Television... who's sick of it? Anyone?

[Carlisle Blues]

Shakespeare's Hamlet has all the elements of today's programming on television. Hamlet is Shakespeare's most popular work.

The storyline exhibited such abnormality that Freud spent a great deal of time analyzing and digesting it's elements for use in his practice

Freud concludes that Hamlet has an "Oedipal desire for his mother and the subsequent guilt [is] preventing him from murdering the man [Claudius] who has done what he unconsciously wanted to do". Confronted with his repressed desires, Hamlet realizes that "he himself is literally no better than the sinner whom he is to punish". Freud suggests that Hamlet's apparent "distaste for sexuality"—articulated in his "nunnery" conversation with Ophelia—accords with this interpretation.

 

[Foofoogal]

y'all lost me as to who I am agreeing with at the moment.

I definitely did not like Shakespeare when I had to endure it in school. Does that count?

 

[Edward]

That the Freudian interpretation of Hamlet has so far infiltrated the mainstream irritates me no end, as I believe it to be utterly, utterly erroneous. Mind you, I have no time for Freud's absurd, and sex-obsessed, theories anyhow: I would venture to suggest that these had far less to do with observation and far more to do with his own impotence and problematic relationhip with his mother. Hamlet's initial reluctance to kill Claudius comes from a wish to ensure that the spirit that claims to be his father has been true to him, rather than a deception sent by Satan (exactly the way in which such a situation would have been interpreted by Shakespeare and his contemporaries). Claudius' guilt established ("The play's the thing..."), Hamlet fails to seize on his opportunity to murder Claudius at prayer, believing that this would simply fast-track the murderer into heaven, not the hell Hamlet believes he deserves. (Ironically, Claudius seems not to have been of the same mindset - "words without thoughts never to heaven go"). Freud's interpretation is pretentious nonsense, implying into the text a wholly anachronistic mindset that simply would not have existed in Shakespeare's day.

Last time I was in London England I tried to watch British TV (BBC and local day time news shows) I would like to see more before I give an opinion.
I thought it was fair but scrambled lineup events or channels,
just didn't have enought time to watch.

Yes, the mainstream channels here tend to offer very mixed content (with the exception of ITV1, which is rapidly becoming an outlet for little more than karaoke competitions overseen by that vile Cowell man). I should imagine that as time goes on, we will see more organisations move towards the 'themed channel' format, a la FilmFour, E4, etc. BBC3 and BBC4 are loosely themed (entertainment and documentaries, respectively), though the dividing lines are very often blurred. As I see it, the logical thing for the medium is to move away from the linear model of content delivery for the most part: rolling news and live sporting event channels could exist, with all other content delivered in a non-linear fashion. While the technology is not perfect, it is already possible via various means (such as, for instance, the online connectivity of a Nintendo Wii or Sony PS3) to access services such as the BBc iPlayer on your television. When televisions with built-in online connectivity (or external boxes to achieve the same end) become the norm, there'll be nothing to stand in the way of such a trend.

You read my mind. Remember when two characters kissing was a season cliffhanger, and a marriage was a season finale? You'd have to wait an entire season for a baby to be born AND that was a season finale!
The sex was there, things were just....slower.

LD

Sex on TV these days is more tedious than anything. I mean, if what you really wanted to see was just nudity and sex, there's plenty of that for free on the internet, I gather.... why try to compete with that, rather than offer something else that can't be easily downloaded? [huh] Of course, questions and issues of sexuality can and should be raised, but why any need for the explicit mechanics?

I think the proliferation and "popularity" of reality shows has more to do with the Bottom Line: they're much cheaper to produce than a regular TV show. .

Very true: no need to pay a scriptwriter, no need to pay actors.... and on. But wait: there are signs that the audience has become bored, and the trend may be coming to an end. Big Brother has dropped in popularity so far here in the UK that after one further 2010 series of each the regular and celebrity versions, it will be dropped (the only reason, it seems, Channel 4 are even bothering this year is down to a contract they locked themselves into back at its peak). Here in the UK, the Christmas number one in the pop charts was not as everyone (not least Cowell himself) had assumed, Simon Cowell's latest X Factor-created karaoke puppet, but a Rage Against the Machine song, backed by a grassroots campaign promoting download sales to prevent the dominance of the Christmas chart once more by lowest common denomenator product, the record being wholly secondary to the X-Factor brand. I'm sure Cowell's vile shows will continue to be popular for a few years yet, but all the signs are that they are past their peak.

