Golden Age of Television? (1 Viewer)

http://www.goldderby.com/news/9646/golden-age-of-television-breaking-bad-mad-men-game-of-thrones-entertainment-13579086-story.html

Since when is this the "Golden Age of Television"? I thought that that took place fifty odd years ago. Perhaps "Television Renaissance" or something might be more appropriate. Thoughts?

The golden age of television is generally defined as starting with the end of World War II and continuing until renowned television director John Frankenheimer departed television for film in 1961 with The Savage Ones.


Usually the current period we're experiencing now, or perhaps just coming out of, is generally called the "New Golden Age of Television". I don't know that there are firm agreed upon dates yet, though many would argue it began with "The Sopranos" in 1999. The end date will probably be settled upon decades from now, when cultural historians decide that one show or another was the last great example of what made this period of television exceptional.

As usual I'm in the minority and as alway it's just my opinion, but I have a hard time accepting these glorified soap operas as great television.

Adam Lenhardt said:

Usually the current period we're experiencing now, or perhaps just coming out of, is generally called the "New Golden Age of Television". I don't know that there are firm agreed upon dates yet, though many would argue it began with "The Sopranos" in 1999.

Click to expand...

Yeah, there's a few shows from the 1990's (like Twin Peaks and The X-Files) that led the way but I'm sure most would say that 1999 and The Sopranos was the beginning of the new golden age.

I agree with Adam and Travis: the new golden age began in 1999 with the Sopranos--though I would add The West Wing, also from 1999--and continues today, despite efforts of real TV to drag us backward (thankfully reality TV has, itself, been in decline).

I guess I disagree with this topic

The dates listed leave out:

Dick Van Dyke Show
Star Trek
The Prisoner
Mary Tyler Moore Show
Rockford Files
WKRP
Hill Street Blues
Twin Peaks
China Beach
Cheers
Disney's Wonderful World
Carol Burnett Show
Etc.

Every age is 'Golden'

I'm not disagreeing that those are mostly excellent individual shows, but a golden age requires more than one or two excellent stand outs. It implies a higher standard generally.

The first golden age of television was driven by polished radio shows making the transition to television, with the kinks mostly already worked out. The current golden age of television is driven by new distribution options, less dependence on mass audiences, lower production costs fueled by new technology, and blurring lines between television quality and big screen quality.


The Dick Van Dyke Show could arguably squeak in at the tail end of the original golden age. "Star Trek", "The Prisoner" and "Twin Peaks" are not representative of the kind of television from the eras in which they aired but are rather well-regarded outliers.


Shows like "Mary Tyler Moore Show", "Rockford Files" and "WKRP" definitely are representative standouts of the television from the eras in which they aired. I think what prevents the 1970s from being considered a Golden Age is that the best programming was driven by a small handful of brilliant showrunners like James L. Brooks, Norman Lear and Stephen J. Cannell rather than an across the board groundswell of exciting new voices.

I know it's not on AMC or HBO, and doesn't have nudity or cursing, but as long as The Good Wife is on, this Golden Age hasn't ended.

And for me, this golden age began with Star Trek:TNG. That's the start of the over 25 years of excellent sci-fi and fantasy TV shows.

Adam Lenhardt said:

I'm not disagreeing that those are mostly excellent individual shows, but a golden age requires more than one or two excellent stand outs. It implies a higher standard generally.

The first golden age of television was driven by polished radio shows making the transition to television, with the kinks mostly already worked out. The current golden age of television is driven by new distribution options, less dependence on mass audiences, lower production costs fueled by new technology, and blurring lines between television quality and big screen quality.


The Dick Van Dyke Show could arguably squeak in at the tail end of the original golden age. "Star Trek", "The Prisoner" and "Twin Peaks" are not representative of the kind of television from the eras in which they aired but are rather well-regarded outliers.


Shows like "Mary Tyler Moore Show", "Rockford Files" and "WKRP" definitely are representative standouts of the television from the eras in which they aired. I think what prevents the 1970s from being considered a Golden Age is that the best programming was driven by a small handful of brilliant showrunners like James L. Brooks, Norman Lear and Stephen J. Cannell rather than an across the board groundswell of exciting new voices.

Click to expand...

In a more general sense, wonder if the ratio of good shows to bad shows has changed or remained relatively constant over the decades.


