Sci fi reality check: the state of affairs as I see it

[SF_and_Coffee]

lol, it is getting dumber, distilling the shows with 'reality tv' elements and you can't really argue that most of the reality tv is 'intelligent'. I'm young. And agree with the person that said sci-fi isn't just tv shows, you need to read more. They're better.

Those kind of shows have been around for ages. The phrase nothing new must be used again.

Actually, they haven't. I grew up watching TV from the 1960's onward, and the closest thing to "reality tv" we had during most of that time was Candid Camera. One show. Don't confuse "reality television" with documentaries; they're not the same thing.

Likewise, the "talent show" genre. We had, again, maybe one show like that when I was growing up, and it was the Gong Show. Again, one show.

What did we have? Well, we had sitcoms, some of which were actually quite well-written. Think M*A*S*H, for instance. We had crime dramas like The Rockford Files and Columbo. We had some military dramas like Black Sheep Squadron. We had the original Battlestar Galactica. We had Buck Rogers. In the late 80's we got Star Trek: TNG and Quantum Leap, among other things.

Sure, we also had soap-operas like Dallas and Knots Landing. (I never cared for them; just a matter of personal taste.) But we also had a ton of documentary-type shows about everything from wildlife to space. I watched a lot of those.

Today? If I watch tv at all, half the time it's the Science Channel or the History Channel or something similar, because so much of what's on the other networks these days is boring to me. I can't stand the talent show genre, and the reality-shows mostly bore me too. I'll watch travelogues, I'll watch some cooking-related stuff, and if I'm fortunate enough to actually find a sitcom or a drama that really grabs me, I'll watch it, but they've been thin on the ground in recent years. There's very little good scifi, and fantasy is something I can take or leave, depending on how well it's done. Things drawn from comic books have never been my cup of tea, and fake documentaries posing as reality tv make me want to throw my flatscreen out the window.

Yeah, color me jaded, but I really do think the "lowest common denominator" to which tv panders has gone down a few rungs on the proverbial ladder. I like my tv shows to both entertain me and make me think, at the same time if at all possible... and shows like that are getting very difficult to find anymore.

[Ukko]

Actually, they haven't. I grew up watching TV from the 1960's onward, and the closest thing to "reality tv" we had during most of that time was Candid Camera. One show. Don't confuse "reality television" with documentaries; they're not the same thing.

Likewise, the "talent show" genre. We had, again, maybe one show like that when I was growing up, and it was the Gong Show. Again, one show.

What did we have? Well, we had sitcoms, some of which were actually quite well-written. Think M*A*S*H, for instance. We had crime dramas like The Rockford Files and Columbo. We had some military dramas like Black Sheep Squadron. We had the original Battlestar Galactica. We had Buck Rogers. In the late 80's we got Star Trek: TNG and Quantum Leap, among other things.

Sure, we also had soap-operas like Dallas and Knots Landing. (I never cared for them; just a matter of personal taste.) But we also had a ton of documentary-type shows about everything from wildlife to space. I watched a lot of those.

Today? If I watch tv at all, half the time it's the Science Channel or the History Channel or something similar, because so much of what's on the other networks these days is boring to me. I can't stand the talent show genre, and the reality-shows mostly bore me too. I'll watch travelogues, I'll watch some cooking-related stuff, and if I'm fortunate enough to actually find a sitcom or a drama that really grabs me, I'll watch it, but they've been thin on the ground in recent years. There's very little good scifi, and fantasy is something I can take or leave, depending on how well it's done. Things drawn from comic books have never been my cup of tea, and fake documentaries posing as reality tv make me want to throw my flatscreen out the window.

Yeah, color me jaded, but I really do think the "lowest common denominator" to which tv panders has gone down a few rungs on the proverbial ladder. I like my tv shows to both entertain me and make me think, at the same time if at all possible... and shows like that are getting very difficult to find anymore.

There were less channels way back then and fewer people owned TV's. Now those shows can reach world wide audiances and make a hell of alot more money, especially now we can make those shows interactive. And now with the internet and cameras and video editing software, anyone and their mum can make a show. Just because those things were not available in the past, it doesnt mean the folks in TV land wouldnt have jumped at the chance to use them if they had been.

