Your Favorite Decade for TV on DVD (1 Viewer)

the 1960's and the 1970's

 

[DaveHof]

Betty Anderson or Mary Stone wouldn't have gotten drunk and pregnant. People had better morals then and poor behavior wasn't accepted then as it is now. When was the last time you heard the term, "unwed mother"? Every type of behavior now is de-stigmatized which leads to lower morals. So, instead of TV depicting better behavior for people to aspire to, it now copies real life and shows the same bad behavior that exists. Not sure how that's considered a step up. I don't necessarily want to see real life to that degree on my TV shows. If I cared that much about real life then I would be outside having one instead of watching TV.

I agree as well, Neil - excellent post. These shows did provide a positive example of so many virtues associated with family and values, even in their own era. I would guess most people of high school age now would look at these characters like they're from another planet - just seeing teenage girls wearing dresses to school, and guys in jackets and ties. But every so often I'll be looking at clips on YouTube from these shows, and I'll see a comment from someone who writes, "I'm 15 and I love these shows - I guess I was born in the wrong era." It is reassuring to me that there are at least some younger people who see the same qualities in these shows that we do. I just wish there were more of them.

 

[Professor Echo]

I love the idea for this thread and all the contributions so far; well done Gary and everyone else who has shared their perspectives. This is forum expression at its best, literate, informative and respectful points-of-view about a subject which yields all kind of historical, critical and theoretical musings.


I was all set to add my usual didactic and pedantic pontificating, lol, but found that others had already pretty much done it for me. I have virtually nothing to add to what Gary and Neil and others have already said in harmony with my own views. But I will quote TravisR below since he more than anyone summed up my thoughts on the subject. So thank you Travis, your words bear repeating:

Originally Posted by TravisR

As for the shows of the 1950's and 1960's being bad because they nearly excluded all minorities or because they didn't typically address problems in society, I don't agree with that. A good show is a good show. I have watched shows with predominantly black casts that are good because of the writing, acting, directing, etc. but I've never seen a show where I thought it was good because the cast had minorities in it. And I like to see shows that try to address society's problems (getting people talk about problems is the first step to fixing them) but there's nothing wrong with a show that just wants to be entertaining and tries to be a pleasant show with pleasant people.

 

[ChrisALM]

[FONT= 'Arial']I grew up watching television in the 60's, along with the reruns of 50's shows during that time. Revisiting that era of television shows today is at least as enjoyable as it was originally to me watching them back then. So, there is definitely a nostalgia factor for me.[/FONT]

[FONT= 'Arial'][/FONT]

[FONT= 'Arial']I have always enjoyed westerns, and you have to go back to the 50's and 60's era to watch most of them. There is a lot of what I would term "Americanism" used in their themes and imho that was a good thing.[/FONT]

[FONT= 'Arial'][/FONT]

[FONT= 'Arial']The great comedies like I Love Lucy, Dick Van Dyke or Andy Griffith still make for great viewing today as do many other comedies from the 50’s and 60’s. I believe the introduction of coarse language or blatant sexual themes to these shows would have detracted from them, rather than enhanced them.[/FONT]

[FONT= 'Arial'][/FONT]

[FONT= 'Arial']In the early years of my television viewing, everything was seen in black and white in our home. To me, shows like Twilight Zone and The Untouchables are enhanced by their having been filmed in black and white. There are a number of shows from the 50’s and 60’s that I would place in that category.[/FONT]

[FONT= 'Arial'][/FONT]

[FONT= 'Arial']The Paul Mavis quote is excellent. Ozzie and Harriet a problem!? [/FONT]

[FONT= 'Arial'][/FONT]

 

[BobO'Link]