Critics had a fit complaining about it, and in fact the trend burned out after a few years. In the last few years before radio died, there was a flowering of quality drama -- "nobody's listening anyway, so we might as well try anything." You might equate that with the spate of quality dramas on cable in recent years. But that late trend toward quality didn't save radio, and it isn't likely to save television, either. We're well on our way to a real-life realization of what was predicted in "Idiocracy."

I'm not familiar with US radio, but here in the UK radio seems to be improving all the time... at least, we still have some fantastic stuff on the BBC radio channels. Swing away from rubbish like Chris Moyles on Radio 1, and there's fantastic stuff to be found on Radios 2 through 7.... (even if, with Terry Wogan retiring, Radio 2 have effectively shot themselves in the foot by appointing Chris Evans as breakfast show host - consider me tuned out).

Then you must *really* hate Shakespeare.

LD

Oh, absolute filth. And the violence.... The bodycount in Hamlet equals Pulp Fiction; In King Lear the eponymous character's own daughters gouge out his eyes..... But hey, it's theatre, dahling, so its audience is gonig to be just those middle class people like ourselves who can understand it - not like the little people who'll turn into deviants if they watch this sort of thing on television or in the movies...

 

[Foofoogal]

http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/news/release/2008/1029.asp


While the movie industry produced nearly 12 times more R-rated films than G-rated films from 1989-2003, the average G-rated film produced 11 times greater profit than its R-rated counterpart." Dick Rolfe, The Dove foundation's founder and chairman discussing their new study.


having problems with the FL site today and yesterday. Is it just me? fftopic:

 

[Carlisle Blues]

Whether anyone agrees with Freud is immaterial. I introduced it as an example of how it has effected the vintage era Point is the elements of Hamlet were very popular in the 1920's and 1930's film and literature as well as today... Some things just do not change..like people and what piques their interest.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I'm not familiar with US radio, but here in the UK radio seems to be improving all the time... at least, we still have some fantastic stuff on the BBC radio channels. Swing away from rubbish like Chris Moyles on Radio 1, and there's fantastic stuff to be found on Radios 2 through 7.... (even if, with Terry Wogan retiring, Radio 2 have effectively shot themselves in the foot by appointing Chris Evans as breakfast show host - consider me tuned out).

I envy you folks 'crost the pond your radio -- because, honestly, we have nothing approaching its quality here. In the past decade I've been involved in broadcasting history documentaries airing on BBC-Radio 2 and on NPR, and the NPR program was just an awful botch -- they didn't want to hear *anything* that disagreed with what their producer had already decided the point of the program was going to be, despite my pointing out that they were making some pretty serious misassumptions that I could correct with hard evidence. By contrast, the BBC producer with whom I worked was there to *learn,* and I found the whole experience with him to be far more intellectually honest than anything likely to come out of American radio.

American commercial radio, alas, is like a rotten carcass washed in on the tide -- nothing left of it but shrill, stupid screaming about politics and sports and automated "music formats" that leave one pining for the tranquility of an elevator. Bah.

 

[Foofoogal]

Some things just do not change..like people and what piques their interest.

and my point is they do change. look at the last link I put. Bad language is way out of line on TV. George Carlins everywhere. :eusa_doh:

 

[Hemingway Jones]

I'm fine with Freudian interpretations of "Hamlet," or any other school of thought for that matter. No less a source than Harold Bloom suggested that rather than Freud perpetrating a reach-back to explain Shakespeare, but rather, Shakespeare, in his keen knack for sketching the psychology of a person hundreds of years before the vocabulary for such a thing was codified, created Freud and, in his view, the very idea of the modern mind. In this, he may have gone too far, but it is coarse grist for the idea mill.

As for television, I think this is somewhat of a golden age. There are so many channels and so many shows competing for attention that only the most incurious minds couldn't find something that interests them. Couple this with a TIVO or DVR and you may watch these as selectively as you wish. I'm thinking of the wide swath of shows I enjoy: "Top Gear, CBS Sunday Morning, 60 Minutes, House, Anthony Bourdain, Iron Chef, Doctor Who," whatever show Simon Schwama might be producing; all brilliant, brilliant stuff.

