The general decline in standards today

[LoveMyHats2]

Braggart. <hehehe>

That is O.K. I was a late bloomer until my18th birthday, but then..it was on!

 

[Edward]

I'm less anti-television than most in these parts, it seems. I never seem to have a problem finding great stuff to watch. Sure, it's in the minority, but then I suspect if we didn't look at the past with rose-tinted glasses so often we might discover it wasn't much different all along. Certainly with other forms of entertainment, such as cinema or music, there has always been a high proportion of dross - it just doesn't last, and is forgotten about, while we remember the better stuff. Fifty years from now the yet-to-be-born 2010s retroheads will no doubt fetishise a version of now that those of us who lived through it find unrecognisable.

 

[scottyrocks]

Nowadays, with 300+ channels to choose from, it can't possibly be harder to find something worth watching than back in the day. That is, if it's true that back in the day there were three channels - one per network. Now, I agree with the general premise that it's really hard to find something worth watching on TV. To me, the "golden era" of television was the 80s - cartoons were never better. I don't really watch TV anymore, though. The internet has replaced TV in my life.

From what I can gather on watching TV in its infancy, watching TV was something of a family event. Since there was by and large nothing worth watching, people didn't sit around it so much. Now, if astronauts were landing on the moon, or the president was making an address, then everyone would huddle around. That's the image I have in my head as put forward by shows like The Wonder Years. I'm not sure if the state of TV is in decline or ascent.

Nothing to watch vs nothing good to watch: At the end of the day, you're not happy watching TV. Seems like an even break at best.

That feeling was there as far back as when cable was in its infancy. Springsteen, in the 80s, even had a song entitled, 57 Channels and Nothing On. Considering that most people got anywhere from three to seven channels with broadcast TV, 57 was big-time cable back then.

 

[LoveMyHats2]

Sure it can be evil, but it has also opened up to me information I would never have the time to cull from more traditional sources. In that regard it is far from evil.

It can be used for evil, but I do think in the bigger picture it has had it better use for good.

I was not into the internet for a very long time, got to use a computer mainly for ordering materials or goods for business related purposes. I know not a large amount of information about computers, feel I am still at a baby stage about what you can do with them, and have no clue when I see what some of even the younger crowd are discussing when they talk about hi-tech programs or use of their computers. I am sure some people are so good they can hack or do many things, but alas, not me. Now ask me about using tools, how to design, draft, I am a wizard!

 

[LoveMyHats2]

I'm less anti-television than most in these parts, it seems. I never seem to have a problem finding great stuff to watch. Sure, it's in the minority, but then I suspect if we didn't look at the past with rose-tinted glasses so often we might discover it wasn't much different all along. Certainly with other forms of entertainment, such as cinema or music, there has always been a high proportion of dross - it just doesn't last, and is forgotten about, while we remember the better stuff. Fifty years from now the yet-to-be-born 2010s retroheads will no doubt fetishise a version of now that those of us who lived through it find unrecognisable.

I can observe so much truth to what you say, but it may be some of the programming that you are afforded is not the same where I reside. In fact I am sure of that.

The cable service in my area, just has nothing that catches my eye. About the only shows I do watch other than the news, pertain to building projects.

 

[LizzieMaine]

You can filter the water out of a sluice basin to make it drinkable -- but why waste your time? Turn the TV off and read a book. Play with your cat. Listen to some good music. Or patronize your local independent movie theatre.

 

[Widebrim]

You can filter the water out of a sluice basin to make it drinkable -- but why waste your time? Turn the TV off and read a book. Play with your cat. Listen to some good music. Or patronize your local independent movie theatre.

Especially the last recommendation, no?...

 

[Atticus Finch]

I'm less anti-television than most in these parts, it seems. I never seem to have a problem finding great stuff to watch. Sure, it's in the minority, but then I suspect if we didn't look at the past with rose-tinted glasses so often we might discover it wasn't much different all along. Certainly with other forms of entertainment, such as cinema or music, there has always been a high proportion of dross - it just doesn't last, and is forgotten about, while we remember the better stuff. Fifty years from now the yet-to-be-born 2010s retroheads will no doubt fetishise a version of now that those of us who lived through it find unrecognisable.

Yep, I agree. Not everything on television in the fifties and early sixties was quality viewing. I'm old enough to remember some real stinkers that came about in television's "Golden Era". Anybody remember My Mother the Car? How about My Living Doll? It's About Time?

AF

 

[LoveMyHats2]

You can filter the water out of a sluice basin to make it drinkable -- but why waste your time? Turn the TV off and read a book. Play with your cat. Listen to some good music. Or patronize your local independent movie theatre.

Yes indeed, I do read and love it, the movies are also a part of enjoyment. Thanks, kiddo!

 

[Tango Yankee]

Yes, it can be a time-waster, but,

I don't have the kind of time, or job, where I'm able to sit in front of the pooter all day, so I read when I have the spare few minutes. If you genuinely have that kind of time, or job, then I guess it's not really wasting time. Rather, it's filling time.

