TV Land = TV Lame?

[EggsOverEasy87]

I hate to complain but I can't take it anymore.

Will someone please tell me what TV Land is trying to do here?

I'm sure everyone knows by now that they are showing re-runs of Extreme Makeover Home Edition. I remember reading all the message boards about that.

BUT, What really bothers me the most, however, is their lame attempt at creating all these reality shows.

I thought they would stop with High School Reunion, but soon after that show ended, the Big 4-0 started. And before you know it, I saw a commercial for yet ANOTHER reality show, "She's got the look." Apparently this a modeling competition. And then yet ANOTHER show for July, "Family Foreman." Apparently they go into the life of George Foreman and watch his family manage their kids and such. Is this a failed attempt to bring back the Osbournes?

My only guess for their reasoning of producing all these reality shows is the fact that they are cheap to make!

With all these crappy shows coming out, I'm going to have to say,

RIP TV Land

You should have stuck with the classics!!!

 

[BRNout]

These posts seem to come up all the time and yes, yes, yes and YES - it's all true. The station's programming has been absolutely decimated. Classic TV out, the crappiest shows from the lamest of all genre (reality) in. TV Land has become a joke. Yet the programmers love the younger demos (a much smaller piece of a slightly younger crowd) so they pour it on. Time for someone to come along and give us "senior citizens" aged 40 and 45 our own network again.

Between using MTV to corrupt our kids and our culture, dumbing down Nickelodeon to the level of a drooler, and sodomizing TVLand: Viacom sucks. Rather than serving our culture, it uses lowest common denominator programming to do more damage to us than Hitler or Stalin ever did.

 

[notalkallstatic]

My only guess for their reasoning of producing all these reality shows is the fact that they are cheap to make!

You have hit the nail on the head! That is the main reason why all the networks are producing reality shows, they are cheap to make, and you hardly need (if any) writers!

Second reason, there are still, believe it or not, people out that like them. Sad, I know.

Many networks that have been around for awhile have become crappy. One for instance is Cartoon Network, their cartoons were great in the 90s, even adults could enjoy them. But until recently they have become crap, there are a couple they air that are good, and adults would enjoy, but otherwise...nothing.

Of all the channels, the one that is holding up the most, is TCM. They are as good as when they started. Let's hope they stay that way.

 

[Markxxx]

Well my parents didn't get the Beatles either? Ironically now I love the singers from the 30s and 40s. I am totally hooked on Jo Stafford.

So you get old and to quote Grandpa Simpson

"I used to be 'with it,' till they changed what 'it' was. Now what I'm with is no longer 'it," and what is 'it' just seems weird and scary."

Truth is it's all about money. If you're over 40 think about how many impulse purchases you make? How many times do you see something on TV and run out and buy it? Probably not a lot any more. Young people will do this, they'll go into debt because they can pay things off, while us old people are trying to figure out ways to pay for root canals.

 

[sack]

Never forget these guys are in business to make money. They must be making money on this crap otherwise they wouldn't be doing it.
I agree, TV-Land is awful. A few good shows repeated ad-nauseum and the most absurd reality shows, yet we still watch, so why should they change what they are doing.
I"ve pertty much given up on TV except for some news and TCM, and for my reality shows I watch real reality like some of the shows on Discovery and History. The only entertaining thing I've seen on "network" tv recently have been commercials.

Whoever said "DVD Land",, thats funny.

 

[kyscott]

Never forget these guys are in business to make money. They must be making money on this crap otherwise they wouldn't be doing it.
I agree, TV-Land is awful. A few good shows repeated ad-nauseum and the most absurd reality shows, yet we still watch, so why should they change what they are doing.
I"ve pertty much given up on TV except for some news and TCM, and for my reality shows I watch real reality like some of the shows on Discovery and History. The only entertaining thing I've seen on "network" tv recently have been commercials.

Whoever said "DVD Land",, thats funny.

We still watch? Speak for yourself kemosabi. I gave up on TV Land when they put that stupid High School Reunion on. I'm 41 and have no desire to see or relive any of my high school days. I'm too busy living in the present.

