CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: Mdot21 on March 03, 2021, 10:55:43 PM
-
SNL or Late night shows?
Does anybody even watch live cable tv anymore? I only watch what I want, when I want on streaming apps like HBO NOW, Netflix, Hulu, Amazon.
Literally the only thing I actually watch on live tv are sports.
-
Any cable news.
SNL is what it has always been. 1 or 2 good sketches, 1 or 2 cringe worthy sketches, and mostly forgettable sketches. SNL has been "not as good as it used to be" for 30 years. And yet when you watch old episodes, they aren't that good.
-
Everybody seems to know the streaming services, led by Netflix, call the shots in the entertainment industry these days. Netflix has more name recognition and a larger library but Disney Plus might’ve shown the way forward as far as how to unveil new content with weekly episodic releases (which sustains subscriptions) and succeeding in a big way with Mandalorian and WandaVision.
As far as cable TV, I’ll channel surf when in hotels on work travel, which totals about 2 months/yr. There’s almost nothing scripted that can’t wait until it’s “bingeable” on streaming. (Breaking Bad is the last scripted show I followed as new episodes dropped.) Cable News is too predictably biased. Sports is seasonal - I don’t watch much outside of football season. Reality TV like Property Brothers or the Alaskan shows can fill a Tuesday evening but are completely forgettable once the credits roll. I’ll pause for a few kid shows if the hotel has Disney XD or Nick Rewind.
-
To answer the original question, ANCIENT ALIENS is the worst show on TV. It’s an embarrassing flagship for History Channel. Its “experts” bastardize the past by co-opting known occurrences and civilizations into truly bizarre conspiracy theories that at first are presented to the viewer merely as options worth considering. Then, in turn, the gaps of the unknown past are freely crammed with such shameless promotion of its alternate histories and pseudo-science that I’ve caught myself worrying about the type of viewer lulled into believing that Ancient Aliens’ highly speculative interpretation passes as a workable form of critical thinking. Half the time I’ll then flip over to Cable News and realize it’s just as speculative.
-
Cable news is terrible. In the age of streaming SNL is actually better, I can watch a few sketches Sunday morning. With Hulu it can be tough to even surf anymore. I'm happy to put on Chopped and surf the web in the evening.
-
Got a 70" Samsung in March. I think it has about 80 hours on it. All CFB or CBB. Nothing more.
I used to like Food Network. Now it seems to be all about competition. And they cut Iron Chef?!?!?
-
Got a 70" Samsung in March. I think it has about 80 hours on it. All CFB or CBB. Nothing more.
I used to like Food Network. Now it seems to be all about competition. And they cut Iron Chef?!?!?
Yeah I liked the cooking shows on Food Network and the DIY/design shows on HGTV. Now it's all reality/competition style shows. No thanks.
-
Seems most of the History Channel's line up is scripted tripe.Is there a bigger bunch of posers than the lot from "The Curse of Oak Island". Not buying that buried treasure/artifacts of historical significance anywhere from Capt.Kidd,Marie Antoinette or the Knights Templar was craftily entomed in a complex money pit with engineered booby trapped shafts going back to the 18th Century.There have been vaults of wood layers of oak and spruce embedded 20-40-60-80 ft deep,with coconut fibers and baubbles/trinkets/jewels found(supposedly) that fills with water when attempts at unearthing are made.These shaft(s) are said to have mystery markings going down 90 ft put there by earlier excavators.Yet almost 300 yrs later with the benefit of the latest technolgy in mining equipment and advances like ground penetrating radar these slappies can't get at it?I got to admit they did pique my interest for a season or so.Even Indiana Jones is calling bullshit 8 yrs later
-
I watch live sports and Triple D
that's it
all on CATV that is now IPTV
pleased I don't have knowledge regarding the worst shows on TV
-
I like the animal shows Dr Pol, the Zoo shows etc
I also watch a lot of DIY even though I never actually do it myself I like to watch and learn how to do things
I also love Battlebots
Dont like many of the silly sitcoms
-
Any cable news.
SNL is what it has always been. 1 or 2 good sketches, 1 or 2 cringe worthy sketches, and mostly forgettable sketches. SNL has been "not as good as it used to be" for 30 years. And yet when you watch old episodes, they aren't that good.
That’s as good a summary of SNL as I’ve ever read.
-
SNL News tended to be period specific so what might have been current and catchy years ago lose their significance
-
That’s as good a summary of SNL as I’ve ever read.
I dont even watch SNL any more
-
Never got into SNL at all. Some of their movies are kind of funny.
-
SNL was great with Belushi, etc.
-
SNL hasn't been too bad this year. It got a lot better once Jim Carrey and Alec Baldwin quit sucking all the oxygen out of the show in the cold open.
-
My current viewing...
- Live sports. Primarily CFB, NCAABB, NFL, and golf. Most of the time unless it's Purdue, it's background though. The puppy really likes napping to golf.
- Top Chef on Bravo -- I really love that show. Yes it's a competition show, but it's really high-level cooking.
- Food Network -- Worst cooks in America is actively watched, as is Beat Bobby Flay. Chopped is often watched but becomes background.
- House Hunters -- Again it's mindless, but we like to laugh at the people on the show. I swear sometimes they get these couples out of the rolodex of divorce attorneys...
- The Morning Show on Apple TV+ -- Wife wanted to try the Apple TV+ service, and I happened to win a big thing at my company with one of the prizes being an iPad Air, which comes with a 12 month free subscription. Good show so far. Haven't seen anything else on the service yet though.
- Game of Thrones -- I've read all the released books. We're only two episodes into the first season though, because my wife isn't all that into the gore, so it's rare that she wants to see it. I think it'll take a LONG time to get through 8 seasons, and I halfway expect my wife to lose the stomach for it pretty soon so I'll only be watching it when she's not around...
Of those, only Worst Cooks and House Hunters probably qualify in the running for "worst shows on TV", because they're basically mindless drivel. They're guilty pleasures based on looking down on people. Beat Bobby Flay and Chopped aren't much higher on the list.
-
SNL hasn't been too bad this year. It got a lot better once Jim Carrey and Alec Baldwin quit sucking all the oxygen out of the show in the cold open.
That has been the worst part recently. A lot of folks cut their teeth with their impressions. Hell, when I think of HW, I think in my head it's Dana Carvey playing him, more than his actual persona. Same with Ross Perot. I don't need a bunch of random known actors coming in. Trump is such an easy impression, that it made zero sense. Baldwin's was not any different than anyone else's. If you were going to do Biden, at least bring back Jason Sudekis, who played him as VP, and did a much better Biden than Carrey ever did.
And yes, the political stuff was such low hanging fruit (like during the Lewinski sutff), that it was like they didn't try. It wasn't satirical, and it wasn't usually funny. I think the current cast does much better staying away from politics
-
SNL was great with Belushi, etc.
Really? Have you gone back and watched it recently? IMO its unwatchable. That's generally the nature of comedy, it rarely ages well, and SNL is no exception
-
yup, 75-79 I was in Jr high and high school
even my sense of humor has changed a bit since then
but, ............. it was funny as hell to 16 year old me at the time
-
Some of the Food Network competition shows are kind of hacky, but I find Chopped to be almost perfect, which is probably why there are like 57 seasons of it on Hulu. "Here are some ingredients - cook something" is both fun to watch, and informative.
-
Yeah, although even Chopped can get a bit hacky... They way they use the camera cuts to make you think every single round comes down to plating at the VERY last second. The way they only have one fryer and one ice cream machine to play up conflict about who gets things in first, etc...
At least it's talented chefs usually doing something pretty interesting with food. And the format isn't as hacky as Guy's Grocery Games or some of the others.
BTW for those of you complaining about how much Food Network content is these competition shows, the weekend mornings are MUCH more actual informative cooking shows. My wife idolizes "The Queen" (Ina Garten), and she mostly makes pretty simple but delicious food. There's Trisha Yearwood who makes some pretty simple things that are easily replicated at home. I can't stand The Pioneer Woman on camera, but her recipes are usually amazing. And then there's Giada's boobs. I think she cooks, too, on her show. Those are available streaming too, so it's not like you have to devote Sunday morning to watching it live.
-
Any and every "finding Bigfoot" show is a waste of life. If you're going to watch those, just off yourself and donate your organs.
-
It's been a while since I was into any Food Network cooking show. I like Good Eats a lot, but I haven't seen any lately that tickled my fancy. The whole "Today I'm making spiced nut ravioli for two" and then you get a recipe doesn't do it for me. OTOH I don't really sit down and watch television so I don't even know what shows are on, so perhaps I'm missing out on some things I'd like. I would absolutely love a show that goes to various parts of the world and samples the local cuisine, but then tells you how to make it. Rick Bayless had a show a bit like that, if I remember right.
-
Worst shows on TV?
