|
Post by mistertmg on Apr 4, 2012 0:04:40 GMT
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? Very true. Everytime I see a TV show with a 'hashtag' on-screen, a part of me dies inside... it means the programme is not being designed to actually watch! I still enjoy things on BBC FOUR, and the occasional nostalgia programme. But there isn't much. Most things have been dumbed down, and the public with it.
|
|
|
Post by Neil Megson on Apr 4, 2012 8:46:29 GMT
Was TV that much better in the 1960s and 1970s ? Maybe a side-effect of having so many episodes missing is that we aren't reminded of how bad some of them were ! To quote TV producer Michael Gill's son, "People forget that when BBC2 was showing Kenneth Clark's "Civilisation", on BBC1 at the same time was 'The Black And White Minstrel Show'". I would agree that the problem nowadays is that there's simply too much space to fill - 30+ channels broadcasting 24 hours a day means the good stuff is produced on much smaller budgets and is very difficult to find - and the chances of anyone you know having watched the same thing at the same time are virtually zero. Maybe TV is actually 'over' after 70 years, and has gone the way of the Music Hall and Variety Theatre - sad, perhaps, but it may be replaced by something more interesting.
|
|
|
Post by Alan Turrell on Apr 4, 2012 9:05:10 GMT
This website gives you an idea of what programmes were being shown in the 1960s , without doubt conclusive proof in my opinion that today's tv is inferior .Just take a look only 3 channels but there is a good choice and mix of shows . ctva.biz/UK/TV-Listings/UK_1967_01_01_Sun.htm
|
|
|
Post by Greg H on Apr 4, 2012 9:38:41 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. I would go out on a limb and state that Peep show will probably sit with the classics, but this is the exception rather than the rule and possibly a matter of taste. Snuffbox was also a very good show but likely an aquired taste. The British comedy and sitcom is probably the only contemporary genre that produces (occasionaly) anything of any interest for me. Drama, sci fi etc are completely done for in UK television as far as i'm concerned.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2012 9:49:49 GMT
Was TV that much better in the 1960s and 1970s ? Maybe a side-effect of having so many episodes missing is that we aren't reminded of how bad some of them were ! To quote TV producer Michael Gill's son, "People forget that when BBC2 was showing Kenneth Clark's "Civilisation", on BBC1 at the same time was 'The Black And White Minstrel Show'". I would agree that the problem nowadays is that there's simply too much space to fill - 30+ channels broadcasting 24 hours a day means the good stuff is produced on much smaller budgets and is very difficult to find - and the chances of anyone you know having watched the same thing at the same time are virtually zero. Maybe TV is actually 'over' after 70 years, and has gone the way of the Music Hall and Variety Theatre - sad, perhaps, but it may be replaced by something more interesting. Unquestionably better in the past, yes. The main factor here being that it was ideas led in the '60s and '70s, where talented people were just allowed to get on with it. You hear the same story time after time from people that worked in TV back then. Nowadays, due to various changes in how TV franchises are awarded and other things such as Birt-ism at the BBC, everything is purely about money, ratings, advertising and keeping viewers tuned to a given channel. The result is apparent simply by turning on the set. I'm not really sure how anybody could even think otherwise. There was bad stuff in the past too, of course, but the best stuff of the past reached higher than the best stuff around now. The ambition or intention to inspire or challenge is no longer there anyway. You may be right about TV having run it's course now though. All media have a peak when they're new and then they wane. The same is true of cinema although it's decline is happening at a much slower pace and there are still interesting things happening (albeit less frequently). With TV, it's decline was hastened along by the industry itself all too willingly (and well before it's time was up). It's hard to see what could replace TV and be more interesting though (holographic projection or chip implants directly into people's heads are the only possibilities I can see). The senses (sight, hearing etc.) are all covered now and unless we develop new ones, anything new will have to appeal to the same ones in the same way (e.g. internet TV, which is not itself in it's youth now anyway).
