If you ever dreamed about if you were the FCC and you were in charge of television, here's what I would do and say:


1) Eliminate 50% of all reality shows. Give people who ARE actors/actresses get a chance at tv stardom instead of reality show people who are only famous for 15 minutes. Get back to the old days where Reality TV wasnt totally dominated in television.

2)Bring back the niche channels I wouldnt mind seeing some niche channels back. If you read my post about why cable stations used to be great, you know what Im talking about. I think, today in television, you cant tell USA from Nick at Nite, from TNT or TBS. That shouldnt be. You could make money off of niche channels. They were popular before and why cant they be now? If you read some of the posts here, on youtube, people loved the old days of TBS or USA.

3) Any network that squeezes out the end credits or cuts out scenes from shows or has ANY advertisement of a show on the bottom of the screen will be severely fined. Perfect example. How about when they have a show that there plugging right above there logo and next to that is a pop-up ad OF THE SHOW that there plugging above there logo!!! No more clutter, none of that. This is 2012. If people cant figure out when or where a show is on, then I feel bad for them because theres enough technology to find it. Internet, I-Pad, I-Phone, App, Blackberry, Twitter etc.

4) No more Marathons Unless its a holiday or something, no more marathons. Marathons are on everyday all day. To me, its just lazy programming in my opinion.

Do you guys have any more suggestions?? Also, btw, if any network broke any of these 4 rules, they would be severely fined. What do you guys think?

I would shut down the FCC and let networks do what they want, when they want.

I would:

1. REQUIRE Pay-TV Providers to offer their Channels on an "A La Carte" Basis.

2. Limit the number of Commercials during any given Show to no more than TEN Minutes per Hour!

3. I would PROHIBIT On Screen Advertising during Programming except for Weather Warnings.

4. Require Commercials to be rated with the "V-Chip" so Parents can block those ads they don't want their children to see. Since Children cannot vote, all Political Commercials would receive the "TV-MA" Rating.

5. REQUIRE Station Identifcation "Bugs" to be limited to a certain size, and to require them to be on During Commercials.

1.Remove what's left of standards and practices and let the networks do their own thing
2.Break up the monopoly that the big three and their major entertainment proxies have on cable and TV in general thus allowing room for independent stations
3.limit commercials to ten minutes between programs
4.Any network that squeezes out credits, cuts out scenes, or scrunches shows for advertisements the owners, CEOs and everyone else involved and their families will be lined up against the wall and shot live on their rivals in order to send out a message to the others as to do not repeat these mistakes
5.Bring back niche channels since variety is the spice of life

Ban infomercials during the day

i would have 24 hour tv classc like 1950s to 1990s . i wouldn't show any thing passed 1990.


i wouldalso have24 hour claasc carton net work like the jetsons loony toons droopy top cat thesurmfs and popeye
i would take away the commmceials iwould still sohow them just not every five seconds

Well,I would totally control and REALLY limit TV advertising again,that's for sure.Plus,when you watch TV you'd also be viewing a 'clean screen' again.Pop-up ads,screen clutter etc. would be allowed to be shown only on commercials.:wave: Other than that though,I think TV over-all has gotten so out of control and become such a mess,I really would not know where else to start.

I'm curious as to why everyone is so anti-commercial. Commercials are needed for networks to make money and to produce shows. Without commercials, networks can't make shows, and television ceases to exist. Do you have another way with networks to make money? If not, I think you have to live with watching commercials.

I'm curious as to why everyone is so anti-commercial. Commercials are needed for networks to make money and to produce shows. Without commercials, networks can't make shows, and television ceases to exist. Do you have another way with networks to make money? If not, I think you have to live with watching commercials.
I'm not anti-commercial.It's the obscene amount (and un-acceptable and/or stupid content of many ads) I'm against.And I think that is what has turned so many people against commercials.--I had no problem with commercials years ago,back when there were less than 1 third the amount they have nowadays,and there was no such things as infomercials,on screen ads etc. TV stations still can easily make a profit if they showed no more than 4 minutes of ads every half hour.

I'm not anti-commercial.It's the obscene amount (and un-acceptable and/or stupid content of many ads) I'm against.And I think that is what has turned so many people against commercials.--I had no problem with commercials years ago,back when there were less than 1 third the amount they have nowadays,and there was no such things as infomercials,on screen ads etc. TV stations still can easily make a profit if they showed no more than 4 minutes of ads every half hour.

SECONDED!!!

I may have mentioned this before but for those who haven't read it I'll say this:

I have a Bootleg DVD of Kraft Suspense Theatre that has its Original Commercials INTACT! There are eight minutes reserved for commercials, 6 1/2 of which were for the Show's Sponsor (Kraft Foods for those of you in Rio Linda!). The Commercials were presented in an informative manner, there was none of this "In your Face" Obnoxiousness that you see in today's Commercials. One of the Ads had a Recipe and Instructions for a Chili-Mac Dish that you made with Velveeta. I Made the dish myself and found it to be quite tasty. There was one minute that was blank (Two 30 second Spots where you saw a "Place Commercial Here" Spot, which I presume were for Local Commercials and a Promo for next weeks's show. It's a far cry from what you see these days.

Commercials suck. I don't watch any of them. I go to the kitchen, the bathroom or change the channel when they're on. And when I watch on the DVR, I go right by them.

I too have a problem with all the commericals. I dont think that while Im watching a tv show that right in the middle or towards the end, they go to a commerical. I hate that. I liked the old days where I think there was one commerical or the commerical was taken when it was supposed to be taken.

I too am for a clean screen as well as well as stop moving all the shows around. For ex., Married with Children was on TV Land, Comedy Central, Nick at Nite, Spike TV and now (I dont know for how long) on MTV2. They kept moving the show around. Same for the King of Queens. The show was on like 3 days on Spike TV before it left. Thats gotta stop. By the time you get ready and invested in a show and its timeslot they take it off the air or change it. JUST STOP ALREADY!!!

Ban infomercials during the day
I'd ban them at night too. lol

and I'd bring back the tv theme song.

1. Definitely less reality TV, and no reality whatsoever especially on networks where it really isn't needed, like The History Channel and The Weather Channel. Shows like Dance Moms and Toddlers and Tiaras would be banned. There's nothing entertaining about watching some banshee shriek at kids for an hour and watching little girls wearing fake wigs and more makeup than Tammy Faye Bakker parade around in sequins while their parents melt down backstage. And if we have to have American Idol or competition shows, I would make them like the Star Search of the 80's, where unseen judges would vote and not the public. That way, there might be more of a chance that actual talent would win out over popularity.

2. Like others, bring back show credits, theme songs, and get rid of pop up ads.

3. An horror/sci-fi channel that doesn't limit itself to movies from either it's own library or run the same ones over and over again. (I'm looking at you Chiller). I'd have TV horror movies from the 70's and 80's and old B-movies too. Kind of a mixture of the Chiller Theaters that ran on stations like WWOR and the Sci-Fi Channel when it first came out.

4. A classic soap channel that features both daytime and nighttime dramas from the 50's to the 80's.

5. PBS pledge weeks that don't consist of three hour marathons of doo-wop concerts and self-help snoozers like "How to Change Your Brain Patterns" and "Lose Weight Through Hypnosis." Although surprisingly that stuff brings in money from the really older viewers, I think if you want people to support PBS, it would be nice to air shows that actually reflect their channel, not these boring one-off specials and infomercials.

