Second Golden Age of Television
 

Welcome to TV's second "Golden Age" - CBS News

What are your thoughts on this?

^ Thought I`d bump this article to add my own grumble to the thread topic. While the article talks quite positively about what`s happening on tv today, from the armchair I sit in it seems to be business as usual; a lot of junk and one or two good progs.
One point the article makes is that a tv series allows for much more character development than a movie, which I`d agree with. I think it shows up especially in sitcoms, where you learn what to expect from the Joey Tribianis and Sheldon Coopers etc. There`s some obscure satisfaction to be had when you can say, "oh yes, Ted is being Ted Moseby again." In contrast, in comedy movies it takes about 45 minutes to establish the characters, who then deliver about two comic lines apiece before it`s time to wrap up the show with the make-up kiss or the feel-good wedding scene.

So, for me the article has some truth but some over-optimistic thinking too.

On the other hand, something pretty depressing are these viewing statistics that I dug up for the UK:-

So what we really want as a nation are Sports, Soaps and Royalty. What`s the best smilie for that - :o:, :(, :banghead: or :rolleyes: ?

That's not really fair to compare big cultural events to shows that have great writing and are viewed by niche audiences.

Also they did mention this straight from the article:
All the rest of the reality tv shows are still hanging on because of low production value and high rewards by ratings fit into that category but the majority of that article was focused on the writing for series also the fact that there are more movie actors taking on television roles because of how well they are written most likely.

^ That gave me a genuine lol moment - thanks!

Quite right, I could have been fairer and more precise about the article, and the table of mass audiences only reveals a little about tv and our attitude to it.
^ Not sure that I entirely understood this, dj, but if you`re saying that "reality" shows are on tv because they are popular and cheap to make, then I agree.
I feel it to be a real con trick on the part of tv companies: they get us to accept unremarkable people making banal, unscripted comments as entertainment and they save themselves a fortune on actors, scriptwriters and rehearsals. If, as you and the article are saying, there`s a return to the making of quality drama progs, then I`ll get that clapping smiley out instead.

This is why I don't pay for tv, even when I can afford it

Yes, that is what I am saying. There are more quality produced shows around but that doesn't mean that reality shows aren't around because they are gold mines.

Also just because reality shows are around doesn't mean that they demise the quality of other programs.

There's more choice on TV today, but I''m not convinced the ratio of sh*t to good programmes has changed for the better. Most the stuff on TV is still junk, junk that wants to entertain and only entertain, and whether it's well produced or not, those kinda programmes seldom do it for me. I don't want drama real or scripted, I want interesting information. Thankfully the BBC are obligated by law to educate and inform, so a portion of their output is content that dares to be interesting, to educate, and enage your imagination. But they too produce a lot of sh*t. Indeed they produce more sh*t than not.

All Americans loved 9/11. The viewer ratings were sky high.

For as long as I can remember there has always been hit shows with great writing and generic bull****. I think with all the "reality" shows dominating tv today make flipping through channels and finding something good on pretty difficult. TiVo is an amazing thing, perhaps the 2nd Golden Age is a facade because of the control we have over our TVs now and not the content itself.

:laughing: