tv falling to crap

I don't know, back in the 80s I could count on networks providing at least one night of decent broadcasting. Now I have to pick and choose my shit ON THE WEB (NOT ON BROADCAST TV GOD FORBID) like a goddam minesweeper to sort the dreck of crap from anything resembling quality. Did tv writing quality just take a total nosedive in the late 80s, or I have just become way more jaded in my expectations of quality? What triggered this staggering avalanche of low quality background white noise quality writing?

The Real World comes immediately to mind.

i guess the term voyeur tv became 'quality' at some point Mo, tho I have no idea why. i could give a shit over these people's lives, so what are people getting out of it? is it a drama less life??

I came on here to say "have you lost your fucking mind, there's more good TV now than there ever has been" but then saw that you still watch network TV.

Bahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha Sorry, sorry, I didn't mean to laugh.


BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

vonnegut wrote:

I came on here to say "have you lost your fucking mind, there's more good TV now than there ever has been" but then saw that you still watch network TV.

Bahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha Sorry, sorry, I didn't mean to laugh.


BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

is this another version of the kelly???      

Here's the thing, I think--

Broadcast TV is the past. Flat out. They suck and are stupid and they are obsolete and dying.

Their audience is 60 year olds who aren't cool. The cool 60 year olds have Netflix, naturally.

Cable is also ridiculous. The aforementioned reality TV. Last time I sat down (at my sister's house) and looked at actual "TV," it was literally all Pawn Stars and some shit about like Alaskan fishermen and teen moms. (not all together in one show, although maybe that would be more interesting)

The people making awesome innovative shit? HBO. Netflix. Amazon. Hulu.

The value of these services (esp since HBO started offering a streaming-only service, so that people like me actually now pay them money every month instead of pirating) is only growing and growing, so they have the budget and the opportunity to go all out. And they know who their target audience is-- those damn millennials, who have tasted amazing TV on streaming services and now demand that to stay satisfied. And we're generally the "cut the cable" group who are saving money on a monthly expense by ditching the standard TV and just paying for a few streaming services. We'll happily do, monthly, 30 bucks in subscriptions instead of 100 bucks or more for network and cable.

That's why you have to go on the internet to find good shit. The internet people are the ones making good shit. They can afford it, they have the motivation to keep pushing the creative envelope, they aren't afraid of taking risks, and it's paying off for them.
Network TV is dying. Be the rat deserting that sinking ship.
And if you like a show that is on Network, don't worry. When Network dies, if the show is good enough, Netflix or Amazon will pick it up and keep making it.

davidalan wrote:

vonnegut wrote:

I came on here to say "have you lost your fucking mind, there's more good TV now than there ever has been" but then saw that you still watch network TV.

Bahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha Sorry, sorry, I didn't mean to laugh.


BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

is this another version of the kelly???      

+++++++++

Vonne is correct. Regular television is by the brain dead for the brain dead. Always has been. Writing hasn't gotten worse. It's merely still awful. What has changed is our increasing collective expectation brought on by the age of information. In a sense we the people are a more sophisticated audience due to our exposure to each other, and particularly to vonne.

I don't think that's totally fair, BJ. There was a time when good writers wrote for broadcast television. Before that, there was a time that good writers wrote for broadcast radio.

Which doesn't contradict your point but rather refines its truth.

Life's not fair Mo.

Makes me wonder if there are masochists out there who watch network TV in real time, ads and all.

all are making my point. 80s had FREE tv, you goons willingly decided ok I'm cool forking out x amount a month now for 'quality content'...cable/satellite slipped in and easily fucked you over making you HAVE to have their service (lump Netlfix and Hulu in there too.) AND they tossed in commercials on you, so NOW you pay AND have commercials. Point being, we went from free as normal to pay as normal, and yet Vonne laughs. Your gen are the dimwits here.

and those fuckers raise rates yearly which you intelligent ones willingly give in to and pay. yep progress.

Unless you're still watching 4 channels with static filled, snowy pictures with rabbit ears, it's never been free.

Yeah, but the "free TV" always had shitty shows.

TV now is higher quality. Because of streaming services.

I don't know what this "free TV" is, but back in the day they had some great shows which are classics now.

youngsters. and youngsters with bad taste !