1. Make all of the "premium pay" networks like HBO, Showtime, Encore, etc regular basic-cable channels, available to anybody that pays for cable.

2. Get rid of TV-Ratings. You can use common sense when deciding what to watch. We don't need a rating system. And besides, to most of us these ratings don't make any sense, are unclear and confusing. I don't even know what half the letters they are using mean. And frankly, it's arbitrary at best, because what is okay for one kid to see may not be for another.

3. Make all cable networks dedicate 3-hours of programming a day to children's programming (shows for kids under the age of 15). (any time slot).

4. Remove those horrible ads from the bottom of your screen. I hate when I can't even see the actor's faces as they are covered by ads.

5. Complete Abandoned any regulations on content on TV. Aside from banning graphic sexual images during the daytime (say, anything before 9pm), I'd allow networks to program anything they wish without interference.

6. Allow cable networks access to completely unedited, original network broadcast episodes of syndicated/second run fare.

7. Make a law that does regulate the volume used in ads/commercials. I see no reason to have ads so loud that you have to jump out of your seat. A reasonable volume level would be required.

8. The one big change I would make is I would make it a top priority to re-envision the way TV ratings are determined. Clearly, Neilsen Ratings gets it wrong a lot. I'd like to see every TV Manufacturer install a device that automatically records what shows you are watching, which will directly count toward the series Neilsen Ratings.

9. In the summer, networks would be required to air at least 10 hours of reruns, for their top-rated series. I used to love the summer because it would give me a chance to catch up on series I missed. it also helped me feel connected to a show. You don't get too invested if you only see episodes once or twice. "Friends" used to be replayed like 50,0000 times (obviously I'm exaggerating) and that's why it was so beloved, people loved watching it and grew attached. (This would also cut-down on reality series).

10. Allow all retro (pre-2005) series to be available "on-demand". I see no reason why they shouldn't make these huge libraries of shows available for fans to watch on-demand. Shows that aren't on cable or in syndication should be available somewhere. I think that consumers should have control over this. Either that or consumers should be able to contract rights-holders and purchase copies of the episodes for a fee.

11. All Award shows and other LIVE events would be televised w/out 7-minuet delays.

Definitely restricting commercials. No commercials about diarrhea or bowel movement during supper time. They will air at 4:00 am when most people suffering with those afflictions are watching tv.

Longer Television Shows
First, I'd limit commercial time to no more than 5 minutes per half-hour. I think that the networks can still profit greatly from limited commercial time. Low supply equals high demand, and the higher the demand, the more they can charge for 30-second ad slots.

This move wouldn't be "anti-commercial;" it'd be pro-television. I'm not sure many people outside us TV nerds realize or care how badly television show lengths have been eroding over the years. An uncut episode of The Dick Van Dyke Show is 26 minutes long. An early M*A*S*H episode runs 25 minutes long, and a Cheers episode from the first few seasons is usually over 24 minutes. Today's sitcoms are 20-21 minutes long. We are in a very real danger of having 15-minute sitcoms and half-hour dramas in the next few decades if action isn't taken now.

The Return of Saturday Morning Cartoons and Children's Programming
I would also remove the E/I Mandate. I think it was well-intentioned, but the programming it has yielded over the past 15 years or so has been subpar at best. The networks and local stations don't give E/I programming a second or third thought; it is almost as low on the TV totem pole as infomercials.

It's my belief that the removal of the E/I Mandate would encourage a return to network-driven Saturday morning cartoon lineups. Maybe I'm a traditionalist, but when I was growing up, there was something magical about waking up on Saturdays and watching cartoons on ABC, CBS, NBC and later Fox. We had Nickeloden and The Disney Channel back then, too, but I felt (even as a kid) that the once-a-week cartoons on the networks were more special and of a higher calibre than those on cable.

Also, would it be too much to ask one or two local stations per market to return the 3-5 pm weekday afternoon lineups to kids? That's where we got to know The Disney Afternoon (DuckTales, Chip 'n' Dale: Rescue Rangers, TaleSpin; etc.), Tiny Toon Adventures, Animaniacs, and numerous other syndicated (and later Fox and WB) cartoons of the '80s and '90s. I even remember the ABC station in my area programming The Flintstones and The Jetsons at 3 and 3:30 pm for many years.

Now Saturday mornings are reserved for news, infomercials, and "who-gives-a-crap?" E/I shows, while weekday afternoons are filled with very lucrative syndicated talk shows and court shows. The only place for the kids of 2012 to find halfway decent kids' programming is to hope their parents subscribe to cable. The broadcast stations can do much, much better for our children.

No More On-Screen Bugs
Okay, I get it! I'm watching NBC. No need to remind me of this fact by displaying the peacock on the right-hand corner of the screen during the entire program.

As far as I can tell, this practice started in the '80s with networks like CNN, but became common and widespread by the early-to-mid '90s. I really don't need a constant reminder of the network I'm watching, nor do I want an animated bug telling me what show's coming up next.

Legible End-Credits
I want to be able to read the credits at the end of a show or movie. No more of this squishing or speeding them up crap. I honestly don't mind when networks generate their own end credits for a show, as long as it doesn't interfere with the episode itself, and the names are legible and they stay on-screen for a long enough time for any literate person to be able t read them.

Allow all retro (pre-2005) series to be available "on-demand". I see no reason why they shouldn't make these huge libraries of shows available for fans to watch on-demand. Shows that aren't on cable or in syndication should be available somewhere. I think that consumers should have control over this. Either that or consumers should be able to contract rights-holders and purchase copies of the episodes for a free.

I'd like to see our Nation's Copyright Laws OVERHAULED. IMO they need to be returned to the point where they were origionally conceived almost 200 years ago.

A TV Show or Movie could be Copyrighted for a Period of 15 years, with the option of ONE Renewal for 15 additional years, after which any Movie, TV Show or Music becomes PUBLIC DOMAIN.

TV Shows such as Batman along with Movies such as Song of the South, currently available only from Bootleggers, could now be sold legitimatly, and many of these "Bootleggers" could now become legitimate (And the Government could collect Taxes on them). "Music Rights" would no longer be a factor in getting ANY TV Show or Movie Released.

Longer Television Shows
First, I'd limit commercial time to no more than 5 minutes per half-hour. I think that the networks can still profit greatly from limited commercial time. Low supply equals high demand, and the higher the demand, the more they can charge for 30-second ad slots.

This move wouldn't be "anti-commercial;" it'd be pro-television. I'm not sure many people outside us TV nerds realize or care how badly television show lengths have been eroding over the years. An uncut episode of The Dick Van Dyke Show is 26 minutes long. An early M*A*S*H episode runs 25 minutes long, and a Cheers episode from the first few seasons is usually over 24 minutes. Today's sitcoms are 20-21 minutes long. We are in a very real danger of having 15-minute sitcoms and half-hour dramas in the next few decades if action isn't taken now.



I really like this point. I watched an episode of Sanford and Son on TV Land not too long ago. Of course there were several episodes in a row with odd start times. I timed one episode and it was about 16 minutes of show and 14 of commercials roughly. I watched the same episode on dvd recently and many of the best parts of the episode were removed from the broadcast to add more commercials. Can you imagine a classic drama show coming along today and having to make a satisfactory storyline with only 30 odd minutes to work with. We already subsidize the cable networks through our cable bills then get stuck with seemingly endless ads. These networks rerun programs rather than make them for the most part so they must be paying higher rates to air the shows or pocketing more profit (or both). I also wish no program would have more than 2 episodes back-to-back, but that is another post.

Guys, Im really loving all the feedback!! Now, as far as adding Saturday morning cartoons etc., I agree and dont agree. I dont know about you but theres really nothing on Saturday morning and I dont think a lot of adults would want to watch cartoons. The Simpsons? Yes. King of the Hill? Yes. But what your talking about obviously isnt the Simpsons or King of the Hill. If you want to allow that, then there should some programming for the adults. Again, maybe its me, but there is nothing on Saturday morning.

Agree with a lot of what your saying. I mentioned this and firmly believe about having the marathons of shows reduced.

But let me ask you this. What did you enjoy growing up about television? What I mean, and I think I mentioned this here or another thread, what made you want to watch USA or TBS or any network. Was it for the variety? The game shows? The scary movies? What I want to know is I really want to pick your brain. What would a lineup be for USA or TBS back in the 80s? I say that because I dont remember and the only thing I used to watch back in the 80s on USA and TBS was pro wrestling.

A lot of people here on Sitcoms Online liked cable networks like TBS and USA better when they were rerun-heavy, and feel abandoned by them because they now feature little or no off-network sitcoms, dramas, cartoons and game shows.

Many here see this as "network decay," but I see it as evolution. It's been wonderful to watch USA, TBS, TNT and FX grow into the original programming-heavy juggernauts they are. They can now compete with the big four broadcast networks on a somewhat equal, and even superior, playing field. Look at this year's Golden Globes: all the winning programs were cable shows, not network shows.

The reason USA showed lots of low-budget movies, and reruns of game shows and short-lived sitcoms in the 1980s and 1990s network is because they were a young network with budget constraints. You'd better believe that if they could have afforded to produce something of the calibre of Burn Notice in 1992 instead of airing edited softcore porn and reruns of It's Your Move or Press Your Luck, they would have.

I believe those cable networks are better today, and certainly more profitable for the conglomerates that own them. The majority of people in America probably don't miss syndicated rerun-heavy cable TV; just a big portion of people at Sitcoms Online.

One more thing, GET RID OF THOSE :censored: MARATHONS! If it's a show you like to watch it's one thing but what if that show isn't your cup of tea? Too Bad! That's all we're showing today. One show gets run into the ground while others of the same genre never get shown. Variety is the Spice of Life!

Longer Television Shows
First, I'd limit commercial time to no more than 5 minutes per half-hour. I think that the networks can still profit greatly from limited commercial time. Low supply equals high demand, and the higher the demand, the more they can charge for 30-second ad slots.

This move wouldn't be "anti-commercial;" it'd be pro-television. I'm not sure many people outside us TV nerds realize or care how badly television show lengths have been eroding over the years. An uncut episode of The Dick Van Dyke Show is 26 minutes long. An early M*A*S*H episode runs 25 minutes long, and a Cheers episode from the first few seasons is usually over 24 minutes. Today's sitcoms are 20-21 minutes long. We are in a very real danger of having 15-minute sitcoms and half-hour dramas in the next few decades if action isn't taken now.


Well said! I will mention this though, American TV stations are already showing 15 minute long sitcoms and half hour dramas. Afterall many re-runs of classic shows have almost half the show cut out.So it's already going on.

I've long considered TV Land unwatchable, so I had no idea that they are now so terrible that they literally cut their shows in half. It's a crying shame that even though they are subsidized by both advertisers and subscribers, they still see it fit to cheat their viewers. That's the power of corporate greed, though.

Thank goodness for Antenna TV and MeTV.

TV Land's Message Board is a JOKE! Spammers run rampant, and their Moderaters have done nothing to control them. Looking for NFL Jerseys, Hats and Shoes? Logon to http://www.tvland.com and KNOCK YOURSELF OUT! :brent Looking for Discussions on what they USED to show? Look no further than here! :D

A lot of people here on Sitcoms Online liked cable networks like TBS and USA better when they were rerun-heavy, and feel abandoned by them because they now feature little or no off-network sitcoms, dramas, cartoons and game shows.

Many here see this as "network decay," but I see it as evolution. It's been wonderful to watch USA, TBS, TNT and FX grow into the original programming-heavy juggernauts they are. They can now compete with the big four broadcast networks on a somewhat equal, and even superior, playing field. Look at this year's Golden Globes: all the winning programs were cable shows, not network shows.

The reason USA showed lots of low-budget movies, and reruns of game shows and short-lived sitcoms in the 1980s and 1990s network is because they were a young network with budget constraints. You'd better believe that if they could have afforded to produce something of the calibre of Burn Notice in 1992 instead of airing edited softcore porn and reruns of It's Your Move or Press Your Luck, they would have.

I believe those cable networks are better today, and certainly more profitable for the conglomerates that own them. The majority of people in America probably don't miss syndicated rerun-heavy cable TV; just a big portion of people at Sitcoms Online.
I think they can do both. I love USA's original programs and I love Justified on FX but they air in primetime. I can't tell you the last time I watched either network during the day. Many times USA just reruns their original series or have marathons of recent series like SVU. They could still air classic series and have room for their originals.

I think they can do both. I love USA's original programs and I love Justified on FX but they air in primetime. I can't tell you the last time I watched either network during the day. Many times USA just reruns their original series or have marathons of recent series like SVU. They could still air classic series and have room for their originals.
And I'd make it so all tv shows start on the hour or half hour. No more off the clock programming. When I tune in for something at 9:00, I don't want to have to wait until 9:13.

Bear in mind while I have seen a countless number of posters WHINE about what's on TV. :crybaby: I have to ask this question:

How many of you have actually DONE something about it! :whip

Bear in mind while I have seen a countless number of posters WHINE about what's on TV. :crybaby: I have to ask this question:

How many of you have actually DONE something about it! :whip
Is this the point in the thread where you begin telling us how much better and morally sound you are than the rest of us because you got rid of cable five years ago and started buying a crapload of legitimate and black-market DVDs with all the money you've saved? Because I've been looking forward to hearing all about it one more time. It's been way too many hours since the last time you posted about it.

"Whine," ":crybaby:" and ":whip:," indeed, sir.

A lot of people here on Sitcoms Online liked cable networks like TBS and USA better when they were rerun-heavy, and feel abandoned by them because they now feature little or no off-network sitcoms, dramas, cartoons and game shows.

Many here see this as "network decay," but I see it as evolution. It's been wonderful to watch USA, TBS, TNT and FX grow into the original programming-heavy juggernauts they are. They can now compete with the big four broadcast networks on a somewhat equal, and even superior, playing field. Look at this year's Golden Globes: all the winning programs were cable shows, not network shows.

The reason USA showed lots of low-budget movies, and reruns of game shows and short-lived sitcoms in the 1980s and 1990s network is because they were a young network with budget constraints. You'd better believe that if they could have afforded to produce something of the calibre of Burn Notice in 1992 instead of airing edited softcore porn and reruns of It's Your Move or Press Your Luck, they would have.

