6 ms·

Maybe it's just that people only remember the good tv shows/films/music/things from those years and ignore the boring chaff. Maybe there are just as many good

Maybe it's just that people only remember the good tv shows/films/music/things from those years and ignore the boring chaff. Maybe there are just as many good tv shows these days. but in my opinion the vast majority of current tv shows/films/music/webcontent is utter undiluted mind numbing banal drivel and there isn't a circle of hell worthy enough to hold those responsible.

falsedan 9y ago
> Maybe there are just as many good tv shows these days. Check out Top of the Lake, it's well-written, well-acted, & doesn't overstay its welcome. Season two just came out! I think modern shows are dominated by 'must-see' spectacles or sensationalist attention-grabbers, because people watch them in droves and advertises will pay for slots. Weirdly, the modern BBC only makes shows like this, even though they don't rely on advertising. Part of the charm of The Sandbaggers is that they clearly made it for pennies, so they had to make the characters and dialogue interesting to fill in for car chases + stunts + exotic locations + top-shelf actors (i.e. the complement of Bond films).
- jimjimjim 9y ago
  yep top of the lake is good, thanks. i suspect my comments were a wee bit too strong but it was after cycling through every channel twice and finding nothing.
  - thenomad 9y ago
    Honestly, it does feel like the current crop of TV is somewhat weaker than it has been for a while. (I'd argue that Top Of The Lake, which is 4 years old now, doesn't fit in "current crop".) That might just be a taste thing on my part, or it might be a response to the tremendous commercial pressures that were forcing execs to look anywhere, everywhere for a story a couple of years ago.
    - bazzargh 9y ago
      There's a second series of Top of The Lake, it finished airing in the UK last week, it's definitely current. Apparently coming to the states next month.
      - thenomad 9y ago
        Oh, didn't know that. Cool. Added to my to-watch list :)
        falsedan 9y ago
        I mentioned it 5 comments up…
- stevenwoo 9y ago
  In my opinion, season 2 of Top of the Lake is pretty mediocre compared to the first. The Guardian episode recap/reviews are pretty similar to my feelings.
denzil_correa 9y ago
Survivorship Bias https://xkcd.com/1827/ https://xkcd.com/1827/
Retric 9y ago
The changes to the media landscape make great shows less likely. Companies simply stopped aiming for mass appeal in the same way. If you're really into say magic, then you will forgive more about a show with wizards etc. So, with smaller overall audiences shows simply don't need to be as good.
- coldtea 9y ago
  >The changes to the media landscape make great shows less likely. Companies simply stopped aiming for mass appeal in the same way. Hmmm? The mass appeal shows were not great by any stretch of the imagination precisely because of aiming for "lowest denominator" mass appeal. At best they could be good despite going for mass appeal, but aiming for the more tame and universal themes. By going for smaller audiences the creators can take chances, what some church lady from Iowa or SJW from Portland might find offensive is not as much of an issue, and the storytelling and directing can be more demanding (as it doesn't have to aim to please any average Joe). Shows like GoT, HoC, Breaking Bad, True Detective (season 1), etc are so much better than the "mass appeal" crap of yesteryear (with some exceptions, like MASH) that it's not even funny. For one, they don't use "tv actors" as much, but Hollywood a-listers. Second the production values are 10x and 100x those older "mass appeal" shows.
  - Retric 9y ago
    Game of Thrones for example is somewhat popular, but IMO that's mostly because of how bad the average TV show is not how great it is. It's closest 70's show would probably be Dallas which had 350 million people worldwide watch an episode. That's a well done hook even if they could not show nudes etc. As to offending people, MAS*H had men in drag show up regularly which really would offend people. Yet, apparently 60% of US households tuned in for the final episode. IMO, this suggests they actually had some freedom. Remember, Shakespeare was also aiming for a wide audience. It promotes multi layered messaging, which is more complex than just having everyone backstabbing everyone else.
    - mason55 9y ago
      > * It's closest 70's show would probably be Dallas which had 350 million people worldwide watch an episode. That's a well done hook even if they could not show nudes etc.* You can't compare numbers directly like that. Cable was not invented yet (or at least wasn't common) so there was a choice of about 4 channels.
krylon 9y ago
FWIW, there is a third season of Twin Peaks currently running (well, it's almost over... the finale will air on Sunday). I think it appeals to David Lynch fans more than Twin Peaks fans, but so far I loved every single episode.
- jimjimjim 9y ago
  Haven't seen it yet but i just got the original twin peaks dvds for a couple of dollars so ill catch the new ones after these
- wingerlang 9y ago
  I was pretty glad when I heard they made a third season, but I remember not even finishing S2 due to the mystery of S1 being sold. Do I need to watch S2 to enjoy S3? Or maybe I should even give S2 another chance now that it's been a few years.
  - cowpewter 9y ago
    You should know how S2 ends at least because S2 ends on a cliffhanger involving Coop that S3 picks up. And maybe give S2 a second chance while fast-forwarding through every scene with James in it, because he has no impact on anything else and eventually just leaves.
  - krylon 9y ago
    The second half of season 2 was kind of a letdown. The finale, however, was spectacular, and without knowing how season 2 ended, season 3 won't make much sense. If you don't feel like watching it, you can read the summary on Wikipedia, though, that should give enough information to make sense of season 3 - to the degree that's possible, at least, we are talking about David Lynch here, after all. ;-) Just be aware that the third season has a much stronger Lynch-ean flavor to it. Which is great if you're fan of his work (I know I am), but it might not be for everyone.
olavk 9y ago
Well 90% of everything is crap (or is it 95% ?) We just disagree about what 10% is non-crap. Due to the financial structure of TV production, you can be sure the majority of what is produced is considered worth watching by somebody. In any case, we are in a golden age of TV production with more high quality (writing, action, production) TV shows produced than ever. Enjoy it while it last, so you can complain when it ends.
- owebmaster 9y ago
  I think the golden age is already in the past (the Lost trend, 2004-2010, which finished terrible but in the mean time other great shows with world-wide audience were released) and today is already the after-party that nobody wanted to miss, mostly for the late adopters (which is the majority, anyway). But a lot of people are becoming "series"-averse. I myself included.
  - maxerickson 9y ago
    I think there is a chance that people are getting sick of plodding character driven shows rather than series. An example, "The Expanse" has interesting characters, but so far it has also been the case that lots of stuff happens in each episode.
  - wolco 9y ago
    We are in a new era of netflicks shows like stranger things, sense8, the 100, etc. Someone will look back and say its the golden age of tv for them
  - ghaff 9y ago
    Complex series with ongoing storylines can be great but they also get a bit exhausting after a while. There is a definite limit to how many Game of Thrones or Lost plotlines and character backstories one can keep in one's head when you just want to sit down and watch some TV. It's fine that there are TV shows that are basically crafted for uber-fans who want to carefully watch every episode multiple times but these shows often aren't for the casual viewer. And there's nothing wrong with being a casual viewer.
coldtea 9y ago
>but in my opinion the vast majority of current tv shows/films/music/webcontent is utter undiluted mind numbing banal drivel and there isn't a circle of hell worthy enough to hold those responsible. Well, for tv shows there was been a marked and well established uptick, if not in storytelling, surely in production values (huge, expensive productions) and acting (a-rate actors from movies). That's how we got shows like Breaking Bad, House Of Cards, Game of Thrones and the rest -- unthinkable in scope and aspirations in the 80s and 90s. They don't always hold up well for all seasons (the tend to meander after season 3-4), but generally there are far greater than tv shows in the past.
- iuguy 9y ago
  I get where you're coming from and mostly agree, but I had to chuckle. House of Cards is a remake of an 80s show of the same name :) It's also worth a watch if you enjoyed the remake.
  - stevenwoo 9y ago
    In some ways the 80's show is even more over the top than House of Cards but I only watched season 1 of the US version where they changed the pivotal death scene. It seemed like they were planting the seeds to match the UK series finale, though.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    I've seen the older version. But it's a British one (and they always did some big quality work like Yes, Minister, Monty Pythons, Hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy, etc, content wise), but not representative in production values to the modern one.
mathieuuu 9y ago
We are more and more nostalgic about everything. But I don't see how people can think TV shows were better in the 70s, 80s or even 90s. Since 2000 we live in the golden age of TV shows. We got The Wire, the Sopranos, Mad Men, the Shield, (Game of thrones?, Westworld?) and a ton of original concepts. I tend to think that nowadays there is more originality and risk taking in TV shows than in the movie industry. This summer, I watch Twin Peaks The Return, some episodes are the weirdest things I have seen on a mainstream TV channel. I am amazed it was allowed to air at prime time.
- kbart 9y ago
  "But I don't see how people can think TV shows were better in the 70s, 80s or even 90s. Since 2000 we live in the golden age of TV shows." I'm on the same camp. Absolute majority of TV series from pre-Internet times were dull, boring and non distinctive. Sure, there were some amazing exceptions (mostly named throughout this thread), but I personally, find many better TV series in the span of the last 10 years than in previous 30 years or so. What impresses me most that recent series are much more realistic, characters are deep, themes are more muddy not unlike in older series where black&white characters, good vs evil themes, mandatory happy ending etc. was nearly universal. Imagine something like Game of Thrones (not that it's the paramount of our times, but more for its brutality, nudity etc.) being aired on prime time during 70s or 80s..

falsedan 9y ago

> Maybe there are just as many good tv shows these days. Check out Top of the Lake, it's well-written, well-acted, & doesn't overstay its welcome. Season two just came out! I think modern shows are dominated by 'must-see' spectacles or sensationalist attention-grabbers, because people watch them in droves and advertises will pay for slots. Weirdly, the modern BBC only makes shows like this, even though they don't rely on advertising. Part of the charm of The Sandbaggers is that they clearly made it for pennies, so they had to make the characters and dialogue interesting to fill in for car chases + stunts + exotic locations + top-shelf actors (i.e. the complement of Bond films).

jimjimjim 9y ago
yep top of the lake is good, thanks. i suspect my comments were a wee bit too strong but it was after cycling through every channel twice and finding nothing.
- thenomad 9y ago
  Honestly, it does feel like the current crop of TV is somewhat weaker than it has been for a while. (I'd argue that Top Of The Lake, which is 4 years old now, doesn't fit in "current crop".) That might just be a taste thing on my part, or it might be a response to the tremendous commercial pressures that were forcing execs to look anywhere, everywhere for a story a couple of years ago.
  - bazzargh 9y ago
    There's a second series of Top of The Lake, it finished airing in the UK last week, it's definitely current. Apparently coming to the states next month.
    - thenomad 9y ago
      Oh, didn't know that. Cool. Added to my to-watch list :)
      - falsedan 9y ago
        I mentioned it 5 comments up…
stevenwoo 9y ago
In my opinion, season 2 of Top of the Lake is pretty mediocre compared to the first. The Guardian episode recap/reviews are pretty similar to my feelings.

denzil_correa 9y ago

Survivorship Bias https://xkcd.com/1827/ https://xkcd.com/1827/

Retric 9y ago

The changes to the media landscape make great shows less likely. Companies simply stopped aiming for mass appeal in the same way. If you're really into say magic, then you will forgive more about a show with wizards etc. So, with smaller overall audiences shows simply don't need to be as good.

coldtea 9y ago
>The changes to the media landscape make great shows less likely. Companies simply stopped aiming for mass appeal in the same way. Hmmm? The mass appeal shows were not great by any stretch of the imagination precisely because of aiming for "lowest denominator" mass appeal. At best they could be good despite going for mass appeal, but aiming for the more tame and universal themes. By going for smaller audiences the creators can take chances, what some church lady from Iowa or SJW from Portland might find offensive is not as much of an issue, and the storytelling and directing can be more demanding (as it doesn't have to aim to please any average Joe). Shows like GoT, HoC, Breaking Bad, True Detective (season 1), etc are so much better than the "mass appeal" crap of yesteryear (with some exceptions, like MASH) that it's not even funny. For one, they don't use "tv actors" as much, but Hollywood a-listers. Second the production values are 10x and 100x those older "mass appeal" shows.
- Retric 9y ago
  Game of Thrones for example is somewhat popular, but IMO that's mostly because of how bad the average TV show is not how great it is. It's closest 70's show would probably be Dallas which had 350 million people worldwide watch an episode. That's a well done hook even if they could not show nudes etc. As to offending people, MAS*H had men in drag show up regularly which really would offend people. Yet, apparently 60% of US households tuned in for the final episode. IMO, this suggests they actually had some freedom. Remember, Shakespeare was also aiming for a wide audience. It promotes multi layered messaging, which is more complex than just having everyone backstabbing everyone else.
  - mason55 9y ago
    > * It's closest 70's show would probably be Dallas which had 350 million people worldwide watch an episode. That's a well done hook even if they could not show nudes etc.* You can't compare numbers directly like that. Cable was not invented yet (or at least wasn't common) so there was a choice of about 4 channels.

krylon 9y ago

FWIW, there is a third season of Twin Peaks currently running (well, it's almost over... the finale will air on Sunday). I think it appeals to David Lynch fans more than Twin Peaks fans, but so far I loved every single episode.

