Philistine!
The only choice is Carter Country!
This is a joke, right? Cartoons?
Todays TV isn’t just a different form. You’re discounting the form from ever “evolving”
and that occurred because of the lack of interest in those old tired played out tropes, not just “trashing” an older beloved form. That one can drop in any time in a show and enjoy a few minutes is exactly what might be considered bad about it, by a thoughtful intelligent viewer looking for a new experience.
The methods of distribution have changed. Those old shows were from a time when you couldn’t see things at will, or see whole DVD sets, watch youtube, or spend time on the internet. How could this not affect our tolerance for those old tv shows and drive them to be more engaging?
It’s a different world. And it didn’t devolve into less interesting TV. If your value system is for: simplistic, artificial, never ending, and without emotional and lifelike verisimilitude then you will like the old stuff. I watched it at the time and it was good, but “You had to be there” applies fully.
We are talking about TV shows and these are todays TV shows. They are made fopr people to be interested in, not to catch a few minutes of. That’s the reality unless you want to asterisk everything over the issue of “Before sopranos”. But that’s not this thread, at least so far.
Then why do you think there is a different form of TV out now if it wasn’t an evolution towards better? What is your scenario?
I find it hard to fathom making an argument against the fact that TV has gotten more emotionally engaging. This is exactly what it was always not, and the industry finally took notice. The market is speaking, not posters here, and though it takes a while sometimes it gets something right.
The way I see it is exactly opposite from your perspective. Of COURSE more recent shows are going to be better than older shows, because artists are learning and building on what came before them, and improving and refining the art. It’s just like how our current understanding of math and physics is better than Einstein’s, Usain Bolt runs faster than Carl Lewis, and Babe Ruth would hit approximately zero home runs against even mediocre modern pitchers.
Anyway, I’ll add to the chorus and say Game of Thrones deserves to be on the list.
Have you seen any of the titles Sage Rat mentioned?
Avatar the last air bender
Stargate SG1 for sci fi
Does the same reasoning apply to movies, and music?
According to the Salon article linked above, I Love Lucy almost made the cut.
The book described in the article won’t be out until next week, so I’m reserving judgment until I see it. Presumably it isn’t limited to the top five shows of all time. I would be flabbergasted if classics like Twilight Zone, Star Trek, and The Fugitive aren’t in there somewhere.
TZ would be my pick for best TV series of all time, but I can understand why others would not agree, particularly if sustained, consistent quality is among the criteria. By Serling’s own admission, about a third of the episodes were terrible and another third were passable at best.
Japan’s animation industry kicked off after Disney made it big. The pioneer of the industry was a guy named Tezuka Osamu (he invented Astroboy). But while Osamu did inherit Disney’s art style, he didn’t follow him much in the story department. While Disney topped out with Fantasia, in terms of creating something with adult content (i.e., the centaurs), Osamu made a completely adult film based on the 1001 Nights. This influenced the rest of animation history in Japan. By the 70s, you already had hardcore porn and TV shows like Devilman, where naked people were running around and being mutilated by demons. Not to say that it’s all like that. Animation in Japan has been developed for all ages and genders for 50 years now. There’s a wide variety.
Now it’s true that most of the animation that makes it big and hops the pond is lighter, sillier fare. But that’s true in the US as well. Popcorn, pg-13 films are more prevalent and more popular than R or deep, artsy movies, for example.
But take for example the movie Black Swan. It was made as an homage to the animation film, Perfect Blue. Stylistically and in terms of what audience they target, the movies are completely on par. The Matrix was a dumbed down version of Ghost in the Shell. Firefly the TV series supposedly wasn’t based on anything Japanese, but I found it a bit bland because it didn’t do anything that I hadn’t already seen in a half dozen Japanese series.
90% of everything is crap, and that includes animation from Japan. I wouldn’t be surprised if you’ve not come across anything worth comparing to Deadwood. But that doesn’t mean that there isn’t something worth comparing to Deadwood.
