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

[LeoA]

I find the law office commercials urging people to contact them to sue and get rich (Used to be you'd get disbarred for such ads) and the various ads dealing with personal health products even more annoying then ads for things like dry eyes (Which there seems to always be a million of on every channel).


Glad I have a DVR for the little non DVD/Blu-Ray viewing I do. Not bothered anymore by them thanks to being able to fast forward.

 

[Joe Tor1]

Then, there are all the car ads promoting reckless driving -- but justify it by saying they employ a "professional driver on a closed course"!

And the beer and other liquor ads that promote rowdyism and even vandalism -- taking over abandoned buildings and defacing them. Recall the ad where hordes take over the top of a building and party while bouncing around on foam cushions? How I'd LOVE to live in THAT building, and try to sleep! Or the beer ad where giant rowdies play football, and enjoy the idea that they are seemingly crushing anything in their wake?

I'll opt for the days when ads just TOLD you about the product, and didn't link it with questionable (if not outright BAD) behavior.


At least your "four hour erection" doesn't imperil my life and property!

 

[Rick Thompson]

The line about "See your doctor for an erection lasting more than four hours" prompted this from sports radio host Tony Kornheiser: "Don't call a doctor. Call the porn industry -- you're going to be a star!"

 

[Corey3rd]

TV was so much better when it merely had the flinstones pushing smokes to kids.

watch the old ads for aspirin which promised it was a cure for depression.

 

[Steve Armbrust]

Originally Posted by Rick Thompson


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.

Yup, that's what I meant when I say that everyone's tastes are different. I'm not trying to convince you to watch that show. My point was that I was trying to convince people that I knew, people who I know have same kind of taste that I do, to watch a TV show I praised to the hilt, and they still wouldn't do it.

 

[Steve Armbrust]

Originally Posted by 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.

If you're forced to watch ads, or you're afraid your kids are watching them, then I totally agree that today's TV is much worse. I don't have kids and I watch absolutely everything through a DVR, even live sporting events, which I pause for 10 minutes or so, just so I can skip the commercials. The only commercials I watch are during the Super Bowl, and that's only because my wife makes me.

 

[Neil Brock]

Originally Posted by Steve Armbrust



If you're forced to watch ads, or you're afraid your kids are watching them, then I totally agree that today's TV is much worse. I don't have kids and I watch absolutely everything through a DVR, even live sporting events, which I pause for 10 minutes or so, just so I can skip the commercials. The only commercials I watch are during the Super Bowl, and that's only because my wife makes me.

Likewise. I haven't watched anything besides sports live in about 25 years. And once I got into DVD recorders 8 years ago, not even sports anymore.

 

[Neil Brock]

Unfortunately, the people who are making the arguments for modern vs TV from the past, they do not have access to actually viewing the great shows from the past. The simple, sad fact is, most of the really great shows are not available to be seen other than in archives like UCLA or the Library of Congress or by those few who managed to acquire them for their collections. Some examples:


Playhouse 90 - never rerun

Dupont Show of the Week - never rerun

The Defenders - not rerun anywhere since the 60s

The Nurses - never rerun

Slattery's People - never rerun

The Eleventh Hour - not rerun since the 60s

Mr. Novak - reran on TNT in the 80s in the middle of the night

East Side, West Side - reran on Trio, a cable network with limited distribution

The Lieutenant - not rerun since the 60s (except for 2 episodes run on TNT)

The Great Adventure - never rerun

Bus Stop - never rerun

Way Out - never rerun


I've been fortunate to have the opportunity to view a percentage of all of these fine series. But most people have not and to make an argument of one era vs another, one needs to have more information to go on. But a great many of the best shows of that era have been buried in the studios' vaults, while many of the pedestrian shows of the era are more commonly available. So, yes, there was a lot of great television being produced but much of it is near impossible to see anymore.

 

[Gary OS]

Gotta agree with Neil on this one. I've had the privilege of seeing just a few of the shows he's mentioned and there's no doubt that there are many very good, if not great, shows from the 50's and especially the 60's that the vast majority of the general public have never seen and therefore any discussions of this nature are going to be skewed for lack of exposure to many older classics.


Gary "I still believe, strongly, that we had a greater ratio of solid shows in the 50s/60's" O.

