The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > Cafe Society

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-01-2005, 04:00 PM
dandrews02 dandrews02 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Why have TV shows become so STUPID

From Seinfeld to the King of Queens
From The West Wing to Commander in Chief

What happened to intelligently written TV programs???

Have American television viewers really become as stupid as the TV shows would indicate?
Obviously the answer is demographics and advertising dollars, but isn't it sad.
Thanks,
Dan
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 12-01-2005, 04:07 PM
CynicalGabe CynicalGabe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by dandrews02
Have American television viewers really become as stupid as the TV shows would indicate?

Occam's Razor.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-01-2005, 04:13 PM
panache45 panache45 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: NE Ohio (the 'burbs)
Posts: 22,713
I'm old enough to remember TV in the '50s, and I don't think our appetite for stupidity has changed since then. At the risk of sounding like an elitist, I don't think most people have ever looked for much intellectual stimulation on the tube, then or now. The only difference is that there are more channels now.

The one thing that has changed, though, is what passes for "news," especially local news. It's embarrassing to watch.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-01-2005, 04:17 PM
Bearflag70 Bearflag70 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by dandrews02
From Seinfeld to the King of Queens
From The West Wing to Commander in Chief

What happened to intelligently written TV programs???

Have American television viewers really become as stupid as the TV shows would indicate?
Obviously the answer is demographics and advertising dollars, but isn't it sad.
Thanks,
Dan
Yes! I long for the days of intellectual gems like Three's Company, Happy Days, CHiPs, and Dukes of Hazzard.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-01-2005, 04:18 PM
priapus priapus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Ah yes,I miss the days of My Mother the Car and It's About Time
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-01-2005, 04:30 PM
Anaamika Anaamika is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
What about Barney Miller? I think that's a fairly good, witty TV show. And I agree with the OP. Most sitcoms are disgustingly stupid now, and all about sex and nothing else. I like sex as much as anyone but I want story, too!
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-01-2005, 04:31 PM
Punoqllads Punoqllads is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Silly Cone Valley, CA
Posts: 3,148
Two words: Small Wonder.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-01-2005, 04:35 PM
Dewey Finn Dewey Finn is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 16,558
A science writer named Steven Johnson wrote a book earlier this year called "Everything Bad Is Good for You: How Today's Popular Culture Is Actually Making Us Smarter" which has as its premise the idea that some television shows, with complex multi-threaded plotlines and several dozen characters actually require more thinking than earlier, less complex, shows. I haven't read the book, but did read an excerpt in the New York Time Sunday Magazine.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-01-2005, 04:37 PM
lissener lissener is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
1. Seinfeld was stupid.
2. Commander in Chief shows potential. With its new producer, Stephen Bochco, I'm optimistic.
3. Although, with the demise of NYPD Blue, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and The X-Files, you may have a point. There aren't really any GREAT TV shows on now (although I haven't seen Lost yet).
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-01-2005, 04:38 PM
Fear Itself Fear Itself is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: 847 mi. from Cecil
Posts: 28,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anaamika
Most sitcoms are disgustingly stupid now, and all about sex and nothing else. I like sex as much as anyone but I want story, too!
Two and a Half Men never fails to crack me up with its snappy dialog, even if it is mostly sex jokes. "She has more moves in bed than the paint shaker at Sherwin-Williams" Gold!
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 12-01-2005, 04:46 PM
silenus silenus is online now
Hoc nomen meum verum non est.
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 40,547
Quote:
Originally Posted by dandrews02
What happened to intelligently written TV programs???
Joss Whedon started making movies instead.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-01-2005, 04:54 PM
Imasquare Imasquare is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
I disagree with the OP. In fact I think TV shows have become far more intelligent.

I had until recently completely given up on TV for about 3 years. But at a relative's house I recently watched an episode of House and was impressed enough to look at what else is on offer. I'm glad I did.

The likes of House, Six Feet Under, Coupling*, and The Office* have restored my faith in TV viewing to the point that I am seriously considering getting a TV set again.


