More Bad TV

[sathman01]

I have noticed in the last year or two that television has gotten worse and worse.

The shows are bad or unoriginal. The networks refuse to show more that 3 new episodes of a particular show in a row.

The reruns are constant and someone needs to tell the networks that if you rerun a bad show, the show is not going to get higher ratings.

The shows are actually getting shorter. For example, ten years ago the average 30 minute show lasted 24 minutes without commercials, now you are lucky to get 22 minutes without commercials. Is this just greed or are the commercials there for filler because the writing is so bad on show writers can only come up with 22 minutes of material.

At first, you may think that 2 minutes of show is not that big of a deal but if you think about it the extra 2 minutes can really flesh out a story or provided a better ending. What is wrong with networks these days?

Thankfully, the networks are backing of the "reality" shows and providing slightly better sitcoms and dramas.

 

[KeithE4]

I have noticed in the last year or two twenty that television has gotten worse and worse.

Fixed. ;D

 

[FreddyE1977]

About the only prime-time show I watch with any regularity anymore is The Middle on ABC,
and it does give me the impression of being almost evenly divided between program content
and commercials.

 

[ansky212]

The shows are actually getting shorter. For example, ten years ago the average 30 minute show lasted 24 minutes without commercials, now you are lucky to get 22 minutes without commercials. Is this just greed or are the commercials there for filler because the writing is so bad on show writers can only come up with 22 minutes of material.

Definitely more commercials just to make money.

 

[DToTheJ]

About the only prime-time show I watch with any regularity anymore is The Middle on ABC...

My "Middle" is "Family Guy" - and even then, I usually either pre-record it on DVR, or don't start watching it in "real time" until about ten minutes have passed.

 

[LKellerIII]

I disagree - IMO, TV as a whole has improved in the last few years, and especially compared to 20 years ago. I watch primarily the premium and basic cable series. I won't enumerate them here, but there seem to be at least 3 or 4 of these series running at any time, and I find that the writing, production, acting, and direction are better than shows of the past. I DVR them all so I can time-shift them and skip commercials.

In fact, compared to 20 years ago, I find that good TV fills up more of my viewing time, so I have less time to watch movies I have rented. In a typical week, I might watch one Netflix. And I watch only a few shows on "The Big 4" networks. They could disappear tomorrow and it wouldn't effect my viewing habits very much.

Don't get me wrong - there is plenty to criticize, including the trend toward more commercials and less program content. But on the whole, I believe TV has improved.

 

[BMR]

The shows are actually getting shorter. For example, ten years ago the average 30 minute show lasted 24 minutes without commercials, now you are lucky to get 22 minutes without commercials. Is this just greed or are the commercials there for filler because the writing is so bad on show writers can only come up with 22 minutes of material.

Definitely more commercials just to make money.

Well you can hardly blame commercial broadcasters for doing whatever makes the most cash.

Don't the FCC set limits?

 

[landtuna]

Repeat after me......DVR, DVR, DVR!!!!!!

I watch virtually nothing on OTA that isn't DVR'd.

 

[Markxxx]

Part of it is that TV is getting smarter.

For instance, right now a TV show runs for 22 minutes. But producers know that that means 22 minutes in the network run. It may be cut down to 19 or 20 minutes in syndication.

So the writers will write for 17 minutes or so, then throw in 5 minutes of filler. They do this so when the show are cut, now and in the future, they will still make sense.

One thing I find interesting is I watch ME-TV in Chicago. And I see parts of Mary Tyler Moore or Dick Van Dyke Show, or even the Beverly Hillbillies and I've seen these reruns a hundred times. And I will see scenes in them I've never seen before, or at least I can't remember seeing. And suddenly the plot makes a lot more sense.

TV has all sorts of new innovations but aren't being used. For example, HDTV is at 16:9 ratio but producers still make sure all the "real" action is contained within a 4:3 area of that 16:9 potential as they don't want people to miss things, if they are on an older set or if they crop the picture.

Writing has indeed gotten worse. Writers and actors have out priced themselves so they are going elsewhere.

Also TV networks realize that something has to be number one and it makes little difference.

For example. If I put on a high quality well written show and it's number one, I can sell it for say $10,000 an ad spot. This show is number one. But the thing is it's not the SHOW that sells for that, but the fact it's number ONE that's pulling in that ad revenue

If that show isn't on the air and you're left with garbage shows, one of them will be number one and pull in that same ad revenue.