 

[TravisR]

Originally Posted by Neil Brock

Unfortunately, the people who are making the arguments for modern vs TV from the past, they do not have access to actually viewing the great shows from the past.

Old vs. modern isn't the topic (despite some people trying to make it the topic). The question is whether TV was better with 3 channels to choose from or if it is better with hundreds of channels to choose. Once again, since there's a number of people that clearly enjoy more older shows than modern ones, I don't understand how they don't agree that having hundreds of channels is better than 3.


I know the knee jerk reaction to "Was TV better with 3 networks?" is to automatically say "Older is better" but still having 3 channels would mean that they would see nothing but new shows. While hundreds of channels means that they can see some older shows that they do like. When you have the choice of nothing that you like or some shows that you like, I don't understand how anyone can seriously say that having three networks was better.

 

[Gary OS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TravisR

Old vs. modern isn't the topic (despite some people trying to make it the topic). The question is whether TV was better with 3 channels to choose from or if it is better with hundreds of channels to choose.

Well, if we are going to slavishly follow the original poster's intent to the "letter of the law", then you aren't exactly correct either. The original poster asked whether or not TV was "better" back in the days of 3 networks vs today specifically because it was easier to keep up with Season premieres and reruns, and things like that. He was saying there was a simplicity then that we don't have now because there are too many stations and nothing is "organized", if you will, like it was back then.

So yes, you're correct that a few posters (myself included) have expanded the intent of the original poster, but I'd say you were wrong in the way you answered it. The point was not just that we have more channels to choose from now so of course it's better. That's the point you are making and the original poster wasn't coming at it from that specific direction.


Gary "not that I really care whether people want to expand the discussion" O.

 

[Tory]

Originally Posted by TravisR



Old vs. modern isn't the topic (despite some people trying to make it the topic). The question is whether TV was better with 3 channels to choose from or if it is better with hundreds of channels to choose. Once again, since there's a number of people that clearly enjoy more older shows than modern ones, I don't understand how they don't agree that having hundreds of channels is better than 3.


I know the knee jerk reaction to "Was TV better with 3 networks?" is to automatically say "Older is better" but still having 3 channels would mean that they would see nothing but new shows. While hundreds of channels means that they can see some older shows that they do like. When you have the choice of nothing that you like or some shows that you like, I don't understand how anyone can seriously say that having three networks was better.

My argument is, had there not been cable, then more people would be able to view old shows as when there were only a few channels they showed then old shows on a regular basis with diversity in syndication. More people would be exposed to them. When genre and period specific cable channels came around, they took away all of those shows and old films then neglected to keep them on the air. People were less likely to stumble upon something old and good with so many stations. Looney Tunes and Gilligan's Island would still be on network TVs today if it weren't for cable eventually removing them from popular culture.

 

[TravisR]

Originally Posted by Tory

My argument is, had there not been cable, then more people would be able to view old shows as when there were only a few channels they showed then old shows on a regular basis with diversity in syndication.

So you think that local affiliates would have just kept rerunning the same shows for 3 decades if cable hadn't come around? Or to put it another way, if there was no cable then local channels would have passed over reruns of The Simpsons or Seinfeld or Friends in favor of playing I Love Lucy or The Fugitive or The Twilight Zone for 30 or 40 years?

 

[DaveHof]

I think the perception that more is automatically better is a dangerous one. With the Internet people now have a lot more sources for news and information - has that made journalism better? Or do we now have hundreds of blogs and sites advancing their own agendas and running stories without checking sources? There are more baseball teams now than before- has that made the sport better, or has it watered down the available talent and extended the playoffs into the Christmas season?


I believe the original post was not just comparing 3 networks vs. 300, but the content they choose to air. It's great to have 300 channels for people who want to watch niche cable networks and shows that appeal to their own hobbies and interests. But a straight-up comparison of scripted programming from the 3-channel era to the current TV landscape? For me it's no contest-- the 3-channel era was much better.

 

[Neil Brock]

Originally Posted by TravisR



Old vs. modern isn't the topic (despite some people trying to make it the topic). The question is whether TV was better with 3 channels to choose from or if it is better with hundreds of channels to choose. Once again, since there's a number of people that clearly enjoy more older shows than modern ones, I don't understand how they don't agree that having hundreds of channels is better than 3.