* UK versions
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-01-2005, 05:11 PM
davenportavenger davenportavenger is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey Finn
A science writer named Steven Johnson wrote a book earlier this year called "Everything Bad Is Good for You: How Today's Popular Culture Is Actually Making Us Smarter" which has as its premise the idea that some television shows, with complex multi-threaded plotlines and several dozen characters actually require more thinking than earlier, less complex, shows. I haven't read the book, but did read an excerpt in the New York Time Sunday Magazine.
I haven't read it either, but it makes sense. When I watch sitcoms from the fifties and sixties, they seem incredibly slow-paced. Usually there is only one plot thread a show. Jokes are dragged out longer. Think about that scene in I Love Lucy where she drank the alcoholic medicine; it went on for something like eight minutes, long after most people will have gotten sick of the joke. Things also tended to be explained over and over, with characters recapping situations we have already seen. I don't have a specific example but I know I've seen it on Leave it to Beaver and The Patty Duke Show before. Now, most sitcoms have at least two or three plot threads a show. Less time is spent dragging out a single joke or gag. Things are not explained in depth as much; the writers count on the audience getting it the first time. The entire episode is "faster," and requires more brain processing power than an older show. The multiple plot lines force us to juggle many things in our heads at once which could definitely lead to more complex thought patterns.

Of course, just because it's complex doesn't mean it's better. But I think the average sitcom from today can hold my interest better than the average sitcom from forty years ago. I haven't watched very many older dramas so I don't know if it is the same.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-01-2005, 05:16 PM
Ike Witt Ike Witt is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Lost in the mists of time
Posts: 11,417
To me, problems started when some moron got the idea that people exchanging insults was funny. It can be for established characters playing against type, but insults alone can't carry a show.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-01-2005, 06:16 PM
RealityChuck RealityChuck is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Schenectady, NY, USA
Posts: 35,460
Look, TV always had quality and crap. There were some truly awful shows in every decade, and some great ones, too. People just tend to only remember the good ones (which are the ones that are easier to see as time goes on) and forget the bad ones. (There was some dropoff in the mid-50s as TV went from a medium of the rich to a mass medium, however).

But why is this a general question?
__________________
Author of Staroamer's Fate and Syron's Fate, now back in print.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-01-2005, 06:43 PM
Blake Blake is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 10,206
Quote:
Originally Posted by davenportavenger
Now, most sitcoms have at least two or three plot threads a show. Less time is spent dragging out a single joke or gag. Things are not explained in depth as much; the writers count on the audience getting it the first time. The entire episode is "faster," and requires more brain processing power than an older show. The multiple plot lines force us to juggle many things in our heads at once which could definitely lead to more complex thought patterns.

I should note that I have often seen excatly the opposite case made. These TV shows are deliberately designed to cater to a limited intelligence and the limited attention span that goes with it.

Once it was primarily TV shows like Sesame Street and children's cartoons had multiple disconnected segments and multiple characters, and only such children's shows changed scene every 3 minutes. That's because children have a limited attention span. They lack the intelligence to focus on a single subject in-depth and need to have lots of different slices of action to keep them seated.

Gradually adult TV adopted the same style. More and more characters were introduced, and more were used every episode. Camera angle changes became more common. Instead of developing one plot in depth every episode had several consecutive plots.

The writers no longer demanded any attention from the audience. Everything was broken down into bite-sized chunks. If your mind wandered for 5 minutes there was no chance of missing anything critical. The multiple plotlines allow us to miss entire segments of the show with no penalty and the changes of location mean we don't get bored with all that concentrating.

The reason modern audiences tend to find older shows boring if the same reason children find adult shows boring: it requires more attention than they are able to or have been trained to give.

The trouble with these types of theories is that it's impossible to prove one way or another. If you want to believ that people are geting dumber then you can use TV shows to support that view, and if you think they are getting smarter you can do the same.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-01-2005, 07:00 PM
samclem samclem is offline
graphite is a great moderator
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Akron, Ohio
Posts: 21,662
This is mostly about people's informed opinions, not the definitive answer to a specific General Question, so off to IMHO.

samclem GQ moderator
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-01-2005, 07:15 PM
Evil One Evil One is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
There is another factor at play here that should be considered. The continued splintering of a finite audience to a continually rising number of channels means that a show should be considered a success even with fewer people watching. However, I don't think the TV folks are getting that concept. They keep going for higher numbers and pulling the plug on new shows too early.

And if you think about it, there really aren't that many people watching TV. The number one show, CSI, averages 25 to 30 million viewers for a first run episode. With our population approaching 300 million, that's only 1 in 10.

