Forget the Golden Age: This is the Platinum Age of Television - Sitcoms Online Message Boards

TMC · 08-11-2015, 01:00 AM

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/bas...best-tv-814146

"There hasn't been a more competitive, cut-throat, quality-saturated era in television ever,” says Tim Goodman. “Period."

Patty Duke · 08-11-2015, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TMC

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/bas...best-tv-814146

"There hasn't been a more competitive, cut-throat, quality-saturated era in television ever,” says Tim Goodman. “Period."

If this is the Platinum Age it stinks. There is NOTHING on these days worth my time. Reality has taken over for the most part and I'd frankly rather chew glass. Little is left as far as sitcoms and the ones I've tried aren't worth my time either. My husband and I are in our 30's and watch DVD's most of the time. I think the days of TV are pretty much over which breaks my heart. I can remember a time when we looked forward to good entertainment back when writers and producers had talent and fresh idea's instead of doing remakes and reality and when a family could enjoy shows together without all the smut.

Sal · 08-11-2015, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patty Duke

If this is the Platinum Age it stinks. There is NOTHING on these days worth my time. Reality has taken over for the most part and I'd frankly rather chew glass. Little is left as far as sitcoms and the ones I've tried aren't worth my time either. My husband and I are in our 30's and watch DVD's most of the time. I think the days of TV are pretty much over which breaks my heart. I can remember a time when we looked forward to good entertainment back when writers and producers had talent and fresh idea's instead of doing remakes and reality and when a family could enjoy shows together without all the smut.

Very well said!!!

installLSC · 08-12-2015, 12:44 AM

I could spend hours on why the supposed "golden age" of TV is a crock (or for that matter the first golden age wasn't so hot either) but I'll just make a few points:
--The "quality shows" the critics moon about make up maybe 5% of total TV content. You never hear the critics mention all the horribly padded reality shows, infomercials (and infomercials posing as news programming), endless shouting on "news" programs; in short, what's actually on the rest of the time.
--Plus the shows the critics promote only focus on the most outlandish parts of society. They can show you endless shows about drug dealers, sex researchers, and torture-happy goverment agencies; but what about normal working class families, minority families, religious families, rural families, etc.? Why aren't they worthy of their time in the sun?
--Most importantly you got great shows of the past for free, save a few minutes of commercials. Now you have to pay $100+ a month for most cable/satellite--and you have more commercials than ever!

Regulus · 08-12-2015, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by installLSC

I could spend hours on why the supposed "golden age" of TV is a crock (or for that matter the first golden age wasn't so hot either) but I'll just make a few points:
--The "quality shows" the critics moon about make up maybe 5% of total TV content. You never hear the critics mention all the horribly padded reality shows, infomercials (and infomercials posing as news programming), endless shouting on "news" programs; in short, what's actually on the rest of the time.
--Plus the shows the critics promote only focus on the most outlandish parts of society. They can show you endless shows about drug dealers, sex researchers, and torture-happy goverment agencies; but what about normal working class families, minority families, religious families, rural families, etc.? Why aren't they worthy of their time in the sun?
--Most importantly you got great shows of the past for free, save a few minutes of commercials. Now you have to pay $100+ a month for most cable/satellite--and you have more commercials than ever!

SECONDED!!!

LUNCH · 08-12-2015, 01:03 PM

Who started this absolute nonsense by calling modern tv and it's landscape the "Golden Age" or similair? I don't read them but they can write all the articles they want, and hype it all they can,but it's not going to make anything about modern TV look any better than the unwatchable mess most of it is.TV from 2000-present especially really can and should be called -The Golden Age of TERRIBLE TV.

MrCleveland · 08-12-2015, 02:35 PM

This is more of The Clay Age of Television!

50's-60's...Golden Age of Television
70's-80's...Silver Age of Television
90's...Bronze Age of Television
2000's onward...Clay Age of Television!

principehomura · 08-12-2015, 03:18 PM

Let's just stick to the so-called "quality show" (guessing they are referring to dramas).
"There hasn't been a more competitive, cut-throat, quality-saturated era in television ever." LOL

Shows written and produced with the autopilot just to pick-up awards: wannabe dark and adults, absolute priority is given to the dialogues and "cinematography" (as if we could care about it), but the ideas are none to be seen.
The freshness of the shows of the 80's and 90's were miles ahead. TV then was an amazing laboratory of ideas and talents; every show was different from the other, telling a new story and new characters in a new and compelling way.

We will forget about every show airing these days in less than 10 years; we will still remember "Miami Vice", "Hill Street Blues", "Twin Peaks", "The X-Files", "Ally McBeal", "Buffy: The Vampire Slayer", "Northern Exposure" etc.

