I wasn't even thinking about that other type of tube, but yeah, we used to call monitors "CRTs". All the libraries I go to have replaced those. The college library near my house was the last to do that with student computers in the library. Both my monitors at home have been flat-screen.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Happiness Is A Cut Cord
- Thread starter landtuna
- Start date
A
Avid Listener
Guest
I will never assume that shows like "Survivor", "Big Brother" or most of the dreck on network TV Primetime is "high-quality". At best, most of it is least-common denominator swill. There is a reason why most new shows fail and get cancelled in short order.
On the other hand, anyone whose taste is so jaded that they can automatically classify any of the crap aired on network TV as "high-quality" would probably watch a test pattern just because it was on TV.
I was under the impression that "Survivor" was considered high quality.
Network TV has plenty of quality shows. In a time when dramatic actors can't get nominated for Emmys without being on cable, Connie Britton of "Nashville", Kerry Washington of "Scandal" and several "Good Wife" cast members manage to do it. Kyle Chandler even won when "Firday Night Lights" was still on the air and Britton, as his TV wife, was nominated.
"Modern Family" continues to get plenty of recognition. I don't know that it's as good as some people say, but I can see that it's quality.
And let's not forget "Big Bang Theory".
I don't know why "Once Upon a Time" never gets nominated for anything. If you see Robert Carlyle act, you have to wonder why he can't even be mentioned along with all these people on cable.
We can debate "Two and a Half Men", of course. Jon Cryer got an Emmy, but then so did John Ritter for "Three's Company" years ago.
Network TV has plenty of quality shows. In a time when dramatic actors can't get nominated for Emmys without being on cable, Connie Britton of "Nashville", Kerry Washington of "Scandal" and several "Good Wife" cast members manage to do it. Kyle Chandler even won when "Firday Night Lights" was still on the air and Britton, as his TV wife, was nominated.
"Modern Family" continues to get plenty of recognition. I don't know that it's as good as some people say, but I can see that it's quality.
And let's not forget "Big Bang Theory".
I don't know why "Once Upon a Time" never gets nominated for anything. If you see Robert Carlyle act, you have to wonder why he can't even be mentioned along with all these people on cable.
We can debate "Two and a Half Men", of course. Jon Cryer got an Emmy, but then so did John Ritter for "Three's Company" years ago.
Also there's always PBS.
A
Avid Listener
Guest
Clearly, you've never seen the show. And, though there are a small handful of "high-quality" shows on primetime network TV, there aren't very many. In your post you've mentioned almost the entire list. As for awards, considering the competition, that's like saying that Moe was the smart Stooge. True, but meaningless.
ROTLFMAO!
You didn't even have to include the smiley face to make it clear that you were joking.
As far as the genre goes "Survivor" has lasted a very long time and has an enthusiastic and large number of followers. You either like that format or you don't but it has distinguished itself as the best of the breed.
It was a good, and somewhat novel, show when it began but it ran its course several years ago. I wouldn't have nominated any of the cast for awards myself.
Cryer carried that show from the beginning. Charlie Sheen was mostly the straight man. Unfortunately, it all went to hell after season 6.
Correction: Moe was the SMART BROTHER, not the smart Stooge.
A
Avid Listener
Guest
HL Mencken was correct. The continued popularity of "Survivor" proves it.
So, are you contending that Larry was the smart stooge?
Mencken said a great many things. None of them applies to "Survivor".
None of the Stooges were smart - otherwise they wouldn't be stooges, would they? But if you want to know who the smartest brother was, it was Shemp. He got out early, didn't overstay his welcome. and with a face that could stop the Super Chief made quite a good living in the movies.
F
FredLeonard
Guest
Well, I guess "Survivor" is high quality if you only compare it to the other reality shows that followed it.
You got it. Comparisons are only valid when in genre. It would be grossly unfair to compare "Survivor" with "See It Now" or anything by Shakespeare.
Whether "Survivor" is watchable in your house is a matter of personal preference. Personally, I thought the first couple seasons were something not seen before and interesting. 29 seasons later not so much but obviously a lot of other people disagree with me. OTOH, you can watch "Survivor" much like a sports contest and root for the players/team that piques your interest.
A
Avid Listener
Guest
You really don't get it, do you?
When Survivor first came on, it was soundly panned by the critics, but it did have a certain appeal to the lowest common denominator viewers, at least compared to the shows on at the same time on other channels. It was a sort of hybrid cross between the reality of a live sporting event and the authenticity of professional wrestling. But as bad as it was, and it was really bad, when compared to the later reality shows that came along in its wake, like Big Brother or anything that has any Kardashian involved, it looks good in comparison.
