Let's Go Blues

I just made a post with a Gilligan's island pic. Why was it deleted??

Was it inappropriate? It was blocked by the firewall at work. The other gilligan pictures on the previous page were not.

JesusNEVERexisted wrote:I just made a post with a Gilligan's island pic. Why was it deleted??

Becaue you are trolling for arguments, trying to pick a fight (you do this a LOT). It wasn't the picture, it was the comment you made.
You know...like you do at stltoday.com?
http://interact.stltoday.com/forums/vie ... a60b3baf50

Kindly knock it off.
Thanks.

JesusNEVERexisted wrote:I can't believe all the crap you guys watch!

Thankfully there is Me-TV & TVLand for classics like Three's Company, F Troop, Gilligan's Island, Get Smart, The Jeffersons, Amen, Diff'rent Strokes, etc.

Out of all the comments JNE makes on here, this one makes me understand them much more...

Whilst we're all arguing about the virtues versus lack of virtues of old timey TV, let's take a break and remember the great Leonard Nimoy.

glen a richter wrote:Whilst we're all arguing about the virtues versus lack of virtues of old timey TV, let's take a break and remember the great Leonard Nimoy.

The one big difference with "Old" shows and the new ones is that the new ones are centered around a single story arc with stories plugged into it to both carry the arc from the beginning to the end of the series and to flesh out the world, conflicts and characters, and the old series are set on a high premise and each episode is a new story in that high premise (and when I say high premise in this case, it's about a family living together, two girls with a guy living together in an apartment, a group of tourists stranded on a desert island).

To come up with stories for the first one is easy. You have a preset arc that you are barreling towards...eventually. And elements of each episode MUST carry into the next. There is change. There is growth. There are things that happen that change a character, situation, etc. The second is much harder, because you have to come up with something new that starts and ends with the character being in their same situation, but having changed and growth as a person through that change.

The second is the hardest thing to do, which is why writers prefer the first one. Writers have the safety net of an arc that they simply plug things into. One can easily argue that the new shows are nothing more than a Soap Opera.

The reason the old series are still being watched and will continue to be watched is because you can watch them in any order and not have to worry what you missed, what happened here or there. You could miss two series of an old show, sit down and get right back into it without an issue. The new ones? Gotta start with Episode One before you can do anything else. Plus, a new series will last SEASONS where a 60's/70's TV show may last less than a single season. The most popular, maybe three seasons, if they're very lucky. But the average was 1 to 2...or less.

The other factor I am hearing, is about awards. MOST of these old show in the day were seen as throwaway entertainment and would never win a damn thing. The public perception of Television has changed and it's been accepted as a higher art form, the same as comic books and other forms of media. In it's heyday, it was seen as so much fluff that TV companies would tape over master tapes to recycle them.

I for one would never try to say one was better than the other, to me they are two very distinct animals. I prefer the old ones simply because they were challenges for the writers to write relatively the same old thing but make it distinct and different for a long period of time, and I think it takes more skill and craft to do that, than to plug into an arc. As a show, of course the new series have better production values; they're shot with better equipment, many with motion picture directors, cinematographers and actors on them as if they were epic box office pictures..and most of the new stuff really comes off that way, which is good because it's nice to see television get it's due as an artform and a respected form of entertainment. The old ones...not so much.

The Jinx on HBO is really good. Season (series?) finale tonight I think.

It's about Robert Durst, a wealthy guy from NY that's been accused of murder a number of times. The show has been compared to serial a lot.

cardsfan04 wrote:The Jinx on HBO is really good. Season (series?) finale tonight I think.

It's about Robert Durst, a wealthy guy from NY that's been accused of murder a number of times. The show has been compared to serial a lot.

That dude is guilty as HELL! He should be doing LWOP! Money and a stupid jury can buy freedom!

JesusNEVERexisted wrote:

cardsfan04 wrote:The Jinx on HBO is really good. Season (series?) finale tonight I think.

It's about Robert Durst, a wealthy guy from NY that's been accused of murder a number of times. The show has been compared to serial a lot.

That dude is guilt as HELL! He should be doing LWOP! Money and a stupid jury can buy freedom!

Yeah, completely agree. I think the term sociopath gets overused, but he seems to fit the mold pretty well.

Read below to see why I say TV sucks today compared to its heyday in the 70s & 80s.

Is Anyone Watching Television Anymore?

“It’s clear the downward spiral in TV ratings continues with no end in sight,” media analyst Michael Nathanson wrote in a research note on Friday.
Overall prime-time broadcast network ratings were off 12 percent last month compared to a year ago, while cable networks dropped 11 percent, according to his report.