|
|
|
Post by Robert Belford on Apr 5, 2012 3:10:41 GMT
30+ channels broadcasting 24 hours a day means the good stuff is produced on much smaller budgets On the contrary budgets now seem to be much bigger! I saw a figure for the cost per episode of the BBC's Forsyte Saga in 1967 and, adjusted for inflation, it cost about one sixth of the £1m that is now spent on some 50 minute dramas, such as the (frankly rubbish) current Doctor Who. The reason being that the Forsyte Saga was made efficiently in the multi-camera TV studio. Actors would rehearse in a cheap room and would spend just a day in the studio rehearsing and recording the episode which would then be complete "in the can". Some dramas would have a fairly small amount of filmed inserts. Whereas most modern dramas are filmed shot-by-shot on location with everyone hanging around, which takes many days, and then it takes weeks or months more for editing and sound mixing. Brideshead Revisited was the turning point in all of this. When suddenly, overcome by the snobbery about "only" working in telly everyone decided they wanted to be a film director with complicated tracking camera shots on location etc. Are the programmes any better now? I would say no. Scripts and acting are poorer and in my opinion the studio gave a certain intensity and focus. The other interesting thing is that audiences for major dramas now are almost exactly the same as 50 years ago! For example Armchair Theatre: A Night Out was watched by 6.4 million. Of course there was a period of gigantic audiences in the 1980's. 20 million and so on. There was really no reason why multi-camera TV studio drama had to be abandoned. The TV companies have shot themselves in the foot. Production costs are much higher, while audiences are the same as 50 years ago, so they are able to make far less and a whole generation has grown up expecting the "uber realism" of location shoots, rather than the sometimes more theatrical style of studio drama. On top of this there is the fact that technology is much cheaper and manning levels lower. Which would make studio drama even cheaper now than back in 1967. Meanwhile 45 years later people continue to buy the Forsyte Saga on DVD and it has 4.5 stars out of 5 on Amazon. But the people who run TV now know what's best... On the subject of the Black and White Minstrel Show. From a modern perspective that was bad, though most people didn't look at it that way at the time. Most were oblivious as to why it might be considered offensive. Black face was a longstanding theatrical tradition. It was one of the most popular programmes on British TV, with 18 million viewers in 1964. Purely from an entertainment point of view it brought enormous enjoyment to almost half the population of the UK. So to make out that it is somehow the opposite to the best programmes is just crass in my opinion. I watched it as a child. Now I find it bizarre and weird and can't believe it was ever on TV. But you can't apply 2012 values to the 1960's ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2012 8:13:16 GMT
Interesting post Robert which I think is absolutely spot on.
Many of the producers and directors of the 60's and 70's have bemoaned about multi-camera shoots in studios claiming the modern method is "much better" for everyone but I disagree since the sheer amount of rubbish that is produced today is partial testament to that. Back then, everybody had to be rigorously rehearsed before they entered the studio and technical run throughs and camera rehearsals would take up most of the day. Now, they rehearse each scene just before they shoot... hence the decline in quality of acting performances and the loss of any real tension on screen. "Tension" today is portrayed by loads of fast cuts and location footage whereas in the older days it would be like a slowly boiling kettle in a TV studio with lengthy sequences where everybody had to concentrate and be aware the clocks were ticking away...
Last night my family were watching some fly on the wall documentary type show and it reminded me of another pet hate which accentuates how they think we are stupid... the constant "coming next" collages and reminders of sequences we've just seen. Can't we just watch the whole thing without these time wasting interruptions? We do have recorders, iPlayer etc to play these things back if need be if we want to be reminded of what we just saw a couple of minutes earlier, so what is the point?
|
|
|
Post by John Wall on Apr 5, 2012 8:19:24 GMT
I think a certain amount of the "coming next", etc is so that these can be cut out to fill the same slot with adverts.
