magazines, and partisan hackery masquerading as news/op ed.

There's is an overwhelming amount of junk beamed out daily.


Back then, we had about 63 hours a week that the 3 networks filled with prime time programing.

Pick a given year and see how much of that 63 hours is represented on DVD or that you can even remember as being quality and worthy of a DVD release.


But I would argue the sophistication of some of the better and best content today is at a level that few if any shows ever reached even 20 years ago. Hell, I've felt for a while now that we are in another golden age as far as TV production goes, and I think the best TV (for the last 10 years or so) has been consistently better than 99% of the theatrical movies out there. I don't think you could point to the last half of the sixties or most of the seventies and say the same thing.


One major quality difference I see now vs then, is in the nature of serialized vs episodic content. Just about any good dramatic network show prior to, maybe Dallas, was essentially episodic in nature. Very little week to week continuity, which meant almost every episode would be a variation on one that came before it. Some of the better shows founds ways to work within this, but on the whole I think it's a stifling convention that makes re-watching vintage episodic TV on dvd a bit of a chore at times, and usually nowhere near as compelling as watching strong serialized content.


OTOH, if you happen to think there is too much sleaze and vulgar content these days, I wouldn't argue and on that score, yes, the old days were better (although there was an awful lot of wink wink, nudge nudge sleazy leering in the days of jiggle TV).

 

[pitchman]

Originally Posted by 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.

IIRC, Happy Days was always shot on film. I think the difference you picked up on is that it went from a one-camera shoot (M*A*S*H, Malcolm in the Middle, Modern Family, etc.) to three-camera staging in a studio and shot before a live audience. Garry Marshall did this with his other shows, too (The Odd Couple, Laverne & Shirley and Mork & Mindy). Nearly all (if not all) of Norman Lear's sitcoms were shot on tape. Perhaps that is what you are remembering.

 

[JamesSmith]

Hmm. When I started this thread, I was thinking things were better when all the networks started their new seasons the same week, and pretty much ended their run the same month.

Now, I have to keep in mind all the varied schedules that the different networks and cable channels have. . . . and also the fact many channels change their scheduling more frequently.

Let's not forget that.


James

 

[Sam Favate]

Originally Posted by BobO'Link

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.).

Oh, that's very true. I was looking at it from the angle of development of a show, which these days needs to clear so many corporate hurdles that it might never get past one of the board room meetings. I was also referring to the fact that in the era of the three networks, none of them were mere subsidiaries of massive multi-national companies.

Mad Men has dealt with the corporate sponsorship thing very well in its stories concerning Harry Crane, who is the head of television for the ad agency.

 

[cineMANIAC]

I think television today (broadcast and cable) suffers from "copycat syndrome" and its something that I believe is a fairly recent thing. What I mean is, a show becomes a hit, suddenly you see other shows pop up on other channels with an almost identical format and structure. Even the title of the programs are similar: America or American top this, Number one that, etc. Another example: CNN. They used simple graphics to identify reporters/people and locations (white lettering underlined by a thin red bar). Then someone decided to add all kinds of clutter (blurbs, tickers, temperature readings, logos, little spinning boxes) leaving the anchor relegated to an ever-shrinking portion of the screen. Next thing you know, EVERYONE is doing it. There are too many all-news channels with the same look and feel you can't tell one from the other. And its not just the cable networks, it's also affecting the local 10 o'clock news, who have jumped on the bandwagon. Now they're adding comedy and "roaming" anchors (I think Fox started the trend) to the newscasts and that has caught on as well. So were we better off with just 3 networks? Hell yes! Life was simpler and clutter-free back then.

 

[dana martin]