Nathanson looked at so-called C3 ratings, which come in later than traditional ratings. They measure average commercial viewership in shows up to three days after the original air date via DVR playback.
While a couple of networks that carried the Super Bowl and the Olympics last year clearly suffered because of tougher comparisons, almost every channel was hurting.

Looking at total-day C3 ratings, only three networks boosted their audience: HGTV, Discovery and TBS, while TNT, History and Nickelodeon fell the most.
Typically, TV ad sales executives can increase prices to compensate for a ratings decline, citing scarcity. But Nathanson said seismic changes are pressuring networks to hold the line on pricing.

Although some of the ratings declines can be blamed on changes to Nielsen’s measuring methods, among other changes, “we believe these terrible ratings trends are also indicative of changing viewership habits,” he wrote.
The numbers underscore the rapid changes in how TV viewers are consuming content.



Read more: http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/03/15/is ... z3UW1gSPOV




http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/03/15/is ... n-anymore/

JesusNEVERexisted wrote:Read below to see why I say TV sucks today compared to its heyday in the 70s & 80s.

Is Anyone Watching Television Anymore?

“It’s clear the downward spiral in TV ratings continues with no end in sight,” media analyst Michael Nathanson wrote in a research note on Friday.
Overall prime-time broadcast network ratings were off 12 percent last month compared to a year ago, while cable networks dropped 11 percent, according to his report.

Nathanson looked at so-called C3 ratings, which come in later than traditional ratings. They measure average commercial viewership in shows up to three days after the original air date via DVR playback.
While a couple of networks that carried the Super Bowl and the Olympics last year clearly suffered because of tougher comparisons, almost every channel was hurting.

Looking at total-day C3 ratings, only three networks boosted their audience: HGTV, Discovery and TBS, while TNT, History and Nickelodeon fell the most.
Typically, TV ad sales executives can increase prices to compensate for a ratings decline, citing scarcity. But Nathanson said seismic changes are pressuring networks to hold the line on pricing.

Although some of the ratings declines can be blamed on changes to Nielsen’s measuring methods, among other changes, “we believe these terrible ratings trends are also indicative of changing viewership habits,” he wrote.
The numbers underscore the rapid changes in how TV viewers are consuming content.



Read more: http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/03/15/is ... z3UW1gSPOV




http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/03/15/is ... n-anymore/

While I agree that viewers's habits are different, this doesn't really indicate the quality of programming that is out there. I know we've already had that argument, so I don't want to really dive into that again, but the manner in which people consume a certain media doesn't dilute the quality of that media.

dmiles2186 wrote:

JesusNEVERexisted wrote:Read below to see why I say TV sucks today compared to its heyday in the 70s & 80s.

Is Anyone Watching Television Anymore?

“It’s clear the downward spiral in TV ratings continues with no end in sight,” media analyst Michael Nathanson wrote in a research note on Friday.
Overall prime-time broadcast network ratings were off 12 percent last month compared to a year ago, while cable networks dropped 11 percent, according to his report.

Nathanson looked at so-called C3 ratings, which come in later than traditional ratings. They measure average commercial viewership in shows up to three days after the original air date via DVR playback.
While a couple of networks that carried the Super Bowl and the Olympics last year clearly suffered because of tougher comparisons, almost every channel was hurting.

Looking at total-day C3 ratings, only three networks boosted their audience: HGTV, Discovery and TBS, while TNT, History and Nickelodeon fell the most.
Typically, TV ad sales executives can increase prices to compensate for a ratings decline, citing scarcity. But Nathanson said seismic changes are pressuring networks to hold the line on pricing.

Although some of the ratings declines can be blamed on changes to Nielsen’s measuring methods, among other changes, “we believe these terrible ratings trends are also indicative of changing viewership habits,” he wrote.
The numbers underscore the rapid changes in how TV viewers are consuming content.



Read more: http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/03/15/is ... z3UW1gSPOV




http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/03/15/is ... n-anymore/

While I agree that viewers's habits are different, this doesn't really indicate the quality of programming that is out there. I know we've already had that argument, so I don't want to really dive into that again, but the manner in which people consume a certain media doesn't dilute the quality of that media.

Yeah, no joke.
How in the world does overall ratings for television equate into poor programming?
It doesn't.

It's abundantly obvious that tv shows today are far more sophisticated, polished, better scripted, better produced, with better talent as actors.
It's not even close. If you disagree...sorry, you're wrong.

