Why crap TV is so successful?

[Q-Source]

Is it my own impression that reality shows, violent programms, gossip, etc. are so popular because people's standards of entertainment are very low?

Why people prefer to watch crap TV than going to museums, listening to classical music or going to a gallery?. I know that part of the problem could be that people don't have time, money or places to go, and for those reasons they watch crap TV, but what about the rest of the huge population that have the possibility to raise their cultural levels and they don't do it just because they don't like it?.

Why people adore stupidity, ignorance and low quality enterteinment?, maybe I am an elitist and maybe in other times it was just the same. :(

[rikzilla]

Please define "crap TV",...and I will give you my opinion. Personally I think all network sitcoms are crap, but others find value in them.

-z

BTW; there are only two valid reasons for watching "Friends", and both of them are kept inside Jennifer Anniston's sweater. :D

[Nyarlathotep]

I think you are right on the money. Many people (maybe even most people) don't like to think. They also don't like people that do think. Thus entertainments that require them to think (i.e. museums) or that put them around people who do will always lose out to mindless trash (i.e. reality TV)

I also think that part of it is that a lot of people don't seem to get that indulging in either type of activity does not mean you can't enjoy the other. I can enjoy a nice "leave your brain at the door" action film as much as anyone, but I don't enjoy them to the exclusion of such activities as reading a good thought provoking book. Many people, it seems to me, that enjoy one of those activities would turn their nose up at the other.

[Q-Source]

Crap TV are programmes about gossip, reality shows, kareokee singing (Pop Idol, Fame Academy, etc), talk shows, caught on camera stuff, and more. In general I am referring to programmes that provide no relevant (scientific, sociological, political, cultural) information to the viewers.

[El Greco]

As it has already been said, many people prefer crap TV to more serious entertainment because they don't want to think. There are both good and bad reasons for this.

Networks on the other hand, offer crap not only because people seem to prefer it, but mainly because reality shows etc. are much cheaper productions and they don't really care to produce something worthwhile.

Good documentaries for example are usually very popular, but unfortunately they cost much more than throwing 20 people in a studio and letting them mangle each other.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Q-Source
Is it my own impression that reality shows, violent programms, gossip, etc. are so popular because people's standards of entertainment are very low?

Why people prefer to watch crap TV than going to museums, listening to classical music or going to a gallery?. I know that part of the problem could be that people don't have time, money or places to go, and for those reasons they watch crap TV, but what about the rest of the huge population that have the possibility to raise their cultural levels and they don't do it just because they don't like it?.

Why people adore stupidity, ignorance and low quality enterteinment?, maybe I am an elitist and maybe in other times it was just the same. :(

Sound like you're an eliteists.

I mean, how many times can you go to a particular museum before it bores you to tears. While Claissical music is fine, its a bit dated. WHats wrong with other music, rap, country, pop, whavever. Do youlisten to those genres too?

And why pick on TV! Have you seen the garbage dump that is the New York Times Bestseller list? Is Bill Orielly's lastest book an more a waste of time than American Idol.

[Troll]

Escapism maybe? A chance for them to feel less pathetic about their own lives in comparison to the lives of the make-believe guests on Springer? Low-brow enterainment? Limited channel access?

[roger]

Originally posted by Tmy

I mean, how many times can you go to a particular museum before it bores you to tears. While Claissical music is fine, its a bit dated. WHats wrong with other music, rap, country, pop, whavever. Do youlisten to those genres too?

And why pick on TV! Have you seen the garbage dump that is the New York Times Bestseller list? Is Bill Orielly's lastest book an more a waste of time than American Idol.

What's wrong with pop, etc.? Well, most of it is composed to sell to the LCD. Which means a I IV V chord pattern, verse-chorus patterns, a "hook", and unchallenging lyrics. There is little to engage the brain, which is the point of this thread - why don't some people like to do that. Pop can be fun, just like mindless movies, but mindless music is, well, mindless. (and of course there is popular music that does not fit that description).

(composing that kind of music is a different story - it's not easy to come up with a hit - I have a lot of respect for the people capable of doing it, as unchallenging the result is)

[Tmy]

Whats wrong with just being entertained. Is that such a bad thing? Why must everything have social/educational value?

Might as well knock down all amusement parks. Goodbye Disneyland, if magic mountain focused on the periodic table, then we might have kept you around.

[El Greco]

Originally posted by Tmy
Whats wrong with just being entertained. Is that such a bad thing? Why must everything have social/educational value?

Entertainment is fine. But most of these programs don't even fall under this category. Funny, I know lots of people who watch that crap and are ashamed to admit it or try to find an excuse about their choices.

Although I'd still prefer programs with some value, otherwise we'd still be in the era where "entertainment" was watching the tigers dismembering people.

[Tmy]

Well than whats the Crap TV and is it succsessful. Theres lots of crap, that dont make it #1. Plus with such wide cable programming, it seems that everything is based on niches.

[Samus]

"Reality shows" are just a fad, and they're already on their way out. A couple have faltered pretty badly (i.e. the second Joe Millionaire), so it's just a matter of time for the rest of them.

Remember the mid-90s, when everyone and their brother had a talk show? Back in the days of Richard Bey, the Danny Bonaduce show, and countless others that are now off the air. It was a fad, and this to shall pass.

