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

[Joe Tor1]

One important distinction that has become muddied over the course of this thread is: Are we lamenting the unfortunate fact that, with one-squillion channels spewing product of little or no interest to a large segment of this group of dedicated fans, there is NO ROOM for the continuance (RERUNS) of series from “Our Golden Era”? Or, are we lamenting the equally unfortunate fact that FEW SERIES CURRENTLY PRODUCED, for the aforementioned one-squillion channels, REFLECT THE SENSIBILITIES OF “Our Golden Era”? I seem to see both these two very distinct debates taking hold here. In either case, despite enjoying LOST, HEROES, FRINGE, THE SIMPSONS and FAMILY GUY, put me down on the side of “Our Golden Era”! …Whatever “Our Golden Era” happens to mean to each of us! To me it’s 1958-1970 – with an apex of 1966!

 

[Corey3rd]

It aired at 8:30 - still what would be considered family hour. Think what you want, but the cigarette companies had zero scruples when it came to getting kids to smoke their brand. Winston knew what it was doing when it paid to have an animated caveman who hung out with dinosaurs light up their brand. While you might buy the "aimed at adults" defense, this was not a show that turned off kiddies.

Also something that used to advertise on TV - asbestos kitchen tiles. Really want your babies licking that floor?

Originally Posted by Douglas Monce




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


Doug

 

[Steve Armbrust]

Originally Posted by Neil Brock 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.

For modern westerns, I'd offer the miniseries Broken Trail and Lonesome Dove (relatively recent), plus Deadwood, Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman, and Walker, Texas Ranger. For war shows, there is Band of Brothers, plus modern military shows, such as The Unit (which I sorely miss), and even 24. For teacher/school shows, tune into almost anything on ABC Family (my personal guilty pleasure there is Secret Life of the American Teenager). For social issues and hot button topics, what about West Wing and The Wire. These are just off the top of my head. They're not modern versions of Gunsmoke, Combat, or Room 222, but is that what you really want? There is variety out there, you just have to look.


And as for every show looking pretty much the same, there is the USA network syndrome (a quirky character solving a problem -- Monk, Burn Notice, Royal Pains, etc. all in a single episode). But, there was a similar situation in the "golden era." I mean, really, was there all that much difference between Gunsmoke, Big Valley, Bonanza, High Chaparral, etc.? They were westerns.

 

[Gary OS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Armbrust /forum/thread/301757/was-tv-better-when-just-3-networks/90#post_3707348

 

[Neil Brock]

Originally Posted by TravisR



At least with hundreds of channels to choose from, there's a chance to see something from another era.

Actually, there's two chances. Slim and none.

 

[Douglas Monce]

Originally Posted by Corey3rd

It aired at 8:30 - still what would be considered family hour. Think what you want, but the cigarette companies had zero scruples when it came to getting kids to smoke their brand. Winston knew what it was doing when it paid to have an animated caveman who hung out with dinosaurs light up their brand. While you might buy the "aimed at adults" defense, this was not a show that turned off kiddies.

Also something that used to advertise on TV - asbestos kitchen tiles. Really want your babies licking that floor?

The Dick Van Dyke show was on in the family hour also. Van Dyke himself did add for cigarettes on the set of his show. We might think of it as shocking today, but frankly no one thought twice about it at the time. I still find it funny that people today are shocked when they see old commercials for toy guns. It was a different time and people weren't so politically correct. In that respect I think the so called golden age was VASTLY better than today.


Asbestos tiles are perfectly safe as long as they aren't broken up or shredded. There has been a huge over reaction to things like asbestos and lead. They aren't nearly as dangerous (in consumer forms) as the activists would like you to believe.


Doug

 

[Tory]

Originally Posted by TravisR



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?

In the 80s, when cable was starting to get big, I still saw Silent films on local TV and tons of 50s shows. I think things like Lucy, Fugitive, Andy Griffith, Gilligan and the lot would survive in reruns, alternating as they often did. The big indie stations would also be full of them. Saturday morning would still have Looney Tunes, Flintstones was removed from syndication due to CN and Boomerang exclusivity, it was on in many markets. I think there would be less judge shows if there were only the handful of ota stations we once had. Simpsons would be added to the mix.

