TV is beyond boring and on it's way out?

[suzannabanana]

I'm old now and what apparently appeals to the younger crowd I don't like. I don't like any of the "hit" shows except a few like The Amazing Race; and I had even decided to stop looking at that because the camera was whizzing around so fast you missed the interactions between the players. It's slowed down a little this season, so okay. I like Lisa Williams and I even watched and got mad at the Bachelor because he was such an ignorant smuck. Even Judge Judy, though is losing her rapacious appeal. I have a DVR so I can record programs and when in the mood watch them, but I have to say, TV, after all these years is moving farther and farther down my list of ways to spend my time. I'm puting this out there because although I surf on my computer a lot and am pretty good at fixing it when things go wrong, I don't spend time on Youtube, etc. Wrong generation. And I read today that with the writer's strike it will push people to the computer for entertainment instead of TV. Do you think this is true? excluding gaming of course. Has America's fascination with TV begun to ebb? Staring at a big box watching sitcoms maybe losing it's luster? And these young no-talent kids becoming millionaires and celebs and adversely influencing young people with their drugging and drinking and partying? Are people turning to the computer. Now my generation won't because computers came late in our lives and aren't part of our psyches. Or is there something else out there for us, like real life with real live people? Just an aside, I noticed that younger people say they "know" someone and they have never met them except on the internet. A fat guy with his butt crack hanging out and they are in love because he can be anyone he wants online. My grandaughter even referred to one of these losers as her "boyfriend". So, any ideas what's next? God, I hope it inovlves real people.

[cmyk]

I'm 35, and am fairly with it when it comes to current pop-culture and the culture of my generation, dubbed Gen-X.

No one knows where all this is going. Everything is evolving organically, albeit evolving very fast. The computer has been on the rise since [arguably] the early 80s, as far as solid entertainment, but the internet has made it seem like a community on top of that. It allows connectivity, on a global basis, like nothing else. It can be a two-way feed, where as TV is all incoming: one way.

So, it really depends on your brand of entertainment. I find message boards, Online Games and and the sheer breadth of knowledge that can be randomly accessed (aka, surfing) the best part of the internet. But for solid storytelling and pure entertainment on a consistent basis and of a certain expected standard of quality, still the TV has it beat.

I'm sorry you feel there's nothing on the TV anymore that grabs your interest (although, not surprising). There are about 10 hours a week of programming I make a point to watch. All other times, I enjoy books, movies, board games, cards, and a healthy social and family life and a career I love (which happens to be in entertainment).

To end my argument, books alone have been around longer than anything but the spoken word, and those haven't gone anywhere. Nor do I see them going away anytime soon. They might change form, one way or another, but I wouldn't worry about TV. Maybe dig a little deeper to find some shows you enjoy, otherwise, hang in there... I'm sure you'll find something that will appeal to you.

And I agree, today's generation has a lot more to look out for as far as using the internet as a social forum. Deceit lurks in every corner, but eventually, that's only going to go so far. People sooner or later need intimacy that chatrooms or video conferencing can't provide. It only delays the inevitable: coming face to face. (leaving perverts and predators aside)

[the 30 year-old student]

Baby boomer?

That's how the generations above you felt when they were bewildered by the things your generation was into, and now, finally, things are starting to be focussed a lot more on the post-boomer generations. You mention fast scene-changes: yes, I find it annoying too (and it's one of the reasons I prefer British TV) but I think it's a fairly natural consequence of the shows being intended for people aged 18-24: they are faster mentally, and have been raised on computer games and music videos, which feature such fast, 'jumpy' video.

The Boomers have been pandered to for so long (and still are - look how ads for assisted living and prescription drugs dominate the airwaves) it's bound to be a bit of a shock as the money, and therefore advertising attention, moves to the next generation.

30 y.o. student

[AuntiePam]

My mom had her TV on all day long. When she went to bed, she watched TV in her bedroom.

I have the computer on all day long.

With my mom's generation, I think the attraction of TV was the (relative) newness. She started with a small black and white, limited programming, test pattern after 10 p.m. The comes color TV, more channels, cable and satellite, premium channels, then VCRs and DVDs. She never had TiVo but she would have loved it.

TV was always changing and so it held her interest -- movies, CNN during the first Gulf War, then Court TV, soap operas, game shows, reality shows, sports, talk shows -- all of it. There was always something new, something to surprise her.

If you grew up with all that, you're going to be bored. There's nothing we haven't seen.

[msmith537]

Maybe you should stop watching reality TV if you're looking for good stuff to watch? Personally, I'm more into movies or Discovery/History Channel stuff. There's only a couple of shows I watch regularly - South Park, 24, The Office. Battlestar Galactica, etc.


The internet is a double-edged sword. It can be used as another method of communication and socialization that can bring the world (both good and bad) to you or it can be used to isolate oneself from the rest of the world.

I'm the same age as cmyk (35) so I didn't have the Internet until I graduated college. We had email in college but no one really used it because you had to be a Comp Sci major to figure it out. I had my first cell phone at 23, first job with individual MS Outlook email at 25, high speed internet at 26, first Instant Messenger account at 28 and first MySpace and Facebook page at 34. Kids these days have access to any of these (financial situation not withstanding) basically as soon as they can read and write.

Having just come back from my parents house in the suburbs, I am struck by how isolated everything is. Each house is separated by trees or a hedge on each side and at least 100 yards of woods in back before you hit the next street. It's like three miles to the main part of town or the town park and about a 20-30 minute drive the nearest mall or movie theater. Growing up there in the 80s, your choices for communication were either the telephone or physically go over to someones house. If you didn't have a couple of friends who lived in walking/biking distance you were kind of screwed until you could drive (or you sat around watching TV).

