Jump to content

Is the golden age of TV over now?


JonArryn

Recommended Posts

I read an interesting artice and just had to post this as a topic. It basically makes the suggestion that the golden age of Tv shows is over because of shows like Walking Dead and Game of Thrones taking over the business in 2010. Instead of draws like story and writing you have things like dragons and zombies that are supposed to attract the viewer. So it's more instant gratification , "oh look a zombie, oh look a dragon, I will watch this". Greenwald who wrote the article says or maybe suggests between the lines that because of that we aren't getting and maybe won't get as many new truly great shows that we got from 1999-2009. In ways the medium has changed and we probably won't get as many significant and deep perspective series that we have gotten during the "Golden Age".



He explains it much better than I can so if you wanna know more I'd recommened the article. Basically Mad Men's last season will end the renaissance in tv. The way movies changed in the 70's is the way that TV will change now and has changed since 2010 is the main point.



As many here I'm a big tv show buff. I've seen a lot of tv from the 2000's onwards, and I agree with some things in the article. TV will probably change and it's gonna be further apart between the masterpiece shows. If someone wants evidence you need only to compare the tv shows created from 2000-2009 to the ones created since 2010.



Now I'm not saying that one way is better than the other. I enjoy spectacle tv and movies as much as the next person, but the problem I guess is if the bold writing and ideas that defined the Golden Age are gonna become less frequent because of the new way.



I still think there are a lot of great tv shows coming out nowadays and I watch a lot of new shows so don't get me wrong, the point is probably more that it's gonna take a while before we see the next Sopranos or Breaking Bad if TV has and is going through kind of a change. Anyway, an interesting read that I recommened either way.




Link to the article:


http://grantland.com/features/andy-greenwald-don-draper-mad-men-twilight-golden-age-television/



edit: this isn't to point out that there aren't any good shows left on tv. As I said, I enjoy today's television a lot. Shows like Hannibal, Vikings, Boardwalk Empire, True Detective and Penny Dreadful are all very exciting and good shows. The point is more that there aren't gonna be as high top tier television shows as there was 2000-2009. I'm not trying to amke a point for myself, just linked the article to show his point of view on it.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say there is nothing great right now, but more good/very good than there has ever been. I'm fine with that. If anything hbo have really let the side down recently, never thought I'd be saying that during the sopranos, wire, deadwood era.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's still in the golden age. It sounds worryingly like petulance claiming it's over because zombies and dragons have high ratings. With the exception of sopranos and the last 8 episodes of Breaking Bad, the great shows have never been ratings winners. I don't see how Walking dead and GOT are anything different from shows like the X-files and Lost being hits - they simply aren't in the same category as HBO/AMC/FX when they are on form.



FX has yet to produce a "best thing on TV" show but damn are they trying with probably the most diverse output of any of the competitors, Justified, The Strain, The americans, Sons of Anarchy, Fargo and Tyrant. Plus they have arguably the two best comedies (Archer, Always sunny)


HBO seems to be more concerned with getting the buzz/subscriptions these days but even their "sellout" shows are pretty good although I have to admit I no longer watch something just because it has HBO attached (eg Leftovers) so they maybe do need to come up with some tighter concepts/creative teams.


Showtime are usually great at have shows with an excellent season or 2 in them before running them into the ground.



Netflix/amazon are also mixing things up with some very interesting original programming.



Then there's syfy, who really seem to have turned over a new leaf and no doubt inspired by the success of Walking Dead and GOT have thought "we should have been making these shows" and now seem to be going in heavy with what could be great sci-fi shows.



Considering it was only 5 years ago where I thought all tv would become cheap reality crap about cooking. dancing and literally sitting around I'm still breathing a sigh of relief that scripted TV (especially non cable) didn't die out entirely.



My one fear is that of the superhero genre. I love me some comic related TV but I am very wary of "shared universe" TV taking off. Marvel is on its way with Netflix and CW are slowly growing their franchises as well. I don't want TV to turn into comics where I have to watch several shows in order to understand one or worse yet have to go and see a movie as the "event" of the season's TV shows. It will ruin viewing for me in much the way MArvel and DC comics have drove me away. Hopefully some channels will remain as "indy" programmers.


