Second Golden Age of Television

**Frownland** · 01-16-2014, 04:29 PM

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

What are your thoughts on this?

Lisnaholic · 06-15-2014, 08:29 AM

^ 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:-

Quote:

List of most watched television broadcasts:-

In 2005, the British Film Institute compiled a list of programmes with the biggest audience since 1955. The top 10 are:

1 1966 World Cup Final : .................... 32.30 million 30 July 1966
2 Funeral of Princess Diana: ................32.10 million 6 September 1997
3 British Royal Family documentary: ..... 30.69 million 1969
4 EastEnders Den divorces Angie: .........30.15 million 25 December 1986
5 Apollo 13 splashdown: .....................28.60 million 17 April 1970
6 FA Cup replay: Chelsea vs. Leeds: .... 28.49 million 29 April 1970
7 Royal Wedding of Charles & Diana: .... 28.40 million 29 July 1981
8 Wedding of Princess Anne: .............. 27.60 million 14 November 1973
9 Coronation Street Hilda Ogden leaves: 26.65 million 25 December 1987
10 2012 London Olympic Closing: ..........24.46 million 12 August 2012

So what we really want as a nation are Sports, Soaps and Royalty. What`s the best smilie for that -

,

or

?

The Batlord · 06-15-2014, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lisnaholic

So what we really want as a nation are Sports, Soaps and Royalty. What`s the best smilie for that -

,

or

?

djchameleon · 06-15-2014, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lisnaholic

So what we really want as a nation are Sports, Soaps and Royalty. What`s the best smilie for that -

,

or

?

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:

Quote:

Certainly not everything on TV is "golden" in this new age.

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.

Lisnaholic · 06-15-2014, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord

^ That gave me a genuine lol moment - thanks!

Quote:

Originally Posted by djchameleon

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

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.

Quote:

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.

^ 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.

Paul Smeenus · 06-15-2014, 04:11 PM

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

djchameleon · 06-15-2014, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lisnaholic

^ 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.

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.

Mr. Charlie · 06-18-2014, 07:07 PM

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.

DwnWthVwls · 06-18-2014, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djchameleon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lisnaholic

So what we really want as a nation are Sports, Soaps and Royalty. What`s the best smilie for that -

,

or

?

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

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.

Mr. Charlie · 06-18-2014, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls

All Americans loved 9/11.

01-16-2014, 04:29 PM	#1 (permalink)
Frownland SOPHIE FOREVER Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: East of the Southern North American West Posts: 35,548	Second Golden Age of Television Welcome to TV's second "Golden Age" - CBS News What are your thoughts on this? __________________ Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth. d e a f b o x

06-18-2014, 07:07 PM	#8 (permalink)
Mr. Charlie Shoo Thoughts Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: These Mountains Posts: 2,308	There's more choice on TV today, but I''m not convinced the ratio of sht 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 sht. Indeed they produce more sh*t than not.