So ultimately my question with the internet is does it help suburban kids keep in touch with each other within their isolated subdivisions or do they just disappear into their own individual virtual worlds, indulging their fantasies with no real human interaction?

[Justin_Bailey]

You mention fast scene-changes: yes, I find it annoying too (and it's one of the reasons I prefer British TV) but I think it's a fairly natural consequence of the shows being intended for people aged 18-24: they are faster mentally, and have been raised on computer games and music videos, which feature such fast, 'jumpy' video.

You must not play many games as few, if any, employ the "jump cuts" that many movies and TV shows favor nowadays. For TV and movies, the jump cut is a way to show something without showing it, particularly a stunt or action sequence that would cost a lot of money to do "for real" or as a smoother bit of CGI.

Video games do not have this problem as every movement on screen costs the same amount. So while the Transformers movie jump cutted all over the place and the actual flow of the fight was hard to watch, the Transformers video game follows that same fight from beginning to end with no jumping (unless the player presses the jump button :D )

[Miller]

Depends on how you define "TV." More people than ever are watching their television sets, but fewer than ever are watching the networks. Broadcast television is on its way out, because it's being supplanted by superior ways of getting content out to the audience. Program formats determined by corporate dictate, commercial breaks, success determined by the viewing habits of a handful of Nielsen families... who needs that shit? Stream it all over the internet, let people pick (and pay for) what they want, when they want it, and clean up with the DVD sales. Who needs the middleman in the form of the television corporation any more?

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

Nobody in the Television Industry wants to take a chance, or put out for quality.
I basically gave up on the networks during the 80's.
The switchover to digital may prove to be a watershed moment. Folks may get so POed about shelling out several hundred extra bucks, just to watch the same 3rd rate shows they did before, that the number of TV viewers may drop sharply.

[Exapno Mapcase]

The Boomers have been pandered to for so long (and still are - look how ads for assisted living and prescription drugs dominate the airwaves) it's bound to be a bit of a shock as the money, and therefore advertising attention, moves to the next generation.

30 y.o. student
Sorry, but you're missing a crucial distinction here. The oldest boomers just turned 60. Those ads for assisted living are for the previous generation.

This isn't trivial. While the boomers do carry weight - as they obviously should since they are the most numerous portion of the population - they are not the ones that are the center of television's attention. This has been true since forever, well before you were born.

Television was very late coming to terms with the boomer generation. A television program that was aimed at people in that age bracket was almost nonexistent until about the 1970s. Even the classic tv shows that revolutionized television in the 1970s were made by and aimed at an older demographic. The same is true for movies. The teen comedies, slasher movies, and dumbfests that dominate the box office today did not exist for the boomers. (The beach movies of the 60s were, again, for an older crowd.)

That changed. That changed a very long time ago, in actuality. Advertisers learned to love younger viewers a couple of decades ago, when Generation X came along. It's been true for a long time that most television shows are developed to try to get them to watch. Older skewing shows are really older skewing. They have large audiences over boomer age. News shows (and newspapers) are even more so. (Heck, Bill O'Reilly's audience averages 70.) It's nearly impossible to find a television show aimed at adults, and far worse to attempt a trip to the movies.

Boomers should have had a long run dominating media. But because advertisers were first slow to get on board, and then later eager to run after trophy watchers, it never happened. They got squeezed from both ends in entertainment.

I'm not going to complain or make excuses about being a boomer. I had no more control over when I was born than you did. But I do have the advantage of living through these decades and studying up on them after the fact. Casting aspersions on the all-pervasive boomers may be fashionable, but doesn't conform to reality. It's especially not true when the subject is television. The change is not something that is happening now. It happened when you were in grade school.

[Hello Again]

It's nearly impossible to find a television show aimed at adults, and far worse to attempt a trip to the movies.


Really? You think Battlestar Galactica, Lost, Heroes, Desperate Housewives, The Sopranos, 24, Law & Order, and Grey's Anatomy are aimed at children? Just to name a few shows that have been recently popular.

[Justin_Bailey]

Really? You think Battlestar Galactica, Lost, Heroes, Desperate Housewives, The Sopranos, 24, Law & Order, and Grey's Anatomy are aimed at children? Just to name a few shows that have been recently popular.

I'd even go so far as to say that shows for teenagers and children are practically an endangered species on primetime network television.

Aside from Fox Sunday night and a few CW shows, can anyone name any network show that's aimed at teens or children?

[Exapno Mapcase]

Really? You think Battlestar Galactica, Lost, Heroes, Desperate Housewives, The Sopranos, 24, Law & Order, and Grey's Anatomy are aimed at children? Just to name a few shows that have been recently popular.
I hate arguments like this. First, you've misrepresented my statement by making it about children rather than a younger-than-boomer demographic. Second, you've ignored that my argument was entirely about network television.

Then you countered it by naming eight whole shows, two of which aren't even on the networks, and which represent the last 16 years of broadcasting.

Cherry picking from the dozens of shows per year, or hundreds of shows that have debuted since Law & Order came on, is meaningless.

Look at the totality of the network schedules. Yes, include Fox and the CW since they count. Look at the way reality shows have come to dominate ratings. Look at the way news shows have vanished from the schedule. Look at the way movies have vanished from the schedule. Look at the totality of network television over the last decade.

Then, if you still have an argument, present it.

[Hello Again]

You said "it's nearly impossible to find a show aimed at adults." What you meant was, apparently, "people over 60."

As I'm only 32, I guess I haven't made it to adulthood yet.

And when you said "nearly impossible" apparently you meant "when you ignore all the good, popular shows, it turns out all the rest suck."

