|  Author | Topic: What do you think the future holds for television? (Read 2,675 times) |
Tony Walshaw
Member
member is offline
Joined: Feb 2011
Gender: Male 
Posts: 84
|  | Re: What do you think the future holds for televis
« Reply #45 on Apr 8, 2012, 8:45am » | |
Probably the decline of TV is linked with lifestyle changes. You can compare it with popular music.
Rock n Roll arrived in 1955, just after rationing had ended, and in the same year as commercial television. Music and TV gradually got into their stride and were really 'swinging' ten years later. As people have mentioned, they were creatively-driven, and helped along by massive technical improvements like stereo and eight-track within music, and colour within television. This 'golden age' of popular culture continued into the 80s taking new wave music, home video recording and Channel 4 into its stride.
From the mid-1980s, with Margaret Thatcher in her pomp, life changed from 'inclusivity' to 'profitability'. Work practices and conditions changed, the onus began to shift to purely making money and any other considerations were secondary.
At the time, the 80s were portrayed as fresh and new, and the 60s portrayed as 'old hat' in music and television terms. However, many prominent behind the scenes figures in radio & TV like Johnny Beerling, Stanley Appel, Verity Lambert, Johnny Goodman etc had been around since those same 60s, therefore radio & TV was still effectively being run by the same people. By the early 90s as they approached retirement, the tumbleweed began to blow through popular entertainment.
Music in its post-Live Aid state of machines, power ballads, global artists and stadium rock was starting to stiff creatively. Such figures as Paul Gambaccini and Muff Winwood commented on how nothing new was emerging on the scene, which according to one prominent writer (someone like Wells, Collins or Maconie in the NME) was "choking on its own entrails" as automated re-mixes and re-issues proliferated. The period from the 1950s-80s began to be referred to as 'The Rock Era'. And the downturn for television corresponds to this. Satellite broadcasting began in 1989 and it is reputed that Margaret Thatcher had a hand in the Thames franchise loss which was determined around this time.
Perhaps some earlier seeds of decline had been sown by the deposing of Lew Grade in 1982 by the cynical Australian Robert Holmes A Court. He made it clear that he was running things purely on money-making terms and had no time for creativity and good relations within the industry. This thinking probably enabled the commissioning of the "adult-Tiswas" show 'OTT', and also its fairly prompt abandonment. It pre-cursed 80s alternative comedy which led to such as 'The James Whale Radio Show' and 'The Word' at the turn of the 90s. "Gross-out television" had arrived.
Satellite broadcasting as run by the Murdoch organisation was also an early sign of globalisation. Music increasingly had some other kind of media tie-in (with films, TV, advertising etc) and did not exist purely on its own terms. The charts, with a faster turn-over, became irrelevant. And although the music scene was rejuvenated to some extent by the indie/Britpop artists of the time, and the rise in popularity of festivals etc, it was apparent that for the first time it was borrowing extensively from its past and 'retro' as a current genre was born. Even the best of the uplifting dance music borrowed from the late-60s 'hippy/chill-out' vibe. And if you look beyond the likes of Blur, Oasis, Jarvis Cocker etc, much of the other 90s music really was 'pulp'. Terrestrial TV did maintain some credence, with a rejuvenated 'Top of the Pops', and programmes like Vic Reeves 'Shooting Stars' and 'Never Mind The Buzzcocks' (when first aired) did well on the back of the new music. But all the time, the subversive influence of the internet was creeping in.
By the 2000s, globalisation totally took over, using the internet as the corporate blood to flow through the veins of society. This applied to everything in life, with local businesses first becoming national and then in turn being owned by American or far-eastern conglomerates. From Walter Wilson to Asda to Walmart for instance. The ITV regions became extinct. Programmes are now squeezed in between endless adverts. It is difficult to distinguish between the two. 'Celebrity' has had all the juice squeezed out of it now, with TV filled with anonymous embarrasing bodies.
Media, politics, business, sport and entertainment are one big incestuous mass. It is difficult to tell where one ends and the other begins. This is epitomised by the recent revelations about the Murdoch organisation, and the levels of influence that such driven and unpleasants like Wade and Coulson have been able to attain. Television has broken down, but the field is no longer being ploughed, it is merely left fallow.
| |
|
john wilson
Guest
| | british televsion
« Reply #46 on Apr 8, 2012, 12:18pm » | |
on the 'future of tv' thread someone asked:
what went wrong....?
Here's a few ideas...
