Is this a golden age of television?

Cafe Society
1

Last night, my boyfriend and I sat down after a nice dinner, and watched TV. Not an entirely unusual event, of course. What struck me as unusual about it was that I’d spent the day looking forward to it.

We’ve had to limit our TV watching nights recently, in fact, to two nights a week. That way, we’ve got tons of useful time elsewhere. Tuesdays, we watch Gilmore Girls, then Smallville, and then Buffy. Wednesdays, it’s a taped Everwood, then Angel, then West Wing. And it’s this Wednesday that I want to talk about.

First, there was Everwood. Usually, the show is pretty good; the writing is good, the acting is good, and the characters are well-conceived and executed. This episode, however, was amazing. With a parental advisory starting things off, the show went directly into an exploration of a teenage pregnancy, and its effects on the people involved. Somehow, the show managed to put me through the emotional wringer, and never came off as preaching; instead, it simply showed the characters as people reacting to a difficult situation.

Next, the season finale of Angel. There’s another thread around here that’s going into detail on the subject. Suffice it to say that this episode completed one of the most intricate, detailed, bizarre, effective, and just plain excellent season of a television show I’ve ever seen. And the last scene left my boyfriend in tears, and me pretty close to it.

Last, West Wing. An excellent episode, of an amazing series, where things are building to what may very well be an astonishing climax. Another thread’s discussing it as well.

So, three hours of incredible television later, my boyfriend and I are walking the dogs, and during our conversation about the evening’s viewing, we realize that we are totally, completely emotionally exhausted. Drained. The quality of the shows is such that we have been totally involved in them for hours, and they have affected us deeply.

Now, I’ve been watching TV for a long time. And I never remember feeling like this, ever. I don’t remember spending days looking forward to episodes of shows, I don’t remember crying while watching shows, and I sure don’t remember feeling numb because I’ve had an intense emotional workout after watching a few hours of TV.

So, on to my question. Is this really a golden age of television? If so, why?

I really believe it is. I think the way was paved by shows like Northern Exposure, which was revolutionary in its time. I think it had a lot to do with the abandonment of the reset button at the end of every episode; once serial stories crept into prime time, real character development could take place. I also place the credit at the feet of the networks, who have started to give non-formulaic shows a shot, and have given their talent a bit more leeway. Whatever the case, I think this is a golden age of television, a landmark season in a medium that’s seeing enormous progress take place.

Television has gotten good enough to compete with movies, and is becoming capable of some very sophisticated dramatic storytelling. It’s a medium that’s finally coming into its own.

Or am I wrong?

2

Yes, because most people today could spend essentially all their free time watching TV and still not watch it all. In the past, you would soon get bored and do something else because one could actually finish watching all the good shows.

3

Well I should hope TV is “finally” coming into its own. It’s more than 50 years old, you know.

60 minute dramas have always been higher quality than anything else on TV. Back in the 1960s, NBC was called “the 10:00 network” because of the strength of their dramas. The multi-episode character development that you like started at least as early as Hill Street Blues in 1981.

That said, I think too many writers look to put their characters in absurd situations. And every drama (even the good ones) now seems to have what sticoms refer to as “the wacky neighbor” who may be quirky, but undercuts the reality of the lead characters (are you listening, David E. Kelley?)

4

TV is trivia. Too many people revolve their social lives around what happens in TV land. Why supplement your lives with “other people’s drama”?

Try going without television for a year. Watch it after that and see how much it resembles a drug.

It’s disgusting.

(sorry. I’m having a bad day. But this IS how I feel about TV…)

5

Well, I think you can make a case for dramas.

I’m not so sure about comedy. King of the ratings mountain is an over the hill show called Friends. There’s a bunch of middling shows about families - Raymond, King of Queesn, Seven rules, etc, etc. Nothing really exciting or revolutionary right now.

The real standout genre of today is reality programming. This is an era that, I think, will be most remembered for the birth and growth of reality programming. You have your Idols, Bachelors, Survivors, and Milliionaires. Some of it is pretty good, IMHO.

I don’t know that this is a golden age in general. I think maybe almost ten years ago with a fresh Friends, Seinfeld, reality programming just breaking in, NYPD Blue, and a bunch I can’t recall was a better time.

I have to admit that I don’t watch as much as I did ten years ago so I’m biased.

But, am I wrong?

6

Golden age??? Are you serious… Look at the pap most of the Networks are putting out compared to the Quality shows. For every Sopranoes or six feet under there are a dozen “reality shows” Which take up more air time and brain cells than required. The average show is geared now for the average 17 year old market and dumbed down to “reflect” that market group. Most of the true Quality programs seem to be coming from the cable channels and are not aired during prime time.