 

[upn38fan]

Demographics are lame. I'm 19 and long for the old TVLand. I can't see how these older programs are any more expensive than producing a reality show. I would've have never known, because to me, a classic sitcom or drama is already produced and is ready to air, but reality shows have to be cast, thought up, and produced. Oh well, I still find some good programs and maybe it's for the best so I won't sit in front of the TV all day. And there's always the rapidly growing RTN!

 

[ansky212]

The only show I would consider watching on TV Land is Cheers and that's on at 8am when I have to go to work.

 

[bk77]

My only guess for their reasoning of producing all these reality shows is the fact that they are cheap to make!

You have hit the nail on the head! That is the main reason why all the networks are producing reality shows, they are cheap to make, and you hardly need (if any) writers!

That is true but the reason why so many people actually like such shows, well that can be strange too. A few years back I was listening to a radio interview with Howie Mandell ( Deal or No Deal ), and he actually admitted that a good many of viewers of his show watch it only for the babes who hold the suitcases and for Howie's hair, of lack there of. Howie claimed at the time he was getting TONS of mail from viewers saying they "love his new do".

American Idol and Hell's Kitchen...heck I myself know people who watch those shows ONLY to hear someone yell and ( female dog ). They could really care less about the singers and the chefs.

If people are really into watching other people fighting and screaming or whatever, the networks might as well install a camera at some bar and make a show out of bar room fights. Sadly if one network did do that, it would be a hit.

 

[kyscott]

If people are really into watching other people fighting and screaming or whatever, the networks might as well install a camera at some bar and make a show out of bar room fights. Sadly if one network did do that, it would be a hit.

Isn't that why the Jerry Springer show is such a hit? All I ever see those people on there do is fight. And it's not like the producers don't set it up in the first place.

The more TV I see, the more I'm convinced the $300 investment I made in a Tivo five years ago was more than worth it.

 

[imhomerjay]

As a genre, reality shows are very popular. (And just like when sitcoms were plentiful, some will crash and burn, some will be mid-range moneymakers, and some will catch fire.) Whether it's just a new cycle that will burn out or if this is a longer-lasting trend, none of us truly knows.

But like 'dramas' and 'sitcoms,' using an all-encompasing 'reality' label doesn't work. "Married with Children" and "Cheers" were both sitcoms--but not all people who liked one enjoyed the other. "CSI" and "Gray's Anatomy" are both dramas, and pull large numbers of generally different viewers. With reality shows, you see audiences finding a certain type they enjoy--not all are the same. Some like the tug-on-the-heartstrings "Extreme Makeover" type shows, some like the cutthroat "Apprentice" or "Survivor" shows (and so on).

A generation ago, you didn't have libraries of countless old TV shows available at your fingertips. Today, you do. Like any good business, the TV networks have to adapt to changing realities around them. Yes, you'll lose some of the older (and by that I mean having watched the channel exclusively for the previous programming, not automatically an "age" issue) audience, but if that audience isn't what you need to remain as profitable, Business 101 suggests you need to change (or die).

 

[Markxxx]

Well to say it again, it's not about making money it's about making the most money.

If a network can air an old rerun of "Alice," and make $1000/week or put on yet another airing of Roseanne and make $1001/week, they'll take the extra dollar.

Plus broadcasting changed. We have so many more stations owned by huge companies that are now purely capital venture companies.

You don't get varitey because eveyone is too busy copying everyone else, because if they try something new and it fails they have to justify the monetary loss and you can't do that in today's world.

TV is a very tricky business because unlike with movies audience doesn't translate into sales, and you can't measure it. In face Nielsen has never been tested as a sample and has no competiton so everyone has to accept it on face value it is what it is, without proof.

So a lot of it is guessing, but if you look back to the early days of entertainment reality is in many ways what Vaudeville was in the beginning of the 1900s. Anybody could get up and do anything and it it kept people entertained and got them to come back to the theatre it sold.

 

[imhomerjay]

Agreed it’s about making the most money (in many cases). That’s capitalism. Of course, there are those who choose a different mission, where profits are a secondary concern to some other purpose, and that’s great for those who follow that path. What would you do if your job depended on maximizing revenue?



