Link (http://technorati.com/entertainment/tv/article/the-sad-truth-classic-television-shows/#ixzz1aWbSOPi7)

There have been so many shows that are awesome when you first watch them, and then when you revisit them years later it has become painfully obvious how terrible they really are. One of the best examples of this is ‘The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air’.

First and foremost the fashion in this show is a rich tapestry of heinous patterns and an offensive visual assault of colors. Why people rich enough to live in Bel-Air would ever wear any of the clothing the wardrobe consultants picked is beyond us -especially oldest daughter Hilary whose entire raison d’etre was to shop.

The show ran for six years based almost entirely on Uncle Phil fat jokes and Carlton’s dumb dance. Not to mention the most memorable thing about the show is it’s theme song. We dare you to find someone who can’t recite the entire thing off the top of their head, even now, 15 years after it was originally on the air.

Another show we watch in syndication and wonder how it could have run for so long is ‘Cheers’. We realize it is a beloved classic, but it’s die hard fans have to admit that it really is just a bunch of ugly people who have turned to the company of the bottle and others like them in a dark, dank bar.

It’s most popular characters are a blow-hard, one-upping, know-it-all mailman and a washed-up-baseball-star bartender. Sam Malone is essentially Uncle Rico from ‘Napoleon Dynamite’ and we’re supposed to believe his endless rants about his glory days get him laid more often than Captain Kirk.

Speaking of getting laid, whoever thought a show about a group of geriatric dames sitting around their retirement community talking about sex should be shot. Now we love Betty White, she’s like the original SurlyGurl, but ‘The Golden Girls’ is like walking in on your grandparents having sex: awkward and you wish you’d never seen it.

It wasn’t just the 80’s and 90’s that gave us shows that were wildly popular at the time and then showed their true colours in syndication. ‘I Dream of Jeannie’ and ‘Bewitched’ are essentially the same show. One quirky wife is a genie and the other is a witch. Somehow they both seemed to find the same chauvinist husband. As dreamy as American hero, astronaut Major Nelson was, we would rather not have a husband who shoves us in a bottle and hides us in a closet anytime company arrives. Samantha’s husband Darren treated her like a dog that wouldn’t stop peeing on the carpet any time she used her witchy powers to cook him dinner.

Sadly, it’s only a matter of time that we look back on shows that we currently love and realize just how ridiculous they truly are. Damn you T.V. on DVD box sets!

I disagree with this.

The problem is that they expect EVERYTHING they loved to be on par with today's standards, instead of just enjoying them for what they are.

I think some shows don't age well but others are timeless... including some that were mentioned in that article

I don't consider shows from the 80's and 90's classics. I reserve that term for shows from the 50's and 60's. And the majority of those shows do hold up very well.

Some shows, yes. But the ones you mentioned...no. (Well, maybe "Fresh Prince", but it's sooooo campy now it wants you to go back to 1993).

It just makes me want to sing this....

kRTMWzVoT_U

The problem is that they expect EVERYTHING they loved to be on par with today's standards, instead of just enjoying them for what they are.

Honestly, I wouldn't want my old favs to be measured by today's standards, because today there don't really seem to BE any.

The post is interesting, but flawed. Some shows don't hold up, others do. The writer is really generalizing too much, I think.

Shows I liked as a kid that don't hold up now, in terms of comedy include Gilligan's Island, the Brady Bunch, Welcome Back, Kotter, Alice, Happy Days and Laverne and Shirley.

That doesn't mean I can't still enjoy them as good old fashioned nostalgia, however.

True that shows I grew up on aren't gonna hold up, but who says they're not entertaining.No one but myself can say what's entertaining. I'm not gonna take much from the article, if you'd call it that.

I disagree , Some Classic TV shows are timeless ,they are apart of America's cinema .Classics like The Honeymooners and I Love Lucy, has a huge fan base adored by millions! These to shows is the equalvalent of what Gone With The Wind and Cassablanca,is to movie lovers ........TIMELESS CLASSICS.....!!:cool:

I have to agree with you Zoneboy. Nice article btw

Yeah, I don't think of shows from the 80s & 90s as classic either. I agree that the 50s & 60s are the classics. Even the 70s had some great shows. Years ago, with only 3 channels, there was something good on every night, unlike today's garbage.

