Would you rather see new shows or older ones released on DVD? (2 Viewers)

[Gary OS]

I'm sorry, but I have to say it: What the ...?!!!! I'm guessing you didn't bother to read my last couple of posts. We do NOT need another "newer sells better" lecture in this thread, IMHO. We all get that, and don't need it shoved down our throats at every turn. I guess we can't ever vent here without someone feeling the need to correct our misguided frustration - even though we've already admitted to understanding the "economics of things."

Gary "this is exactly the kind of attitude I had in mind when I wrote the last couple of sentences in my previous post - better to be gracious about getting the newer shows on dvd, not condescending and arrogant to those of us that aren't getting many of our favorites" O.

 

[Jay_B!]

and you didn't at all respond to my other point about how fans of older TV shows who look down on anything post-All In The Family are no different than teenyboppers who think that anything that aired before Friends is too old and irrelevant to watch. Unlike you, I enjoy tv, movies and music from the 60's AND today.

A few weeks ago, I was almost Elvis'd out watching my Elvis DVD's during the anniversary, and in two weeks I'm going to see The Killers in concert, a band whose lead singer was born in 1981. I also have a ticket to see The Four Seasons in November, whose last hit was before 1981. I am able to enjoy both eras of music, plus tv and movies. So why do you limit what you like because you don't have childhood memories of something? A lot of the shows I loved as a child are downright awful when trying to watch as an adult.

 

[Gary OS]

I'm glad you have eclectic tastes in music, film and television, but it's irrelevant to our discussion here. The point we've been discussing is WHY some of us would prefer to see older shows released onto dvd. Accessibility/Availability is a huge and valid issue that you've not even broached. Can't you see the point we are making? You can watch and archive any of the "modern" shows you like without the studios even getting involved by releasing dvds. Sure, it's not exactly the same (you may have annoyances like bugs & commercials) but at least you have the chance to archive it if you really want to. With the older shows, we literally have no chance to revisit them unless they are released onto dvd. That's a big deal when one is answering the question posed at the outset of this thread.

Gary "and for the record, I do enjoy some music, movies and television produced today - just not a whole lot of it" O.

 

[mannix]

i'm in favor for shows from the past to come out on dvd

 

[MatthewA]

What is the REAL Golden Age of Television? Five.

I'm only 24 and I detest post-1990 American culture with a passion. But this is not a uniform hatred. I like some shows and movies that have come out since then, but very little music. I love the 20th century-era Simpsons, but the new stuff, except for the movie, leaves me cold as ice. My generation is deprived not only of anything of any true greatness, but has very little to choose from of the present that is even good. Thus, people like me have to turn to the past to keep from totally losing it.

Furthermore, the 1990s and 2000s have no individual identity. You can look at fashions from every decade up until the 1980s, going back to the Renaissance and perhaps further, and instantly tell what era they represent. There's no mistaking a Gibson Girl or a Flapper for a Flower Child or a Valley Girl. Not so today. Every fashion today seems to be a rehash of some past trend, often, tragically, ones of the 1970s, a decade in which the by-products of the do-your-own-thing mentality of the 1960s resulted in the legitimization, celebration, and institutionalization of bad taste. But it was distinctive to its era the first time around. There is a distinct lack of tradition in art or craftsmanship today, and this has adversely affected all areas of culture.

But back on topic...

If a show was worth watching then it is worth watching now. Period. The shows don't change; people do. They become jaded and cynical and too "cool" for simple pleasures. And I feel sorry for these people. Keep in mind that we only remember the jokes that hit the mark, and forget the jokes that miss it. Those that miss it do not make those that hit it less funny. If you are mature enough to accept a show's shortcomings you should also be able to appreciate its virtues. Even classic-era Simpsons has some flaws in it. Love equals acceptance, and that means the whole package.

Production value cannot cover up a multitude of sins in other categories. HDTV may reveal a multitude of technical sins but it will not negate what is good about an older show. And all these supposedly good shows of today people talk about are the exception, not the rule. Frankly there was garbage in every era, but that seems to have vanished. This was stuff nobody wanted then and nobody remembers or wants now. Literally. No one is asking for those on DVD, and they are irrelevant to this conversation.

But back then, a bad show could simply be turned off and forgotten. The bar is set so low today that we have shows that make us wonder how long until we're back to what the Romans were watching when their empire fell. Even then, there weren't 500 coliseums.