Personally, I think there is money to be made creating television for a smaller yet demographically attractive group...but they don't want to leave any viewing stone unturned. That's why you have the mind numbing crap on UPN along with quality TV.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12-01-2005, 07:17 PM
Hey, It's That Guy! Hey, It's That Guy! is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imasquare
The likes of House, Six Feet Under, Coupling*, and The Office* have restored my faith in TV viewing to the point that I am seriously considering getting a TV set again.


* UK versions
Believe it or not, the U.S. version of The Office is pretty damn good too. I was skeptical at first as a fan of the BBC series, but I love the NBC version. Once you get past the pilot episode, which was a straight remake of the BBC series pilot, the NBC Office really came into its own, and it's different enough so you can enjoy them both.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 12-01-2005, 08:14 PM
DeadlyAccurate DeadlyAccurate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bearflag70
Yes! I long for the days of intellectual gems like Three's Company, Happy Days, CHiPs, and Dukes of Hazzard.
Heh. My thoughts were more along the lines of Full House, Growing Pains, Small Wonder, and Perfect Stranger.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 12-01-2005, 10:25 PM
Frank Frank is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Kettering, Ohio
Posts: 17,491
Moderator Notes:

As this is opinion about the arts, it's out of here.

Moved from IMHO to CS.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 12-02-2005, 12:55 AM
Rodgers01 Rodgers01 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Well, I've also heard theories that TV shows have an incentive today to be more intelligent (or, at any rate, more complex) than they used to be: DVDs. An increasing proportion of a show's profits come from DVD sales and rentals; based on the shelf space seasons of TV shows have in stores, this sounds about right to me. But people aren't going to pay $50-70 for something they've already seen...unless there's a reason to see it again: convoluted plot lines, warning signals, jokes you missed the first time around -- stuff they can talk about in the director commentaries. Once the nostalgia factor's run out, who's going to spend big bucks for a season of "Three's Company"? But a more complex show like "Arrested Development" might be worth a second or third viewing.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 12-02-2005, 01:22 AM
Fern Forest Fern Forest is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil One
Personally, I think there is money to be made creating television for a smaller yet demographically attractive group...but they don't want to leave any viewing stone unturned. That's why you have the mind numbing crap on UPN along with quality TV.
Thus Cartoon Network's Adult Swim.


I always find the best shows are shows made by people for themselves with little thought for the audience like Looney Tunes and the early Simpsons. Perhaps there's less room for those people nowadays and the suits that finance the shows are intently focused on getting the largest audience possible and sapping the life out of them in the process.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 12-02-2005, 01:37 AM
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by samclem
This is mostly about people's informed opinions, not the definitive answer to a specific General Question, so off to IMHO.

samclem GQ moderator

Quote:
Originally Posted by This Year's Model
As this is opinion about the arts, it's out of here.

Moved from IMHO to CS.

Wow, this thread's got more moves than some kinda... paint shaker... dealie.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 12-02-2005, 02:20 AM
amarinth amarinth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Emerald City, WA, USA
Posts: 8,434
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodgers01
Well, I've also heard theories that TV shows have an incentive today to be more intelligent (or, at any rate, more complex) than they used to be: DVDs. An increasing proportion of a show's profits come from DVD sales and rentals; based on the shelf space seasons of TV shows have in stores, this sounds about right to me. But people aren't going to pay $50-70 for something they've already seen...unless there's a reason to see it again: convoluted plot lines, warning signals, jokes you missed the first time around -- stuff they can talk about in the director commentaries. Once the nostalgia factor's run out, who's going to spend big bucks for a season of "Three's Company"? But a more complex show like "Arrested Development" might be worth a second or third viewing.
I think we're only barely beginning to see that, though. Lost, Prison Break (from what I've heard), 24... shows that were definitely written and developed knowing that people would be buying the DVDs.
I think we're going to see more and more long sustained story arcs drama, mystery, and soap opera shows that are semi-tv, semi-20-something hour long movie.
I don't think that's as true for comedies, though, "Arrested Development" aside.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 12-02-2005, 03:08 AM
Schuyler Schuyler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey Finn
I haven't read the book, but ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by davenportavenger
I haven't read it either, but ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blake
TV shows are deliberately designed to cater to a ... limited attention span ...
I kid, I kid!! The juxtaposition was too good to pass up.

Actually, addressing the OP - my opinion is that about the same number of good writers, directors, and actors are present in this age as were available 30-40 years ago (to pick a time). But with the growth in the number of channels, there's a lot of dilution with crappy writers, etc. I mean, I'm sure that the writers for most shows would like to create something good, but sadly this talent is a limited resource.