I believe those cable networks are better today, and certainly more profitable for the conglomerates that own them. The majority of people in America probably don't miss syndicated rerun-heavy cable TV; just a big portion of people at Sitcoms Online.

problem with big budgets is they don't force network executives to think outside the box

No AKA, I was just asking if anybody has actually DONE something other than whine about the quality of today's tv programming. You yourself said TV Land is "Unwatchable", something I decided a little over five years ago. Seeing that things wern't going to improve, I decided to seek my Classic TV needs from "Somewhere Else". If this offends you forgive me. I'm not saying I've achieved perfection, heck, I'm nowhere NEAR being that. I found, AFAIC, a system, which, IMO works.

One more thing, GET RID OF THOSE :censored: MARATHONS! If it's a show you like to watch it's one thing but what if that show isn't your cup of tea? Too Bad! That's all we're showing today. One show gets run into the ground while others of the same genre never get shown. Variety is the Spice of Life!
Change the channel. For one, I love when networks air marathons, especially with Nick at Nite running the Friends marathon all this week.

Yankees, Im really leaning toward registering on the createanetwork link that you have at the bottom of your signature. I just got to get all my listings and schedule together. Who would have thought a Yankees AND Mets fan working together?



I think another problem is that there's too much network synergy going on. I'll give you an example. Look at Married with Children. They were on TV Land, Spike TV, Comedy Central and now MTV2. My point is you have shows airing all over the place now. TVLand should be for classic shows, not to test the waters for a show that will end up on another Viacom channel eventually. It seems like everything airs on everyone else's channel when it shouldnt be. Look at Brothers and Sisters, Pretty Little Liars etc. Now they already air on ABC and ABC Family respectively. Is there a reason Brothers and Sisters airs on Soapnet or Pretty Little Liars airs on Soapnet? You see what I mean. It seems like all these shows invade other channels when your already airing on a channel. If your being aired on ABC, why should you be on ABC Family? If you air on NBC, why are you on Bravo, then Oxygen and then E?

Do away with "The content cannot be viewed in your area (region etc.)"
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

I am an American living in Shanghai, China. Because I live outside of the United States, there is a lot of content that is freely shown with commercials that they block to anyone outside of the USA. HULU, and the various networks show their content on their website after airing, and for some, unknown reason I cannot watch it. EVERYONE does this. I don't understand why, and it makes no sense to me whatsoever. I discovered this several years ago when I was trying to watch AOL TV, being excited to watch their catelogue of 70's television, just to find out about this asinine rule.

Why can't the networks and channels just stream their content to their website, with commercials? Why cut yourself off from a wider audience? I really dislike missing football in the fall and now March Madness. Here in China, there are millions of boys and men who love basketball and who have never seen a US college basketball game. Who are the advertisers? Probably Budweiser (sold in China) various sneaker ads (made and sold in China) and many other various products, in which more often than not is already sold here. The stupid thing (the words stupid and asinine come up a lot when I moan about this online) is that Chinese people are watching these TV shows. They either watch them online or buys the DVD's. I am a teacher here and there is an English club which meets twice a week and watches "The Big Bang Theory" and love the show.

This isn't limited to television. I used to be able to listen to my hometown radio station, and they even had a 24 hour music stream with no DJs and very limited commercials. One day, nope, live outside the USA (exceptions were overseas military bases), no more radio for you. It is not that I cannot get free music already (there is a Chinese website called Baidu which has an exhaustive library of free music.), I just liked having that connection to "back home" and a radio station that I have listened to for over 30 years. Because of some asinine rule, I am cut off from this.

So what do I do? I go to several websites that I can watch my content. Problem is that this is illegal and a copyright violation. So, in theory and in practice, someone is committing theft so I can watch "Parks and Recreation". At least I get to watch the show without commercials. However, sometimes the video does not buffer or buffers at a snail's pace. Most of the time, when I am done watching an episode, I never watch it again

It's a Catch-22, easily solved by getting rid of this stupid copyright clause. I see a future where television and the internet are of one unit, where people can watch content on demand, and either pay for it or watch with commercials. This is already happening. Why not stream the shows in let's say France (like CBS:France) and just show the programs with French subtitles and with local French commercials? I just think this copyright law (and most of the laws) are keeping media from making money, instead of protecting what they have.

What I would change is especially in regard to sports:

1. Bring back the old style of gamebreak, especially on the NFL. What I mean by that is that back when I was coming up, Pat Summerall and other game announcers would say words to the effect of "Let's go back to Brent Musburger/Bob Costas in New York for an update." On CBS, this usually meant a wipe going across the screen, then on a black/dark blue gradient background, a tilted graphic with "The NFL Today" title in the "end zone" at the top, the first frame of the highlight in the middle, the teams' helmets to the left and right of that, and "REPORT" in red capital block letters with stars in them; this graphic would come forward and the highlight would be shown. Nowadays, all we get is the present-day titles of both studio shows coming forward in one way or another, and then right to the highlight. Attached is a picture of the way it was on CBS when I was coming up.

2. Bring back the competent, well-dressed studio presenters from back in the day (Brent, Irv, Jimmy, etc. on CBS, and Bob, Pete, Ahmad on NBC). This should be self-explanatory.

3. Bring back the old studio designs of that time (pictures of which are attached). These newfangled studios don't do it for me.

limit adverts to 2 during breaks

get rid of the reality shows and have less drama shows- i just don't care for grey's anatomy and 16 and pregnant for example

have more traditional multi-cam sitcoms on NBC, CBS, fox, ABC like we had during the 60s to early 00s.

have MTV showing music videos for once, instead of relying on reality shows

have a 24- hour channel which airs retro, classic sitcoms from the 50s to early 00s

remember the music channel 'the box' where you phone up and request your favourite videos? well, i was thinking the same thing but for tv shows.

revamp boomerang and put more classic cartoons and cartoon series that haven't been shown for a long time.

No AKA, I was just asking if anybody has actually DONE something other than whine about the quality of today's tv programming. You yourself said TV Land is "Unwatchable", something I decided a little over five years ago.
See, I'm not entirely sure what you mean when you say, "done anything." Outside of changing the channel, turning off the television set, letter-writing, or yes, even "cutting the cord," what action do you expect us to be able to take? Nobody here runs a network or is in charge of the FCC.

Yes, I did say that TV Land is unwatchable, but that's one channel out of literally hundreds (I don't watch many non-HD channels anymore, anyway, nor did I ever watch much TV Land to begin with). In spite of a channel full of reruns being garbage, I'm still able to find plenty of great programs and channels to watch on cable.

Seeing that things wern't going to improve, I decided to seek my Classic TV needs from "Somewhere Else".
I truly think it's wonderful that having no cable and a giant DVD/Blu-ray library at your disposal works for you. Honestly, I do. But in the words of the great Alan Thicke, "What might be right for you may not be right for some."

Although the cost is sky high, there are many reasons why having cable works much better for me than not having it; reasons I don't feel like getting into in this particular post. I'd bet there are others in this thread who would say the same thing.