[magictrick]

There were less channels way back then and fewer people owned TV's. Now those shows can reach world wide audiances and make a hell of alot more money, especially now we can make those shows interactive. And now with the internet and cameras and video editing software, anyone and their mum can make a show. Just because those things were not available in the past, it doesnt mean the folks in TV land wouldnt have jumped at the chance to use them if they had been.

That could be true. Point is though, there are a lot more TV shows out there now, but they are also poorer in quality. The masses flock to see certain types of shows and that is the reason they exist - there is a demand for them. I am this next generation and I can clearly see what's happening in terms of what most people want to watch.

[SF_and_Coffee]

There were less channels way back then and fewer people owned TV's.

Ukko, Ukko, Ukko...

Nearly everyone owned a TV in the 70's and 80's, at least in the United States, which is where I am now and was then. Most people here owned them in the late 60's, too.

As for there being fewer channels then - so what? That doesn't have anything to do with the quality of what's on however many channels do exist.

Now those shows can reach world wide audiances and make a hell of alot more money, especially now we can make those shows interactive. And now with the internet and cameras and video editing software, anyone and their mum can make a show. Just because those things were not available in the past, it doesnt mean the folks in TV land wouldnt have jumped at the chance to use them if they had been.

I'm talking about television, not the internet. Television generally shows aren't interactive, except for shows where you text in a vote for something. Video cameras have been around for decades, and as early as 1984 I was already editing video I took myself. Didn't mean it was good enough to put on television.

But you're kind of making my point for me. Ten, twenty, thirty or even forty years ago, people turned on the television expecting something at least somewhat professional in quality. They weren't looking for the equivalent of thousands of strangers showing home movies. Today, we have the internet as a perfectly good venue for those "home movie" equivalents. We don't need them on television too, especially if we're paying for television (cable, satellite, Fios, etc.) If I'm paying $100 or more per month for digital cable with 100 - 200 channels, the quality of the programming on those channels had damn well better far exceed the quality of what I can find on Youtube for just the cost of my internet access.

[jelgate]

Ukko, Ukko, Ukko...

Nearly everyone owned a TV in the 70's and 80's, at least in the United States, which is where I am now and was then. Most people here owned them in the late 60's, too.

As for there being fewer channels then - so what? That doesn't have anything to do with the quality of what's on however many channels do exist.

I'm talking about television, not the internet. Television generally shows aren't interactive, except for shows where you text in a vote for something. Video cameras have been around for decades, and as early as 1984 I was already editing video I took myself. Didn't mean it was good enough to put on television.

But you're kind of making my point for me. Ten, twenty, thirty or even forty years ago, people turned on the television expecting something at least somewhat professional in quality. They weren't looking for the equivalent of thousands of strangers showing home movies. Today, we have the internet as a perfectly good venue for those "home movie" equivalents. We don't need them on television too, especially if we're paying for television (cable, satellite, Fios, etc.) If I'm paying $100 or more per month for digital cable with 100 - 200 channels, the quality of the programming on those channels had damn well better far exceed the quality of what I can find on Youtube for just the cost of my internet access.

You parents probably said the same thing about the TV shows when you were growing up. I don't buy this insanity that TV is on the decline with the all the data of people always thinking their thier culture was better in their youth.

[SF_and_Coffee]

You parents probably said the same thing about the TV shows when you were growing up. I don't buy this insanity that TV is on the decline with the all the data of people always thinking their thier culture was better in their youth.

Actually, no. When I was growing up, my parents watched the same TV shows that I did, and enjoyed them. Both of my parents are on record as saying the the TV of the 1970's and 80's was a lot better than what was around in the 1950's and early 60's, for the most part. Remember, television only got its start in the late 1940's.

And frankly, TV was better even 10 - 15 years ago than it is today. Even 5 years ago it wasn't quite as lame as it is now. Sadly, my youth is quite a bit farther in the past than that. Fifteen years ago, I was in my early thirties.

[jelgate]

Actually, no. When I was growing up, my parents watched the same TV shows that I did.

And frankly, TV was better even 10 - 15 years ago than it is today. Even 5 years ago it wasn't quite as lame as it is now. Sadly, my youth is quite a bit farther in the past than that. Fifteen years ago, I was in my early thirties.

