Maybe there are just as many good tv shows these days.
but in my opinion the vast majority of current tv shows/films/music/webcontent is utter undiluted mind numbing banal drivel and there isn't a circle of hell worthy enough to hold those responsible.
This summer, I watch Twin Peaks The Return, some episodes are the weirdest things I have seen on a mainstream TV channel. I am amazed it was allowed to air at prime time.
I'm on the same camp. Absolute majority of TV series from pre-Internet times were dull, boring and non distinctive. Sure, there were some amazing exceptions (mostly named throughout this thread), but I personally, find many better TV series in the span of the last 10 years than in previous 30 years or so. What impresses me most that recent series are much more realistic, characters are deep, themes are more muddy not unlike in older series where black&white characters, good vs evil themes, mandatory happy ending etc. was nearly universal. Imagine something like Game of Thrones (not that it's the paramount of our times, but more for its brutality, nudity etc.) being aired on prime time during 70s or 80s..
In any case, we are in a golden age of TV production with more high quality (writing, action, production) TV shows produced than ever. Enjoy it while it last, so you can complain when it ends.
Atlanta, Fargo, You're the Worst, Bojack Horseman, Rick and Morty, Kimmy Schmidt, Hannibal, Review, Twin Peaks (The Return), Stranger Things, The Good Place, Santa Clarita.... and probably three dozen other ongoing or started-after-2010-but-now-finished shows I'm forgetting right now that are excellent, by the standards of all TV before 2010. Many others are top-5%-of-TV-series-ever material but kinda skippable now because there's just so damn much excellent TV. I've dropped ongoing shows that are merely very very good because I can do that and still have more TV left than I can watch.
Right now is the best TV's been. It's frustratingly good, almost, because I know there are lots of good things I'm not watching simply because there's no time (I do other stuff too, ya know?).
An example, "The Expanse" has interesting characters, but so far it has also been the case that lots of stuff happens in each episode.
It's fine that there are TV shows that are basically crafted for uber-fans who want to carefully watch every episode multiple times but these shows often aren't for the casual viewer. And there's nothing wrong with being a casual viewer.
From the very first episodes, the way they started slowly cycling through each character's backstory, I realised this was going to be a really long drawn-out series that was clearly going to be stretched (and milked) to maximum running length. I'll credit it for it's glossy production look and design. That's one thing that really separates productions today from old: many TV series have the same glossy, high-end look of Hollywood films.
Probably because the talent pool is diluted. There are probably 10X as many serious cable/streaming dramas now than there were 10 years ago.
Check out Top of the Lake, it's well-written, well-acted, & doesn't overstay its welcome. Season two just came out!
I think modern shows are dominated by 'must-see' spectacles or sensationalist attention-grabbers, because people watch them in droves and advertises will pay for slots. Weirdly, the modern BBC only makes shows like this, even though they don't rely on advertising.
Part of the charm of The Sandbaggers is that they clearly made it for pennies, so they had to make the characters and dialogue interesting to fill in for car chases + stunts + exotic locations + top-shelf actors (i.e. the complement of Bond films).
i suspect my comments were a wee bit too strong but it was after cycling through every channel twice and finding nothing.
That might just be a taste thing on my part, or it might be a response to the tremendous commercial pressures that were forcing execs to look anywhere, everywhere for a story a couple of years ago.
I think it appeals to David Lynch fans more than Twin Peaks fans, but so far I loved every single episode.
Do I need to watch S2 to enjoy S3? Or maybe I should even give S2 another chance now that it's been a few years.
If you don't feel like watching it, you can read the summary on Wikipedia, though, that should give enough information to make sense of season 3 - to the degree that's possible, at least, we are talking about David Lynch here, after all. ;-)
Just be aware that the third season has a much stronger Lynch-ean flavor to it. Which is great if you're fan of his work (I know I am), but it might not be for everyone.
Well, for tv shows there was been a marked and well established uptick, if not in storytelling, surely in production values (huge, expensive productions) and acting (a-rate actors from movies).
That's how we got shows like Breaking Bad, House Of Cards, Game of Thrones and the rest -- unthinkable in scope and aspirations in the 80s and 90s.
They don't always hold up well for all seasons (the tend to meander after season 3-4), but generally there are far greater than tv shows in the past.
It's also worth a watch if you enjoyed the remake.
But it's a British one (and they always did some big quality work like Yes, Minister, Monty Pythons, Hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy, etc, content wise), but not representative in production values to the modern one.
If you're really into say magic, then you will forgive more about a show with wizards etc. So, with smaller overall audiences shows simply don't need to be as good.
Hmmm? The mass appeal shows were not great by any stretch of the imagination precisely because of aiming for "lowest denominator" mass appeal.
At best they could be good despite going for mass appeal, but aiming for the more tame and universal themes.
By going for smaller audiences the creators can take chances, what some church lady from Iowa or SJW from Portland might find offensive is not as much of an issue, and the storytelling and directing can be more demanding (as it doesn't have to aim to please any average Joe).
Shows like GoT, HoC, Breaking Bad, True Detective (season 1), etc are so much better than the "mass appeal" crap of yesteryear (with some exceptions, like MASH) that it's not even funny.
For one, they don't use "tv actors" as much, but Hollywood a-listers. Second the production values are 10x and 100x those older "mass appeal" shows.
It's closest 70's show would probably be Dallas which had 350 million people worldwide watch an episode. That's a well done hook even if they could not show nudes etc.
As to offending people, MAS*H had men in drag show up regularly which really would offend people. Yet, apparently 60% of US households tuned in for the final episode. IMO, this suggests they actually had some freedom.
Remember, Shakespeare was also aiming for a wide audience. It promotes multi layered messaging, which is more complex than just having everyone backstabbing everyone else.
When I pull up a random television network schedule from the 1970s -- let's pull up 1976-1977. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976%E2%80%9377_United_States_...) I see some shows generally recognized as quality television.
And, er, some television that isn't. No surprise.
At least, I certainly don't think the variety shows count as "great" by most people's scope, of which 1970s television had a lot of. At least, I'm not aware of modern demand for the Tony and Dawn Rainbow Hour, Donny & Marie, the Shields and Yarnell show, or the Sonny and Cher Comedy Hour. Maybe I'm wrong.
In the scripted department, there's several single-season or less programs. I presume weren't that great. Shows like Holmes and Yo-Yo, Nashville 99, Quinn Martin's Tales of the Unexpected, and Gemini Man, were they that great? (A "TV movie" -- Riding With Death -- from the last one was used as fodder for MST3K. So, probably not.)
The one thing I think is notable in older TV listings is just how strongly several formats dominate. Namely, in addition to the variety shows, sitcoms and crime / medical dramas seem to dominate. (If you are looking for fantasy / horror / sci-fi, to give a few other genre examples, your pickings are slim.)
"Good" is by nature subjective. But one thing I can say is that none of these genres are typically noted for multilayered messaging. To give two examples from the sitcom side, here are two 1976 shows that are generally reviewed as "good": "Three's Company" and "Good Times". One is basically a farce often criticized as "jiggle television". One basically became a platform for the wacky antics of JJ. Not sure I'd describe either of these shows as very "deep". :)
Today, in the era of DVRs and on-demand streaming, I do think it's easier for writers to "risk" multi-episode plotlines.
Though, if your going to compare the average show, then the competition is more like 'Pawn Stars', 'My Teen is Pregnant', 'Tiny House Hunters', etc. Or you could compare similar longer running shows like Three's company (8 seasons) vs. Two and a Half Men (12 seasons).
So, my guess is a random episode of 'Sonny and Cher Comedy Hour' was probably better than a random episode of a random cable TV show. Though, it's also very dated at this point. It's also likely worse than say the best south park episode or whatever show you actually like.
Anyway, I am not saying the 70's wins hands down, hell I was not even alive then. But, I do think people are confusing shows about things they like with actual quality. I might like 'How It's Made' but it's not exactly deep.
You can't compare numbers directly like that. Cable was not invented yet (or at least wasn't common) so there was a choice of about 4 channels.
Anyway, my point was not to compare numbers which is why I did not show GoT numbers. My point was simply a ridiculous number of people thought it was worth watching.
They are also likely to be less forgiving if they expect a show about magic created by others also interested in magic. A show about magic aired on Discovery Channel on the other hand is likely to be superficial, lacking of deeper analysis or content, and laden with tons of repetition after every single ad break just to avoid confusing viewers with a three minute attention span.
As to mass audience Shakesphere was writing for a mass audience, it adds complexity even if you include pandering. The original twilight zone needed to work for a huge range of people and a large part of how it did that is not spoon feeding people. There is enough ambiguity that people write their own narrative.