First i have to (as with the Railways) point an accusing finger at....you guessed it - Margaret Thatcher's lot !
whatever your politics (& I'm no Lover of Labour or the laugably inept Lib Dems) the fact is under that woman's watch the ITV fanchises were sold off....and Rupert Murdoch got a even tighter GRIP on Broadcasting
Most harmful was the vanishing of regional ITV with it's set programming for local communities in YOUR area - Harlech, Grampian, Granada, Anglia, Midland, Southern, Tyne Tees, HTV West, etc - all areas had their own reginal magazine shows, plus programmes they specialised in that were then shown nationwide
Sorry if your a fan of it but I found next, despite Jeremy Isaacs initial plans & schemes for it that Channel Four soon became a 'cesspit' of UK Television (for me at least !)
despite some good shows the emergence of the dreadful soap 'Brookside' (created by Phil Redmond) with it's contant diet of arguments, clashes & general obnoxiousness...paved the way for BBC ('Eastenders') then ITV to follow suit (ITV 'Dumbing down', 'youth-orientating' and generally making more obnoxious soaps like 'Coronation Street', 'Emmerdale' etc....several older cast members quitting these shows in disgust at what was happening...)
In that Channel four led the march downhill...plus they did (& Still do) focus on a strange 'PC' type 'alternative' attitude - hence their 'alternative Xmas day message' etc - being full of very unfunny often downright RUDE so called 'comedians' who ram home their 'message' mostly aimed at impressionable youth...
HOW MANY of those talentless TV figures we all seem to so utterly LOATHE now - figures like Jonathan Woss, Russell Brand, Graham Norton, Davina McCall, Russell T. Davies (who destroyed BBC's 'Doctor Who' with glee), Peter Kay, Vernon Kay etc....all figures that make me hit the mute or switch channel button asap....got onto mainstream TV channels via Channel four ? 
I do believe Channel Four led the way downhill.....plus the OBSESSION with 'viewing figures' being the be all & end all - BBC & ITV followed suit....and certain key figures like Mark Thompson, Michael Grade etc are of great culpability too....
so with ITV made one big (ghastly) concern, the BBC desperately trying to shed any 'middle class white' image to the point of ad nausium thus employing all these 'trendy plonkers' with their xclever ideas obsessed with just achieving viewing figures rather than making quality television....we have reduced to a 'fast food' style TV of no substance whatsover...hence the likes of Simon Cowell flourish today...
An accent on 'Yoof' (ala Janet Street-porter's clever ideas) has ensured an 'ageist' prejudice often applies now (Sherlock Holmes, Dr.Who etc get ever younger etc) and soaps are 'yoof' driven (with obligatory promotion of gay characters & storylines)
Anything perceived 'white middle class' like say 'Midsomer Murders' gets blasted for not having any 'non whites' & the Producer was SACKED for daring to oppose the prevailing view....
One guy on here recently commented about TV 'now being run by a certain type of people'
I agree fully - that is a certain type trying to force their attitudes, beliefs, creed and viewpoint on (mostly) younger impressionable people ...
Not that I'm a fan of it but when I have had to endure the dreadful Matthew Wright on 'The Wright Stuff' I have noticed how both he & his panel(s) all have such a 'Holier than thou' 'correct thinking' attitude - anyone who phones in daring to put up a differing opinion often gets a VERY RUDE blast from the ignorant Wright...charming !
the fact the likes of the utterly obnoxious Jeremy Kyle and his weird crowd of 'sub culture' folk can even get on television tells you just how low the bar is now set....
BBC to fill quotas no doubt have filled up their exec staff with senior women, some may well be excellent of course, but there are those who frankly have been promoted due to not being a Male - they fill up the daytime TV schedules with cash in the attic , a celebrity attic, overseas attics, country attics, plus umpteen cookery & antiques shows...and buy a property here, there, & everywhere etc...all MEGA CHEAP shows to make ...
follow a Policeman, Ambulanceman, Airport secuity man (& women of course) about with a camera is mega cheapo TV too of course...thus these & silly (& Cheap) Reality TV shows saturate the airwaves...
Watching 'The Big Match Revisited' yesterday with the great Brian Moore from March 1983 really brought it home how UTTERLY NAFF coverage of football on both BBC & ITV now it...with far more time spent on the absurd BBC 'chat show' with the likes of Hansen, Lawrenson, & Shearer plus the smarmy Gary Lineaker...or the intensely irritating Adrian Childish on ITV (poor old Steve Rider, so much better)....and umpteen interviews with non entity personalities & endless match analysis....as opposed to essentially concentrating on the televised football as BBC & ITV did back then....