House of Cards.
The whole series is on Netflix streaming.
Today’s TV shows are showing the older shows up as relative hackwork, in most cases, made for a different media consuming pattern. The same thing is not happening in music or film, at least now.
You have not seen many recent sit-coms.
I like long-form TV drama because I feel like I become more “invested” in the characters, emotionally. They aren’t people I tune in to see what they’re up to this week, these are people I’ve come to know.
I think it’s the same reason I prefer novels that are part of a series, and prefer MMORPGs over other types of video games.
I totally disagree. Production values are better but not creativity. It’s like comparing a modern pop single to a Robert Johnson recording from the 1930’s and concluding that the later is relative hackwork. Or a modern movie to a Charlie Chaplin silent film.
I think your reducing to absurdity here. TV is not an analog of music. The Robert Johnson cite is ridiculous.
I’m talking about the best of the tv shows of the 21st century (The new golden age so to speak) vs the best tv from the 50s 60s and 70s.
TV wasn’t good then and wasn’t made to last. It was shallow and it is good for nostalgia mostly. TV series are shallow because they are made to have stories where nothing changes. By definition this is bad drama. And the more years go by the less watchable it is because of that. It was never a very creative medium once you got past the childhood wonder phase. It sounds like you’re saying that the Sopranos, breaking bad, mad men, leftovers, are not as creative as gunsmoke. Really? Marcus Welby is the Robert Johnson song of television?
You’re never going to get people to stay in front of a tv and watch those old style shows again. Ask yourself why. Lately networks and the film industry have recognized this and we have a lot of great shows. We have simply changed in our demands. And I think we have gotten more demanding of creativity, some of us. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.
Why do you think TV has changed if not that?
I think you’re trying to make some good points but you lose me when you start bashing those creators from the past being hacks and not being creative.
Seriously, where do you got off bashing a total group of writers, actors, producers as not being creative? Rod Serling wasn’t creative? Carl Reiner wasn’t creative?
Mel Brooks, Jackie Gleason, Norman Lear, Lucille Ball, Sheldon Leonard, etc… were all a bunch of non creative hacks? Really???
Look, if you wan’t to make some point that today’s television is the greatest of all time (With all those hours of “Reality TV” filling up the network and cable time slots, I find that a hard point to make) go ahead, that’s your opinion. But I think there’s a better way to try and make a point that doesn’t trash the creative people who had the audacity, to read your words, to have worked at a time when the ONLY creativity was a " childhood wonder phase".
Have some respect and perspective.
You compare apples to oranges. Rate modern network fare against the oldies. Perry Mason is a great show, The Man from Uncle, Peter Gunn. HBO and other such fare are new inventions.
I’m mainly talking about dramatic shows. The comic talents you mention are immortal. They worked in all mediums too if you remember. You don’t seem to have a long list of dramatic tv immortals though.
Rod Serling, eh. The twilight zone was the first show I saw in reruns that convinced me that the older shows were as much memory as reality. A yawner to me. The outer limits was better, for me.
It’s hard to imagine anyone arguing that tv has not always been more trash than not though. It’s not disrespectful to call it what it is. There is a reason they call it the Boob tube. Have you ever heard that term? And there is a reason it seems better to you when you’re a kid. It’s a little unrealistic to picture those eras as bastions of quality. There is however a current trend of films and TV changing places in the culture from then to now, in that films seem to be made increasingly for kids, and a lot of good TV seems to be gearing to an adult audience. From my perch I think that’s good.
I have plenty of perspective having watched a lot of TV in the 60s and 70s. I’m a big fan of a lot of old shows but they have a way of letting you down. This thread is my chance to have it out. sorry. You can argue the merits if you want or ignore it. I’m OK.
Did you watch the man from uncle first run? I lived and died by the man from uncle.
Go back and watch some of it. Do you think it’s holding up? I have only done that a little bit. It is mainly nostalgia, to me. 50 years later it can look a little silly is my point.