And let's not talk about comedies and sitcoms, because the comparison is embarrassing.

principehomura · 08-12-2015, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patty Duke

If this is the Platinum Age it stinks. There is NOTHING on these days worth my time. Reality has taken over for the most part and I'd frankly rather chew glass. Little is left as far as sitcoms and the ones I've tried aren't worth my time either. My husband and I are in our 30's and watch DVD's most of the time. I think the days of TV are pretty much over which breaks my heart. I can remember a time when we looked forward to good entertainment back when writers and producers had talent and fresh idea's instead of doing remakes and reality and when a family could enjoy shows together without all the smut.

Agree!

UMFaninMD · 08-12-2015, 06:51 PM

I don't think so. There are only a handful of scripted shows that are critic and public viewers' darlings, and hardly any of those are family-friendly. I don't mind adult-oriented drama but at the same time, you cannot sustain a show with endless scenes and dialogue that is simply there for shock value and to be talked about on social media for a few days. The bulk of today's programming is tiresome reality/competition shows, and 24-hour news networks that compete to see whose "journalists" can be the most obnoxious.

We can be made fun of until the cows come home for waxing poetic about "the good old days" but there was a lot more variety and diversity in TV of the 50's through the 90's. There was room for everything. A lot of it was good, some of it was junk, but it appealed to a wide audience that included regular viewers and TV critics.

visaman666 · 08-14-2015, 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patty Duke

If this is the Platinum Age it stinks. when a family could enjoy shows together without all the smut.

Well, if you are going to take smut out of the equation then you are right, but what would TV be without a little smut?

Spark Of Spirit · 08-14-2015, 12:18 AM

I could see the argument being made for dramas, though I still think that would be a close call and a lot of them are garbage.

For sitcoms, though? No way.

Adem422 · 08-14-2015, 05:51 PM

Yea whoever wrote that is a idiot just because there's alot more new series on at once doesn't mean its great or better then the past my ass the stuff in the past can never and will never be worse and then anything today or nothing today can and will never better then the stuff from the past.

bencasey · 08-15-2015, 09:49 AM

The assertion is so ludicrous that its not even worth delving into.

Regulus · 08-15-2015, 11:12 AM

Yesterday Bloomberg reported that in the second quarter (That's April, May and June for those of you in Rio Linda!) of this year 625,000 households "cut the cord" (That's cancelled their subscriptions to pay-TV for those of you in Rio Linda!).

08-11-2015, 01:00 AM	#1
TMC Member Forum Idol Join Date: Jan 09, 2001 Posts: 126,673	Forget the Golden Age: This is the Platinum Age of Television http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/bas...best-tv-814146 "There hasn't been a more competitive, cut-throat, quality-saturated era in television ever,” says Tim Goodman. “Period."

08-12-2015, 01:03 PM	#6
LUNCH Member Senior Member Join Date: Oct 23, 2010 Location: New York State Posts: 1,304	Who started this absolute nonsense by calling modern tv and it's landscape the "Golden Age" or similair? I don't read them but they can write all the articles they want, and hype it all they can,but it's not going to make anything about modern TV look any better than the unwatchable mess most of it is.TV from 2000-present especially really can and should be called -The Golden Age of TERRIBLE TV.
	Last edited by LUNCH; 08-12-2015 at 07:06 PM.

08-12-2015, 02:35 PM	#7
MrCleveland Drew Carey from Hell Forum Star Join Date: Nov 10, 2007 Location: The City of Cleveland, in The State of Cleveland, in The United States of Cleveland Posts: 14,231	This is more of The Clay Age of Television! 50's-60's...Golden Age of Television 70's-80's...Silver Age of Television 90's...Bronze Age of Television 2000's onward...Clay Age of Television!
	__________________ Thank God for kids that love Obscure Things. Lee Hazlewood (1929-2007) You ARE Special to God! Rev. Ernest Angely (August 1921-May 2021)

