Is TV better than it used to be?
 

I think it's definitely much, much better in terms of quantity of quality. There used to be one show at any one time that really rocked. At one time it was Twin Pkeas, then it was Star Trek NextGen, then it was X-Files.... but now there seems to be a good solid dozen or so in the public consciousness right now that are good solid entertainment.

And that's just drama.

For example, I just completed Firefly a little while ago and I'm DVDing right now Alias Season 4 ()okay not the graetest, but still pretty good), Battlestar Galactica S2, South Park and Murder One Season One (okay that's from the 90s), but I still haven't got around to watching these, and I have them queued on a shelf waiting:

Lost; Carnivake; Rome; 24; Sopranos; Deadwood; Band of Brothers; American Gothic; Angels in America.


And that doesn't include shows I haven't got yet, but want to see, such as: Oz, The Wire, and a few others.


I'd argue TV is way better these days, compared to say, pre 2000.

what people think?

Re: Is TV better than it used to be?
 

I think there is just more of it, frankly. I think you can find a handful of quality shows for every year going back, at least, to the early 1970s. My guess is that the percentage of quality shows per overall available programming may not be significantly different.

Re: Is TV better than it used to be?
 

TV is way better now. The production values are way higher than they used to be. Competition demands it. There is a lot of competition for leisure time entertainment now both from all the additional channels available now as well as DVDs, the internet, video games etc.

I have a pretty nice home theater setup (60" high def dlp w/surround) and the for new shows, almost all are spectacular on it. As hi def becomes more prevalent the production qualities will have to keep pace or be buried by the competition.

Then again the networks do less quality for sake of trying to save money with a bunch of crappy reality shows and game shows which I wouldn't watch if paid. But the decent weekly dramas and comedies all look great. If the writing can stay fresh it's better than ever.

A couple of shows that got the axe early this season (Smith, Kidnapped, The Nine etc.) where specatular looking shows with a lot of star power that never grabbed that early audience. I'm sure they cost much more than the networks were willing to gamble when they could be replaced by some crappy Wife Swap, Nanny show or Deal or No Deal at a fraction of the cost. I just hope the networks (and HBOs and Showtimes) continue to try and produce high quality drama.

Re: Is TV better than it used to be?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Smith, Kidnapped, The Nine

[/ QUOTE ]

fwiw, I enjoyed watching all 3 of those...

Re: Is TV better than it used to be?
 

If you get the chance to see an old show from the '70s or even '80s that you thought was really good, do so. They were generally pretty horrid. There are classics from that era as well, but there's some really, really bad shows out there, especially dramas. I doubt there's one hospital show pre-St. Elsewhere that stands up anymore. Most of the police or law shows are pretty bad as well.

Re: Is TV better than it used to be?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I doubt there's one hospital show pre-St. Elsewhere that stands up anymore.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about General Hospital... soaps still going strong...

Re: Is TV better than it used to be?
 

General Hospital has about as much to do with medicine as early Dom films have to do with gynecology. The only thing they have in common is location.

Re: Is TV better than it used to be?
 

[ QUOTE ]
General Hospital has about as much to do with medicine as early Dom films have to do with gynecology. The only thing they have in common is location.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did make one titled, ""Dr. Cooze." Does that count?

Re: Is TV better than it used to be?
 

I think so even though I don't have cable and hardly have time for TV (but I'm starting to catch up with the recent great TV series via Netflix so keep the recommendations coming).

Anyway, I wrote more or less the following in the nearby "The Wire" thread:

"A lot of things in culture and lifestyle are very good these days but many people around my age (I'm 52) often don't think so. IMO it's the nostalgia trap; that is comparing the average of today with the best of something from years ago. It's simply not a fair comparison.

For something not too old and available on Netflix I'd recommend "Homicide: Life on the Street". Like "The Wire" it's also based in Baltimore. You should also be able to find at least one old thread discussing this show on TLDR or even OOT.

