Your Favorite Decade for TV on DVD (1 Viewer)

[Joe Lugoff]

No, it was not called "censorship," it was called "Standards and Practices" which amounts to the same thing. Television writers had no choice but to follow those highly stringent guidelines based on tastes and morals of the day. And that's what I don't like about that era--that the artists involved had no choice but to follow someone else's guidelines. There was no artistic freedom. I find it almost ironic--and Professor Echo said much the same thing--that tv writers were able to come up with such quality regardless. But they weren't allowed their own voices and who knows what they would have written had standards backed off. If you look at that era from today's viewpoint, it's almost like you lose the true voice of an entire generation of artists because they weren't able to speak their minds. Then again, "Lucy" did get away with dealing with a real-life controversial subject in every single episode--interracial marriage.

Yikes ... Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz were the same race. I'm not sure why you think a Scotch-Irish (I think that's what she was) married to a Cuban qualifies as an "interracial marriage." If it were a true interracial marriage, it wouldn't have been on television until the 1970s. What you think of as a kind of censorship doesn't seem to have hurt the quality of the shows. Hollywood had a very strict code until the late 1950s, and many people think the greatest movies ever made were made during that period!

 

[Ethan Riley]

Yikes ... Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz were the same race. I'm not sure why you think a Scotch-Irish (I think that's what she was) married to a Cuban qualifies as an "interracial marriage." If it were a true interracial marriage, it wouldn't have been on television until the 1970s. What you think of as a kind of censorship doesn't seem to have hurt the quality of the shows. Hollywood had a very strict code until the late 1950s, and many people think the greatest movies ever made were made during that period!

It would have been considered an interracial marriage 60 years ago. Maybe Lucy and Desi were among those who broke down that taboo. I might take the time to point out that one of my own parents is white while the other is Latino. They were married in 1956, and yes, their parents howled bloody murder and they caused quite a scandal in their small town. White/Latino marriages are quite common nowadays, but they were not way back when.

 

[Joe Lugoff]

Latinos are Caucasian.

 

[TravisR]

Latinos are Caucasian.

I didn't know that and I'm sure I'm not alone in that lack of knowledge. That being said, anyone that would have had a problem with Lucy and Desi's marriage wouldn't accept that definition anyway.

 

[Richard V]

It wasn't so much "censorship" in the 1950s as it was good taste, which might be an ancient concept few people understand any more. In those days, the ones who really called the shots were the ad agencies, and they bent over backwards not to offend anyone, which could hurt sales of their clients' products. Given those restraints, it's amazing how much high quality television was produced in that decade! I just refuse to believe that I LOVE LUCY would have been a better show if there had been episodes dealing with Lucy being raped or Fred having erectile dysfunction. In fact, the very idea is nauseating, and I'm sorry I typed it!

Nail head, meet Hammer. Succinct and spot on. Those who have read The Twilight Zone Companion will remember that the only reason Rod Serling was able to get somewhat controversial morality plays on the air, was that he was able to "disguise" them as sci-fi and fantasy stories (e.g. racism, censorship, genocide, etc) in the Twilight Zone. The sponsors wielded incredible power in those days.

 

[MatthewA]

Originally Posted by Richard V



Nail head, meet Hammer. Succinct and spot on. Those who have read The Twilight Zone Companion will remember that the only reason Rod Serling was able to get somewhat controversial morality plays on the air, was that he was able to "disguise" them as sci-fi and fantasy stories (e.g. racism, censorship, genocide, etc) in the Twilight Zone. The sponsors wielded incredible power in those days.

I also watched an interview with Serling where he talked about the original TV teleplay of Judgement at Nuremberg; they had to censor the phrase "gas chamber," because the sponsor made gas stoves and somehow thought the viewers would associate their product with Nazi death camps!

 

[Neil Brock]

I also watched an interview with Serling where he talked about the original TV teleplay of Judgement at Nuremberg; they had to censor the phrase "gas chamber," because the sponsor made gas stoves and somehow thought the viewers would associate their product with Nazi death camps!