Yes there was a time that network broadcast television had some quality programming. I don't think of myself as young, but i agree with the majority that there is better quality programming available now than there was then. Of course, there's a ton more absolute dreck than there was in the olden times, but there was a lot of dreck in olden times too. I'm not sure whether the percentage of television programming that's worthwhile is better or worse than it was in olden times - there's certainly a lot more programming out there in both camps.

I can understand your frustration, Zaph, that we have to pay to have anything worth watching, and that these platforms now get to profit both directly from consumers AND from advertisers, but i also have to admit that there's some merit to the argument that that arrangement has led to a far greater amount of actual quality entertainment.

Oh, right. Network used to have "Cheers."

Cheers... or Game of Thrones.... Cheers.... or Game of Thrones.... hmmm....

Cheers...All in the Family...Hill Street Blues...Magnum PI (hi Gertie...and who can forget classic Square Pegs? Mary Tyler Moore, Maude, Lou Grant - you appreciate the writing on these shows when you see the non-writing on these reality competition shows.

sorry I'm just venting. some youngster tried to kill me on the way home from work just because I had to get over and they were none too appreciative.

next you'll be telling me you all use remotes, lazy asses....

I agree with all of you. Simultaneously.

Zaphod, you're correct. It has gotten worse.

But let's be real. Back in the days of four networks (including PBS), it was not that good. Fantasy Island? Love Boat? There were some good shows, and some mediocre shows that had good moments. And some bad shows that came oh so close to being mediocre.

What really has changed is that the audience/advertising pool got diluted and so the money tanked. Blame cable, more networks, video games, the internet, whatever. It used to be that 25-35% of the country was watching a popular show. Nowadays, you have a hit if you get 5%. That means a lot less money to spend on production. A LOT less. So, yeah, they mostly make crap nowadays.

And, vonne, while I agree, keep in mind that those streaming services are only making a few productions at a time. If they had to fill up 7 days x 4 hours of primetime, their quality would tank as well.

That all said, yeah, Game of Thrones over another reality show or cable reality show or network cop show with guns and a serial killer.

One last point: you guys are approaching this from a US perspective. Which is better- US broadcast networks or US cable? Those are no longer the only options. The TV industries that are REALLY kicking our asses are other country's TV (and film) industries. Japan, Korea, China, India (Bollywood), UK, etc. All you have to do is look at the anime forum here, and hey, anyone ever seen Dr Who or Sherlock? Media is changing all over due to the internet, but many other countries are doing a lot better at creating original and engaging stories than we are.

Mrs Frogge says:
"Yes, there is a timeline. The writer's strike of 2007 really killed scripted television. A lot of good writers left or got fired, and producers quickly filled the gap with cheap-to-produce reality shows that got almost as many viewers. Television writing has never recovered. When Aaron Sorkin needs to go to cable to get produced, scripted television is dead."

well said Frogge, thank you. and love Dr Who - prefer the classic a LITTLE bit more than the new, but that's just because I love the older tv with bad or non special effects. Smith is a great Who, as is Tennant.
Capaldi - meh for me.

maybe just me - the humor writing no longer makes me laugh. it could be my age - i just find it really thin or it doesn't make me laugh. there are still good dramas being put out (what's his face Kelley puts out good stuff, and whoever did House). I rewatched recently Count Arthur Strong and Thin Blue Line for laughs, if that gives you my recent mindset.

do I need to toss down the MASH royal flush - totally free. great writing, both comedically and yanking out tears. cherished still to this day, after what 30 years at least in reruns. yeah, writing NOW compares with then. get raised on crap, you get used to crap. i can't imagine how STUPID tv will be 20 years from now.

For me, Breaking Bad, Better Call Saul, The Expanse, BSG, to name a few, are up there in writing quality with GOT. Never really got into TWD after the first couple of seasons, but the seasons I saw were pretty good as well. I do enjoy these shows a lot more unedited, commercial free, and the ability to binge watch them on the streamers.

ROFL that is totally me

get outta my yard ya dam kids

;)

and i get progress yada yada yada. it's simply one takes for granted 'free' at one point, and now that option is taken away because for profit shitheads are savvy enough to paint away that option thru content and thru market manipulation. it becomes a 'water is free scenario' to 'here's our bottled water - it is 100x better, and you can still get free water, but 1 - you are less a person for taking it, and 2 - you need to jump thru some hoops to still obtain it." tv is skinning bucks off my paycheck, in the 70s-80s they only did that thru the commercials. now it's blatantly taking away $$ and everyone is just coooooooooooooooool with that.