Reality TV started out fairly clever. Although I never watched it, Survivor was a pretty neat premise, and continues to be. There are group dynamics and politics in play there, it's not just people doing stupid things.

I guess they get ratings because there are a lot of voyeurs out there. And, like others have said, some people just like to plop in front of the boob tube and not have to think about anything.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Q-Source
...maybe I am an elitist...

That would be my guess.

[Troll]

Let's apply the same to movies.

Why see crap that is not rooted in true history or scientific ability?

Why are we not going to the movies and shelling out billions each year to support films based upon truth? Why are fictional film about fictional characters making so much more money and winning awards.

Then ask yourself if you've seen any of the following or any of their sequels:

Aliens
Evil Dead
Terminator
Predator
Mad Max
Lord of the Rings
Star Wars
Star Trek
Silence of the Lambs

None are factual, and those that involve science involve science fiction.

Basically the same question but merely expanded upon a little.

[Nasarius]

False dichotomy. I despise "crap TV", as you describe, but I don't listen to classical music, go to museums, or go to art galleries. I don't think I've actually watched TV in months, honestly, but sometimes there will be a good show or two that I will watch once a week. There definitely are quality TV shows that aren't "crap". Buffy, for instance, was often great for many reasons.

But (*gasp*) I agree with aerocontrols that you do come off sounding elitist. Not all intelligent people have the same interests. I do a lot of computer programming in my spare time, especially Linux-related development. I listen to and write music that I hope is a little above your typical pop, but not classical. I don't enjoy classical music because it's just not my taste, though I can certainly appreciate the genius behind some pieces. I like music that makes me think, which is why I like a very select group of punk bands. I like rock music, like Led Zeppelin, because it's good, even though the lyrics may not be very intelectually stimulating. And well, Pink Floyd is Pink Floyd. They became popular without actually being 'pop' music. In short, I do what I enjoy, because I don't see becoming a cultural snob as a goal in my life.

As to the original question of why crap TV is popular...people want to be entertained. Something new and different, like reality TV was, is exciting. Most people watch TV for fun, not for any educational value. Even channels like Discovery and History are clearly geared more towards entertainment than any other goal.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Tmy
Whats wrong with just being entertained. Is that such a bad thing? Why must everything have social/educational value?



My question is why MOST of the people prefer to watch trash TV?, why their standards of culture are sooooooo low?

WHY?

I am not saying that it is wrong, I am just wondering if independently of their education level, people just don't want to use their brains to find joy and pleasure in more intelligent ways of entertainment, why people don't want to use their brains?.

I am not being elitist, in other times, classical music, ballet and theatre were the masses' preferences.

[Tmy]

I like modern art musems. They are so pretentious an ridiculous. They are fun to laugh at. Most ofthe crap in these musems would be regarded as garbage if you saw it on the street corner. THe best is when the stuff is for sale. Like I would dish out $2,600.00 for some contsruction paper placed under glass HAHAHHA.

These uppity highbows think evryone is stupid because they are not into the equall stupid things they are.

Like Ballet. Whats so great about ballet? Ive tried wathing it, its terrible. Just because high society likes it its all of a sudden better than a pop concert. I watched an Nsync concert wh my niece. It was pretty good. Better than any ballet Ive seen ( or attempted to see).

[Mel]

It's healthy to allow yourself the luxury of forgetting 'real life' once in a while.... and we all use different mediums in order to achieve that goal.

Why are people so afraid to admit that they are not one dimensional beings that can be fully satisfied only by always accomplishing something?

Children know how to "JUST BE" without feeling they wasted their time.

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by Tmy
Like Ballet. Whats so great about ballet? Ive tried wathing it, its terrible.
Ballet's great! I love it when the brown bear comes out riding a tricycle.

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by El Greco
Networks on the other hand, offer crap not only because people seem to prefer it, but mainly because reality shows etc. are much cheaper productions and they don't really care to produce something worthwhile.
This is quite true, shows such a "Police, Camera, Action" and "America's Funniest Home Videos" are made for pennies, all they have to do is splice together a bunch of existing footage.

However, some reality shows are an even bigger boon to TV networks. In the traditional "Free to Air TV" business model -- that is, TV stations that provide free content interspersed with advertisements -- the station pays some large amount of money to produce a TV programme and then they try to make all that money back as well as some profit via the paid advertisements. In Australia at least, this business model has been blown out of the water by such shows as "Big Brother" and "Australian Idol". Channel 10 (who screens both shows mentioned) actually make a profit on each episode before it even goes to air via the schmucks who phone 1800 numbers to vote for their favourite contestant. The advertising revenue the station makes has turned these already profitable shows into a goldmines.

I can't wait till the public grows weary of this reality TV fad.

[patnray]

Originally posted by Troll
Let's apply the same to movies.

Why see crap that is not rooted in true history or scientific ability?

Why are we not going to the movies and shelling out billions each year to support films based upon truth? Why are fictional film about fictional characters making so much more money and winning awards.