The actual Golden age of Television is considered its formative years when chances were taken and experiments made in a fledgling medium. The Golden age of Sit Coms would have to be the seventies. Shows Like All in the Family, MASH and Taxi still hold up well compared to most of the dreck that exists today (save a few notables)

With the exception of most of the 80s I’d have to say one dramas, especially police ones have been exceptional on TV.

Just my 2 cents.

7

I think the cable nets are finally showing some promise. Lots of original programming that’s on par with the broadcast nets, such as Dead Zone, The Wire, Monk. TLC is getting a nice little niche too. HBO has good series out the wazoo.

Additionally, reality programming is corrupting the idea of traditional seasons, which can only be a good move. The option of 10 episodes to tell a story rather than 24 is important. Reality series also have turned the summer into less of a wasteland of random reruns. For instance, we’re getting Amazing Race 4 this summer, a show I’d watch before most others on TV.

So surprisingly, I would say it is a bit of a golden age. OTOH, comedies aren’t doing well, as was posted before.

8

There are some very good shows on, but given the high volume of programming, there’s surely more crap than ever. Proportionally, I don’t know if things have changed, but between reality TV, AWFUL newswork, and a lot of other cheesiness, I wouldn’t call this a golden age. I’m not sure I’d call any of the shows in the original post ‘great.’ HBO is the only network consistently pushing things forward right now, I think.
Can anybody seriously be discussing current TV’s greatness, though, and not mention The Simpsons? :wally :wink:

9

Golden Age? Reality shows alone will make this era to television be remembered as terrible dreck.

10

actually, judging by the quality of kid programming these days, in 2020 genius IQ will be 20.

Bleh.

11

It really drives me nuts when I read stuff like this. Of course, you’re entitled to this opinion. But I hope that you’ve never:

(1) read Moby Dick , Great Expectations, or The Godfather

(2) seen Citizen Kane or The Silence of the Lambs

(3) seen Sweeney Todd, La Boheme, or, for that matter, Swan Lake

Because any of these things would be supplementing your life with “other people’s drama,” which of course is beneath you, right?

  • FCF
12

I don’t watch the “reality shows,” don’t like them. But I have to acknowledge that they are the first really NEW program format to come on broadcast TV since . . . well, probably since the '60s! Everything else on TV now – sports, news, sitcoms, drama series, soap operas, game shows, comedy-variety shows – was pretty much in place by the end of the '60s, and later developments in each format were technical, not fundamental. Even the cable networks haven’t offered us anything really new, except for music videos. But “reality shows” are really new. I just hope sooner or later the TV execs think of something that is both new and good.

13

I know this is heretical, but what the hell is wrong with reality programming? There is good (The Amazing Race, Survivor) and bad (Mr. Personality, Fear Factor), but it is a real and viable format.

Think of the argument you are making when you disparage all reality programming in favor of scripted shows. All scripted shows attempt to do is develop a simalacrum of reality. The vast majority of scripted shows do this very poorly.

So in honor of reality programs let me point out the following advantages over scripted television.

  1. When I am watching reality shows with my family we talk much more about what we see on TV than when watching other programming. Granted much of this is along the lines of “Can you believe they did that”, but hey it counts.

  2. A good reality show has characters you can more readily identify with than a scripted show. We all know someone, for example, like Rob on Survivor. Do you really know someone like Gil Grissom, or Angel for that matter.

  3. They let you decide what you would do in a given situation. You don’t watch Friends and think about how you would respond if you were involved in one of their innumerable wacky misunderstandings. People watch reality TV to pick over the mistakes of others and to ponder what they would do in the same situation.

  4. And finally it is something different. Is there really a host of sitcoms out there that aren’t recycling the same gags that were old when Threes Company was on. Reality TV still maintains the capacity to give you something that hasn’t been done yet.

Mind you I’m not a reality TV freak or anything. I am reacting to the odd sort of snobbery that seems to exist about it. Tom Shales, the TV critic for the Washington Post, routinely rails against even the good reality shows while praising routine dreck like The King of Queens.

So here’s looking forward to Amazing Race, which by any objective standard is one of the best shows on television. As to the OP I firmly believe this is a golden age. The only weak area is sitcoms, especially with Seinfeld gone and The Simpsons aging. Hour long dramas are as good as they have ever been though.

14

**1. When I am watching reality shows with my family we talk much more about what we see on TV than when watching other programming. Granted much of this is along the lines of “Can you believe they did that”, but hey it counts. **

Of course “they did that”. They’re on TV. Just because the show isn’t scripted doesn’t mean that being on TV, usually in a situation where there’s some kind of cash prize up for grabs, doesn’t effect their behavior.

**2. A good reality show has characters you can more readily identify with than a scripted show. We all know someone, for example, like Rob on Survivor. Do you really know someone like Gil Grissom, or Angel for that matter. **

Outside of my enjoyment of fiction - TV, movies, books, etc. - I have friends, I family, I have acquaintances and co-workers. I see more than enough of these people in my everyday life, I don’t need to be reminded of them when on the TV, nor do I need a character on a TV show to remind me of someone in the real world for me to connect with them.