jimjimjim 9y ago
Haven't seen it yet but i just got the original twin peaks dvds for a couple of dollars so ill catch the new ones after these
wingerlang 9y ago
I was pretty glad when I heard they made a third season, but I remember not even finishing S2 due to the mystery of S1 being sold. Do I need to watch S2 to enjoy S3? Or maybe I should even give S2 another chance now that it's been a few years.
- cowpewter 9y ago
  You should know how S2 ends at least because S2 ends on a cliffhanger involving Coop that S3 picks up. And maybe give S2 a second chance while fast-forwarding through every scene with James in it, because he has no impact on anything else and eventually just leaves.
- krylon 9y ago
  The second half of season 2 was kind of a letdown. The finale, however, was spectacular, and without knowing how season 2 ended, season 3 won't make much sense. If you don't feel like watching it, you can read the summary on Wikipedia, though, that should give enough information to make sense of season 3 - to the degree that's possible, at least, we are talking about David Lynch here, after all. ;-) Just be aware that the third season has a much stronger Lynch-ean flavor to it. Which is great if you're fan of his work (I know I am), but it might not be for everyone.

olavk 9y ago

Well 90% of everything is crap (or is it 95% ?) We just disagree about what 10% is non-crap. Due to the financial structure of TV production, you can be sure the majority of what is produced is considered worth watching by somebody. In any case, we are in a golden age of TV production with more high quality (writing, action, production) TV shows produced than ever. Enjoy it while it last, so you can complain when it ends.

owebmaster 9y ago
I think the golden age is already in the past (the Lost trend, 2004-2010, which finished terrible but in the mean time other great shows with world-wide audience were released) and today is already the after-party that nobody wanted to miss, mostly for the late adopters (which is the majority, anyway). But a lot of people are becoming "series"-averse. I myself included.
- maxerickson 9y ago
  I think there is a chance that people are getting sick of plodding character driven shows rather than series. An example, "The Expanse" has interesting characters, but so far it has also been the case that lots of stuff happens in each episode.
- wolco 9y ago
  We are in a new era of netflicks shows like stranger things, sense8, the 100, etc. Someone will look back and say its the golden age of tv for them
- ghaff 9y ago
  Complex series with ongoing storylines can be great but they also get a bit exhausting after a while. There is a definite limit to how many Game of Thrones or Lost plotlines and character backstories one can keep in one's head when you just want to sit down and watch some TV. It's fine that there are TV shows that are basically crafted for uber-fans who want to carefully watch every episode multiple times but these shows often aren't for the casual viewer. And there's nothing wrong with being a casual viewer.

coldtea 9y ago

>but in my opinion the vast majority of current tv shows/films/music/webcontent is utter undiluted mind numbing banal drivel and there isn't a circle of hell worthy enough to hold those responsible. Well, for tv shows there was been a marked and well established uptick, if not in storytelling, surely in production values (huge, expensive productions) and acting (a-rate actors from movies). That's how we got shows like Breaking Bad, House Of Cards, Game of Thrones and the rest -- unthinkable in scope and aspirations in the 80s and 90s. They don't always hold up well for all seasons (the tend to meander after season 3-4), but generally there are far greater than tv shows in the past.

iuguy 9y ago
I get where you're coming from and mostly agree, but I had to chuckle. House of Cards is a remake of an 80s show of the same name :) It's also worth a watch if you enjoyed the remake.
- stevenwoo 9y ago
  In some ways the 80's show is even more over the top than House of Cards but I only watched season 1 of the US version where they changed the pivotal death scene. It seemed like they were planting the seeds to match the UK series finale, though.
- coldtea 9y ago
  I've seen the older version. But it's a British one (and they always did some big quality work like Yes, Minister, Monty Pythons, Hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy, etc, content wise), but not representative in production values to the modern one.

mathieuuu 9y ago

We are more and more nostalgic about everything. But I don't see how people can think TV shows were better in the 70s, 80s or even 90s. Since 2000 we live in the golden age of TV shows. We got The Wire, the Sopranos, Mad Men, the Shield, (Game of thrones?, Westworld?) and a ton of original concepts. I tend to think that nowadays there is more originality and risk taking in TV shows than in the movie industry. This summer, I watch Twin Peaks The Return, some episodes are the weirdest things I have seen on a mainstream TV channel. I am amazed it was allowed to air at prime time.

kbart 9y ago
"But I don't see how people can think TV shows were better in the 70s, 80s or even 90s. Since 2000 we live in the golden age of TV shows." I'm on the same camp. Absolute majority of TV series from pre-Internet times were dull, boring and non distinctive. Sure, there were some amazing exceptions (mostly named throughout this thread), but I personally, find many better TV series in the span of the last 10 years than in previous 30 years or so. What impresses me most that recent series are much more realistic, characters are deep, themes are more muddy not unlike in older series where black&white characters, good vs evil themes, mandatory happy ending etc. was nearly universal. Imagine something like Game of Thrones (not that it's the paramount of our times, but more for its brutality, nudity etc.) being aired on prime time during 70s or 80s..