If you want me to keep going, Network only? Jericho, Pushing Daisies, ER, Scrubs, CSI, Prison Break, The Simpsons, King of the Hill, Bones, Seinfeld, Friends, House MD...

[Bryan Ekers]

I'm 38 and I fully expect the Law & Order universe to outlive me.

[DocCathode]

Television will be with us forever. I expect the networks to change into something almost unrecognizable- leaving broadcasting and schedules behind for one thing. But there will be big studios making shows. People will watch those shows.

The form of the Boob Tube, or Glass Teat as it is often called, will change. But the sweet, sweet nourishment will remain the same.

[Hey, It's That Guy!]

Nobody in the Television Industry wants to take a chance, or put out for quality.
I basically gave up on the networks during the 80's.

So essentially, you admit you have no idea what you're talking about.

You can keep your head in the sand if you want, but I'd say we live in the greatest era ever as far as quality TV shows. Sure there's a lot of crap to sift through, but over the last decade or so, there are better-written, better-acted shows than ever before. Long-form dramas that stand alongside the finest movies in terms of quality, smart and witty sitcoms that don't insult or underestimate their viewers, even sci-fi series aimed at intelligent, discriminating audiences rather than children and basement-dwellers. HBO had a lot to do with this new wave of great television, but I'd say you can start tracing it back to unconventional network series like Twin Peaks and Northern Exposure in the early '90s.

[Sam Stone]

I agree that the quality of TV is better now than it has ever been. Sure, there are a lot of reality shows, but even those are done very well. I'm 44 now, and when I was younger, prime time television was full of dreck like the Love Boat, Three's Company, Golden Girls, etc.

It's no secret that there are desirable demographic groups advertisers aim for. 18-24 year olds are one of them, because they are the most impressionable, and buying habits are fixed during those years. For example, if a person buys their first car and it's a Ford or Toyota, there's a much better than even chance that they'll still be Ford or Toyota drivers in 20 years. So grabbing those people as customers has long-term positive benefit.

The next group is the 25-49 demographic, because these people have the most disposable income and are most willing to dispose of it.

After 49, people become harder to reach through advertising, and after retirement they are on fixed incomes and even less likely to be swayed by advertising. So these groups are less valuable, and less programming is aimed at them. Very popular TV shows have been cancelled simply because the audience they attracted was too old ("Hee-Haw" and "Green Acres" were both cancelled despite good ratings, because their audiences were too old).

Even if television programming hasn't exactly followed the Boomers through life, the culture in general has. Every decade since I was born has been defined by the stage of life the boomers happned to be in. In the 60's, the boomers were teenagers, and we got rock and roll and woodstock defining the times. In the 70's, they were hooking up and celebrating early adulthood, and we got a decade of disco and partying. In the 80's, they were building careers and starting families, and we got a resurgence of conservative values and shows like '30-something'.

I fully expect the next two decades to be dominated by age-related issues. Health care and Social Security, the rights of the elderly, etc.

As far as the future of television, I think it's going to go through the same process as music is going through now - the era of centralized control and production is coming to an end. It's going to fracture and fragment and move online. Just as music is losing its ability to generate mega-superstars, TV will lose its ability to draw tens of millions of viewers to a single show. That's already happening with the explosion of cable - A show like M*A*S*H had far more weekly viewers than a top-ranked show today has. That trend will continue.

And this is a good thing. We might not get any more packaged mega-stars like Britney Spears, but the field is much more open and accessible for smaller bands. And while we may not get more mega-hits like M*A*S*H, it's more possible than ever for an unknown talent to create a video program and have it find an audience. Even if it's on Youtube.

[ralph124c]

I see TV as most do (in a state of decline). Cable TV has failed in its premise (no commercials, higher quality shows). Instead, cable channeles have all of the commercials, and most of the shows are cheaply made. How long can youstand watching Emeril make pork chops? I find myself rapidly channel surfing, as soon as a commercial comes on-I know that I can count on at least 5-6 commercials, till the regulr program resumes.
A wasteland, indeed. :smack:

[Ephemera]

So essentially, you admit you have no idea what you're talking about.

You can keep your head in the sand if you want, but I'd say we live in the greatest era ever as far as quality TV shows. Sure there's a lot of crap to sift through, but over the last decade or so, there are better-written, better-acted shows than ever before.

Agreed. I rarely watch television because most of my free time's taken up by music, the internet, or reading but there are a lot of shows out there that I keep meaning to watch whenever I get the chance and the list is ever-growing. We've never had so many entertainment opportunites at our disposal as we do in the present day; you just have to know where to look or who to ask for ideas.

[Charlie Tan]

With the Mega blockbuster sfx movies tv is enjoying a healthy comeback.

Movies are so damn expensive to make, most studios aren't willing to take chances. So we end up with movies abut superheroes, robots and insane action flicks. The whole purpose is to rake in as much as possible during opening weekend and a few weeks after that to cover cost. I see at boxofficemojo that Spider-Man 3 made half its revenue during the opening weekend, but also that the profit largely comes from countries outside the U.S.
I'd go so far as to speculate that the popcorn movie trend isn't exectly about going for teens, as much as going for international sales. To appeal to many cultures, there really has to be a very low common denominator. Considering that movies are dubbed in most countries, with less dialogue it's cheaper to distribute.

I think the movie run largely works as a giant ad campaign, to drum up international interest and boost DVD sales, followed by sales to cable companies and later re-packaging the movie in a new way (I saw Flight of the Phoenix original and remake in one package the other day).

Tv is benefiting with the influx of people who don't work so much in movies. With fewer, but bigger, projects, former movies stars are now tv stars and enoying a healthy career. Same goes for other people in the industry.

So writing is better, and so is acting, directing, editing. People also realize that even movies that try on serious subjects, tend to be on the shallow side due to the short format of a movie. The Wire on HBO is probably the best storytelling about policework and criminals ever. Any media.

I find myself constantly being bored with movies. I turned of PoTC:3 after about a third and American Gangster bored me to sleep - I mean it, I actually fell asleep.

However, I can easily find 15-20 hours of tv a given week that's enoyable and entertaining. And, depending on time of the year, about 5 - 10 hours are outstanding. Depending on the strike, this spring promised the return of Lost, BSG and 24 (which is bad, but very fun). HBO is showing the fifth and final season of The Wire. Doctor Who will be back as will a re-tooled Torchwood.

To get all the goodies, one has to plan, look at schedules, use a dvr. Just flipping on the tv and hoping to find something is futile. There's a lot of dreck out there, but having about two hours of entertainment, in the form of tv-shows, every night is something Hollywood can't drum up with movies.

[AuntiePam]

To get all the goodies, one has to plan, look at schedules, use a dvr. Just flipping on the tv and hoping to find something is futile.

Good point. Please come to my house and convince my husband of this. He thinks he should be able to find something "good" whenever he wants.

He probably could, but he flips through the channels and keeps flipping when he comes to a commercial. He won't even use the on-screen guide.

I'm watching less TV than before, but I think it's better TV.

[saoirse]

You said "it's nearly impossible to find a show aimed at adults." What you meant was, apparently, "people over 60."

As I'm only 32, I guess I haven't made it to adulthood yet.

Actually, a more accurate way to say it is, the shows are aimed at people who are still trying to define themselves. Advertisers like to sell products based on what the item says about its owner. It's easier and people who respond to those appeals tend to be people with lots of disposable income. So the shows are generally aimed at young people. You might like them, too, but that wasn't the idea.

Law & Order is a deliberate exception. During the first few years the show was on, the writing staff were largely people from classic shows from the 70s and 80s. I learned this, by the way, in a 60 Minutes story about a woman who had lied about her age (saying she was eight years younger, I think) in order to get a screenwriting job.

[msmith537]

Cherry picking from the dozens of shows per year, or hundreds of shows that have debuted since Law & Order came on, is meaningless.



Thanks to On-Demand and DVR/TiVO, we can now cherry pick from the hundreds of crap shows out there.

[Meyer6]

You said "it's nearly impossible to find a show aimed at adults." What you meant was, apparently, "people over 60."

As I'm only 32, I guess I haven't made it to adulthood yet.

And when you said "nearly impossible" apparently you meant "when you ignore all the good, popular shows, it turns out all the rest suck."

If you want me to keep going, Network only? Jericho, Pushing Daisies, ER, Scrubs, CSI, Prison Break, The Simpsons, King of the Hill, Bones, Seinfeld, Friends, House MD...

Yeah, I think it's kind of rediculous to throw out the word adults and expect us to assume you mean baby-boomers. I know boomers have been historically accustomed to everything being aimed at them, but now that people in the next generation are doing more of the working and paying and consuming in our culture, why shouldn't some things be aimed at us? I'm tired of this attitude (that I hear from my boomer parents too) that anything not aimed at older people is terrible and devoid of culture. News flash - not all of us want to watch Masterpiece Theatre every night!

[Exapno Mapcase]

I'm tired of this attitude (that I hear from my boomer parents too) that anything not aimed at older people is terrible and devoid of culture. News flash - not all of us want to watch Masterpiece Theatre every night!
Thank you.

I not only rest my case, I'm going to lie down with a cold compress on my head.

[Justin_Bailey]

I not only rest my case, I'm going to lie down with a cold compress on my head.

I'm still rather confused about what case you're resting. Are you honestly saying there is no television that appeals to the 40-60 demographic? Because even though I'm 26 and nearly everyone else I work with is 40-60, we all watch the same TV shows.

Which have already been mentioned (and which you dismissed out of hand). Shows like Lost, 24, Law and Order, CSI, The Office, The Sopranos...

And then don't forget the big two from the "game show miniseries" world: Survivor and The Amazing Race.

[scotandrsn]

As is true of so many of your grand pronouncements, EM, great chunks of this one doesn't make a goddamn bit of sense.

...The teen comedies, slasher movies, and dumbfests that dominate the box office today did not exist for the boomers.

Halloween started the modern slasher trend, and was released in 1978, when the people in the age range of 17-23 (old enough to go to R-Rated films on their own, young enough to have collegiate tastes) were all boomers. The slasher genre declined after the mid-80s, which just so happens to coincide with the time that the youngest boomers were hitting their mid-twenties and moving on to more mature fare. While Gen-X also enjoyed slasher films, they didn't have the numbers to sustain this boomer phenomenon.

Similarly, the modern dumb sex/teen comedy trend began with Animal House, also from 1978, and followed a similar trend. Strictly a late boomer phenomenon.

Both genres are now reviving thanks to the children of the boomers.


(The beach movies of the 60s were, again, for an older crowd.)

Guess again. The Beach Party films were released between 1963 and 1966. Having seen a couple and disliking them even as a child, I can't imagine anyone older than high school or college age enjoying them. Guess which cohort was filling the halls of learning during this era? The oldest boomers ranged from age 17-20 during the period. Their main selling point was their star, Annette Funicello. Her fan base came from the MIckey Mouse Club. Boomers were all under 9 when that show debuted.

Boomers should have had a long run dominating media.

You did. It was called the 80s. Didn't you ever wonder why there were so many goddamned Viet Nam War films then? Did you not notice The Wonder Years, The Big Chill, thirtysomething, Family Ties? How every film and TV show had a 60s soundtrack? Where the hell were you?