~ Rick

Re: Is TV better than it used to be?
 

better....200 channels competing for my viewership
dvr to skip commercials

I dig education, sports, and reality shows---all are in full bloom these days.

Re: Is TV better than it used to be?
 

well, the big thing to consider was that for the longest time TV was considered the clear second class citizen compared to movies. if a movie star did a TV series, it was a sign their star was fading. but, over the last couple years TV has finally figured out that there are things they can do better than film. they can have bigger, more complicated storylines and casts and do them justice, simply because they have more time to work with. Just think how a show like LOST or Deadwood would be as a film. they'd be 2 hours long and missing a lot of the character development and whatnot that really makes them so great.

In order to compete, the standard style shows have had to up the ante quality-wise, so that overall we have TV that's better across the board ([censored], cheap reality TV aside).

it also doesn't hurt that there's a lot more channels

Re: Is TV better than it used to be?
 

William Goldman made great comments on how movies have become star-centric, and supporting characters have dwindled down to nothing, making films flatter and less believable. He said that back in the 80's. That has just gotten worse since then. People don't do a lot of shooting in wide angle anymore because everything is centered around a star, and woe to the costar whose role is too strong -- his best lines and aspects will simply be transferred over to the star, while the costar becomes a shell.

Good, well-developed supporting characters who do more than just set up a spike for the star are not as common anymore, and that's a shame.

But I agree that long plotlines are more common these days, and sometimes well thought out ones. There seems to be more willingness to experiment with narrative and produce a long, somewhat cohesive story out of connected episodes. Old t.v. often began anew with each episode yet ended up, no matter how well done, in the same place. As much as I love Colombo and Spock, there was little danger that either would change much or discover much once a series found its rhythm. They basically punched the clock. Now you're at least a little more likely to be surprised.

Just like you're more likely to not be surprised that shows may seem to have only one character, the superstar, surrounded more or less by shadows.

Re: Is TV better than it used to be?
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you get the chance to see an old show from the '70s or even '80s that you thought was really good, do so. They were generally pretty horrid. There are classics from that era as well, but there's some really, really bad shows out there, especially dramas.

[/ QUOTE ]

Somebody around here once posted, "I saw an episode of Bonanza for the first time. It sucked! How could that show have been #1 for 20 years in a row?"

People old enough to fondly recall Bonanza thought he was crazy.

Then those same people came back and said, "You know what? I just caught a Bonanza re-run, and you're right, it DID suck."

Re: Is TV better than it used to be?
 

Eh, I think all of you lack a real historical perspective, or memories have just faded. As far as I'm concerned, since the beginning of time, 95% of what has been broadcast has been pretty junky, including what is on now. And every year, there is a handful of quality shows.

It is true that tv has matured, shows have become grittier and more realistic. But many of us don't consider the overabundance of reality shows to be a positive development.

And I don't think that it is fair to view a show a few decades old and apply it to today's sensibilities. Just because a show is dated does not mean it was not well executed. Consider "The Twilight Zone" for a second. That show is dated in countless ways and probably looks silly to a lot of people. But it still had some excellent writing and acting.

Re: Is TV better than it used to be?
 

With some of the cool reality shows, yes. I don't watch/follow sitcoms or any of the other weekly primetime shows.

Re: Is TV better than it used to be?
 

[ QUOTE ]

For something not too old and available on Netflix I'd recommend "Homicide: Life on the Street". Like "The Wire" it's also based in Baltimore. You should also be able to find at least one old thread discussing this show on TLDR or even OOT.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great show. Probably one of the best shows ever made. It wasn't as much as a procedural as some of the cop shows but dealt more with the emotional states of officers and how they handled the job while trying to maintain family lifes. They also showed how the stress of the job wore them down over time and changed them- absolutely fascinating character study. And Andre Braugher is probably the most underated actor of our lifetime.

Re: Is TV better than it used to be?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I doubt there's one hospital show pre-St. Elsewhere that stands up anymore.