The list is too long to get into as I can't think of many that I do like.
I do kink of like the show Seal Team however inaccurate it is. My wife and I will watch Young Sheldon as we were big fans of the first few seasons of The Big Bang Theory. But outside of those, live sports (CFB, ? Perhaps CBB, some NFL, Golf mostly the majors), there is not much on that box that I care for.
-
Really? Have you gone back and watched it recently? IMO its unwatchable. That's generally the nature of comedy, it rarely ages well, and SNL is no exception
What Fearless said. I haven't seen it since I was a kind. It was really funny.
-
It's been a while since I was into any Food Network cooking show. I like Good Eats a lot, but I haven't seen any lately that tickled my fancy. The whole "Today I'm making spiced nut ravioli for two" and then you get a recipe doesn't do it for me. OTOH I don't really sit down and watch television so I don't even know what shows are on, so perhaps I'm missing out on some things I'd like. I would absolutely love a show that goes to various parts of the world and samples the local cuisine, but then tells you how to make it. Rick Bayless had a show a bit like that, if I remember right.
Bayless was great, but not on FN. PBS mostly.
Queen Ina Garten rocks. Alton Brown is the King. Giada does cook, but it's hard to tell.
-
I miss Anthony Bourdain. :'(
-
Bayless was great, but not on FN. PBS mostly.
Queen Ina Garten rocks. Alton Brown is the King. Giada does cook, but it's hard to tell.
sometimes I check this show just to see what she's wearing. Not what she's cooking.
-
Some of the Food Network competition shows are kind of hacky, but I find Chopped to be almost perfect, which is probably why there are like 57 seasons of it on Hulu. "Here are some ingredients - cook something" is both fun to watch, and informative.
That's the only one I watch
-
Brooklyn 99 is the only network tv I watch anymore
-
Brooklyn 99 is the only network tv I watch anymore
Excellent show. I need to sit down and watch it, but there’s too much TV.
I like how this thread says worst, but we all kinda turn to stuff we like.
-
I miss Anthony Bourdain. :'(
He had some pretty funny narrations,he'd go on a bender quaffing vodka in Moscow with his Russian buddy and "his impeccable commie credentials" as they just got shit-faced,should have invited Keith Richards along
-
Excellent show. I need to sit down and watch it, but there’s too much TV.
I like how this thread says worst, but we all kinda turn to stuff we like.
PMA, my friend.
Positive Mental Attitude.
-
A show can be bad but entertaining enough to watch. Kid shows have the advantage getting away with being trite and predictable due to the understood suspension of intelligence. Pawn Stars, for example, is an example of a bad but entertaining (and albeit douchey) show.
Entertainingly bad is redeemable. Insultingly bad is not. Does anybody remember a show called Amish Mafia from early last decade? To quote Wikipedia: “The supposed secret organization within the Amish is known to be an entirely fictional creation for entertainment purposes only. There have also been accusations of the series being bigoted toward and defaming the Amish people.” Throw in Dog the Bounty Hunter as also insultingly bad TV.
Conversely, a show that worked hard to respect the intelligence of its audience was Myth Busters, especially its earlier seasons.
-
I miss Anthony Bourdain. :'(
Me too. His shows were honestly one of the only things I ever watched on live tv as well as sports. RIP.
-
Zimmern is pretty good.
I also like the Europe travel show on PBS. Rick Steves, is it?
-
One of those travel shows had Samantha Brown. I thought she was smokin'.
-
Zimmern is pretty good.
I also like the Europe travel show on PBS. Rick Steves, is it?
Yes, Rick Steves is a good one, have watched many of those episodes before traveling to the featured destination in Europe.
One of those travel shows had Samantha Brown. I thought she was smokin'.
Yup she's cute.
-
I disagree on Bourdain though. He often came across as a pretentious asshole.
-
I found Rick Steves' travel guides to be great in Europe
-
Zimmern is pretty good.
I can never unsee him munching on fermented walrus colon.But even he found the stinky green tofu in Taiwan revolting,I have a pretty strong stomach but I almost hurled watching that
-
I disagree on Bourdain though. He often came across as a pretentious asshole.
Did anyone ever claim he wasn't a pretentious asshole? :57:
I still miss him.
-
Really? Have you gone back and watched it recently? IMO its unwatchable. That's generally the nature of comedy, it rarely ages well, and SNL is no exception
This is an excellent and underrated point that deserves further exploration. It's worth saying: Comedy ages faster than other types of content. I watched a ton of animation as a kid and most of it (Darkwing Duck, Rugrats, Tailspin, Bobby's World) fits well enough into most of today's animation lineups (DuckTales Reboot, Gravity Falls, Loud House). However, almost nothing from sketch comedy (SNL, Mad TV) or stand-up holds up well (or at all) unless it becomes preserved in our collective imagination as a cultural touchstone (Cowbell, Farley's "Down By the River," Carlin's seven dirty words, Chapelle's racier stuff).
I'll go so far as to say Comedy ages poorest of all entertainment mediums. I agree with you - barely anything from 80s SNL is entertaining, much less worthy as Cable TV filler. I would otherwise say Comedy serves better as a time capsule, but even then it fails because 80s SNL might as well be from the 60s. 2002 SNL might as well be from 1988, etc - that's how poorly comedy ages.
I think the lasting value of SNL is:
1) Their ability to invite on audience, on lighter terms than tuning into Maddow or Tucker, to be a part of the times. SNL's most memorable parodies of politicians (Carvey's Ross Perot, Fey's Sarah Palin, Baldwin's Trump) don't succeed because they are particularly funny - they succeed because of how well they play off the current headlines. SNL is more adept at living up to the moment, not so much creating a lasting moment.
2) Their very well managed growth of talent. A few years of proving yourself under watch of SNL is often the springboard for later earning a late night show, hosting an awards show, or landing comedy movie roles on your way to becoming a household name. SNL is able to compound this success by even recently inviting former cast members like Kristen Wiig, John Mulaney, and Adam Sandler to host shows. It works because it turns into a nostalgic experience for the audience, and nostalgia, as cheap and shallow as it is, works on an escape-seeking audience way more often than not.
-
This is an excellent and underrated point that deserves further exploration. It's worth saying: Comedy ages faster than other types of content. I watched a ton of animation as a kid and most of it (Darkwing Duck, Rugrats, Tailspin, Bobby's World) fits well enough into most of today's animation lineups (DuckTales Reboot, Gravity Falls, Loud House). However, almost nothing from sketch comedy (SNL, Mad TV) or stand-up holds up well (or at all) unless it becomes preserved in our collective imagination as a cultural touchstone (Cowbell, Farley's "Down By the River," Carlin's seven dirty words, Chapelle's racier stuff).
I'll go so far as to say Comedy ages poorest of all entertainment mediums. I agree with you - barely anything from 80s SNL is entertaining, much less worthy as Cable TV filler. I would otherwise say Comedy serves better as a time capsule, but even then it fails because 80s SNL might as well be from the 60s. 2002 SNL might as well be from 1988, etc - that's how poorly comedy ages.
I think the lasting value of SNL is:
1) Their ability to invite on audience, on lighter terms than tuning into Maddow or Tucker, to be a part of the times. SNL's most memorable parodies of politicians (Carvey's Ross Perot, Fey's Sarah Palin, Baldwin's Trump) don't succeed because they are particularly funny - they succeed because of how well they play off the current headlines. SNL is more adept at living up to the moment, not so much creating a lasting moment.
2) Their very well managed growth of talent. A few years of proving yourself under watch of SNL is often the springboard for later earning a late night show, hosting an awards show, or landing comedy movie roles on your way to becoming a household name. SNL is able to compound this success by even recently inviting former cast members like Kristen Wiig, John Mulaney, and Adam Sandler to host shows. It works because it turns into a nostalgic experience for the audience, and nostalgia, as cheap and shallow as it is, works on an escape-seeking audience way more often than not.
did you see SNL's skit of Biden?
nope cause there wasnt one
talk about passing up low hanging fruit
-
there's plenty of time for them to get Sleepy Joe
-
I can never unsee him munching on fermented walrus colon.But even he found the stinky green tofu in Taiwan revolting,I have a pretty strong stomach but I almost hurled watching that
For me, he was in some SE Asia country and tried to eat a fertilized egg. Where the chicken is mostly grown in it. Even he was like NOPE after a bite or 2.
-
I don't disagree w the premise, about comedy having a short shelf life, but there are some timeless skits out there.
I also think we are in, as Ann Althouse would say, the Era of That's Not Funny. That is certainly not helping cultivate comedy.
-
there's plenty of time for them to get Sleepy Joe
dont hold your breath
it will never happen
-
Did anyone ever claim he wasn't a pretentious asshole? :57:
I still miss him.
Oh I get that attitude appeals to some, or at least is tolerable.
