TV Guides new format

[tvje]

What you think about TV Guides new magazine side and the elmination of the local listings?

I don't like the fact they got rid of local listings, that is whole point of TV Guide, reading the local listings.

[Dragonflies]

I don't like it, they should call it TV Magazine, cause that's what it now, there's more articles now than there was in the old format. I hope they go back to the old format.

[Scoobiedoo30]

Can some please show us what The New Listing Looks Like
On The New TV Guide.

[Madness]

It's nice but I prefer the original. I liked the local listings and the actual pictures for a show's episode telling you what it was about(i.e Lilith returns to Frasier's life, with a pic of Kelsey Grammer with his eyes bugged out)

[boechsner]

I prefer the old format. I actually cancelled my subscription because it no longer caters to my needs.

[Riff]

What you think about TV Guides new magazine side and the elmination of the local listings?

I don't like the fact they got rid of local listings, that is whole point of TV Guide, reading the local listings.

I got a mail-in card in an "Everybody Loves Raymond" DVD set that promised 52 free issues of TV Guide. So I did what any self-respecting lover of free stuff would do...
















...I threw it in the garbage.

[gilligan fanatic]

I didn't know they don't have the local listings anymore, thats stupid.

[tvje]

Not having the local listings in TV Guide. Is like the local newspaper not reporting the local news.

[Coffeecup]

After 53 odd years of having it the small size, I find it hard to put it on a small surface. I measured it. You can put two small sized editions (binding to binding) on one new sized editon. The listing printing is bigger but since I have paid my subscription til sept 2011, I will live with the changes. Who knows, maybe by then the company will be out of business.

[cpmaz]

What you think about TV Guides new magazine side and the elmination of the local listings?

I don't like the fact they got rid of local listings, that is whole point of TV Guide, reading the local listings.

I think TV Guide is doing its part to increase sales of Sunday papers all over the country. I know that I'll definitely be getting it more often now that TV Guide is just a glossy version of the TV listings insert in the paper (and at least that insert has local listings!)

[GoldenFamilyTies]

I love the changes... it's much better now.

[slackermonkey]

I love it. There are so few entertainment magazines dedicated exclusively to TV news. I don't care about the lack of local listings because you can always find them in the paper, online or through Tivo.

[Dr. Thong]

I love it. There are so few entertainment magazines dedicated exclusively to TV news. I don't care about the lack of local listings because you can always find them in the paper, online or through Tivo.

They are not exclusively devoted to TV. They have several issues with cover features about theatrical films, which I never understood. And you are right - you can get local listings online at tvguide.com, so I will not renew my subscription once it runs out.

[TVFactFan]

I prefer the old format. I actually cancelled my subscription because it no longer caters to my needs.


Yeah i heard it's no listings for TV shows in the new format. It says something about check with your cable company-lol

[TVFactFan]

I can understand why there are no more local listings thought because u can't find out what's coming on in your area from the Internet or cable. So TV GUIDE realizes that and that's why they are no longer in there. I wasn;t only buying tv guide for Tv articles. For what was coming on I go to the website for my local Tv station or Guide on my Cable service

[tv star collector]

What you think about TV Guides new magazine side and the elmination of the local listings?

I don't like the fact they got rid of local listings, that is whole point of TV Guide, reading the local listings.
This Monday I received in the mail my third issue of the new "improved" TV
GUIDE. When I received my first issue, I sent the following e-mail to some
friends and relatives. My opinion hasn't changed.

Is bigger always better? Not necessarily. Today I received my first issue of the highly-touted new, large-size format TV Guide. True, it is bigger (8" x 10 1/2") -- but it's also much, much thinner (112 pages). Content-wise, think of
it as a cross between the old TV Guide and Entertainment Weekly. Better? Maybe. Different? Definitely. But it's easy to understand that it was no longer profitable for them to publish all those different regional editions (and, in 1960, there were 60 such regional editions) -- averaging about 180
pages -- each week. But what about people's jobs? All those local editions didn't publish themselves, so I imagine there were some massive layoffs by TV Guide throughout the country. A few facts and figures: in 1960, to produce 60 local editions required staffs in 29 cities, and printing presses in 16
cities, to list programs on a total of just 489 channels. Can you imagine what it took in 2005?