Then again to quantify something like this, one would have to precisely define what is a "good show".

jcroy said:

In a more general sense, wonder if the ratio of good shows to bad shows has changed or remained relatively constant over the decades.

Then again to quantify something like this, one would have to precisely define what is a "good show".

Click to expand...

Yes, and there would likely be heated debate about that! I don't watch much television these days. I just moved away from it a long time ago when I dropped cable and got my first DVD player. I understand how criticality acclaimed a lot of these shows are but I just don't care to invest my time in what to me are little more than soap operas. I've had cable in the house for several years again and my wife and stepson have watched enough of shows like MadMen, Good Wife, Vikings, Walking Dead etc... for me to form a solid opinion and none of them do a thing for me.

jcroy said:

In a more general sense, wonder if the ratio of good shows to bad shows has changed or remained relatively constant over the decades.

Click to expand...

While the absolute number of 'good' shows has undoubtedly increased, I assume the ratio has dropped significantly. Sixty years ago, there were three channels. Now there are 300. Has the number of great shows increased 100-fold?

Squire said:

I thought that that took place fifty odd years ago.

Click to expand...

Re-reading the thread, I realize I don't know what shows were on during the first 'golden age' -- aside from presumably The Waltons, Andy Griffith, and Divk Van Dyke. Fifty years ago, the 1960s, is still before my time.


(And as you might have seen, if you want to discuss such shows per se, you'll find avid fans (and critics) in the TV on DVD and Blu-ray forum of HTF )

jcroy said:

In a more general sense, wonder if the ratio of good shows to bad shows has changed or remained relatively constant over the decades.

Click to expand...

One thing is for sure: the sheer volume of content has increased exponentially since then.

For me the Golden Age of Television Began in 1948 With Milton Berle and ended in 1961 with the Twilight Zone.

Not that there weren't great shows after 1961, but to me there was alot of repetition in basic storylines after that.

A talking horse and car, the Munsters and Addams family, Medical Center and Marcus Welby MD and a load of detective shows. The freshness was gone. The Golden Age of Television existed when TV was in its infancy, when it was fresh and naieve.

As for a second Golden Age of Televison...that's just a pathetic attempt to glorify a less than stellar period of television. TV was new and golden only once.

The Criterion Collection DVD "The Golden Age of Television" defines that age as 1953-1958 with the live broadcasts of such plays as "Marty," "Patterns," "Requiem for a Heavyweight," "Days of Wine and Roses," etc. that played on shows like Playhouse 90. I take that to mean the golden age was when the medium of television showcased the best of the previous media, which was literature and plays. That was the principal source material for filling the airwaves. We all know that didn't last long.


I think the 60's defined television as perfect fodder for the lowest common denominator. Sure, there was fantastic stuff, but the main audience seemed to be us baby boomers when we were around 10 and controlled by the sheer force of our will and numbers the television dial. Ironically we liked the same things that people with declining mental powers over 65 liked - Gomer Pyle, Mr. Ed, Beverly Hillbillies, My Favorite Martian, Gilligan's Isle, I Dream of Jeannie, etc. No insult intended, but the only reason we look fondly back on those shows is purely nostalgia - they remind us of our younger, innocent, uncomplicated lives.


There's no question that with more than 628 channels available, content today is all over the place, and we can have mindless dreck along with provocative and thoughtful material that is as literate and complicated as you can get (The Wire, Deadwood, etc.)


But count me in on those who say there was really only one Golden Age of Television and that was when the medium was discovering itself through literate content from the only previous media it had to draw from - books, plays, radio. I can't imagine any of those plays getting a million viewers today, yet when they originally aired, tens of millions of united families were enthralled - and culturally challenged. Divided we fall... into a million different categories and choices, for better or worse.

Hollywoodaholic said:

The Criterion Collection DVD "The Golden Age of Television" defines that age as 1953-1958 with the live broadcasts of such plays as "Marty," "Patterns," "Requiem for a Heavyweight," "Days of Wine and Roses," etc. that played on shows like Playhouse 90. I take that to mean the golden age was when the medium of television showcased the best of the previous media, which was literature and plays. That was the principal source material for filling the airwaves. We all know that didn't last long.


...


But count me in on those who say there was really only one Golden Age of Television and that was when the medium was discovering itself through literate content from the only previous media it had to draw from - books, plays, radio. I can't imagine any of those plays getting a million viewers today, yet when they originally aired, tens of millions of united families were enthralled - and culturally challenged. Divided we fall... into a million different categories and choices, for better or worse.