Good movies, like good literature, have deeper levels of meaning and make effective use of symbolism. Though the story may be fiction, the work is really about a real human concern or condition. This is what makes them powerful and enduring works, even if most readers or viewers don't make the connection. "The Sixth Sense" was really about people who are spritually or emotionally dead. "Star Wars" can be seen as a christian parable....

Sometimes a TV show reaches for this level of significance. "All In The Family" was a parody of conservative and liberal cliches that explored topical issues. Shows like "ER" and "NYPD Blue" openly deal with social issues.

Unfortunately, most TV shows, and movie sequals, follow shallow formulas for plot and action with no attempt at deeper meaning. Which makes them a waste of time....

And, IMO, all game shows are ultimately about watching the contestants get humiliated in some way....

[zultr]

Originally posted by Q-Source
My question is why MOST of the people prefer to watch trash TV?...

Most of the people who watch TV prefer "crap," or most of the country prefers to watch "crap TV?" It could be that a lot of people do other things, but that TV is an easily accessible medium and it serves its own interests to hammer home how popular all these shows are. Here's some contrast regarding cultural perceptions, though not directly related to TV:

According to the U.S. Dept. of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis, American consumers spent more than $10 billion dollars on admissions to performing arts events in 1997. Moreover, 1997 spending on performing arts events was roughly 1.6 times larger than spending on either admissions to movies or spectator sports. (Refer to the NEA"s GDP and the Arts, Reserach Note #69, 1998).

American consumers have increased their spending on performing arts events by almost $2 billion, or 26%, since 1992. By contrast, admission receipts for movies and spectator sports have showed little change in the same period. Per capita spending on performing arts amounts to approximately $39 compared with $24 per person on movie admissions and $23 for spectator sports.

Another survey by the U.S. Census Bureau indicated that while 50% of U.S. adults had attended alive arts event in 1997, only 41% had attended a live sporting event.

Source (http://www.mtn.org/mca/factspgs/business.html)

I've seen many reports that put museum attendance ahead of professional sports as well, but when we look at the media's portrayal of our society and culture, I don't think many would think this to be true - this is due in large part to the media pushing itself; we don't see "news" with live shots of people screaming outside a museum with big foam rubber "#1" fingers because TV stations don't sell advertising for people to watch museum galleries.

There's lots of crap on TV; I prefer Frontline, American Experience and Nova, along with my football (go Patriots) and college basketball (UMass), but I also like the occasional Monster Garage, Blind Date, and The World's Best Videos of Police Chasing Stupid and Irresponsible People. The prevalence of really bad shows is not merely a function of ratings, but also cost: they're cheap and executives may force feed its audience even if it means sacrificing some viewers because it could actually make more money with less advertising due to cheaper production. On top of that, there's the "it's on TV so I'll watch it" crowd, and you don't get a true reflection of the culture's preferences from TV ratings alone.

[Cain]

Why do I post on this board? Why does anyone read the messages on this board? Are you -- the person reading this -- desperately hoping someone is going to say something insightful or funny? The chances are slim, yet you continue reading, including this line of text. You're a compulsive, unthinking wretch; the slave of base appetites. You're no better than anyone else.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1485000/images/_1485181_010810cell150e.jpg

Get off your high horse.


P.S. I'm an elitist, ask anyone. Anyone who matters at least.

[Skeptic]

You forgot the "there but for the grace of God goes I" factor: people like to watch COPS or JERRY SPRINGER simply to see other people whose life is in even a bigger mess than their own.

[Mike B.]

What gets me is the constatnt variations on the "reality" shows.

This time the guy will be rich but say he is poor or vice vera, or we won't tell the women that he is really gay, or the guy will wear a mask, or the whole show will be fake except for one person...

(YAWN)

I also love how serious the people on these shows take the silly rituals of voting people out...You would think it was the Congress of Vienna or something...;)

[Tmy]

Question: Does Pro Wrestling count as a spectator sport or performing art?? :p

Hmmmm. "Performing Art" could mean almost anything. A Britney Spears concert for example. But Im surethat doesnt fallunder Q-Sources list of snooty highbrow events missed by the great unwashed.








Iconoclast: I caught the Simpsons joke. Theres one good show!

[epepke]

Originally posted by Q-Source
Why people prefer to watch crap TV than going to museums, listening to classical music or going to a gallery?. I know that part of the problem could be that people don't have time, money or places to go, and for those reasons they watch crap TV, but what about the rest of the huge population that have the possibility to raise their cultural levels and they don't do it just because they don't like it?.

Why people adore stupidity, ignorance and low quality enterteinment?, maybe I am an elitist and maybe in other times it was just the same. :(

It seems to me that you're an elitist. Not because of criticizing crap TV, but by the implication that museums, classical music, and galleries are not crap as well.

To give you the benefit of the doubt, I'm assuming that you mean "classical music" in the broad sense of "dead guys with wigs on," that is to include romantic, baroque, and impressionistic musics as well as salon-approved moderns like Philip Glass (but probably not Frank Zappa). Because almost all the music of the actual classical period was boring, drab, formulaic crap. Beethoven was the only exception, but that's because he anticipated the romantic period (which no salon-type will ever admit to).

Still, much of the rest isn't all that great. What we hear nowadays is pretty OK, but that's because most of the real crap doesn't get played any more. Even the best, however, is not particularly intellectually challenging. For that, you need to go to jazz, Brazilian music, or some of the polyrhythm that is considered a bit too out there to be part of the salon set.