[COLOR= black]Yes and No all at the same time[/COLOR] [COLOR= black]When we had only the three networks, you had the family hour, more made for Television productions, think Roots, Masada, Centennial, and a lot of counter programming, you knew we when to go to bed, the national anthem played then static till 5 or 6 am the next morning. Local stations had to plan a lot of there own programming needs on certain items, I remember how many times I got “one Adam 12ed” at the end of a baseball game, and it wasn’t the whole episode, what ever was left for time slot. PBS is where you went for eclectic British programming, Benny Hill, Dr Who, and old Twilight Zone episodes. [/COLOR] [COLOR= black]But even the cable channels have evolved into something that is different than they started out, anyone remember when TBS was the Superstation, and during the day would show movies, classic Charlie Chan, Jungle Jim, Tarzan, all of this has been incorporated into TCM, AMC well it isn’t American Movie Classics anymore. Now for syndication we are force-fed a steady diet of Friends, The Office, weekend blocks of CSI, Bones, Criminal Minds. Programming is kind of hard to judge, SciFi works well on the big screen, but how many series on TV run that long, Battlestar Galactica (new version) how many networks would take that chance. Were the shows, better back when it was only the big three, not always better, but longer as already stated, this is where HBO or Showtime kicks ass, you have a 1 hour episode, that is basically an hour, not some crappy 38 min. [/COLOR] [COLOR= black]When we had only the three networks, you had the family hour, more made for Television productions, think Roots, Masada, Centennial, and a lot of great programs, I like westerns, when was the last one on, Deadwood, think the networks would have the guts to go that route. It wouldn’t work with the demographics’ that the sponsors’ are looking for. What has evolved with dvr, on demand and dvd / blu ray is different, I actually do my own counter programming, I have series that I set up on certain nights and watch one episode as if it was programmed that way, and it works.[/COLOR]

 

[Charles Ellis]

One could say the same regarding Hollywood films: in the studio era (especially before the 1948 Paramount antitrust decision that ended the theater chains' ownership of the studios and the studio system itself), there was less competition for the public (radio was never thought of as a threat as opposed to TV), and there seemed to be a quality variety to the films made that was later taken over by TV and the newer, later indie studios. For instance, film series like Blondie, Tarzan, and Dr. Kildare were taken over by TV: in fact, in the 1960s new TV shows were made based on those old 'B' series. One could say that MGM's Crime Does Not Pay shorts paved the way for everything from Dragnet to CSI!


There's a related issue regarding the way TV is today as opposed to 40 years ago. If only today's prgrammers at the broadcast networks just try reviving some long-dead formats to reach a new generation, they may just be surprised. As a kid (early-mid 70s) I remember:


Half-hour dramas (Adam-12, Dragnet)

Westerns (Gunsmoke, Bonanza, The Virginian)

Primetime game shows (What's My Line?- a show that should be revived!)

Variety shows (Carol Burnett, Ed Sullivan, Flip Wilson)

Musical shows (Lawrence Welk, Andy Williams, AMERICAN BANDSTAND!!!!!)

Dramatic anthologies (Night Gallery, Love Boat)

Weekly TV-movies

Live drama

Fantasy sitcoms (Bewitched, I Dream of Jeannie, The Munsters)

Live-action children's shows with an adult host (This was very much a local thing- in NYC I remember "Officer Joe Bolton" hosting Three Stooges shorts)

Detective shows (Kojak, Columbo, Barnaby Jones)

Soap operas (sadly becoming an endangered species- why hasn't Lifetime or USA tried to revive the daytime soap genre?)

I hope you will all see what I'm getting at. Enough with all this damned 'reality'- who cares about 'Bachelors' or sextuplets? Let's get back to entertainment!!

 

[Paul_Scott]

Enough with all this damned 'reality'- who cares about 'Bachelors' or sextuplets? Let's get back to entertainment!!

It's all about economics. There just aren't enough competent, skilled craftsmen out there anymore to write and produce contrived entertainment- whereas with a reality show, all you need is a camera and a collection of shameless, attention craving douchebags. And those are a dime a dozen these days (and if you hit the right bars, you can usually get 3 dozen for $.25)

 

[Regulus]

Originally Posted by Charles Ellis


Soap operas (sadly becoming an endangered species- why hasn't Lifetime or USA tried to revive the daytime soap genre?)

The big decline for Soap Operas began in 1994 when the telecasts of many of them were pre-empted to the Networks could carry the coverage of the O.J. Simpson Trial. As that event dragged along, many viewers gave up waiting for them to return, and went elsewhere to get their afternoon Entertainment.


Does anybody remember the Watergate Hearings of the 1970s? At first they were carried on all three Networks, but Viewers, who wanted to watch their Game Shows and Soap Operas, became so incensed they "Flamed" the Networks in massive numbers, and the Networks responded by TAKING TURNS covering the Hearings!

 

[Jeff Willis]

Originally Posted by Regulus
The big decline for Soap Operas began in 1994 when the telecasts of many of them were pre-empted to the Networks could carry the coverage of the O.J. Simpson Trial. As that event dragged along, many viewers gave up waiting for them to return, and went elsewhere to get their afternoon Entertainment.