I do point accusing fingers at Thatcher's lot...then the oddball 'Channel Four' lot...for allowing & starting the ROT in UK Television (a bit over simplified I know but alot of the initial deterioration in standards of our TV WAS down to them...)
....but others have been equally culpable of just 'jumping on the bandwagon' since with NO ONE standing up & saying 'Hang on this is all CRAP, our channel WILL concentrate on quality...'
hence the likes of 'Ant & Dec' can bee talked of as a modern 'Morecambe & Wise' (don't make me laugh !!)
& a hundred dismally unfunny sitcoms are thrown at us...while guys like Ricky Gervais ( what talent DOES he actually have ?) can make a series of shows just LAUGHING AT 'An Idiot Abroad' where some guy acts the part of a stereotypical Northern 'clueless pillock' making a berk of himself....wow !
NO WAY would BBC or ITV ever just 'open up' their vintage archives on any dedicated 'Old TV' channel....why ?
partly for fear of losing viewers from their current channels, and also for the simple fact they can put out SIX episodes of Z cars or Dixon or a pieced together 'Dr.Who' starring William Hartnell, or Patrick Troughton, or a 're-coloured' Jon Pertwee tale....on DVD & CHARGE fans OTT for it...!
Sorry if I slagged off any of your favs here...but i DO honestly believe there IS some truth in all these points as to why UK television now finds itself in such a dismal sate....and sadly the ROT is so deep now I fear it will never pick up to any higher standard of quality...
I felt I had to get that off my chest ! 
I'll happily stick to my DVD's & tapes of classic television & films I think.... 
| |
|
Alan Turrell
Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 732
| | Re: What do you think the future holds for televis
« Reply #47 on Apr 8, 2012, 4:57pm » | |
I Have to say i totally agree with what Tony and John say here absolutely spot on, and the really sad thing about all this is that it will never be the same again.
| |
|
phillipgruber
Member
member is offline
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 565
| | Re: What do you think the future holds for televis
« Reply #48 on Apr 8, 2012, 5:35pm » | |
@Tony and John...
Two of the very best posts I have read on this forum, hitting the spots perfectly and highlighting everything that is wrong with today's TV in a thoughtful and factual manner. There is nothing more I can add to them other than I am in total agreement with all the points that are made.
| |
|
Louise Penn
Member
member is offline
![[avatar]](http://images.proboards.com/avatars/linux.gif "[avatar]")
![[homepage]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif "[homepage]")
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 55
Location: London
| | Re: What do you think the future holds for televis
« Reply #49 on Apr 9, 2012, 11:01am » | |
I think the state of 21st century television has a lot to do with the number of channels available (the influence of satellite and cable broadcasting) and perceived low attention spans, perhaps influenced by the way American shows are filmed in short scenes with quick cutting and fancy effects.
More channels means not only more low quality and low cost output, but also lower ratings as audiences are more spread out than they were in the days of traditional three channel output. The death of ITV regional identity certainly is a factor, as was the birth of Channel Five and its programming stripped across the week. Channel Four in its original form was new, daring, and quality television - but it also brought us Big Brother, an interesting social experiment which gave birth to a range of reality monsters.
As reality TV grew and 'real' people got their five minutes of screen fame, so quality drama in the vein of Play for Today and Performance declined. Durations of programmes were forced to fit the needs of advertisers. Repeats on satellite channels edited quality programmes to fit time slots. The same old stuff was repeated while the majority of past television only had a life on DVD (if at all).
New original drama got infrequent, and lazy. The really outstanding series were from America, otherwise, British efforts of any real interest could be counted on one hand. Comedy got cruel and dull. Documentaries did flourish, but they were superficial compared to the past and felt gossipy and in tabloid bite-size style.
Films have gone much the same way - short scenes, superficial plots, uninteresting. The future of TV is bite-size video games, and it is sad. Some channels are trying to do things 'the old way' but not only have we lost the writers and performers who can 'do it', we've probably lost the audience who want it, conditioned as they are to the way things are done now.
|
|
|
John Wall
Member
member is offline
Joined: Jan 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 971
| | Re: What do you think the future holds for televis
« Reply #50 on Apr 9, 2012, 1:13pm » | |
Don't neglect advances in technology. At one time broadcast TV was very expensive to make. There was a very large capital investment required for the studios and the cameras, recording, editing, dubbing, etc equipment. TV stations tended to be vertically integrated - and they had to be.