[Meyer6]

I do not understand how any boomer can possibly believe that there was any tiny smidgen of culture that was not at one time aimed directly at them. Just because things have now moved on, the boomers complain. But scotandrsn is right - everything was all about you, for ages and ages.
The idea that you have been "squeezed from both ends in entertainment" seems pretty far-fetched to me.


Thank you.

I not only rest my case, I'm going to lie down with a cold compress on my head.

I really don't undertand how what I said is making you 'rest your case'.

[AuntiePam]

I'm a boomer, sorta. Born in 1945 -- close enough.

My memory may be faulty and the program schedules (and advertising campaigns) probably won't confirm it, but I don't remember being catered to more than any other age group.

I think the only age group with a right to complain about ageism in TV over the years are the old folks -- our grandparents and great-grandparents. What shows have they had, except maybe The Waltons, Golden Girls, and Lawrence Welk?

[Exapno Mapcase]

As is true of so many of your grand pronouncements, EM, great chunks of this one doesn't make a goddamn bit of sense.
And yet...

Let's take this in chronological order.

Guess again. The Beach Party films were released between 1963 and 1966. Having seen a couple and disliking them even as a child, I can't imagine anyone older than high school or college age enjoying them. Guess which cohort was filling the halls of learning during this era? The oldest boomers ranged from age 17-20 during the period. Their main selling point was their star, Annette Funicello. Her fan base came from the MIckey Mouse Club. Boomers were all under 9 when that show debuted.
Simply wrong.

The beach movies were a continuation of the pre-Beatles music and youth cultures. Annette, too old to be a boomer herself, had her music career pretty much confined to 1959-60. This largely overlapped the career of even older co-star Frankie Avalon, who was arguably the bigger star at the time both because of his greater music career and his burgeoning film career. Note that Annette had done no films at all between leaving Disney and appearing in Beach Party and indeed had been mostly invisible for years.

You're also making the same, rather odd, mistake as others in this thread. Virtually every piece of entertainment has a varied audience, in age as well as other factors. Yet most entertainment has a particular core audience it is targeting, with the other audience participation as gravy. Some boomers no doubt watched the beach movies. But their core audience was aimed at pre-boomers, the same pre-boomer crowd who makeup the audience for 50s oldies music today.


Halloween started the modern slasher trend, and was released in 1978, when the people in the age range of 17-23 (old enough to go to R-Rated films on their own, young enough to have collegiate tastes) were all boomers. The slasher genre declined after the mid-80s, which just so happens to coincide with the time that the youngest boomers were hitting their mid-twenties and moving on to more mature fare. While Gen-X also enjoyed slasher films, they didn't have the numbers to sustain this boomer phenomenon.

Similarly, the modern dumb sex/teen comedy trend began with Animal House, also from 1978, and followed a similar trend. Strictly a late boomer phenomenon.

Both genres are now reviving thanks to the children of the boomers.
You might want to put that strawman down. It appears to be getting too heavy for you.

Putting people born in 1964 in the same cultural pot as people born in 1946 creates insuperable problems for people who want to claim boomerhood as the font of all problems. Yes, the demographic bulge stretches that far, but culturally those born in the second half of the bulge are vastly different from those born earlier. Anyone too young to appreciate The Beatles when they were active is obviously part of a different cultural heritage than those born earlier.

And that era was very short. By Porky's in 1982 that type of movies had already left the boomer behind as a core audience and were targeting younger viewers.


Boomers should have had a long run dominating media.

You did. It was called the 80s. Didn't you ever wonder why there were so many goddamned Viet Nam War films then? Did you not notice The Wonder Years, The Big Chill, thirtysomething, Family Ties? How every film and TV show had a 60s soundtrack? Where the hell were you?
Wait, the 80s were a long run dominating media? The 80s? Doesn't that make my point about the boomers getting squeezed from both ends better than I could ever make it?

And you're also going from teen/collegiate audiences in 1978 to the mid-30s crowd of The Big Chill only five years later. My, how quickly they grow.

Better luck next time I make a "grand pronouncement" about something I lived through and know intimately.

BTW, how old are you?

[ThirdCultureKid]

To respond to the OP: Dear Og, I hope so.

I've never watched much TV, but in the past, oh, five years or so, I can't even bring myself to turn it on. Admittedly, there are a very few shows I love (Sex and the City, Friends, House MD), but I've watched them exclusively on DVD, apart from the current season of House which I wish I could. The reason is the vast amount of commercials, unfunny sitcoms ans spin-offs and season 184 of some tired reality show whose characters noone can bring themselves to care about.

IMHE this experience is echoed by many of my fellows. The only time a TV gets turned on around here is for hockey games, or about once a week for House or The Office, with everyone grumbling about the timeslot and why are all the damn commercials the same anyway? DVD's and Youtube-ing entire shows are seen as much more practical and user-friendly, while not dealing with endless maketing by people apparently on Prozac.

And for perspective, I'm 18.

[scotandrsn]

Simply wrong.

The beach movies were a continuation of the pre-Beatles music and youth cultures. Annette, too old to be a boomer herself, had her music career pretty much confined to 1959-60. This largely overlapped the career of even older co-star Frankie Avalon, who was arguably the bigger star at the time both because of his greater music career and his burgeoning film career. Note that Annette had done no films at all between leaving Disney and appearing in Beach Party and indeed had been mostly invisible for years.

You're also making the same, rather odd, mistake as others in this thread. Virtually every piece of entertainment has a varied audience, in age as well as other factors. Yet most entertainment has a particular core audience it is targeting, with the other audience participation as gravy. Some boomers no doubt watched the beach movies. But their core audience was aimed at pre-boomers, the same pre-boomer crowd who makeup the audience for 50s oldies music today.