3. They let you decide what you would do in a given situation. You don’t watch Friends and think about how you would respond if you were involved in one of their innumerable wacky misunderstandings. People watch reality TV to pick over the mistakes of others and to ponder what they would do in the same situation.

Oh yeah, because the situations on “reality” TV are all authentic to our everyday lives. Why, I remember the time last year I was stuck on an island as part of one of two teams competing for a million dollars, or the time last month me and a bunch of other guys put on masks to force this girl we liked to choose us based on criteria other than looks . . . Sorry, this argument doesn’t hold up. Most reality TV is just overly complex and dragged out game shows, and even stuff like The Real World isn’t very realistic.

4. And finally it is something different. Is there really a host of sitcoms out there that aren’t recycling the same gags that were old when Threes Company was on. Reality TV still maintains the capacity to give you something that hasn’t been done yet.

If this is true, then why after only a few years of being in vogue does every reality show seem like a tired retread of something that’s already been done?

15

I’d have to say that I agree with the idea that the sitcom is in a major slump at the moment. I’d lay the blame for that on the doorstep of shows like Gilmore Girls and West Wing, which consist of an admixture of comedy and drama, to excellent effect. I think it’s much more engaging to watch a cast of characters who are funny, but who develop and change and have things happen to them that are decidedly not funny. It’s a more complete picture.

Which makes sitcoms seem artificial, inadequate, and strained. People trying to be funny all the time are annoying.

Reality programming is interesting; it’s an entirely different way of involving the audience in the unfolding events. And calling it unscripted isn’t exactly accurate; every show has preconditions, casting, a series of events in a distinct order, dramatic tension induced by artificial conditions, and a whole lot of editing to piece it together into a narrative. So there is a script, it just omits the dialog.

As to whether this era will be cursed for initiating reality TV, I’d say that depends on what ends up resulting from reality TV. It’s a new approach to the medium, and like all such things, will take a while to mature.

So, I’d have to qualify my initial statement. It seems that this is a golden age of hour-long TV drama.

Except that some of the dramas are as much comedies as dramas. Some are more fantasy; some are science fiction (the lamented Firefly), some are crime shows, some include elements of the surreal. The narrow definition of drama seems to have worn out, and the new enlarged scope seems to be suiting the medium well.

As to those who don’t like TV… your choice. But if you don’t watch it, and you critique its quality, then what are you basing your opinions on?

16

Tell me more, please. I didn’t discover Northern Exposure until it was syndicated on A&E a few years ago, so I totally missed out on any kind of “revolution” at the time. I love the show, but what were people saying about it when it was fresh and new? How were the ratings, the reviews, and all that at the time (if you recall)?

I think Six Feet Under is the reigning king of serialized hour-long dramas (with comedic elements) with excellent ensemble casts. Was Northern Exposure really the first show to set this standard? If so, then that’s pretty cool. (And I’m not counting MASH, by the way.)

17

Eh, I think TV has jumped the shark.

18

I think shows like St. Elsewhere & Twin Peaks paved the way for shows like Northern Exposure. Mark Frost is the common denominator there.

19

For that matter, Hill Street Blues paved the way for St. Elsewhere and Twin Peaks. Mark Frost got into the TV business working for Steven Bochco, after all.

Hill Street Blues was the first quality network show to feature multiple storylines, a mix of drama and comedy, and no reset button.

However, Hill Steet Blues was not the first hourlong drama to feature multiple storylines and no reset button. That honor goes to the nighttime soaps of the late 70s/early 80s: Dallas, Dynasty, etc. Which goes to show that innovation is not synonomous with quality.

20

MrVisible. I tend to agree.
But then, we only import the best shows. And yes, there is an incredible amount of dreck.
But still:
Buffy, Gilmore Girls, Angel, West Wing, Sopranos, Six Feet Under, Oz, C.S.I., 24, Band of Brothers (mini series, but still). There are quite a lot of very good, decent shows.
We also import good stuff from Denmark (you’ll be getting an American remake of a very good copshow, some network bought the rights for a remake), England, Australia, France.

I have a feeling that actors, who wouldn’t be seen doing TV, ten years ago, are coming back. With Hollowood going for the ever bigger budget, bigger box-office formula, fewer movies are being made. So actors, writers, producers and directors turn to television. There are some people, like Sorkin or Wheadon, with stories to tell. And since they can’t get financing to make movies, then TV is the answer.
And the actors notice the opportunities too. What was Keifer Sutherland? C-status. Really crappy action movie that never hit theatres, but went directly to video. With ‘24’ he’s in the public eye again and I’m betting his agent’s getting more and better scripts now.