Does anybody remember the Watergate Hearings of the 1970s? At first they were carried on all three Networks, but Viewers, who wanted to watch their Game Shows and Soap Operas, became so incensed they "Flamed" the Networks in massive numbers, and the Networks responded by TAKING TURNS covering the Hearings!

Watergate....I remember....I didn't watch any of that, seemed to last forever.

I seem to remember that CNN (or Court TV?) became the only network to cover the OJ trial from gavel to gavel.

 

[Douglas Monce]

Originally Posted by Jeff Willis




Watergate....I remember....I didn't watch any of that, seemed to last forever.

I seem to remember that CNN (or Court TV?) became the only network to cover the OJ trial from gavel to gavel.

[SIZE= 12px]Unless you lived in LA, and then it was on from 7am till 11:30pm on every channel in town. It would start with pretrial coverage, then they would show the trial for the day. Then after the thing was over for the day, the evening news was wall to wall OJ trial, then you MIGHT get 2 or 3 hours of network programming, but that normally had a special about the trial, then after prime time each station would have their own wrap up about the trial for the day.[/SIZE]


[SIZE= 12px]This was EVERY station in LA. You couldn't escape it! I would walk down the halls at Universal, and it seemed like every secretary had a portable TV tuned to the trial![/SIZE]


[SIZE= 12px]Doug[/SIZE]

 

[Regulus]

Looking back at it all, I noticed there was one HUGE Differance between the Watergate Hearings and the O.J. Simpson Trial. In Both Cases all the Broadcast Networks began covering the procedures, and in both cases they backed off a little after receiving too many complaints from viewers who'd rather watch their normal Programming. However, in the 1970s, the Networks were basically the only act in Town, so to speak. After the Hearings ended, fans returned to watch their shows. Twenty-some years later, the Nets were no longer "The only act in Town". There was a little something called "Cable TV". This time, when the Trial was being covered, many fans drifted off to watch other Programming on the Cable Channels. By vthe time regular programming resumed, many of them had found something else to watch, so this time they did not return. Thus began the decline in Soap Operas. I heard somewhere the Soap Opera Network is going under. Their biggest "Gimmick" was to air the Daytime Soaps during Prime-Time. Unfortunately many Viewers were already doing that, using DVRs and other Recording Devices to pre-record a show during the day, and watch them during the evening. Consequently ratings for The Soap Opera Network have tanked.

 

[Sam Favate]

Originally Posted by Paul_Scott


It's all about economics. There just aren't enough competent, skilled craftsmen out there anymore to write and produce contrived entertainment- whereas with a reality show, all you need is a camera and a collection of shameless, attention craving douchebags. And those are a dime a dozen these days (and if you hit the right bars, you can usually get 3 dozen for $.25)

I think there are plenty of competent skilled craftsmen who can write and produce excellent entertainment, but the fact is that scripted, acted programming costs more than reality TV. You are correct that economics is the answer, but not that there is a lack of talented people. There are loads of them just waiting for the chance to produce something great.

 

[Rick Thompson]

Yes, there was a lot of crap back in the three-network days, but there was more non-crap than there is now. The reason is simple: There is no mass audience, only a collection of niches. It costs just as much to do a good show like "Law & Order" as before, but the niche doesn't offer the return that a mass audience does.


So you get low-budget "reality" shows by the bushel. There are a few decent budget scripted shows, but not many. There are a lot more unscripted -- and why not? They get same first-run audience for a lot less money. If unscripteds ever do as well in reruns and syndication as scripted, you'll see the end of scripted shows.


Even History Channel, which used to be about history, is now the "Ice Road Truckers" channel. Why? It found a niche and is cheap to produce.


It's the wave of the future. Depressing, no?

 

[Regulus]

Originally Posted by Rick Thompson /forum/thread/301757/was-tv-better-when-just-3-networks/60#post_3706605

 

[Corey3rd]

Originally Posted by Regulus

I heard somewhere the Soap Opera Network is going under. Their biggest "Gimmick" was to air the Daytime Soaps during Prime-Time. Unfortunately many Viewers were already doing that, using DVRs and other Recording Devices to pre-record a show during the day, and watch them during the evening. Consequently ratings for The Soap Opera Network have tanked.

