Ok tv guys n' gals. I have to admit, I just wrote a review and still have to do some work, so I only skimmed the first page of this article. I found contrary arguements in it about tv viewers, I don't even know how it resolves though, so here's the link.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/24/magazine/24TV.html



When I read that I thought..that's true actually. I think the shows have gotten more complex, rather than sort of I Love Lucy episodic situations that didn't involve adding too many new characters outside of a show by show basis as a simple vehicle for that show's main attraction...Lucy.

But then i read this:



Eh, I don't know. That an awfully broad generalization. In theory you could provide it to any medium, including books. The characters in books make snide amart remarks at eachother too?

On the other hand I don't think tv has quite reached the complexity of books because of its need for ratings and condesnsed show time. Books don't take an hour with commercials to read. They take days. But I guess tv shows are starting to run continueing stories from one week to the next anyways?

Well, I don't have a tv, so I thought I'd drop this by you guys and see what you think of the article, and also, if television has really changed over the past two decades?

It's funny they mention the Mary Tyler Moore show as smart TV, as I recently purchased the season 1 DVD box set (I found it for $14 at Wal Mart), and I was thinking the same thing. In one episode Mary meets a very short guy who asks her who her favorite artist is... she mentions it is "Toulouse Lautrec"... then gets slightly embarrassed at her answer, and the studio audience laughs. I was thinking how in today's world they would have to explain that joke (that Lautrec was very very short), whereas in MTM they just kept going and didn't miss a beat.

There was also a documentary on the DVD about how CBS initially hated the show, and tried to kill it by scheduling against the #1 show in the country, the Mod Squad. CBS preferred their low brow shows like Hee-Haw and Beverly Hillbillys.

My honest opinion is that TV audiences are smarter than the networks give them credit for. Smart shows like MTM are often big hits, but we're still bombarded with fare like Who Wants to Marry a Big Obnoxious Fat Nanny?

until Alias gets 30 million viewers an episode; television viewers are NOT getting smarter. They regularly shun amazing shows with writing sharper than the rest of tv combined; and the only real exceptions are Lost and Desperate Housewives; both of which are hits-by-chance rather than a sudden mass realization that good television shows should be watched.

The people who watch 'smart' shows like 24 and Alias are the people who are generally pissed off at the rest of the country for BEING dumb; its just smart peoples television. Alias sells itself to the wider public with Jennifer Garners sex appeal and lots of action fun; but if you missed an episode in season one or two, you were so screwed for the rest of the season. Now theyve spanned things out a little more again to make sure people watch the show. Its working too.

The key to television is a place to relax. Who wants to watch smart shows that make you think too much? :wink:

translation: TV is to make u st9900pid.

I like something interesting to grasp when i watch tv.

I hate the people who think everything on TV makes you stupid.

Hmmm, well the point is this for me. Tony, you mentioned the Toulouse Lautrec joke, but that's an inside accessory joke. A cultural joke of the moment. People knew who Lautrec was then because everyone was informed probably of poster art/art noveau. Just like if someone cracked a racial joke today, everyone would get it when back then they might not of. The point is more that the shows are growing in general complexity. Following more people, alot of double lives, the viewer is made aware of situations that the characters themselves aren't aware of, so get to start drawing conclusions that aren't even explicit in the shows.

I guess there's more ambiguity now, so the tv aufdiance has to bring something to the screen instead of just vice-versa?

I dunno. Most tv I've seen isn't dumb, but it is too giving. Everything is provided for me and I'm not forced to draw the information together and work things out for myself. On the other hand, there are many movies and books that do this too, and I can speak more for those since I've seen/read alot more of them. I agree with Michael though, why should people have different expectations for what they get from tv than they do from any other medium?

Heh if you want to see a show that has intelligent aspects, check out Numbers on CBS Friday nights. The last episode had discussions of econometrics, how sonar works, Money Ball, cryptography, how computers erase information, how modern electronic eaves dropping works, and other stuff, all interwoven and not just brought up out of the blue but relevant to what happened on screen. In one 50 minute episode and still managed to tell an interesting murder mystery.

I am not sure a bout the overall topic though. It raises a lot of questions. Were shows like Bonanza really more simple as we remember them to be? Did they not perhaps pause more and consider the weight of emotional moments? Is it possible that shows following more lives and characters is a sign that today's shows are simply more ofa soap opera than old shows were? And are soap operas known for their intelligence?

I have no firm answers, but it's an interesting topic.