Popularity is no excuse to justify things that are just plain VILE. And since censorship has never worked, we can try increasing our expectations of the content providers. If they don't listen, they will wither and die from terminal awfulness within the next 20 years. That will include some TV stations setting aside time to go back into TV's past and show older stuff.

If getting so much as the crumbs off the Classic TV table requires changing the whole business model of the DVD industry, so be it.

 

[Kevin L McCorry]

I agree with everything you said here, Matthew, except for two things.


Unfortunately, there are a few things that I want on DVD that tend to get painted with this kind of brush.

Other than these, I agree with you. Post-1990 culture, with its preoccupation with smut, colorless, dreary post-modernism, cynical satire, banal relationships, and bland "reality" entertainment with no "cheesy" flourishes that tie something to an era, and its avoidance of larger-than-life character or upward (i.e. into space) thinking, turns me off utterly. And I hate the music, too.

 

[MatthewA]

Don't get me wrong, some of the 1970s fashions and styles are enjoyable as kitsch, just like some of the hilarious excesses of the 1960s and the 1980s. But look at almost everything from the era and it's all yellow, brown, orange and lime green. It can be a little much at times.

 

[Kevin L McCorry]

Oranges, browns, yellows/beiges, and lime-greens are colors that appeal to my eyes esp. when in combination. Greys, blacks, dull reds, dull blues, the colors of post-modernism, do not. As for kitsch, it's defined as having no artistic value or appeal, and I can't agree with that.

I can't for the life of me remember any TV series from the '70s that didn't have visual appeal. Even the darker ones. And I can't think of any series made post-1990 that does. Same goes for aural appeal.

 

[Steve...O]

The '70s are overrated. I remember that decade. Don't need to go back and relive it.

 

[Jay_B!]

in all honesty, you sound like you yearn for this utopian landscape that doesn't exist and than 90% of the people out there feel unrealistic. I am glad we've got away from the stereotypical "wife stays at home and does her job and never has an opinion because she's a woman, husband rules the roost, kids are flawless, mom and dad sleep in seperate beds, there are no black people in the neighborhood, nobody even knows what homosexuality is, lo and behold somebody is divorced or pregnant before marriage" type of utopian dream that some people have. I, for one, am happy that idea of television is dead. In 2007, everyone can find a show on television that they can identify with, and that's how it should be.

 

[Kevin L McCorry]

Everyone? Really?

 

[Gary OS]

I was just about to pose the exact same question, Kevin.

Gary "all I can say is that Jay and I are polar opposites on this issue" O.

 

[Corey3rd]

"nobody even knows what homosexuality is"

How did Paul Lynde find out about it?

 

[Jay_B!]

yes, you have shows like 7th Heaven for that family type show that you may be mourning. Plus, there's Disney Channel

 

[Gary OS]

I hope you are kidding.

Gary "boy, do I hope you are kidding" O.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Or the exact reverse today, where that's ALL mom and dad are doing - screwing around, and perhaps mom and/or dad has a little "extra" fling going on the side.

I don't see why it's wrong to have an "upbeat values" approach but it's perfectly fine to have a dysfunctional "everything sucks and is ugly" routine. Maybe more of a "happy medium" is required. Whether the earlier shows were 100% true or not, we should be striving for things to be nicer, not in utter and complete disarray like with today's television. I hear this argument quite often, where people think "negative = reality; positive = fantasy". Is EVERYTHING so damned awful today that this is the only thing that ever strikes viewers as "authentic"? I grew up with values, and those old TV shows that everyone calls "fake" seemed pretty close to my own life, or at least for the most part. I'm perfectly happy to live in the past when this ugliness of today is the case everywhere you turn your head or the TV channels.

 

[Kevin L McCorry]

I'm not mourning family-type shows. I was never much of a follower of The Waltons, Little House On the Prairie, or Eight is Enough- though a bit of them was nice from time to time.

Nor am I into Disney stuff.

 

[Gary OS]

Bravo to your entire post, Joe. That was well said! I'm with you 100% on the "negative = reality; positive = fantasy" thing too. That's how I feel. TV is not about reality anyhow. It's entertainment and I for one don't need to be reminded of humanity's downfalls and the lowest common denominators in order to be entertained. I'd much rather my entertainment portray an ideal to strive for, not a worldview to be shunned.

Gary "again, excellent post, Joe - thanks!" O.

