tested said:
Fox has revolutionized network and sports television in many ways. Here's a little list just off the top of my head:
We can look at network TV as "before Fox" and "after Fox" and depending upon which timeline you use you can come up with very different analysis:
tested said:
- broke the big 3 prime time monopoly.
landtuna said:
Debatable. Fox officially began in October 1986 when there were already many cable channels competing for prime time viewing with the three major networks. It would be many years before Fox was able to turn network-type numbers competing in prime time OTA.
No, it's not. When Fox came along the broadcast networks still commanded a large majority of the prime time viewing audience. It took Fox just a few months to have a show beat at least one of the networks in a time slot. ("Warewolf" debut) It was only a couple of years before "Married...with Children" was regularly winning its timeslot. Several others had tried to get enough stations together for a 4th network (long after DuMont disappeared) but were not able to be competitive with the big 3 networks.
tested said:
- The "edgy" programming they started ("Married with Children", "The Simpsons" etc) with is now fairly common fare on most broadcast networks.
This hits square on my main complaint on Fox programming. You can say "edgy". I say they "lowered the bar". Fox went after the teen and 20-something viewer who liked their humor written on restroom walls. They have become experts at presenting the same type of raunchy humor which has, because of competition, bled over into the more established network's programming. I equate Fox's programming to that of Playboy which established the market for soft porn in printed media. We no longer have significant drama which used to be a staple of network TV. Instead, we are served bottom-feeding pollution that represents the basest levels of intellectual development in the history of the medium.
landtuna said:
tested said:
- brought cartoons back to prime time
"Cartoons" never existed in prime time on network affiliates so there was nothing to "bring back". Cartoons have traditionally been created as youth-oriented comedy. What passes for "cartoons" in prime time these days is adult-oriented animation. To say it is intended as comedy depends upon your sense of humor but there is no way any thinking person would compare classic cartoons to the junk portrayed on "Family Man" for instance.
I'm not sure you know much about the history of prime time network television in this country. The Flintstones, The Jetsons and others were all on the major networks in prime time in the 1960s. They were designed to appeal to a broad audience, not just kids and not just adults. And by the way.. the show is "Family Guy" not "Family Man." If you're going to be critical of a show, at least get the name of it right.
landtuna said:
tested said:
- "The Simpsons" pushed "The Cosby Show" off the top of the ratings charts
Is this an accomplishment or an eventual reality? Never one of my personal favorites "Cosby" was nevertheless one of the most popular programs in TV history. But as all popular programs do it eventually changed in character and in writing and was ready for replacement when "The Simpsons" came along. This is much more natural evolution than anything Fox intended (other than their pursuit of a specific age demo which was covered before).
Let's put it this way, no one had been able to counter-program The Cosby Show successfully until Fox did it. That's an accomplishment, whether you agree or not.
And by the way, let me add that Fox is also the only network to successfully counter-program the Super Bowl. The "In Living Color" halftime show that was sponsored by Doritos got about 20 million viewers in 1992 and made Super Bowl XXVI one of the lowest rated in decades.
tested said:
- practically invented reality TV
You must be young if you don't remember early TV and the plethora of what we now call "reality" shows (although most are merely non-scripted and/or games and would not have been called "reality" in the old days). Fox did have at least one true reality offering - "COPS" but it did not create the genre.
tested said:
- "America's Most Wanted" helped capture hundreds of criminals
True but the show was patterned after a similar series both in Germany and in the U.K. and was not original with Fox. It's popularity grew after John Walsh was selected to host taking advantage of his experience as a parent of a murdered child in Florida several years earlier.
landtuna said:
tested said:
- "American Idol" has changed the music industry by finding several stars from total unknowns.
Again, your youth is showing. Since the very early days of TV there have been numerous talent shows showcasing performers of all genre's. "American Idol" was simply the most recent and flashiest (and slowest) and was made popular by allowing viewers to cast votes (instead of a studio audience as in older shows). Given the current very poor state of popular music it is difficult to imagine that Idol has made a major contribution to the music industry other than to save it from complete destruction. Singing is not a rare talent. Singing and having weird hair and tattoos seem to be the current menu for success in the younger demos.
My youth is showing? I'm 42 and it's apparent you don't know much about the history of U.S. prime time television.
There have been "talent" shows before like "The Gong Show" and "Star Search" but neither were on prime time network television in their original runs. (yes, CBS brought a version of Star Search back after Idol became a hit, but that is not really what we're talking about)
It's hard to compare those shows to Idol. Idol was on prime time network TV, those shows were not. Idol has been the most watched show in the country for years, those shows were not. Idol is a singing competition, those shows are not. Idol has had a huge impact on the music industry, creating a number of major recording artists. (11 of them have sold at least a million albums, 2 of those have sold more than 10 million albums)
And by the way.. you say singing is not a rare talent? Really. Have you ever seen the auditions on Idol? If you did, you would see that singing is a rare talent.. and a lot more people think they can do it than actually can.
landtuna said:
tested said:
- greatly expanded number of local stations doing news
I'm unsure what you are crediting Fox for doing here as 20-25 years ago most stations had news offerings of some sort. Fox does not have an OTA news show on the level of the three majors. In addition, judging from my local Phoenix Fox station, whatever airs during their morning show is essentially identical to that offered at noon, dinnertime and bedtime. I would not call that an expansion of news capability. Not that the three majors do it any better, mind you.
Let me make it clear to you then: when Fox came along most markets had 3 stations doing news. Now, most markets have at least 4 stations doing news. (and many markets have more than that)
Without Fox, that would not be the case.
tested said:
- invented the practice of local stations branding with the network name. (Fox 4, NBC 5, CBS 11.. etc)
While I cannot disagree with this point I also don't understand what it brings to the table. I'm not going out on a limb by suggesting that the vast majority of TV viewers know the network affiliations of their OTA stations without being reminded. After all, the majority of us select shows to watch by show name and channel and not by network.
landtuna said:
tested said:
- invented the full time score bug for NFL games that's now common on all sports broadcasts
I'm not positive but I am pretty sure the bug was first used by ESPN2. And here I am talking about the scrolling scores displayed at the bottom of the screen and not the "flashing" bug which was in use during MLB games going back to the 60's (and perhaps earlier).
I'm not talking about the scrolling score at the bottom of the screen. I'm talking about the fact you can turn on almost any game now and see the score of that game on the screen the whole time the game is on. The "flash" scores you mentioned were the old way of doing it. Fox changed that. It wasn't an ESPN creation.
tested said:
I'll just say: Happy Birthday Fox! Very glad they're here.
Not surprisingly we disagree here. I can truly say I would not miss Fox one iota should they go dark tomorrow. Some things you didn't cover but I have noticed is the decrease in quality of NASCAR races - the never-ending commercials (required by the extravagant broadcast rights), the endless pre-race babbling that adds nothing to the program and the "crank it up" nightclub-like antics during the broadcast. One reason I no longer watch the NFL are the Fox broadcasts and for many of the same reasons.
In summary, I see Fox leading the charge to mediocrity in TV broadcasting instead of the other way around. And that is probably related to my age as I can clearly remember the standards and programming of a more intelligent era before the bottom-feeding Fox came along programming to the lowest common denominator.