It's the same for athletes. Today they are simply bigger, better & stronger than they were 30-40 years ago.

The fact that viewers have 300 channels to choose from, plus the internet, netflix, Redbox, Hulu, DVR's, people are working more, etc, etc...are directly responsible for the decline of the overall ratings. The audience gets spread out over a large area.

It's not hard to get a good chunk of the viewing audience to tune into your show when there are only three stations. This is called common sense.

I already admitted having only 3 networks back then helped the classics out a lot.

However a LOT of people say those classic sitcoms are better than sitcoms today. That's why Antenna TV, MeTV, TVLand, and Nick at Nite are all here and do so well.

JesusNEVERexisted wrote:I already admitted having only 3 networks back then helped the classics out a lot.

However a LOT of people say those classic sitcoms are better than sitcoms today. That's why Antenna TV, MeTV, TVLand, and Nick at Nite are all here and do so well.

That's such a vague and meaningless argument though. A LOT of people say shows today are better than in the past. That's why HBO, Showtime, AMC, FX and others are all here and do so well.

See what I did there?

A big reason why those stations you mentioned exist is that people that were alive when many of those shows were popular are still alive today. 30 years from now, the programming on those stations will be very different than it is today.

cardsfan04 wrote:

JesusNEVERexisted wrote:I already admitted having only 3 networks back then helped the classics out a lot.

However a LOT of people say those classic sitcoms are better than sitcoms today. That's why Antenna TV, MeTV, TVLand, and Nick at Nite are all here and do so well.

A big reason why those stations you mentioned exist is that people that were alive when many of those shows were popular are still alive today. 30 years from now, the programming on those stations will be very different than it is today.

Exactly.

I don't know. I'm 33 and I get a kick out of shows like Welcome Back Kotter and Mork and Mindy. Goofy, cheeseball comedy? Sure. But funny as heck in a weird way, definitely. Not that there aren't some quality shows on TV today (and I'm not talking about those moronic reality TV shows) but there is something to be said for some of the classics.

Some of my favorite shows never really got a chance... Showtime made for TV series' like Dead Like Me and Huff (starring Hank Azaria of Moe the Bartender fame) were two of my favorites back in the day. I also loved Boston Public which, if I remember, only got two seasons before it was kiboshed when 24 took the time slot. Not Boston Legal with Bill Shatner, Boston Public with Chi McBride.

cprice12 wrote:

cardsfan04 wrote:

JesusNEVERexisted wrote:I already admitted having only 3 networks back then helped the classics out a lot.

However a LOT of people say those classic sitcoms are better than sitcoms today. That's why Antenna TV, MeTV, TVLand, and Nick at Nite are all here and do so well.

A big reason why those stations you mentioned exist is that people that were alive when many of those shows were popular are still alive today. 30 years from now, the programming on those stations will be very different than it is today.

Exactly.

In the same sense, I'd equate this to listening to oldies and classic rock stations today. When I was growing up, which was around the same basic time a lot of members on here were growing up, my parents would listen to 101.1 and they'd play the soothing sounds of Johnny Mathis, the Everly Brothers, Paul Anka, Frank Sinatra, that ilk. Recently I heard Hootie and the Blowfish on that station. Way to make me feel old. 104.3 is a local classic rock station. Jethro Tull? Check. Allman Brothers, Warren Zevon, Pink Floyd and Led Zep? Check. Green Day? Really? Yep, heard Basketcase this morning. I think the transition for radio stations to more "current" music is more pronounced than it is on TV. Stations like the ones that JNE mentioned were created specifically to bring in the nostalgic viewer. If they can get their kids and grandkids watching those shows, these stations may stick and there's no reason not to. There's 1000's of stations now, so why not keep a channel or two showing old timey programming around? On the other hand, there are limited FM and AM bands, so radio has to keep up with the times which is why, unfortunately, songs from 20 years ago (aka high school) are now considered oldies. Thankfully satellite radio is able to accommodate more choices. But when it comes time for temporary stations to promote certain bands or the Christmas programming, the station they always take over? 40's on 4.

Anyone watch Last man on Earth?
I'm pleasantly surprised so far but I'm not sure how far the show can go...

abc789987 wrote:Anyone watch Last man on Earth?
I'm pleasantly surprised so far but I'm not sure how far the show can go...

I've watched the first 3 episodes, haven't seen Sunday's yet. I love it. I laugh out loud at that show more than any other in recent memory. As for the premise limiting it's future, I have those concerns too, but I trust Will Forte. He excels with bizarre premises so I can see him doing good things with it moving forward.