If this offends you forgive me.
I'm not offended; just annoyed. It's absolutely within your rights to post ad nauseum about getting rid of cable, but frankly, there's a sense of smugness in your tone. You come to a message board full of people who love television and constantly tell them that they're a bunch of sheep because they subscribe to pay TV; that you "saw the light" five years ago, and damn it, they should, too. That's like going to the McDonald's fan page on Facebook and constantly crapping on the Big Mac because you realized one day that the secret sauce is just ketchup, mayonnaise and relish.

I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say you talk about getting rid of cable in more than half of your posts. Seriously, we get it. We're all whipped, (or ":whip:," if you prefer), and you've found a better way of life watching bootleg DVD-Rs of Lassie someone recorded from Nickelodeon in 1989. Now can we please move on?

I'm not saying I've achieved perfection, heck, I'm nowhere NEAR being that. I found, AFAIC, a system, which, IMO works.
...for you, but I guarantee it wouldn't work for 99% of us. Despite being a member of Sitcoms Online, my diet of reruns is very small, and that's all you get with optical disc. You also don't get news (as flawed as the news channels are, but that's another discussion), sports or other live events.

Thanks for all the advice, but I'm keeping cable.

I can't give up cable. I'm surrounded by mountains and if I did that, I'd get nothing on my tv. Just snow. I even need cable to get ME-TV and Antenna TV.

I can't give up cable. I'm surrounded by mountains and if I did that, I'd get nothing on my tv. Just snow. I even need cable to get ME-TV and Antenna TV.
I'm in the same boat as you, Sonny. I live in a rural area without its own television stations. I bought a roof antenna back in 2009, and all I could get was the CBS, ABC and Fox affiliates out of Chico, and reception on all three channels was spotty. I couldn't get NBC or PBS at all. The problem with receiving HDTV via antenna is that you either get it (100%), or you don't (0%). There's no such thing as a fuzzy picture with HD; only a black screen that says, "no signal."

Sorry to hear that AKA and Stuck in the 1970s. Cable TV was originally developed for people such as you, who lived in areas with little or no Over-The-Air TV Coverage. (In the 1960s My Grandparents, who lived on the shores of Lake Huron near Oscoda, Michigan had a State-of-the-Art TV Antenna mounted on a 50' tall Mast, from which they could pick up TWO Stations (An NBC Affiliate in Bay City, Michigan and an ABC Affiliate in Alpena, Michigan). One thing I looked forwards to each year was going up to spend Thanksgiving with them, so I could see the Detroit Lions Football Game (Which was "Blacked Out" in the Detroit Area). In 1970 they hooked up to Cable, and the Antenna came down. Other than that us "City Folk" really didn't need Cable, because except for a "Weather Channel" (Which consisted of a Thermometer, Barometer, Wind Speed Gauge and a Clock that was panned by a Camera and accompanied by Musak) there was nothing they had which we didn't have......

Until the late 1970s.

Suddenly they began receiving Channels we couldn't get, including a Channel that showed Movies UNCUT and WITHOUT COMMERCIALS! :eek:

Of course things did change, I won't delve any further except to say It would be nice if those who lived in areas where Cable TV is a "Necessity" could at least have an a-la-carte plan to pick (and pay for) ONLY those channels thay watch and not a bunch they never watch. I read somewhere the average person only watches 12 Channels on a regular basis, yet anyone who pays subsidises the 150 or so Channels they NEVER Watch. Still, it's your choice whether you subscribe or not, and you know what my choice is. :D

PS. If I've gotten a little "Pushy" Forgive Me, I mean no harm. :doh:

Happy St. Patricks Day. pickle:

Sorry to hear that AKA and Stuck in the 1970s. Cable TV was originally developed for people such as you, who lived in areas with little or no Over-The-Air TV Coverage. (In the 1960s My Grandparents, who lived on the shores of Lake Huron near Oscoda, Michigan had a State-of-the-Art TV Antenna mounted on a 50' tall Mast, from which they could pick up TWO Stations (An NBC Affiliate in Bay City, Michigan and an ABC Affiliate in Alpena, Michigan). One thing I looked forwards to each year was going up to spend Thanksgiving with them, so I could see the Detroit Lions Football Game (Which was "Blacked Out" in the Detroit Area). In 1970 they hooked up to Cable, and the Antenna came down. Other than that us "City Folk" really didn't need Cable, because except for a "Weather Channel" (Which consisted of a Thermometer, Barometer, Wind Speed Gauge and a Clock that was panned by a Camera and accompanied by Musak) there was nothing they had which we didn't have......

Until the late 1970s.

Suddenly they began receiving Channels we couldn't get, including a Channel that showed Movies UNCUT and WITHOUT COMMERCIALS! :eek:

Of course things did change, I won't delve any further except to say It would be nice if those who lived in areas where Cable TV is a "Necessity" could at least have an a-la-carte plan to pick (and pay for) ONLY those channels thay watch and not a bunch they never watch. I read somewhere the average person only watches 12 Channels on a regular basis, yet anyone who pays subsidises the 150 or so Channels they NEVER Watch. Still, it's your choice whether you subscribe or not, and you know what my choice is. :D

PS. If I've gotten a little "Pushy" Forgive Me, I mean no harm. :doh:

Happy St. Patricks Day. pickle:
I do agree with having it so the consumer can pick his own channels. I was so mad when Comcast put the NFL Network on a sports package. You had to buy a Golf channel and an NBA channel and a few other sports channels just to get it. I don't watch any of those channels. They said it wasn't fair to charge non sports customers for the NFL Network. It seems like they don't mind charging other people for channels they don't watch. I probably watch about 10 cable channels along with the broadcast networks.

My ideas are as followed.

1)I have to agree with the less commercials idea.

2)Do Network promos again. Show stuff that it coming on next season and advertise what's already on the channel with elaborate singing/dancing/celebrity filled promos every season. Like they did back in the 60s/70s/80s.

3)New network slogans please. NBC finally changed their's a few years ago with 'More colorful' But, how many years has the other networks had their's now? A long ass time. That's how long.

4)Animated logos. Like the old Peacock or NBC snake.

5)America needs a new rating system STAT!The Neilsens have had issues for a long time now. One of them seems to be only catering to a certain audience. *cough*18-35*cough*

6)Bring Analog back!!!!!!!! Seriously, how nice was the day when you didn't have to pay for a box to make an old TV work. Also, this is something that gets me. With Analog. If there was a storm (A dangerous one with a tornado warning) You could actually watch the coverage on your local and normally receive it (with a snowy picture) if the rain was heavy. Now with digital. Your signal is knocked out much of the time. So, if you cannot see your local network, and you're out in the country, and there's a tornado heading straight for you. Now you're screwed because of some stupid government mandate.

I mean, even if they had one analog channel on for weather purposes only. That would probably be a blessing.

Al La Carte packages
More sports back on free TV

The problem with "a la carte" packaging is that the cable company is going to charge a fee for that, and it will end up being as expensive as just getting everything.

I don't really understand why anyone would pay for cable anymore. I use the internet for all my programming. Some people dont like that, but one can hook the computer with the television and there you are.

By law, there should be so many young East Asian women on television.

People should be allowed to say the s-word and the f-word.

Nudity and sex on television. It's a penis. It's no big deal, half of us have them.

If your sugury ears cannot stand the s-word and the f-word or cannot stand seeing tits or penises because of threat of blindness, don't watch.