I have to agree with you Zoneboy. Nice article btw


Thanks but I didn't write the article and it doesn't necessarily reflect my views. I just found the article and thought it might get some good response.

Think of all the shows that will never be seen again, either destroyed,being kept under lock and key for copyright reasons or they were so obscure that they have been forgotten.

I agree that there are some shows I watch now and wonder how I ever liked them in the first place but you have to remember that there weren't as many choices back then. I'm sure this is just a big shock but this is why I love Frasier and Seinfeld so much. Current event references withstanding, I think both of these shows are timeless. I can watch an episode from Season 1 of Frasier and it always amazes me when I realize how long ago they were taped. They look like they could have been taped weeks ago.

Think of all the shows that will never be seen again, either destroyed,being kept under lock and key for copyright reasons or they were so obscure that they have been forgotten.

There are ways around this. :lol:

If something is good, it will be good no matter how old it is. 'I Love Lucy' is 60 years old this year, and to me it is just as funny as it ever was. Hopefully it will still be on TV 60 years from now. I wonder if 'Last Man Standing' will be shown on TV 60 years from now.

I wonder if The Playboy Club will be shown on TV 60 years from now! :crazy: :lol: :rofl: :rotflmao: :brent:

If something is good, it will be good no matter how old it is.
I agree.And I'll even go a little further and mention sometimes the good older classics hold up even better,because they are so superior to modern tv,so you appreciate them even more. And you know, I've discovered some classic tv shows in recent years that for some reason I never saw in the past,like "Maverick" being one of a few,and they are very good.So even classic shows I've never seen hold up great. --Plus I can't take any article seriously that calls The Fresh Prince of Bel Air a classic.

I agree with the OP, except about CHEERS. The characters in CHEERS had depth that was rare for a sitcom of its time. The relationships between the characters were very well-defined, and that was from where most of the humor was derived. Those character relationships still hold up today.

CHEERS, ALL IN THE FAMILY and NEWSRADIO are my favorite multi-camera sitcoms of all-time precisely because they have aged so well.

Shows like PERFECT STRANGERS and FRIENDS, though I used to love them, are completely unwatchable for me now.

i think the original article is taking these shows out of context; the characters and jokes and plotlines in the old shows were fresh and original when they were originally made, the person reviewing these is comparing them to current shows which have basically STOLEN all those ideas from the old shows and recycled them ad nauseum, and to their mind it makes the old shows look bad because they've seen the rip-offs a million times.

like I always say, its like comparing apples to Studebakers.

http://i56.tinypic.com/20q175f.jpg
http://i56.tinypic.com/34rd0r5.jpg
http://i55.tinypic.com/sxg6qs.jpg
http://i56.tinypic.com/21d33tt.jpg
http://i52.tinypic.com/2eupzde.jpg

The problem is that they expect EVERYTHING they loved to be on par with today's standards, instead of just enjoying them for what they are.

Quoted for truth. The rabid hatred for cheesy older sitcoms is growing a bit out of control. Why do people need every show to be an Arrested Development clone?

I've been able to watch some of my childhood favorites on YouTube. I think the way they handled a lot of controversial issues at that period of time was well done due to the writing. They were more educational then as opposed to today. Silver Spoons, Diff'rent Strokes, The Facts Of Life, and The Hogan Family I find still hold up today as they did back then.

Quoted for truth. The rabid hatred for cheesy older sitcoms is growing a bit out of control. Why do people need every show to be an Arrested Development clone?
and Arrested Development sucks IMO. It's all just a matter of taste.

and Arrested Development sucks IMO. It's all just a matter of taste.i dont like arrested development ether i watched 5 eps of that show trying to see why it was so wonderful and i just didnt get it

i dont like arrested development ether i watched 5 eps of that show trying to see why it was so wonderful and i just didnt get it
That's at least 3 of us.

Modern American comedy (and unfortunately British comedy now too) is like the kid in your fifth grade class who one day realized he got great laughs from his peers by burping and farting. So amazed with his 'talent' he kept expecting the same results every single time. Soon the other kids grew to hate his guts and his attitude was mutual because they are unable to see his true 'comic genius'. His circle of fans become smaller and smaller, which he attributes to 'sophistication', while in truth every one hates him because he is an unfunny jerk.

Well some key points to remember, people say 1939 was films greatest year. Because they had a nice number of films that (when looking at the resources of the time) are what we call timeless classics. But what people don't ever recall is that that same year and thousands of other releases, and 95% of them were garbage.

That's mass media. Almost all mass media isn't high quality, rare gems are. This applies to books, to movies, to tv, to paintings, music, to all creative outlets.

Most are poor.

Now of course when we compare through the decades on one hand we have a limited number of shows easily reached to the american public that provided a very sanitized idealized view of what America was. It lacked realistic characters, it marginalized large portions of society. And was hampered by the technology and censors, and the early nature of the craft.

Now of course we have shows scattered over hundreds of channels. Technology presenting material on a production point that is easily superior to films (again technically not talking creatively), we have a society that is a lot more open to express and highlight a much larger canvas of the american populace, and it's many faults. So we get a lot more rich character drama.

But we also have a ton of material. And while we get a far broader range of what type of material gets produced, its not localized on 3 networks its scattered.
For example say I thought 5 shows in 1965 were Great programs. That means I probably had to search through a total of 60 some odd shows to find those gems.

Now days I might have to search through 500 shows to find those 5 gems.

And while I love that we leave ina world were TV can make Band of Brothers, or Ken Burns Documentaries, and Game of Thrones, and Breaking Bad, ect, ect. It sucks that one has to search to find those Great (of course for me) programs.

Something that's true about me, especially when it relates to sports on television: I'm one of those (maybe the only one) who purchases DVD releases of games that have long since been decided. I often get asked why I would make such purchases. The general reason for me, aside from the fact that there were better players and teams then (at least IMHO), is aesthetic: outside of the obligatory score graphic now-and-then, and the starting-lineup and other necessary graphics, there were no superfluous graphics. What I mean by that is that there was no scorebug, no constantly-running ticker, no first-down line, etc. (all things that are common to the HD, 500-channel universe in which the NFL and college football, and other sports, exist now). For example, take NBC's broadcast in '83 of Super Bowl XVII, and notice the general absence of graphics; now compare that to FOX's last SB broadcast this year-- graphics out the yin-yang. Does that explain it well enough for you?

Time won't change my opinions on classic TV, and that's the truth.

It depends on the show. There are some old shows I enjoy a lot and others I don't care for at all. It's just a matter of opinion. One thing that irritates me about current network TV is that the majority of shows seem to cater to the young hooligan demographic 18 to 35. Programming wise there is little if any consideration for the demographic 40 years and older.

Something that's true about me, especially when it relates to sports on television: I'm one of those (maybe the only one) who purchases DVD releases of games that have long since been decided. I often get asked why I would make such purchases. The general reason for me, aside from the fact that there were better players and teams then (at least IMHO), is aesthetic: outside of the obligatory score graphic now-and-then, and the starting-lineup and other necessary graphics, there were no superfluous graphics. What I mean by that is that there was no scorebug, no constantly-running ticker, no first-down line, etc. (all things that are common to the HD, 500-channel universe in which the NFL and college football, and other sports, exist now). For example, take NBC's broadcast in '83 of Super Bowl XVII, and notice the general absence of graphics; now compare that to FOX's last SB broadcast this year-- graphics out the yin-yang. Does that explain it well enough for you?

I agree with that about all the graphics and stuff. They could be borderline annoying sometimes. Although I do like the first and 10 line and having the score always on the screen helps.

As far as what Zoneboy has posted, I think a reason why tv shows dont hold up is somewhat simple. You look at what was mentioned. Fresh Prince, Golden Girls and Cheers. Maybe the reason why they dont hold up is because they have been played to death. I mean I bet some people can recite an entire episode of one of those 3 shows. Golden Girls has been in syndication forever and they have been on all the time for the last, what, 20 yrs.? Same goes for the Fresh Prince and Cheers. I think those shows need to stop airing and take a much deserved break. And take Full House, Everybody Loves Raymond, Good Times, Sanford and Son and Frasier with you.

