• 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

Was TV Better Years Ago, Or has It Improved?

M

Mark_Giardina

Guest
Let’s compare shall we?

Shows of the past

The Honeymooners
Your Show of Shows
Ed Sullivan
Bonanza
All In the Family
Colgate Comedy Hour
The Twilight Zone
The Fugitive
Sanford and Son
Dragnet
Hollywood Palace
Perry Como
Leave it Beaver
The Adventures of Superman
Zorro
Gunsmoke
Wagon Train
Wanted: Dead or Alive
Highway Patrol
Captain Kangaroo
Combat
Milton Berle
Red Skelton
Danny Kaye
Carol Burnett
The Tonight Show, with Johnny Carson
Jack Benny


Today’s Shows

All reality shows
CSI (the original and clones)
Law & Order (the original and clones)
Maury Povich
The Apprentice
Joey
Still Standing
Two and a Half men


(Please feel free to add to either list)
<P ID="signature">______________
"I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted and I won't be laid a hand on.
I don't do these things to other people and I expect the same from them".</P>
 
TV was better years ago. When I'm home watching TV I usually have on a game, a movie, or a DVD of an old show. The only shows I regularly watch now are The Apprentice and Monk.
 
> Law & Order (the original and clones)
----------
I actually like SVU. It was better with Jerry Orbach, may he rest in peace. Otherwise I watch very little television now, outside of news.

I think one of the greatest lows we ever reached was America's Funniest Home Videos.
 
That's not really a fair comparison.

After all, you're comparing a list of shows that ran over three decades with just what is running right now. To be an honest comparison, we would really need to compare what was running at some particular point in the past (say, thirty years ago) with what is running right now.

So that would give us shows like "MASH", "Mary Tyler Moore", and "All in the Family" versus "Joey", "Will & Grace", and "Yes, Dear"... Which is certainly a comparison that makes the shows of thirty years ago look pretty good! But today's programming does include some really great programs, such as "Lost" or the new version of "Battlestar Galactica". And I'll take today's "Justice League" over yesterday's "Superfriends", as well.

The problem with today's television isn't necessarily that there are fewer good shows than there used to be. Unfortunately, those shows are spread over many more channels, which means that we have to wade through a lot more trash in order to find the gems. And the trash is certainly worse than it used to be -- the worst shows of the sixties and seventies could be pretty banal and stupid, but the worst of today is not only banal and stupid, but also downright revolting. Remembering "Real People" on NBC 25 years ago, I'd say that the reality television of years past was some insipid stuff -- but compared to "Fear Factor" or "Married by America" it was insipid in a harmless way.

My conclusion: the best television today compares favorably with what we saw i the past, but the worst television of today is far, far worse. And there's more of it.
 
I don't know if it was any better then, but I like collecting old shows on dvd, because they remind me of when I was a small boy.
>
 
Personally, the only current shows that I'd watch is Family Guy and Viva La Bam on MTV as well as the Simpsons. But IMHO, TV was much cooler back in the day. (Can you believe that a commercial break takes about 4 2/3 Minuites!!!!!! And that's today's shows)
 
Yes and No.

In the past, there were fewer shows being produced (after all, there were just three networks and very little first-run syndication). There may have been a "survival of the fittest" as regards actors, writers, production personnel, etc.

Today, there are so many more channels that need programming that more people have to churn out programs and some will argue that with talent spread more thinly, quality suffers.

But then again, every era of television history has had some outstanding shows and some stinkers.

On the other hand, in terms of technology and technology-related production values, today's television is vastly superior, especially in the fields of news and sports. There's no comparison (try to compare a kinescope of network coverage of the launch of Alan Shepard's suborbital space flight in 1961 with coverage of today's [July 26th] launch of Discovery, or watch a kinescope of Game 7 of the 1952 World Series and compare it to how a World Series game nowadays is covered).
 
> Personally, the only current shows that I'd watch is Family
> Guy and Viva La Bam on MTV as well as the Simpsons. But
> IMHO, TV was much cooler back in the day. (Can you believe
> that a commercial break takes about 4 2/3 Minuites!!!!!! And
> that's today's shows)
>
I think what bothers me most is the lack of diversity on traditional
network television, something that started back in the early '70s
when the networks began to emphasize demographics. Out went Westerns,
variety shows, and game shows (despite periodic attempts to revive
them, the prime-time game show is dead). If you go 'way back to
the days of fully-sponsored shows, you get live plays (Playhouse 90,
Studio One), serious cultural programs (Omnibus, Voice Of Firestone),
and even religious programs (Billy Graham, Bishop Sheen). These
are programs only PBS or specialized cable channels would touch today.

And, of course, television is an imitative medium, then and now.
Something gets hot, and all the networks latch onto it. Right now,
it's drama and reality shows (sci-fi related shows may be the next
big trend, thanks to Lost). Is the sitcom dead? I don't think so.
Every expert was saying that in 1984, and The Cosby Show ushered in
a sitcom glut.