I also need to point out that until the 20th century, there was no real distinction between classical and popular music. Themes and folk songs were frequently incorporated into larger works. This hasn't happened since Gershwin, unless you count the odd violin quartet playing "Purple Haze." Largely, the promoters and defenders of classical music have made it irrelevant of their own volition.

I love museums and galleries, but a lot of that is crap, too. That which isn't crap is hard to get to, and there isn't that much of it. I like taking side trips to the Dali museum in St. Petersburgh, but if I did it every week, it would get old pretty quickly.

It's largely not about crap versus good stuff or high versus low culture. A music major I used to date gave me a wonderful word for what it is: "lit." According to the salon mentality, if it ain't lit, it's something else that rhymes. Lit gives the illusion of being serious or intellectually challenging, but that's just because the community of people who have agreed that it is superior share the same fiction.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Skeptic
You forgot the "there but for the grace of God goes I" factor: people like to watch COPS or JERRY SPRINGER simply to see other people whose life is in even a bigger mess than their own.

Which of course is part and parcel of the ancient Greek dramatic idea of catharsis.

[Igopogo]

My opinion is that commercial TV usually plays to the lowest common denominator because commercials work on the lowest common denominator. Anyone else's tastes are not of concern to purely commercial TV. State run (ie: socialist) TV can often hit the audience that is outside of commercial interests. (For example: PBS, BBC, sometimes the CBC...)

(editted to fix spelling)

[Theodore Kurita]

Originally posted by roger


What's wrong with pop, etc.? Well, most of it is composed to sell to the LCD. Which means a I IV V chord pattern, verse-chorus patterns, a "hook", and unchallenging lyrics. There is little to engage the brain, which is the point of this thread - why don't some people like to do that. Pop can be fun, just like mindless movies, but mindless music is, well, mindless. (and of course there is popular music that does not fit that description).

(composing that kind of music is a different story - it's not easy to come up with a hit - I have a lot of respect for the people capable of doing it, as unchallenging the result is)


Agreed.

Another thing about mindless music is that it is easy to pick up rhythm paterns in the music.

Classical Music on the other hand is much more complex, and the rhythm may be hard to pick up.

If you play Classical Music, it is fairly easy to pick up the rhythm.


If you want a good example of a Popular Modern Classical Composer look to further than...

Nobuo Uematsu.

He has written most of the classical music for all of Square-Enix's popular Final Fantasy series. Some of his earlier works even rival that of Mozart and Beethoven. :)



And yes, crap TV is marketed to the LCD, which is the majority of the people.

[Theodore Kurita]

Originally posted by Nasarius
False dichotomy. I despise "crap TV", as you describe, but I don't listen to classical music, go to museums, or go to art galleries. I don't think I've actually watched TV in months, honestly, but sometimes there will be a good show or two that I will watch once a week. There definitely are quality TV shows that aren't "crap". Buffy, for instance, was often great for many reasons.

But (*gasp*) I agree with aerocontrols that you do come off sounding elitist. Not all intelligent people have the same interests. I do a lot of computer programming in my spare time, especially Linux-related development. I listen to and write music that I hope is a little above your typical pop, but not classical. I don't enjoy classical music because it's just not my taste, though I can certainly appreciate the genius behind some pieces. I like music that makes me think, which is why I like a very select group of punk bands. I like rock music, like Led Zeppelin, because it's good, even though the lyrics may not be very intelectually stimulating. And well, Pink Floyd is Pink Floyd. They became popular without actually being 'pop' music. In short, I do what I enjoy, because I don't see becoming a cultural snob as a goal in my life.

As to the original question of why crap TV is popular...people want to be entertained. Something new and different, like reality TV was, is exciting. Most people watch TV for fun, not for any educational value. Even channels like Discovery and History are clearly geared more towards entertainment than any other goal.


Point noted.

That you know that older "Pop" Music, is much more complex that most modern "Pop" Music coming out today, right.

[Ladewig]

Why do people prefer to watch crap TV than going to museums, listening to classical music or going to a gallery?

Because museums aren't open at 9 p.m.
Because there aren't many galleries in Joplin, Missouri and the rest of middle America.
Because without being exposed to classical music as a youngster or as a student, one might find it difficult to enjoy or understand.
Because crap TV (broadcast TV) is so much cheaper than renting movies or subscribing to cable.
Because many people have unenjoyable, unrewarding, or unpleasant jobs that they work at 8, 10, or 12 hours a day and want something simple to do at the end of the day.
Because very many people find that their friends and co-workers all watch it and if they want to be included in conversations with these people, they have to be somewhat familar with the programs.
Because the vast majority of crap TV programs have at least one character that virtually every viewer can feel superior towards - no small matter for people who have crap jobs, crap family relations, and crap housing.
Because it can be fun ( I once spent a season watching She Spies because it was so bad it was enjoyable).

[Frank Newgent]

If choosing between a wilderness hike or being showered and on the couch in time to catch Family Feud poses a serious dilemma, well, I have a question...

Name a word you might use to describe yourself that is also a Walt Disney character.

[Badger]

Hee, hee, hee!