It's a serious concern for me and one I'm torn over as I am genuinely looking forward to the marvel shows but I fear their success could spread like wildfire where all the TV shows become entangled messes. The other issue could be TV falling prey to the same fate as Hollywood where every film has to be a huge budget spectacle that all ages audiences can enjoy. I'm less worried about that as TV has more varied audience than the cinema, I strongly suspect part of the reason cinema is so dull nowadays is because the majority of "indy/arty" films can be enjoyed just as much on a decent sized screen in your own home.








As many here I'm a big tv show buff. I've seen a lot of tv from the 2000's onwards, and I agree with the post. TV will probably change and it's gonna be further apart between the masterpiece shows. If someone wants evidence you need only to compare the tv shows created from 2000-2009 to the ones created since 2010.







There's 5 years left of programming left for this to be a fair comparison.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was never a golden age of television, just a golden age of HBO. And while HBO's golden age may be finished, for now at least, it's left an unquestionable mark on TV that has most definitely bettered the overall standard of what we get.

I would say there is nothing great right now,

I'm gonna disagree and say that Hannibal is most definitely great...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's still in the golden age. It sounds worryingly like petulance claiming it's over because zombies and dragons have high ratings. With the exception of sopranos and the last 8 episodes of Breaking Bad, the great shows have never been ratings winners. I don't see how Walking dead and GOT are anything different from shows like the X-files and Lost being hits - they simply aren't in the same category as HBO/AMC/FX when they are on form.

FX has yet to produce a "best thing on TV" show but damn are they trying with probably the most diverse output of any of the competitors, Justified, The Strain, The americans, Sons of Anarchy, Fargo and Tyrant. Plus they have arguably the two best comedies (Archer, Always sunny)

HBO seems to be more concerned with getting the buzz/subscriptions these days but even their "sellout" shows are pretty good although I have to admit I no longer watch something just because it has HBO attached (eg Leftovers) so they maybe do need to come up with some tighter concepts/creative teams.

Showtime are usually great at have shows with an excellent season or 2 in them before running them into the ground.

Netflix/amazon are also mixing things up with some very interesting original programming.

Then there's syfy, who really seem to have turned over a new leaf and no doubt inspired by the success of Walking Dead and GOT have thought "we should have been making these shows" and now seem to be going in heavy with what could be great sci-fi shows.

Considering it was only 5 years ago where I thought all tv would become cheap reality crap about cooking. dancing and literally sitting around I'm still breathing a sigh of relief that scripted TV (especially non cable) didn't die out entirely.

My one fear is that of the superhero genre. I love me some comic related TV but I am very wary of "shared universe" TV taking off. Marvel is on its way with Netflix and CW are slowly growing their franchises as well. I don't want TV to turn into comics where I have to watch several shows in order to understand one or worse yet have to go and see a movie as the "event" of the season's TV shows. It will ruin viewing for me in much the way MArvel and DC comics have drove me away. Hopefully some channels will remain as "indy" programmers.

It's a serious concern for me and one I'm torn over as I am genuinely looking forward to the marvel shows but I fear their success could spread like wildfire where all the TV shows become entangled messes. The other issue could be TV falling prey to the same fate as Hollywood where every film has to be a huge budget spectacle that all ages audiences can enjoy. I'm less worried about that as TV has more varied audience than the cinema, I strongly suspect part of the reason cinema is so dull nowadays is because the majority of "indy/arty" films can be enjoyed just as much on a decent sized screen in your own home.

There's 5 years left of programming left for this to be a fair comparison.

Good response, and I agree with most of what you wrote. And it may very well be petulant to claim that, but I was kind of in the crossroads between agreeing fully with the article and remaining neutral. Of course shows with zombies and dragons can be as good as modern day shows, I think the issue more has to do with how GoT and Walking Dead has been handling their stories I guess. GoT basically has some of the best material you can get if you wanna tell an epic story, yet the creators and writers manage to shit all over it, remove all the depth and subtlety and turn it into something that feels like a soap opera in Westeros. So sure, it had potential, but since season 2 they pretty much showed that they won't be contending with best show on tv. Therefore I guess you can claim that dragons on tv at the moment goes up to a certain standard, but not over it.