I do think that all television is more realistic now, and has been
since the Norman Lear era in the '70s. Compare Law & Order with
Perry Mason, if you know what I mean. And yes, coverage of news
and sports is greatly enhanced by the use of graphics and camera work.

What I do think is missing is the quality of acting we used to get.
Sorry, folks, but no one will ever really take the place of Lucy,
Gleason, James Arness, Raymond Burr, Andy Griffith, Dick Van Dyke,
Mary Tyler Moore, Bob Newhart, Carol Burnett, and about two dozen
more I could think of.
 
> > Personally, the only current shows that I'd watch is
> Family
> > Guy and Viva La Bam on MTV as well as the Simpsons. But
> > IMHO, TV was much cooler back in the day. (Can you believe
>
> > that a commercial break takes about 4 2/3 Minuites!!!!!!
> And
> > that's today's shows)
> >
> I think what bothers me most is the lack of diversity on
> traditional
> network television, something that started back in the early
> '70s
> when the networks began to emphasize demographics. Out went
> Westerns,
> variety shows, and game shows (despite periodic attempts to
> revive
> them, the prime-time game show is dead). If you go 'way
> back to
> the days of fully-sponsored shows, you get live plays
> (Playhouse 90,
> Studio One), serious cultural programs (Omnibus, Voice Of
> Firestone),
> and even religious programs (Billy Graham, Bishop Sheen).
> These
> are programs only PBS or specialized cable channels would
> touch today.
>
> And, of course, television is an imitative medium, then and
> now.
> Something gets hot, and all the networks latch onto it.
> Right now,
> it's drama and reality shows (sci-fi related shows may be
> the next
> big trend, thanks to Lost). Is the sitcom dead? I don't
> think so.
> Every expert was saying that in 1984, and The Cosby Show
> ushered in
> a sitcom glut.
>
> I do think that all television is more realistic now, and
> has been
> since the Norman Lear era in the '70s. Compare Law & Order
> with
> Perry Mason, if you know what I mean. And yes, coverage of
> news
> and sports is greatly enhanced by the use of graphics and
> camera work.
>
> What I do think is missing is the quality of acting we used
> to get.
> Sorry, folks, but no one will ever really take the place of
> Lucy,
> Gleason, James Arness, Raymond Burr, Andy Griffith, Dick Van
> Dyke,
> Mary Tyler Moore, Bob Newhart, Carol Burnett, and about two
> dozen
> more I could think of.
>

I'm usually watching more of Boomerang, TCM, GSN, and TV Land, even with its problems, along with DVDs and very little new shows except for occasional news and sports. I agree that technically news and sports are better than ever, although news coverage continues to get worse.

It makes me wonder what use buying an HDTV would do me since most of what I'll watch except for an occasional football game will be old pre-HDTV programming.
 
> It makes me wonder what use buying an HDTV would do me since
> most of what I'll watch except for an occasional football
> game will be old pre-HDTV programming.

Actually, you may be wrong about this -- old shows that were produced on 35-mm film can be converted to HD if the original film still exists. And anyone who has seen "Hogan's Heroes" reruns on HDNet know how good the results can look.

Other shows that have reportedly been remastered into HD from the original film include "Bewitched", the original "Twilight Zone", "I Love Lucy", and "Cheers". It has been claimed that Paramount may soon remaster "The Andy Griffith Show" into HD, as well.
 
> > It makes me wonder what use buying an HDTV would do me
> since
> > most of what I'll watch except for an occasional football
> > game will be old pre-HDTV programming.
>
> Actually, you may be wrong about this -- old shows that were
> produced on 35-mm film can be converted to HD if the
> original film still exists. And anyone who has seen
> "Hogan's Heroes" reruns on HDNet know how good the results
> can look.
>
> Other shows that have reportedly been remastered into HD
> from the original film include "Bewitched", the original
> "Twilight Zone", "I Love Lucy", and "Cheers". It has been
> claimed that Paramount may soon remaster "The Andy Griffith
> Show" into HD, as well.
>

So would these be in the widescreen dimensions of HD or would they still have the side bars?
 
> So would these be in the widescreen dimensions of HD or
> would they still have the side bars?

That depends on how they decide to handle the conversions -- but I do know that "Hogan's Heroes" has been broadcast in a modified widescreen format that cuts off some of the original top and bottom of the image, while leaving very narrow black bars on the side of the screen. Probably about a 15:9 aspect ratio. Purists may object, but the results do look very good.
 
> old shows that were produced on 35-mm film can be converted to HD if the
> > original film still exists. And anyone who has seen
> > "Hogan's Heroes" reruns on HDNet know how good the results can look.


Just thinking of Bob Crane and film is enough to give me the creeps.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom