What in your opinion is specifically wrong with modern American Television?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JustaServant
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A lot of the “it used to be better back in the day” is rose coloured glasses.
That is patently false. TV programs from the 1950s and 1960s are available. There were “Standards and Practices” Departments. Sexual situations like today? No. Profanity? No. You couldn’t even say the word pregnant.

Anyone can go look. In fact, a man would appear on TV to tell us: “We watch all the TV programs you watch to make sure they are suitable for the entire family.”

I was there.

Ed
 
That is patently false. TV programs from the 1950s and 1960s are available. There were “Standards and Practices” Departments. Sexual situations like today? No. Profanity? No. You couldn’t even say the word pregnant.

I was there.

Ed
I watch a fair amount of network and cable tv (not referring to movie channels though), its obvious to me they still censor quite a few ‘tame’ words out of tv, even VERY late night tv, Ive even seen them censor out the 3 letter word for a donkey at 10pm!!??

Remember back in the 90s when NYPD Blue was controversial over showing rear ends? This remains ‘taboo’ even today still?

Its strange, especially in the US, they would still do this, considering the times we live in now, seems like there would be many people calling to stop this in favor of MORE cursing, MORE nudity, etc.
 
We all have a tendency to romanticize the past; everything was so much better. The reality is that there were just as many challenges and struggles to confront. I think it is fair to make objective comparisons. Have you ever asked a young person’s perspective on a program from yester-years? Especially one you like? They will most likely not see it from the same perspective that you carry, but it doesn’t mean that they are wrong… 🙂
The response I generally get is they are ‘boring’ because ‘the stories move too slow’. They are used to the MTV-style split-second cuts that give the appearance of a faster-moving story. The camera and visuals have become other characters in the story. Instead of the actors moving the story along, now it is the camera.
 
That is patently false. TV programs from the 1950s and 1960s are available. There were “Standards and Practices” Departments. Sexual situations like today? No. Profanity? No. You couldn’t even say the word pregnant.

Anyone can go look. In fact, a man would appear on TV to tell us: “We watch all the TV programs you watch to make sure they are suitable for the entire family.”

I was there.

Ed
There were many shows in those days that were pretty much aimed at children. Shows like Leave it to Beaver, My Three Sons, and The Brady Bunch.
My dad was more interested in the crime or medical shows, which were aimed more at adults. But ‘adult’ in those days had more to do with story content than sex or cursing.
For example, there were episodes of Medical Center and Marcus Welby in the late sixties that dealt with abortion. But from a pro-life POV.
 
I suspect the word may have slipped out in some of the medical shows in the fifties. The ‘pregnant’ ban happened on I Love Lucy.
They got around it anyway by having Desi Arnez use the Spanish word for pregnant. Because apparently none of the censors knew Spanish. 😉
 
Mundane poo-poo humor to an indefatigable laugh track.
Laugh tracks appear to be an American phenomenon. Perhaps Jharek can clarify, but the British comedies were shown in front of an actual audience, not an electronic laugh machine with people who have been dead for decades.
 
That is patently false. TV programs from the 1950s and 1960s are available. There were “Standards and Practices” Departments. Sexual situations like today? No. Profanity? No. You couldn’t even say the word pregnant.

Anyone can go look. In fact, a man would appear on TV to tell us: “We watch all the TV programs you watch to make sure they are suitable for the entire family.”

I was there.

Ed
Still rose coloured glasses. It was overly sanitized but a lot of the media was still very dark. Go listen to some of the songs from the 50’s. Listen close to the lyrics and you will be surprised at how depressing they can be.
 
Laugh tracks appear to be an American phenomenon. Perhaps Jharek can clarify, but the British comedies were shown in front of an actual audience, not an electronic laugh machine with people who have been dead for decades.
Even when a live audience is used, often the laugh track is “sweetened.” I was in the studio audience for a sitcom, and I can tell you that the finished product had a lot more laughter than what was actually recorded at the taping.
 
Oh, I’m very much aware that you Brits can produce just as much garbage as we Yanks can. 😃 But I still prefer Britcoms over Americoms.
I’ve always been of the opinion comedy SHOULD be done in front of an actual audience. Only because of the energy the actors receive when performing. Jackie Gleason, Carroll O’ Connor, Redd Foxx, John Cleese, all benefited from performing before real people.
One camera, no audience, comedies are all the rage now, but I think it’s a mistake. One way a performer can be sure something is truly funny, is when he sees an actual reaction. Performing to a camera just doesn’t do that. There are exceptions to that. MASH for instance.
There was a story years ago that Lucille Ball’s mother was put as close to the boom mike as possible for the audience of I Love Lucy, because she would laugh the loudest. I you watch MASH on DVD with the laugh track on (it gives you a choice), you can still hear her. 😉
 
Even when a live audience is used, often the laugh track is “sweetened.” I was in the studio audience for a sitcom, and I can tell you that the finished product had a lot more laughter than what was actually recorded at the taping.
My wife loves the Big Bang Theory (I don’t), but one thing I notice is how abruptly the laughter begins and ends with each one-liner. Real human reaction doesn’t work that way.
I’m sure Lucy’s mother is in there somewhere.
 
Well, Monty Python’s Flying Circus was done in front of live audiences. They always showed shots of the audience applauding.
 
The response I generally get is they are ‘boring’ because ‘the stories move too slow’. They are used to the MTV-style split-second cuts that give the appearance of a faster-moving story. The camera and visuals have become other characters in the story. Instead of the actors moving the story along, now it is the camera.
This is not true. What the characters say and do are immoral in too many cases. Camera cuts and angles have nothing to do with that.

Ed
 
Right now… too many Republican “debates” that come across as nothing but really bad, reality TV.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top