The problem with "a la carte" packaging is that the cable company is going to charge a fee for that, and it will end up being as expensive as just getting everything.

I don't really understand why anyone would pay for cable anymore. I use the internet for all my programming. Some people dont like that, but one can hook the computer with the television and there you are.

By law, there should be so many young East Asian women on television.

most web streams don't have the picture quality of cable,and a lot of sports are only available on cable. Comcast says it's unfair for non-sports fans to pay for NFL Network but is it fair for men to pay for Lifetime or WE, is it fair for childless households to pay for nickelodeon

most web streams don't have the picture quality of cable,and a lot of sports are only available on cable. Comcast says it's unfair for non-sports fans to pay for NFL Network but is it fair for men to pay for Lifetime or WE, is it fair for childless households to pay for nickelodeon
Exactly. There are many channels that I have never turned on but I have to have them in order to get the channels I really want.

Exactly. There are many channels that I have never turned on but I have to have them in order to get the channels I really want.


Would you rather pay $40 a month for channels you never watch or $50 for a few channels that do you watch? The number of cord cutters with reach large enough numbers some day cable companies will consider a la carte packages but not enough now. You can't cut the cord if your favorite teams are always on cable

2)Do Network promos again. Show stuff that it coming on next season and advertise what's already on the channel with elaborate singing/dancing/celebrity filled promos every season. Like they did back in the 60s/70s/80s.



I agree 100%! NBC did one this year for the Superbowl and it was awesome. More stuff like it please:

iVU_6FLcND8

Anyway, some things I'd like to ideally see happen:

-New ratings system. I don't care how, but it needs to happen. People aren't watching as much live TV anymore - they're watching it on their DVR and they're watching it online. Apparently there's a new system that will track online views...that's a step in the right direction. But the whole Nielson model is outdated, and really kind of sketchy to begin with. Who says those sample sizes they take are accurate to the general population? They also heavily favor family programming because most Nielson homes are family homes. If ratings have to be a thing, at least make them more accurate.

-I think TV should become more niche-based. It's slowly happening, with the birth of all of these new cable channels, but I think ideally, TV should be a place where shows of all kind can survive. If you like quirky comedies, there's a place for them! If you like police procedurals, there's a place for them too. If you like trashy reality shows, there's a place for them too! Like I said we've come a long way from the days where there were 3 channels and you got what you got, but more could still be done.

-I'd like to see more respect for older television shows. Right now they are pretty much banished to obscure cable channels and the occasional TV Land airings. I'd like to see them become just as easy to find as classic movies on TV. There's no reason TV needs to bury its past. Sure, TV has improved in a lot of ways but the classics are still the classics and they should be showcased proudly, they're what made TV what it is after all.

-I have conflicted feelings on whether I'd like to see TV gravitate towards the cable method of scheduling. In some ways I think it's better - no repeats and its easier for a television season to be great in 13-16 episodes than 22-25. But I am kind of attached to my full-year model right now, and I have a feeling a lot of people feel the same way.

-While I personally prefer the single-camera approach to sitcoms, I think the multi-camera format has a lot of advantages too and I'd like to see it brought back. Okay, it's still around - just look at CBS's line-up. But most of the great comedies of the past 10 years have been single-cams, and multi-camera seems to have become a place where the lazier writers who just want to cash their checks and go home gravitate towards, while the more talented, promising people utilize the single-camera format. It shouldn't be that way. Some of the best sitcoms of all-time were multi-cams. The format can be done correctly, it just hasn't been since Everybody Loves Raymond went off the air.

That's all for now! I'll probably think of more.

iVU_6FLcND8

The format can be done correctly, it just hasn't been since Everybody Loves Raymond went off the air.

That's all for now! I'll probably think of more.

I respectfully disagree. The Big Bang Theory, Mike & Molly, The New Adventures of Old Christine, How I Met Your Mother all examples of the multi-camera format that has been done correctly. I'd say all of them (except possibly M&M) are as good, if not better than Everybody Loves Raymond, a show whose quality was debatable at best.

I'll admit to never seeing Old Christine. But...I just really don't like any of those other shows. Sorry. And I mean, when you look at the shows that have gotten the acclaim over the past few years, those shows usually don't top the lists. It seems to be these days, multi-cams go for mass appeal while single-cams go for acclaim. It wasn't always that way. Cheers, Mary Tyler Moore, Seinfeld...all very acclaimed multi-cam shows. (And they were also mass appeal, but why huge hits and acclaim seem to go together less these days for anything not named Modern Family is a debate for another day).

How I Met Your Mother is an exception, but I believe that show is actually filmed single-cam and then shown before an audience. I'm sure if it wasn't on CBS it wouldn't even have the audience and would just be a straight-up single-cam.

most web streams don't have the picture quality of cable,and a lot of sports are only available on cable. Comcast says it's unfair for non-sports fans to pay for NFL Network but is it fair for men to pay for Lifetime or WE, is it fair for childless households to pay for nickelodeon

I still would wonder the logistics of choosing what channels one wants. Like I said before, I think it would be too complicated for the cable companies to do, or they can do it, but will charge a monthly convenience fee for it, which in my estimation would not be that much cheaper if at all than getting a basic package.

Most what I watch on television comes from the "Big 4" networks, with various A&E reality shows. I don't like and have never liked the so called premium channels like HBO-Cinemax-Showtime etc., because in my opinion, about 95% of their programming is not good, and frankly there is way too much swearing and sexual nudity. I am not a prude at all, but it is almost like the writers and producers of these series go "Hey we can use the f-word, s-word and c-word openly, let's go for it. It also seems that these writers are teenage boys because there is always some kind of nudity that is not needed or necessarily forwards the story. But I am getting off the point.

In the 1990's, I lived in Mississippi, but just outside of Memphis, Tennessee. I had a house there. The subdivision, who was built by one builder had "Direct TV" on all the houses with an ugly, black antenna dish built on to the house. I was somewhat familiar with this company since my friend had their service at his house in the same area.

They had similar packages like the cable companies with the same channels, and premium packages and all that.......except that LOCAL TELEVISION STATIONS were not included. Dish stated something on the lines that the FCC would not allow it. I told them that my friend (in the paragraph above) got the local channels and was told that this was before the FCC ruling and he was "grandfathered" in or something like that. It wasn't Direct Dish being bad, it probably was the government. Problem is, at the time most of my television viewing came from the networks. I also lived in a tornado area, and it is good to have the local weather report, instead of having to use "The Weather Channel" which will show sunny skies in Borneo while a Category 5 is bearing down 2 blocks from my house.

Another problem was that I did not have any other choice, it was Direct TV or nothing. There was no cable company working where I lived (I lived more or less in the countryside), or probably worse (and should be illegal) DISH had a contract that did not allow competition like a cable provider. If there was, Direct Dish would have been discontinued immediately. Dish was running more or less a monopoly and could have charged whatever they wanted.

The DISH operator told me to get "rabbit ears" for the TV. C'mon, even in 1998, 'rabbit ear' antennas were obsolete, not to mention that I lived 30 miles away from the major city with no exterior house antenna! This was before flat screens were common, and I could not imagine that there is a place for an exterior antenna to go on one of those. I begrudgingly went to my local Wal Mart and got an antenna and the damn thing did not work, with me trying any kind of way to get my local channels. In 1998, there were very few independent cable channels with original programming, so I was stuck mostly watching reruns while being denied access to local news and weather, not to mention most sports on the weekend. I had internet, but it was 1990's Alta Vista kind of internet, pre-Youtube/HULU etc.