I don't agree with Lost and X-Files being comparable with GoT and Walking Dead though, even if you look at the times. I've seen all seasons of Lost and the first 4 eps of X-Files and I think they both have a pretty different approach from GoT and Walking Dead.Both for example has a lot more focus on characters and exploring those characters. I do have to say that Walking Dead has had some good moments where they are kinda going for something great, but never really reached it and those moments are far apart.

And no, this is not about the best shows getting high ratings, I think it's more about the best shows having a place at the market where they can still exist, even if it doesn't always have the highest ratings.

And yeah, you're right, that comparison was bad and weird of me. I think it's better to say that you can pick any 5 year period from the 00's and compare them to 2010-2014.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other issue could be TV falling prey to the same fate as Hollywood where every film has to be a huge budget spectacle that all ages audiences can enjoy. I'm less worried about that as TV has more varied audience than the cinema, I strongly suspect part of the reason cinema is so dull nowadays is because the majority of "indy/arty" films can be enjoyed just as much on a decent sized screen in your own home.

This is basically his point though. Like, you argue against it at first in your post and then repeat his concern at the bottom leading me to believe you didn't quite get what he's talking about. Huge budget spectacle is what he's talking about. He compares it to Jaws after all.

The point is that Game of Thrones and The Walking Dead have, in his opinion obviously, provided a new template for TV channels to use in order to bring in the big bucks. Previously, the idea had been the sort of "critical darling" hunt. You were looking to empower a showrunner to make some sort of keen, insightful and most importantly critically acclaimed piece of television. This gets people talking, they tune in, ratings go up, you make money. He is stating that TWD and GOT have shown that it's just as lucrative to create genre spectacle and pulp. That rather then looking for the next great TV writer to make another The Wire, they will be looking for the next big property to adapt to drag in the spectacle/loyal fanbase crowd.

One can see where he's coming from to some extent. The success of GOT and TWD is, I think, largely responsible for the plethora of adaptations of genre work we are seeing flying into production these days. Plus, films have essentially adopted the same model. Every YA novel craze is getting adapted into a film series these days.

That said, one could argue there's no reason the two can't coexist, with networks churning out both spectable-based television and more prestige seeking shows. HBO to some extent has been doing this for ever. Come for the tits of True Blood, stay for the execellent writing of True Detective and so on.

The other point he brings up, that I personally found sort of sidled up next to alot of things I've been thinking of lately, is that TV has to some extent lost some of it's momentum via churning out what he calls "prestige simulacra", otherwise just known as shit. Everyone is trying to turn out another Sopranos and many are falling flat on their faces. Aping the style while missing the point. I think this is largely true although I don't think it really effects anything. Every successful movement leaves shit in it's wake. It just means the viewer now needs to be discriminating.

PS - Also, calling cinema "dull nowadays" is utterly fucking silly. Cinema is doing tons of great things. Hell, interesting cinema is on the rise in many ways as the current production model and the cheapness of digital shooting have made it easier then ever to get interesting ideas and prestige pics made at low budget levels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Golden age doesn't end just because you don't like the shows that are popular these days, or think they fit your definition.



Orange is the new black, House of cards, Game of thrones, Hannibal, Vikings, etc. There's lots of great tv right now, and even more shows that are good. Great era of TV.



Tv is about ENTERTAINMENT. Doesn't matter if it's by zombies, dragons or intense scenes, entertainment is entertainment.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good response, and I agree with most of what you wrote. And it may very well be petulant to claim that, but I was kind of in the crossroads between agreeing fully with the article and remaining neutral. Of course shows with zombies and dragons can be as good as modern day shows, I think the issue more has to do with how GoT and Walking Dead has been handling their stories I guess. GoT basically has some of the best material you can get if you wanna tell an epic story, yet the creators and writers manage to shit all over it, remove all the depth and subtlety and turn it into something that feels like a soap opera in Westeros. So sure, it had potential, but since season 2 they pretty much showed that they won't be contending with best show on tv. Therefore I guess you can claim that dragons on tv at the moment goes up to a certain standard, but not over it.

I don't agree with Lost and X-Files being comparable with GoT and Walking Dead though, even if you look at the times. I've seen all seasons of Lost and the first 4 eps of X-Files and I think they both have a pretty different approach from GoT and Walking Dead.Both for example has a lot more focus on characters and exploring those characters. I do have to say that Walking Dead has had some good moments where they are kinda going for something great, but never really reached it and those moments are far apart.