Also, there's selective pressure - the only shows we see from the 50's anymore are the ones that deserve to be seen again - I can remember watching the Dick Van Dyke show and the Andy Griffith show in reruns, and they stand up well. The same thing holds for British imports - we don't get the clunkers, but the productions that are worth sending across the pond. Of course, the British shows of good quality seem to be better than their American counterparts, on average (there are exceptions to any general statement like that, of course).
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 12-02-2005, 03:45 AM
Blake Blake is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 10,206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schuyler
I kid, I kid!! The juxtaposition was too good to pass up.


Quote:
The same thing holds for British imports - we don't get the clunkers, but the productions that are worth sending across the pond. Of course, the British shows of good quality seem to be better than their American counterparts, on average (there are exceptions to any general statement like that, of course).

That may not be true. Remember British TV had even fewer channels than the US in the Bad Old Days. Effectively only two for sitcoms IIRC. Then you add in the decline of the British movie industry in the same time period and the drift of a lot of writers and actors over to TV. And the BBC had a policy of hiring on the strength of resume rather than 'less definable characteristics' (Someone once asked me why so many British actors were so ugly. This is the answer. They are often stage or screen actors rather than some hunk selected for pin-up material or someone's daughter).


IMO the quality was genuinely higher. There were a fair share of clunkers, but even the worst of them that I have seen didn't stink until well into the 1990s.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 12-02-2005, 07:17 AM
Who_me? Who_me? is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by silenus
Joss Whedon started making movies instead.

What did he do that was so good? Firefly was OK, but Buffy blew chunks....
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 12-02-2005, 09:46 AM
AskNott AskNott is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Anderson, IN,USA
Posts: 14,024
I ignore most sitcoms, but there's a blazing star this season. My Name Is Earl is well written, and the cast is brilliant at playing non-brilliant numbskulls.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 12-02-2005, 09:49 AM
silenus silenus is online now
Hoc nomen meum verum non est.
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 40,547
Quote:
Originally Posted by Who_me?
What did he do that was so good? Firefly was OK, but Buffy blew chunks....
There is so much wrong with that...I don't think my mind can grasp the enormity of the error.

Besides, Buffy blew Spike. And probably Riley. And maybe Angel, later, when he was in L.A. But not Chunks.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 12-02-2005, 09:52 AM
anyrose anyrose is offline
I'm the *Cute* one. =^.^=
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: at my computer
Posts: 18,030
Quote:
Originally Posted by This Year's Model
As this is opinion about the arts, it's out of here.

Moved from IMHO to CS.
it's Return Of the Thread Nobody Wants!
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 12-02-2005, 10:02 AM
Scott Plaid Scott Plaid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Punoqllads
Two words: Small Wonder.
I don't care what anyone else thinks, I liked that show.

Now, personally, I Blame It All On Tomb Raider Sindrome. (I stole this from PC Gamer Magazine)

A company comes out with An amazing looking game with a #D world to explore. It's a big hit. Other companies want to copy it. So what elements do they copy? The 3d, the game play, the expanded horizon? No, they copy the big breasts.\

Same thing with sitcoms. Some standard sitcoms are funny. They don't copy the good writing, however. Instead, they make the Dad dumber, the situations more contrived, etc.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 12-02-2005, 11:09 AM
BluePitbull BluePitbull is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
I haven't watch sitcoms in years. I might watch Simpsons and Family Guy though.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 12-02-2005, 11:36 AM
kingpengvin kingpengvin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
I'm sick of the "old shows don't have quality or aren't as intellegent at today" arguments.

I recently watched two programs that while not as stylistically sophisticated or edgy were quite well written and well performed.
The first was a Columbo movie. Even with the dated references, clothing and archaich technology it was a compelling story, well acted and engrossing.

The second was an old episode of Adam-12. It wasn't a gritty character study of cops but it certainly felt like a true procedural show. The two actors were so natural with their dialogue and manerisms it almost didn't look scripted.

As far as Comedy goes I still laugh at old Jack Benny shows. The jokes are drawn out but that was his style. Sometimes a joke, even a crappy one becomes funny if the reaction is drawn out. Benny knew how to do that.