I'm just thinking of a caveman remarking:

"Why does everyone just want to sit around and stare at the fire? They could be bashing rocks together, or weaving something, or maybe looking at lights in the sky, but there they sit, mouths hanging open, staring and drooling."

I really have no point to make.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Tmy
Whats wrong with just being entertained. Is that such a bad thing? Why must everything have social/educational value?

Might as well knock down all amusement parks. Goodbye Disneyland, if magic mountain focused on the periodic table, then we might have kept you around. The point is that "pure" entertainment doesn't have to cater to the lowest common denominator, it doesn't have to pander to sleaze and bad taste. Have you seen some of the kids entertainment coming out, like Finding Nemo? I'm 29 years old, and my tastes in movies run more towards quirky independent , but I thought Finding Nemo was a decent flick that doesn't talk down to the viewer, or act as though the audience has an IQ of 73.

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by Tmy
Iconoclast: I caught the Simpsons joke. Theres one good show!
And they've got a line for every occasion.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Q-Source
Is it my own impression that reality shows, violent programms, gossip, etc. are so popular because people's standards of entertainment are very low?

The biggest reason is that those shows are simply cheaper to produce. When a show is cheaper, the ratings do not need to be as high in order for the show to be a money-maker. It's really all down to the numbers. The costs of producing scripted dramas has just gone up so much in recent years that very few of them are profitable, and there are only so many sitcoms the market will bear.

Notice that shows on HBO (like The Sopranos) or Showtime (like Jeremiah or Bullsh!t) tend to be of better quality since they aren't as dependent on the ratings of individual shows to make a profit; they're only concerned with how many people subscribe to their channel. This, my feeling is, is the way television is going to be done in the future. With the commercial/ratings system, they were putting the cart before the horse years ago. The prevalence of PVRs is also going to make the model less profitable. It's only a matter of time, I think, before pretty much all television is done on a subscriber basis.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Q-Source
My question is why MOST of the people prefer to watch trash TV?

Look at the ratings: It's clear that it's not MOST people that are watching this stuff. It's not even most of the people watching TV at the time. In fact, it's been years since any single show captured any significant amount of the viewing market because of the plethora of cable channels today.

Look at the current season ratings here:

http://www.zap2it.com/television/news/ratings/season/

Note that the only reality show in the top 10 is Survivor: Pearl Islands. It has pulled ratings of 12.1, meaning that 12.1% of television households were watching that show. It had a 19 share, meaning 19% of the people who had their TV on at the time were watching it. Less than 1 in 5 hardly counts as "most," I think.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Igopogo
My opinion is that commercial TV usually plays to the lowest common denominator because commercials work on the lowest common denominator.

This is something I've suspected for some time, although I have no evidence for it. But I do believe that stupid people are more likely to buy stuff than intelligent people, since intelligent people tend to do comparison shopping etc. So it's not just about the ratings. If you sell widgets, and you have a commercial running during a TV Network showing of Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet, and it gets an 11 rating/15 share, and you notice a .002% peak in response, and you run another commercial during Yet Another Pretend Millionaire: How Stupid Are These Women?, and it too gets an 11 rating/15 share, but you notice a .3% peak in response, which one are you going to continue to advertise with? Same rating, but bigger response. You're actually winning out with the stupid show because you've gotten a much better response even though you've had to pay out the same amount of money to air the commercial.

This is something the American Liberty Foundation discovered when we ran the gun control ads. We had one run on CNN ("Yard Sign"), and had a lot of response, some good, some bad. We ran another ad ("Intruder") on Fox News and The Outdoor Channel and the response was much better. A lot of that probably had to do with the fact that "Intruder" is simply a much better ad than "Yard Sign," so it's not a fair comparison, but we did get a much better response from the other two even though the ratings were much, much less than the CNN ad. Where you place your ad has a lot to do with it, and more sophisticated audiences require more sophisticated ads, which are harder to make.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Zero
The point is that "pure" entertainment doesn't have to cater to the lowest common denominator, it doesn't have to pander to sleaze and bad taste. Have you seen some of the kids entertainment coming out, like Finding Nemo? I'm 29 years old, and my tastes in movies run more towards quirky independent , but I thought Finding Nemo was a decent flick that doesn't talk down to the viewer, or act as though the audience has an IQ of 73.

I thought Finding Nemo was great. I think that, without much effort, most people could think of enough really good stuff created in the past half century completely to dwarf everything else that has been produced in the history of humanity.

The fact that schlock exists is a good thing, not a bad thing. Because where the hell else are immature artists going to get experience? If anything, there aren't enough venues for schlock. Where can an aspiring writer get a short story published these days?

[Dorian Gray]

It's not really 'crap' TV. I call it 'Leftover TV' or 'Casserole TV'. Most of the good ideas have been taken, so all we ever have now are rehashes of the same thing with a couple of things changed. I mean, what is 'NYPD Blue' but 'Hill Street Blues' with nudity - which is itself 'Barney Miller' without humor.

Most 'situation comedies' have the same four or five situations, if you think about it. And quite frankly, we should be calling them 'situation dramas' too. They are all glamorous - PI dramas, Cop dramas, Lawyer dramas, Doctor dramas - or really exaggerated - Screwed Up Family dramas.