Think of a typical evening in the "good old days" on either BBC1 or ITV (now ITV1). It would largely be in-house drama (film or studio with film inserts), light entertainment (studio), current affairs and news (studio) productions supplemented with movies and US film series.
With the drastic reduction in the costs of the technology and the opening up of what was once almost a "closed shop" the need for the large capital investment to become a broadcaster has gone; that would have happened irrespective of who's in Downing Street, etc.
With umpteen cable and satellite channels we've largely gone from broadcasting to narrowcasting. The days of half the population watching the same programme are long gone - and unlikely to return. When I was at school there were only three channels and it was almost certain that those I walked to school with or met in the playground had seen the same programmes as I had the previous night.
With the fragmentation of the audience (which is less advertising revenue for ITV) the investment in the quality/prestige series can't be justified.
Whilst the cost of the technology has reduced making that side of things easier and cheaper the other side, the talent, hasn't. I think it was Terrance Dicks who said that you needed three things to make a good programme; Script, Script and Script !
As digital TV replaces analogue more and more people will get access to Freeview and the audience will further fragment. The problem we've got in the UK is that we're about 60 million whereas the US is about 300 million. The same fragmentation has occurred over there but the larger population means that individual channels can still get audiences that are worthwhile to advertisers. I did a quick search and it seems that the US Home Box Office (HBO) has some 29 million subscribers - that's a little under 10% of the population. In the UK that would be less than 6 million - and it would take a while to get there. An audience of the size that HBO can deliver is attractive to advertisers and can justify investment in programmes.
I think that the amount of good quality UK produced TV could well further reduce.
| |
|
Laurence Piper
Global Moderator
member is offline
Joined: Mar 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,137
Location: Rediffusion region
| | Re: What do you think the future holds for televis
« Reply #51 on Apr 9, 2012, 4:54pm » | |
Apr 9, 2012, 1:13pm, John Wall wrote:Don't neglect advances in technology. At one time broadcast TV was very expensive to make. There was a very large capital investment required for the studios and the cameras, recording, editing, dubbing, etc equipment. TV stations tended to be vertically integrated - and they had to be.
|
|
TV created it's best work when it's practitioners were struggling to realise what was in their imaginations and I do think that - generally in all media - creative and artistic innovations are usually made when the technical capability to achieve a desired result is only just about possible. This limitation results in a healthy discipline on the artist. Today, the visual / aural palette is so wide that anything can be achieved too easily - almost like breathing. "Creativity" is so everyday and people have got lazy. Until someone stumbles upon an idea that is only barely achievable, nothing new will be created (although I wouldn't expect TV to be innovative again anyway, given that it's so geared towards money and ratings now).
| |
|
John Wall
Member
member is offline
Joined: Jan 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 971
| | Re: What do you think the future holds for televis
« Reply #52 on Apr 9, 2012, 8:18pm » | |
Apr 9, 2012, 4:54pm, Laurence Piper wrote:
Apr 9, 2012, 1:13pm, John Wall wrote:Don't neglect advances in technology. At one time broadcast TV was very expensive to make. There was a very large capital investment required for the studios and the cameras, recording, editing, dubbing, etc equipment. TV stations tended to be vertically integrated - and they had to be.
|
|
TV created it's best work when it's practitioners were struggling to realise what was in their imaginations and I do think that - generally in all media - creative and artistic innovations are usually made when the technical capability to achieve a desired result is only just about possible. This limitation results in a healthy discipline on the artist. Today, the visual / aural palette is so wide that anything can be achieved too easily - almost like breathing. "Creativity" is so everyday and people have got lazy. Until someone stumbles upon an idea that is only barely achievable, nothing new will be created (although I wouldn't expect TV to be innovative again anyway, given that it's so geared towards money and ratings now).
|
|
I'm not necessarily convinced as people are brought up with what's available. Nowadays you can have bigger and better bangs and armies of CGI characters marching across the screen but look at what Rudolph Cartier was doing more than half a century ago. What makes something memorable is the script, direction, acting, etc. Blakes 7 is frequently technically poor - compared to today - but it's still entertaining as the performances and dialogue are good.
Remember Not The Nine O'Clock News' "Nice video, shame about the song" ?
I see a certain amount as there not being enough really talented people to maintain the quality with the increase in quantity.
| |
|
Tony Walshaw
Member
member is offline
Joined: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 84
| | Re: What do you think the future holds for televis
« Reply #53 on Apr 9, 2012, 8:28pm » | |
Apr 8, 2012, 4:57pm, Alan Turrell wrote:| I Have to say i totally agree with what Tony and John say here absolutely spot on, and the really sad thing about all this is that it will never be the same again. |
|
Apr 8, 2012, 5:35pm, phillipgruber wrote:@Tony and John...