And no, this is not about the best shows getting high ratings, I think it's more about the best shows having a place at the market where they can still exist, even if it doesn't always have the highest ratings.

And yeah, you're right, that comparison was bad and weird of me. I think it's better to say that you can pick any 5 year period from the 00's and compare them to 2010-2014.

X-Files and Lost certainly started trends, but not the kind the article is talking about. They basically (respectively) created and then exploded the whole "long running mystery that people talk about round the watercooler" style of television. And that shit still lives with us today, permeating everything. The number of new dramas that start without some sort of pre-set-up mystery to slowly unfold over at least the first season is essentially zero.

But for all that, neither was really spectacle TV the way he's talking about it. Lost maybe. But I think he's more talking about how you can combine genre fare with a built in audience with a sort of prime-time soap sensibility to create spectacle entertainment that apparently sells really well. And he's worried that will catch on as a production model at the expense of quality prestige television.

I'm sympathetic with the concern since I mostly agree with your assessment of GOT, in that it's a show that's well made and well acted but mostly written to be a "what will be the next twist" style drama without alot of underlying substance. And it's that "What shocking thing will happen next?" style of spectacle that he's concerned about taking off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree with Lost and X-Files being comparable with GoT and Walking Dead though, even if you look at the times. I've seen all seasons of Lost and the first 4 eps of X-Files and I think they both have a pretty different approach from GoT and Walking Dead.Both for example has a lot more focus on characters and exploring those characters.

Every episode of Lost had half the episode dedicated to a character.

Shryke - I didn't misunderstand the article. I just have a different understanding to yours. I have similar worries to the piece, agreed but I only see if as a worry not a foregone conclusion and in no way feel as if TV will never be better.

You also misunderstood (or I didn't make clear) my position regarding film. I totally agree that inventive and creatively rewarding films are being made. I just don't think there's any room for them in cinema any more. MArket forces have squeezed them out and unless you are lucky enough to live in a city with an arthouse cinema most people have to watch these films on TV. I'm not saying the art of a good film is dead it's just most of them are being watched at home.

I also don't think Walking dead or GOT are the "jaws" moment in spectacle TV because there have been several other candidates such as the aforementioned "lost". Spectacle TV wasn't created in 2011. If Lost is anything to go by we'll simply get a string of shows trying to replicate WD/GOT and on the whole failing. These shows usually take off because they present themselves a little differently - not because they try to be the next "insert last major TV hit".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with what was said upthread that there is no such thing as the 'golden age' of television. Essentially every decade since the 50's has at one time or another been proclaimed the 'golden age' of tv, apart from the 60's I believe. The 70's accounted for many great sitcoms including shows that challenged conventional ideas of what good tv could be about and some that centered around characters who had never been at the center of tv shows before (sounds familiar, right?).



Then we have shows like St. Elsewhere and Hill Street Blues during the 80's - intelligent, adult dramas that told serialized stories and didn’t have things finish up at the end of each new episode. During the 90's was the first time the talk about tv being better than the movies comes up and really that is just a pointless and misleading argument, imo.



In conclusion: Proclaiming a period as the 'golden age' ultimately depends on what you look for in a show. There is no single 'golden age' of television. Each decade since the 50's has it's little gems as well as shows that are vastly overrated and everything inbetween.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is Hannibal not getting enough ratings !!! :bawl:

Hannibal has been excellent thus far however I am a little leery to include the show amongst the greats just yet. We all know how quickly shows can go downhill but if it can maintain its standard through to its conclusion then I'd have no issues placing the show amongst the top tier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems genre biased, if you ask me. Especially when the author simplifies a show like GoT into a "zombie and dragon" show. Essentially, GoT has exactly the same thing that shows like the sopranos and mad men have- intrigue and drama. It also has great writing and interesting characters.

Basically, this author is full of shit. The Renaissance isn't over yet- not while new internet based companies are trying new and different things to break ground and cable networks are breaking away from tired formulas.

And I know this thread is going to attract the people who don't like the show, but that doesn't change the fact that the show is a critical AND popular success.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...