Is the golden age of TV over now?

[Myshkin]

Can we get this thread back on track please? This discussion is about the current quality of TV, not the relative quality of Pixar films.

[Werthead]

To be fair, I think the thread question was answered on the first page.

"Is the golden age of TV over?"

"No (probably)."

[JonArryn]

I think the only three persons who really have read and understood this article so far are Myshkin, red snow and Shryke. The rest just come in and say there are good shows still airing and that's not what the thread is about. Of course there are many great shows on tv at the moment, none have claimed otherwise, and neither does the article. The subject is about the golden age is coming to a close because the medium is changing, and there may be a bigger focus on other things in the tv future. The creator may get less and less important, in favor of other things.

[polishgenius]

I think the only three persons who really have read and understood this article so far are Myshkin, red snow and Shryke. The rest just come in and say there are good shows still airing and that's not what the thread is about. Of course there are many great shows on tv at the moment, none have claimed otherwise, and neither does the article. The subject is about the golden age is coming to a close because the medium is changing, and there may be a bigger focus on other things in the tv future. The creator may get less and less important, in favor of other things.

I understood it fine. I just disagreed with the entire premise in the first place.

[Kindly Old Man]

I think the only three persons who really have read and understood this article so far are Myshkin, red snow and Shryke. The rest just come in and say there are good shows still airing and that's not what the thread is about. Of course there are many great shows on tv at the moment, none have claimed otherwise, and neither does the article. The subject is about the golden age is coming to a close because the medium is changing, and there may be a bigger focus on other things in the tv future. The creator may get less and less important, in favor of other things.

I am not sure even Greenwald would agree with the article today. In 2012, potential successors like Hannibal (Brian Fuller created), True Detective (directed entirely by Cary Fukunaga), The Americans (Joe Weisberg), Fargo (Noah Hawley, based on the Coen Brothers' creation), etc. were not on the map yet. I'd argue that those shows and a few other recent ones (most of which have already been mentioned in this thread) could certainly aspire to the heights of the shows in the 1999-2012 period. We'll see if they can sustain their quality or not.

In fact, it might be easier going forward for really high quality shows with smaller followings to get on the air. Hannibal, for example would certainly have gotten the axe last decade and probably wouldn't have made it to network TV at all. Now, NBC is giving it its third season. Networks want smash hit shows, sure, but those are hard to come by. and the successful ones need to have at least a certain level of quality - it's not like you can just toss any zombie or fantasy show out and have it be the next Walking Dead. Greenwald himself has come around on TWD this season. I also don't think Game of Thrones is a good example of the death of the creator - whatever you think of the show, I think it's pretty obvious that it is a result of D&D's vision and could have been much worse in other hands.

[JonArryn]

I understood it fine. I just disagreed with the entire premise in the first place.

Well, I don't think you understood it, since the first thing you did was come in and claim that only HBO was part of the greatness from 2000-2009, and none of the other cable channels were. Which for one, is wrong, and for two, shows that you probably didn't really understand it.

[Mark Antony]

Greenwald is such a douche

[Shryke]

Up is even more extreme - the opening is a fabulously told short story but the rest is, while good fun, a fairly standard and erratic adventure thingy.

I hear alot of people say this, which leads me to believe they didn't get the point of the movie at all.

[Shryke]

I am not sure even Greenwald would agree with the article today. In 2012, potential successors like Hannibal (Brian Fuller created), True Detective (directed entirely by Cary Fukunaga), The Americans (Joe Weisberg), Fargo (Noah Hawley, based on the Coen Brothers' creation), etc. were not on the map yet. I'd argue that those shows and a few other recent ones (most of which have already been mentioned in this thread) could certainly aspire to the heights of the shows in the 1999-2012 period. We'll see if they can sustain their quality or not.

In fact, it might be easier going forward for really high quality shows with smaller followings to get on the air. Hannibal, for example would certainly have gotten the axe last decade and probably wouldn't have made it to network TV at all. Now, NBC is giving it its third season. Networks want smash hit shows, sure, but those are hard to come by. and the successful ones need to have at least a certain level of quality - it's not like you can just toss any zombie or fantasy show out and have it be the next Walking Dead. Greenwald himself has come around on TWD this season. I also don't think Game of Thrones is a good example of the death of the creator - whatever you think of the show, I think it's pretty obvious that it is a result of D&D's vision and could have been much worse in other hands.

I think Hannibal is more an indication that Networks have given up on friday nights. They don't expect huge hits there anymore and are content to fill the space with low cost work that is niche or high prestige.

Hannibal's saving grace is that because of the funding model it's absolutely dirt cheap for NBC to have it.

[Martini Sigil]

Entertainment is subjective.... there are some things currently running --including my two favorite shows of all time.... others might not agree.

There are other shows that I didn't personally care for --like Dexter and Trueblood-- That I understand were great shows with huge followings.

Shows will come and go, but I think what's important is that the bar has been set pretty high...

[Shryke]

Entertainment is subjective.... there are some things currently running --including my two favorite shows of all time.... others might not agree.

There are other shows that I didn't personally care for --like Dexter and Trueblood-- That I understand were great shows with huge followings.

Shows will come and go, but I think what's important is that the bar has been set pretty high...

Huge followings? Yes.

Great shows? I don't think that was at all the consensus.

[Martini Sigil]

My apologies, Shryke, my quote function is not working for some reason......

But that's kind of my point.... Those two shows have a lot of people who think they're great. You and I obviously differ... but regardless of our opinions, those shows were part of an industry that has a higher level of programming than what existed before the Sopranos... and certainly there are shows being made now that are better than Dexter.

[polishgenius]

Well, I don't think you understood it, since the first thing you did was come in and claim that only HBO was part of the greatness from 2000-2009, and none of the other cable channels were. Which for one, is wrong, and for two, shows that you probably didn't really understand it.

I really don't see why you bothered initiating discussion in the first place if you're just gonna label all the responses you don't like as 'well you didn't understand!'.

I guess I should explain my reasoning though: he's complaining that the golden age is over, essentially, because the big modern shows have an easily relatable audience hook. During the period he named, though, the only ones that didn't, apart from Mad Men, were HBO shows (or were comedies, of which I don't think the standard has dropped in any way). So either you buy his premise that the golden age was characterised by shows that forwent that easy categorisation and focused on dense, often slow, character-focused scripting over event-driven high-concepts, in which case it was never very prevalent on television beyond HBO, or you don't, in which case it isn't over.

Of course, his focusing on the zombies and dragons does make it seem like genre snobbery, like someone else suggested.

[Shryke]

I really don't see why you bothered initiating discussion in the first place if you're just gonna label all the responses you don't like as 'well you didn't understand!'.

I guess I should explain my reasoning though: he's complaining that the golden age is over, essentially, because the big modern shows have an easily relatable audience hook. During the period he named, though, the only ones that didn't, apart from Mad Men, were HBO shows (or were comedies, of which I don't think the standard has dropped in any way). So either you buy his premise that the golden age was characterised by shows that forwent that easy categorisation and focused on dense, often slow, character-focused scripting over event-driven high-concepts, in which case it was never very prevalent on television beyond HBO, or you don't, in which case it isn't over.

Of course, his focusing on the zombies and dragons does make it seem like genre snobbery, like someone else suggested.

tthat's not what he's saying though. The Jaws comparison is the key to his point.

He's not saying that big modern shows need an "easily relatable audience hook". He's suggesting that the new model allows the people funding the creation of television "a way out, or at least around, the complicated power dynamic of the omnipotent showrunner". That, like the 70s in cinema, the idea for the past decade or so has been to "empower[] creators because they didn’t know what else to do". And that now, as with the blockbuster model in cinema, they have another way.