Two of the very best posts I have read on this forum, hitting the spots perfectly and highlighting everything that is wrong with today's TV in a thoughtful and factual manner. There is nothing more I can add to them other than I am in total agreement with all the points that are made. |
|
Appreciated guys!
 And I myself acknowledge John's interesting comments.
We have always had low-brow TV. But it had its place alongside everything else, and did not encroach all corners of life.
Though I wonder if nowadays the reality shows (& other trash TV) are really as popular as the media would have us believe? 
Young people will be more receptive to the comic book photogenic bad taste, in the same way young people were once lured to drive-in movies in the USA. But I suspect most people over 35 can take it or leave it, and usually leave it.
| |
|
Robert Belford
Member
member is offline
Joined: Nov 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 244
| | Re: What do you think the future holds for televis
« Reply #54 on Apr 10, 2012, 5:46am » | |
Some brilliant posts above.
With all that is emerging these days, I do wonder how much influence Rupert Murdoch has had behind the scenes over the past 25 years. Particularly in what has happened to ITV, Channel 4 and the BBC.
| |
|
Neil Megson
Member
member is offline
Joined: Feb 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 111
| | Re: What do you think the future holds for televis
« Reply #55 on Apr 10, 2012, 8:30am » | |
Is this (perceived or actual) decline unique to British TV ? What's happened overseas in the past 30 years ? Can any readers of this forum offer a non-UK perspective on this ?
| |
|
John Wall
Member
member is offline
Joined: Jan 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 971
| | Re: What do you think the future holds for televis
« Reply #56 on Apr 10, 2012, 8:41am » | |
Apr 10, 2012, 5:46am, Robert Belford wrote:Some brilliant posts above.
With all that is emerging these days, I do wonder how much influence Rupert Murdoch has had behind the scenes over the past 25 years. Particularly in what has happened to ITV, Channel 4 and the BBC. |
|
Satellite TV contributed to the development of a multi-channel environment but cable does the same thing.
| |
|
Laurence Piper
Global Moderator
member is offline
Joined: Mar 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,137
Location: Rediffusion region
| | Re: What do you think the future holds for televis
« Reply #57 on Apr 10, 2012, 10:21am » | |
Apr 10, 2012, 5:46am, Robert Belford wrote:Some brilliant posts above.
With all that is emerging these days, I do wonder how much influence Rupert Murdoch has had behind the scenes over the past 25 years. Particularly in what has happened to ITV, Channel 4 and the BBC. |
|
I'd say a huge influence. He was always a big pal of Thatcher and both of them hated the paternalistic BBC, the concept of public service broadcasting and the way television was heavily unionised. They were hand in hand in trying and break it all up in the name of the free market, ending up with a broadcast version of his comic book rag, The Sun. Didn't the two of them make a good job of it!
The first real nail in the coffin for quality television was the coming of Sky around 1988. It was predicted then that this would gradually drive TV downmarket. At the time, Murdoch was portrayed in Spitting Image as a tasteless, vulgar, artless, anything-for-money individual; I think they got it spot on and I can't say i'm sad (or surprised) that cracks in Murdoch's sordid little empire are now starting to show themselves.
| |
|
phillipgruber
Member
member is offline
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 565
| | Re: What do you think the future holds for televis
« Reply #58 on Apr 10, 2012, 10:30am » | |
Yes, the Murdoch factor has certainly played too large a part, bringing back to mind how Dennis Potter described him as being cancerous. How Murdoch has gotten away with everything for so long is... well, a debate for another forum of a different nature!
| |
|
John Wall
Member
member is offline
Joined: Jan 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 971
| | Re: What do you think the future holds for televis
« Reply #59 on Apr 10, 2012, 11:00am » | |
Whilst not being a great fan of Murdoch I think that it's important to get the facts straight. Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Satellite_Broadcasting
Murdoch had to muscle his way in as he didn't get the licence.
| |
| |
|
![[Home]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif "[Home]")
![[New Topics]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/topics.png "[New Topics]")
![[Help]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif "[Help]")
![[Search]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif "[Search]")
![[Login]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/login.gif "[Login]")
![[Register]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/register.gif "[Register]")
![[Search This Thread]](http://images.proboards.com/search2.gif "[Search This Thread]")
![[Share Topic]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/share.png "[Share Topic]")
![[Print]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif "[Print]")
Logged