For me, it's not. It's an immediate channel-changer when I watch a personality like that.
JMO obviously.
-
I can never unsee him munching on fermented walrus colon.But even he found the stinky green tofu in Taiwan revolting,I have a pretty strong stomach but I almost hurled watching that
I want to try stinky tofu. I've been to Taiwan four times. The first I went to the night market but didn't try it. I did try the oyster omelet, which I couldn't take a second bite of...
None of my other visits put me in the same realm as stinky tofu. But I think I'd try it now.
-
Oh I get that attitude appeals to some, or at least is tolerable.
For me, it's not. It's an immediate channel-changer when I watch a personality like that.
JMO obviously.
I tolerate that attitude for what else he did. He had an ability to let everyone tell their story. That was the beauty of the show.
-
I want to try stinky tofu. I've been to Taiwan four times. The first I went to the night market but didn't try it. I did try the oyster omelet, which I couldn't take a second bite of...
None of my other visits put me in the same realm as stinky tofu. But I think I'd try it now.
the funny thing was this "restaurant" if you want to call it that looked more like a KGB interrogation cell complete with a light bulb dangling from a 3ft cord and the ceiling leaking.And according to the locals this was like Spago's or the Four Seasons.And they went up into the attic to dig out this TOFU concoction from aquariums with what appeared to be algae/slime on the sides.Hmmm-hmmm,come and get it
-
I saw Gordon Ramsay tried to do a similar style of show to Bourdain, and it was a failure. Bourdain had a pretty amazing ability to both be the star of the show and also not suck up all the oxygen in the room and let the destination and food and people there also breathe.
-
I had read that Ramsey's show over in the UK is much more dialed back and he's being himself while cooking.Over here they have him going full rambo trying to garner clicks ala Jerry Springer or sumsuch
-
I had read that Ramsey's show over in the UK is much more dialed back and he's being himself while cooking.Over here they have him going full rambo trying to garner clicks ala Jerry Springer or sumsuch
It's night and day. His UK restaurant show is really good, and informative, where the US one is formulaic and dopey.
-
I used to watch Emeril
BAM!!
-
Hell before that Paul Prudhomme,Justin Wilson,The Galloping Gourmet.Never watched Julia but I appreciate her now
-
I know that ELA likes all things TLC. O0
-
I know that ELA likes all things TLC. O0
its a good thing
-
I used to watch Emeril
BAM!!
Some of the stuff he does on his shows- especially when it comes to Italian- just blasphemous. Pre-cooking pasta? Panceta in linguine with clams? Wtf.
I ate at his restaurant in Orlando at Universal and it was terrible. My guess, just a licensing deal. Absolutely gross. I don't even think it's even around anymore.
I ate at his original flagship restaurant in New Orleans many years back- now that was some awesome food and a great experience.
-
I've been to Delmonico and NOLA in New Orleans many times each, they're absolutely fantastic.
-
So what’s the WORST TV we’ve really listed so far?
Ancient Aliens
Curse of Oak Island
“Hacky” cooking shows
Travel Shows hosted by douches
Dog the Bounty Hunter
Outdated Sketch Comedy
I’ll throw another show onto the pile:
FAMILY GUY
I was exposed to Family Guy during its Adult Swim revival on Cartoon Network while I was staying up too late in high school. I stuck with it until giving up around Season 5 or 6 (2006/7?). Too vulgar for kids yet too much of an insult for an adult audience, who was Family Guy’s intended audience? Man-children, I concluded, before steering my younger siblings to better, more age-appropriate animations like Kim Possible and Clone Wars.
Since then Family Guy is one of those shows that’s always on TV, amassing a staying power by virtue of its sheer volume of syndication across Cable, similar to that of The Simpsons and South Park (who despite their equivalent vulgarity are adept social satirists, unlike FG). Going into Season 18 or 19, Family Guy makes such a too-easy target for Cancel Culture that I half-wonder if that’s the reason why Cancel Culture hasn’t bothered to challenge FG. Characters wear “black face,” continually mock numerous disabilities, and maybe most unwatchable of all, its depictions of Asians are so demeaning I’m surprised they’re allowed to air. None of it is funny; the animation sucks anyway.
Anything else? Name names.
-
The Simpsons has been unwatchable for like 20 years
-
Chrisley Knows Best is by far the worst TV show Ive seen ever
-
I like The Misery Index but its not for everybody
-
The Simpsons has been unwatchable for like 20 years
And for about the first four. It was as good as any show that has ever been written for maybe five or six seasons, which is about all any good comedy has ever had in it. And yet has somehow been on for 30 years
-
Bayless was great, but not on FN. PBS mostly.
Queen Ina Garten rocks. Alton Brown is the King. Giada does cook, but it's hard to tell.
Truth,him and J.Kenji Lopez-Alt from the Food Lab at Serious Eats - though he doesn't have a TV Show(as far as I know).You could throw ATK in there also,between the 3 of them they've made my culinary offerings palatable
-
To the original topic, I really couldn't say what the worst shows on TV are, because if I don't like something I won't watch more than 5 minutes of it.
I will say that I despise The Bachelor and all its derivatives. My i s c & a aggie wife likes them for some reason, even though she knows it's all fake and contrived. I guess it's sort of like my friends that watched wrestling back in the day.
But I can't do it, I hate that stuff.
So I guess I'll say that the worst show on TV, is The Bachelor.
-
Dancing with the stars, American Idol, the Kardashians, Biggest Loser, Oprah, whatever that political daytime show with Whoopi Goldberg is called, Survivor and the Bachelorette.
Worst ones I could think of off the top of my head.
-
Is Oprah still a show?
-
Pretty sure she has her own network at this point.
-
Roku added what seems like a thousand channels you can watch for free. I ran across some sort of digital football simulation where you could watch sort of Madden football game, but with no one actually playing. They had their own announcers and everything. That was some bad television.
-
Sounds like some of that old public access stuff.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uiTpoE7sNk
-
Dancing with the stars, American Idol, the Kardashians, Biggest Loser, Oprah, whatever that political daytime show with Whoopi Goldberg is called, Survivor and the Bachelorette.
Worst ones I could think of off the top of my head.
Guess I'll take your word for it save Oprah I've never seen any of them
-
FAMILY GUY
I was exposed to Family Guy during its Adult Swim revival on Cartoon Network while I was staying up too late in high school. I stuck with it until giving up around Season 5 or 6 (2006/7?). Too vulgar for kids yet too much of an insult for an adult audience, who was Family Guy’s intended audience? Man-children, I concluded, before steering my younger siblings to better, more age-appropriate animations like Kim Possible and Clone Wars.
Since then Family Guy is one of those shows that’s always on TV, amassing a staying power by virtue of its sheer volume of syndication across Cable, similar to that of The Simpsons and South Park (who despite their equivalent vulgarity are adept social satirists, unlike FG). Going into Season 18 or 19, Family Guy makes such a too-easy target for Cancel Culture that I half-wonder if that’s the reason why Cancel Culture hasn’t bothered to challenge FG. Characters wear “black face,” continually mock numerous disabilities, and maybe most unwatchable of all, its depictions of Asians are so demeaning I’m surprised they’re allowed to air. None of it is funny; the animation sucks anyway.
It's funny, I've got a few years on you, and I have such a different memory of that show (to be clear, still schlock).
In the early 2000s, Family Guy was this kind of white whale. It had been canceled after 2-3 seasons. It was a thing you had to find on DVD or pirate. The audience was dipshit teenage boys who liked something transgressive without thinking much beyond that. There are a lot of those, and adults who act like those.
It was simpsons-ish, but more dark and crass, back when TV was a much smaller world. The revival in 2005 was a big thing. We only had so much TV. I think I binged Scrubs in HS.
It wasn't good, just crass and rude and often funny in crass and rude ways. It was different, and I use the word transgressive again. Perhaps if it had just stayed a cult thing, we'd see it differently.
But it turned out to be a money machine. Looking around our culture, a LOT of folks like crass and transgressive for the sake of crass and transgressive. And it's super easy to make, actor never age out.
-
Basically, what I'm reading here, is that having actors matters and maybe networks should pay for shows with actual actors in them. All of these competitions and reality TV is crap.
Except for one thing: like McDonalds, the crap is the most widely-consumed product. And like McDonalds, it's cheap to create. And that combination of widely consumed and cheap to create means it ain't broke, so it won't be fixed.
-
Basically, what I'm reading here, is that having actors matters and maybe networks should pay for shows with actual actors in them. All of these competitions and reality TV is crap.
Except for one thing: like McDonalds, the crap is the most widely-consumed product. And like McDonalds, it's cheap to create. And that combination of widely consumed and cheap to create means it ain't broke, so it won't be fixed.
TV is for the most part, a business. Right now, it's a hyper competitive business, with some super weird models. They'll make what people watch, and lots and lots of people watch competitions, reality TV and middling Chuck Lorre shows.
