savage inuit
Veteran X
hooters hooters yum yum yum hooters hooters on a girl that's dumb
Does TV just get better or is there another factor?
- Thread starter Austforbeer
- Start date
As noted, there's a different segment now that simply didn't exist earlier on. The likes of GoT and the big streaming series exist in a whole other market that genuinely drives end-user subscriptions rather than serving as a stable platform for advertisers to work off.
Those old shows basically had to work to grab as many generic eyeballs as possible, in a time where there was one or maybe two TVs in the house and they really couldn't afford to be very controversial. That could give them the ratings, which could sell ad space, which could keep the series running.
Now with streaming services that can be targeted at individuals instead of households, producers can afford to be a little more risky (and risque!) to create content that may offend some (who may have demanded to change the channel), but will hook others and pull in subscription dollars.
Basically - they can now fund these shows from a different source, and genuinely make them for the audience instead of advertisers.
That's why the comparison to movies comes in.. Movies have always been sold to the audience - to individuals buying into wanting to see this specific content. That's what these TV series have now that simply didn't exist before.
Those old shows basically had to work to grab as many generic eyeballs as possible, in a time where there was one or maybe two TVs in the house and they really couldn't afford to be very controversial. That could give them the ratings, which could sell ad space, which could keep the series running.
Now with streaming services that can be targeted at individuals instead of households, producers can afford to be a little more risky (and risque!) to create content that may offend some (who may have demanded to change the channel), but will hook others and pull in subscription dollars.
Basically - they can now fund these shows from a different source, and genuinely make them for the audience instead of advertisers.
That's why the comparison to movies comes in.. Movies have always been sold to the audience - to individuals buying into wanting to see this specific content. That's what these TV series have now that simply didn't exist before.
Also: Married with Children was awesome in its early days. It well and truly jumped the shark (multiple times) in its time, though. Jeffferson, "No ma'am", Seven... yeah, it got pretty bad in the end.
bowl of blood
Contributor
to expand on the budget thing because i think a lot of people assume that just means special effects
with a marginal budget you cannot afford:
- location shooting: everything will be filmed in a super cheesy looking studio
- cinematography: everything will be flatly lit and look like a living room
- editing: you need to stick to 1-3 fixed cameras, medium shots only, forget tracking, close-ups, long shots, basically all of the language of cinema
- original composition: you get a theme song and a few synth stings, hope you don't need to rouse any emotion
- talent, by far the most important: you can only afford the writers, directors, actors, etc. who couldn't make it in hollywood, because if they were any good they'd go where the money is
cable happened and changed everything about the revenue model, streaming happened and did again, and that's why television today is higher quality trash
also yes mwc is the greatest television program
with a marginal budget you cannot afford:
- location shooting: everything will be filmed in a super cheesy looking studio
- cinematography: everything will be flatly lit and look like a living room
- editing: you need to stick to 1-3 fixed cameras, medium shots only, forget tracking, close-ups, long shots, basically all of the language of cinema
- original composition: you get a theme song and a few synth stings, hope you don't need to rouse any emotion
- talent, by far the most important: you can only afford the writers, directors, actors, etc. who couldn't make it in hollywood, because if they were any good they'd go where the money is
cable happened and changed everything about the revenue model, streaming happened and did again, and that's why television today is higher quality trash
also yes mwc is the greatest television program
The formula has been well refined over the years, and mainstream made-for-tv shows stick to whatever their market testing tells them to use tighter than they ever have in the past. They are entirely risk-averse.
this is it right here
pre hbo, tv shows were mainly just sitcoms or silly dramas with the odd exception(startrek tng for example), and the big budget, good idea, thought provoking stuff was reserved for movies.
