The Good Old Days of TV

[Bob1370]

Best memories?

NBC's "Must See TV" comedies of the 80s and 90s that still re-air daily on any number of channels, especially Seinfeld, Cheers, Frasier, etc...then the CBS Monday night comedy block...not to mention the great late night humor David Letterman's been giving us continuously since 1982, first on NBC and now on CBS. Then, we have some of the best comic satire in history over on Comedy Central with Jon Stewart, Steven Colbert, South Park and more. Over the last 25 years we've had a renaissance in comedy that compares well with the best comedy of TV's past (Lucy, Milton Berle, Sid Caesar)--and that's really saying something.

Maybe the 10,000 Maniacs song is right...These ARE the days...

 

[F.M.Hertz]

...not to mention the great late night humor David Letterman's been giving us continuously since 1982, first on NBC and now on CBS.

You're right...but to a point. Letterman has a good show, better than the dreck that NBC puts on at 11:35, but he hasn't been as funny as he was when he was on NBC, or in his first 10 years on CBS.

What made Dave such a thrill to watch was his ability to push the envelope and experiment (ala Steve Allen). His field pieces were classic. Nowadays, he has someone else do a field piece on tape for him.

It is also apparent where his political ideaology is at. Johnny Carson wouldn't dare take sides over politics, and played it straight down the middle. Letterman stopped doing that around the time that Carson passed away.

I think that the real innovators of Late Night today are Conan and Craig Ferguson. That begs the question: when Letterman does retire, who would you place in his chair?

 

[firepoint525]

...not to mention the great late night humor David Letterman's been giving us continuously since 1982, first on NBC and now on CBS.
You're right...but to a point. Letterman has a good show, better than the dreck that NBC puts on at 11:35, but he hasn't been as funny as he was when he was on NBC, or in his first 10 years on CBS.

I believe you meant CBS in that spot when you mentioned NBC, and since you mentioned 11:35, I was reminded that that was the time when Late Night with David Letterman was on NBC. (I'm on central time.) You're right about his liberal bias. I remember when Cher, Madonna, and other left-wing celebs were upset with him when he was on NBC and his early days at CBS, but no more.

 

[F.M.Hertz]

I believe you meant CBS in that spot when you mentioned NBC, and since you mentioned 11:35, I was reminded that that was the time when Late Night with David Letterman was on NBC. (I'm on central time.) You're right about his liberal bias. I remember when Cher, Madonna, and other left-wing celebs were upset with him when he was on NBC and his early days at CBS, but no more.


No, sorry. I meant NBC. I'm on Eastern Time, and I meant the lantern-jawed yokel that anchors what used to be called "The Tonight Show." For all intents and purposes, "The Tonight Show" went off the air on January 22, 2010.

 

[KeyTimes950]

Fascinating topic. I think good writing is good writing no matter how old a show may be. I find when I can find "Night Court" that it is still as funny as it was when it first came on, for an example. Peter Falk as "Columbo" also comes across as well-written, though these days I find it more improbable than I would have found it back in the day. "Mission Impossible" became tiresome late in its run, but the earlier shows, campy as I would say they were, still are worth staying up for their 2 a.m. showings on MeTV.

I will admit that I'm finding it very hard to watch some old shows I would have enjoyed in another time, possibly because I know the plot but perhaps it is what else I've watched or experienced in the years and/or decades that followed their first airing.

I do miss the localism, if that is the right term for the often-unpolished local shows that were part of a "golden age of television" that hasn't returned even with the low-power, public access and digital subchannel possibilities. I do not mean to criticize the "often-unpolished," just that the unpredictability that accompanied such shows often added to the entertainment value.

All things considered, a fascinating topic.

 

[landtuna]

Best memories?

NBC's "Must See TV" comedies of the 80s and 90s that still re-air daily on any number of channels, especially Seinfeld, Cheers, Frasier, etc...then the CBS Monday night comedy block...not to mention the great late night humor David Letterman's been giving us continuously since 1982, first on NBC and now on CBS. Then, we have some of the best comic satire in history over on Comedy Central with Jon Stewart, Steven Colbert, South Park and more. Over the last 25 years we've had a renaissance in comedy that compares well with the best comedy of TV's past (Lucy, Milton Berle, Sid Caesar)--and that's really saying something.

Maybe the 10,000 Maniacs song is right...These ARE the days...

You will find opinions all over the map on this subject. As one whose opinions are very different than yours I'll say that I found Seinfeld and Frasier both boring and, with very few exceptions, not funny. Cheers only a bit more enjoyable. South Park was offensive and disgusting (and not shown on OTA TV IIRC). Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert are funny if you follow the Tonight Show or Bob Hope style of "comedy" but, again, not on OTA TV (which the comparison was based upon).