It won't be fixed because they're making what's working. They're also making tons and tons of pretty good stuff, even some great stuff. The thing is, you can only watch so much. And we're fortunate, the internet has many people who can direct you to good stuff. So if you don't like the stuff, you never have to watch.
-
One person I'd pinpoint as contributing a lot to bad TV is Mary Ellis-Bunim. I believe she's the person behind the Real World from MTV back in the day. In particular, her style that has spread to many of the crap shows on TV now is the splicing stock footage between segments or scenes. It's literally just garbage filler that adds up to minutes of a show, seconds at a time.
I hate when bad ideas spread like wildfire.
-
I think there are some really good shows on TV, just mostly not on broadcast networks. There are some excellent Netflix, Amazon, and Disney+ originals. Mandalorian and WandaVision have been fantastic, for those that like the Star Wars and Disney MCU.
-
I think there are some really good shows on TV, just mostly not on broadcast networks. There are some excellent Netflix, Amazon, and Disney+ originals. Mandalorian and WandaVision have been fantastic, for those that like the Star Wars and Disney MCU.
I really liked Mandalorian but Wanda Vision is just too far out there for my little brain to understand
-
Tried to watch the redo of Walker but its just not like the original at all and so far not to my liking
-
I really liked Mandalorian but Wanda Vision is just too far out there for my little brain to understand
If you watch all 9 episodes, it makes sense. It's a direct lead-in to upcoming movies Doctor Strange 2, and Captain Marvel 2, and it also leans pretty heavily on the comic book canon, so if you're not familiar with that, then it's also more difficult to follow.
-
If you watch all 9 episodes, it makes sense. It's a direct lead-in to upcoming movies Doctor Strange 2, and Captain Marvel 2, and it also leans pretty heavily on the comic book canon, so if you're not familiar with that, then it's also more difficult to follow.
nope I gave up comic books sometime in the 4th grade so I guess Im screwed
-
nope I gave up comic books sometime in the 4th grade so I guess Im screwed
Heh yeah Wandavision is good but if you aren't steeped in MCU lore you are probably like WTF
-
Heh yeah Wandavision is good but if you aren't steeped in MCU lore you are probably like WTF
yep WTF best describes me
-
I watched the 1st episode of Debris
it was interesting might be worth a look if you have not seen it
kind of a mixture of X Files and X Men
-
Heh yeah Wandavision is good but if you aren't steeped in MCU lore you are probably like WTF
An understanding of the comics makes it all more immediately clear, but I think they did a decent job of laying out Agatha Harkness' background without making you read a bunch of comics from the 70s. And it's not going to run parallel to the comics anyway, so it's really just some filler to flesh it out if you want to.
-
yep WTF best describes me
we knew this....;)
-
we knew this....;)
"a man has to know his limitations" wise words by Inspector Callahan
-
An understanding of the comics makes it all more immediately clear, but I think they did a decent job of laying out Agatha Harkness' background without making you read a bunch of comics from the 70s. And it's not going to run parallel to the comics anyway, so it's really just some filler to flesh it out if you want to.
I was thinking more if you haven't seen the Avenger movies I'm not sure the show would make a ton of sense.
-
I was thinking more if you haven't seen the Avenger movies I'm not sure the show would make a ton of sense.
Oh yeah, for sure. No different than going to see Avengers 3 without seeing.... well... at least a dozen movies leading up to it.
-
has anyone noticed how some shows are very pro mask and wear them throughout the show and some shows completely ignore the fact that we are in the middle of a pandemic
-
I've noticed it on the sidelines of football and basketball games
some wearing masks, some not
most coaches have the mask on until they feel the need to yell loudly. Then they pull it down
-
What's the recommended viewing order for the marvel movies?
-
What's the recommended viewing order for the marvel movies?
this might help you
https://www.amctheatres.com/amc-scene/the-best-way-to-rewatch-the-mcu
-
heres another viewing recommendation
https://www.techradar.com/how-to/how-to-watch-the-marvel-movies-in-order
-
Just like Star Wars, I always recommend watching the movies in release order. Even if it's out of place chronologically, most of these movies presuppose knowledge of the universe that was introduced in a previously released film. It's an artifact of the world-building, rather than the plotlines.
-
It's funny, I've got a few years on you, and I have such a different memory of that show (to be clear, still schlock).
In the early 2000s, Family Guy was this kind of white whale. It had been canceled after 2-3 seasons. It was a thing you had to find on DVD or pirate. The audience was dipshit teenage boys who liked something transgressive without thinking much beyond that. There are a lot of those, and adults who act like those.
It was simpsons-ish, but more dark and crass, back when TV was a much smaller world. The revival in 2005 was a big thing. We only had so much TV. I think I binged Scrubs in HS.
It wasn't good, just crass and rude and often funny in crass and rude ways. It was different, and I use the word transgressive again. Perhaps if it had just stayed a cult thing, we'd see it differently.
But it turned out to be a money machine. Looking around our culture, a LOT of folks like crass and transgressive for the sake of crass and transgressive. And it's super easy to make, actor never age out.
Do you remember THE CRITIC and DUCKMAN animations from the mid-90s? Only airing for 2-3 seasons? These shows are still sort of white whale in the sense they're maybe on DVD or truncated on YouTube like I found them after dismissively growing out of shows like Family Guy and South Park somewhere between the time I could buy cigarettes and the time I could buy booze.
Their short life and somewhat obscure broadcastings established both as a cult thing and we do, in turn, see them differently; both are treated like scarce commodities deserving more respect. Retrospective criticisms of both are very favorable, often labeled as ahead of their time, and I agree, because when I first came across both, I was struck: So, this is where Family Guy learned to execute its more cheaply done pop-culture references and this is where South Park learned how to stage its satire.
Though critically favorable, The Critic and Duckman commercially failed where Family Guy succeeded in not dumbing itself down to what a twelve year old might find "edgy." They walked so Family Guy could (stupidly) run, so to speak.
-
I remember. I liked the Critic despite not really finding Lovitz worth a damn in anything else. Duckman was definitely underground. I dont remember much of it. He was some private eye type.
-
Do you remember THE CRITIC and DUCKMAN animations from the mid-90s? Only airing for 2-3 seasons? These shows are still sort of white whale in the sense they're maybe on DVD or truncated on YouTube like I found them after dismissively growing out of shows like Family Guy and South Park somewhere between the time I could buy cigarettes and the time I could buy booze.
Their short life and somewhat obscure broadcastings established both as a cult thing and we do, in turn, see them differently; both are treated like scarce commodities deserving more respect. Retrospective criticisms of both are very favorable, often labeled as ahead of their time, and I agree, because when I first came across both, I was struck: So, this is where Family Guy learned to execute its more cheaply done pop-culture references and this is where South Park learned how to stage its satire.
Though critically favorable, The Critic and Duckman commercially failed where Family Guy succeeded in not dumbing itself down to what a twelve year old might find "edgy." They walked so Family Guy could (stupidly) run, so to speak.
I think I watched the critic streaming well before it was called that? No idea what Duckman was.
-
I remember. I liked the Critic despite not really finding Lovitz worth a damn in anything else.
I thought he was good as the bull shitter in the SNL skits and did a good job in "A League of Their Own"
-
I recall The Critic when it originally aired... Loved that show. I don't think I ever found Duckman.
-
I liked the Critic pretty well too, despite-- like MarqHusker-- not really liking much of what Lovitz did, even in his SNL days.
-
A dose of Duckman, voiced by Jason Alexander:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knIroVvPZU4
-
Oh yeah now I remember that show. Not sure I ever watched it, but I at least saw previews.
-
One person I'd pinpoint as contributing a lot to bad TV is Mary Ellis-Bunim. I believe she's the person behind the Real World from MTV back in the day. In particular, her style that has spread to many of the crap shows on TV now is the splicing stock footage between segments or scenes. It's literally just garbage filler that adds up to minutes of a show, seconds at a time.
I hate when bad ideas spread like wildfire.
By the end of the 90s, her formatting tricks for piling on the filler were the norm for the explosion of reality TV that plagued the 2000s and beyond. To add to your point, what worked in tandem to create the sea of cheap, mindlessly digestible reality shows was the TV gods realizing they could conjure up enough of an audience by featuring otherwise faded celebrities into the fold. The Osbournes (which was actually good), Hogan Knows Best, Wahlburgers, Girls Next Door, Real Housewives, Kardashians, etc. One show that stands out as encapsulating the worst of these is - does anybody remember ROCK OF LOVE with Bret Michaels (2007-09)?
Style-over-substance "Rocker Girls" competed weekly via elimination to be Bret's next groupie, fighting drunk with each other and luxuriating in a ton of inappropriate attention and things Bret says to them that would never survive this Me Too era. The 80s Rock culture is played up so much and taken so seriously - tramp stamps, fake chests, black eyeliner, head bands, bad hair, guitars suspended from ceilings - that the total douche factor generates an atmosphere of an ongoing, un-self-conscious parody of itself, unto itself.
I'll admit I watched, but my greater point is that the 90s was the last decade in which TV shows all worked hard to create realities unto themselves, unconcerned with playing off or referencing the rest of TV/Movies. The 2000s is when TV realized it could get away with living off the past, passing off mere celebrity as bankable substance, fueling storylines or conflict based on obsessive references to Pop Culture, and leveraging nostalgia in place of risking creativity.
(https://i.imgur.com/3trwZTP.png)
-
I'm not real impressed with traditional sitcoms, but they're Oscar-worthy compared to the pseudo-reality TV/cut-scene, stock-footage crapola.
-
Watching In Harms Way
an old John Wayne movie
Im amazed at how many stars are in it
John Wayne
Kirk Douglas
Patricia Neal
Paula Prentiss
Dana Andrews
Stanley Holloway
Burgess Meredith
Carroll O'Connor
Slim Pickens
James Mitchum
George Kennedy
Larry Hagman
Henry Fonda
Hugh O'Brian
Produced and directed by Otto Preminger
If you like John Wayne this is a gooden
-
They have DVD sets of all those old movies in collections by actor - a good gift for elder statesmen.
Here, dad, here's 7 John Wayne movies you can fall asleep to in between 10-hour Fox News marathons. I love you.
-
They have DVD sets of all those old movies in collections by actor - a good gift for elder statesmen.
Here, dad, here's 7 John Wayne movies you can fall asleep to in between 10-hour Fox News marathons. I love you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tL-0Cc4beqw
-
There's literally nothing wrong with my post. It's not even political, just factual for my dad.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awhyiBv-oQc
-
sure as hell not clicking on that
-
sure as hell not clicking on that
you ol softy
-
sure as hell not clicking on that
Why?did you kill a frog today when your Titleist landed in the water hazard,prolly cost you a stroke also
-
golf was good
free golf at the best course within 80 miles - Palmer design - Dakota Dunes
Free Budweiser and sammich on the course, free johnny walker black after the round
I supplied the cigars
broke 90 on a tough course in less than great conditions - 53 degrees, cloudy, and windy. Course just opened and winter conditions
I did splash a few Titleists!!!
frogs and snakes still hibernating and safe
-
golf was good
free golf at the best course within 80 miles - Palmer design - Dakota Dunes
Free Budweiser and sammich on the course, free johnny walker black after the round
I supplied the cigars
broke 90 on a tough course in less than great conditions - 53 degrees, cloudy, and windy. Course just opened and winter conditions
I did splash a few Titleists!!!
frogs and snakes still hibernating and safe
I once bought a 3 ball box of titlist with the soft covers balata
they cost $1 dollar each which was a lot back then
I took 3 swings cut all three balls and never bought them again
-
I stole range balls
-
I once bought a 3 ball box of titlist with the soft covers balata
they cost $1 dollar each which was a lot back then
I took 3 swings cut all three balls and never bought them again
hit em thin
my buddy says, you can play this game fat, but you can't play it skinny
-
I stole range balls
great story, my golf partner, Jack, when he started golfing........ asked for a bag of range balls. Then proceeded to the first tee. The club pro pointed him to the range.
Jack said, don't worry I'll need all these balls on the course.
-
Nubbz was like
(https://i.imgur.com/MSHCvWe.gif?noredirect)
-
Watched Hoarders for the first time the other night; a two hour special and came away with several thoughts:
-For much of human history and much of today’s world lacking the material standards to meet domestic needs, it’s so foreign to make entertainment of too much materialism – having too much to the point of individual neurosis.
-Hoarders is a primary example of how Reality TV can make voyeuristic amusement of personal hardships or medical disorders which in turn is parlayed into shameless marketing opportunism; Hoarders is sponsored almost entirely by home cleaning products.
-Since most Hoarders subjects are Boomers, it’s worth predicting whether Compulsive Hoarding Disorder will mostly be contained to their generation. Rising costs of living and steepening debts faced by younger generations doesn’t lend itself to the lifestyles of material excess veering on hoarding.
-
Not a show but I flipped on Breach last night. It is basically a terrible B movie with terrible effects, terrible acting, a terrible script, but also it stars Bruce Willis and Thomas Jane. Very strange.
-
Not a show but I flipped on Breach last night. It is basically a terrible B movie with terrible effects, terrible acting, a terrible script, but also it stars Bruce Willis and Thomas Jane. Very strange.
Next time you walk past a Redbox, take a look at some of the movies on their board. You'd be shocked how many big names are in random straight to video movies now. I don't even mean guys who were names in the 90s, but past their prime.
-
Watching the Braves is pretty bad ....
-
Watching the Twinkies are no better
-
Batwoman is really bad
-
Are you two watching Twinkies and Batwoman? I can't find Dark Shadows to save my backside
-
Are you two watching Twinkies and Batwoman? I can't find Dark Shadows to save my backside
I have always liked Marvel and DC shows and movies but Batwoman is really bad
-
To me this is a trick question, because I haven't watched a stitch of TV since CBB ended.
TV shows suck, in general. I suppose if I were holed up in Illinois, I'd watch some HGTV and Food stuff. But I'm not.
-
I occasionally watch Law and Order reruns. I am often amazed how a theme from a 20 year old show is relevant today.
The writing was often excellent.
I could not name a single current network TV series.
-
I occasionally watch Law and Order reruns. I am often amazed how a theme from a 20 year old show is relevant today.
The writing was often excellent.
I could not name a single current network TV series.
I can get totally lost in a run of those shows. They’re constructed in such a way that I end up rooting for people doing despicable things, which I suppose is good narrative to a degree.
And the beauty is, the ones ripped from the headlines are still highly interesting decades later.
-
Criminal law is timeless and forever relatable even if one has no actual personal criminal past. One can learn a lot sitting in a gallery during intake and bail hearings alone.
-
I'm not sure I've ever watched an entire episode of Law and Order. I would say, Better Call Saul was perhaps the most realistic depiction of actual criminal law (taking out the cartel and all that). There is a scene where Jimmy is hassling the prosecutor in the bathroom, arguing for a particular plea deal on some misdemeanor theft offense. He keeps at it and gets extremely frustrated that the prosecutor keeps saying no. Then the prosecutor realizes he was confused about who the person was, and agrees to the deal. Criminal justice, in a nutshell.
Also a shout out to A Few Good Men. While it gets criticized for being unrealistic, those criticisms miss the point that only experience will give you. Getting an absolute sweetheart deal on a murder charge, dealing with the frustration of a client who refuses to take it, throwing a hail mary in the resulting trial - that hits home.
-
I'm not sure I've ever watched an entire episode of Law and Order. I would say, Better Call Saul was perhaps the most realistic depiction of actual criminal law (taking out the cartel and all that). There is a scene where Jimmy is hassling the prosecutor in the bathroom, arguing for a particular plea deal on some misdemeanor theft offense. He keeps at it and gets extremely frustrated that the prosecutor keeps saying no. Then the prosecutor realizes he was confused about who the person was, and agrees to the deal. Criminal justice, in a nutshell.
Also a shout out to A Few Good Men. While it gets criticized for being unrealistic, those criticisms miss the point that only experience will give you. Getting an absolute sweetheart deal on a murder charge, dealing with the frustration of a client who refuses to take it, throwing a hail mary in the resulting trial - that hits home.
Then you would like My Cousin Vinny
-
I have always liked Marvel and DC shows and movies but Batwoman is really bad
With Batwoman you gotta go 60s or bust.
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51oHMda2IPL._AC_.jpg)
-
To me this is a trick question, because I haven't watched a stitch of TV since CBB ended.
TV shows suck, in general. I suppose if I were holed up in Illinois, I'd watch some HGTV and Food stuff. But I'm not.
HGTV and Food Network switched from being informative and interesting, to being mostly reality/competition shows, a long time ago. For me, these days, they're just unwatchable.
-
Yep, no mas on the Food Network. Cooking channel still had some decent stuff, but I found myself digging for old Julia and Pepin stuff, and some of the stuff on PBS Create.
-
Yeah, Food Network is very rarely any more about teaching you anything cooking-related. I still tend to watch Chopped and Beat Bobby Flay, which are usually on as background noise, and then watch Worst Cooks In America, because that's as compelling as a train wreck. It's horrific, but you just can't look away.
As far as cooking instruction, Michael Symon has a decent show on Food Network right now, and the wife likes Trisha and the queen [Ina Garten]. But I don't really think of any of those as "instruction" any more, it's more that they're giving recipe ideas. We see something they've made and if it looks like something we'd want to do, look up the recipe.
