Reading in TV Guide this week, I was shocked to see that most if
not all the quality shows like "Homefront", "Quantum Leap", and "Brooklyn
Bridge" are in danger of being vaporized, while inane shows like "Full House",
"Family Matters" and "Step by Step" just won, on the average renewals for
2-3 more seasons. 
     What do you want in a TV show? should it be intelligent and thought
provoking, or should it be less than that?? 

40 responses total.

Kind of a loaded question, dontcha think, Jim?  How many people are *really*
likely to admit that

        "Naw, I don't want to *think*, just gimme some mind candy and go away"

??


        ;)

There are times that I want intelligent and thought provoking and times I
want silly sitcoms.  There is room for both.  Unfortunately the network
program people seem to lean too far toward the sitcoms instead of aiming
for a good balance.  If I can't find intelligent when I am in the mood for
it, I turn to PBS, The Learning Channel or Discovery, there are plenty of
good shows there.  TLC has even come up with _Beakman's World_ which is
intelligent, thought provoking and silly.  It is a program which explains
science in a way that even young children (Staci cries when it finishes
and when she wants to watch it at times that it isn't showing, its one of
her favorite shows) can understand.  It is one of the few shows on that we
all sit down and watch as a family.  I would like to see others like it.

I want TV to either make me laugh, give me information that I wouldn't
be able to get from another source, or make me "
care" about the characters.
 
I don't expect much from TV and I am usually not disappointed in that
respect.

  yes and no , Misti. The no, being that Homefront and BB were good shows, 
and it seems that IS what America wants, but there is a question of which
America is speaking, IS it the teenage America that rules the ratings or
is it the people of outr generation?? Seeing that a crud show like 90210
or Married with children flourish it must be the latter.
   I'd like to see quality programming and honest straitforward advertising
with occaisonal quality movies tossed in to make the mix interesting. But
it seems that we are evolving toward more panderous and tittlating material
during the ratings period. That may be what it's gonna take.

In response to #2 Beakman's World is a Great show I know of at least 4
familiies who all sit down together and watch it (CBS also carries Beakman's
world) TV often unites busy families even if they're glued to the set parents
and children are watching more and more TV together.

What day and time does CBS show Beakman's World?  I've not seen it listed
anywhere but TLC.

 I think it's on like at 7:00 am or something like that, I too like Beakman,
and especially that mouse that plays sidekick. Ch 6 and 11 air it at
different times because of farm reports, but more than likely it's around
7 or 8am. (wouldn't want to make that kind of show mainstream or anything,
now would we?) 
set sarcasm=off

It's a lab rat, Jim.

 mouse, rat, who can tell these days??? Is Mickey a Rat?? only if you eqaute
him with the slimy pratices of Disney. 

   Speaking of that and I really don't mean to drift, but what do y'all
think of Disney's practice of taking certain movies off the shelf solely
for the point of re introducing them to a different generation. When I
went to the local video store (Suncoast) to BUY Time Bandits, I was told that
THIS movie is owned by Disney and they have permanently shelved it until 
1998 or beyond. Currently there are no plans to market it. Slimebags.
 I need my David Warner fix now and then. He played the part of Evil so
well that it makes the movie a classic solely by that one performance.

I really don't see how you can compare Married w/children to
90210...  MWC is totally unwatchable, at least to me, while
I follow 90210 most of the time.  I'm not saying 90210 is classic,
perfect TV, but it is *reasonably* well written, *reasonably*
well acted, and I guess it kind of makes me wish my teenage
years had been a lot more fun than they were (wishful
thinking or something).

What really annoys me about the networks lately is how they
keep reneging (how do you spell that?) on their promises
to viewers.  When they brought back Brooklyn Bridge, they
said they'd show the last six episodes of the series.  
*beeeep* wrongo!  They only showed 3 episodes, and then
cancelled it again with no warning.  Same deal with
Delta when they brought *that* back:  3 episodes instead
of the 6 that were promised, and Delta even got really
good ratings (hitting #11 one week, I think)!  And how
the hell do they expect a series to develop a following when
they move its time slot constantly, or preempt it every
other week?  I think network television may be
dying a slow, and very painful death.