[/ QUOTE ]

MASH is pre-St. Elsewhere, no? Stands up.

Re: Is TV better than it used to be?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Just because a show is dated does not mean it was not well executed. Consider "The Twilight Zone" for a second. That show is dated in countless ways and probably looks silly to a lot of people. But it still had some excellent writing and acting.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is a very good point. I was trying to think of some old shows and a lot of them do seem a little lame to me. I guess it's like you say...maybe they don't apply to our sensibilities?

For instance, Stjohnychan mentioned MASH. This was one of my dad's favorite shows. I've seen it before but not for a few years. I caught a couple episodes of it last year and was surprised. I thought it was forced and kind of sappy.

On the other hand, some of the old comedies stand up really well. Frasier makes me laugh my head off. So does Family Ties. Also, last year I started watching All in the Family. That show was kind of funny!


As far as hospital shows go, I don't think Grey's Anatomy is any better then any old hospital show. It is really stupid. However, I do think House and Scrubs are far better than the oldies. Basically, I think TV is all over the place right now.

I'm with the guy above who said the reality shows can be cool. I love watching The Amazing Race and So You Think You Can Dance. Now that's good TV right there.

Re: Is TV better than it used to be?
 

[ QUOTE ]
As far as I'm concerned, since the beginning of time, 95% of what has been broadcast has been pretty junky, including what is on now. And every year, there is a handful of quality shows.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is right. There are tons of great old shows over the years. Granted some of the older shows that were popular for a little while aren't as good in hindsight, but that doesn't mean there weren't some good ones. I'm sure in a few years we'll be looking back at today's shows and thinking the same thing. A lot of them we liked were really awful, but a few were really good. FWIW I watch Andy Griffith a couple of times a week.

Re: Is TV better than it used to be?
 

Andy Griffith is an excellent show.

Re: Is TV better than it used to be?
 

Of course there are plenty of old shows that are good or great, as good as many of the shows on now. However, there are more than a handful of phenomenal recent shows that blow everything else out of the water.

The second season of Buffy had to be by far the best season of a dramatic television series up to that point (1998). The first two seasons of Sopranos are among the top 5-10 television/movie productions in the last 30 years.

Then you have a bunch of second-tier shows that are still better than nearly any past dramas - mostly stuff on HBO.

Comedy is another story. I don't watch any current ones, and I'm sure the sitcom situation was better in the past. Is there a single good sitcom on the air?

Re: Is TV better than it used to be?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's definitely much, much better in terms of quantity of quality. There used to be one show at any one time that really rocked. At one time it was Twin Pkeas, then it was Star Trek NextGen, then it was X-Files.... but now there seems to be a good solid dozen or so in the public consciousness right now that are good solid entertainment.

And that's just drama.

For example, I just completed Firefly a little while ago and I'm DVDing right now Alias Season 4 ()okay not the graetest, but still pretty good), Battlestar Galactica S2, South Park and Murder One Season One (okay that's from the 90s), but I still haven't got around to watching these, and I have them queued on a shelf waiting:

Lost; Carnivake; Rome; 24; Sopranos; Deadwood; Band of Brothers; American Gothic; Angels in America.


And that doesn't include shows I haven't got yet, but want to see, such as: Oz, The Wire, and a few others.


I'd argue TV is way better these days, compared to say, pre 2000.

what people think?

[/ QUOTE ]

db,

a few points i thought i'd make:

1) the expansion in to cable hsa allowed for adult format programming, and some stations have done it excellently (hbo in particular).

2) alias is not on tv, band of brothers, angels in america are not really "tv."

3) obviously the massive explosion in the amount of tv has a lot to do with this. networks roll out massive piles of shows, then cancel them instantly if they think they stink and replace them. more networks + more variety + more money + same % likelihood of making a good show = more good shows.

c

Re: Is TV better than it used to be?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I doubt there's one hospital show pre-St. Elsewhere that stands up anymore.