I still say the best competition cooking show is Top Chef, and it's not close.
For cooking "instruction", you're better off on YouTube than any TV channel...
-
the only thing I watch on the food network is diners. Yup, it's a reality show, but for some reason I like it.
well, to confess, I will sometimes watch Giada De Laurentiis if she's dressed properly for viewing
-
I used to watch Giada a lot. I have no idea whether or not she cooked.
(I'm just kidding, I actually have enjoyed making a lot of her recipes, I find them quite accessible)
And DIY Network became the new HGTV about the same time Cooking Channel became the new Food Network, and I watched both DIY and Cooking for a while, but now I have trouble finding anything I want to watch on any of them. I don't get into Chopped or Top Chef or any of the competition shows, that's just not my thing. Except for OG Iron Chef which was awesome.
Oh, I'll still watch Good Eats reruns when I come across them, although I've probably seen them all a dozen times each at this point.
Anyway, bottom line is, I think it's time to cut the cord. I'm paying for Amazon Prime anyway, the kids like Netflix, and I have the Hulu/ESPN+/Disney+ package which is actually pretty cheap for the amount of content on there.
-
I cut the cord and started saving 83.00 a month.Just picked up an indoor flat antenna and get about 25 channels.I'm surprised by the picture,much better than cable - don't know why that is.Will be working on installing one of the rooftop antennas hopefully this summer/fall
-
Anyway, bottom line is, I think it's time to cut the cord. I'm paying for Amazon Prime anyway, the kids like Netflix, and I have the Hulu/ESPN+/Disney+ package which is actually pretty cheap for the amount of content on there.
What is your plan for live sports?
Without one of the "live TV" streaming services, you'll be limited to what you can pick up off your local networks. No ESPN/FS1/LHN/etc...
-
I cut the cord and started saving 83.00 a month.Just picked up an indoor flat antenna and get about 25 channels.I'm surprised by the picture,much better than cable - don't know why that is.Will be working on installing one of the rooftop antennas hopefully this summer/fall
Compression. All services / channels use compression for digital TV, but at the source they can determine what bitrate they want to support. A lower bitrate (higher compression) causes loss of quality, but in the case of fixed bandwidth or pay-for-transmission systems, reduce the transmission cost. A higher bitrate is higher quality, but the cost of transmission can be higher.
Satellite has to cram a bunch of channels into fixed bandwidth, and they do it by compressing the stream and you lose quality in the process. Cable has the exact same issue--you only have so much bandwidth on that cable, so the quality suffers to compress it as much as possible. IPTV or streaming services have to pay for the bandwidth they use, so they compress the video as much as they can and quality is lost. It's all about either packing in more channels or reducing transmission cost.
OTA broadcast has already secured the rights to the bandwidth associated with a specific linear "channel" for a tuner to pick up. That is a single fixed cost and completely unrelated to the level of compression they choose, so they can choose the lightest compression and the highest bitrate for their transmission without it affecting operating cost.
Hence, OTA is actually a BETTER picture than cable/satellite/streaming, because they are giving you a higher bitrate content.
-
What is your plan for live sports?
Without one of the "live TV" streaming services, you'll be limited to what you can pick up off your local networks. No ESPN/FS1/LHN/etc...
Hulu actually has some live sports content. I haven't dug into it too much, but there's that.
And I can actually "not quite" cut the cord. My cable company has a streaming app only service that's really only slightly more than the internet-only service. It includes all locals and you can get up to ten channels that include ESPN, ESPN2, FS1, and NBCSN.
That plus ABC and Fox national cover almost everything I need, only thing I can't get on the streaming-only is Longhorn Network, which is a bummer because I watch a ton of UT baseball and volleyball on that channel.
-
Ahh, cool... So it sounds like you're mostly set.
-
the Longhorn Network is still alive?
-
The Channel or the Long Horns?
-
Hulu actually has some live sports content. I haven't dug into it too much, but there's that.
And I can actually "not quite" cut the cord. My cable company has a streaming app only service that's really only slightly more than the internet-only service. It includes all locals and you can get up to ten channels that include ESPN, ESPN2, FS1, and NBCSN.
That plus ABC and Fox national cover almost everything I need, only thing I can't get on the streaming-only is Longhorn Network, which is a bummer because I watch a ton of UT baseball and volleyball on that channel.
might not be able to completely cut the cord but you can get by on subscribing to the lowest cost package from your provider
-
just pay the man
get your live sports
-
What is your plan for live sports?
Without one of the "live TV" streaming services, you'll be limited to what you can pick up off your local networks. No ESPN/FS1/LHN/etc...
I do YouTube TV for that, which has served me well. No LHN.
-
I have Hulu. Not really cheaper than cable but at least the bill is the same every month
-
How much is Hulu and can you get BTN?
-
How much is Hulu and can you get BTN?
$65 a month and yes, it has a lot of sports channels, including BTN. The app does a decent job of gathering every college football game so you can easily choose among them.
-
Thank you sir.
-
I don't know why everyone hasn't cut the cord and use Youtube TV.
-
I don't know why everyone hasn't cut the cord and use Youtube TV.
my reason is I dont like their free speech doctrine
-
I don't know why everyone hasn't cut the cord and use Youtube TV.
I haven't used YouTube TV. I've read it is good, but it costs the same as Hulu so I haven't been particularly motivated to switch, even though it is very easy to switch things. That's probably the best thing about the new world order - it is very easy to get Showtime for a month and watch a show I've wanted to see, then cancel it, all without being on the phone for half an hour.
-
I don't know why everyone hasn't cut the cord and use Youtube TV.
Not everyone lives in a area where high speed internet is available. My internet is good enough that I can either work or stream a show on one TV. But if someone is streaming TV, my internet becomes too slow to work.
-
Looks like we're going to switch to Hulu now. Looks like the best deal out there right now.
-
I really only watch live sports anymore. CFB, NFL, any soccer that's not MLS (yes, I'm a soccer Eurosnob), CBB.
I finally discovered Survivor a couple months ago when two of the seasons were on Netflix. Now I'm on Season 37 on Paramount+. Completely addicted.
Other than Wheel of Fortune and Jeopardy I find the rest of TV to be completely useless.
-
Other than Wheel of Fortune and Jeopardy I find the rest of TV to be completely useless.
I've always loved Jeopardy, I'm struggling to enjoy it without Trebec far more than I thought I would
-
I've always loved Jeopardy, I'm struggling to enjoy it without Trebec far more than I thought I would
I agree. All the replacements just come across as bland and lifeless to me.
-
hopefully, Aaron Rodgers new gig
-
Other than Wheel of Fortune and Jeopardy I find the rest of TV to be completely useless.
Well you're half right
And PBS when they're not fund raising or pushing political views has some good programing A.R.S. & A.T.K. for instance
-
Our "cable" is building wide, so I don't have a choice. I get Youtube on the TV for "free" obv. We have Netflix and Amazon Prime which the kids pay for. I was initially really happy with NF but of late I can't find much to watch worth my time.
The cable is DirecTV and subject to weather outages. We get a lot of channels, I remain amazed how many channels are home shopping channels and Infomercials about how to lose weight. Out of maybe 400 channels, more than half are of that ilk.
The History channel seems never to be about history any more.
I enjoy watching the Braves, at times.
-
Yes, removing all the home shopping channels from your channel list is an hour long process.
-
The History channel seems never to be about history any more.
This reminds me of a bit by a comedian whose show my wife and I went to a couple years ago:
"TV sucks now. There ain't no history on the history channel, no learning on the TLC channel, no music on the MTV channel, and no gambling on the BET channel."
-
Yes, removing all the home shopping channels from your channel list is an hour long process.
those shopping channels ride for free, don't cost you or the satellite provider a thing
-
those shopping channels ride for free, don't cost you or the satellite provider a thing
Be that as it may, I still don't want them cluttering up my channel guide.
Even blocking 100 home shopping channels, a dozen religious channels, and a half a dozen "cable news" channels, I still have hundreds of channels with nothing on.
But there sure are a lot of live sports.
-
It's truly bizarre that our TV packages are basically earmarked bills. NONE of the customers want it, but it's been the norm for years now.
.
I guess it's another case of the corporation putting profits second, right?
-
Corporations that are "for profit" don't put profits second, ever, they may at times like to appear to do that for PR purposes.
Profit is their reason for being. I presume they get a slice of the pie from those shopping channels, probably not much, but then it takes little to add them.
I'd guess IF we could pick and choose our specific package, it might end up costing us more than being given 500 channels, 450 of which are garbage.
Every new car sold today has power windows. Why? Because it is cheaper to do that than manage two parts streams to provide something cheaper that has rollups. Offering manual windows would cost more.
-
It's truly bizarre that our TV packages are basically earmarked bills. NONE of the customers want it, but it's been the norm for years now.