Zaphod wrote:

I don't know, back in the 80s I could count on networks providing at least one night of decent broadcasting. Now I have to pick and choose my shit ON THE WEB (NOT ON BROADCAST TV GOD FORBID) like a goddam minesweeper to sort the dreck of crap from anything resembling quality. Did tv writing quality just take a total nosedive in the late 80s, or I have just become way more jaded in my expectations of quality? What triggered this staggering avalanche of low quality background white noise quality writing?

vonnegut wrote:

I came on here to say "have you lost your fucking mind, there's more good TV now than there ever has been" but then saw that you still watch network TV.

Bahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha Sorry, sorry, I didn't mean to laugh.


BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Gotta (mostly) agree with Vonne here. TV in the last 15-20 years is vastly superior to TV before late 90s. I think it's mostly due to the lack of competition. Back in those days, most TV stars wanted to be movie stars (for a reason). Nowadays, there are are bona fide movie stars doing TV series. The writing/acting/production values are why. Frankly with the current state of Hollywood/movies, TV's better overall. Now there's lotsa of reasons why/how and it didn't happen overnite. I think it started in the early/mid 90s with some new/upcoming writer/creators like Kelly, Carter, Whedon, Sorkin, Zwick & Herskovitz. Then later with HBO and other cable companies upping their game. TV became a the place to be for quality. Don't get me wrong there's still plenty of garbage to be found, but it's still light years better overall than it once was. Now there are some good things on network and not everything on cable/other is great, either.

MASH isn't funny. If it was funny at one time, that's really sad. Sitting through an episode today is painful.

Gilligan's Island was also funny at the time.

Big John wrote:

MASH isn't funny. If it was funny at one time, that's really sad. Sitting through an episode today is painful.

What's not hilarious about the Korean War? Jeez, i bet you think Hogan's Heroes is tough to watch now too! [/s

stuntdog wrote:

Gotta (mostly) agree with Vonne here. TV in the last 15-20 years is vastly superior to TV before late 90s. I think it's mostly due to the lack of competition. Back in those days, most TV stars wanted to be movie stars (for a reason). Nowadays, there are are bona fide movie stars doing TV series. The writing/acting/production values are why. Frankly with the current state of Hollywood/movies, TV's better overall. Now there's lotsa of reasons why/how and it didn't happen overnite. I think it started in the early/mid 90s with some new/upcoming writer/creators like Kelly, Carter, Whedon, Sorkin, Zwick & Herskovitz. Then later with HBO and other cable companies upping their game. TV became a the place to be for quality. Don't get me wrong there's still plenty of garbage to be found, but it's still light years better overall than it once was. Now there are some good things on network and not everything on cable/other is great, either.

I will only concede there is a LOT more content now, not that the writing is better. I see 1000% more retreads of plots I've seen on 60s-80s tv. They did it first - it gets "tuned" up to modern audiences with smaller attention spans. The original show content is better, I think the budgets now allow that (ie GoT.)

Huh. Which classic shows did GoT and Breaking Bad plots first?

see last sentence - original show content is better. GoT and BB are originals (Mad Men, Better call Saul, Lost, Handmaid's Tale, Chance, all great shows). i give them total credit and a few others, the rant is more over 'free' tv. The retreads are mostly in the "comedies".

And now I concede the soapbox to anyone else who wants to discuss show opinions, as I'm fighting an untenable argument. BUT - I feel better for venting some. Thank you comrades.

Oh. I don't watch comedies. No time or interest.

understandable in the current realm, i can't find anything to grab me. SO relying on older stuff.

TV shows, programs etc etc by their nature are subjective one mans trash is anothers treasure
I don't stream TV so I don't have no opinion on Netflix etc programing and the idea of sitting down and binge watching an entire series does not appeal to me. As far as NETWORK programming they have been regurgitating ideas for years, and outright copying stuff as well ie. Till Death Us Do Part / All In The Family. Man About The House/Threes Company etc etc etc
no point in arguing about whats better or worse
I mostly watch reruns at my age its like the first time every time besides i fall asleep half way thru anyway

Hehe, I was browsing Netflix and noticed the categories ... TV Dramas and Witty TV Dramas. I think today I'm going to look for something under the Mediocre TV Dramas category, because Normal or Witty just isn't my thing.