now that you can shoot a 1 hour episode with a budget of 15M each, you are seeing tv shows summarily outclass movies because you're working with similar budgets, but give you a much longer run time to expand on the ideas and characters. book-movie adaptations usually suck because you just dont have enough time to convey everything, wheras a book-tv show adaptation with a proper budget can really do the story justice
there is absolutely no way they could remake "married with children" today
just about every topic of laughter and ridicule is now off limits due to pc era
except them laughing at al bundy
just about every topic of laughter and ridicule is now off limits due to pc era
except them laughing at al bundy
don't say sucks donkey dicks out loud
it will give them ideas of new material
it will give them ideas of new material
bowl of blood
Contributor
my favorite part of mwc is that it caricatures both sides to such a degree it's impossible to tell who it's mocking more - it's like south park but without the bitter rage and cynicism
like al's favorite tv show is "psycho dad", about a heroic dad who kills his family and goes on adventures
Here an 'un, there an 'un, everywhere an 'un 'un.
Austforbeer
Veteran XX
This is a great post and I actually learned a lot from it so thank you. Cinematography, which I think captures most of your points, wasn't something I actually thought about much until recently when someone explained it properly to me and I began to pay attention.
That being said, I don't suppose it's so much about the "Special Effects" as it is the story itself and the interest I have in it. As previously mentioned, Twin Peaks and X-Files started that for me I suppose. However, I was a kid during the the 80's and 90's and when I look back, a lot of it doesn't stand up to my expectations now.
What's this thread has made me realize for myself is that writing is really what's most important to me. I think if you did the same plots of Battlestar Galactia (from 2004) back with 80's "special effects" I think I would still be able to hang. But I don't see that kind of writing in TV or movies back then and if I missed it I'd love to know about it.
Oddly enough when I was much older movies from the 70's, like Kelly's Hero's for example, that was actually a very good movie with well written dialogue and a decent plot. So I suppose with movies having more money back then it makes more sense.
Nevertheless I still can't help but see myself being discontent with average TV back in the 80's.
hahahah
and the hilariousness of No-MAaM
and every idiotic backfire
man i enjoyed that show as a kid
bowl of blood
Contributor
and because the aforementioned constraints mainly affected the director's power to tell a story with the camera, television came to be known as a writer's medium. that's how guys like rod serling and gene roddenberry were able to be so influential (and eventually forge themselves careers in the movies) and later why writers like joss whedon, chris carter, aaron sorkin, etc. came to be television's authorial brands.
there's also the whole thing about how tv started out as televised stage plays before the age of shows as serial comedies/dramas but wikipedia knows a lot more about that than I do (the golden age). the only thing i've seen from this era is the first adaptation of casino royale, and if you're a bond fan you ought to check it out, just because it's so weird (bond is recast as an american who goes by 'jimmy bond')
also it's weird that you use battlestar galactica as your example of something you would like regardless of budget, because isn't that the one show you can actually test? I mean, we have the '78 season right there.
i don't watch too much old tv (keep in mind i was born in 1988 and have no nostalgia for the stuff) but pre-90s shows that i've enjoyed include:
- batman (the adam west one)
- the adventures of superman
- mission impossible
- the twilight zone
- star trek original series
- mobile suit gundam (0079)
- doctor who is ehhh not recommended
- flying circus
- sanford and son
- fawlty towers
- the muppet show & fraggle rock, have not watched storyteller
why '70s movies are better is a whole different subject that i won't go into
there's also the whole thing about how tv started out as televised stage plays before the age of shows as serial comedies/dramas but wikipedia knows a lot more about that than I do (the golden age). the only thing i've seen from this era is the first adaptation of casino royale, and if you're a bond fan you ought to check it out, just because it's so weird (bond is recast as an american who goes by 'jimmy bond')
also it's weird that you use battlestar galactica as your example of something you would like regardless of budget, because isn't that the one show you can actually test? I mean, we have the '78 season right there.
i don't watch too much old tv (keep in mind i was born in 1988 and have no nostalgia for the stuff) but pre-90s shows that i've enjoyed include:
- batman (the adam west one)
- the adventures of superman
- mission impossible
- the twilight zone
- star trek original series
- mobile suit gundam (0079)
- doctor who is ehhh not recommended
- flying circus
- sanford and son
- fawlty towers
- the muppet show & fraggle rock, have not watched storyteller
why '70s movies are better is a whole different subject that i won't go into