.
I guess it's another case of the corporation putting profits second, right?
How do you mean earmarked bills?
I mean, it's not good for them financially to have it À la carte, that's true. And I assume it would be more headache than not in a lot of cases. There's also the weird thing where chord cutting seemed like a good route, and then everything started getting very unbundled and bills started to rise again.
(This touches on an idea I'm always fascinated by, which is value added. Like I would never pay extra for say TBS, but in the back of my brain, it's a nice add if it doesn't cost any more on top of my live sports. I think it's kinda the genius of the model with The Athletic and 247)
-
It's truly bizarre that our TV packages are basically earmarked bills. NONE of the customers want it, but it's been the norm for years now.
.
I guess it's another case of the corporation putting profits second, right?
Whatever gave you the impression that profits were not the number one thing for corporations or that they shouldn't be? Do you know anyone that goes into business not caring if they make money? If so, it is a short lived business.
-
Cord cutting is all the rage now, but the streaming services are rising to the point where it doesn't save you much, and you have a lot more bills.
Soon people are gonna be like "wow, I can get TV, internet and phone all in one bundle, with only one bill? This is great!" and cable packages will be all the rage again.
-
A "good business model" emphasizes profits of course but not at the expense of long term growth. Some newer tech companies take this to an extreme for obvious reasons and is why they may not pay INCOME taxes, because they reinvest profits, and thus have no taxable INCOME. THis gets thrown around in the tax "discussion" about paying their fair share, but reality is, you pay taxes on taxable INCOME. A newer company that reinvests everything won't have any often as not.
Companies like GE not only had loss carry forwards but also tax credits for making wind turbines, given by the same politicians who complain they didn't pay taxes.
Even a more established company SHOULD focus on longer term growth over quarterly profits, but investors of course tend to microexamine the latter. Long term growth is "boring".
-
Cord cutting is all the rage now, but the streaming services are rising to the point where it doesn't save you much, and you have a lot more bills.
Soon people are gonna be like "wow, I can get TV, internet and phone all in one bundle, with only one bill? This is great!" and cable packages will be all the rage again.
yes, because you are paying for content. The delivery method doesn't matter.
If you enjoy crap content and don't need the live events and popular stuff, your package can be very inexpensive
crap cheap content is shopping channels and 70's/80's reruns
-
Oh yeah, there are at least a dozen Spanish/foreign channels, black channels, lgbt channels, ect.
You have to block out like half of this $%$@. Just unwatchable, unless you belong to the thin demographic that they are aiming for.
-
with my IPTV system I easily created a "Fearless Favorites" lineup on my guide.
It only lists my local channels, channels that carry live sports and the food network
about 20 channels total
easy to scroll through
-
It's truly bizarre that our TV packages are basically earmarked bills. NONE of the customers want it, but it's been the norm for years now.
.
I guess it's another case of the corporation putting profits second, right?
Well, you understand that things like shopping channels actually reduce the cost of cable/satellite TV service, right?
The carriers aren't paying HSN and the like for that content. Those shopping channels are paying the carriers to be included in the channel lineup.
Those revenues offset the cost to them of acquiring more popular programming content.
-
I understand this
-
LOGO and BYU both air a lot of Muppet stuff.
Two very different demographics, with a rather peculiar common interest.
-
Well, you understand that things like shopping channels actually reduce the cost of cable/satellite TV service, right?
The carriers aren't paying HSN and the like for that content. Those shopping channels are paying the carriers to be included in the channel lineup.
Those revenues offset the cost to them of acquiring more popular programming content.
Okay.
The next time you eat out, you get your steak and they bring you a tofu butternut pepperoni quiche. You ask why they gave it to you - you didn't order it.They explain that serving you that crime-on-a-plate makes your steak a few cents cheaper.
.
You're going to shrug and enjoy your steak without thinking the restaurant is bizarre? Bizarre enough to not return? You wouldn't just rather get your steak next time?
-
Okay.
The next time you eat out, you get your steak and they bring you a tofu butternut pepperoni quiche. You ask why they gave it to you - you didn't order it.They explain that serving you that crime-on-a-plate makes your steak a few cents cheaper.
.
You're going to shrug and enjoy your steak without thinking the restaurant is bizarre? Bizarre enough to not return? You wouldn't just rather get your steak next time?
If someone paid the restaurant to give me food, I will just take the food. And then, maybe I would eat it later. Or I’d feed it to a dog or something.
It isn’t the same as the shopping channels, but honestly, restaurants are almost never a-la-carte, and the pricing of a la carte places can be annoying. I run into this often, because I am perpetually begin given french fries I don’t want, but I also wouldn’t pay extra at an a la carte place offering tater tot’s or wing chips at three dollars extra.
-
Okay.
The next time you eat out, you get your steak and they bring you a tofu butternut pepperoni quiche. You ask why they gave it to you - you didn't order it.They explain that serving you that crime-on-a-plate makes your steak a few cents cheaper.
.
You're going to shrug and enjoy your steak without thinking the restaurant is bizarre? Bizarre enough to not return? You wouldn't just rather get your steak next time?
Of course I'll find that weird!
But quiche is made of eggs. And this is clearly a plot by the egg lobby to pay restaurants to serve crime-on-a-plate in the hopes they can get people to eat more eggs. If they're willing to subsidize my steak, then so be it.
Maybe only 5% of people will even take a bite of that tofu butternut pepperoni quiche. Maybe only 5% of those people will like it. But maybe that's worth it to the egg lobby... We all know they are powerful...
Unless the waiter tries to hold me down and force that quiche down my gullet, they have not wronged me.
-
If someone paid the restaurant to give me food, I will just take the food. And then, maybe I would eat it later. Or I’d feed it to a dog or something.
It isn’t the same as the shopping channels, but honestly, restaurants are almost never a-la-carte, and the pricing of a la carte places can be annoying. I run into this often, because I am perpetually begin given french fries I don’t want, but I also wouldn’t pay extra at an a la carte place offering tater tot’s or wing chips at three dollars extra.
I used to order apps instead of meals, because they were a lot of food for half the price. But they wised up about 10-12 years ago.
-
Of course I'll find that weird!
But quiche is made of eggs. And this is clearly a plot by the egg lobby to pay restaurants to serve crime-on-a-plate in the hopes they can get people to eat more eggs. If they're willing to subsidize my steak, then so be it.
Maybe only 5% of people will even take a bite of that tofu butternut pepperoni quiche. Maybe only 5% of those people will like it. But maybe that's worth it to the egg lobby... We all know they are powerful...
Unless the waiter tries to hold me down and force that quiche down my gullet, they have not wronged me.
FINALLY! Someone sees the light.
-
If someone paid the restaurant to give me food, I will just take the food. And then, maybe I would eat it later. Or I’d feed it to a dog or something.
It isn’t the same as the shopping channels, but honestly, restaurants are almost never a-la-carte, and the pricing of a la carte places can be annoying. I run into this often, because I am perpetually begin given french fries I don’t want, but I also wouldn’t pay extra at an a la carte place offering tater tot’s or wing chips at three dollars extra.
Actually the best analogy would be a buffet.
You go to a buffet, and you're not interested in 100% of the options. But they're trying to cater to as many people as possible, so they want a wide variety of food.
If the egg lobby starts paying buffet restaurants to include tofu butternut pepperoni quiche in their buffet, that subsidizes the buffet prices for everyone else without wronging anyone EXCEPT those who might enjoy the long tail other product that is squeezed out from the buffet's offering to make room for the quiche. But that offering is clearly not popular enough, or it would supplant something else above quiche level.
The cable/satellite operators are trying to fit as much content in as they can... But they run out of content that they can afford to pay for [and profitably sell to consumers] before they run out of bandwidth. So they sell that extra bandwidth to shopping channels. You don't have to watch them, but they reduce the overall cost for subscribers given that the bandwidth is a fixed cost.
-
It's a pretty simple concept. I'd bet cable a la carte would cost more than what they shovel on us, most of which we ignore. Everyone would be set up with filters to take out 80% of the channels, and that would cost money, because each 80% would be different.
I don't dine at places that don't offer individual items, not often anyway, except that the duck or whatever probably comes with some veggies.
-
It's a pretty simple concept. I'd bet cable a la carte would cost more than what they shovel on us, most of which we ignore. Everyone would be set up with filters to take out 80% of the channels, and that would cost money, because each 80% would be different.
I don't know if it will be more or less.
What I do know is that the entire business model of most of cable is for the content owners to set prices low enough that they can get on "basic" tier to get the widest subscriber base, but as high as they possibly can within that constraint. And that the content owners are often conglomerates, so if you want Discovery Channel you also have to buy Food Network--and vice versa--even though the programming is wildly different, because they're the same parent company. So not all of the bundles are the fault of the cable companies; they get forced into it by the content owners.