So, now we have just one "large-size" national edition (twice as big and half as thick, roughly). So, drink a toast to "progress" ... or to another tradition that bites the dust. Take your pick.

P.S. But, hey, 53 years is a long, proud history. Not many magazines can make that claim. And, for all the drastic changes, it is still TV Guide, with many of the same features (including the crossword puzzle; I think I got 100% on this one). They've even retained the same numbering system.

P.P.S. Biggest disappointment for me: no tribute to the late, great, three-time Emmy-winning comedian Don Adams. Well, maybe next week.

Well, there still has been no tribute to Don Adams (or to Louis Nye, for that
matter). I assume they are going to wait until the end of the year and do
a tribute to all the stars we lost in the past year (as they have been doing
since at least 1998). By the way, I don't miss the local listings because, for
the past few years, I have been subscribing to the DirecTV edition of TV
GUIDE anyway (which is published by TV Guide and is exactly like the regional editions except it excludes
local channels).

[dawsongirl]

Yawn. This is the...4th issue. And so far the cover has been the same: one or two people posing in front of A SOLID WHITE BACKGROUND. These are the downright most boring covers of any magazine I have ever seen. At least the old TVG had some color on it! How is this mag supposed to stand out at the checkout aisle without any color?

[dawsongirl]

They are not exclusively devoted to TV. They have several issues with cover features about theatrical films, which I never understood.


That has always pissed me off. Hello editors...your magazine is NOT called Movie Guide.

[tv star collector]

Yawn. This is the...4th issue. And so far the cover has been the same: one or two people posing in front of A SOLID WHITE BACKGROUND. These are the downright most boring covers of any magazine I have ever seen. At least the old TVG had some color on it! How is this mag supposed to stand out at the checkout aisle without any color?
You have made two valid points. The white background is rather bland (I guess
they're counting on the larger size to draw new readers). And I think the only
movie coverage should be limited to films being shown on television, not new
movies (unless, of course, they're made-for-TV movies). Otherwise, it looks
like they're trying to imitate ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY.

[dawsongirl]

I think they are trying to imitate them. There are a few new sections in the TV Guide that weren't there before...but they were in EW. The section telling about star births, marriages, court appearances, etc is one. The section on quotes from shows is another, the special listing of who's appearing on the late night talk shows...

Only difference is that it's only TV stars. But still...I mean, if I notice it, someone at EW has to.

[staypuftman2004]

I like the new Tv Guide :wave:

[Brent88]

I don't like the new listings, but I do like the more detailed info about shows that week in the front. I love spoilers.

:lol:

[Angelique 2]

I love the new format the old one was tired.The old format didn't give good listings.I almost let my subsrciption lapse now I love the Guide again!

[Dr. Thong]

Luckily (and obviously) I do have access to the net, so if I can get local listings there, why do I need the magazine??

[dawsongirl]

For the fashion advice from the stars of TV.

j/k

[Dr. Thong]

For the fashion advice from the stars of TV.

j/k

Riiiiight...!:rolleyes:

[cpmaz]

Luckily (and obviously) I do have access to the net, so if I can get local listings there, why do I need the magazine??

The horoscopes??? LOL

Seriously, like a previous poster, I have given this four weeks for the changes to grow on me. They haven't.

My problems with the changes include:

No local listings (the big one);

Too lazy to even get the time zones right - I live in AZ, which is Mountain standard time, but we get Pacific zone listings;

Crappy sports listings (sort of related to no local listings);

No more movie section - if it isn't on during primetime, it practically doesn't exist;

Too much attention to non-TV stuff like new movies in the theater. DVD coverage is ok, those are on your TV (well, mostly. :) ) But forget everything other than TV-related programming - otherwise, change the name of the mag;

Enough with the Desperate Housewives stories already!! We know you like it. It's not the only show on TV. (in fairness though, this trend did start while it was still in digest form);

Same thing with "reality" shows getting the cover;

Put the crossword on regular paper not the glossy stuff - my pen doesn't write well on glossy paper.