|
|
|
Post by Greg H on Apr 5, 2012 8:40:29 GMT
It was one of the most popular programmes on British TV, with 18 million viewers in 1964. Purely from an entertainment point of view it brought enormous enjoyment to almost half the population of the UK. So to make out that it is somehow the opposite to the best programmes is just crass in my opinion. I watched it as a child. Now I find it bizarre and weird and can't believe it was ever on TV. But you can't apply 2012 values to the 1960's ;D My only experience of the black and white minstrel show was watching a chunk of an episode on the bfi website when I was working at a college in east London many years ago. I started watching it at my desk in my lunch hour and started nodding out mostly through boredom (and a bit of lost sleep the night before). Imagine my suprise when I was awoken to find a guided tour, stopping literaly behind me, for a local council member who was of African lineage. He saw what I was watching and of no doubt probably thought to himself, 'white people suck'. He didn't say a word and moved on. As far fetched as this sounds it is actually a true story. I am pretty glad the casual racism of such dreary shows is in the past. Concerned citizens who miss such 'entertainment' should probably black up for each other in the privacy of their own homes and perhaps sing the popular hits of their favorite eras. Also, post youtube videos for us to enjoy
|
|
|
Post by Neil Megson on Apr 5, 2012 8:44:19 GMT
On the subject of the Black and White Minstrel Show... It was one of the most popular programmes on British TV, with 18 million viewers in 1964. Purely from an entertainment point of view it brought enormous enjoyment to almost half the population of the UK. So to make out that it is somehow the opposite to the best programmes is just crass in my opinion. The quote was from Michael Gill's son, better known as journalist A.A.Gill. He wouldn't say anything crass, would he ? ;D On the subject of multi-camera studio-shot drama - maybe the BBC or even ITV should try bringing it back, but broadcast live - the initial "gimmick" of this may draw in the viewers. Would any "name" actors dare to appear ? I think US TV showed a live episode of "E.R." with George Clooney a few years back, performed twice for the different time zones.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2012 8:47:53 GMT
Interesting posts. I've always said that a kind of cinema snobbery (and of many people in TV really only wanting to make movies) is why we no longer have VT-based drama. A film look was steamrollered in by those with a perception that it was somehow intrinsically "better".
In the past, studio cameras weren't as flexible or mobile as film cameras and couldn't easily go outside the studio. That isn't the case nowadays and a return to multi-camera productions would be not only welcome from a creative point of view but also an economic one. As already said, the TV companies have shot themselves in the foot.
With modern productions, it's easy to cover up weaknesses in content behind a filmic gloss but with VT and studio drama, there is nowhere to hide and so it would actually be a healthy move creatively to go down that road. It'd never happen though as there is too much prejudice.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2012 8:53:25 GMT
On the subject of multi-camera studio-shot drama - maybe the BBC or even ITV should try bringing it back, but broadcast live - the initial "gimmick" of this may draw in the viewers. The BBC did just this a few years ago with a new live transmission of The Quatermass Experiment - only to filmise the results as it went out, thereby destroying any live " happening now" feel to the proceedings! Idiots.
|
|
|
Post by Alan Scott on Apr 5, 2012 21:58:06 GMT
[/quote]
The other interesting thing is that audiences for major dramas now are almost exactly the same as 50 years ago! For example Armchair Theatre: A Night Out was watched by 6.4 million. Of course there was a period of gigantic audiences in the 1980's. 20 million and so on.
[/quote]
Prior to August 1977, audiences for TV shows were measured by the number of homes who tuned in and not an assessment of the number of individuals who watched.
|
|
|
Post by Simon Smith on Apr 7, 2012 5:10:42 GMT
I recently read an article(sorry can't find the link ), which made an interesting point. According to the person who wrote it, the way we watch television has changed. What this person said was that we used to know for example that our favourite show was coming on at a certain time on a certain evening, and make sure we are there, or at least have the VCR running. Now apparently the tv remains on and people wander in and out and just watch whatever's on, as there are no longer any real standout shows. That's not true in my personal case at all. but I do know a lot of people who do something at least similar to that. Any thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Martin Dunne on Apr 7, 2012 6:44:10 GMT
Perhaps I'm missing the point (ie to bash variety in the '10s for comparing poorly with the drama of the '60s) but I'd suggest apples to apples is a fairer test. There is no comparison with the limited and poorly done output of television documentaries in the dim hinterland before Australian stations started taking them seriously in the seventies. I can now sit down for an evening of documentary only viewing, and not think it extraodinary. There's a reason Ken Russell casts such a long shadow, and why his style was much imitated. However, I'm not blinkered to the change in taste. One of my supervisors had his thesis turned into an hour long documentary by the ABC, and enthused over the current vouge of creating vision by animating a photographic background moving past foreground characters. I cautioned him that with pasage of time that effect will look as dated as thick blue lines around actors.
|
|