Oh, the Internet is a valuable tool. I wouldn't have been able to complete my bachelor's degree nine years ago without it, or my Masters now, or do research as part of my job without it. In '94 I started using it to purchase things online, if I recall correctly-'95 at the latest as I was still in Germany and it was great being able to buy computer parts from Tiger Direct without dealing with time differences and the cost of calling back to the states from Europe. But there have been many late nights spent reading on forums, or seeking things out, or in general just surfing from page to page when I should have gone to bed hours earlier.

These days it's a major time waster for me in that I have satellite Internet access at home. This is not a lot better than dial-up most of the time, so it winds up taking four times as long to do anything as it would with a decent connection. What might take 15 minutes to read with actual broadband access takes forever with satellite. This is extremely frustrating for someone who got his first ISDN connection at the house in England in the late '90s, and later had cable Internet when I first moved stateside, and who happens to be an IT guy.

It's just like television in that you can sit here "channel surfing" just like you can with your TV, settling on something that captures your attention for a bit before surfing on.

However, I think that normally when someone says that the Internet or TV is a time waster rather than a time killer it's because they feel in the back of their minds that instead of sitting there they really should be doing something else like mowing the yard, laundry, or other chores or obligations and they're using the distraction to procrastinate.

Cheers,
Tom

 

[Widebrim]

Yep, I agree. Not everything on television in the fifties and early sixties was quality viewing. I'm old enough to remember some real stinkers that came about in television's "Golden Era". Anybody remember My Mother the Car? How about My Living Doll? It's About Time?

AF

Yeah, I watched all three of those, and they were stinkers...but Julie Newmar was one living doll...

 

[LizzieMaine]

I think it's a sign of declining standards that the mid-sixties are considered by anyone to be "The Golden Age of Television." Paddy Chayefsky and Rod Serling would hang their heads in shame.

 

[Effingham]

Yeah, I watched all three of those, and they were stinkers...but Julie Newmar was one living doll...

Yes. Yes, she was.


(On My Mother the Car... even as a kid, I remember wondering -- how could his mother reincarnate as a car made BEFORE she died? A new car, okay -- I could buy that. But an OLD car?)

 

[scottyrocks]

Yep, I agree. Not everything on television in the fifties and early sixties was quality viewing. I'm old enough to remember some real stinkers that came about in television's "Golden Era". Anybody remember My Mother the Car? How about My Living Doll? It's About Time?

AF

'A 1928 Porter,
That's my mother dear.
She helps me through
Everything I do
And I'm so glad she's here!'

Yeah, I remember. <sigh>

 

[Marc Chevalier]

I think it's a sign of declining standards that the mid-sixties are considered by anyone to be "The Golden Age of Television" ...

And as that misnomer-ed "Golden Age" slouched toward the '70s, it churned out a bottom-of-the-(monkey) barrel show: LANCELOT LINK: SECRET CHIMP.

Think Matt Helm -- but with dressed, made-up, and bewigged real live chimpanzees. Inexplicably, the mess was penned by the head writers of The Carol Burnett Show, would really should've known better.


It turns out that re-runs of this show were exported and shown all over the world, especially to European and developing countries. Arrghh!


[video=youtube_share;rb1d1um3-NU]http://www.youtu.be/rb1d1um3-NU[/video]

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

And as that misnomer-ed "Golden Age" slouched toward the '70s, it churned out a bottom-of-the-(monkey) barrel show: LANCELOT LINK: SECRET CHIMP.

Think Matt Helm -- but with dressed, made-up, and bewigged real live chimpanzees. Inexplicably, the mess was penned by the head writers of The Carole Burnett Show, would really should've known better.


It turns out that re-runs of this show were exported and shown all over the world, especially to European and developing countries. Arrghh!


[video=youtube_share;rb1d1um3-NU]http://www.youtu.be/rb1d1um3-NU[/video]

I used to love that show when I was a kid! I even had a Lancelot Link lunch box! lol

 

[John in Covina]

Amen. Just comes into every thread to get a wedge in. Nothing of substance, or inline with the spirit of any threads. Take a jab, run.

Earlier in the year there were a number of discussions that got, well, heated. There is a type of glee for some that comes into a discussion, pops the pin on the hand grenade and tosses it in.

To come in with an opposing opinion is one thing, some make a point of trying to exasperate others.
(Look for condescending remarks.) There was a crew that made a game of getting threads shut down, in retrospect, best thing to do is not to reply in haste or not to reply at all.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

I used to love that show when I was a kid! I even had a Lancelot Link lunch box! lol

And that's the problem. Back in the early '70s, you and I were fed spoonfuls of crud by the boob tube. We were little kids, and we ate it up. What a lot of garbage there was! Only Little Rascals re-runs on KTLA (channel 5) saved me. Tom Hatten helped, too.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Now the monkeys are in the production office.

 

[John in Covina]

Yep, I agree. Not everything on television in the fifties and early sixties was quality viewing. I'm old enough to remember some real stinkers that came about in television's "Golden Era". Anybody remember My Mother the Car? How about My Living Doll? It's About Time?
AF

It is true that there was a lot ofbad TV even then but there was a fair amount of good stuff. The thing is that hidden in the bad stuff is tidbits about the time and attitudes. Occassionally you can spot things that are little gems. I have Me TV and they play some interesting stuff a fair amount of the time.