 

[Tory]

Originally Posted by Douglas Monce



I still find it funny that people today are shocked when they see old commercials for toy guns.

I found an old tooth brush of mine, the handle was a toy gun so you would have to point and put the barrel of the gun in your mouth to brush your teeth.

 

[Steve Armbrust]

Originally Posted by Gary OS

A couple of points. Who said this thread was about TV series? It is about TV. Several posters have talked about the commercials and how they affect the viewing experience. So certainly miniseries qualify as TV. And so what if Deadwood has profanity? That rules it out as a western? You may object to the profanity and rule out watching that show because of it, but plenty of people liked that series.


As for Dr. Quinn, it is in the "modern" era. You're correct that the traditional western is not well-represented this year, or for years. But there have been some.


As for school shows today being teeny-bopper driven, I'm not sure what that means, but it doesn't rule them out as school shows.


As for your opinion about war shows and topic-driven shows. once again, that is your opinion and you're entitled to it. I vehemently disagree with you, as is my right.


And as for westerns, I specifically did not mention Have Gun, Will Travel or Rawhide. But there were plenty of cookie cutter westerns then, just like there are plenty of cookie cutter quirky-guy dramas on today.


If this thread is simply about whether one likes the shows that were on TV in the 50's and 60's more than one likes the shows that air today, then there's not much to talk about. You like what you like, I like what I like. End of story. More interesting is whether the advent of multiple networks and other trends and technologies (more commercials, DVRs, video on demand, TV over internet) and the fragmentation of the audience to more and more specialized programming has changed TV watching for the better or worse. I claim that if you watch TV today the same way you watched it in the 50's and 60's, then your experience will be much worse than it was back when. But if you embrace the technology, search out all the networks to separate the wheat from the chaff, and use a DVR to avoid commercials and watch things when you want to watch them, the experience is better now than then, despite not having as many of those "water cooler" moments.

 

[Tory]

Liking old shows should not mean automatically that you dislike new ones. I love the older programs and more shows like them need to be around but I am happy to see newer programs like new Doctor Who, Ashes to Ashes, Saving Grace, Burn Notice, Community, House, Army Wives, Drop Dead Diva, Human Target, In Plain Sight, Simpsons, Futurama, Flapjack, SpongeBob, Batman The Brave and the Bold and Sarah Jane Adventures among others.


We are stuck in this world now, the cable companies have given us this genre specific mindset so they should use that to properly present that format and cater to all genres and fanbases. They took it away from the big networks. On Demand should be an easy source for exposure, the big three should exploit it to raid their owned libraries.


Still with just 3 or so stations, one is more likely to stumble on something that they never thought they would like but truly do. If they could just sit down and watch the best of what is being offered, maybe the good things would last a bit longer and those other genres like Western or Mystery can find new audiences.

 

[Charles Ellis]

I have to agree with Gary about the variety of the classic Westerns. To me Dr. Quinn represents the last of the breed. The stories, themes, and regular characters were different on the more successful shows:


Gunsmoke

Bonanza

Have Gun Will Travel

Maverick

Cheyenne

Wantedead or Alive

The Big Valley

Sugarfoot

The High Chaparral

The Wild Wild West

The Life and Times of Wyatt Earp

The Rifleman

The Virginian

Wagon Train

Rawhide


You get the idea. This is one genre that should be looked into again by the networks. I just saw an episode of Gunsmoke from 1964 and it still holds up!


BTW, this past season Glee has managed to bring music back to scripted TV, while Modern Family and The Middle have revived the family sitcom for a new decade (and generation!). I heartily recommend all three shows!!!!

 

[RobertR]

I'm still not sure what people who miss westerns and war shows, etc. are thinking. The fact is that the culture has changed. People don't watch those genres any more. They would NOT come back if we were limited to 3 networks. Times change. People change.

 

[JohnMor]

Originally Posted by RobertR

I'm still not sure what people who miss westerns and war shows, etc. are thinking. The fact is that the culture has changed. People don't watch those genres any more. They would NOT come back if we were limited to 3 networks. Times change. People change.