Nothing original comes around too often, and when it does, there are about a billion ripoff shows. Not only that, many 'hour long' shows have taken to using 6 of their 44 minutes just to show you what is coming up later - or in the case of ABC, using air time on one show to show you what they are 'working on' for another show. I'll just read the paper, thanks.

[Zero]

Originally posted by epepke


I thought Finding Nemo was great. I think that, without much effort, most people could think of enough really good stuff created in the past half century completely to dwarf everything else that has been produced in the history of humanity.

The fact that schlock exists is a good thing, not a bad thing. Because where the hell else are immature artists going to get experience? If anything, there aren't enough venues for schlock. Where can an aspiring writer get a short story published these days? OK, I sort of understand your point...a Fight Club might not exist without an {i]Alien 3[/i]...at the same time, the pattern over time is that the truly creative people either are replaced by schlock(Night Of The Living Dead vs Return of the Living Dead), or they become schlock themselves(post-Empire George Lucas, everything Tobe Hooper did after Texas Chainsaw)

[epepke]

Originally posted by Zero
OK, I sort of understand your point...a Fight Club might not exist without an Alien 3...at the same time, the pattern over time is that the truly creative people either are replaced by schlock(Night Of The Living Dead vs Return of the Living Dead), or they become schlock themselves(post-Empire George Lucas, everything Tobe Hooper did after Texas Chainsaw)

That's true, but maybe Lucas only had a certain amount of good stuff in him. Nobody need remember Buster Keaton from the Jimmy Durante years, or Orson Welles from the Gallo Wine commercials, or Alfred Hitchcock for Family Plot. And as good stuff is replaced by schlock, there are always new people making new good stuff. That's the way it should be. If you focus only on the lost talent, sure you're going to get depressed.

[Zero]

Originally posted by epepke


That's true, but maybe Lucas only had a certain amount of good stuff in him. Nobody need remember Buster Keaton from the Jimmy Durante years, or Orson Welles from the Gallo Wine commercials, or Alfred Hitchcock for Family Plot. And as good stuff is replaced by schlock, there are always new people making new good stuff. That's the way it should be. If you focus only on the lost talent, sure you're going to get depressed. Look, I understand that the good stuff will often be less recognized than the dreck...does that mean that dreck should be the new standard? There are great new talents, but why should they either suffer in silence or sell out to the tastes of the retards? Probably the best entertainment is coming from video and commercial directors...because they can take risks that TV and film directors can't.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Zero
Look, I understand that the good stuff will often be less recognized than the dreck...does that mean that dreck should be the new standard? There are great new talents, but why should they either suffer in silence or sell out to the tastes of the retards? Probably the best entertainment is coming from video and commercial directors...because they can take risks that TV and film directors can't.

I don't know that dreck is the new standard. For the entire time I've been alive (42 years, maybe 39 of them with language abilities) I've heard people complaining about dreck. Hell, in Elizabethan England I'm sure there were people going around complaining about bear-baiting.

And yet, so far, for all my life, whenever things seemed the worst they could get, there was always something new that was good.

Do you have any reason to believe that this will not apply in the future?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Zero
The point is that "pure" entertainment doesn't have to cater to the lowest common denominator, it doesn't have to pander to sleaze and bad taste. Have you seen some of the kids entertainment coming out, like Finding Nemo? I'm 29 years old, and my tastes in movies run more towards quirky independent , but I thought Finding Nemo was a decent flick that doesn't talk down to the viewer, or act as though the audience has an IQ of 73.

When director Andrew Stanton was told by one of the parents of the other children at his kids' day care that not only did her kids love the movie, she did, too, he responded, "Great, because I made it for you, not them."

[Q-Source]

Many reasons that some people have given here are true. People like to watch low quality TV programmes because that's the cheapest way of entertainment when you don't have time and money to do something else.

However, I would like to add that most of the low quality programmes are result -not of what the viewers want to watch- but what the TV channels want to offer.

Let's talk about the reality shows, (I think the first one was Big Brother). This kind of programme was something that the consumers did not ask for. Someone came with the idea and it worked. TV producers realised that it was extremely cheap because the participants provided all the enterteinment. Channels didn't have to do anything but to film a bunch of losers doing stupid things.

The same happens with high quality channels, they determine what they want to show. If this weren't true, then the BBC would show the same crap as most of the American TV and they would have advertisement, but they don't do that. Yes, the BBC has no commercial breaks.

Q-S

[Nikk]

Originally posted by Q-Source

The same happens with high quality channels, they determine what they want to show. If this weren't true, then the BBC would show the same crap as most of the American TV and they would have advertisement, but they don't do that. Yes, the BBC has no commercial breaks.

Q-S

Actually the BBC is under some pressure to get good ratings as it has to justify the licence fee which is a hypothecated tax in all but name.

If it chooses to spend too much money on highbrow but unpopular programmes there would certainly be discreet pressure applied. Equally those in charge want to be seen as popular programme makers as high ratings are seen as a measure of professional competence.

The BBC has been more than willing to introduce increasingly sensational story lines in soaps and tacky reality shows in order to put up a good showing in the ratings wars.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Nikk
Actually the BBC is under some pressure to get good ratings as it has to justify the licence fee which is a hypothecated tax in all but name.