[/ QUOTE ]

MASH is pre-St. Elsewhere, no? Stands up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not as well as you think. For one thing, it's not really a medical show, and two, the canned laughtrack is really, really, really annoying. If I were reissuing the show on DVD, I'd redo the soundtrack without the canned laughter, it'd be SOOOO much better. The other problem is the last few years of the show are virtually unwatchable. It's starts of really great, continues on at a decent mix of good and bad, and then becomes retitled "The World According to Alan Alda Starring Alan Alda, Written by Alan Alda, Directed by Alan Alda, and Conceived By Alan Alda. Did I Mention Alan Alda Is On This Show?".

No show can survive being hijacked by its star like that, no matter how good it started.

Re: Is TV better than it used to be?
 

Saturday night in the early to mid 70's on CBS deserves a mention

- All in the Family
- Mash
- Mary Tyler Moore
- Bob Newhart

Re: Is TV better than it used to be?
 

This is one area that has gone way downhill. Saturday night programming is now virtually gone. Even SNL sucks, but no one cares.

Re: Is TV better than it used to be?
 

DVR fills all voids

I don't even know the regular air time for many shows anymore

Re: Is TV better than it used to be?
 

[ QUOTE ]
DVR fills all voids

I don't even know the regular air time for many shows anymore


[/ QUOTE ]

Same here. Except for sports events I never see a commercial anymore.

Re: Is TV better than it used to be?
 

Don't I know it. I've had a DVR of some sort since 2000. Couldn't live without one. DirecTV is adding a ton of HD programming this year, but I so don't want to give up my TiVos for Brand X. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

Re: Is TV better than it used to be?
 

idk what to think, but all i do know is that the Morse repeats at 4pm on ITV really stuff up my poker schedule...... it's all I watch on TV at the moment.

Re: Is TV better than it used to be?
 

[ QUOTE ]
If I were reissuing the show (M*A*S*H) on DVD, I'd redo the soundtrack without the canned laughter, it'd be SOOOO much better.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, all the M*A*S*H DVDs that I own (up through Season Five) come with an option to turn off the laugh track, an option I usually take advantage of. Agree with your general point about Alda's hijacking of the show, although it was still a pretty good show even after that. Just not what it had been.

--Scott

Re: Is TV better than it used to be?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I doubt there's one hospital show pre-St. Elsewhere that stands up anymore.

[/ QUOTE ]

MASH is pre-St. Elsewhere, no? Stands up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not as well as you think. For one thing, it's not really a medical show, and two, the canned laughtrack is really, really, really annoying. If I were reissuing the show on DVD, I'd redo the soundtrack without the canned laughter, it'd be SOOOO much better. The other problem is the last few years of the show are virtually unwatchable. It's starts of really great, continues on at a decent mix of good and bad, and then becomes retitled "The World According to Alan Alda Starring Alan Alda, Written by Alan Alda, Directed by Alan Alda, and Conceived By Alan Alda. Did I Mention Alan Alda Is On This Show?".

No show can survive being hijacked by its star like that, no matter how good it started.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree that that show became extremely awful some years before its end. It made the show more about Alan Alda than about anything else -- and he is one smarmy, mealy-mouthed guy.

Re: Is TV better than it used to be?
 

I've posted this before, but it's relevant here too. Years ago I read an Economist article that posited (not surprisingly, given the source) a market-driven theory. This theory was that the different business models of advertising-driven versus subscriber-driven TV have a lot to do with the increase in 'quality'.

Broadcast TV was in business to deliver audiences to advertisers. The bigger the better. So anything edgy or quirky or potentially polarising is a bad idea. Middle of the road light entertainment is optimal.

Cable stations, on the other hand, need to persuade subscribers to sign up and re-up. So they try to produce shows that have 'hooks', and create buzz about them - people will stay with you if there is one show they really love.

These are generalizations, of course. It doesn't mean broadcast TV never produced anything quirky, or that all original cable series are high-end. Just that those were the inevitable tendencies of each business model.

Re: Is TV better than it used to be?
 