I like to watch Married With Children once in a while.

re #10:  I just checked some old TV ratings.  Seven episodes of Brooklyn
         Bridge were made last season, and they tied for 99'th place in the
         ratings with "I'll Fly Away."  "Quality" or no, people have to
         watch shows if they want them to stay on TV.

90210 is *well written*?  Bleah.  Admittedly, *some* of the storylines
are interesting, but for the most part it is painfully bad.  I suppose
it is a guilty pleasure, but nothing I would admit to watching.
 
And as for the acting -- I've never seen worse acting than the "Free
Donna Martin" episode.  Every single member of the cast looked embarrassed
to be there.

   I did catch part one of that episode, and if you don't mind me saying
so, she *deliberatly* showed up to the prom drunk, even after they were warned
about it. I say that she got everything she deserved. Is it now the trend to
do the "crime" then deny you were ever there? what kind of example did
this show to the young folk? I think what it said was " Go ahead and break
the rules, you can always rally your friends and get off without a hitch"
and this is the wrong message to send. I think that 90210 should be 
vaporized into oblivion.

  I'd be embarrassed to rally for a cause I thought was wrong.

shame on Arron Spelling.

Shame on him for what?  As bad as 90210 is, can you say that it is any worse
than the dozens of shows that made him filthy rich in the 1970's and 80's?
The "shame" is that people watch that garbage.

  for endorsing ok

   shame on him for advocating drunkeness. He could have just as easily
had the teens abstain, since many of them are not 21 and therefore drinking
illegally. I don't know what the law states in CA, but teen drinking is
really a problem that will only get worse if let go like this.

Ah...  So television programs must protect us from reality....

What are you talking about?  90210 is all about in-you-face realism.  I mean,
I truly and honestly care about the problems of a bunch of pretty, rich brats
in Beverly Hills.

  oh brother!!!
..

We have a TV and cable now, but I hardly ever watch it, except for the
Weather Channel, C-Span, and news shows.  I find sitcoms hard to get
into, especially in the evening when I'm likely to be busy or tired.

Janice watches "L.A. Law" once in a while.  And because she was watching
it, I saw the final episode of "Cheers".  She had to explain the inside
jokes to me, though, since I didn't know the characters.

I hear people discuss "90210" and "Seinfeld" and "Married With Children",
but I've never seen them.  The cost of this is that I feel isolated from
the culture.  I never got to see the ad which generated all the enthusiasm
for the line "I've fallen and I can't get up!"  Jokes go over my head all
the time because I'm not up on what everybody else sees.

I suppose I'm kind of untypical in seeing so little, but I think I *do*
illustrate a trend in that I watch so much less than I did when I was
younger and poorer.  (I was raised in front of a TV, of course.)  People
watch less TV as they move from adolescence toward middle age, as they
become more educated, as they become busier and have other forms of
stimulation.

The effect of this is that, at any given moment, the median person watching
a television set in the U.S. is likely to be relatively young (children
watch something like 6 hours a day, average), less educated, etc.  The
makers of TV shows, especially old-time broad-based network TV shows, have
to appeal to the middle of this audience.

I did not spend my childhood watching television.  I've never followed
any sitcoms except for maybe six or eight episodes of All in the Family
when it was first being broadcast.  I find commercial television a wasteland
and if it were not for the video rentals I wouldn't have a tv in the house.

I have about as much respect for television junkies as I do Catholics. ;-)

  thank you, Newton Minow. ;-)

Re #21:
I'm *sure* my father has watched far more television as a middle-aged
man than as a child or teenager.

R#22:  (With the exception of old Star Trek shows)  Ditto!

This response has been erased.