Click to expand...

It sounds like, from that, the "Golden" age of TV was the "Nascent" age of TV: emerging and not yet understood how to best take advantage of it. Whereas the past ~20 years, creators know TV's strengths and are writing best-of for the medium*.


(*There's an argument that says TV storytelling still lags as storytelling medium, because it's still all conventional, linear plots. It does not deviate profoundly like books or movies sometimes do.)

The "Golden Age" depends largly upon ones defination and personal opinion. However, I think any TRUE "Golden Age" is when something is being defined for the first time. This applies not only to Television, but other mediums as well. As mentioned, going from radio shows to moving images for broadcast was huge and there was nothing to draw upon prior.


The same can be said about the "Golden Age" for comic books. ONLY the orginal 1930s, '40s and '50s comics defined it as well. Think of all the great characters that were invented for the very first time; Batman, Superman, The Flash, etc.


Then, we have the "Golden Age" of video games and computers. Remember the '70s and early '80s when it was jaw dropping just to be able to control somthing you see on a screen, similar to a TV for the first time? Games like Pong, Space Invaders, Pac-Man were defining the medium for the fist time ever. The same can be said of the PC, remember that famous Apple commercial that broke the barrier for home with their 1984 stylized Super Bowl ad? Both Apple and Commodore computers defined what we have now.


Bottom line is I don't believe anything can be called "Golden Age" unless it's a defining moment in history for a medium. Everything that comes after that is simply going down the same path that was started before it. Dosn't mean they aren't enjoyable, but certainly not a golden era.

DaveF said:

Re-reading the thread, I realize I don't know what shows were on during the first 'golden age' -- aside from presumably The Waltons, Andy Griffith, and Divk Van Dyke. Fifty years ago, the 1960s, is still before my time.

(And as you might have seen, if you want to discuss such shows per se, you'll find avid fans (and critics) in the TV on DVD and Blu-ray forum of HTF )

Click to expand...

The Waltons was squarely a mid 70's show (71-81) so well outside the Classic def of Golden Age.

DvD and Andy Griffith started right at the tail end or just after the end. I Love Lucy, Perry Mason, Ed Sullivan, Mickey Mouse Club, Have Gun Will Travel, Leave it to Beaver, Father Knows Best, Red Skelton, Ozzie and Harriet,
Dobie Gillis, Alfred Hitchcock Presents, TZ, Sea Hunt, Adventures of Superman, Bat Masterson, Roy Rogers, Dragnet, Death Valley Days, Bonanza (59), Gunsmoke The Untouchables, fall mostly inside to starting right at the end.

I agree more with the concept of the old guys define how Golden any particular might actually be pretty much in the same way
Old Fogey music is separated from the Good Stuff and the new Trash.

David Norman said:

The Waltons was squarely a mid 70's show (71-81) so well outside the Classic def of Golden Age.DvD and Andy Griffith started right at the tail end or just after the end. I Love Lucy, Perry Mason, Ed Sullivan, Mickey Mouse Club, Have Gun Will Travel, Leave it to Beaver, Father Knows Best, Red Skelton, Ozzie and Harriet,Dobie Gillis, Alfred Hitchcock Presents, TZ, Sea Hunt, Adventures of Superman, Bat Masterson, Roy Rogers, Dragnet, Death Valley Days, Bonanza (59), Gunsmoke The Untouchables, fall mostly inside to starting right at the end.I agree more with the concept of the old guys define how Golden any particular might actually be pretty much in the same wayOld Fogey music is separated from the Good Stuff and the new Trash.

Click to expand...

Or as Michael Flanders put it: "What is it that distinguishes a hit from good music?"

Jeffery_H said:

The "Golden Age" depends largly upon ones defination and personal opinion. However, I think any TRUE "Golden Age" is when something is being defined for the first time. This applies not only to Television, but other mediums as well. As mentioned, going from radio shows to moving images for broadcast was huge and there was nothing to draw upon prior.


...


Bottom line is I don't believe anything can be called "Golden Age" unless it's a defining moment in history for a medium. Everything that comes after that is simply going down the same path that was started before it. Dosn't mean they aren't enjoyable, but certainly not a golden era.

Click to expand...

Ok. So we're now in the Platinum Age of Television?