The youngest pre-boomers were in college at the time the first Beach Party film came out, and 21 when the series ended. You're telling me the theaters showing those films were packed to the rafters with adults and college students, with nary a high school kid to be seen? Five minutes of any of these films tells you they do not play to a mature adult sensibility. They were made for the teens of the day, and those were boomers.



You might want to put that strawman down. It appears to be getting too heavy for you.

Putting people born in 1964 in the same cultural pot as people born in 1946 creates insuperable problems for people who want to claim boomerhood as the font of all problems. Yes, the demographic bulge stretches that far, but culturally those born in the second half of the bulge are vastly different from those born earlier. Anyone too young to appreciate The Beatles when they were active is obviously part of a different cultural heritage than those born earlier.

And that era was very short. By Porky's in 1982 that type of movies had already left the boomer behind as a core audience and were targeting younger viewers.

You're going to try to one-up what you perceive as a strawman fallacy on my part with a No True Scotsman fallacy on yours? Spare me.


Wait, the 80s were a long run dominating media? The 80s? Doesn't that make my point about the boomers getting squeezed from both ends better than I could ever make it?

And you're also going from teen/collegiate audiences in 1978 to the mid-30s crowd of The Big Chill only five years later. My, how quickly they grow.

Wait, now I'm talking about your True Boomers and I'm still wrong? What the hell are you getting at here? And yes, while I might agree with you that the media took some time to suss out the Boomers as a market, you dominated quite completely from about 1979 to about 1991. Then grunge and everything else Gen-X took over for about a decade, give or take a couple years, there's certainly some overlap. And then we had Britney Spears. That's the nature of these things. The dominance of a particular cohort doesn't last long as a rule. Ten to a dozen years is a good run. Hope you enjoyed it whle it lasted.


BTW, how old are you? 40.

[Justin_Bailey]

Exapno, can you please tell us who the following TV shows are being "aimed" at? Because if they're not being aimed at adults, I'm utterly confused as to who the audience for these shows.

24
Lost
Law and Order
CSI
The Office
ER
The Sopranos

[Meyer6]

Better luck next time I make a "grand pronouncement" about something I lived through and know intimately.

BTW, how old are you?

Ah, the tried-and-true "I'm old so I can never be wrong" arguement.

[AuntiePam]

When did demographics become so important to advertisers? Not in the early 60's, when boomers were teens. We didn't have money to spend -- not like kids do now.

Here are the top-rated TV shows in 1961-62. Some of the shows had characters that would appeal to teenagers (Kookie and Rowdy Yates) but except for Dobie Gillis, none of them were geared to my generation.

1. Gunsmoke
2. Wagon Train
3. Have Gun Will Travel
4. The Andy Griffith Show
5. The Real McCoys
6. Rawhide
7. Candid Camera
8. The Untouchables
9. The Price is Right
10. The Jack Benny Show
11. Dennis the Menace
12. The Danny Thomas Show
13. My Three Sons
14. 77 Sunset Strip
15. The Ed Sullivan Show
16. Perry Mason
17. Bonanza
18. The Flintstones
19. The Red Skelton Show
20. Alfred Hitchcock Presents
21. Celebrity Talent Scouts
22. General Electric Theatre
23. Checkmate
24. What's My Line
25. Many Lives of Dobie Gillis

[Justin_Bailey]

When did demographics become so important to advertisers? Not in the early 60's, when boomers were teens. We didn't have money to spend -- not like kids do now.

Here are the top-rated TV shows in 1961-62. Some of the shows had characters that would appeal to teenagers (Kookie and Rowdy Yates) but except for Dobie Gillis, none of them were geared to my generation.

Haven't you answered your own question? Advertisers always cared about demographics, but the teen demographic only became important when they started to have money to spend in the late 80s/early 90s.

Before that (like the whole decade of the 80s), Boomers were the major demographic and had nearly every show catered to them.

Even today, the "importance" of teens to advertisers is greatly overstated with a few high profile movies that quickly fade and a handful of mid-to-low rated TV shows (a genre that has had a place on the schedule for decades).

[cmyk]

The whole idea behind generations is malarkey anyway. While, certainly there was an offspring boom after the War, the population since has done nothing but steadily increase since. TV evolves year after year. I find prime time shows aimed more at genres than ages. It wasn't until just recently that television even started rating shows for age groups.

For decades, all ages at any given time had shows to pick from in whatever genres interested them. Even now, most television is divided right down the middle: Family entertainment, and Adult. With cable, there are whole channels devoted to children's programming, and yet Saturday Mornings still endure as a haven for kids.

What's yer poison? News? Drama? Comedy? Science Fiction? Thrillers? Animation? Politics? Religion? Nature? Food? Science? Reality? Gameshows? It's all out there and always has been in various forms and quality. The good news today is we have DVRs. They're so cheap now, they're practically giving them away in boxes of Cap'n Crunch. You want to improve your TV going experience... hook one of them up, tell it what you like, and wait a week. It'll change yer life. ;)

Then again, I think some people just don't like television.

[Sam Stone]

It wasn't until just recently that television even started rating shows for age groups.

"Hee Haw" and "Green Acres" were both cancelled because their audiences were too old. Green Acres was cancelled 36 years ago.

Television started catering to the younger audience about the time the Boomers were in their teens. The rise of the teenager as a definable subgroup started in the 1950's when the baby boom kids began getting old enough for driver's licences. Before then, you were a child until you were an adult. Teenagers in the 50's and 60's found new freedom and economic power, and the baby boom ensured there was a lot of them. Advertisers took notice.