Another good quality show bit the dust last night.  CBC had a fun show
on at 5:30 weeknights called _5:30 Live_.  They would go out all over
Toronto and look at things and interview people.  It was a wonderful
show.  You got to see Toronto from all sides and they often showed a lot
of places that looked like fun to visit that you would probably never find
on your own.  They also went to businesses and peoples' homes if they were
doing something out of the ordinary or to investigate how city laws/ordinances
affected waht they were doing.  I.e. they visited a home where the couple
had a big in-ground pool at the beginning of the summer.  The couple had
arranged for most of the neighborhood to use the pool and arranged for a
swim instructor to come and give lessons to the neighborhood kids (kids paid
the instructor, but the couple made all the arrangements).  They discussed
the current city ordinances about pools and how it affected this particular
couple and what you could do/had to do to make your pool safe and legal.
They brought in some city officials and interviewed them as well as the
couple and several of the neighbors.  It was a great show.  Toronto's
pool ordinances are very similar to ours so a lot of the hints were
applicable here.

They had a weekly segment where they picked a person at random from
the street (going to work or shopping or such) and had them see a movie
and give their own review about it.  It was great.  It was just a person
seeing the movie not a paid critic.

They also went out once or twice a week and found people commuting to work
and asked for a book review on the book they were currently reading.

For some insane reason CBC decided to take it off the air.  I would like to
know what their reasoning was.

Probably the same reasoning they use to push "Kids in the Hall" all over
the schedule...

Re#19 HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAH.....That's funny.

  
   Did anyone catch "TV Nation" yet? I caught it last Tuesday on 13,
and I found it to be funny, yet there wassome substance to make me
wonder why these things are actually happening. 

  If you saw Roger and Me and hated it, don't tune in. Yes, Michael Moore
is the creator/producer/host of the show. 

Comments?

I watched it tonight - while "grexing". Grexing was more interesting,
though there were a few moments of sufficient interest to suspend
grexing. There is indeed some substance to the questions Moore addressed,
but since he approaches it as a comic (if not a fool), it never got
into the issues in any serious way. I can see it quickly becoming (more)
contrived, as he runs out of gripping theatre.

I didn't see the show, but I did see "Roger and Me."  If it's done in
the same style, it will certainly make some good points, but fail to 
be effective commentary because of its one-sidedness.

 Channel 4 isn't really giving it a fair shot, in that it's being 
pre-empted for other programming. I really hate that, but I also have
access to ch 10 or 13, so I really don't care, but it could also be
that 'div has something against Moore, so maybe they are doing all that
they can to guarantee low ratings by showing it in an unpopular time
slot.
,

Tiger games are scheduled a long time in advance.  Nothing WDIV can really
do about it (besides stop showing Tiger games.)

 It isn't a Tiger game that is being shown. It's a one hour piece on
Women's health, and while I have absolutly no quarrel with the content, 
I think that ch 4 could have used a better time slot. Why does ch 2
pre-empt "Love and War" for stale re-runs of "Cheers"? yuk
  
  I am really begining to think that there is a hidden agenda in 
the scheduling of certain programs. Remember how all of us yelled at
ch 7 for running that trash from the National Enquirer instead of 
Lois and Clark? I for one, just tuned in ch 24, but for those who
cannot do it, those are the ones who are really hurt.

  The hidden agenda for the substitution of some network programming is
control of all the advertising dollars, instead of just a share.   Hence
"canned" for "fresh" (relatively) on occasions.

I wonder who will ever see this, but recent shows like "Touched By An Angel,"
"Promised Land," and "Early Edition" are proof that there are some people in
the industry that are not only revolting against the poor quality of TV
programming as of recently, but also of its character.

  I saw it, and it's about time someone added to this item.

  I absolutly adore Touched By an Angel, Dr Quinn, Early Edition, and
Promised Land. I try not to miss these shows because they show that 
there can be quality programming in the 90's. 

  I especially like Early Edition because of Gary. He is the do-gooder's
do-gooder, always looking out for others while thinking nothing about himself.
I think there is a lesson in that show.

Jusat saw Early Edition for the first time lsat week. I was stunned that
regular Network TV could turn out something that good !

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss