Vic Pardo
Screenwriter
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2013
- Messages
- 1,520
- Real Name
- Brian Camp
Excellent thread, folks. Let me weigh in as someone who prefers classic TV to contemporary TV. For me, it's partly a matter of the way older TV programs looked, in terms of production values. "The Untouchables," for instance, looked like classic b&w Hollywood crime movies. There were other programs in that genre, but there was something about the way that show looked and felt that was completely unlike every other show. 1960s sitcoms like "Bewitched," and "I Dream of Jeannie," looked like mini-movies and often had special effects. They didn't look like other sitcoms. "The Partridge Family," too. They went out on location and told stories that went way beyond the soundstage.
Early western TV shows like "Hopalong Cassidy" and "The Roy Rogers Show," to name just two, were made by the same people who made B-westerns for the lower-echelon movie studios and had that economy of movement and action that made for great entertainment. "Stories of the Century" was enhanced by its use of action footage taken directly from Republic Pictures westerns. Later westerns, adopting the hour-long "drama" format, became much more talky, although shows like "Bonanza" and "The Virginian" still looked great and offered some of the outdoor appeal of a good color western.
Crime shows in the 1970s, echoing some of the style of good urban police thrillers like THE FRENCH CONNECTION, DIRTY HARRY and their many sequels and imitators, offered urban locations, lots of action and movement, and colorful supporting players week in and week out. In the 1980s, "Miami Vice" offered a new look and feel to it. That and "The Equalizer" may me the last crime shows I followed with any regularity and both because of their affinity for urban spaces and creating a look and feel that were unique to them. Someone here mentioned "The A-Team," which was like a one-hour action movie every week.
At some point in the 1980s, TV shows all started to look alike. Can you tell one "Law and Order" from another or from CSI or NCIS or JAG, etc.? The only time I watch any kind of current TV programming is when I'm at the gym and an array of eight flatscreen TVs show several different channels. Every show looks the same to me. Once upon a time you could tell what you were watching with one shot from it. Not any more. And the actors all look the same. Just look in any issue of TV Guide today. Everybody's kind of generic looking. Once upon a time TV actors had distinctive looks and features. And guest stars had distinctive looks and features. Think of the stars who made TV in the 1950s and '60s so memorable. (Janssen, Bridges, Burr, Marshall, Falk, Stack, etc.) One reason I watched TV shows in the 1970s was because of all the great old Hollywood actors you could spot on them: Barbara Stanwyck and Ida Lupino both did episodes of "Charlie's Angels." Lew Ayres, Joseph Cotten, Cornel Wilde, Ray Milland, Rod Cameron...etc. And TV Guide would TELL you when they were appearing.
Also, none of these series told continuing stories, so you didn't have to watch every week. You could watch when you were home and it was on and the description/cast list in TV Guide interested you. Nobody ever said, "The new season of 'Starsky and Hutch' begins next week and I still haven't seen all of last season." Today, all these series that tell continuing stories means you HAVE to watch every week and people get ADDICTED to these shows. I wonder if the shows are all that compelling or if people simply can't help but want to know what happens next week. Like what you get with soaps. Are soap operas that good that people have to watch every day or do they simply get hooked? I don't know how many times people have recommended series to me but then warned me not to start watching in the middle of a series, but to start at the beginning, e.g. "Lost" and "Breaking Bad." Who's got the time to do that? Who CARES enough to do that? That whole concept is just ludicrous to me. I've watched Japanese animated shows from beginning to end on DVD, but they're often designed to last only 12 or 26 episodes. "Cowboy Bebop," for instance is 26 episodes and was designed that way and when it ended--it ENDED.
Well, that's enough for now...
Early western TV shows like "Hopalong Cassidy" and "The Roy Rogers Show," to name just two, were made by the same people who made B-westerns for the lower-echelon movie studios and had that economy of movement and action that made for great entertainment. "Stories of the Century" was enhanced by its use of action footage taken directly from Republic Pictures westerns. Later westerns, adopting the hour-long "drama" format, became much more talky, although shows like "Bonanza" and "The Virginian" still looked great and offered some of the outdoor appeal of a good color western.
Crime shows in the 1970s, echoing some of the style of good urban police thrillers like THE FRENCH CONNECTION, DIRTY HARRY and their many sequels and imitators, offered urban locations, lots of action and movement, and colorful supporting players week in and week out. In the 1980s, "Miami Vice" offered a new look and feel to it. That and "The Equalizer" may me the last crime shows I followed with any regularity and both because of their affinity for urban spaces and creating a look and feel that were unique to them. Someone here mentioned "The A-Team," which was like a one-hour action movie every week.
At some point in the 1980s, TV shows all started to look alike. Can you tell one "Law and Order" from another or from CSI or NCIS or JAG, etc.? The only time I watch any kind of current TV programming is when I'm at the gym and an array of eight flatscreen TVs show several different channels. Every show looks the same to me. Once upon a time you could tell what you were watching with one shot from it. Not any more. And the actors all look the same. Just look in any issue of TV Guide today. Everybody's kind of generic looking. Once upon a time TV actors had distinctive looks and features. And guest stars had distinctive looks and features. Think of the stars who made TV in the 1950s and '60s so memorable. (Janssen, Bridges, Burr, Marshall, Falk, Stack, etc.) One reason I watched TV shows in the 1970s was because of all the great old Hollywood actors you could spot on them: Barbara Stanwyck and Ida Lupino both did episodes of "Charlie's Angels." Lew Ayres, Joseph Cotten, Cornel Wilde, Ray Milland, Rod Cameron...etc. And TV Guide would TELL you when they were appearing.
Also, none of these series told continuing stories, so you didn't have to watch every week. You could watch when you were home and it was on and the description/cast list in TV Guide interested you. Nobody ever said, "The new season of 'Starsky and Hutch' begins next week and I still haven't seen all of last season." Today, all these series that tell continuing stories means you HAVE to watch every week and people get ADDICTED to these shows. I wonder if the shows are all that compelling or if people simply can't help but want to know what happens next week. Like what you get with soaps. Are soap operas that good that people have to watch every day or do they simply get hooked? I don't know how many times people have recommended series to me but then warned me not to start watching in the middle of a series, but to start at the beginning, e.g. "Lost" and "Breaking Bad." Who's got the time to do that? Who CARES enough to do that? That whole concept is just ludicrous to me. I've watched Japanese animated shows from beginning to end on DVD, but they're often designed to last only 12 or 26 episodes. "Cowboy Bebop," for instance is 26 episodes and was designed that way and when it ended--it ENDED.
Well, that's enough for now...