[Wendell Wagner]

Sam Stone writes:

> "Hee Haw" and "Green Acres" were both cancelled because their audiences
> were too old. Green Acres was cancelled 36 years ago.

The Rural Purge of 1971 was only partly about age:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_Purge

It was mostly about CBS (and to a smaller extent the other networks) realizing that the more rural, somewhat older demographic for their shows weren't what advertisers wanted. Their TV ratings were still reasonably high, but the advertisers wanted to sell to a more urban (and somewhat younger) audience, so a number of long-running programs were cancelled that year. The TV shows that replaced the cancelled programs were ones like _All in the Family_, _The Mary Tyler Moore Show_, (the 1970's version of) _The Bob Newhart Show_, and _M*A*S*H_. The characters in these shows weren't particularly younger than the shows they replaced, but they were more urban.

[picunurse]

When radio was invented, booked didn't become obsolete. TV didn't replace radio, or movies.
People have varied interests. No matter how "bad" TV might get, it willl still have it's followers.

[Kozmik]

As long as Fox never cancels The Simpsons, I'll be happy.

[elmwood]

I think the only age group with a right to complain about ageism in TV over the years are the old folks -- our grandparents and great-grandparents. What shows have they had, except maybe The Waltons, Golden Girls, and Lawrence Welk?

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think television programming in the 1950s and 1960s catered to senior citizens extensively. Vaudeville-like variety shows were a staple of television programming into the 1970s. Game shows often featured aging Broadway stars as panelists. Many shows were sponsored by Geritol. Most sitcoms were rather bland; a senior citizen of the 1950s was probably more comfortable with I Love Lucy than a senior of the 1990s with Seinfeld.

[Charlie Tan]

Haven't you answered your own question? Advertisers always cared about demographics, but the teen demographic only became important when they started to have money to spend in the late 80s/early 90s.


Huh? I didn't have money to spend in the 70's? Advertising wasn't aimed at me?

[cmyk]

"Hee Haw" and "Green Acres" were both cancelled because their audiences were too old. Green Acres was cancelled 36 years ago.

Television started catering to the younger audience about the time the Boomers were in their teens. The rise of the teenager as a definable subgroup started in the 1950's when the baby boom kids began getting old enough for driver's licences. Before then, you were a child until you were an adult. Teenagers in the 50's and 60's found new freedom and economic power, and the baby boom ensured there was a lot of them. Advertisers took notice.

I was talking about the rating system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_rating_system#United_States) that's similar to the MPAA's.

One thing that's hard to gauge, is in the 50's, TV was still in it's infancy. The whole medium was still being explored. It's almost impossible to compare the programming available in that day, to the varied and myriad choices out there now.

Television as a style of storytelling is evolving and growing depending on what audience is out there and what their interests are as a majority. Hee Haw and Green Acres just aren't relevant anymore to the vast majority of the population. Very few actually grow up on farms, and those that do are far more connected to the cosmopolitan world than they were in the 50 and 60s. TV studios produce shows they think will draw the largest amount of advertisers for the primetime spots.

Who knows what will be in vogue when I'm in my 70s and 80s? My guess is that the face of television will evolve even further, as Gen-X and the following generations grew up in the computer age, the gap between generations is closing somewhat, and that entertainment will have an easier time appealing to more and more people.

I think I have more interests in common with my parents than they did with theirs. And likewise, I think my kids will have more interests in common with me, than I did mine. Hopefully that trend continues as it's easier for the computer generation to stay more in touch with everyone else. The demographic will begin to smooth out.

[Ephemera]

For decades, all ages at any given time had shows to pick from in whatever genres interested them. Even now, most television is divided right down the middle: Family entertainment, and Adult. With cable, there are whole channels devoted to children's programming, and yet Saturday Mornings still endure as a haven for kids.

As a child of the eighties, Saturday mornings are nothing like what they used to be the last time I watched, which was only a couple years ago.

[cmyk]

As a child of the eighties, Saturday mornings are nothing like what they used to be the last time I watched, which was only a couple years ago.

I totally agree. I attribute it to channels like Noggin, Nickelodeon, Cartoon Network, etc.

The only way we could get our fix (and that Hasbro, Mattel and Kellogg could advertise) was saturday mornings. Only Nickelodeon existed then, and they had very few cartoons at the time.

BUT... Saturday Morning programming is still there, nonetheless.

[Anne Neville]

Good point. Please come to my house and convince my husband of this. He thinks he should be able to find something "good" whenever he wants.

He probably could, but he flips through the channels and keeps flipping when he comes to a commercial. He won't even use the on-screen guide.

Get him a Tivo (or other DVR). He will be able to find something "good" whenever he wants, and he will never want to go back.

I find I watch less and better TV with my Tivo. I used to watch TV under two circumstances:

1. When something I wanted to see was on
2. When I just wanted to watch something

With the Tivo, those two are combined. I can watch anything at any time, so I can watch the things I specifically want to watch when I want to watch TV. I don't watch the "best that's on now" stuff that I used to watch when I just wanted to watch something.

I do not work for Tivo, nor does anybody I know (or if they do, they haven't told me). Tivo is not paying me to say this, but they should be ;)

[mswas]

I'm the same age as cmyk (35) so I didn't have the Internet until I graduated college. We had email in college but no one really used it because you had to be a Comp Sci major to figure it out. I had my first cell phone at 23, first job with individual MS Outlook email at 25, high speed internet at 26, first Instant Messenger account at 28 and first MySpace and Facebook page at 34. Kids these days have access to any of these (financial situation not withstanding) basically as soon as they can read and write.

Interesting, I first got the internet when I was 15 and I am but 5 years your junior.