Great thread Gary! I was born in '55 and watched *many* of the 50s & 60s classics in first run. I'm not going to get philosophical at this point as there've been so many good posts that I'd feel somewhat redundant. So on to my collection evaluation. Before I put everything in a spreadsheet and sorted by start year I'd have said I have more titles from the 60s in my collection than *any* other decade. Imagine my surprise when I tallied it all up: 1940s - 1 1950s - 27 1960s - 51 1970s - 27 1980s - 27 1990s - 54 2000s - 32 2010s - 1 I'd have *never* thought I'd own more series from the 90s than the 60s. Of course when you add together those series from the 50s & 60s it's a landslide. Considering those were my "formative" years it's really no surprise. By going up to 1973 you'll find a full third of the titles in my collection. I'm somewhat surprised by the numbers in the 2000s as I generally consider the years since ~1999 to be the worst ever for TV! However, a third of the titles in that decade were blind-buys, a couple I absolutely do *not* like, and several other blind buys I've not yet watched. All purchased based on price/reviews. Strip out those and the 2000s drop to ~20 of which the majority are series that only got a single season (Firefly, Birds of Prey, and others). It's also obvious that my favorite TV genres are comedy and Sci-Fi which is *no* surprise. Those 2 genres make up 80% of my collection. The 90s & 00s are the best decades for sci-fi in my collection as those two have more of that genre than all the others combined, although my absolute favorites are from the 60s. I've a greater variety of programs from the 50s - early 70s. The mid 70s - 80s consists almost entirely of comedy with only a smattering of sci-fi and other genres. I was also surprised to find that a bit over 20% of my collection is British TV. I knew I had quite a few British series, but the number surprised me a bit. Like the rest, it's mostly comedy with sci-fi and mystery comprising the remainder. It's those British titles that helped put larger numbers in the 90s as 12 are from that decade, 15 from the 70s, 10 from the 80s, 6 from the 50s, and 6 from the 60s. I should probably put most of them in the 90s & 00s as that's when I discovered the majority of them. Prior to the 90s the main British titles I'd watched were The Avengers, Danger Man, The Prisoner, Monty Python's Flying Circus, and the Poirot/Marple series. You can thank the local PBS affiliate for getting me addicted to British comedy and DVDs for allowing me to feed that addiction! I mentioned blind-buys of shows from the 00s and finding some real stinkers. I have several blind-buys from the 60s and *all* have been fun programs. I feel this due to the spirit of the shows. Shows like The Mothers in Law and Good Morning World. Nothing truly "special", but they are good, clean fun. Shows I can watch with my grand kids and not feel like they'll see anything inappropriate. It seems that many of those from the 00s have very, low morals, are crass, with characters who show little to no respect for anyone else, and are just plain ugly. I'm far from being a "prude" (I *love* Deadwood and like Rome - both blind buys) but I'm generally offended by many series from this decade. I guess that's why I'm a bit surprised by my numbers here. I didn't particularly care for Footballers Wives, but went into that one with low expectations as it's not truly a type show I go for. One especially bad one is Lucky Louie. Bad language, low morals, and with a small child on the set! Even though it only cost $3 I feel ripped off! I also did a blind buy on Weeds as the premise sounded fun and reviews are good. After watching the first season I don't understand how it's stayed on TV. It's *not* fun nor funny, and is totally lacking in morals (sad comment from me as I'm *very* tolerant in that respect). By the end of the season I was fully disgusted with the show, especially the descent of the main character into the drug underworld. I knew too many people who made that unfortunate journey to be able to laugh at any of it. All three of these are in my "get rid of" pile. OK... so I did a bit of philosophizing there... I'll give some thought to the 50s & 60s idea of being too "clean" and maybe do some more later...

 

[Gary OS]

Thanks to Tim, David, Glen, Chris and Howie for contributing to the thread. There are some great, great posts here that I'll comment on later. For now my time is short but I wanted to let all of you know how appreciative I am that you've added to the discussion. Keep up the great work!



Gary "looks like most of you view the difference in decades the same way I do - I'm pleasantly surprised" O.

 

[TravisR]

I also did a blind buy on Weeds as the premise sounded fun and reviews are good. After watching the first season I don't understand how it's stayed on TV. It's *not* fun nor funny, and is totally lacking in morals (sad comment from me as I'm *very* tolerant in that respect). By the end of the season I was fully disgusted with the show, especially the descent of the main character into the drug underworld.

Even allowing that comedy is very subjective and Mary Louise Parker is really hot, I don't get its popularity either. I don't mind seeing a good person do bad things but they never gave her a plight (Breaking Bad has a similar premise to Weeds and it's brilliant). Apparently she started selling drugs because it was easier than getting a legitimate job and as the seasons go on, she's involved with some really evil people rather than just the funny pot wholesalers.

 

[derosa]

Betty Anderson or Mary Stone wouldn't have gotten drunk and pregnant. People had better morals then and poor behavior wasn't accepted then as it is now.

Times change. Yesterday's "morals" are now called drinking on the job, then driving home after having a few, and showing the wife who's boss with the back of your hand, or smacking the kids for making a racquet. It depends on where you are in the food chain to say what's acceptable then or now.

 

[Mark Collins]

I shall add my voice with the rest a very nice thread. I of course because of Dark Shadows Peyton Place Voyage to the bottom of the Sea Time Tunnel and moe go with the mid 60s.