I have no issue with language. I have issue with inappropriate language. Swear words do not belong in a children's show and dumbed-down swear words don't belong in an adult drama.

Nudity also doesn't offend inherently. The BBC seems to get this balance right. This is the stuff of which we are made.

 

[Carlisle Blues]

Aristotle was born in Stagirus, Macedonia, Greece in 384 BC and died 62 years later in 322 BC. He was a student at Plato's Academy and later became one of the greatest philosophers of Ancient Greece. In one of his treatises, The Poetics, he outlines the Six Elements Of Drama, based on the the Ancient Greek belief that tragedy was the highest form of Drama. This outline has become a guideline for many playwrights throughout history, and is especially emphasized in the works of William Shakespeare.
Aristotle’s Definition of Tragedy

“A tragedy is the imitation of an action that is serious and also, as having
magnitude, complete in itself; in appropriate and pleasurable language;...
in a dramatic rather than narrative form; with incidents arousing pity and fear,
wherewith to accomplish a catharsis of these emotions.”


Aristotles Six Elements of Drama

1. PLOT – what happens in a play; the order of events, the story as opposed to the theme; what happens rather than what it means.

2. THEME – what the play means as opposed to what happens (plot); the main idea within the play.

3. CHARACTER – the personality or the part an actor represents in a play; a role played by an actor in a play.

4. DICTION/LANGUAGE/DIALOGUE – the word choices made by the playwright and the enunciation of the actors delivering the lines.

5. MUSIC/RHYTHM – by music Aristotle meant the sound, rhythm and melody of the speeches.

6. SPECTACLE – the visual elements of the production of a play; the scenery, costumes, and special effects in a production.

The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, or more simply Hamlet, is a tragedy by William Shakespeare, believed to have been written between 1599 and 1601. The play, set in Denmark, recounts how Prince Hamlet exacts revenge on his uncle Claudius, who has murdered Hamlet's father, the King, and then taken the throne and married Gertrude, Hamlet's mother. The play vividly charts the course of real and feigned madness—from overwhelming grief to seething rage—and explores themes of treachery, revenge, incest, and moral corruption.

The story is still going strong no matter what medium is being used.....People love this stuff.....add in the seven deadly as motivation and you have a classic.

Seven deadly sins:

Pride
Greed
Envy
Lust
Sloth
Anger
Gluttony

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

American commercial radio, alas, is like a rotten carcass washed in on the tide -- nothing left of it but shrill, stupid screaming about politics and sports and automated "music formats" that leave one pining for the tranquility of an elevator. Bah.

A long time ago I was quite surprised to learn that radio comedy, drama and variety survived in many other parts of the world long after its demise in America. In the UK it lasted well into the sixties and in South Africa until the eighties.

Many of my favorite British radio shows are from the fifties and sixties. Shows such as The Goon Show, Take It From Here, and Beyond Our Ken

 

[Edward]

Whether anyone agrees with Freud is immaterial. I introduced it as an example of how it has effected the vintage era Point is the elements of Hamlet were very popular in the 1920's and 1930's film and literature as well as today... Some things just do not change..like people and what piques their interest.

Well, it's true that certain themes have been around forever - plus ca change, plus la meme chose.

I envy you folks 'crost the pond your radio -- because, honestly, we have nothing approaching its quality here. In the past decade I've been involved in broadcasting history documentaries airing on BBC-Radio 2 and on NPR, and the NPR program was just an awful botch -- they didn't want to hear *anything* that disagreed with what their producer had already decided the point of the program was going to be, despite my pointing out that they were making some pretty serious misassumptions that I could correct with hard evidence. By contrast, the BBC producer with whom I worked was there to *learn,* and I found the whole experience with him to be far more intellectually honest than anything likely to come out of American radio.

American commercial radio, alas, is like a rotten carcass washed in on the tide -- nothing left of it but shrill, stupid screaming about politics and sports and automated "music formats" that leave one pining for the tranquility of an elevator. Bah.