Having just come back from my parents house in the suburbs, I am struck by how isolated everything is. Each house is separated by trees or a hedge on each side and at least 100 yards of woods in back before you hit the next street. It's like three miles to the main part of town or the town park and about a 20-30 minute drive the nearest mall or movie theater. Growing up there in the 80s, your choices for communication were either the telephone or physically go over to someones house. If you didn't have a couple of friends who lived in walking/biking distance you were kind of screwed until you could drive (or you sat around watching TV).

So ultimately my question with the internet is does it help suburban kids keep in touch with each other within their isolated subdivisions or do they just disappear into their own individual virtual worlds, indulging their fantasies with no real human interaction?

I think they talk a lot more but communicate a lot less. My sister for instance is on her cell phone all the time. She cannot be alone with her thoughts. Oftentimes she neglects the people who she is actually with in order to gab on her cell phone with someone who she is not with.

[mswas]

That being said, TV is far from on its way out. TV is far better today than it ever was. There has rarely been a TV show as good as Battlestar Galactica, Brotherhood, Dexter on at all, let alone all within the same year.

[AuntiePam]

Get him a Tivo (or other DVR). He will be able to find something "good" whenever he wants, and he will never want to go back.


I should have qualified my post -- we have Tivo for the TV in the basement. It cost too much to install it upstairs because of the location of the phone lines (per the tech). Hubby uses it for an occasional piece of porn or a football game. He works nights so he's never gotten hooked on a particular show. Maybe after retirement.

And yes, Tivo should pay you. If I didn't already have it, I'd get it. :)

[saoirse]

"Hee Haw" and "Green Acres" were both cancelled because their audiences were too old. Green Acres was cancelled 36 years ago.

Television started catering to the younger audience about the time the Boomers were in their teens. The rise of the teenager as a definable subgroup started in the 1950's when the baby boom kids began getting old enough for driver's licences. Before then, you were a child until you were an adult. Teenagers in the 50's and 60's found new freedom and economic power, and the baby boom ensured there was a lot of them. Advertisers took notice.

I don't think they were catring to them in the same way, though. Back when there were three channels, there was a limit to how much a network could afford to alienate other segments of the population. I was trying to think of shows that actually were specifically aimed at boomers before the mid-70s. The ones I came up with, Room 222, The Mod Squad, and The Rookies, seemed to be aimed as much at the parents of their natural audience.

[cmyk]

Because a show is "aimed" toward a younger crowd, doesn't mean the older folks won't like it. Shoot, by parents, who are in their sixties, watch and love shows like LOST, HEROES, and the now defunct INVASION... which are clearly "aimed" at adults in their 20s & 30s. Shows like that are enjoyed by teens too.

[An Gadaí]

Having just come back from my parents house in the suburbs, I am struck by how isolated everything is. Each house is separated by trees or a hedge on each side and at least 100 yards of woods in back before you hit the next street. It's like three miles to the main part of town or the town park and about a 20-30 minute drive the nearest mall or movie theater. Growing up there in the 80s, your choices for communication were either the telephone or physically go over to someones house. If you didn't have a couple of friends who lived in walking/biking distance you were kind of screwed until you could drive (or you sat around watching TV).

So ultimately my question with the internet is does it help suburban kids keep in touch with each other within their isolated subdivisions or do they just disappear into their own individual virtual worlds, indulging their fantasies with no real human interaction?

This is something I noticed the first few times I visited the US ('99 & '01), kids my age, 17/18, were using the net to hook up with others, make friends sharing common interests etc in a way we weren't yet doing in Ireland. It supplimented the normal friend-making/socialising procedures in this country but it seemed like a real boon for kids in the 'burbs or rural areas, especially those who didn't have cars yet.

[Wendell Wagner]

Sam Stone writes:

> The rise of the teenager as a definable subgroup started in the 1950's when
> the baby boom kids began getting old enough for driver's licences.

Will people please learn to do arithmetic? The oldest baby boomers turned 18 in 1962, not in the 1950's. You know, I actually remember the TV shows of the 1960's, and except for the children's shows, none of them were aimed at baby boomers. (And even the children's programs didn't try to distinguish baby boomer children from those of previous generations.) Heck, baby boomers weren't even considered to be a distinct demographic until the 1970's. Until the 1970's, the Baby Boom wasn't even thought of as something that happened to the babies born between 1946 and 1964. It was an event that happened to their parents.

Furthermore, the early hippies mostly weren't baby boomers. They were pre-baby boomers, born during World War II and often before the war. By the time the baby boomers reached adulthood, the ones who thought of themselves as hippies (and they were never a majority of their age cohort) weren't forming a new social group but joining one that was already there. By the time that the age cohort born in 1955, halfway between the beginning and the end of the Baby Boom, reached adulthood, being a hippie wasn't even particularly rebellious anymore.

The TV shows of the 1960's seldom took any notice of what we know think of as late 1960's political rebelliousness. (Occasionally they took notice of 1960's music but only in a oh-they're-so-cute-with-their-funny-clothes-and-funny-hairstyles fashion.) In so far as they did notice the changing world, they would make fun of hippies. The shows of the 1960's were stupid, as far as I'm concerned. They were all about silly gimmicks. What if a family of hillbillies got rich and moved to Beverly Hills? What if a man married a witch? What if there was a family of monsters living in suburbia? What if a man discovered that his mother was reincarnated as a car?

In comparison, after the Rural Purge of 1971, the new shows made some sort of acknowledgment of the changes in society. Shows like _All in the Family_, _The Mary Tyler Moore Show_, and _M*A*S*H_ made some attempt to look at the way that society had changed and how both baby boomers and their parents (and even their grandparents) were adjusting to those changes. The world changed in the late 1960's while TV tried to ignore it, and only in the 1970's did it belatedly try to catch up.