As some of you may know, I live and work in Shanghai, China. So all my TV viewing is done via various websites to watch my content. I have one website that is a lifesaver and I love it. Sports is the one thing I do miss. No NCAA tourny for me. I have watched football here, since the NFL offers a package to watch a streaming game. That doesn't work very well. I still say chunk out the cable company and just watch online and hook the computer to the television.

I'll admit to never seeing Old Christine. But...I just really don't like any of those other shows. Sorry. And I mean, when you look at the shows that have gotten the acclaim over the past few years, those shows usually don't top the lists. It seems to be these days, multi-cams go for mass appeal while single-cams go for acclaim. It wasn't always that way. Cheers, Mary Tyler Moore, Seinfeld...all very acclaimed multi-cam shows. (And they were also mass appeal, but why huge hits and acclaim seem to go together less these days for anything not named Modern Family is a debate for another day).

How I Met Your Mother is an exception, but I believe that show is actually filmed single-cam and then shown before an audience. I'm sure if it wasn't on CBS it wouldn't even have the audience and would just be a straight-up single-cam.


Nope. HIMYM is definitely filmed with multiple cameras; it just isn't shot in front of an audience because of the lavish dream sequences.

Weather you like them or not these shows and numerous others have had major success. The Big Bang Theory is one of TV's highest rated shows and routinely tops American Idol in the 18-49 demographics. It's also achieved major critical acclaim and has been nominated for numerous awards; including the Emmy Award for Best Comedy Series. Also while it's quality may be debatable at best; Two and A half Men has gotten numerous acclaim, including nominations for Best Comedy Series several times. I understand you're maybe not liking some of these shows, but to say they haven't had acclaim is not only silly but flat-out wrong. Because they clearly have.



So even though I agree that there aren't as many multi-camera series anymore; I'd hardly say that we lack one's with quality. The last 10 years has been ripe with these quality series, you just have to look for them, because they are indeed around.

I still would wonder the logistics of choosing what channels one wants. Like I said before, I think it would be too complicated for the cable companies to do, or they can do it, but will charge a monthly convenience fee for it, which in my estimation would not be that much cheaper if at all than getting a basic package.

Most what I watch on television comes from the "Big 4" networks, with various A&E reality shows. I don't like and have never liked the so called premium channels like HBO-Cinemax-Showtime etc., because in my opinion, about 95% of their programming is not good, and frankly there is way too much swearing and sexual nudity. I am not a prude at all, but it is almost like the writers and producers of these series go "Hey we can use the f-word, s-word and c-word openly, let's go for it. It also seems that these writers are teenage boys because there is always some kind of nudity that is not needed or necessarily forwards the story. But I am getting off the point.

In the 1990's, I lived in Mississippi, but just outside of Memphis, Tennessee. I had a house there. The subdivision, who was built by one builder had "Direct TV" on all the houses with an ugly, black antenna dish built on to the house. I was somewhat familiar with this company since my friend had their service at his house in the same area.

They had similar packages like the cable companies with the same channels, and premium packages and all that.......except that LOCAL TELEVISION STATIONS were not included. Dish stated something on the lines that the FCC would not allow it. I told them that my friend (in the paragraph above) got the local channels and was told that this was before the FCC ruling and he was "grandfathered" in or something like that. It wasn't Direct Dish being bad, it probably was the government. Problem is, at the time most of my television viewing came from the networks. I also lived in a tornado area, and it is good to have the local weather report, instead of having to use "The Weather Channel" which will show sunny skies in Borneo while a Category 5 is bearing down 2 blocks from my house.

Another problem was that I did not have any other choice, it was Direct TV or nothing. There was no cable company working where I lived (I lived more or less in the countryside), or probably worse (and should be illegal) DISH had a contract that did not allow competition like a cable provider. If there was, Direct Dish would have been discontinued immediately. Dish was running more or less a monopoly and could have charged whatever they wanted.

The DISH operator told me to get "rabbit ears" for the TV. C'mon, even in 1998, 'rabbit ear' antennas were obsolete, not to mention that I lived 30 miles away from the major city with no exterior house antenna! This was before flat screens were common, and I could not imagine that there is a place for an exterior antenna to go on one of those. I begrudgingly went to my local Wal Mart and got an antenna and the damn thing did not work, with me trying any kind of way to get my local channels. In 1998, there were very few independent cable channels with original programming, so I was stuck mostly watching reruns while being denied access to local news and weather, not to mention most sports on the weekend. I had internet, but it was 1990's Alta Vista kind of internet, pre-Youtube/HULU etc.

As some of you may know, I live and work in Shanghai, China. So all my TV viewing is done via various websites to watch my content. I have one website that is a lifesaver and I love it. Sports is the one thing I do miss. No NCAA tourny for me. I have watched football here, since the NFL offers a package to watch a streaming game. That doesn't work very well. I still say chunk out the cable company and just watch online and hook the computer to the television.

I can relate to this story. When we moved to a new house in 2002 in Rhode Island, (in a very small, rural town), we were told by our cable company that they couldn't run wires to our home which was new construction because it would cost too much. We had to go with DISH TV (which is now I believe owned by Direct TV). The same thing happened, we had no local channels which is where I watched most of my shows. It was a good thing we got SOAPNET because at least I was able to watch all of my soap operas. But i had to miss out on all of my favorite programming like Law & Order: SVU, all my favorite sitcoms and so on. I also couldn't watch the local news or the Oprah Winfrey Show!

People should be allowed to say the s-word and the f-word.

Nudity and sex on television. It's a penis. It's no big deal, half of us have them.

If your sugury ears cannot stand the s-word and the f-word or cannot stand seeing tits or penises because of threat of blindness, don't watch.
:clap :clap :clap I agree 100%. :clap :clap :clap

Nope. HIMYM is definitely filmed with multiple cameras; it just isn't shot in front of an audience because of the lavish dream sequences.

Weather you like them or not these shows and numerous others have had major success. The Big Bang Theory is one of TV's highest rated shows and routinely tops American Idol in the 18-49 demographics. It's also achieved major critical acclaim and has been nominated for numerous awards; including the Emmy Award for Best Comedy Series. Also while it's quality may be debatable at best; Two and A half Men has gotten numerous acclaim, including nominations for Best Comedy Series several times. I understand you're maybe not liking some of these shows, but to say they haven't had acclaim is not only silly but flat-out wrong. Because they clearly have.



So even though I agree that there aren't as many multi-camera series anymore; I'd hardly say that we lack one's with quality. The last 10 years has been ripe with these quality series, you just have to look for them, because they are indeed around.
Either way, How I Met Your Mother is considered a "hybrid" series and not a full-on multi-cam. If it wasn't on CBS who is afraid of single-cam I'm sure it'd be a single-cam.

Calling The Big Bang Theory "critically acclaimed" is pretty kind...it's not Two and a Half Men, but it's hardly Modern Family or 30 Rock either. But you might be right that it's the closest thing we have to an acclaimed multi-cam.