Netflix is always like "TV Sci Fi" "Sci Fi Drama" "TV Sci Fi and Fantasy" "Suspenseful Drama."

They got my algorithm.

The only thing that has happened to TV is that there has been an explosion in the number of
outlets to broadcast a product. The best and most creative writers and producers have migrated
to the outlets that offer the most freedom.

That has actually resulted in more fantastic product available than ever.

I've been musing this subject a bit more, and where i earlier mentioned The Real World, i realize now that there was a considerably earlier show, running on broadcast not cable, that really set the bar pretty low, and it was a big hit and is in fact still in production even though it has now moved to cable: Cops. No writers to pay, no actors, no sets, no hair & makeup people, and you don't even need a full studio to produce it. Pay for the rights to a catchy theme song, work out deals with a few precincts, and send producers into the field with cameras. Then stitch segments together, a process that in the early days of the show's production required a minimal studio and now could be done in your mom's basement w/ a $100 laptop. Other than the theme song, there is no music; there's no scripted dialogue, and no narration.

Cops first aired March 11th, 1989. It's in its 30th season and has aired well over a thousand episodes. It's still a highly popular show, with 88% of Google users liking the show, it also garners an 8.2/10 rating from tv.com and a 7.1/10 rating on IMDB. I believe it may be the longest-running show still in production today.

____

I also think Mrs. Frogge has a solid point about the 2007 writers' strike, which also aborted LOST's 4th season and forced the show into a considerably different structure than what had been originally planned. I think we all know how the majority of us feel about the direction of the show after the strike.

I don't mind Cops, as I find the job interesting but yeah writing non existent, good point Mo. I love seeing the stories people make up to try to talk their way outta situations.

The writers strike did NOT help things at all.

Long before Cops there was Candid Camera, perhaps one of the first reality TV shows.

Candid Camera is classified as reality programming, and may well be the very first TV show in that category. Interestingly, it was actually originally conceived as The Candid Microphone, a radio program.

But it had a host, often narrated sequences, and sometimes used music as well. Its production values far outstripped Cops. On the other hand, also unlike Cops, it's spawned countless imitators. There have been at least a couple shows that have somewhat modeled themselves on Cops, but Candid Camera has become a template and i could argue that Punked, Jackass, Ridiculousness, Tosh.0, Impractical Jokers, more than half of the shows on TruTV, and so so many others have all been based on the concept of Candid Camera.

Impractical Jokers used to absolutely slay me. It's old now and not quite as funny but that may be the effect of  predictability due to familiarity. If you have never watched it, start from the beginning. Chances are high that you will laugh more times during an episode than any other regular show you've ever seen.

I thought the first ever reality show was about a family and it had aired long before reality tv became mainstream. So I looked it up.

From Wikipedia wrote:

An American Family is an American television documentary filmed from May 30 through December 31, 1971,[2] and first aired in the United States on the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) from January 11, 1973,[3] to March 29, 1973.[4] After being edited down from about 300 hours of raw footage, the series ran one season of 12 episodes on Thursday nights at 9:00 p.m.

The groundbreaking documentary is considered the first "reality" series on American television. It was originally intended as a chronicle of the daily life of the Louds, an upper middle class family in Santa Barbara, California but ended up documenting the break-up of the family via the separation and subsequent divorce of parents Bill and Pat Loud.[5]

Candid Camera hit the small screen in the '40s. So i guess it comes down to how we want to define "reality tv."

Right. For me, just as I wouldn't call Impractical Jokers a reality series, I wouldn't call candid camera a reality reality series either. Even though one of the parties in each scene is unaware that they're being filmed, the regular players are actors who are improvising through planned scenes which are the basis of the show.

But that's merely how I define it.

I also define shows like The Amazing Race, Survivor, Big Brother, etc... as game shows. Any show that offers a prize for winning should not be considered a reality tv show.

It's been all downhill ever since they took Ernie Kovacs off the air....

Survivor - not reality TV.. it's a competition

The real houswives of whatever - reality TV

Reality TV has become such a misused categorization.