I know the knee jerk reaction to "Was TV better with 3 networks?" is to automatically say "Older is better" but still having 3 channels would mean that they would see nothing but new shows. While hundreds of channels means that they can see some older shows that they do like. When you have the choice of nothing that you like or some shows that you like, I don't understand how anyone can seriously say that having three networks was better.

3 networks doesn't mean 3 channels. Most cities had a bunch of independents as well plus PBS. But tell me, where amongst these hundreds of channels can we see older shows? Other than Retro TV, which I don't know how many people even can get, where are these channels that you speak of? At one time, there were a great many cable networks showing a great deal of vintage programming. CBN, TNT, FOX Net, WOR satellite feed, BET, Lifetime, USA, HA!, A&E, Nostalgia, SciFi and even TV Land in its early days. But its been at least 10-20 years since this was the case. Forget about the short-run and obscure shows, these days you can't even find the majority of the popular shows from the 50s and 60s anywhere.


What about the diversity of programs? Where are the modern day westerns, war shows, traditional family sitcoms, anthologies, variety shows, teacher/school shows, newspaper/reporter shows, documentary/historical dramas? So many channels, then why do all of the shows look pretty much the same? Where are the shows of today which deal with social issues and hot button controversial topics? The last show that I can think of that even remotely fits that category is Lou Grant and that premiered over 30 years ago. The other problem I have with some of these modern shows that everyone thinks are wonderful is that I cannot get into shows where I despise all of the main characters. The Sopranos? Tried watching it but all I did is keep hoping the main stars would get killed. I'm sure that would apply to many of the current shows that everyone thinks are so great. I watch Mad Men, mostly because I'm fond of the era, but I don't find any of the characters on that show likable either.

 

[Douglas Monce]

Originally Posted by Corey3rd

TV was so much better when it merely had the flinstones pushing smokes to kids.

watch the old ads for aspirin which promised it was a cure for depression.

The Flintstones was never intended as a kids show. I was a prime time show aimed at adults.


Doug

 

[Douglas Monce]

Originally Posted by Neil Brock


Where are the modern day westerns, war shows, traditional family sitcoms, anthologies, variety shows, teacher/school shows, newspaper/reporter shows, documentary/historical dramas? So many channels, then why do all of the shows look pretty much the same? Where are the shows of today which deal with social issues and hot button controversial topics? The last show that I can think of that even remotely fits that category is Lou Grant and that premiered over 30 years ago. The other problem I have with some of these modern shows that everyone thinks are wonderful is that I cannot get into shows where I despise all of the main characters. The Sopranos? Tried watching it but all I did is keep hoping the main stars would get killed. I'm sure that would apply to many of the current shows that everyone thinks are so great. I watch Mad Men, mostly because I'm fond of the era, but I don't find any of the characters on that show likable either.

I think you could safely say that Law and Order frequently fits in to the "hot button issue" category. As for Westerns, that is a genre that has fallen out of favor with the general public for the most part. JAG was a show that dealt with the military. Not a war show I guess but close enough. Many types of shows that were popular in the 50s and 60s are still with us. Perry Mason was a hugely popular show, and the legal drama is still with us today.


I will say that TV is different today. Is it better or worse? That depends on your point of view. For me there is little on TV today that is of interest. I too am not very interested in shows where I can't root for the heroes because they are despicable. Which is probably a good thing because I get more done that way.


Doug

 

[TravisR]

Originally Posted by Neil Brock

3 networks doesn't mean 3 channels. Most cities had a bunch of independents as well plus PBS. But tell me, where amongst these hundreds of channels can we see older shows? Other than Retro TV, which I don't know how many people even can get, where are these channels that you speak of? At one time, there were a great many cable networks showing a great deal of vintage programming. CBN, TNT, FOX Net, WOR satellite feed, BET, Lifetime, USA, HA!, A&E, Nostalgia, SciFi and even TV Land in its early days. But its been at least 10-20 years since this was the case. Forget about the short-run and obscure shows, these days you can't even find the majority of the popular shows from the 50s and 60s anywhere.

Once again, do you think that if you had the 3 networks AND the independents that they would actually be running any of the shows that you want to see? They'd be playing shows from the 2000's, 1990's and maybe the 1980's and that would be it. At least with hundreds of channels to choose from, there's a chance to see something from another era.

 

[TravisR]

double post

 

[TravisR]

triple post