I have to admit, in the past I've been more cynical about commercial radio in the UK, but there are a lot of stations out there both playing very well to populist tastes and yet keeping up quality. Classic FM (which I tend to keep on in the background in my office) is just one, and while the purists have long sneered at it, it has led to more people listening to classical music than most other attempts. They achieve this by playing nothing other than a mix of true, quality classical alongside the better contemporary film scores. None of this ghastly nonsense of opera singers mutilating pop standards and claiming to be crossing over classical into the mainstream....

With news stations, I believe that we have enjoyed a big advantage due to the strict impartiality regulations by which broadcasters in the UK are bound (excessive violation can see loss of licence to broadcast). In general I find this leads to much more intelligent and sitmulating content than the alternative, which is heavily editorialised opinion pieces being passed off as news.

I do believe, though, that without the BBC setting such high standards, we would instead fall into a commercial decline where the lowest common denominator would become the target, pretty soon resulting in the radio equivalent of having six hundred television channels, and all of them being ITV1 (the primary UK commercial free to air television channel, which these days is little more than a vehicle for soap opera Coronation Street and whatever product Simon Cowell wishes to push). Unfortunately the BBC is under constant attack from various sources for various reasons. If ever it falls, it will ultimately be down to those who object to paying the licence fee, and UK broadcasting will be the poorer for it.

 

[Feraud]

As for television, I think this is somewhat of a golden age. There are so many channels and so many shows competing for attention that only the most incurious minds couldn't find something that interests them. Couple this with a TIVO or DVR and you may watch these as selectively as you wish.

Agreed 100%! With all the channels and the ability to drv a program I am surprised to read when someone cannot find anything interesting or entertaining to watch on the tube.
Personally I have too much to view on my tv queue and not enough time!

 

[Forgotten Man]

I've only discovered FL

I find TV to be such a colossal waste of time -- as Forgotten Man puts it, a time vampire. I would even go as far as saying that I consider it to be one of the worst things ever invented. The vampire analogy is quite apropo because, in my opinion, TV sucks the life out of people, turning them into dull mediocrity. One of the reasons why I've always been fascinated by the Golden Era is because it seems that there were far more people back then who were interesting, and even multi-talented, than you would encounter today.

Prior to TV, which was throughout most of the Golden Era, and even though there was radio and movies, people still had to provide much of their own entertainment. Back then one probably went to the movies once a week. During the Depression many couldn't even afford that luxury. As a result, people did develop hobbies and interests. Sadly, the advent of several hundred cable channels 24/7 has all but eliminated the need for most people to have any real hobbies or interests anymore.

Oh man, are you speaking truth or what!

Now, when I was growing up, my mother was a piano teacher, and she taught my brother some piano and then enrolled him into more advanced tutelage. I took some basic instructions from my Mother, then I heard Benny Goodman's clarinet, I decided I wanted to play clarinet! So, soon I received a clarinet and I began lessons and such... I had always wanted to form a little jazz band and I couldn't ever find anyone who could play "jazz" styled instruments... most kids my age if they played anything musical was the electric guitar. And Jazz wasn't anything they understood or wanted to associate with.

So many kids many years ago had time to focus on a musical talent, to expand their minds and practice. TV has (in most American homes) really contributed to the decline of talents among most of our youth.

You read into my "time vampire" analogy perfectly! After spending a day watching TV (when I worked part time, there were days lol) I'd feel so drained and worthless... the whole day was spent doing nothing and I felt like garbage! Just as if I had been sucked clean of all the energy I did have once!

Now I feel about TV as I do brand name or designer clothes... why would I want to wear a brand name on my clothes and give them free advertising? Same can be said for TV... why should I let those people push their goods in my own home? Many people put up "No soliciting" signs at their doors, well you've got one of the world’s biggest soliciting tools in your very own living room or bedroom!

 

[TSWebster]

Television here is currently going through a switch over to an all digital signal with analogue based transmissions planned to end by 2013. Recently I was considering whether I really wanted to buy a new digital TV or a set top box to enable my old TV to keep going but in the end I went out and spent my money on a new radio and I have gotten far more enjoyment listening to it whilst I wander about the house rather than just sitting in front of the rot box. I'll always keep my TV but its pretty much resigned to being a DVD only device nowadays.

 

[buddy5909]

I was just joking with my husband the other day that all TV shows are so bad that we should have our daughter (she's 1) only watch old reruns of the "Good Old Show."