 

[MatthewA]

I will thank you not to misrepresent my intentions. If you will check some of my last posts, I said I didn't think we should go back to the 1950s. Some good things have happened since then, like the repeal of Jim Crow laws in the South. Those things I do not advocate reversing.

For the record, I hate Full House more than any show except Friends. It was an unfunny, poorly written and acted show; I never liked it as a child and I do not like it now. I wouldn't have liked it if it had been as downbeat as Dostoyevsky. And I don't watch 7th Heaven or any of the remnants of the late, unlamented UPN and the WB.

I do own all of the available DVDs of The Facts of Life and The Golden Girls. But those shows had some sentimental moments just like Full House. So does The Simpsons, for that matter. Some of the greatest shows of all time were not above doing sappy moments any more than inferior ones; from Ricky learning that Lucy is "expecting" at the Tropicana, (which broke a taboo just by showing a pregnant woman), to Archie Bunker comforting his daughter Gloria after her miscarriage, to Bart and Lisa reuniting Krusty the Clown with his estranged father, and so many great and near-great TV shows inbetween.

We live in an age where cynicism is the default attitude. Let me let you in on a little secret: the great thing about cynicism is that it comes with built-in credibility; people automatically assume a cynical argument is a well-reasoned one.

Seinfeld's "cynical observationism" is only funny to people with a negative view of humanity, which is why it left me cold. Roseanne was a good show but it is not the way every family is any more than Ozzie and Harriet was. There are all sorts of families, but on TV we only seem to see one kind these days are the "dysfunctional" ones. And it's TV dysfunction, not real dysfunction. I read Paul Mavis's review of the Ozzie and Harriet DVD collection on DVDTalk.com and it really made me think about the venom that people seem to have for TV families which represent any kind of ideal. No one ever acted as though this is how everyone truly lived. They just wanted to watch a TV show they thought was entertaining. And since when did TV get the authority to speak for all families? As Howard Beale put it in the movie Network, "Television is not the truth, television is a goddamned amusement park."

Additionally, Richard Rodgers once opined that "...it's my conviction that anyone who can't, on occasion, be sentimental about children, home or nature is sadly maladjusted."

I am not attempting to justify a bad show, but acknowledging that part of being human is having, and expressing, emotions. In art and in life.

Dorothy Parker may have had the Algonquin Round Table crowd in stitches, but Dorothy Gale spoke far more truthfully and earnestly when she told her Auntie Em "there's no place like home." What you describe as "sappiness" others describe as "universal."

Oh, and don't assume that I want to live in a world where all gays are closeted, because that would mean I would be back in there with them. I'm sure many gays (and blacks and other minorities) are concerned about the creeping negativity, nihilism and hopelessness in our culture.

I cannot identify with a single solitary program on TV. I don't watch TV to find my identity or role models. I watch it for entertainment.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Cheers, Gary.

Just look around the TV channels --- on one channel (or two or three) we've got what passes for "music" today with cRap -- then bounce to another channel and you're watching the latest court reports on who's on trial for killing who -- then you can watch COPS trying to arrest all sorts of trash -- turn the dial and you wind up with TO CATCH A PREDATOR, where entertainment may be found in seeing potential child molesters getting caught on camera. Watch the (now deceased) untalented Anna Nicole Smith strut her stuff on her reality show; watch the dysfunctional OSBOURNES....Search further and there are all sorts of "WILDEST CAR CRASHES!" and "WHEN ANIMALS GO WILD!" ["amazingly, no one was injured!"] And it just goes on.... and on..... and on.... and on.... during the commercials you can catch Snoop Dog promoting the "Girls Gone Wild" videos.

Now, I'm not saying I am completely immune to all these programs; on the contrary, I am a human being somehow naturally drawn to look at a car accident while passing on the road, for example. And so, I have watched COPS.... and sometimes I find myself drawn to watch PREDATOR in spite of myself... but all the same, it does create a very ugly aura and a vibe of complete and utter degradation -- and all right there in your face. The fact that I am sometimes "hooked" myself is not a contradiction; I watch very little "modern TV'... but I'm saying that I still think this stuff would be better off not on TV, and it just warps your view and mood of the world.

When I was 10 years old I would watch a sample TV lineup as follows:

8:00 - The Brady Bunch
8:30 - The Partridge Family
9:00 - Room 222
9:30 - The Odd Couple
10 pm - Love, American Style (usually never watched too much before bedtime)

Now, what are kids today watching on TV? I can't even begin to imagine it.