Finally I think the multiple plot style is just an easy out for the writers.
This is not a knock on the writers. Good writing is good writing but having to bang out an hour or half hour show once a week can be tough. If you have a team you can pitch three small ideas and just tie them together. Much easier than one long story.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 12-02-2005, 11:47 AM
Voyager Voyager is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 34,465
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingpengvin

As far as Comedy goes I still laugh at old Jack Benny shows. The jokes are drawn out but that was his style. Sometimes a joke, even a crappy one becomes funny if the reaction is drawn out. Benny knew how to do that.
A lot of classic comedians, like Benny, had years of experience on the radio before moving to TV. It helped. I'd offer Burns and Allen as another classic show.

As a counter-example, however, I offer Ozzie and Hariet.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 12-02-2005, 03:09 PM
control-z control-z is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by lissener
1. Seinfeld was stupid.
Seinfeld got sort of stupid, but didn't start out that way. Once it became a watercooler show I guess they had to keep trying to outdo themselves. Watch the first couple seasons, much more subtle insights into everyday life.

I think there were just as many inane shows in the past as now. What about Green Acres? I Love Lucy? Mister Ed? They were dumb shows just like Everybody Loves Raymond is a dumb show now.

There are occasional standouts like My Name is Earl, Seinfeld, MASH, Fraiser (although I thought the intellectual stuff was rather forced), and Arrested Development.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 12-02-2005, 03:19 PM
Fear Itself Fear Itself is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: 847 mi. from Cecil
Posts: 28,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by control-z
I think there were just as many inane shows in the past as now. What about Green Acres?
hey Hey HEY NOW!! Don't be dissin' my Green Acres! The writing on that show was top notch, and it still is a lot funnier than most of the FDHW* clones today.











*Fat Dad, Hot Wife
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 12-02-2005, 06:20 PM
jsgoddess jsgoddess is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by lissener
There aren't really any GREAT TV shows on now (although I haven't seen Lost yet).
The best show on TV right now is "Veronica Mars." Considering only three of us on the planet watch it, it won't be for long.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 12-02-2005, 06:33 PM
Cat Fight Cat Fight is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
From an interview with Arrested Development's Alia Shawkat:

Quote:

The other day Mitch [Hurwitz] came on the set and I was doing a scene with David, and Mitch was talking about how some of the people at the network were angry at him for not making the show dumber. An actual quote from one of the network executives to Mitch was, "You are trying too hard. Just stop trying so hard. We want it to be simpler." She was like, "Have you ever even tried to make it simpler?" They were angry at him for making the show too good. They were like, "You gotta dumb it down, slower pace. Have you ever tried to take out some of the storylines like we asked you to?" He was just sitting there dumbfounded, like, "What the fuck do you want me to do?"
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 12-02-2005, 06:46 PM
Charlie Tan Charlie Tan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsgoddess
The best show on TV right now is "Veronica Mars." Considering only three of us on the planet watch it, it won't be for long.
I agree that it's the best thing on tv.
But it's gaining momentum. I think it will survive for a 3rd season.

The fun thing with VM is that they're doing everything "wrong". Internal Monologue? Outdated, camp and stupid. Girl detective? Hey Nancy Drew, who cares in this brand new millenium. Rich WASP kids in a California High School? Puh-lease, that's so Aaron Spelling.
Not to mention how sex is treated: High School sophomore Lilly is not only fucking bad ass biker guy from the wrong part of town, she's doing Movie Star and Son of Movie Star and a little later her brother is doing step mom of his high school buddies.

I don't think VM could've been made had there not been Buffy*. But mostly, I think that 20 years from now, people will look back at the late 90's and early 00's as a golden age of tv. And Veronica Mars is going to be one of the top ten shows held up as an example (this is including cable shows, excluding those, it's in the top 5).


*But the biggest debt is to B5, which showed that tv can be so much better than movies and on par with literature, if only the showrunner gets a chance to tell the story without (too much) interference from the network. VM ows a great deal to Buffy, but all good contemporary tv ows everything to B5.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 12-02-2005, 07:16 PM
Bearflag70 Bearflag70 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
I recall a whimsical scene where our antagonist, Mr. Roper, stumbles into the living room and upon our humble protagonists, Jack and Chrissy, in the course of an innocent dialog in the bedroom as they try to locate a lost object.

However, by the time Mr. Roper enters, the conversation has already begun. Unable to see the pair, and unaware of the reason for and innocence of the conversation, Mr. Roper overhears only part of the conversation, which is apparently laden with sexual innuendo.