If it chooses to spend too much money on highbrow but unpopular programmes there would certainly be discreet pressure applied. Equally those in charge want to be seen as popular programme makers as high ratings are seen as a measure of professional competence.

The BBC has been more than willing to introduce increasingly sensational story lines in soaps and tacky reality shows in order to put up a good showing in the ratings wars.

But it isn't exactly the same. Since the stupid shows are cheaper, they can get by with their ratings being not quite as good and still make more money. That's different than just seeing which gets more or less ratings.

[Zero]

Originally posted by epepke


I don't know that dreck is the new standard. For the entire time I've been alive (42 years, maybe 39 of them with language abilities) I've heard people complaining about dreck. Hell, in Elizabethan England I'm sure there were people going around complaining about bear-baiting.

And yet, so far, for all my life, whenever things seemed the worst they could get, there was always something new that was good.

Do you have any reason to believe that this will not apply in the future? I can tell you that crap has a better chance today than it did 40 years ago, simply because there is so much time to fill, and so little good stuff to fill it with. I would say that the amount of good stuff has stayed consistant, but with today's 150 channels of 24 hour broadcasting, there is a home for all the crap you can imagine...

[epepke]

Originally posted by Zero
I can tell you that crap has a better chance today than it did 40 years ago, simply because there is so much time to fill, and so little good stuff to fill it with. I would say that the amount of good stuff has stayed consistant, but with today's 150 channels of 24 hour broadcasting, there is a home for all the crap you can imagine...

That's a good point. The amount of airtime has expanded dramatically. Still, however, I think the absolute amount of non-crap is greater than it was 40 years ago.

[JAR]

Originally posted by Tmy
While Claissical music is fine, its a bit dated. WHats wrong with other music, rap, country, pop, whavever.
Classical music is not dated. The modern obsession with rock, rap, country and pop is just a phase mankind is going through right now. Eventually, when people start to think more clearly, classical music, particularly music from the romantic period of classical music, will return to its rightful place as the most popular form of music in western civilization.

[QuarkChild]

I don't know how relevant this post is going to be, but I'll offer it anyway:

I don't watch TV (crap or otherwise) but I read crap books (ie, ones that are intended for entertainment, not mental stimulation). I think the reason for this is that after spending hours every day struggling to understand advanced physics, the last thing I want after I finally get home at 10pm (or 12am, or 2am) is to read a book that requires a lot of thought. So I'm going to pick up a book by Tad Williams or Stephen King, not James Joyce or Shakespeare.

I used to read a lot of non-fiction, but after spending a lot of time on this forum, I started analyzing everything I read and it took the joy out of it. For example, I recently read a book called "Coming Home to Eat," about locally grown foods, and my tendency of disputing every 3rd comment that the author made just ruined it for me. I didn't use to do that. It's all the JREF's fault. :)


So basically, between the demands made on my brain during the day, and the burden of my new critical thinking skills, I just can't handle anything but the most mindless entertainment.

(That's also my excuse for making mundane posts on this forum instead of challenging my mind and posting philosophical stuff in the R&P section.)

[AlH]

I think the biggest problem is the perceived lack of diversity. I have satellite but, with 150+ channels, almost every channel seems to be showing the same things. There really is nothing on as I have no interest in the latest fad in programming. There are very few niche channels, but once a type of program, be it sit-com, gameshow, reality, crime drama, or whatever becomes a "hit" everybody and their dog jumps on the bandwagon and fills every channel with it. What happened to the promise of diversity in the 500+ channels of the future? Take a look a the Sci-Fi channel or at least what it was about a year ago when I stopped watching it. Instead of science fiction, it had expanded to have John Edwards (also on a multitude of other channels), dream analysis (a staple of Dr. Phil, Oprah, Montel, Ricky Lake, Sharon whatshername, etc, etc), Stargate, on at least ten other stations I get, a punked up candid camera, Jamie Kennedy, World's most haunted place show - also on a number of other channels, plus a reality i.e. big brother type show. In short, everything that was offered by Sci-Fi was available on a large number of other channels. They offered nothing unique to draw in viewers over any other channel. AMC does a better job of showing classic science fiction movies than Sci-Fi's giant animal weekend movie marathons. It seems to me that the execs at various networks think that if they take a concept that attracts 20% of the viewers on one channel and put that on 8 other channels, they will get 180% of the viewers instead of dividing the 20% of the viewing audience that are interested in that 9 different ways. As people have become accustomed to sit down in the evening and watch television, habit makes it hard for them to change their ways and they just select the best of the worst (much like politics) and we all suffer. I turn on the tv while I exercise but I cannot find 1 hour a day worth of decent television other than BS on Showtime, Mythbusters, Grounded for Life on WB and the occasional program on the history channel. And Mythbusters seems to be going down the -must introduce conflict to spice things up- route.

[JAR]

Originally posted by QuarkChild
I don't watch TV (crap or otherwise) but I read crap books (ie, ones that are intended for entertainment, not mental stimulation). I think the reason for this is that after spending hours every day struggling to understand advanced physics, the last thing I want after I finally get home at 10pm (or 12am, or 2am) is to read a book that requires a lot of thought. So I'm going to pick up a book by Tad Williams or Stephen King, not James Joyce or Shakespeare.