The truth is that single-camera shows are, generally, seen as the home of quality sitcoms these days. Read the interviews from a few months ago with the showrunners of the ABC single-cams who basically **** on the multi-camera format and say you can't do as much with it. Most of the well-known, talented writers are flocking to the single-camera format. My point is that, as much as I love my single-cams, it doesn't have to be that way.

If you still don't believe me, just look at the Best Comedy nominations from the past few years. The favor is starkly for single-cam comedies:

2011
Modern Family
30 Rock
The Big Bang Theory
Glee
The Office
Parks and Recreation

2010
Modern Family
Glee
30 Rock
Curb Your Enthusiasm
Nurse Jackie
The Office

2009
30 Rock
Entourage
Family Guy
Flight of the Concords
How I Met Your Mother
The Office
Weeds

2008
30 Rock
Curb Your Enthusiasm
Entourage
The Office
Two and a Half Men

It seems like every year they throw in a pity nomination for a mutli-cam just to make it look like they aren't totally biased against the format (there's no other excuse for the inclusion of the critically reviled Two and a Half Men), but the industry is definitely favoring single-cams over multi-cams when it comes to acclaim.

New ratings system. I don't care how, but it needs to happen. People aren't watching as much live TV anymore - they're watching it on their DVR and they're watching it online. Apparently there's a new system that will track online views...that's a step in the right direction. But the whole Nielson model is outdated, and really kind of sketchy to begin with. Who says those sample sizes they take are accurate to the general population? They also heavily favor family programming because most Nielson homes are family homes. If ratings have to be a thing, at least make them more accurate.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. The current rating system is inexcusably antiquated, and probably has been since before I was born... over 31 years ago. The powers that be need to scrap everything they know about rating television shows and start over from scratch

Thanks to the ridiculousness of the Neilsen system, countless good shows have been needlessly canceled over the years. It's a crying shame.

I think TV should become more niche-based. It's slowly happening, with the birth of all of these new cable channels, but I think ideally, TV should be a place where shows of all kind can survive. If you like quirky comedies, there's a place for them! If you like police procedurals, there's a place for them too. If you like trashy reality shows, there's a place for them too! Like I said we've come a long way from the days where there were 3 channels and you got what you got, but more could still be done.
I think there's room for both. I'd like to see niche channels co-exist with cable channels on which one can see movies, sports, sitcoms, dramas; etc. Ideally, they keep the "Big Four" more competitive and less lazy.

I'd like to see more respect for older television shows. Right now they are pretty much banished to obscure cable channels and the occasional TV Land airings. I'd like to see them become just as easy to find as classic movies on TV. There's no reason TV needs to bury its past. Sure, TV has improved in a lot of ways but the classics are still the classics and they should be showcased proudly, they're what made TV what it is after all.
Well-said, although the advent of DTV channels like MeTV and Antenna TV are a step in the right direction. Those networks are obscure in that a lot of Joe Sixpacks have never heard of them, yet inobscure at the same time, because many people can receive the channels with a pair of rabbit ears.

In the name of preservation, I would like to see all TV shows shot on film remastered in high definition. The Cheers and Seinfeld DVDs come from new high definition masters and look wonderful. Think of how much better they could look on HD channels or on Blu-ray.

Either way, How I Met Your Mother is considered a "hybrid" series and not a full-on multi-cam. If it wasn't on CBS who is afraid of single-cam I'm sure it'd be a single-cam.

Calling The Big Bang Theory "critically acclaimed" is pretty kind...it's not Two and a Half Men, but it's hardly Modern Family or 30 Rock either. But you might be right that it's the closest thing we have to an acclaimed multi-cam.

The truth is that single-camera shows are, generally, seen as the home of quality sitcoms these days. Read the interviews from a few months ago with the showrunners of the ABC single-cams who basically **** on the multi-camera format and say you can't do as much with it. Most of the well-known, talented writers are flocking to the single-camera format. My point is that, as much as I love my single-cams, it doesn't have to be that way.

If you still don't believe me, just look at the Best Comedy nominations from the past few years. The favor is starkly for single-cam comedies:

2011
Modern Family
30 Rock
The Big Bang Theory
Glee
The Office
Parks and Recreation

2010
Modern Family
Glee
30 Rock
Curb Your Enthusiasm
Nurse Jackie
The Office

2009
30 Rock
Entourage
Family Guy
Flight of the Concords
How I Met Your Mother
The Office
Weeds

2008
30 Rock
Curb Your Enthusiasm
Entourage
The Office
Two and a Half Men

It seems like every year they throw in a pity nomination for a mutli-cam just to make it look like they aren't totally biased against the format (there's no other excuse for the inclusion of the critically reviled Two and a Half Men), but the industry is definitely favoring single-cams over multi-cams when it comes to acclaim.

We'll have to agree to disagree. And BTW, Big Bang Theory is definitely critically acclaimed. It's basically beloved by critics. From what I'm hearing lately, multi-cams are making a huge comeback and networks have ordered far more of them for next season than they have in years past.

We'll have to agree to disagree. And BTW, Big Bang Theory is definitely critically acclaimed. It's basically beloved by critics. From what I'm hearing lately, multi-cams are making a huge comeback and networks have ordered far more of them for next season than they have in years past.
Yea even NBC is trying to get into the multi-Cam game next year. I believe that Roseanne is even going to star in one.

I never took much notice in how a show does with the Emmys. I haven't watched an Emmy show since the 1980's. If a show is funny then I'll watch. I know about 8 or 9 years ago I was only watching about 2 sitcoms on all of television. Sitcoms have clearly made a comeback. I now watch TBBT, Mike & Molly, 2 Broke Girls, Two and a Half Men, Hot in Cleveland, The Middle, Suburgatory, Modern Family, Last Man Standing, Raising Hope, Good Luck Charlie, Melissa & Joey, Are We There Yet, and yes I do sometimes watch Community and 30 Rock. And I know Rob was n't a critical favorite but I did enjoy it even though it probably won't be back.

1. Still have sitcoms air on friday and saturday night

2. See the full closing and opening credits for sitcoms on cable

3. Only have 2 commercials breaks for sitcoms on cable and network tv

SECONDED!!!

I may have mentioned this before but for those who haven't read it I'll say this:

I have a Bootleg DVD of Kraft Suspense Theatre that has its Original Commercials INTACT! There are eight minutes reserved for commercials, 6 1/2 of which were for the Show's Sponsor (Kraft Foods for those of you in Rio Linda!). The Commercials were presented in an informative manner, there was none of this "In your Face" Obnoxiousness that you see in today's Commercials. One of the Ads had a Recipe and Instructions for a Chili-Mac Dish that you made with Velveeta. I Made the dish myself and found it to be quite tasty. There was one minute that was blank (Two 30 second Spots where you saw a "Place Commercial Here" Spot, which I presume were for Local Commercials and a Promo for next weeks's show. It's a far cry from what you see these days.

This is funny. Kraft is still selling from ads made about 50 years ago, but they have to be acquired by bootleg. If Kraft were smart (same for Hallmark for its videoplay Hall of Fame shows 50s through 70s on NBC), it would release these on DVD.

I like all the feedback!! You guys did a great job. It doesnt seem to sink in when it comes the people who run the networks. Im also glad that Im not alone when it comes to gripes I have with tv.