I actually just saw that play recently and they dropped the audio out whenever gas chamber was mentioned.

 

[younger1968]

i think its tough pinning down a decade for tv as it will depend on each of us. I will say this that TV had some classic shows, since 1950 through to 1990s. The reality TV changed people's view of tv by trying to bring real life issues/stories to tv in front of us. I am not a big fan of reality TV, but do like how each decade tend to have a different focus for the network 1960s - Spy TV (Baron, Man with a suitcase, Man From UNCLE), Sci-FI/Fantasy (Star Trek - TOS, The Invaders, Batman, Time Tunnel, Thriller, Twi-light Zone), Family (My three's sons, pettocoat junction,etc) 1970s - Crime Drama (Starsky & hutch, The Rookies, Police Woman, Cannon, Streets of San Francisco), Medical Drama (Medical Center, Emergency!), Comedies (Sanford & Son, Good Times, Chico & Man, etc) 1980s - Family sitcoms (growing pain, family ties, hogan family), PI (magnum pi, simon & simon, etc), night soaps (Knots Landing, Dynasty, Dallas) I have not covered all the segments and just focused on the few. I welcome people's thought and/or suggestions.

 

[Gary OS]

I checked out my own collection, by decade, to make sure I wasn't fooling myself. And when I added everything up, it was clear I favor the 50's and 60's. The other decades are not even close. A few things that stood out for me was, and none of this will be shocking, that the 50's were great for Westerns, Sitcoms, and Anthologies. The 60's were also solid on the Sitcom front, and excelled in Dramas. And the 70's did produce some great Detective/Police series.


Gary "the nice thing about 50's TV is I can plug anything in and watch it with my family without fear of seeing or hearing something I'd prefer my kids not see or hear" O.

 

[BobO'Link]

Gary "the nice thing about 50's TV is I can plug anything in and watch it with my family without fear of seeing or hearing something I'd prefer my kids not see or hear" O.

That single statement speaks volumes. You can pretty much say the same about 60s TV. My recollection is that the early to mid 70s was when you started having to be careful about what you let the kiddies watch. I *do* recall a few series I wasn't allowed to watch until the early 60s because I was considered too young. The Twilight Zone and Alfred Hitchcock Presents spring immediately to mind. I'd find ways to watch them anyway and they almost always scared the pants off me! By the time The Outer Limits came along I wasn't restricted by anything other than the hour of the day. I'd still get the creeps from some of the episodes, but I was allowed to watch anyway.

 

[Ethan Riley]

i think its tough pinning down a decade for tv as it will depend on each of us. I will say this that TV had some classic shows, since 1950 through to 1990s. The reality TV changed people's view of tv by trying to bring real life issues/stories to tv in front of us. I have not covered all the segments and just focused on the few. I welcome people's thought and/or suggestions.

Which reality shows bring real life issues to television? The Bachelor? Top Chef? Survivor? So You Think You Can Dance? I'm not trying to pick on you, but I hear people say that all the time. And yet after watching so many of them, I have to conclude that there's nothing realistic about "reality" tv. The only thing reality tv changed is the cost of doing television. A typical segment of a reality show costs about 1/3rd that of a scripted drama. That's pretty much the reason they're airing today. But I find a typical episode of "Gossip Girl" more realistic than any of them. I think the participants in this forum generally steer well clear of reality tv and try to weed through their 500 channels and find the best of scripted dramas and comedies. If you add all of those up, you realize that there's plenty of quality programming on the air these days.