I used to read a lot of non-fiction, but after spending a lot of time on this forum, I started analyzing everything I read and it took the joy out of it. For example, I recently read a book called "Coming Home to Eat," about locally grown foods, and my tendency of disputing every 3rd comment that the author made just ruined it for me. I didn't use to do that. It's all the JREF's fault. :)


So basically, between the demands made on my brain during the day, and the burden of my new critical thinking skills, I just can't handle anything but the most mindless entertainment.

(That's also my excuse for making mundane posts on this forum instead of challenging my mind and posting philosophical stuff in the R&P section.)
I find fiction less depressing than non-fiction. Being a male, I have a voracious appetite for books about wars, battles, and communist leaders and countries, but I find as I get older and older, I start to be more saddened by what I read in those books. I didn't use to have this problem when I was younger. When I get too saddened by what I read in those books, I read meaningless fictional books. My favorite fictional author to read right now is Edgar Rice Burroughs.

[Nasarius]

Originally posted by JAR

Classical music is not dated. The modern obsession with rock, rap, country and pop is just a phase mankind is going through right now. Eventually, when people start to think more clearly, classical music, particularly music from the romantic period of classical music, will return to its rightful place as the most popular form of music in western civilization.

You have too much faith in humanity ;)
It's hard to predict the evolution of music, though I've seen it argued that the Markovian evolution model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markov_process) makes it likely that things will just keep getting worse, because each generation has a less and less diverse set of influences to draw from.
I think the only constant will be folk music, which would include some forms of rap, punk, country etc. as well as the more traditional kind.

[Bottle or the Gun]

Originally posted by Commander Cool
"Reality shows" are just a fad, and they're already on their way out. A couple have faltered pretty badly (i.e. the second Joe Millionaire), so it's just a matter of time for the rest of them.

Reality TV started out fairly clever. Although I never watched it, Survivor was a pretty neat premise, and continues to be. There are group dynamics and politics in play there, it's not just people doing stupid things.

I guess they get ratings because there are a lot of voyeurs out there. And, like others have said, some people just like to plop in front of the boob tube and not have to think about anything.

Reality shows may be around for a while just because of economics. They are crap but cheap to produce and are great for product placement. A network has no problem putting in a show that has bad ratings because they would lose the slot anyways to another network show. A cheap crap show will cause less net loss than a regular show of high priced stars.

Most reality show revenue comes from secondary and overseas markets. While Big Brother failed miserably here, it is a winner in other countries. If BB went to cable and showed people having sex like they do in other countries it would be a winner here.

Last year, American Idol in all its incarnations was the Number One Show In The World. It remained that way even as ratings in the US dropped. They were still presentable, but lower than before. (The audience of speed-dialing teeny-boppers gets bored quickly).

An example of this type of revenue-support was Baywatch. A terrible show, not in reality 'Number One' in America but for a time was a highly rated syndicated show. The show made so much cash in the overseas markets that the producers had the US market over a barrel. Basically, they were told that they must show Baywatch in the US and proclaim it a #1 show. It was considered a loss-leader in most areas and aired in slots like Sunday at 10 am, 4 pm, etc. The show lasted for years because of the popularity of Hasselhoff in Europe and world-wide audience of teens & 47 year old males that like dudes and babes in skimpy suits.

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by Bottle or the Gun
An example of this type of revenue-support was Baywatch. A terrible show, not in reality 'Number One' in America but for a time was a highly rated syndicated show. The show made so much cash in the overseas markets that the producers had the US market over a barrel. Basically, they were told that they must show Baywatch in the US and proclaim it a #1 show. It was considered a loss-leader in most areas and aired in slots like Sunday at 10 am, 4 pm, etc. The show lasted for years because of the popularity of Hasselhoff in Europe and world-wide audience of teens & 47 year old males that like dudes and babes in skimpy suits.
I think you're downplaying the popularity of this show just a tad. Last time I checked it was the most watched TV programme in the history of the world, though it may have now been overtaken by an Italian game show, the name of which escapes me at the moment.

[Tmy]

Ive had enough of all your TV bashing!!! TV is one of the greatest inventions ever. Reality TV provides hrs of entertainment (what is the nightly news but a daily reality show.)

Just cause somthing is in book form does notmake it better. YOu anti-TVites!!!

What exactly counts as Non-crap TV anyway? Some boring ass snotty egghead PBS show that no one likes?

[Bottle or the Gun]

Originally posted by Iconoclast

I think you're downplaying the popularity of this show just a tad. Last time I checked it was the most watched TV programme in the history of the world, though it may have now been overtaken by an Italian game show, the name of which escapes me at the moment.
I'm not down-playing the appeal of the market outside the United States. I know it and the NightRider moron are huge in Europe and on boat shows. I think I stated that it was making alot of money outside the United States.

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by Q-Source
Is it my own impression that reality shows, violent programms, gossip, etc. are so popular because people's standards of entertainment are very low?There is a famous quote, I forget the source, but it goes "Every generation gets the celebrities they deserve". There is also another one, "If you can find something everyone agrees on, it's wrong." ;)