I don't know. I have a lot of friends and coworkers who are still mourning the loss of Deadwood. I don't think they'll ever be plentiful like they once were, but if something is well done, people will watch whatever the genre. There was a time when medical shows were considered passe, and now they're just about everywhere (albeit running out of steam.) Genres never die off completely. As people and culture changes their approach to genres can change too, and revive what some once thought dead.

 

[RobertR]

Originally Posted by JohnMor





I don't know. I have a lot of friends and coworkers who are still mourning the loss of Deadwood. I don't think they'll ever be plentiful like they once were, but if something is well done, people will watch whatever the genre. There was a time when medical shows were considered passe, and now they're just about everywhere (albeit running out of steam.) Genres never die off completely. As people and culture changes their approach to genres can change too, and revive what some once thought dead.

If what you say is true, then the number of networks shouldn't keep westerns from reappearing. They'll be produced if there's a demand for them. I do see people in this thread who are missing mores that don't seem likely to return.

 

[Neil Brock]

The genre I miss the most is the anthology, or the anthology-ish shows, like Naked City, Route 66, etc. Shows which had regular casts but were still character studies about the guest stars. Shows now are dominated by the regular casts and to me that gets boring very quickly. With anthologies, the stories were far more varied from week to week and even the ones with regular casts, often the regulars were very peripheral to the plots. It just opened the shows up to a far wider range of storytelling. Everyone knows the genre anthologies which are still available to be seen today, like Twilight Zone and Outer Limits but there were many more great ones as well. And I'm not even talking about the live ones from the 50s but the filmed shows like Dick Powell Theatre, Kraft Suspense Theater, Bob Hope Chrysler Theatre, Alcoa Premiere and a few others. Great writing, great casts. Nothing like that with today's 500 channels.

 

[Tory]

When was the last time there was an actual war show, at war, in combat?

 

[Douglas Monce]

Originally Posted by Tory

When was the last time there was an actual war show, at war, in combat?

Off the top of my head, I can only think of two in combat war shows that weren't comedies. Combat and Rat Patrol. Both were in the 1960's.


Doug

 

[Douglas Monce]

Originally Posted by Neil Brock

The genre I miss the most is the anthology, or the anthology-ish shows, like Naked City, Route 66, etc. Shows which had regular casts but were still character studies about the guest stars. Shows now are dominated by the regular casts and to me that gets boring very quickly. With anthologies, the stories were far more varied from week to week and even the ones with regular casts, often the regulars were very peripheral to the plots. It just opened the shows up to a far wider range of storytelling. Everyone knows the genre anthologies which are still available to be seen today, like Twilight Zone and Outer Limits but there were many more great ones as well. And I'm not even talking about the live ones from the 50s but the filmed shows like Dick Powell Theatre, Kraft Suspense Theater, Bob Hope Chrysler Theatre, Alcoa Premiere and a few others. Great writing, great casts. Nothing like that with today's 500 channels.

I'd love to see the return of the anthology. I'd also like to see the variety show make a comback. I miss the likes of Carol Burnett and Dean Martin. I'd like to see a variety show with Kevin Spacey, Hugh Jackman and Neil Patrick Harris. All three can sing, dance and do comedy.


Doug

 

[smithb]

Originally Posted by Douglas Monce
Off the top of my head, I can only think of two in combat war shows that weren't comedies. Combat and Rat Patrol. Both were in the 1960's.


Doug

There was also 12 o'clock High also from the 1960's.

 

[Rick Thompson]

Originally Posted by TravisR



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?

Of course not. Local channels would have long since gone on to newer off-network shows. The problem I (and many others) have with the current situation is that the hundreds of channels offer no variety. If there were a channel showing older shows, I'd be happy with things as they are. Instead we have a bunch of sports and "reality" shows, with a sprinkling of infomercials. TNT runs a few 90s shows (mainly Law & Order), but even the documentary channels have been taken over by "reality." Case in point: The History Channel is now Ice Road Truckers and Loggers. Even Modern Marvels doesn't show up much any more. And actual history? Fuhgettaboutit!


My problem is the sheer boring sameness of it all. I don't expect to have the whole meal to myself, but a few crumbs would be nice.