- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: When did the television medium surpass movies?
Posted on 1/11/10 at 7:55 pm to Michael J Cocks
Posted on 1/11/10 at 7:55 pm to Michael J Cocks
quote:
20 years ago, you may have a bad guy in a show, but they couldn't actually show the real shite he was doing, they let it be known he was capable of doing it.
man i dunno
shows in the 70s were pretty violent
and maude had an abortion
plus archie bunker was a racist
PLUS, they allowed 2 gay policeman to show their love while riding their cop motorcycles every week
1
Posted on 1/11/10 at 7:56 pm to Michael J Cocks
i'm gunna wait to see how they wrap everything up before i decide if i'm going to watch it from the middle of season 3 on
Posted on 1/11/10 at 8:01 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
plus archie bunker was a racist
well, we get Cartman.
Posted on 1/11/10 at 8:02 pm to truthbetold
quote:
Probably Oz
Posted on 1/11/10 at 8:13 pm to SlowFlowPro
From another angle:
I'd also like to add for consideration the advent of certain technologies to the equation. Mainly digital cable as it allows for many more channels than analog ever did. More channels equals more opportunity to for shows to air. Plus with the de-regulation of cable, the business of model has shifted allowing stations that could never make it financially before to squeak by. Along with that digital filming/production has drastically reduced the cost of making a TV show. So scripts that were on the edge of the big 3 can be shopped around to second tier cable networks who are always searching for new material.
Obviously, this doesnt at all ignore the fact that great actors, great scripts and production is still the meat and potatoes of the wave of new re-invented drama, but I think it should at least be in the peripheral of the discussion
I'd also like to add for consideration the advent of certain technologies to the equation. Mainly digital cable as it allows for many more channels than analog ever did. More channels equals more opportunity to for shows to air. Plus with the de-regulation of cable, the business of model has shifted allowing stations that could never make it financially before to squeak by. Along with that digital filming/production has drastically reduced the cost of making a TV show. So scripts that were on the edge of the big 3 can be shopped around to second tier cable networks who are always searching for new material.
Obviously, this doesnt at all ignore the fact that great actors, great scripts and production is still the meat and potatoes of the wave of new re-invented drama, but I think it should at least be in the peripheral of the discussion
Posted on 1/11/10 at 8:17 pm to Michael J Cocks
lost is the fricking tits. i think its the most expensive tv show ever. they dont hold back. the story got a little fricked up for a while, but its gotten back on track
Posted on 1/11/10 at 8:19 pm to SlowFlowPro
I'd say the Sopranos ...with TV you get deeper characters and a more developed story plus you don't have to leave your couch
Posted on 1/11/10 at 8:22 pm to Cwally
TV pasted movies in the 50's and was ahead until near 1972, then movies pulled out front once again.
But movies have started to fall off and TV once again has taken the lead.
But movies have started to fall off and TV once again has taken the lead.
Posted on 1/11/10 at 8:25 pm to brgfather129
HBO became HBO by making creative, entertaining television. Other cable networks saw what Sex in the City and Sopranos did for HBO and tried to imitate it in various ways. Helping significantly, you need far smaller viewing audiences for cable so they can fore go any need to appeal to a mass demographic allowing you to make edgier, riskier TV. As long as you can get 3-5 million viewers, you have a hit on cable. Thus, you get pretty run of the mill cable networks like Sci Fi and AMC making great hour long dramas. Also, don't forget the advent of DVD's and DVR's. DVD's are a significant boon to the studio's bottom line and both of them help to make it easier to follow serial dramas, which are really the shows we are taking about making TV better than movies.
Posted on 1/11/10 at 8:25 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
why did this happen?
at what point exactly did this happen?
It all started with HBO.
And unlike film, TV is THE American art form.
Posted on 1/11/10 at 8:29 pm to Marciano1
quote:
HBO definitely started it in the late 90's with Oz, Sopranos, and Sex/City.
USA started it with Silk Stalkings.
HBO already had Dream ON, First and Ten, Tales from the Crypt, the Hitchhiker.
This post was edited on 1/11/10 at 8:31 pm
Posted on 1/11/10 at 8:36 pm to Cdawg
someone probably already made this point, but dvds made a huge impact on television. People being able to rent and catch up on shows rather than having to tune in every week (onDemand has also helped this impact). If it weren't for DVDs (or onDemand) I would have never seen an entire series.
Posted on 1/11/10 at 8:37 pm to Cdawg
quote:
HBO already had Dream ON, First and Ten, Tales from the Crypt, the Hitchhiker.
now that you mention it HBO has always been money.
and how are you on your First and Ten trivia? I'd really love a thread about that show?
Posted on 1/11/10 at 8:38 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
only tv not on network tv
Something about the familiarity of TV but the raunch, violence, etc., of movies has really hit home, along with some incredible writing and casting.
Regular TV sucks and is in a creative freefall. Movies can be a pain in the arse to bother with and compared to several shows and seasons are very shortlived.
So, it kinda makes sense.
Posted on 1/11/10 at 9:06 pm to brgfather129
quote:
Probably Oz
Ryan O'Reily was the man
Posted on 1/11/10 at 9:11 pm to glaucon
quote:
HBO became HBO by making creative, entertaining television
which is funny b/c their dramas suck now
Posted on 1/11/10 at 9:12 pm to glaucon
quote:
you need far smaller viewing audiences for cable so they can fore go any need to appeal to a mass demographic allowing you to make edgier, riskier TV
this is a good point i had not considered
and take out the edgier part
you can create a good niche market and sustain your 1-2M per episode viewing audience
Posted on 1/11/10 at 9:12 pm to emmanuellewis
quote:
People being able to rent and catch up on shows rather than having to tune in every week
as i finished season 1 of breaking bad, i thought about this too
Posted on 1/11/10 at 9:19 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
which is funny b/c their dramas suck now
How long do you think it will take them to turn it around? Or are the cheap laughs shows like Eastbound and Down and Entourage (I love both) going to continue to be money makers?
Posted on 1/11/10 at 9:20 pm to MrMcGibblets
quote:
How long do you think it will take them to turn it around? Or are the cheap laughs shows like Eastbound and Down and Entourage (I love both) going to continue to be money makers?
Treme and Boardwalk Empire begin this year. That will be a HUGE boost for their drama programming.
Page 2 of 3
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News