Cable has never been about ‘broadcasting.’ It’s been narrowcasting since the earlies days—ESPN, Nickelodeon, MTV, CNN, etc. Yes, now you have sub-specialties and/or head-on competitors targeting the same audiences. That said, even the few more mass-audience channels (USA, TNT, FX, TBS) focus on a theme or genre to distinguish themselves. There’s nothing new there.

Sure, there are more channels owned now by large companies because (1) it’s a costly business to get into and (2) there simply are more channels to be owned. Money to acquire and/or produce content doesn’t grow on trees, as the cliché goes.

Variety? Hmmm, there are way more sports channels than ever before, including some devoted to very specific interests. Music may not live on MTV, but between the MTV/VH1 and CMT digital channels, there are more choices than when it was just MTV two decades ago. Women now have not just Lifetime but Oxygen and We. Kids don’t just have Nickelodeon, but the little ones have Sprout, and there are several Disney channels and the spin-offs of Nickelodeon itself. News has moved from just CNN to include direct competitors and specialities like business news. Comedy has a couple of devoted channels. Dramas. Sicence channels. A whole channel about animals (didn’t have that 20 years ago). A channel just about food (ditto). A channel about home living (ditto). Game show fans have a dedicated channel. A network about history. Movie channels for many more tastes than existed a generation ago. Three C-SPANs. You’ll never please every single person, but that’s a wide range of options.

I’m not sure what you mean by audience doesn’t translate into sales—it’s demonstrably false. There’s a great deal of money flowing into TV advertising (it’s the reason networks have upfronts, after all). Shows that reach the desirable audiences (which differ based on the advertisers) get a slice of that pie.

The copying of programming found elsewhere is hardly a new concept, either. Sitcoms and dramas have followed derivative forumlas since the earliest days. Some did it better than others, some not so well. Some added unique twists or captured the hearts of viewers for reasons that could range from a special cast to superb writing. Seinfeld was unique, but hardly the first sitcom about a group of acquiaintences. NYPD Blue was hailed as a groundbreaking police drama by some, and its success speaks for itself, but language and bare bottoms aside, it came from a heriatge of procedural police dramas.

 

[Morgan Wick]

Why does this board rag on TV Land specifically so much, above and beyond other decaying networks?

Agreed it’s about making the most money (in many cases). That’s capitalism. Of course, there are those who choose a different mission, where profits are a secondary concern to some other purpose, and that’s great for those who follow that path. What would you do if your job depended on maximizing revenue?

It's the problem with capitalism.

Cable has never been about ‘broadcasting.’ It’s been narrowcasting since the earlies days—ESPN, Nickelodeon, MTV, CNN, etc. Yes, now you have sub-specialties and/or head-on competitors targeting the same audiences. That said, even the few more mass-audience channels (USA, TNT, FX, TBS) focus on a theme or genre to distinguish themselves. There’s nothing new there.

Sure, there are more channels owned now by large companies because (1) it’s a costly business to get into and (2) there simply are more channels to be owned. Money to acquire and/or produce content doesn’t grow on trees, as the cliché goes.

Variety? Hmmm, there are way more sports channels than ever before, including some devoted to very specific interests. Music may not live on MTV, but between the MTV/VH1 and CMT digital channels, there are more choices than when it was just MTV two decades ago. Women now have not just Lifetime but Oxygen and We. Kids don’t just have Nickelodeon, but the little ones have Sprout, and there are several Disney channels and the spin-offs of Nickelodeon itself. News has moved from just CNN to include direct competitors and specialities like business news. Comedy has a couple of devoted channels. Dramas. Sicence channels. A whole channel about animals (didn’t have that 20 years ago). A channel just about food (ditto). A channel about home living (ditto). Game show fans have a dedicated channel. A network about history. Movie channels for many more tastes than existed a generation ago. Three C-SPANs. You’ll never please every single person, but that’s a wide range of options.