 

[DaveHof]

I don't think anyone associates reality with reality TV anymore. It's a convenient catch-all description for the genre. While I am a huge classic TV fan, and enjoyed contributing to this thread with my thoughts on why the more innocent television of the 1950s and 1960s is often preferable to me, I don't have the disdain for the entire reality genre that many others have. The shows I like are the ones that focus on a competition between people who have some discernible talent - American Idol, So You Think You Can Dance, MasterChef. But of course there is the other branch of the genre that is content to point a camera at people who have no business being on television - Jersey Shore, Big Brother, anything with Paris Hilton or a Kardashian - and that have lowered the bar for what is considered entertainment. I find all of these shows to be repugnant.

 

[younger1968]

Which reality shows bring real life issues to television? The Bachelor? Top Chef? Survivor? So You Think You Can Dance? I'm not trying to pick on you, but I hear people say that all the time. And yet after watching so many of them, I have to conclude that there's nothing realistic about "reality" tv. The only thing reality tv changed is the cost of doing television. A typical segment of a reality show costs about 1/3rd that of a scripted drama. That's pretty much the reason they're airing today. But I find a typical episode of "Gossip Girl" more realistic than any of them. I think the participants in this forum generally steer well clear of reality tv and try to weed through their 500 channels and find the best of scripted dramas and comedies. If you add all of those up, you realize that there's plenty of quality programming on the air these days.

Kardashian, who? Hilton, who? The only tv that i watch anymore is my dvd collection. I do have few new shows that i like, but they are few and far between. I only watch about 2 maybe 3 hrs a night and i rather watch the classics.

 

[Regulus]

Kardashian, who? Hilton, who? The only tv that i watch anymore is my dvd collection. I do have few new shows that i like, but they are few and far between. I only watch about 2 maybe 3 hrs a night and i rather watch the classics.

I hear you! I turn on my DVD Player at about 7:30 PM and call it quits around 11:00 PM. The only "Reality" Shows I ever enjoyed were NBCs Real People and the short-lived Games People Play, ABCs That's Incredible and PAX-TVs America's Most Talented Kids (They only ran that one for ONE Season then played it to death through Reruns). It was shortly after this that this Genre spread like a Cancer across both Broadcast and Pay-TV. This factor, combined with others, lead me to finally give up and "Cut the Cord" in 2007.

 

[smithb]

Which reality shows bring real life issues to television? The Bachelor? Top Chef? Survivor? So You Think You Can Dance? I'm not trying to pick on you, but I hear people say that all the time. And yet after watching so many of them, I have to conclude that there's nothing realistic about "reality" tv. The only thing reality tv changed is the cost of doing television. A typical segment of a reality show costs about 1/3rd that of a scripted drama. That's pretty much the reason they're airing today. But I find a typical episode of "Gossip Girl" more realistic than any of them. I think the participants in this forum generally steer well clear of reality tv and try to weed through their 500 channels and find the best of scripted dramas and comedies. If you add all of those up, you realize that there's plenty of quality programming on the air these days.

I'd have to disagree in that there are realistic elements to the so called current "reality TV" genre. Are the scenario's many times derived and extreme, and the people selected to create sparks and ratings? Absolutely. But they are unscripted and can capture people in real life drama, with the camera rolling. The initial scenarios creating the event may not have been typical but the people's responses to controversial, working through issues, and interactions with others is real. And can be more real at times then something scripted. Let me just say, I'm not a fan of these shows and only catch bits and pieces here and there when visiting others, but I can still see the realistic elements they exhibit.

 

[dhammer]

As a young boy in the 60's I would say without hesitation that the 60's was the best decade for action, adventure and fantasy genres. Also if you enjoyed the superhero cartoons this was the decade. You had the best science fiction created: the treasure trove of Irwin Allen classics (Lost in Space, Time Tunnel, Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea, Land of the Giants), Star Trek, and my personal favorite- The Invaders. The 70's had a lot of great shows particularly police/detective shows. Animation plummeted in this decade with few but notable exceptions, i.e. Scooby Doo, Where Are You. There were others but not as many as the 60's. Yes, there were good sit-coms also but they changed. Norman Lear's All the Family which was hugely popular, but they were always trying to get a heavy social message out. MASH was another good example. I want to enjoy comedy not being bombarded by messages. Then came the 80's and the start of comedies being true comedies, i.e. Cheers, Night Court. There were still message sit-coms i.e. Family Ties, Facts of Life but it was moving away from the heaviness of the 70's.