 

[Neil Brock]

Times change. Yesterday's "morals" are now called drinking on the job, then driving home after having a few, and showing the wife who's boss with the back of your hand, or smacking the kids for making a racquet. It depends on where you are in the food chain to say what's acceptable then or now.

Do you really think that doesn't happen today as well?

 

[smithb]

Great thread Gary. It's been interesting reading the various replies. I'll add my take based on what I haven't seen written as of yet. BTW, I was born in 1961. Following Howie's lead: 1950's and 1960's - 60% of my collection 1970's and 1980's - 25% 1990's to present - 15% From a TV watching perspective I'd say: - Watched more TV pre 1980's then in the 1990's. - My TV watching has only picked back up in the last 3 to 4 years with TV on DVD availability. I haven't watched any standard broadcast TV in the last 6 or 7 years, except for sports. Now taking another look based on what I own and what I had seen before buying on DVD: 1940's - 0% seen previously 1950's - 17% 1960's - 33% 1970's - 80% 1980's - 70% 1990's - 30% 2000's - 0% I think looking at it from this perspective can help in understanding one's purchasing trends. In my case, I was born early enough to enjoy older b/w shows in syndication when young but only a few standard classic's were generally available to me (e.g., I Love Lucy, Dick Van Dyke, FKB, LITB). So it is not surprising my collection is high in pre-1970's since many of these are first time viewing for me now. The 1970's through 1990's were the majority of what I watched growing up in prime time, as well as syndication. The 1970's and 1980's are probably higher due to the fact it has been longer and I purchased them for nostalgic value to watch again some day. Also, I believe many of these were picked up at highly reduced prices. The 1990's consists of more highly rated shows I missed that I decided to take a chance on. In the past decade I haven't watched that much network broadcast TV so again these were previoulsy unseen prior and based on reviews and recommendations. Then there is also you're current mood and what you are looking for with respect to escapism. Finally, the type of collector one is. Some are more hardcore and want to experience everything available for the experience itself and historical significance, while some are just casually collecting. So I think many factors can come into play: - When born - Previous seen vs. never seen - If seen before, how long ago - Amount of time allotted for TV viewing across decades - Pricing, seems like 70's through 80's have been the most reduced - Current mood - Type of collector

 

[Mark Collins]

Gary nice thread as i said before. Here is what i own 50's I LOVE LUCY/LUCY DESI COMEDY HOUR 60'S DARK SHADOWS PEYTON PLACE VOYAGE TO THE BOTTOM OF THE SEA THE TIME TUNNEL THE WILD WILD WEST THE LUCY SHOW SEASON 1-4 MANNIX MISSON IMPOSSIBLE THE FLINTSTONES THE INVADERS BATMAN IF RELEASED 70'S FAMILY BATTLESTAR GALACTICA HERE'S LUCY SEASON 1-3 BEST OF HERE'S LUCY FROM ALL SEASONS (PUT OUT BY SHOUT! FACTORY) 80'S DALLAS YOUNG INDIANA JONES GALACTICA 1980 TALES OF THE GOLD MONKEY PBS DOROTHY SAYERS MYSTERY'S 90'S STAR TREK DEEP SPACE 9 STAR TREK VOYAGER LAST SEASON TWO THOUSAND TO PRESENT BATTLESTAR GALACTIC ROME FUTURE PURCHASE'S I MAY OR MY NOT BUY STAR TREK TNG WILL BUY IN HD THE DONNA REED SHOW WAGON TRAIN LIFE WITH LUCY IF RELEASED

 

[Ethan Riley]

[SIZE= 12px]Why do I love the TV shows from the 50's and early to mid 60's more than those from the 70's and beyond?  It's not because I'm an old codger.  I was born in the mid 60's and would have been exposed mainly to 70's TV and beyond were it not for reruns in the afternoons and on weekends.  The reason I enjoy the older material comes back to the quoted section from above.  I completely disagree with the thought that TV in the 50's "sucked" for two reasons. [/SIZE]

 

[SIZE= 12px]Firstly, I don't agree that TV in the 50's was unreal or too idealistic.  For every individual that raises this objection to 50's TV, another who lived during that time will chime in and say that there really were some families that lived by the ideals of the Cleavers and Andersons (to name two well known TV families from that era).  So I disagree with the contention that 50's TV was entirely unrealistic in that sense.  :[/SIZE]

