Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2012 13:35:38 GMT
It's profoundly depressing that the majority sit back and "accept" the drivel that is flung at them nowadays.
Plays used to be a major feature - whenever there was a new Dennis Potter play, people eagerly tuned in and were rewarded with some interesting TV. Kneale too. No such people around now because the TV play medium is virtually dead.
Another problem is how "drama" is made today compared to years ago. For instance, I've been watching some Z Cars, Dixon and Doomwatch recently... they seem leisurely, cruise along at a nice pace allowing for character development and situations to unfold at a pace that's just right for me. Now? Imagine if they remade any episodes of those... they'd have to string 2 or 3 episodes into a 50 minute slot because it's too rapid fire, and worse, emphasis placed on the wrong things.
The art of writing has been trashed I think. No real care or thought given to the process. I remember Colin Welland saying that a typical Z Cars script was pretty much a masterclass in how to write a script. True, production values may sometimes had let older shows down, but it fell to the quality of the writing and acting to carry it through. Now? My family watch Coronation Street religiously. I sit beside the TV... I cannot see the screen, so just hear the dialogue. I can tell from listening that 1 - it's shoddily written and 2 - badly acted. Embarrassing.
Sadly, I think today's TV reflects a major problem with society in general, in that people have short attention spans. If I sat them down to watch a 50 minute episode of Z Cars after 5 minutes they'd be twitchy. After ten minutes, their minds will be elsewhere and likely be fiddling with a mobile phone doing sms texts or twitter and facebook updates. Old TV is "too slow" for them hence why now, one has to be blitzed with rapid cuts and plots being rushed along. Back in the 50's, 60's, 70's and some of the 80's, we had time to sit and luxuriate watching those shows - and as a family as well. Now, each room will have it's own TV so everybody watches their own things. Sad, but what can one do about it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2012 8:18:58 GMT
It seems that most programmes made nowadays have the production values of a pop video and everything is tailored to that pace, whether drama, current affairs or cookery programmes! It suggests to me though that not only has television been dumbed down but the audience too.
I have an old edition of The Listener from the mid '80s somewhere. In it there's an article by Troy Kennedy Martin bemoaning the decline of radical TV drama. He came to the same conclusion that audience attention spans and expectations had changed drastically. Strangely enough though his remedy for the sad state of affairs was to introduce what he called "micro-dramas", which were condensed three or four minute epics that were shot and edited to the pace of music videos yet containing the same level of content of a traditional teleplay but produced in in an easy-read format that he thought viewers were now able to assimilate much more rapidly than previously!
He was completely way off the mark in terms of how he thought it would re-energise TV or it's audience, of course, if he thought that you could offer the same density of content as a 50 minute play (and what about audience reflection time for events unfolding? Something that is ignored almost completely). Yet his comments were prophetic in one sense as all TV is produced to this breathless pace nowadays (regardless of suitability of content; it usually just has the desperate tone of "please don't turn over!" to it rather than a justified creative condensing of content). But most programmes are still in a 30 or 60 minute time slot, which suggests the majority of that screen time (beyond the three to four minute length of his proposed micro-dramas) is pure padding. Not far off the mark, I don't think.
|
|
|
Post by John Wilson on Mar 25, 2012 12:28:04 GMT
I've just been reading the future of TV thread.... It is true everything is done in a pop video style of 'in yer face' manner now, with scant if any time for poroper character development Length of TV episodes: in the 50's many shows were 30 minutes (Roger Moore initially thought 'The Saint' would be) - 'Dragnet', 'Gunsmoke' etc all began as half hour (24 minutes often allowing for Commercial breaks) - later these expanded to 50 minute episodes in the UK the ITC children's historical hero shows plus 'The invisible Man' etc were but by the early 60's the 50 minute episodes became more the norm Later sixties shows like 'The Name of The Game' (1968) & the westerns 'The Virginian' & 'Cimarron Strip' used a bolder 90 minute format - 'Mystery Movies' like 'Columbo', 'Bancek', 'McCloud' etc varied from 70 minutes to 90 minutes etc to try to create a motion picture type feel... But later I note over time shows episode length went first back to 50 minute, then to 45 minutes... alot of the 'on camera' time has dwindled now too - note how most TV is shot in small scenes forver switching Real Life TV ?: I LOATHE Soaps (real life ? - what utter nonsense !!!!) - if you get lumbered having to watch one of these TV abominations then just for amusement try counting the extras who 'walk on by' in the background during an outside scene in 'Eastenders' - you will always get one...as two folk speak in a supposed dramatic scenr someone always 'walks by' behind them...BBC think this is 'real life' ;D One woman 'extra' is employed to be 'shaking her head' in the background too..I've seen her a few times (when forced to view this piffle at a lady frinds home !! : In 'Eastenders'...do they ever mention Leyton Orient football club ? or use four letter words ? (not that i want them to - but how 'real' can it then be...? ;D) Big tough blokes...who NEVER ever swear ? these naff soaps silly storylines just go round and round in circles too....and that's 'real Life' per soap writers ! these days it's just stereotypical shallow characters served up for a short attention span 'dumbed down' viewing audience and it WON'T get better anytime in the forseeable future either...just more of the same QUALITY TV ?: technically our TV is rubbish too - a cable TV engineer told me far too many channels crammed down the system...thus it's compressed to death and ruined... Digital could be good but it's done far too cheaply (you get charged alot tho') -the picture is poor - Football matches look awful now with 'shimmering' on the pitches & pixallation boxes etc (Channel Five is especially naff as their signal strength varies alot over a game) Neil Armstrong talking to Nixon from the surface of the MOON back in 1969 had a far better picture quality consistancy than Award winning Sky TV have...their guy talking all the way from distant Old Bailey in London picture keeps cracking up...! On the old analogue system a 'Transmission break' was a rare thing in the seventies...now the picture freezez, blanks, breaks up as the norm... Once a digital episode of 'Star Trek' I was recording froze right at the very end - I wanted a newer version...so I decided I'd finish it off by digging out an old 'analogue recording' BBC 2 copy I had off air on VHS from 15 years ago & copy that onto DVD just to complete the new version recording... I copied it across then watched it back...and got quite a surprise !! The modern super digital picture...SUDDENLY got notably sharper & the sound twice as LOUD when it became the old fashioned analogue VHS recording copy of 15 years back....! Progress...?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew Doherty on Mar 25, 2012 14:20:52 GMT
What is the future of British Television?
If it continues with producing very few music programmes, making the present style of comedy along with the style of most dramas (and that means the dreaded 'soaps') and the just plain awful so-called 'reality television' I can confidently say: None at all!
It will just be a flat screen with sound accompanying vision in colour and in real 3-d, i.e. flat screen holographic television sets, which are due to be available sometime next year.
So, the development of television technology will be far more impressive than the stuff on placed on the medium. A classic example of: 'Never Mind the Quality, Feel the Width!'
It is obvious that the more television channels are available the less likely it is for the kind of programmes that enthusiasts of early television prefer can ever be afforded. Consequently, the sort of stuff being produced.
The sad part about this situation is that there are a few (very few) occasions when there is a programme that proves to be an exception; proving that television organizations can 'cut the mustard' when they try.
Yours,
|
|
|
Post by Alan Turrell on Mar 25, 2012 18:40:52 GMT
I still watch some stuff on dvd , but a lot of what i watch now is all stored on my external hard drive and then i view it through my western digital media player , nearly all the old shows i watch are viewed in this way , i could quite easily cut myself off completly to what goes on the tv these days.
|
|
|
Post by John Wall on Mar 25, 2012 21:40:43 GMT
Last Sunday evening there wasn't much on TV so I saw The Dambusters, Reach for the Sky and The First of the Few - wonderful
|
|
|
Post by Robert Belford on Mar 27, 2012 13:41:28 GMT
It's awful now in just about every respect, for the reasons mentioned above. In fact I no longer have a Freeview box and I don't have to pay the TV licence. Considering what a TV fan I was in the past, I never thought I would see this day!
The was a gradual period of decline from around 1985 until 2000 which really was the last gasp for the old way of doing things, with still a couple of BBC classics.
It seems to me that TV is in the grip of a certain group of people and there is this "received wisdom" about how everything should be done and what the audience wants. But in my opinion it is deeply flawed and very patronising. I would love someone with money to pop up and do it all differently. But there's no sign of that happening.
As others have mentioned, one of the ironies is that in this age of huge screens, HD and much cheaper and easier production, there's nothing current of any substance and quality that I want to watch.
A lot of the justification for changes was based on lies too. Imagine if strict regulation had continued and the BBC and ITV had been left the way they were. The BBC making top quality programmes efficiently, holding onto the copyright, and selling those programmes worldwide with all of the profits benefiting licence fee payers instead of a small number of shareholders at independent production companies.
Unfortunately at this rate I don't see a great future for the BBC because the future is about owning content rather than channels and the copyright of popular shows such as Hustle now lies with private companies. ITV and Sky aren't even worth mentioning.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2012 14:01:04 GMT
Agree with you completely about the sad decline of the BBC. I also agree that 1985 to 2000 was pretty much the last gasp period. I used to love my comedies... I have seen nothing in the 21st Century I would even regard as being "good" let alone funny - I really cannot stand the sight of the likes of Gervais, Brand, Kay, Little Britain and Norton. Even Stephen Fry now really gets on my nerves. The last great comedies for me were One Foot In The Grave and Father Ted. It's been a wasteland ever since.