So there is no incentive to make something high quality as the ad revenue will not go up.

Finally ad revenue drives TV and this is based on Nielsen which has a lot of problems with accuracy. Now to be fair, Nielsen never claimed to be scientific or accurate. But the lack of competition means there is no real way to sell your TV station without it.

So what viewers want and what they get are two different things.

I think it's interesting that I look at movies today and they are full of filler, special effects and foul language. Of course the answer is, that's real, that's the way it is. Fair enough, but I also look at movies about WWII made in the 40s.

Amazingly enough these films are very good. But where's the gore, the foul language, the special effects? It's not there. But the films are still good and it's the actors and writers that make it so. Now it's ludicrous to think a bunch of WWII marines aren't cussing up a storm and making sex jokes in real life. They were, but there are way of putting a story across without jamming that down the people's throat.

It's called writing and acting.

 

[BMR]

Also TV networks realize that something has to be number one and it makes little difference.

For example. If I put on a high quality well written show and it's number one, I can sell it for say $10,000 an ad spot. This show is number one. But the thing is it's not the SHOW that sells for that, but the fact it's number ONE that's pulling in that ad revenue

If that show isn't on the air and you're left with garbage shows, one of them will be number one and pull in that same ad revenue.

So there is no incentive to make something high quality as the ad revenue will not go up.

So what viewers want and what they get are two different things.

Interesting analysis. What do you think is the solution to this, though?

 

[DToTheJ]

...So the writers will write for 17 minutes or so, then throw in 5 minutes of filler. They do this so when the show are cut, now and in the future, they will still make sense...

Perfect example: the aforementioned "Family Guy." Viewers have opined about a running gag involving video of classic Conway Twitty performances. And in the one that debuted a couple of weeks ago, Peter teaches "history class" at home and instructs his children about the worst music video ever made in 1985, David Bowie and Mick Jagger's tandem cover of "Dancing In The Street." It aired in its entirety.

 

[Darth_vader]

Yeah, I saw that. For a short while there, I thought "The Tube" had risen from the dead!

 

[JeeperOne]

I have noticed in the last year or two that television has gotten worse and worse.

Yeah. And the ENTIRE so-called "Reality TV" genre leads the pack (Note that I DO NOT consider The Voice or American Idol as being "Reality TV" shows because they're talent shows instead. Dancin' With The Stars is an entertainment show)

The shows are bad or unoriginal.

EXAMPLE OF A BAD SHOW Anything on The CW
EXAMPLE OF AN UNORIGINAL SHOW Hawaii Five-O

The reruns are constant and someone needs to tell the networks that if you rerun a bad show, the show is not going to get higher ratings.

And the GOOD shows that follow the bad ones will struggle as well BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT GETTING THE AUDIENCE THEY SHOULD

The shows are actually getting shorter. For example, ten years ago the average 30 minute show lasted 24 minutes without commercials, now you are lucky to get 22 minutes without commercials. Is this just greed or are the commercials there for filler because the writing is so bad on show writers can only come up with 22 minutes of material.

I'm thinking it's more of a combination of BOTH

At first, you may think that 2 minutes of show is not that big of a deal but if you think about it the extra 2 minutes can really flesh out a story or provided a better ending.

This is ESPECIALLY important during season finales

What is wrong with networks these days?

Bad writing, bad producing, bad acting (Mostly on the soaps though sometimes on the PT shows as well), women in the workforce (Problem plauging daytime soaps), iPods, smartphones, the Internet, computers, YouTube......

Shall I go on?

Thankfully, the networks are backing of the "reality" shows and providing slightly better sitcoms and dramas.

THANKFULLY ??

Read my comments above. The so-called "Reality TV" genre is what's KILLING TV shows because "Reality TV" (Contrary to popular belief of many on here) DOES NOT make for good TV

Call me Old Skool if you want to but that's JMO.....

Cheers

 

[justpassingthough]

I think the whole "reality TV is killing quality TV" thing is a cop-out. There are close to a billion channels now, right? Or something along those lines. Yes, reality TV now makes up a big part of cable and network programming. I'm guessing if you add up all of the original scripted programming available in any given week of the year, though, and match it against any week pre-cable, there is now more original scripted programming available to viewers than ever before.

On top of this, due to the wide spectrum of channels, programming is more targeted than ever before. Cable channels especially, are producing programming that appeals to very specific demographics. In the past, network programming had to cast a wide net and get as many eyeballs as possible. Crime procedurals on USA, adult dramas on TNT, and comedies on TBS don't have to appeal to as wide of an audience. Arguably, these shows appeal to the core audience, and only their core audience. If you don't like it, there is something else to watch on another channel.

Personally, and this is just an opinion, I don't think television has ever been as high quality as it is currently. For every "Toddlers and Tiaras", there are outstanding scripted programs like FX's "Rescue Me" or Showtime's "Dexter"- groundbreaking shows that would have never made it to television 10 or 20 years ago. I also think the greatest testament to television's quality is the star power- as a number of big name movie actors have tackled television in the past 10 years or so (recent examples- Lawrence Fishburne, Terrence Howard, etc)

 

[sathman01]

In the original post I am mainly referring to NBC, ABC, CBS and Fox. I do not have cable. I find it to be a huge waste of money and I would rather spend the $60 plus on Hulu and Netflix.

Anyway back to my original thought.....

The big 4 networks I don't think are even trying anymore to put on quality TV but when their rating fall because of a show on cable is beating one of their network shows they cry foul. Oddly enough everyone except network heads understand why their networks are losing viewers. Simply put the big 4 shows stink and no originality anymore. Cable networks are what the big 4 used to be. The cable networks bust their backs and fight one another for the quality shows.

On a side note, I was looking over the schedules for the big 4 and noticed some the "new" shows are rehashing of old shows.

 

[justpassingthough]

In the original post I am mainly referring to NBC, ABC, CBS and Fox. I do not have cable. I find it to be a huge waste of money and I would rather spend the $60 plus on Hulu and Netflix.

Anyway back to my original thought.....

The big 4 networks I don't think are even trying anymore to put on quality TV but when their rating fall because of a show on cable is beating one of their network shows they cry foul. Oddly enough everyone except network heads understand why their networks are losing viewers. Simply put the big 4 shows stink and no originality anymore. Cable networks are what the big 4 used to be. The cable networks bust their backs and fight one another for the quality shows.

On a side note, I was looking over the schedules for the big 4 and noticed some the "new" shows are rehashing of old shows.

Sadly, I think your beef is more with the viewing public than with the networks. Why are competitions like "American Idol" or reality shows like "Wipeout" considerably more popular than quality shows that get cancelled like "Law & Order: LA" or "Arrested Development"? The networks are an antiquated business model- and they make it or break it on ad revenue mostly- so they have to pander. Cable has a little more flexibility in taking creative risks and nurturing shows because they get ad revenue plus subscription fees, coupled with lower costs to produce their shows, which are generally lower budget and have shorter seasons. My point being- either you need to pay if you want quality television or wait for the slow transition of the networks away from their current business models, when they will have a little more license to act as the cable networks do in establishing and nurturing quality scripted programming.

 

[Nate Wesley]

never mind

 

[vchimpanzee]

I think it's interesting that I look at movies today and they are full of filler, special effects and foul language. Of course the answer is, that's real, that's the way it is. Fair enough, but I also look at movies about WWII made in the 40s.

Amazingly enough these films are very good. But where's the gore, the foul language, the special effects? It's not there. But the films are still good and it's the actors and writers that make it so. Now it's ludicrous to think a bunch of WWII marines aren't cussing up a storm and making sex jokes in real life. They were, but there are way of putting a story across without jamming that down the people's throat.

It's called writing and acting.

I only watch movies that have been edited for TV. The foul language isn't necessary, though it does seem funny for a certain type of character to say "shoot" and "heck". And I get more gore than I want on "Body of Proof", though Dana Delany is so good-looking and has that great personality.

 

[vchimpanzee]

...So the writers will write for 17 minutes or so, then throw in 5 minutes of filler. They do this so when the show are cut, now and in the future, they will still make sense...

Perfect example: the aforementioned "Family Guy." Viewers have opined about a running gag involving video of classic Conway Twitty performances. And in the one that debuted a couple of weeks ago, Peter teaches "history class" at home and instructs his children about the worst music video ever made in 1985, David Bowie and Mick Jagger's tandem cover of "Dancing In The Street." It aired in its entirety.

I enjoyed the Conway Twitty clips.

And you have to laugh at the macho Jagger acting so gay with Bowie. I'm surprised given his persona from that era that he hasn't come out. But ever since Tin Men he seems macho too.

 

[1069_KIFR]

The solution: Do away with over the air transmissions and go all digital.