08-12-2015, 03:18 PM	#8
principehomura Member Forum Regular Join Date: May 24, 2010 Location: SEA, Napa, Lanford, NY \| Rome (WI), Coeur d'Coeurs, Stars Hollow, Sunnydale \| Twin Peaks, BAL, Deadwood, WA \| Tardis, Galactica Posts: 757	Let's just stick to the so-called "quality show" (guessing they are referring to dramas). "There hasn't been a more competitive, cut-throat, quality-saturated era in television ever." LOL Shows written and produced with the autopilot just to pick-up awards: wannabe dark and adults, absolute priority is given to the dialogues and "cinematography" (as if we could care about it), but the ideas are none to be seen. The freshness of the shows of the 80's and 90's were miles ahead. TV then was an amazing laboratory of ideas and talents; every show was different from the other, telling a new story and new characters in a new and compelling way. We will forget about every show airing these days in less than 10 years; we will still remember "Miami Vice", "Hill Street Blues", "Twin Peaks", "The X-Files", "Ally McBeal", "Buffy: The Vampire Slayer", "Northern Exposure" etc. And let's not talk about comedies and sitcoms, because the comparison is embarrassing.
	__________________ Frasier, Mom, Roseanne, The Conners Picket Fences, Pushing Daisies, Buffy, Gilmore Girls Twin Peaks, The Wire, Deadwood, X-Files - Frasier, Niles and Martin Crane, Dale Cooper, Fox Mulder Christy Plunkett, Buffy Summers, Rory Gilmore, Becky Conner, Dana Scully - Roseanne Barr, David E. Kelley, David Milch, Amy Sherman, Bryan Fuller, Steven Bochco - Anna Faris, Marlee Matlin, Jane Levy, Lecy Goranson, Jennifer Esposito, Melissa J. Hart - Kelsey Grammer, David H. Pierce, Michael J. Fox

08-14-2015, 12:18 AM	#12
Spark Of Spirit Member Forum Regular Join Date: Nov 20, 2012 Location: Canada Posts: 563	I could see the argument being made for dramas, though I still think that would be a close call and a lot of them are garbage. For sitcoms, though? No way.
	__________________ “A thing may be too sad to be believed or too wicked to be believed or too good to be believed; but it cannot be too absurd to be believed in this planet of frogs and elephants, of crocodiles and cuttle-fish.” ― G.K. Chesterton

08-12-2015, 12:44 AM	#4
installLSC Member Frequent Poster Join Date: Apr 19, 2013 Location: United States Posts: 271	I could spend hours on why the supposed "golden age" of TV is a crock (or for that matter the first golden age wasn't so hot either) but I'll just make a few points: --The "quality shows" the critics moon about make up maybe 5% of total TV content. You never hear the critics mention all the horribly padded reality shows, infomercials (and infomercials posing as news programming), endless shouting on "news" programs; in short, what's actually on the rest of the time. --Plus the shows the critics promote only focus on the most outlandish parts of society. They can show you endless shows about drug dealers, sex researchers, and torture-happy goverment agencies; but what about normal working class families, minority families, religious families, rural families, etc.? Why aren't they worthy of their time in the sun? --Most importantly you got great shows of the past for free, save a few minutes of commercials. Now you have to pay $100+ a month for most cable/satellite--and you have more commercials than ever!

08-12-2015, 06:51 PM	#10
UMFaninMD I love a mystery Senior Member Join Date: Apr 19, 2011 Location: Maryland Posts: 1,287	I don't think so. There are only a handful of scripted shows that are critic and public viewers' darlings, and hardly any of those are family-friendly. I don't mind adult-oriented drama but at the same time, you cannot sustain a show with endless scenes and dialogue that is simply there for shock value and to be talked about on social media for a few days. The bulk of today's programming is tiresome reality/competition shows, and 24-hour news networks that compete to see whose "journalists" can be the most obnoxious. We can be made fun of until the cows come home for waxing poetic about "the good old days" but there was a lot more variety and diversity in TV of the 50's through the 90's. There was room for everything. A lot of it was good, some of it was junk, but it appealed to a wide audience that included regular viewers and TV critics.

08-14-2015, 05:51 PM	#13
Adem422 Member Frequent Poster Join Date: Oct 01, 2011 Posts: 140	Yea whoever wrote that is a idiot just because there's alot more new series on at once doesn't mean its great or better then the past my ass the stuff in the past can never and will never be worse and then anything today or nothing today can and will never better then the stuff from the past.

08-15-2015, 09:49 AM	#14
bencasey Member Senior Member Join Date: Dec 29, 2001 Location: Long Beach Posts: 1,692	The assertion is so ludicrous that its not even worth delving into.

08-15-2015, 11:12 AM	#15
Regulus Member Forum 3000 Club Member Join Date: Feb 07, 2011 Location: Port Orange, Florida Avatar - Poiuyt Posts: 3,374	Yesterday Bloomberg reported that in the second quarter (That's April, May and June for those of you in Rio Linda!) of this year 625,000 households "cut the cord" (That's cancelled their subscriptions to pay-TV for those of you in Rio Linda!).