As this is opinion about the arts, it’s out of here.
Moved from IMHO to CS.
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.
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.
Wow, this thread’s got more moves than some kinda… paint shaker… dealie.
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.
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).
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.
What did he do that was so good? Firefly was OK, but Buffy blew chunks…
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.
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.
it’s Return Of the Thread Nobody Wants! 
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.
I haven’t watch sitcoms in years. I might watch Simpsons and Family Guy though.
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.
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. :eek:
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.
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
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.