TV Today
Beaker17
Posts: 407 Forum Member
✭
I remember the 1950 - 1970 period of British TV when we were inundated with great stars, personalities and immaculate shows by the dozens. Many of the artists of those days have become legends and many of the shows just a beautiful memory of things long gone.
There were so many shows and so many great artists around, here in the UK and the US, that one did not have time to look at them all. A video recorder would have been overloaded.
TODAY ! We have not a single star or artist in sight worth a toss or Dole money, we have not a single show worth watching - it is a beggars opera supreme of odds and sods, but we have to pay £145.50 in TV tax for the privilege of switching our TV`s on just to be faced with this pack of unimaginable rubbish. Today's Christmas shows are an insult to the Festive Season, it is more entertaining playing dominoes. They have to rely on bringing back the dead to entertain us.
A typical example of current day deplorable talent standards in variety and entertainment is that insult to intelligence "Britain has Talent" with its spin off`s. The show is a sick joke.
Each one of the exceedingly over paid stooge judges could not even spell talent let alone recognize it. So we end up with some incredible squawker, who makes an ear splitting row and is then acclaimed as Britain`s latest wannabe super POP idle.
HUH ! Pardon me while I puke up.
There were so many shows and so many great artists around, here in the UK and the US, that one did not have time to look at them all. A video recorder would have been overloaded.
TODAY ! We have not a single star or artist in sight worth a toss or Dole money, we have not a single show worth watching - it is a beggars opera supreme of odds and sods, but we have to pay £145.50 in TV tax for the privilege of switching our TV`s on just to be faced with this pack of unimaginable rubbish. Today's Christmas shows are an insult to the Festive Season, it is more entertaining playing dominoes. They have to rely on bringing back the dead to entertain us.
A typical example of current day deplorable talent standards in variety and entertainment is that insult to intelligence "Britain has Talent" with its spin off`s. The show is a sick joke.
Each one of the exceedingly over paid stooge judges could not even spell talent let alone recognize it. So we end up with some incredible squawker, who makes an ear splitting row and is then acclaimed as Britain`s latest wannabe super POP idle.
HUH ! Pardon me while I puke up.
0
Comments
I was recently told by a friend that 'peaky blinders' was a good show, and upon reading up it appeared to be my 'kind of show'
Watching series 1 I had to laugh, it was tripe, the script was inane and the only saving grace was the costume & set design, something the BBC seem to aim for more than an intelligent or engaging script.
To add to what you said the plethora of repeats. It's worse now than it's ever been. Not content with having all these +1 channels and the ability to use catchup tv services they have to repeat the same show about 3 times a week. I'm paying for tv content that I've already paid for the first time around.
If I see any more repeats of Q.I, the Sarah Milican programme or Live At The Apollo I think ill scream. They must be on their 6th series repeat at least and ITV2 must show Back to the Future at least 4 times a week.
I have said in the past that it seems they are all getting the cart before the horse, "now there's so many ways you can watch some poor quality programmes and an ever increasing number of repeats." But networks do have to cater for a multiple of tastes, though they often seem to concentrate on some more than others.
The good news is that there are amongst the dross and repeats some decent programmes and with an astute use of a PVR you can record many and watch 'em when according to your own tastes, there's "sod all else on."
One of the reasons I don't want to see the end of the license fee is, although the BBC have let their standards slip beyond anything I've ever known, they still have more intelligent content than the dumbed down plethora of utter spoonfed chavfest that is ITV and I don't have to sit through adverts. If you consider how much media content the BBC offers for the license fee it's actually good value for money and while it's not great, it's a lot better than what the opposition have to offer.
I grew up with three channels - that was it. And there was MUCH more variety to choose from!
Multi-channels today are absolute shite to be honest! OK there are are one or maybe TWO programmes worth watching.....but what the hell - they are repeated tomorrow anyway - and again next week! (and next month).
I've got DVD's that haven't been seen as much as TV programmes are broadcasted!!
If I had the money - I'd set up my own channel - and show all of my DVD's over and over again....like THEY are doing!!
Think you're looking at past TV output through rose-tinted glasses as there was lots of crap around then as well.
In the 1950 - 1970 period, we were limited to 1, 2 then 3 channels, so choice was very restricted. Nowadays we have hundreds of channels and I know quantity <> quality, but there are vastly more shows worth watching than there used to be. I don't watch any talent shows or soaps, but my PVR has over 100 series links.
3 channels where because of the novelty we sat and watched everything that was on. Oh and BBC1 & ITV that showed schools programmes in the morning and closed down before/around midnight, BBC2 showed Open University programmes during the day and closed down for part of the daytime too, film premieres that were shown yonks after their cinema release (Jaws, Paint Your Wagon to name 2), and some of the programmes haven't worn well at all. However...
IMO the choice has grown nowadays but the quality hasn't - I am probably more selective now what I watched years ago rather than just switching the tv on and watching lots of stuff.
I think the BBC do make a lot of good programmes. But I don't think it's good value for money.
We keep getting fed how it's "just a few pence a day." It's not, its four billion pounds a year. There's a bit of a difference and I think it could be spent more wisely than some of it is presently.
Why would the OP need to sell his TV to cancel his TVL and save £145.50 a year ?
I was under the impression you only 'require' a TVL to watch or record 'live' TV.
So all he/she needs to do is unplug the Aerial (for when the stasi come knocking) and he can continue to watch DVD's and use the TV for any gaming consoles
You may be technically correct (and pedantic
No apologies necessary.
Very good point and I agree. Back in the old days we only had 3 channels and many people did not even have VCR's. We had very few newer films on tv back then too. Today, not only do we have plethora of digital channels on terrestrial television, but there are cable and satellite channels too.