Drama wise... yes, some goodies during that era but can't think of any that stand out this Century so far. Blimey, even daytime TV was better back then... sigh... a time when Tim Wonnacott and Eggheads didn't exist to annoy us forever and a day...
Yes... depressing we now have all this wonderful technology and hardware but nothing worthy to watch on it!
|
|
|
Post by Alan Turrell on Mar 27, 2012 14:56:37 GMT
I can't name one comedian today who i think is funny , maybe i'm a miserable so and so , but they don't look like comedians now there not funny in any kind of way , i guess there there another product of todays bland and stereotype society . They wouldn't know how to make anything like Monty Python ,Fawlty Towers , On The Buses , Benny Hill , Up Pompeii and so on , and they wouldn't even be able to make anything like Love Thy Neighbour , not everyone's cup of tea i know but i think it's brilliantly funny. I really think the whole thing of poor tv , music , today's fashion etc , shows through in todays society but there are many reasons for this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2012 14:59:52 GMT
I'm afraid you're right Alan... today's TV is a sad reflection on how society and humanity has gotten in general. Take daytime TV for instance... all those lousy shows involving money making and profit. And that's all that seems to "matter" nowadays - profit. And don't even get me started on the creatures that infest The Jeremy Kyle Show...
|
|
|
Post by Ray Langstone (was saintsray) on Mar 27, 2012 15:18:31 GMT
I think there's great stuff on TV nowadats, you just sometimes have to look harder and cut through the dross. I'm in a minority, here by the sounds of it. That doesna bother me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2012 15:34:01 GMT
Interesting that several people state the period 1985 - 2000 as being when the rot visibly set in. Pretty much in agreement with this too. Although people were predicting the decline of quality television and the death of the single play as far back as the '70s (and if you look at the trend from the '60s onwards, it's very clear that plays and play strands gradually reduced in number from that point onwards), the climate in the early '80s was still optimistic and there was also the promise of the coming of C4, which started out as a breath of fresh air (probably for the first five years or so, while Jeremy Isaacs was involved).
By the end of the decade though, the TV landscape seemed like a different (lesser) world. Then there were the organisational changes surrounding the 1992 franchise fiasco and it was this which well and truly sealed the fate of our TV culture. Since then it's been a case of picking at ever fewer crumbs of quality; they are still there in small numbers but are now the exception rather than a common occurrence.
|
|
|
Post by Ray Langstone (was saintsray) on Mar 27, 2012 15:40:24 GMT
There are still good drama series and docs out there, without question, many of them, UK and imported. Music TV has gone downhill unquestionably; comedy is a matter of opinion. Sport....again a matter of opinion, although there is more coverage. Chat shows and reality shows are by and large ca-ca.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2012 16:10:42 GMT
I'd say there have so far been no 21st century comedies that can be called "classics" to sit with the best of the past. The Office was the last thing which really stood out (over a decade ago now) ; whether you liked it or not, it set a style that was (over) copied and most new comedies seem like a poor stylistic imitation of that to one degree or another.
Drama is the thing which has marked the decline of TV most of all for me though. Where once there was at least one interesting drama on any given day of the week, you're hard pushed to find many at all now (which was one of the main factors in my having TV taken off here), other than an excess of soaps. I've nothing against soaps in balanced proportions, of course. What few original dramas there are are more like "films" anyway. There simply was not enough to interest me any more.
If it wasn't for Jools Holland, music TV would have died completely. Other genres such as documentary produce some fair stuff but nothing that hasn't been done better or in more depth before. You get the feeling that it's all playing safe. No surprises or reaching for the sky any more - there's quality but predictable quality, the like of which came about in a different age and is looking a bit long in the tooth now. I suspect that the people who could still offer innovative series these days choose not to work in television any more (or are not offered work). The ever smaller numbers of quality programmes which are still present at the moment seem to be there as a hangover of a past TV system and when the ethic to make those programmes finally goes with the end of that generational line, there will be nothing to turn on for at all! There are also too many actual hours of television now, which is why there is a sea of antiques / animal rescue / house-buying / reality / blooper etc. shows to pad out the schedules. Less used to be more!
|
|
|
Post by Colin Anderton on Mar 27, 2012 16:58:18 GMT
I would seriously opt for a return to three channels (plus perhaps one news channel); TV was unquestionably better then, and it was more of a shared experience.
I think what has happened to TV in the last 20 years or so is what has happened in society generally; few people any longer want to see anything that makes them think.
Although some may feel I'm taking TV too seriously, I believe what we are witnessing is another nail in the coffin of progress. The world has turned its back on space flight, Concorde etc. - all the things that brought magic to the world.
Remember the film "The Time Machine", when he discovers in the future that all people want to do is sit about and enjoy life, with no desire for knowledge or advancement? I've a feeling that film may one day turn out to be more prophetic than anyone realised....
Colin.
|
|