4 ms·

I think this is survivorship bias to a large degree. Sturgeon's Law applied then as it does now; 90% of everything is crud. Go back 20-30 years, and the shows

I think this is survivorship bias to a large degree. Sturgeon's Law applied then as it does now; 90% of everything is crud. Go back 20-30 years, and the shows you remember as great are only a tiny fraction of the total output. Some (like Monty Python or Brass Eye) were extreme outliers. Some shows seen as notable at the time are now mostly, though not always fairly, forgotten because they haven't aged well. Nobody's really watching, I don't know, The Onedin Line or Against the Wind today.

jxjnskkzxxhx 1y ago
I would argue Monty python is in fact not an exception. Their best sketches are just outstanding, but their median sketches are very unfunny indeed. The actual exception is e.g. the life of Brian where you have 90 minutes where almost every scene is funny or at least engaging. Compare with e.g. the holy grail where the best 90% is quite good but the rest is... Not...
- atombender 1y ago
  I think this misses the broader point of how revolutionary they were. They were hugely original and experimental, breaking with a lot of comedy conventions and redefining them. They've been compared to The Beatles for good reason. They were never the same kind of worldwide phenomenon, but they were equally influential.
  - jxjnskkzxxhx 1y ago
    We were talking about ratio of good stuff to bad stuff.
    - atombender 1y ago
      Sure. They may have had their misses, but the Pythons were exceptional. A classic TV show, two fantastic movies (plus a flawed one), a live stage show that's become a classic — they were among the best of their era, and we're still talking about them.
    - gizajob 1y ago
      That’s kind of what “experimental” means though - it isn’t an experiment if you know the results in advance.
SllX 1y ago
> Sturgeon's Law applied then as it does now; 90% of everything is crud. Go back 20-30 years, and the shows you remember as great are only a tiny fraction of the total output. Some (like Monty Python or Brass Eye) were extreme outliers. I want to back up and support this point: just pull up a list of shows on Wikipedia from any TV channel you can remember, ideally one with a long history and just go through the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s, 10s etc. You're going to find a lot more cream the further forward you go into the future, and maybe, depending on the channel and your own personal tastes, a drop off in the last 10 to 15 years. Most TV was just bad, but old TV especially. For every "All in the Family" or "Cosby Show" or "The Wire" or "Frasier"; or to make this more British: "Sherlock", "Doctor Who", "Monty Python's Flying Circus", there's just dozens upon dozens of terrible shows. They each had their audiences, the ones that weren't cancelled (and even some of the ones that were), but it's like, nobody remembers the dirt underneath the flower, but they remember the flowers that they liked.
MrSkelter 1y ago
90% of the BBC wasn’t crud. Even if you didn’t like it. Until the early 90s it was making programming commercial companies couldn’t justify or take a risk on. This programs were fantastic and impacted the entire world. This was a corporation (the BBC) who made their own cameras and microphones. Go and watch “Ways of seeing” on YouTube. It’s 50 years old and still as exciting and relevant as it was then. It was most when conservatives decided that the truth felt a little too left wing and they became vocal about not wanting to fund things they didn’t find entertaining. Hence quality was traded for populism.

jxjnskkzxxhx 1y ago

I would argue Monty python is in fact not an exception. Their best sketches are just outstanding, but their median sketches are very unfunny indeed. The actual exception is e.g. the life of Brian where you have 90 minutes where almost every scene is funny or at least engaging. Compare with e.g. the holy grail where the best 90% is quite good but the rest is... Not...

atombender 1y ago
I think this misses the broader point of how revolutionary they were. They were hugely original and experimental, breaking with a lot of comedy conventions and redefining them. They've been compared to The Beatles for good reason. They were never the same kind of worldwide phenomenon, but they were equally influential.
- jxjnskkzxxhx 1y ago
  We were talking about ratio of good stuff to bad stuff.
  - atombender 1y ago
    Sure. They may have had their misses, but the Pythons were exceptional. A classic TV show, two fantastic movies (plus a flawed one), a live stage show that's become a classic — they were among the best of their era, and we're still talking about them.
  - gizajob 1y ago
    That’s kind of what “experimental” means though - it isn’t an experiment if you know the results in advance.

SllX 1y ago

> Sturgeon's Law applied then as it does now; 90% of everything is crud. Go back 20-30 years, and the shows you remember as great are only a tiny fraction of the total output. Some (like Monty Python or Brass Eye) were extreme outliers. I want to back up and support this point: just pull up a list of shows on Wikipedia from any TV channel you can remember, ideally one with a long history and just go through the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s, 10s etc. You're going to find a lot more cream the further forward you go into the future, and maybe, depending on the channel and your own personal tastes, a drop off in the last 10 to 15 years. Most TV was just bad, but old TV especially. For every "All in the Family" or "Cosby Show" or "The Wire" or "Frasier"; or to make this more British: "Sherlock", "Doctor Who", "Monty Python's Flying Circus", there's just dozens upon dozens of terrible shows. They each had their audiences, the ones that weren't cancelled (and even some of the ones that were), but it's like, nobody remembers the dirt underneath the flower, but they remember the flowers that they liked.

MrSkelter 1y ago

90% of the BBC wasn’t crud. Even if you didn’t like it. Until the early 90s it was making programming commercial companies couldn’t justify or take a risk on. This programs were fantastic and impacted the entire world. This was a corporation (the BBC) who made their own cameras and microphones. Go and watch “Ways of seeing” on YouTube. It’s 50 years old and still as exciting and relevant as it was then. It was most when conservatives decided that the truth felt a little too left wing and they became vocal about not wanting to fund things they didn’t find entertaining. Hence quality was traded for populism.