 

[Ethan Riley]

Kardashian, who? Hilton, who? The only tv that i watch anymore is my dvd collection. I do have few new shows that i like, but they are few and far between. I only watch about 2 maybe 3 hrs a night and i rather watch the classics.

I think all these shows about bitchy rich women spending money and belittling others are downright vulgar--and yet they go on and on. There's so many of them. I suppose they play into some sort of wish-fulfillment craving in the minds of financially dispossessed American women, but it all comes across as crass and superficial. I think watching rich, mean women spend thousands of dollars on shoes is disgusting in the current economy. What a waste of time and effort on the part of the viewer.

 

[younger1968]

media is also helps create a market for people like Kim K, Paris Hilton, Snooki, etc. If the media gave them little attention then so would TV shows. Studios are all about money/advertising and thus will continue down a path of shows they make little sense to an older generation that grew up in a different time/place. I was born in 1968 and got into the 1960s shows via friends and in many cases i never seen the show when it first aired. I will continue to collect classic shows and this will still be my main source of tv entertainment. i am starting to introduce classic to shows to some of my friends that are younger, like in their late 20s and 30s now.

 

[dhammer]

I think all these shows about bitchy rich women spending money and belittling others are downright vulgar--and yet they go on and on. There's so many of them. I suppose they play into some sort of wish-fulfillment craving in the minds of financially dispossessed American women, but it all comes across as crass and superficial. I think watching rich, mean women spend thousands of dollars on shoes is disgusting in the current economy. What a waste of time and effort on the part of the viewer.

My kids seem to enjoy many of these so called reality shows. Naturally, these shows are anything but real. Everything is completely staged including the contrived drama and conflicts. The common thread of all these shows is that they are a showcase of white trash. Basically, they are vulgar, low class lowlifes who portray the worst element of our American society. It is really sad that this is what is influencing young people today.

 

[LeoA]

I'd have to disagree in that there are realistic elements to the so called current "reality TV" genre. Are the scenario's many times derived and extreme, and the people selected to create sparks and ratings? Absolutely. But they are unscripted and can capture people in real life drama, with the camera rolling. The initial scenarios creating the event may not have been typical but the people's responses to controversial, working through issues, and interactions with others is real. And can be more real at times then something scripted. Let me just say, I'm not a fan of these shows and only catch bits and pieces here and there when visiting others, but I can still see the realistic elements they exhibit.

I'll admit to not having watched much "reality" tv. But I have watched a decent bit of The History Channel's new reality tv programming (Sad how far that network has gone downwards over the years) and there is little doubt the shows are heavily scripted. There is nothing real about shows like Pawn Stars, American Restoration, American Pickers, and the other shows History is producing as quick as they can to take advantage of this bubble. Take Pawn Stars, for instance. Everytime an expert comes in for consultation (Something I've been told that real pawn shops never do), their first line is always "So what are your concerns?". Are you suggesting it isn't scripted? Or how come there is always a camera on when something goes wrong (There is an episode where they buy an old arcade bowling game, and they just happen to have a camera on when one of the employees is fooling around in back and "accidently" destroys it). And they had a segment a while back where they were considering buying a Porsche engine, and they were portraying it to be a shady deal and the seller was as insulting as can be, had a very exaggerated eye twitch, etc. You think this stuff is real? lol I'm sure that's par for the course and I'd say a good 95% of reality tv is heavily scripted. You'd get more spontaneity on a sound stage with skilled actors that are willing to deviate from the script than you'd get in "reality tv" (The 'Road to' movies with Bob Hope and Bing Crosby come to mind). Nothing real about them. Reality is too boring for viewers so they're pure entertainment out of necessity.