TV programming, do you agree that it sucks?

[Lew Zealand]

There's a lot of socialism rampant in this thread: the FCC should do this; this should be mandated.

And some delusion, like I want a la carte and straight to DVD to be affordable. That those options are even relatively affordable now requires the significant $$ outlay of the sponsors up front. Without those advertisers paying $$ to fund the show, much less gets made for less money with lower budgets (and usually lower quality).

PBS's model is fairly good, with them funding certain projects which can be made well on a shoestring and having each "branch" doing a good job on a couple of shows they have experience doing and then sharing the whole gamut of shows across the network. As well as purchasing episodes of or cofunding other shows which are made internationally to expand the audience and spread money source wider.

Perhaps that's the fund-it-yourself answer - globally produced shows which can muster up enough $$ worldwide to fund a good production budget and then sell it to 7 billion people.

[michaelb]

I tend to agree: TV sucks now and I hardly watch it. Except, TV now may be better than ever, at least the good shows, and only if we count HBO. When I go back and watch old clips of the very best old shows (say Hill Street), they don't seem all that special now. I am sure MASH would seem hokey, etc. I would like to start watching the X Files again, too see how that holds up.

The Wire is depressing, but is a great show. Lost has gone downhill seriously, but was the best thing on for a while. BSG was also great. There are plenty of good shows out there, and DVDs and Hulu let you pick the best ones and the ones you like. I tend to think that movies have gone down hill much more than TV shows: at this point even the best movies aren't that good, and there are very few movies I get motivated to even watch (with that said, I may start a netflix subscription this week and try again).

[Seacrest]

michaelb wrote:
Lost has gone downhill seriously...

Haha.
The thing about Lost, IMO, is the more they unravel the "mysterious" aspects of its story arc, the less compelling it becomes.

And now it seems that they are trying too hard to both wrap the story up, while simultaneously prolonging the ultimate "reveal" of its mythology.

I get the feeling Lost was really one big in-joke by the producers on the audience, but I'd love to be proven wrong.

[colonel panic]

Television programs and the choice of programs is probably the best it's ever been. Sure there is a lot of crap but there is also a lot of excellent programs. It is like anything else in life, you have to sort through the choices and pick out what you like, and what's good. With TiVos and DVRs that process couldn't be easier.

I would much rather have the choices I have today than the limited choices people had in the 50s and 60s.
Think about it, now I can watch a cooking shows on Food Network, great dramatic series on AMC, HBO or one of the networks, sports on countless ESPN channels and vintage shows on TV Land. The list goes on and on. It takes a little bit of research to find the good stuff, but it's there and better than it's ever been.

As for the way the networks and cable channels program this material, just keep in mind they are in business to make money. The days of television broadcasters serving the public interest are long gone.

[Blankity Blank]

Television is crap? Baloney.

I'm with Colonel Panic, it's a great time to watch TV.

Now granted, I don't get bent out of shape by 'all the crap that's on' because I don't watch it. Survivor and American Idol are wildly popular? Big whoop.

Television still entertains me, enlightens me, amuses me and stimulates my mind. I don't expect perfection of television anymore than I do of anything else. And simply because a show entertains me, I certainly don't start crying the blues and take umbrage if it has it's peaks and valleys or even if it gets canceled before I'd like. Networks are not a charity, not art houeses, not fan societies. As far as entertainment goes (news is a different proposition and a different discussion), of course it's about money; it couldn't be about anything else.

Television has many faces and fills many wants for me. Guilty pleasures, mindless entertainment, both idle and earnest curiosity, a yen for the refined and the weighty.

A two hour special on the history of buddhism. Three and a half hours of Hamlet made modern or two and a half of Henry V in luscious period detail. The story behind the Wall Street collapse from the mouths of the movers and shakers and the ones who tried to put the brakes on. An hour on every president we've had. An hour on each of the planets in our solar system. How to make an omelette. Dueling master chefs one night, dueling wannabe master chefs the next. Eric Clapton, Yo Yo Ma, symphonies, jazz festivals and guitar summits. 24, Lost, Breaking Bad, Mad Men, Burn Notice, Project Runway, Crumb, The Incredibles, the Marx Brothers, Amazing Race. CSPAN. the Food Network.

Every stitch of it available on my TV. I effing love TV.

[Racer X]

iaJim wrote:
Yes to everything. I'd add one more thing: TOO MANY COMMERCiALS! You only get to watch about seven minutes and then there's five or six minutes of commercials.

My GF and I are watching Twin Peaks. The episodes are about 50 minutes long, back in 1990. When I was a kid in the early 70s, it was 6 minutes of ads an hour. Now we are up to 17.5 minutes I believe.

[GeneL]

colonel panic wrote: As for the way the networks and cable channels program this material, just keep in mind they are in business to make money. The days of television broadcasters serving the public interest are long gone.

No question, there are some great shows on TV nowadays. The basis of my premise is that the programming of those shows makes their enjoyment difficult or in some cases, impossible.

As colonel panic says, "The days of television broadcasters serving the public interest are long gone" and that's the issue that must, somehow, be the target of viewer protest.

It seems to me that networks, who are using the "public airwaves" have always had an obligation to serve the public good, but the FCC has failed to look out for our interest, except in sometimes over the top censorship, which prevents the networks from matching the intelligent creativity found in the best shows on cable.

If the FCC can impose its rules regarding the most picayune issues, then they can also deal with the irritating self-serving programming behaviors that plague the public viewership.

Isn't that the duty of the FCC?

I agree with Buzz and disagree with Lew Zealand on this. It would not rob the broadcasters to impose reasonable rules on them that would insure certain standards of programming. It is certainly NOT socialism to regulate the use of a resource THAT BELONGS TO THE PEOPLE.

There already are standards, but as of late the broadcasters have taken the bit in their mouth and said the hell with the viewers' interests. We're going to do whatever suits us, and now we have the problems we're discussing.

I'd bet that given standards that would deal with the basic issues raised here. the broadcasters would do better, not worse.

What do you think?

[motopsyco]

Silencio wrote:
The quality of the best TV shows today is really, really high. Of course, the worst shows are plumbing new depths of absurdity and horror in order to compensate. Thankfully we don't have to waste time watching them.

What really burns me is that we're still stuck in the archaic cable / satellite programming model where you have to buy big blocs of programming to get the few channels you might actually want to watch. I'd almost rather buy individual TV shows or series a la carte, but the current pricing structures through iTunes, et al, don't quite work for me. Guess the entrenched interests still need to protect their precious DVD sales, advertising revenues, aforementioned bloated cable packages, &c.

Netflix streaming is pretty sweet. We're finally getting around to watching Dexter though this avenue, but of course they only have seasons 1 and 2 available for streaming. Hulu is a good idea, but I dislike being tied to a computer to watch it, and they don't tend to keep older episodes available for viewing.

Me thinks that a sales and marketing genius at either a cable or satellite company will stumble upon the idea of a "geek in the basement" or "single guy in a cabin" package. Then just about everyone will be happy.

Cheers!

[RAMd®d]

That would be dumb.

[vision63]

It really depends on what sort of preconceptions factor in when consuming any kind of media. I can watch just about anything. In sports for example. I can watch just about any 2 teams play one another (baseball, basketball and football). I can enjoy "Mad Men," "The Wire," "Weeds," and I can enjoy "Judge Judy," "American Idol," and even "Maury." When I check my attitude at the door, I can enjoy infomercials.