For the record I Loved Lucy but didn't find Caesar or Berle particularly funny. What I did find funny were all the variety shows - George Goebel, Jackie Gleason, Red Skelton, Carol Burnett and the like. There is nobody on TV today like any of them.

As far as non-comedy, someone mentioned Columbo (good show but repetitive) and the early Mission: Impossible - a great show until they switched from international spy subjects to US organized crime stories along with some cast changes that didn't work out.

 

[F.M.Hertz]

I agree, KeyTimes950, fascinating topic.

In the whole scheme of things sometimes tastes change, and at other times the things that you get away from after a while are things you eventually come back to.

Thank goodness MeTV is on. Shows that I thought that I didn't like (or in most cases didn't understand) are enjoyable to me now. Two shows that are on that list for me are "Cannon" and "That Girl."

I was a fan of Seinfeld when it aired on NBC, thought that it was boring at times in syndication (beacuse I've seen each episode about a dozen times), but now consider it very well written. It was like a modern day version of "The Jack Benny Program."

Just recently, I happened to catch a few episodes of "Movin' On" on RTV. I loved that show as a kid, but after seeing it now, you could drive Sonny Pruitt's KW through most of the plot points. It still is an enjoyable show, but for me in a nostalgic sense. That's one of the nice things about seeing some of the "That Girl" marathon on Sunday. You could see the old cars in some of the establishing shots, and in one scene Marlo Thomas had to call her agent. She didn't have a cell phone. She had to ask for a dime and cut away to use a pay phone.

(Note: I am not a paid spokesperon for MeTV. Just a fan.)

 

[KeyTimes950]

I'm also a MeTV fan (WPXI-11.2 in Pittsburgh). Can't say I liked "That Girl" but always found Marlo Thomas easy on the eyes and liked the fellow who played her father. Actually, it is sort of sad to see shows from decades ago and realize the attractive characters (and not so attractive ones) either have aged (and sometimes not so gracefully) or are no longer with us. Otherwise, I fully agree with all your points.

 

[firepoint525]

I believe you meant CBS in that spot when you mentioned NBC, and since you mentioned 11:35, I was reminded that that was the time when Late Night with David Letterman was on NBC. (I'm on central time.) You're right about his liberal bias. I remember when Cher, Madonna, and other left-wing celebs were upset with him when he was on NBC and his early days at CBS, but no more. No, sorry. I meant NBC. I'm on Eastern Time, and I meant the lantern-jawed yokel that anchors what used to be called "The Tonight Show." For all intents and purposes, "The Tonight Show" went off the air on January 22, 2010.

Oh, so you meant Leno at NBC. I believe he's better than Letterman these days, although not by much. I have to go to bed early enough anymore that I hardly see either anymore these days.

 

[landtuna]

Leno reminds me of a skid row comic trying to tell old, stale jokes over the din of a drunk and rowdy crowd.

Letterman reminds me that we should never let a guy looking like that near the grade school bike rack.

 

[ixnay]

Laugh-In didn't really age very well.

That was evident to me when Laugh-In went into syndicated reruns in 1983 (the eps were split into half-hour segments, which WPHL-17 Philadelphia (don't know about other markets) aired IIRC at 10:00p every weeknight - when they weren't pre-empting it for movies, which was often. The production numbers on Laugh-In especially looked dated by '83. For point of reference, I turned 7 in 1968, when my newly divorced mom and I would watch it every week, which means, obviously, I turned 22 in 1983.

But I still like when a raincoated and hatted Arte Johnson would drive his tricycle into a pole, mailbox, etc. and fall to one side!

Welcome to the club!

ixnay

 

[Markieo]

Laugh-In didn't really age very well.

That was evident to me when Laugh-In went into syndicated reruns in 1983 (the eps were split into half-hour segments, which WPHL-17 Philadelphia (don't know about other markets) aired IIRC at 10:00p every weeknight - when they weren't pre-empting it for movies, which was often. The production numbers on Laugh-In especially looked dated by '83. For point of reference, I turned 7 in 1968, when my newly divorced mom and I would watch it every week, which means, obviously, I turned 22 in 1983.

But I still like when a raincoated and hatted Arte Johnson would drive his tricycle into a pole, mailbox, etc. and fall to one side!

Welcome to the club!

The 30 minute laugh-in's were worse because they were butchered (no NBC references, no Pigmeat Markham as Da Judge), they were better in their full hour form when the now defunct Trio channel ran them in the early 2000's. But, with the exception of the tricycle, sthe show still hasn't aged well!!

ixnay

 

[cd637299]

I've said this before, but it bears repeating, re Laugh-in....

Even (or, especially) in 1982, when they had Laugh-in reruns here, you know the thing is "dated" when they ran a '68 episode with Dan Rowan saying the following:

"News of the Future....1988, 20 years from now....U.S. President Ronald Reagan---" to which the audience roared laughing. (Can't remember the whole joke, but that interruption stood out.)

Ditto on Arte on the trike!

cd

 

[Mark Giardina]

It depends on what one defines as good.

Back in the late 50s and early 1960s there were a few outstanding television programs that, by today's standards, would seem boring. Ozzie & Harriett, Leave it to Beaver, just to name a few.
How many of you remember The Adventures of Superman with George Reeves? For us baby boomers growing up this show was fantastic. By today's standards (with computer technology) it is laughable.

One of my favorite shows was The Fugitive (1963-1967). However the 2003 remake was a complete bomb.

I agree about All in the Family as being a premier ground-breaking television program; but there were others.

The Shield and Dexter come to mind.

If we are going to compare the quality of shows from the past to current programs in terms of writing, then again one finds themselves in a pick and choose category.

In conclusion there are some current shows, I feel, that just plain stink. I'm referring to all reality shows, especially ones featuring the Kardarsians, Mob Wives, and Housewives from (insert city here).

Nostalgia is great but that wears thin after a while. For those of us who get ME-TV, it's great to see some of the old programs like Kojak, The Untouchables, 12 O'Clock High, and Honey West. But after viewing a number of episodes I find myself thinking " is that all there is?"

Well enough of my two-cents. Just thought I would add to the conversation.

 

[LKellerIII]

It depends on what one defines as good.

Back in the late 50s and early 1960s there were a few outstanding television programs that, by today's standards, would seem boring. Ozzie & Harriett, Leave it to Beaver, just to name a few.
How many of you remember The Adventures of Superman with George Reeves? For us baby boomers growing up this show was fantastic. By today's standards (with computer technology) it is laughable.

One of my favorite shows was The Fugitive (1963-1967). However the 2003 remake was a complete bomb.

I agree about All in the Family as being a premier ground-breaking television program; but there were others.

The Shield and Dexter come to mind.

If we are going to compare the quality of shows from the past to current programs in terms of writing, then again one finds themselves in a pick and choose category.

In conclusion there are some current shows, I feel, that just plain stink. I'm referring to all reality shows, especially ones featuring the Kardarsians, Mob Wives, and Housewives from (insert city here).

Nostalgia is great but that wears thin after a while. For those of us who get ME-TV, it's great to see some of the old programs like Kojak, The Untouchables, 12 O'Clock High, and Honey West. But after viewing a number of episodes I find myself thinking " is that all there is?"

Well enough of my two-cents. Just thought I would add to the conversation.

Yes - The Shield could be considered ground-breaking...Dexter maybe, but it's odd that you put them in the context of "the good old days." The Shield ended just 2 or 3 years ago, and Dexter is coming back next season, I believe.

As for Me-TV, my disappointment was in discovering that shows I liked - The Rockford Files, for instance - seem rather poorly written with flimsy plots - at least by current standards. I would have thought some of these shows would have 'aged' a bit better than they have.

Probably 10 years ago - I caught an episode of Hill Street Blues - considered a "groundbreaking" series from the 80s - maybe it was 20 years old at the time. I was shocked at how silly and theatrical it seemed. The interplay between Furillo and his girlfiend that seemed sexy at the time now seemed dated. James B. Sikking's stupid SWAT commander character was totally unbelievable and out-of-place for a TV drama. Even Detective Belker's insults (calling everybody "hairbag," etc.) just seemed silly.

So I guess even the best shows from the past don't always compare well by current standards. I have to wonder if The Shield and Dexter will seem dated and silly in 2032.

 

[landtuna]

I have to wonder if The Shield and Dexter will seem dated and silly in 2032.

I was operating on the basis that this thread was comparing current OTA shows to those of yesteryear (when OTA was the only TV available).

Comparing premium subscription TV shows like The Shield and Dexter to anything permitted or available on OTA TV is pointless. In the old days those shows would have been theatrical movies.

 

[LKellerIII]

I have to wonder if The Shield and Dexter will seem dated and silly in 2032.

I was operating on the basis that this thread was comparing current OTA shows to those of yesteryear (when OTA was the only TV available).

Comparing premium subscription TV shows like The Shield and Dexter to anything permitted or available on OTA TV is pointless. In the old days those shows would have been theatrical movies.