 

[Richard Warren]

I find the people I listen to on the radio to be quite intelligent, well informed, and well intentioned. Very little shrill screaming.

My pet peeve is educational programming in which an apparently well-qualified academic its trotted out to say stupid things. Also, the constant use of the present tense to describe the past.

 

[Bustercat]

I haven't used my set for television for months. It only goes on for DVDs.
First thing I stopped watching was the news years ago (get in online without the ads, repetition, and screaming sensationalism).

We stream every single one of our TV shows online—commercial free, when we want to watch it (instead of when it's shown). Shows usually are available to watch the day they air on TV. If it's a show we want to help keep on the air, we might put on our set and mute it, if we remember.

Our Shows:
MadMen
Dexter
Mentalist
Rescue Me
Always Sunny
Family Guy
Sons of Anarchy
Project Runway

I humbly disagree with those who say TV is unwatchable these days. I think in recent years (the writer's strike and reality garbage notwithstanding) the quality of programming has actually been improving. It seems like the revolutionary HBO-style miniseries has been spreading across the other premium channels, and trickling down to other networks (like AMC, FX, etc.) Mad Men being on basic cable is a fantastic sign of wonderful, subtle, daring shows being profitable. Let's not even get into the great creativity that's been mushrooming over on FX.

Even the old greats on HBO (like OZ, Deadwood, and the Wire) seem quaint by comparison to the new crop — unecessesarily profane and almost childishly shocking. It's a great sign, IMO, of culture being on the up an up.

 

[Brian Sheridan]

I am not sick of it. In fact, I believe (in the US) there are many outstanding shows on right now. OF course with a million channels, there will be a lot of dreck. Economics plays more of important part in TV programming decisions than quality in many (maybe most) cases (i.e. Jay Leno's crapfest over good, more expensive dramas).

But besides the programs Tim listed, I could add:

BURN NOTICE (USA)
WHITE COLLAR (USA)
MAD MEN (AMC)
HUMAN TARGET (FOX)
THE OFFICE (NBC)
30 ROCK (NBC)
ACCORDING TO TED (the funniest show on TV -ABC)
MODERN FAMILY (tied for the funniest show on TV - ABC)
FRONTLINE (PBS)
THE DAILY SHOW (COMEDY CENTRAL)
THE NEWS HOUR (PBS)
ENTOURAGE (HBO)
CURB YOUR ENTHUSIASM (HBO)

I could be a snob and say "ohhh, TV is soooooo declasse" but I could also point to schedules when TV was in its "Golden Age" with only 3 networks at most, and find a lot of crap.

Is today's crap crappier than the stuff in the past? I'd agree with that. However, for every "Jersey Shore," there is a "Modern Family" or Seinfeld and The Simpsons re-runs. As for "time vampires", DVR's were invented for a reason. I dictate when I watch a show - or if I don't. Technology is to mastered; we are not to be the slave of technology.

 

[Forgotten Man]

Well, funny thing happened last week, the cable went out and we didn’t have cable for nearly three days… this meant no internet or TV! When I was at work, my girl used to watch a lot of TV but, she resorted to fixing up some of her dresses, organizing some things in her closet and got a lot of stuff done! That night we had a nice quiet dinner, we talked after dinner and shared each other’s passions for the past… we looked at old scrap books and talked about the stuff we really like! Then, she pulls out a DVD of Burns and Allen and we watch some old episodes of classic George and Gracie! It was a very nice thing to take a break from the world and all those idiotic commercials.

Yes, a management of time can help in eliminating the “vampire” to capture your time and blow an entire day, however it is convenient when one doesn’t feel like doing things they should do, I know I’m guilty of the same crime but, I’m not one of the types that needs noise or commotion to feel at home… It’s raining right now and it’s music to my ears!

The shows I do catch from time to time are Pawn Stars on History, Dirty Jobs and Myth Busters on Discovery… ever so often. Now, “The Office” is a quality show, I do enjoy that from time to time but, I don’t look forward to plan an evening around one TV show. Most evenings I enjoy my 78rpm collection or talk on the phone with a good friend for a while… or have someone over and enjoy an old flick.

I’ve grown very tired of regular TV and rarely turn the set on unless I’m eating lunch or not busy with something else.

 

[Brian R.]

24 on FOX, is there anything else on?