Why "Classic" TV DVD? (1 Viewer)

[Vic Pardo]

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...

 

[jcroy]

A second one is nostalgia. Do any of you want to see these programs for an adult perspective? To see if they were just good fourty years later than when you saw them. There are films and tv shows I saw as a child I could not figure out what was going on that I couldn't understand. Now, as an adult I've figured out what "surrealism" and "dream sequences" are about. As well as snatches of dialogue that explaned something about the plot.

For example, how many of you noticed adults laughing when the Adam West Batman and Burt Ward Robin were trying to get out of various death traps, but you were watching (as a five year old kid) was watching it intently to see if the Caped Crusader was trying to save the day?

Questions: Was television really better back than? Or it nostalgia?

James

Initially when I started buying a lot of old tv shows on dvd, it was largely for nostalgia reasons. It seemed exciting at the time watching all these old tv shows again. I suppose this may happen easily when one is going through a midlife crisis, and pining for stuff from one's youth and/or childhood.

After a few years of watching many of these dvd sets of old 1970's and 1980's tv shows, I've gradually come to the realization that overall it has been a huge disappointment. Watching many of these old tv shows through the eyes of a middle aged adult is quite different than watching the same shows through the eyes of a kid or teenager. I was frequently wondering how I was ever interested in such tv shows in the first place.

At times I wonder whether I should have just let the past stay in the past. Perhaps there is some truth in the notion of "you can never go back home again".


On a semi-related note, I recently visited the old town and neighborhood where I grew up as a kid. I hardly recognized the place anymore. Psychologically, it felt as if my childhood had never existed. (For lack of a better description).

Awhile ago I also visited the campus of the college I went to. I also hardly recognized the place anymore. Most of my old professors are now retired (or have died already), or had left the university a long time ago. Numerous new buildings, and several old buildings were gone.

 

[Ejanss]

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?

EVERY series that tells a story now has to have a season-long serial arc. (Even Star Trek: Enterprise had to experiment with it, although that turned out to be a partly failure.) I often wonder how much of that is the new rise of networks having to sell shows as Name Product Franchise, to "enforce" loyalty among its audience. Shows are already crammed into every available viewing minute to keep viewers from changing channels--lest even one commercial between shows should distract them--that now they're afraid of losing viewers from one episode to the next, never mind one season to the next.
OTOH, the BBC, which deals in closed seasons of seven or thirteen episodes at a time, has always been used to the idea of closed serial arcs, and can shape Sherlock or Downton Abbey to fit. For them, that was just standard storytelling; US viewers just found themselves hooked on it anyway.

Leaving aside the cheesy 70's-80's prime-time-soap crazes of Dallas and Dynasty (which we knew even then were cheese, but we wanted to brag about how "hooked" we were), what we know today as the contemporary Season-Long Serial Arc on US TV wasn't invented until Twin Peaks, and that only believed it was homaging Peyton Place.
We had mini-series in the 70's, yes, but those had endings.

 

[jcroy]

^

I was completely unaware of season-long serial arcs, until I started buying tv show dvd sets. (I never watched soap operas before).

I only started noticing such serial arcs when I watched through the dvd sets of tv shows like: the revived Battlestar Galactica, Babylon 5, Stargate Universe, etc ... and maybe X-Files and Total Recall 2070 to a lesser extent.

 

[jcroy]

Can you tell one "Law and Order" from another or from CSI or NCIS or JAG, etc.?

Yes, to all these tv shows (except JAG).

The only way I can tell the difference between such shows, was from watching the daily reruns over a period of time.

If I didn't watch these shows at all, I would be hard pressed at differentiating them from one another.

 

[Ron1973]

I remember in a class in High School learning the difference between objective and subjective. What's good is subjective and is up to the individual. A great quote I remember, "matters of taste can't be disputed". And that's what TV shows are, a matter of your individual taste. Viewers now must want all of their comedies to be mostly sex jokes and their dramas to be as gory as possible. Neither interests me but I'm not in the 18-35 range they cater to so my viewership isn't desired anyway. I can get along fine without modern TV and TV can get along fine without me.

I'm with Neil on this one. I'm just outside of their age range they cater to but even when I was in the 18-35 age range, I still was into classic television.