The Soap Opera channel found itself without a head after a Disney corporate downsized a few years ago. They had another channel's executive doing part time programming. The new guy basically decided that the best thing they could do run marathons of Beverly Hills 90210. If the channel had a real executive, it might have been able to survive the Disney suits wanting to turn the channel into a something for kids ages 4-8.


Was TV really better with 3 channels? I look at the schedules on wikipedia from over the decades. There was a lot of dead time such as when ABC had a movie night every night. We have great memories of the cream. But there was plenty of dead stuff that reused old scripts from previous shows. TV was more fun and entertaining before all the crummy little networks latched onto the indie UHF channels. TV movie packages were more fun back when AIP would provide flicks. But I'm not going to moan and groan about the arrival of cable and numerous channels. This is like missing school lunches (except for taco day).

 

[Steve Armbrust]

Originally Posted by Regulus

I don't mean to criticize you personally, but people who cut the cord and stop watching all TV are probably contributing to the lack of quality they complain about. The networks then resort to programming for the people who do watch. And since they're watching crap, more crap is produced. Which is not to say that we should watch crap. Absolutely not. But if enough people sought out and watched quality TV shows, perhaps more quality shows would be produced. Again, everyone's taste is different. But I have been telling everyone I know to watch Friday Night Lights. I claim that not only is it the best show on TV, but that it might be the best show that's ever been on TV. (I know, I know, different tastes.) But too many people that I know have just stopped watching TV and won't even give that show a chance, even after hearing me praise it, and even knowing that our tastes are similar. This has got to be affecting the ratings.


I really think there are just as many quality shows on today as there were when there were only three networks. But there is WAY more crap to wade through to find them. Like some of you, I used to rely solely on the Sunday newspaper TV listings to figure out what to watch. There are too many networks to do that today. Now I need discussion forums like this one, and other internet information sites, just to find out what's out there. I need a DVR to record the shows that seem interesting, so I can watch them at my leisure and decide whether to keep watching, and to keep up with the changing schedules that some shows now endure. The DVR also lets me skip through all the commercials, so the shows may be shorter now, but I don't have to endure the ads.

 

[Rick Thompson]

Originally Posted by Steve Armbrust



Everyone's taste is different. But I have been telling everyone I know to watch Friday Night Lights. I claim that not only is it the best show on TV, but that it might be the best show that's ever been on TV. (I know, I know, different tastes.)

Sorry to disagree, but my wife bought me the first season of that show and I couldn't take any more after four episodes. I can see it's a quality show, but at center it's a soap opera where the central and most important thing is high school football. I didn't care about the characters, the teen angst -- and the show didn't come close to making me care about high school football. If anything, it made me care less about it.

 

[Regulus]

Originally Posted by Steve Armbrust



I don't mean to criticize you personally, but people who cut the cord and stop watching all TV are probably contributing to the lack of quality they complain about.

I was paying $65.00 a Month when I made the decision to "Cut the Cord".


The reason I did this was quite simple: They didn't need my Subscription Fee anymore. The networks are being paid MILLIONS by the Pharmacutical Companies, who don't care WHO is seeing their Ads when they are running. Especially the Prescription Drugs for various "Bodily Functions" including Sex. They run those things at all hours of the day, including times WHEN CHILDREN ARE WATCHING! After seeing one of their Ads during a Children's Show my decision was made. I REFUSE to PAY for the "Privllege" of watching TV Shows which have become INFESTED with these and other Ads, all of which are presented in the most offensive manner possible. They are spending Millions for these Ads, I was only spending $65.00 a Month, which I found better things to pay for.

 

[DaveHof]

Glad to read that someone else is as disgusted by the glut of prescription drug ads as I am. It seems like every other commercial these days contains the words "Ask your doctor about..." or "(insert drug name here) is not for everyone...". I dive for the mute when one of these comes on. Why spend so much money to advertise products that no one can go out and buy? And if the drug companies devoted the millions of dollars they spend on commercials to research and development, maybe they'd come up with more life-saving drugs - and maybe the cost of prescriptions wouldn't be so high. The 'four hour erection' references are so common now that they have become punch lines, but it really wasn't that long ago that anyone working in network television would have been shocked that something like that was allowed on the public airwaves.

The quality of the commercials, just like the quality of the programs, has dropped since the three-network days. And there are so many commercials per one-hour of programming that it's almost impossible to enjoy any show now. The only way I got through 'Lost' and am getting through 'Glee' is by recording them on DVR, so I can fast-forward the ads.