I suppose it depends on what exactly you mean by quality. The major change that has taken place recently is a shift in the preferred genre. In the 80s and 90s, most of the wildly successful television shows were sitcoms. You had Frasier, Friends, NewsRadio, Married with Children, Dharma and Greg, Mad About You, Family Ties, Ally McBeal, 3rd Rock from the Sun, Home Improvement, Fresh Prince of Bel Air, Blossom, Roseanne, Drew Carey, Seinfeld, Wings, Full House, Alf, etc. Those were the types of shows that dominated primetime.

Then came along The Sopranos. The success of The Sopranos was widely due to the fact that it was one of the only good dramas on television at the time. That is not to say that The Sopranos was not a very good show by itself. But its popularity was significantly due to its uniqueness. With the success of The Sopranos, television stations looked to capture similar success by making similar shows, and new dramas began to rise. The genre of interest had begun to shift from sitcom to drama.

Now television is dominated by great dramas. The Sopranos has taken a lot of heat lately for not being as good as it used to be. While the quality of the show has certainly declined somewhat, one cannot deny that much of the criticism is born not from the decline in quality of the show, but by its being shadowed by all of the other great dramas on television today. There were few other decent dramas during The Sopranos' early seasons (X-Files and later ER come to mind). But now we have shows such as Law and Order, House, Grey's Anatomy, Lost, 24, Heroes, Smallville, The OC, Alias, Nip/Tuck, etc. These dramas now dominate primetime and the sitcoms have more or less bowed out.

So has the overall quality of the shows changed? Again, that depends on what you mean by quality. Has the value of production and writing increased? Maybe, I do not know. It is hard to tell because the goals of the two genres are different. The sitcom is concerned with making the characters likeable to the audience and putting them in difficult situations in which everything they do seems to be wrong. It is designed to allow the viewers to sit back and laugh at the situations in which the characters are placed and how they try to get out of them. "Tune in next week to Saved by the Bell to see what crazy situation Zack gets himself into this time!" Dramas still focus a lot on the characters, but are more concerned with a good, continuous storyline than sitcoms are. The viewer becomes engrossed in the story and that is what keeps them watching. I think this is the major difference you see.

Re: Is TV better than it used to be?
 

[ QUOTE ]

Then came along The Sopranos. The success of The Sopranos was widely due to the fact that it was one of the only good dramas on television at the time. That is not to say that The Sopranos was not a very good show by itself. But its popularity was significantly due to its uniqueness. With the success of The Sopranos, television stations looked to capture similar success by making similar shows, and new dramas began to rise. The genre of interest had begun to shift from sitcom to drama.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with what your saying about saying about the shift from sitcoms to dramas, although I don't really think you can give Soprano's the credit. The change was already under way when the Soprano's started. It's a great show don't get me wrong but I think it was really shows like ER and NYPD Blue in mid 90's that got the ball rolling and started the shift long before the Sopranos came around. Soprano's wasn't even the first good HBO show. Oz was.

Re: Is TV better than it used to be?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Then came along The Sopranos. The success of The Sopranos was widely due to the fact that it was one of the only good dramas on television at the time. That is not to say that The Sopranos was not a very good show by itself. But its popularity was significantly due to its uniqueness. With the success of The Sopranos, television stations looked to capture similar success by making similar shows, and new dramas began to rise. The genre of interest had begun to shift from sitcom to drama.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with what your saying about saying about the shift from sitcoms to dramas, although I don't really think you can give Soprano's the credit. The change was already under way when the Soprano's started. It's a great show don't get me wrong but I think it was really shows like ER and NYPD Blue in mid 90's that got the ball rolling and started the shift long before the Sopranos came around. Soprano's wasn't even the first good HBO show. Oz was.

[/ QUOTE ]

Point taken. I had forgotten about NYPD Blue and Oz was a very good drama too.

Re: Is TV better than it used to be?
 

Hill Street Blues was also a highly respected one that had the characters evolve.