The above is not even the main reason as for why we are not impressed with tv channels nowadays. The main reason is the Internet. The Internet today is so advanced and fast enough to provide us with literally unlimited entertainment. Live tv and radio from all over the world, near VOD and VOD services such as Youtube and Netflix, interactive live tv-like channels available online 24/7, and for those willing to bend the law a bit, there are torrents, p2p television and music. When we add to this extreme portability of everything available online, and the fact that people nowadays (especially younger generations) prefer to watch everything on their smart phones and tablets, it becomes clear why conventional method of receiving and watching television is not as interesting as it used to be in the past when television was novelty, and people did not have much choice in home entertainment.
Drivel.
I agree, you will be told by some on here that you are looking through rose tinted specs. However, it only takes a quick comparison to see the truth that quality TV has declined rapidly in the last 20yrs.>:( I have no doubt it will continue because people will just accept whatever rubbish is put on, they have to in a way.
This post is spot on.
Good points there.
I don't think the quality has improved or grown, it's certainly harder to find! Interestingly for me though programmes I enjoyed years ago I don't anymore - perhaps viewing tastes change as you get older?
Setting aside the availability of the internet/on demand/catch up services the tv landscape has changed - even with basic Freeview (which we have) you have a multitude of channels offering services unthinkable just 20 years ago:-
5 news services (BBC, SKY, ITN/ITV incl. CH4, ALJAZEERA, RT)
3 dedicated film channels (FILM 4, MOVIE MIX, MOVIES4MEN)
25-30 entertainment channels, 4 childrens channels, music/shopping/radio etc...
Channels are even targeting specific markets now - e.g. men have Dave, ITV4, Movies4Men, women have ITVBe, TruTv, CBS Reality etc... For commercial/digitalchannels it's all about offering something for their advertisers/sponsors that makes the channel attractive.
I do accept that finding something in amongst this lot is not always easy, there are hundreds and hundreds of repeats across digital channels rather than first run content, but even with all of that I still find something!
By scraping the barrel for a live Christmas Show, we come up with two bone-heads who have`nt a grain of talent between them, called Ant and Dec - Pinky and Perky.
Other than that, it is a long procession of dead stars and ancient 50-60 year old films. El Cid, Spartacus, 1939`s Gone With the Wind - cobbled up with a whole lot more old junk and of course, that immortal certainty - The Morecambe and Wise Christmas Show. WHOOPEE !!
But at least the Hundreds of great stars in those days lasted a lifetime and many became legends. Their poor man`s equivalent we are infested with today are nothing but 2 week wonders.
You may ask yourself, "If he thinks the entire entertainment industry is utter crap - what the hell does he watch ?"
Well, I pay £35 per month to Cable TV, extra to the £145.50 tax enforced upon us by the Government to prop up the ailing BBC corpse and spend all my viewing time watching serious subject programs and documentaries.
Occasionally, I spend a few minutes looking at the news, but not enough to make my eyes water, most of that is crap too.
Does your £35 p.m. cover you for those factual channels on satellite/cable - eg. History, Discovery, Sky Arts etc...? I guess what you are saying is those programmes should be screened by BBC, C4, C5 & ITV? Though the more programmes produced over the years when/where would they be able to screen them all without compromising on other genres of programming?
I accept you watch serious subjects and documentaries, but it looks as if at one time you did watch entertainment - as I've said I think my tastes have changed over the years, fortunately (or unfortunately!) not everyone wants to watch serious progs, just as not everyone (like you) will want to watch tedious "entertainment" shows. So the solution we have is what we have - multi channels serving their respective audiences.
I sometimes gasp at the mixture of progs I watch - factual, documentaries, films, comedy, entertainment!
Those days are gone now, people are generally more affluent and have other interests besides watching TV. With the advent of video recorders and later PVRs etc. and other ways to "catch up" with TV programmes on the TV in the house, it's a different era.
With so many channels from which to choose, I really can't understand why the BBC still try to provide so much TV time. I'd be happier with less TV from them, but programmes of a better quality. Leave the day-time stuff to the free channels. Can't see the point of all the repeats and cheap to make dross, just to fill the schedules.
I watch little live TV on any channel. I look through the schedules and pre-programme my choices, to watch when I choose. Sadly these days, few of those programmes are from the BBC. So for me, the four billion quid seems rather a lot of money.
Accepted, you make a good and reasonable summary.
My £35 each month to Cable TV covers very few channels, but channels not included in Freeview, which of course I do have. So economically I am paying through the nose for less than a dozen channels. But it is only £7 per week, a pound per day and many people spend that and more on a Lottery gamble against impossible odds.
All I am saying is that there is nothing on today`s TV to kiss the boots of the volume of spectacular shows of yesteryear. Plus of course we have no credible artists today with any outstanding talent. The TV companies cannot produce good quality shows with no artists to fill the bill.
Then we come back to the malady of recent years. The BBC and commercial companies have far too many staff and pay all their top staff astronomic salaries to do very little. This has been a common factor for decades and the Government know it.
The BBC spends over £250 million on talent and presenters salaries. A senior weather forecaster can get up to £60,000, top presenters for news and sports can get around £500,000, some even £1 million, Graham Norton and Gary Lineker are said to get £2 million per year each and Jeremy Paxman £1 million.
THAT is where our £145.50 goes, not on programs and shows. but the majority of the many Billions paid in TV revenue each year, does not go to the BBC, it goes straight into the Chancellors piggy bank, to give away on Foreign Aid, spend on armaments, fight unnecessary wars or thrown away on some other wasteful enterprises the Government just happens to cobble up.
perhaps the beeb should go down the sky tv path. perhaps then people may appreciate dear old aunty more.