I don't care to see "blood and guts" nor sex in every show and that's what modern TV seemingly has came to. Call me naive but I'd rather see Jim Rockford outwit the bad guys without having to shoot their brains out. I'd rather see Andy Taylor and Barney Fife stop someone without having a shootout.

I also believe writing was much better back in the "good old days." You had 3 networks competing against one another so it behooved writers to come up with something good. When a show jumped the shark, it wasn't on the air for a whole lot longer. Now that you have hundreds of channels, mediocrity/lowest common denominator finds a way through.

One need look no further than what a friend of mine calls "fakeality" shows. Yet people eat up that crap like crazy! Why? I'd much rather have something that's well written and produced, something that keeps me glued to the TV.

 

[Walter Kittel]

I'd rather see Jim Rockford outwit the bad guys without having to shoot their brains out.

I certainly could be mistaken, but I believe Rockford was an anomaly even back in those days with its minimal gun usage by the lead of the show. Guns were pretty pervasive even back then although amount of blood viewers were exposed to was kept to a minimum. Of course, the other show that immediately comes to mind where the protagonist doesn't rely upon firearms is MacGyver. The show was kind of defined by that, in some ways.

Thinking about Rockford reminds me of one of the things I love about older television. Namely the absence of forensic technology. The older procedurals are fun to watch, at least partly, because of the technology of the time. (Columbo, The Streets of San Francisco, Police Story, and Hill Street Blues are a few that readily come to mind.) I watch my share of contemporary procedurals, but it is nice to go back and watch shows from the sixties and seventies to 'cleanse the palette.'

- Walter.

 

[Bob_S.]

I like classic tv for a few reasons:

1. Shows back then were good family entertainment. You could actually sit down with your kids (regardless of age) and watch a show together without worrying about sex jokes, profanity and gore.

2. Comedies back then were actually FUNNY. Dick Van Dyke, Lucy, Carol Burnett, Mary Tyler Moore, they all made me laugh out loud. Most comedies today, the jokes are just stupid. I can think of only 2 shows in the 00's that made me laugh out loud and that was King of Queens (it reminded me so much of my wife and me) and Who's Line Is It Anyway?.

3. Nostalgia. Alot of these shows I grew up with and thanks to Me TV, Cozi, and Antennae TV I can enjoy all of them again.

I can think of only a handful of shows that I watched on a regular basis over the past 10 years.

I tried to watch Vampire Diaries one time just to check it out. I had to stop after 3 or 4 episodes because they had to make sure they said the word "dick" once per episode. I guess the FCC allowed the word to be said once per episode so they made sure they got it in there? Not that it helped advance the story or anything.

 

[jcroy]

Thinking about Rockford reminds me of one of the things I love about older television. Namely the absence of forensic technology. The older procedurals are fun to watch, at least partly, because of the technology of the time. (Columbo, The Streets of San Francisco, Police Story, and Hill Street Blues are a few that readily come to mind.) I watch my share of contemporary procedurals, but it is nice to go back and watch shows from the sixties and seventies to 'cleanse the palette.'

The thing I found somewhat annoying about some modern cops shows (and some movies), is how modern forensics/technology is being used like a "deus ex machina".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_ex_machina

 

[TravisR]

The thing I found somewhat annoying about some modern cops shows (and some movies), is how modern forensics/technology is being used like a "deus ex machina".

I agree. I still watch CSI (Ted Danson has given the show some new blood) but I hate when technology saves the day. In all fairness to that show, it doesn't happen every episode. Also, a big element of the series is modern science helping them catch bad guys but I like when they solve crimes with science and good police work.

 

[jcroy]

One need look no further than what a friend of mine calls "fakeality" shows. Yet people eat up that crap like crazy! Why?

Over the years I wondered whether people are actually watching such "fakeality" shows for the "trainwreck" or "schadenfreude" value.

(Perhaps similar to watching live high speed police freeway chases on the news).

 

[JoeDoakes]

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.)

Yes, most tv actors today look to me like models out of a Macy's catalog. All of them good looking, overly fashion conscious and not partcularly distinctive. I recall seeing a slide show that compared the new Hawaii Five-O actors to those on the original series. In the original series, not all of the actors had good looks, and of those that did (Jack Lord and James MacGarther), their faces had character. I saw a brief bit of a recent crime show at a friend's house a few weeks ago. They had an overly made up female "crime scene investigator" holding a severed head while conversing. It was ridiculous and not in a good way.