Well, Dexter is on "premium" subscription (Showtime), but The Shield was on basic cable (FX). Really, the lines are seriously blurred now. About 6 year ago, a number of the basic cable channels decided that they needed the "prestige" and added ratings they could get by bankrolling high-quality new series, much as HBO and Showtime had been doing. There have been a few clunkers (HBO has had them too), but really, the basic cable networks are producing very fine dramas and action shows. Showtime is owned by CBS, and during the writers's strike last year, they ran Dexter on CBS for awhile to fill airtime...probably edited a bit for content.

And occasionally, this kind of high quality show will air on the old fashioned networks - The Good Wife on CBS is an example. Most of these shows are not particularly high-budget, it's the writing and acting that is superior - and any network can do that - they don't have to be "premium" subscription. The big difference is that they produce fewer episodes - 13, or even as few as 8 episodes a year - so they're not cranking them out like the major networks.

So I judge shows on their merits - without considering whether they're on the OTA networks, basic cable, or "premium" cable.

 

[landtuna]

I have to wonder if The Shield and Dexter will seem dated and silly in 2032.

I was operating on the basis that this thread was comparing current OTA shows to those of yesteryear (when OTA was the only TV available).

Comparing premium subscription TV shows like The Shield and Dexter to anything permitted or available on OTA TV is pointless. In the old days those shows would have been theatrical movies.

Well, Dexter is on "premium" subscription (Showtime), but The Shield was on basic cable (FX). Really, the lines are seriously blurred now. About 6 year ago, a number of the basic cable channels decided that they needed the "prestige" and added ratings they could get by bankrolling high-quality new series, much as HBO and Showtime had been doing. There have been a few clunkers (HBO has had them too), but really, the basic cable networks are producing very fine dramas and action shows. Showtime is owned by CBS, and during the writers's strike last year, they ran Dexter on CBS for awhile to fill airtime...probably edited a bit for content.

And occasionally, this kind of high quality show will air on the old fashioned networks - The Good Wife on CBS is an example.

So I judge shows on their merits - without considering whether they're on the OTA networks, basic cable, or "premium" cable.

I understand your point but even basic cable is/has been way more permissive than OTA TV. Consider the original MTV for example. Even back in the 80's there is no way it would have been permitted to be shown on OTA TV yet it was basic cable. And yes, Dexter was edited for showing on CBS (my wife is a big fan and noticed this immediately).

My whole point was in comparing then vs now we need to compare apples to apples. Although OTA TV has gotten much more permissive than it was "back then" it is still a long way from subject matter common on cable/sat.

OTA TV in the 60's and 70's was much more "family oriented" than now. I would absolutely cringe at my young kids watching L&O SVU or most everything on Fox. Although the writing on shows like L&O might be much better than "I Spy" (for example) I don't think it is necessarily a better show and in many ways it is flat-out disgusting (even though it parallels the morning newspaper to a large degree).

I still think in terms of quality and variety generally the old days were better. Just my 2 cents - and it's not gonna affect anyone's bottom line. ;D

 

[searadiofreak]

Laugh-in was very topical, so by definition, not particularly entertaining a decade and a half later.

The bigger topic is why poorer programming occurs on "free" basic cable, which of course is not "free" at all. This is indeed an effort by the industry to get those who want better qualitiy to upgrade their channel selection. This is why ala 'carte is the best answer. I know some markets are experimenting with this, but it certainly is not mainstream. But this needs to be the model for cable tv in the 2010's. Let us choose what we want. Charge us for what we want. One price for all is so 1990's.

 

[flashback]

It seems to me that anything that wasn't a decent sitcom "back in the day" will not age well, for the most part.

I don't know how many crime drama reruns are really all that watchable today, what with new technology of tracking down a criminal or whatever.

More than that, any medical drama back then---forget it!! So much has been developed now in medicine, that I suppose any classic medical drama would be great camp....I seem to recall, that when PAX network started up, they wanted to show reruns of "Medical Center" (Chad Everett/James Daly, which did have a decent 7 year run) - I don't know what stopped it, but that never came about.

I am sure that even many sitcoms, like "That Girl", just don't translate well today.

I remember when one of our indies started on-air in 1982, they got a half-hour "Laugh-in" rerun package. It was painful to watch, unless you "analyze" it (instead of laugh).

I am 52 BTW

cd

the key to watching an old tv series and old movie is not to compare the technology and times with today.the key to enjoy those shows and movies is to look at the times as they were .

i was born i 1951 and i was always able to do that with movies from the 40`s and earlier.even as a kid.its not hard to do.