The fallacy is still the same in thinking life was better at a younger age.

[SF_and_Coffee]

I don't think life was better when I was younger. I think television was better a few years ago than it is now, overall.

The fallacy lies in thinking that a comparison in one particular area somehow implies a a broad-bush comparison that has not been made by the person doing the comparing.

There is also a fallacy inherent in thinking that new always equals improved, just because it is new. I'm not saying that you subscribe to that view, but I'm pointing out that it is every bit as fallacious as the view you wrongly ascribe to me.

[jelgate]

I don't think life was better when I was younger. I think television was better a few years ago than it is now, overall.

The fallacy lies in thinking that a comparison in one particular area somehow implies a a broad-bush comparison that has not been made by the person doing the comparing.

There is also a fallacy inherent in thinking that new always equals improved, just because it is new. I'm not saying that you subscribe to that view, but I'm pointing out that it is every bit as fallacious as the view you wrongly ascribe to me.

Hence the common cultural fallicy

[SF_and_Coffee]

Jel, we can't have an actual discussion if you only want to put words in people's mouths. I said I think that television today is a lot less entertaining than a few years ago, and that I think its quality is slipping. That is a comment that pertains ONLY to television. There are any number of elements in current popular culture that I think are much BETTER right now than in the past.

Let's try to talk about what has actually been said, shall we, rather than painting with broad brushes? Discussing a topic in concrete terms certainly takes more thought and effort than simply slinging paint around, but it's also a more meaningful use of time, at least in my opinion.

[magictrick]

There is also a fallacy inherent in thinking that new always equals improved, just because it is new. I'm not saying that you subscribe to that view, but I'm pointing out that it is every bit as fallacious as the view you wrongly ascribe to me.

Gotta agree, there is some real garbage on TV nowadays. Newer definitely doesn't equal improved in this case.

Good thing there are premium cable channels that can still release good quality content.

[SF_and_Coffee]

reg

Gotta agree, there is some real garbage on TV nowadays. Newer definitely doesn't equal improved in this case.

Good thing there are premium cable channels that can still release good quality content.

I just wish it didn't have to be mostly on the premium channels. I pay plenty for my cable as it is, and there are really only about a dozen channels with stuff I enjoy watching regularly. Right now I have some premium channels because my cable company gave them to me for free for a while as kind of a "we're sorry for the inconvenience" after a major local outage, but the extra costs once I have to start paying for them are something I don't even want to contemplate. But yeah, that does seem to be where a lot of the good stuff is these days.

[magictrick]

Yea I just cancel as many of the regular channels as possible and pay for the premium instead. Netflix also helps, you can watch only the shows you want and the monthly rate is a reasonable price.

Back to the original topic, there is still a shortage of Sci-Fi shows out there. The ones that do end up airing on regular cable usually lack the quality and are canceled relatively quickly.

[Snowman37]

If the quality of television has dropped that much, just turn off the TV. Take me for example, I don't bother with cable TV at all. We have a few basic channels. Sometimes, I'll watch Lifetime or Hallmark before bed, but that's about it. (I don't have access to more interesting channels.) The only shows that interest me this season are Sanctuary (fantasy) and Stargate: Universe (science-fiction). I've yet to dive into this season of Sanctuary, and I've yet to see one episode of SGU. Instead, I've been revisiting Stargate: Atlantis with my mom who is new to the show.

My point is, if there's nothing good on TV... turn off the TV!

[SF_and_Coffee]

I do turn off the TV if there's nothing good on. (What, you think I'm going to watch crap simply because that's what's on?) But that doesn't mean I can't complain and say that I wish there were more shows worth spending my time on.

What sucks is that none of what I like is even on the basic channels. All the good stuff, for the most part, is on cable-only channels, and half of it is on upper-tier channels that I have to pay extra for that tier, or on premium channels that I have to pay extra for on top of that, or will once my "freebie" time runs out in a few months.

I often go a week or two at a time barely watching TV at all, and either spend that time reading, writing or out... or watching DVDs of shows I liked when they were on. But that's why I say I wish there were more shows of the same caliber as the ones I'm watching on DVD. Right now my DVD watching consists of SG-1, The West Wing, and Babylon 5. I haven't found anything on basic channels that even comes close in quality and enjoyability.