 

[Ron1973]

Yes, most tv actors today look to me like models out of a Macy's catalog. All of them good looking, overly fashion conscious and not partcularly distinctive. I recall seeing a slide show that compared the new Hawaii Five-O actors to those on the original series. In the original series, not all of the actors had good looks, and of those that did (Jack Lord and James MacGarther), their faces had character. I saw a brief bit of a recent crime show at a friend's house a few weeks ago. They had an overly made up female "crime scene investigator" holding a severed head while conversing. It was ridiculous and not in a good way.

Even commercials seem "alike" anymore. I find myself eye-rolling at the stupidity of some of today's commercials. Back in "the day" even the commercials were interesting.

 

[Regulus]

Even commercials seem "alike" anymore. I find myself eye-rolling at the stupidity of some of today's commercials. Back in "the day" even the commercials were interesting.

Yes, there were bad commercials during "the day", but none of them were nearly as bad as the ones that spew out of the set now. Commercials back then were more informative than they were now (An "Alternate" DVD of Kraft Suspense Theater I have has an episode in it with its original commercials intact, one of them has a recipe for a casserole in it I (made one for myself and found it to be delicious, but not exactly South Beach Diet-Friendly). Also they weren't shoved obnoxiously "In your face" as they are now. If you had children watching the TV you didn't have to cringe when the show went to a commercial break, as you didn't need to fear they'd see something you didn't want them to see. Not to mention a commercial break lasted two minutes at the most. If a show had a sponsor (For example the show mentioned above) That sponsor got the lion's share of the commercials. I timed the commercials and the show and they came in at 51 minutes for the show and one minute for a promo of next week's show The Kraft Commercials totaled 6 1/2 minutes. The remaining 90 seconds were probably for Station Identification and local commercials.

PS If you want the recipe PM me and I'll set you up.

 

[Ron1973]

Yes, there were bad commercials during "the day", but none of them were nearly as bad as the ones that spew out of the set now. Commercials back then were more informative than they were now (An "Alternate" DVD of Kraft Suspense Theater I have has an episode in it with its original commercials intact, one of them has a recipe for a casserole in it I (made one for myself and found it to be delicious, but not exactly South Beach Diet-Friendly). Also they weren't shoved obnoxiously "In your face" as they are now. If you had children watching the TV you didn't have to cringe when the show went to a commercial break, as you didn't need to fear they'd see something you didn't want them to see. Not to mention a commercial break lasted two minutes at the most. If a show had a sponsor (For example the show mentioned above) That sponsor got the lion's share of the commercials. I timed the commercials and the show and they came in at 51 minutes for the show and one minute for a promo of next week's show The Kraft Commercials totaled 6 1/2 minutes. The remaining 90 seconds were probably for Station Identification and local commercials.

PS If you want the recipe PM me and I'll set you up.

As a single dad I'm constantly battling to find something 3 hungry teens haven't tried yet! I'll PM ya right away for the recipe.

Ya know, I realize men have medical "problems" as they get older. I'm not such a prude as to think it isn't beneficial for a man to get that "particular" pill. It's still rather hard to explain to a teenage kid what "ED" is. It's constantly thrown at you.

The Chevy commercials are so over the top they're not funny. To be honest IF I were in the market for a new Chevy, the commercials do more to discourage me. All I can see are the same bad actors over-zealously trumpeting Chevy to all too agreeable "customers."

 

[derosa]

While I have been disappointed by watching some shows from my youth as an adult,
most have been a delight to revisit. Although we obviously would only intentionally purchase
a dvd set we wanted to watch again, so the it's not exactly bias-free, but I've immensely
enjoyed the Six Million Dollar Man, Bionic Woman, Rockford Files, The Love Boat, Three's Company,
Charlie's Angels, Alice, Qunicy, WKRP, Magnum PI, and numerous Saturday morning cartoons like
SuperFriends, Scooby Doo, Laff-a-Lympics, Spiderman & His Amazing Friends, and Plasticman.

Revisiting them, what struck me the most was how uneven the quality could be. Some episodes
were just huge clunkers, like what were they thinking?

But all my favorite shows had classic moments, great episodes, and many memorable characters,
classic lines and and some huge laughs. Watching them today - whenever I want, without
commercials, in great quality, complete as originally aired - it's a fun diversion.

Last night I watched the premiere of the new series Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D at 8:00pm, and realized
that it's the first new show i've watched in years. I basically only watch cable TV for news and
sports, and the occasional movie, usually something i've seen a million times.

I was thinking SHEILD was a pretty good show, and I might just skip it, and wait for the DVD !

After a few years of watching many of these dvd sets of old 1970's and 1980's tv shows, I've gradually come to the realization that overall it has been a huge disappointment. Watching many of these old tv shows through the eyes of a middle aged adult is quite different than watching the same shows through the eyes of a kid or teenager. I was frequently wondering how I was ever interested in such tv shows in the first place.

 

[Ejanss]

Even commercials seem "alike" anymore. I find myself eye-rolling at the stupidity of some of today's commercials. Back in "the day" even the commercials were interesting.

Back in the day, shows were MADE by sponsors. LITERALLY.
Advertising agents were hired to provide synopses and lineups for who would headline the Kraft Variety Hour.

So, in those days, commercials....sold products. And who knows, maybe all that macaroni and cheese actually looked tasty enough for me to go out and want to buy a box.
We didn't have nasty hip/antisocial former Gen-Y advertising agents fresh out of college trying to audition themselves as Internet-comedy filmmakers, try to backhandedly overcompensate for their "square" corporate advertising jobs by being Hip and Random, and showing us two guys with guitars saying:
"Hey, Joe, ever thought about saving money on insurance?"
"No, but I've thought about Abraham Lincoln in a bikini!"


(Geico and CapitalOne already seem to be the worst offenders--Geico's already tasted blood with that Cavemen sitcom, and now they're hungry for more off-topic ancillary corporate-icon franchise marketing in lieu of actually selling their product.)

Last night I watched the premiere of the new series Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D at 8:00pm, and realized
that it's the first new show i've watched in years. I basically only watch cable TV for news and
sports, and the occasional movie, usually something i've seen a million times.

I was thinking SHEILD was a pretty good show, and I might just skip it, and wait for the DVD !

I remember when I got my first "real" HDTV a few years ago, I first thought "Finally, 1080p, and nothing on... " Fortunately, though, it was the same month that PBS was showing one of their incredibly good big-budget Dickens adaptations, and I found myself actually hooked on saving my Sunday nights--Not so much because Dickens was the first soap-opera writer, but more for digging out the microwave popcorn and saying, "Wow, it's...it's just like the old days! I'm watching TV as it's being broadcast, only better! I'll have to pay attention, because I can't rewind it!"

SHIELD was one of the few shows where I knew the concept and relative quality early on, could actually watch the pilot, and didn't have to catch up with the show a year later on Netflix because it'd taken that long for cult fandom/word-of-mouth to spread after the fact.
May just watch for the novelty of having to save Tuesday nights again, but they better stay off the X-Files "season arc" crap and just cut to the chase of introducing new hero cameos.
The fact where it's second nature to wait for boxset/Netflix now, though, speaks volumes.

 

[derosa]

Back in the day, shows were MADE by sponsors. LITERALLY.

Literally means actually, you mean figuratively.

 

[Bryan^H]

While I have been disappointed by watching some shows from my youth as an adult,
most have been a delight to revisit. Although we obviously would only intentionally purchase
a dvd set we wanted to watch again, so the it's not exactly bias-free, but I've immensely
enjoyed the Six Million Dollar Man, Bionic Woman, Rockford Files, The Love Boat, Three's Company,
Charlie's Angels, Alice, Qunicy, WKRP, Magnum PI, and numerous Saturday morning cartoons like
SuperFriends, Scooby Doo, Laff-a-Lympics, Spiderman & His Amazing Friends, and Plasticman.

Revisiting them, what struck me the most was how uneven the quality could be. Some episodes
were just huge clunkers, like what were they thinking?

I love The Six Million Dollar man, but some of the episodes are just awful. The Bionic Woman is a much, much better show in my opinion.

 

[Rob_Ray]

Literally means actually, you mean figuratively.

He means that originally the sponsor OWNED the show, they didn't merely buy advertising time.