Mr. Roper continues to eavesdrop on our unsuspecting duo only to find the conversation becoming increasingly provocative and sexually suggestive in Mr. Roper's mind, which obviously angers him greatly. Infuriated, Mr. Roper charges into the bedroom, only to find Jack and Chrissy searching the room.

Hilarity ensues!

Genius.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 12-02-2005, 07:21 PM
Tio Gringo Tio Gringo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 478
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsgoddess
The best show on TV right now is "Veronica Mars." Considering only three of us on the planet watch it, it won't be for long.
I keep hearing about "Veronica Mars," but I don't know anything about it. What is the general gist of the story? What day/channel is it on?
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 12-02-2005, 07:37 PM
control-z control-z is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself
hey Hey HEY NOW!! Don't be dissin' my Green Acres! The writing on that show was top notch, and it still is a lot funnier than most of the FDHW* clones today.
Actually I agree. Green Acres is a great, silly, surrealistic show. But you have to admit they do the same gags over and over every episode. But I still like it after all these years.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 12-02-2005, 09:30 PM
kunilou kunilou is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 17,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by panache45
I'm old enough to remember TV in the '50s, and I don't think our appetite for stupidity has changed since then. At the risk of sounding like an elitist, I don't think most people have ever looked for much intellectual stimulation on the tube, then or now. The only difference is that there are more channels now.

The one thing that has changed, though, is what passes for "news," especially local news. It's embarrassing to watch.
Sing it. In 1958 there were 31 prime time westerns. They ranged from classics like Gunsmoke and Maverick to cow fodder like Buckskin.

If I wanted sophisticated humor in 1964, I watched Dick Van Dyke or That Was the Week That Was -- but most of us were watching The Beverly Hillbillies and Flipper.

Were Steve Allen and Jack Paar "better" than Leno and Letterman? Sometimes, but sometimes their shtick was trite and tired even by '50s standards.

The only thing I disagree with panache45 about -- local news could be pretty bad, back then, as well.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 12-02-2005, 09:34 PM
Ephemera Ephemera is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingpengvin
I'm sick of the "old shows don't have quality or aren't as intellegent at today" arguments.
It's the other side of the "OMG, everything was better in the old days!!!!!" coin that *I* get so sick of. People aren't happy unless they're bitching about something.

And yes, for anyone quoting this to point it out, I realize the irony inherent in my post.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 12-02-2005, 11:13 PM
jsgoddess jsgoddess is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilAsh
I keep hearing about "Veronica Mars," but I don't know anything about it. What is the general gist of the story? What day/channel is it on?
We'll start with the easy part.

It's scheduled in most markets for 9:00 EST on Wednesdays on UPN. So, it's opposite Lost. It struggles in the ratings.

It's about a girl whose father used to be sheriff of a town called Neptune, CA. A murder happened. It was Veronica's best friend. Her father accused the best friend's father and ended up losing his job over it. Her father became a private detective and Veronica hung around him, getting into sticky situations and attempting to solve her best friend's murder.

That's essentially the plot of the first season. It's a hard show to describe without it sounding dumb. It's not dumb, I promise.

And the creator of Buffy/Angel/Firefly, Joss Whedon, says:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joss Whedon
.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 12-03-2005, 11:27 AM
AskNott AskNott is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Anderson, IN,USA
Posts: 14,024
I've thought about watching Veronica Mars, but Mallard Fillmore spent most of a week shilling for the show, and that put me off.
__________________
"You know what they say about sleeping dogs; you can't trust 'em." --Oliver Faltz
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 12-04-2005, 08:41 AM
Ellis Dee Ellis Dee is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Gaspode
But mostly, I think that 20 years from now, people will look back at the late 90's and early 00's as a golden age of tv.
Really?

I know that I will look back on that time period as the Great Reality Wasteland in television history.

Five days in a row of Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?, and you think it's the "golden age of tv"?!
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 12-04-2005, 08:50 AM
Squee Squee is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
I've caught one episode of Veronica Mars while channel surfing. It's rare you hear of anything "great" coming out of the UPN network. It was pretty good, but not great. No disrespect to loyal fans.... I didn't like Firefly either, but love Arrested Development. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

I'll try to give VM another go this week... thanks for posting the date and time.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 12-04-2005, 10:59 AM
LonesomePolecat LonesomePolecat is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Exham Priory
Posts: 4,500
I doubt that TV thirty, forty or fifty years ago was more or less intelligent than it is today. But it was certainly much less coarse and vulgar.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:03 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.