I never said that tv in the 50s sucked. I said the 50s sucked. It was a time of fear and ignorance. That's what sucked about it. I assert that television was forced to play it safe due to the fear of McCarthyism, and even Lucy was brought up on charges of Communism. The things you saw on television were designed to avoid controversy. I don't hate Ozzie and Harriet; I watched it every day after school, and it was fitting entertainment for children and I laughed at every episode. But as an adult I realize the reason these types of shows were as "safe" as they were was because the writers and producers probably lived under fear of facing the House Un-American Activities Committee. I believe this led to a kind of censorship in tackling social issues of the day on television, the end result being ignorance to the American viewing public. I believe this kind of censorship set back social progress by a good twenty years. None of this suggests that shows from the 1950s are unenjoyable for what they are. They do not represent a real-world view of their era, but they are fun to watch. "Lucy" remains at the top of my viewing list and is probably the dvd set that I re-watch most often. A good "Ozzie and Harriet" set--should it ever be produced--would join it. But I was not condemning the shows of that era--I was condemning the politics, fear and ignorance from the era itself.

 

[Gary OS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ethan Riley

I never said that tv in the 50s sucked. I said the 50s sucked. It was a time of fear and ignorance. That's what sucked about it. I assert that television was forced to play it safe due to the fear of McCarthyism, and even Lucy was brought up on charges of Communism. The things you saw on television were designed to avoid controversy. I don't hate Ozzie and Harriet; I watched it every day after school, and it was fitting entertainment for children and I laughed at every episode. But as an adult I realize the reason these types of shows were as "safe" as they were was because the writers and producers probably lived under fear of facing the House Un-American Activities Committee. I believe this led to a kind of censorship in tackling social issues of the day on television, the end result being ignorance to the American viewing public. I believe this kind of censorship set back social progress by a good twenty years.

None of this suggests that shows from the 1950s are unenjoyable for what they are. They do not represent a real-world view of their era, but they are fun to watch. "Lucy" remains at the top of my viewing list and is probably the dvd set that I re-watch most often. A good "Ozzie and Harriet" set--should it ever be produced--would join it. But I was not condemning the shows of that era--I was condemning the politics, fear and ignorance from the era itself.

Ethan, I appreciate the clarification even though I think the last sentence I quoted from you was the key. You said:

All the shows that aired prior to say, 1965 seem ignorant today simply because they had no choice but to play it safe.

It was that comment that led me to believe you thought all the TV shows from the 50's "sucked" in and of themselves. And while your greater detail helps me to better understand where you are coming from, I still think we view TV in a fundamentally different way. I still maintain that TV is purely entertainment and that there's no unwritten rule that says a show must accurately portray the issues of the day in order to be relevant or worthwhile. I also disagree with your contention that 50's TV doesn't "represent a real-world view of their era." Again, I'd refer you to Paul Mavis' comments on that very subject in his review of the Ozzie & Harriet set. He said:

[SIZE= 12px]It may come as a shock to some TV historians, but there were actual families like the Nelsons - and there still are. Of course, these families fight, and have crisis after crisis, and go broke, and have deaths in the family -- all the things you'll never see on The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet. But these real-life families also find true enjoyment in spending time with each other; they make efforts to be polite and considerate of each other, they have simple, lovely adventures of everyday life and living together, and they laugh with and at each other - just as the Nelsons do. And that's what audiences responded to in The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet for fourteen long years. Far from being science fiction, as most critics and historians would have you believe, the Nelson family embodied many of the traits and characteristics of social mores and practices that 1950s and early 1960s America actively strived for. They certainly didn't achieve the Nelson's results, but then again, the vast majority of the audience already knew they wouldn't. You see, they were just watching television, not real life.[/SIZE]

Neil hit on another point as well:

People who criticize the 50s sitcoms as being unrealistic miss the point. They weren't supposed to be depicting life as it was but rather how we wished it was. Loving, kind and attentive parents, a nice, clean house for a home, safe streets, neighborhoods and schools. I didn't have the good fortune to grow up with any of those things but it was still nice to see them on television. Just because my father was closer to Homer Simpson than he was to Ward Cleaver didn't mean that that was what I needed to see growing up. Just the opposite.

I guess at the end of the day we just disagree about what TV is really all about. Is it only a teaching tool used by the elite to try and mold America into what some think it already is and/or what those few elite think it should be? Or is it simply a form of entertainment that can offer either a real life, gritty portrayal of some unpleasant aspect of human life (ala The Naked City) - OR - an idealized portrayal of a more pleasant aspect of human life (ala Leave it to Beaver)? I say it can do either and that the 50's shouldn't be thrown out in the garbage simply because the majority of shows during that decade emphasized the better aspects of human life rather than the more seedy and depressing aspects of human life.