I absolutely get it.
When Survivor first appeared there was nothing that was called "reality" (which, in itself is a huge misnomer and should have been named "non-scripted"). It was new, novel and professionally produced. Now, 29 seasons later (which might be a record in itself) it is not new or novel although the producers keep changing up the rules to try to retain viewer interest.
Your comparisons to live sports and professional wrestling are complete inappropriate. Survivor is not even remotely like any sports contest I have ever witnessed and it isn't fixed like professional wrestling exhibitions (note I didn't say "matches" since the outcome is known before the event begins) nor are the Survivor contestants professional actors as are wrestlers.
Big Brother was voyeurism at its finest and other so-called reality shows like The Bachelor which are not close to reality. And you don't have to have a Kardashian in the cast to ruin a show, there are many other ways. I opine no other show in the genre has come close to the popularity or long life that Survivor has enjoyed. That isn't to say it holds the pinnacle position of quality TV shows but there have been many, many scripted and non-scripted shows which were a whole lot worse (Jack Bailey's "Queen For A Day" comes readily to mind but there are hundreds more).
Critics do not determine the popularity of TV shows, and we should be grateful that is so. How else could you explain the long run of "Bonanza"? It is the acceptance of the general viewing population and the advertisers that try to reach them that counts (unless the content is so over the top that the show is pulled for content reasons). What is worthless to you is not necessarily worthless to others. Personally, I wish all scripted shows could be as well written as "The Newsroom" and crap like "Breaking Bad" was relegated to CW after midnight.
A
Avid Listener
Guest
That pretty much sums up the entire genre. I suppose one could make a claim that being the finest example of rotting garbage is something to be proud of.
F
FredLeonard
Guest
"Survivor" - and the rest - are basically game shows. Game shows have been around since the early days of old time radio. They have just gotten trashier. And dumbed down.
First you had to answer difficult questions. Then easy questions. Then multiple choice questions. Finally play party and picnic games.
Strike It Rich was even worse than Queen For A day.
And Major Bowes'/Ted Mack's Original Amateur Hour was around half a century before American Idol, Star Search, Dancing with the Stars and the rest.
It's fun to play TV critic and bash these shows as mindless crap for the masses. But the truth is that a lot of people like them. That's why they're the staple of not only broadcast TV but also cable. And why there's no end in sight for these kinds of shows. They're cheap and easy to make, and lots of people watch. Once people stop watching them, they'll go away.
A
Avid Listener
Guest
Duh! "A lot of people like them" is just another way of describing "mindless crap for the masses".
This isn't about whether or not mindless crap for the masses should go away. It's about someone claiming that "cord-cutters" are happy because with access to only the programming carried on OTA television, they have access to large quantities of "high-quality programming". So, the issue of whether or not the mindless crap for the masses on OTA TV that cord cutters limit themselves to is "high quality" concerns the taste level of those happy cord-cutters.
What these exchanges have demonstrated is that any cord-cutter who is happy because he has cut the cord but still had access to what he considers "high quality" programming as demonstrated that he is part of the masses who prefers mindless crap. If preferring mindless crap makes you happy, then be happy. I don't want anyone to be sad. Just don't piss on my leg and tell me its raining.
If you like mindless crap, don't make a fool out of yourself pretending it isn't mindless crap. If you prefer mindless crap, man up and proudly admit, "I like mindless crap". Just be honest.
So why do you care? They know the limitations when they make that decision. I know when I rent a Hyundai Elantra that it's not going to ride like a BMW. If I want a BMW or a Mercendes, I'll spend the extra dollars, and won't care. Same with TV. If people want a lot of choices, money isn't the issue. If it is, then they take what they can get.
A
Avid Listener
Guest
Read the freakin' title of the thread. "Happiness is a cut cord". Read the launch post. It doesn't say "Cord cutters save money". It says that cutting the cord makes people happy. Therefore, the issue of what the standards are of what does or doesn't make someone happy is totally germane to the topic of this thread.
Maybe, instead of whining about discussions that are totally on-topic regarding the topic of a thread, you might try encouraging other participants to use more care in creating new threads and pay more attention to clear titles and launch posts instead of cryptic click bait titles that make the actual topic confusing.
Read the first post in the thread. It doesn't say "cutting the cord makes people happy." It says very clearly that 77% of those who HAVE cut the cord are happy. Very different statement. I'm sure there's a poll that says a majority of people who buy Hyundai Elantas are happy too. But personally, I found the ride to be very rough. I wouldn't buy one. Fortunately, all I did was rent one. So I don't care what people who buy Hyundai Elantras think, or what cord cutters thing, because to be honest, I'm not predisposed to cut the cord.
- Status