I think the writer didn't like some of the shows mentioned because they weren't about young, pretty people. If you look at the casts of some of the older shows compared to today---almost everyone in modern sitcoms, save for a few, could be GQ and Cosmo ready. I think maybe this person has been spoiled with seeing extremely good-looking actors and actresses, and when a show is built an around older, less-conventionally attractive cast, he or she can't handle it and will deem it unwatchable. Of course, the fact that the shows mentioned are syndicated on just about every cable channel doesn't help either. Overexposure is definitely not a good thing!

Honestly, I wouldn't want my old favs to be measured by today's standards, because today there don't really seem to BE any.

The post is interesting, but flawed. Some shows don't hold up, others do. The writer is really generalizing too much, I think.

Shows I liked as a kid that don't hold up now, in terms of comedy include Gilligan's Island, the Brady Bunch, Welcome Back, Kotter, Alice, Happy Days and Laverne and Shirley.

That doesn't mean I can't still enjoy them as good old fashioned nostalgia, however.

Gilligan's Island still never fails to make me laugh.

I disagree with this.



You and me both.

I don't agree with this statement. The shows I watched a child are as funny now as they were then. Dick Van Dyke is just one example. EVEN my grandchildren love the old classic shows.

The shows that still hold up well is:
The Dick Van Dyke Show
All In the Family
The Mary Tyler Moore Show
I Love Lucy
One Day At A Time
The Andy Griffith Show
Three's Company

Shows that would not hold up:
Alice
Family Ties
Maude
Too Close for Comfort
Facts of Life
Diff'rent Strokes

I don't consider shows from the 80's and 90's classics. I reserve that term for shows from the 50's and 60's. And the majority of those shows do hold up very well.

I didn't care for 95% of the shows from the 80s and 90s when they were on. Maybe the people who did like them were kids then so they didn't realize they were watching crap. I was an adult so I knew better. You could even through most of the 70s shows in there, other than the MTM produced series, as garbage as well.

I think the writer didn't like some of the shows mentioned because they weren't about young, pretty people. If you look at the casts of some of the older shows compared to today---almost everyone in modern sitcoms, save for a few, could be GQ and Cosmo ready. I think maybe this person has been spoiled with seeing extremely good-looking actors and actresses, and when a show is built an around older, less-conventionally attractive cast, he or she can't handle it and will deem it unwatchable. Of course, the fact that the shows mentioned are syndicated on just about every cable channel doesn't help either. Overexposure is definitely not a good thing!

I guess he wouldn't care for December Bride very much.

The shows that still hold up well is:
The Dick Van Dyke Show
All In the Family
The Mary Tyler Moore Show
I Love Lucy
One Day At A Time
The Andy Griffith Show
Three's Company

Shows that would not hold up:
Alice
Family Ties
Maude
Too Close for Comfort
Facts of Life
Diff'rent Strokes

I don't agree with some of your list of shows that wouldn't hold up today. Most are still good shows ans there are plenty of the classic shows that would still hold up IMHO. As I said, my grandchildren love the old shows and have often wanted to know why shows like those aren't on TV anymore. My grandchildren range in ages from 16-5.

I don't agree with some of your list of shows that wouldn't hold up today. Most are still good shows ans there are plenty of the classic shows that would still hold up IMHO. As I said, my grandchildren love the old shows and have often wanted to know why shows like those aren't on TV anymore. My grandchildren range in ages from 16-5.

You can tell them the reason they don't make shows like these is because the companies that own the Studios decided they wanted to make more MONEY. So the stopped making shows like these and replaced them with lame-@$$ "Reality Shows". :( :mad: :angryfire

I guess he wouldn't care for December Bride very much.

I'd love to watch 'December Bride' again.

I think its all based on taste. I think something like I Love Lucy can hold up today but something like Too Close for Comfort wouldnt. I think there are certain shows that were funny when they aired or when your a kid but as an adult, they arent really funny. Something like the TGIF line up that aired on ABC is something I dont think would hold up. I think as a kid, I looked forward to it but now, not so much. I'd watch it for historical purposes but I dont think I would laugh like I did when I was a kid.

of course this whole theory is ignoring the fact that most of the current shows on television aren't as good as the people producing them think they are, and won't hold up to a second viewing and be out of date 6 months from now.