Gary "that's the way I see it" O.

 

[Professor Echo]

I think the contention that TV in the 50's somehow impacted people's lives and their culture to the degree where progress was retarded is overestimating the influence of the medium during that time. It also underestimates the intelligence and sophistication of adults who lived during that era and could clearly differentiate between the real world and what they saw in the censorship laden theatrical films and relatively idealized, innocuous fare that was offered via television. People were not as dumb, naive nor impressionable during the pre-60's eras as we sometimes believe them to be. The revolutions of the 60's-early 70's had a tremendous impact upon how we view and accept popular culture, but it wasn't as if someone just happened to stumble upon an episode of ALL IN THE FAMILY and said,"Oh so that's what life is all about! How ignorant we have been all these years! Thank the gods for TV to show us the way!"

 

[TravisR]

I guess at the end of the day we just disagree about what TV is really all about.  Is it only a teaching tool used by the elite to try and mold America into what some think it already is and/or what those few elite think it should be?  Or is it simply a form of entertainment that can offer either a real life, gritty portrayal of some unpleasant aspect of human life (ala The Naked City) - OR - an idealized portrayal of a more pleasant aspect of human life (ala Leave it to Beaver)? 

Why is it mutually exclusive? It's great when a show is just entertaining but I don't understand why you seem so bothered by a show that has higher ambitions than just entertaining people.

 

[Gary OS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TravisR

Why is it mutually exclusive? It's great when a show is just entertaining but I don't understand why you seem so bothered by a show that has higher ambitions than just entertaining people.

You're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying it has to mutually exclusive. Not at all. I'm arguing against the concept in reverse. Does a show have to deal with "real life" issues (whether they be moral, ethical, social, etc) in order for it to be relevant or good? If a show doesn't address those type of topics does that make it, or the audience which enjoys it, ignorant? That's the question on the table and the one I'm counter-arguing.



Gary "hope that clears up my position" O.

 

[TravisR]

     Quote:


You're misunderstanding me.  I'm not saying it has to mutually exclusive.  Not at all.  I'm arguing against the concept in reverse.  Does a show have to deal with "real life" issues (whether they be moral, ethical, social, etc) in order for it to be relevant or good?  If a show doesn't address those type of topics does that make it, or the audience which enjoys it, ignorant?  That's the question on the table and the one I'm counter-arguing.

 

 

Gary "hope that clears up my position" O.

Sounds good.

 

[BobO'Link]

...Does a show have to deal with "real life" issues (whether they be moral, ethical, social, etc) in order for it to be relevant or good?

IMHO, No. I'd rather watch a show that *doesn't* deal with "real life" issues. I get enough "real life" in, well... "real life". I don't need, nor want it in my TV. That's why I stopped watching many mid 70s-90s shows as they aged. The Bill Cosby Show and Home Improvement were favorites of mine in their early years but they got "preachy" as they went on. When a show becomes "preachy" or "topical" I stop watching. That's why I was surprised by the number of mid 70s and onward non sci-fi/fantasy shows in my collection as I've always felt many tended to become too preachy or topical after about 5 years. I do not own a single episode or season of most of those shows. Frankly, if they start off being preachy/topical I just do not watch.

 

[Gary OS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobO'Link

IMHO, No.

I'd rather watch a show that *doesn't* deal with "real life" issues. I get enough "real life" in, well... "real life". I don't need, nor want it in my TV. That's why I stopped watching many mid 70s-90s shows as they aged. The Bill Cosby Show and Home Improvement were favorites of mine in their early years but they got "preachy" as they went on. When a show becomes "preachy" or "topical" I stop watching. That's why I was surprised by the number of mid 70s and onward non sci-fi/fantasy shows in my collection as I've always felt many tended to become too preachy or topical after about 5 years. I do not own a single episode or season of most of those shows. Frankly, if they start off being preachy/topical I just do not watch.

I feel pretty much the same way you do, Howie. Especially the part about getting enough "real life" issues in real life! I generally prefer my TV viewing to be a playground at recess rather than a classroom at school. I'm probably a little more forgiving of some shows when it comes to them getting too preachy than you are. For instance I do like Quincy and there's no doubt it was a very preachy/topical show much of the time. But in general, I do agree with you.


Gary "not to be redundant - but I am enjoying reading these comments from everyone" O.