The problem isn't that newer shows will have an easily relatable audience hook, it's that he's afraid that's all they will have. That networks and cable channels will no longer feel they need to offer anything but spectacle to pull in viewers. Buy an already popular property, adapt and you've already won. Whereas previously the thought was that they needed to provide an intelligent, well-written show to gain critical acclaim and prestige, which then brings in viewers.

[red snow]

I hear alot of people say this, which leads me to believe they didn't get the point of the movie at all.

It's a relief to know we can agree on some things :) In fairness I understand your concerns, especially regarding things being style over substance. I do think that the US embracing (or at least remaking) a lot of the scandinavian poilce shows demonstrates that there are enough people out there yearning for more substance to their TV. I like to think True Detective was a response to that and certainly shows it's better for the US to do their own thing rather than simply rehash something so that it no longer has subtitles.

Going back to something you mentioned the other day. Where my family live there is a single cinema within 15 miles of them. I checked the current line-up and I was surprised to find "nightcrawler" was being shown. That's a rarity but means I was maybe more negative about cinema's choice of films. That said they will prioritise 3D films over non 3D films because they make more money off them.

I think what I should have made more clear about TV (in relation to cinema) is that it is far more democratic. With the exception of pay-TV (which I concede is what most people are talking about here) there is a huge amount of choice available and with streaming sites and catch-up/record you can watch pretty much what you want, when you want. You don't have to go out and watch it somewhere else. It means TV has a much wider audience to tap into and hopefully that makes it far more resisitant to the "Jaws" syndrome as there are many other markets that are sustainable.

Although showing my topsy-turvy view on this if they start looking at TV as "100 million an episode brings in 200 million in ad revenue vs 1 million show making 10 million" there will still be a temptation to go for an event.

Networks want smash hit shows, sure, but those are hard to come by. and the successful ones need to have at least a certain level of quality - it's not like you can just toss any zombie or fantasy show out and have it be the next Walking Dead.

You mean MTV's Z-nation isn't a runaway smash hit?

[Relic]

I mean in this specific instance, since the show isn't worse than the books.

That is very very very debatable. And saying that the writing can't be bad since the source material is great is just being silly.

[Shryke]

That is very very very debatable. And saying that the writing can't be bad since the source material is great is just being silly.

Indeed.

I find some merit in his statements (though not his conclusions) based in part upon the fact that GOT is ASOIAF as written by people who see the books solely as a collection of shocking plot-twists and seedy medieval politicking. It's like the ultimate water-cooler spectacle show. The fact that it's got dragons in it or that's it's genre is actually the least relevant part of what he's getting at.

[Castel]

Indeed.

I find some merit in his statements (though not his conclusions) based in part upon the fact that GOT is ASOIAF as written by people who see the books solely as a collection of shocking plot-twists and seedy medieval politicking. It's like the ultimate water-cooler spectacle show. The fact that it's got dragons in it or that's it's genre is actually the least relevant part of what he's getting at.

What exactly do you feel that GoT loses (specifically, how we get to water-cooler show) in adaptation? I mean, I have a problem with the little changes they made but somehow I doubt that that's what's driving the sort of general coldness I'm seeing in this thread.

[Weeping Sore]

For me, Wall-E is 45 minutes of utter masterpiece but the rest is a lot less interesting, particularly when the shamefully heavy-handed environmental and anti-corporate messages start up. I wish the whole film had been told in the almost silent-movie style, that could have been great.

Couldn't agree more. I think the movie lost it the moment we saw humans. How much better would the movie have been if all of the humans on the mother ship had died long ago, but the robots still decided to bring (plant) life back to the Earth?

Slight thread-jack, but I would rank the Pixar films thusly:

1. Finding Nemo

2. The Incredibles

3. Toy Story 3

4. Toy Story

5. Toy Story 2

6. Ratatouille

7. Monsters Inc.

8. A Bug's Life

9. WALL-E

10. Monsters University

11.Cars

12. Up

13. Brave

14. Cars 2

[Relic]

You want to discuss Pixar movies? Start a new thread. Please.