I suppose I could keep going, but that would just be piling on after the play was whistled dead - I have already decided not to get the mag anymore.

[dawsongirl]

Too lazy to even get the time zones right - I live in AZ, which is Mountain standard time, but we get Pacific zone listings

Yeah...I get Eastern, and I live in Central.

[tv star collector]

The horoscopes??? LOL

Seriously, like a previous poster, I have given this four weeks for the changes to grow on me. They haven't.

My problems with the changes include:

No local listings (the big one);

Too lazy to even get the time zones right - I live in AZ, which is Mountain standard time, but we get Pacific zone listings;

Crappy sports listings (sort of related to no local listings);

No more movie section - if it isn't on during primetime, it practically doesn't exist;

Too much attention to non-TV stuff like new movies in the theater. DVD coverage is ok, those are on your TV (well, mostly. :) ) But forget everything other than TV-related programming - otherwise, change the name of the mag;

Enough with the Desperate Housewives stories already!! We know you like it. It's not the only show on TV. (in fairness though, this trend did start while it was still in digest form);

Same thing with "reality" shows getting the cover;

Put the crossword on regular paper not the glossy stuff - my pen doesn't write well on glossy paper.

I suppose I could keep going, but that would just be piling on after the play was whistled dead - I have already decided not to get the mag anymore.
Yeah. I share your complaint re the crossword puzzle. I use a pencil, and it
works better on newsprint-type paper than glossy. From reading the messages on this board, it seems the majority of people here prefer the old format. I wonder if enough people signed a petition, TV GUIDE would listen to us. (Yeah, right, fat chance!) On the letters page of the latest issue, one reader praised the new TV GUIDE and another one panned it. But I wonder what the real ratio is (of those who like and dislike).)

[jeffersonsfan]

I hate it too.

TV Guide started going downhill when they featured the latest tabloid celebrity on the cover, or doing a big story on the latest Star Wars movie.

I'd buy it again if they brought back the old digest format with the local listings.

[cpmaz]

Yeah. I share your complaint re the crossword puzzle. I use a pencil, and it
works better on newsprint-type paper than glossy. From reading the messages on this board, it seems the majority of people here prefer the old format. I wonder if enough people signed a petition, TV GUIDE would listen to us. (Yeah, right, fat chance!) On the letters page of the latest issue, one reader praised the new TV GUIDE and another one panned it. But I wonder what the real ratio is (of those who like and dislike).)

Hmmm...is there a way to email this whole thread to them? Actually, I'd say the best way to motivate the publisher to fix the mag is economics - if circulation drops enough, even a brain-dead corporation will listen.

Of course, I'm already doing my part - when I went shopping this week, I saw the latest issue in the rack, and didn't even have to fight the urge to reach over, pick it up, and put it in my cart. There was no urge.

[Brent88]

Enough with the Desperate Housewives stories already!! We know you like it. It's not the only show on TV. (in fairness though, this trend did start while it was still in digest form);

Hey now... I love those spoilers. There's a big juicy article in next week's that I just got.

:cool:

[tv star collector]

I prefer the old format. I actually cancelled my subscription because it no longer caters to my needs.
For the first time in several decades, I have decided not to renew my TV Guide subscription (when it
expires next June). The new format doesn't impress me much, and I can get as much (sometimes
more) program information in my local Sunday newspaper television supplement. If I want an issue
of TV Guide, I'll buy it at the supermarket--but those will be few and far between ... the annual Fall
Preview issue, of course, being one of those rare exceptions

[cpmaz]

... the annual Fall
Preview issue, of course, being one of those rare exceptions

Assuming that TV Guide cares enough to do a decent Fall Preview Issue.

Right now, I'm not holding my breath. :)

[tv star collector]

Assuming that TV Guide cares enough to do a decent Fall Preview Issue.

Right now, I'm not holding my breath. :)
Yeah. I guess we'll know in about ten months. (It would be ironic if ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY produced a better Fall Preview than TV GUIDE, which
in the early days proclaimed itself to be (and rightly so then) "America's television magazine").