MTV Hits changed, almost overnight, from a network playing the hottest hits to a lame attempt to play off the iPod culture with this "playlistism" crap. VH1 Classic can turn into VH1 2 at any time. I've read that Nickelodeon has precision-focused its offerings to the "tweener" culture (except maybe for SpongeBob), and Disney may have done the same, since they're now mass-producing "stars" like Hannah Montana. Yes there's Sprout (and the once-again-24-hour Noggin), but where are, say, 6-10 year olds to go? What about programming that can bring the whole family together? Not on ABC Family that's pumping out juvenile crap like Greek. MSNBC is tiny and laden with extraneous programming like documentaries. That leaves Fox News.... let's move on. Have you seen the History channel recently? Conspiracy theory specials, "The Universe", everything except actual history. Any of your other examples can decay at any time, and many, MANY of the oldest channels have decayed and left the niches to the newer stations. The main reason ESPN hasn't is because sports is very large and very lucrative.

I’m not sure what you mean by audience doesn’t translate into sales—it’s demonstrably false. There’s a great deal of money flowing into TV advertising (it’s the reason networks have upfronts, after all). Shows that reach the desirable audiences (which differ based on the advertisers) get a slice of that pie.

The audience doesn't pay for it directly, and different audiences spend different amounts of money - at least, so the dogma goes. It doesn't matter if your ad reaches a gazillion people if they're all old and too poor to buy your product.

 

[imhomerjay]

It's the problem with capitalism.

And the alternative is more appealing?

The audience doesn't pay for it directly, and different audiences spend different amounts of money - at least, so the dogma goes. It doesn't matter if your ad reaches a gazillion people if they're all old and too poor to buy your product.

No, of course the audience doesn't pay for it directly; the advertisers do, which was the point. The "old and poor" example is true, but hardly the only reason an ad wouldn't be desirable for a specific audience. Your product might be for older audiences and therefore not applicable to media that attract younger audiences, too. Or it could be a product for families, which single people wouldn't likely need...etc. etc. etc.

 

[Morgan Wick]

And the alternative is more appealing?

The alternative is probably neither capitalism, communism, OR socialism. Some would say the ideal is a mix of the three. Others would say the ideal is unrestrained capitalism, and that all the problems with it are the result of government regulation. Still others would point out Marxist communism was actually anarchist. Your mileage may vary. Me, I'm thinking, we worked under one system for a vast majority of our existence as a species, it might be worth looking into appropriating for our modern age. Barring that, create the conditions that make the public good in each corporation's interest too. It's a problem with the companies but it's also a problem with us.

No, of course the audience doesn't pay for it directly; the advertisers do, which was the point. The "old and poor" example is true, but hardly the only reason an ad wouldn't be desirable for a specific audience. Your product might be for older audiences and therefore not applicable to media that attract younger audiences, too. Or it could be a product for families, which single people wouldn't likely need...etc. etc. etc.

And my point was that products aimed at different audiences would give the networks different amounts of money. Say for the sake of argument that "60 Minutes" and "Football Night in America" had the exact same total audience. Which show do you think is making more money for its network? Answer: the one whose audience spends more money on the products targeted to them. Even if the total cost of the products advertised is the same, the audience with more disposable income could buy more stuff after buying all the products advertised, so there are more companies clamoring for ad spots. Law of supply and demand says that translates to more money for the network.

 

[failsafe]

Well for my part, I was an original member of the TVLand forums when they went online. What I noticed is that many many people there griped about the programming, but continued watching. I left watching Nick at Night when the Rosanne marathons started. I walked out on TVLand when all that newer programming started also.
The channel I currently watch for retro shows is ALN : American Life Network.
FBI
Hawaiian Eye
Combat
Remington Steele
L.A. Law
St.Elsewhere etc. etc.
The repetitive programming is also screwing with the modern crowd. My kids are becoming bored with the relatively new N Channel. They too hoped for 24 hour teen to young adult programming, but it has been overrun with Degrassi and One on One marathons. Not a good way for a startup trying to attract attention.

 

[major]

Where have you been failsafe?

American Life Network hasn't shown FBI or Hawaiian Eye since last fall, when their programming agreement with WB expired. That's when they went with all the "new" stuff.

 

[anotherguyTN]

I hope WGN's retro week becomes permanent.

 

[failsafe]

Where have you been failsafe?

American Life Network hasn't shown FBI or Hawaiian Eye since last fall, when their programming agreement with WB expired. That's when they went with all the "new" stuff.

LOL! Yeah I know. I guess I misspoke. I used to look forward to ' FBI Friday Nights '. 4 hours of FBI straight.