So if Discovery couldn't amortize their product over all basic cable subscribers, and had to justify their pricing based on, say, 20% of the cable subscribers who want it, they need to raise their prices fivefold to have constant revenue.
So instead of saying "my cable bill is $100/mo and Food Network is only 1 channel out of 100, so I should only pay $1/month for it", you end up in the situation where Discovery has now created Discovery+, a streaming service that's $5/month... And may go up in price if it's successful.
It all comes down to the cord-cutter's dilemma. If you want to replicate everything you get from cable while doing it entirely through live TV streaming and OTT services, you're likely to spend as much as cable. If you're actually going to be judicious and ONLY subscribe to the content that you absolutely require, you can save money. But at that point you're not getting everything cable gives you [much of which you didn't actually want that much, but was bundled for "free"].
But most people are terrible at both math and economics, so they just believe that a la carte will give them all the content they want for YUUGE savings.
-
But most people are terrible at both math and economics, so they just believe that a la carte will give them all the content they want for YUUGE savings.
pay for what you want
no savings
-
Imagine I want channels 2 3 6 8 9 but my neighbor wants 2 4 5 8 10. Or, they could give us both 2 3 5 6 8 and not have to customize anything.
I'm still astonished how many shopping channels somehow survive. If I need something I use Amazon, generally speaking, and done.
These channels have to pay people to create the material to "air". It's amazing to me.
-
very easy to give customers only the channels they want to pay for with IPTV
not as easy with older digital tech, but possible.
there would be a set top box at each TV
the FCC just has to give the word
-
very easy to give customers only the channels they want to pay for with IPTV
not as easy with older digital tech, but possible.
there would be a set top box at each TV
the FCC just has to give the word
Confused about the last line...
Are you saying that the FCC should mandate that TV providers offer a la carte programming? Or that the FCC merely needs to allow it?
Because it's allowed right now, and not mandated. I'm not sure I agree with the idea that the FCC should mandate this.
-
I'd like to wipe 90% of our channels from the selection menu. I would pay more to have fewer choices.
One channel is entirely about how to make omelettes from tofu.
-
I'd like to wipe 90% of our channels from the selection menu. I would pay more to have fewer choices.
One channel is entirely about how to make omelettes from tofu.
Depending on the system, you might be able to. I think you said you have DirecTV?
If so, they should allow you to customize your channel list and you can delete anything you don't want presented from your list.
-
I don't even bother with cable or satellite TV anymore. I have Netflix and Hulu. At the end of August, I upgrade the Hulu to include live TV and cancel it in January. That way, I get my college football.
-
Confused about the last line...
Are you saying that the FCC should mandate that TV providers offer a la carte programming? Or that the FCC merely needs to allow it?
Because it's allowed right now, and not mandated. I'm not sure I agree with the idea that the FCC should mandate this.
Providers would lose money offering a la carte programming because they couldnt rely on a level of viewship that would keep prices reasonable
youre cable bill would increase way beyond current prices
-
I would guess the FCC allows it now.
The FCC would have to mandate it and force the carriers and content providers to offer it.
There would be much wailing and asking for time and money to make this happen.
The tech is there, but not every carrier/provider has the tech in place like we do.
It would be similar to the FCC mandating Local number portability years ago. This made it possible to move your phone number to a different provider. Cell companies thought this would help them attract costumers if their old landline number could be ported to the cellular company.
It took some time and money, but it happened.
-
Providers would lose money offering a la carte programming because they couldnt rely on a level of viewship that would keep prices reasonable
youre cable bill would increase way beyond current prices
All these companies are making a killing,if there wasn't advertising I'd agree with that.A cable tech told me after the initial equipment is installed.They're sending a signal,that's not putting them back
-
https://twitter.com/PeteThamel/status/1422966030683492355?s=19
-
future of sports rights???????????????
NBC owns the rights, NBC owns Peacock
same same
it's just a different tech to deliver media content
-
future of sports rights???????????????
NBC owns the rights, NBC owns Peacock
same same
it's just a different tech to deliver media content
Sort of, but the content providers-- in this case, the school that plays the game-- have to be on-board with moving from a mainstream broadcast medium, to a streaming option. That's not a change to IP ownership but it does represent a fundamental shift in how those rights are signed over to various distribution partners.
Another way they could have stated it, would be "Is this a window into the future of college sports distribution?" but I don't think that captures the full extent of what such a shift in distribution medium implies, about the rights themselves, and the content providers' feelings about that shift.
JMO of course.
-
Seems like it's destined to fail. Notre Dame fans average 120 years old. You think they're going to figure out streaming services just to watch a game against freakin' Toledo?
-
ND sold their rights to the game to NBC
I doubt NBC has to ask permission
this is simply a ploy by NBC to pump up subscriptions to Peacock - if nothing else it gets folks talking about peacock
obviously doing this with the Toledo game, not a big game
sports bars will fork over the $$$ and many older ND fans will buy a pitcher of beer
-
ND sold their rights to the game to NBC
I doubt NBC has to ask permission
this is simply a ploy by NBC to pump up subscriptions to Peacock - if nothing else it gets folks talking about peacock
obviously doing this with the Toledo game, not a big game
sports bars will fork over the $$$ and many older ND fans will buy a pitcher of beer
I'm absolutely CERTAIN they had to get ND's permission. There's a huge difference in exposure between a national OTA broadcast network, and a streaming service that nobody has.
Similarly, ESPN had to get Texas' permission to air games on LHN, and that permission was granted and embedded in the contract, as part of the negotiation. Texas was willing to make the tradeoff in national exposure, in exchange for cash and the other benefits that came with having its own network.
I don't know when the NBC contract was written and signed with ND, but if it didn't explicitly state that NBC reserved the right to move one or more games from their national OTA broadcast network, to a tiny streaming service that nobody has, then NBC absolutely would have had to work that out separately as a one-off, and almost certainly make some major concessions to Notre Dame in the process.
-
So if Toledo collects another major scalp and the game is on Peacock, will anybody notice?
-
Depending on the system, you might be able to. I think you said you have DirecTV?
If so, they should allow you to customize your channel list and you can delete anything you don't want presented from your list.
They might "allow" it, but knowing how to DO it with our remote is not obvious at all. I've memorized the channels I watch, I'm still amazed how many home shopping channels there are, well over 100. There also must be 100 porn channels (which we don't get, but the titles show up). How many porn channels does a person "need"?
I often put it on 866 which is classical music at dinner.
-
I don't know when the NBC contract was written and signed with ND, but if it didn't explicitly state that NBC reserved the right to move one or more games from their national OTA broadcast network, to a tiny streaming service that nobody has, then NBC absolutely would have had to work that out separately as a one-off, and almost certainly make some major concessions to Notre Dame in the process.
sorry, didn't know there was that much detail. But, I suppose the contract was probably at least 6 or 7 hundred pages of drivel.
I assumed if NBC pays the Domers 20 million for the rights to games, NBC can then decide what time and if they even broadcast the game a tall.
It appears the Big 12 and the Sooners didn't have much say with FOX on kickoff times.
-
sorry, didn't know there was that much detail. But, I suppose the contract was probably at least 6 or 7 hundred pages of drivel.
I assumed if NBC pays the Domers 20 million for the rights to games, NBC can then decide what time and if they even broadcast the game a tall.
It appears the Big 12 and the Sooners didn't have much say with FOX on kickoff times.
The contracts are written with specifics like, "at least 1 game per weak aired on national OTA network" and such. And now with ESPN+, it would be designated if/when the network partner might move games to streaming. It's also even more complicated than that, with ABC/ESPN/ESPN2 reverse mirroring available, so that "national" games can still be broadcast regionally when necessary.
And the time slots are all discussed as well, with the conference and schools knowing which time slots are most likely for games of different magnitude. For example, ABC and Fox currently have 11 AM Central as their "national" timeslot, which is why TX-OU so often falls into that timeslot.
-
They might "allow" it, but knowing how to DO it with our remote is not obvious at all. I've memorized the channels I watch, I'm still amazed how many home shopping channels there are, well over 100. There also must be 100 porn channels (which we don't get, but the titles show up). How many porn channels does a person "need"?
I often put it on 866 which is classical music at dinner.
https://www.att.com/support/article/directv/KM1102795/
-
I'm pretty sure I did all that, for a few channels, it's work, and the next time the TV came on they were all back. I have hundreds of channels I do not want, it's easier just to plug in the channel number.
And the wife has a TV in the bedroom with another box. She has one in her office also but it's antenna only.
-
on dish you can create custom programing guides and put only the channels you want on them
as an example I have one for movies
-
I don't have Dish, I have an IPTV product
I have a "Fearless Favorites" channel lineup
about 20 of the 200 channels that I sometimes will watch
doesn't take long to scroll
-
Television has long passed film as the premium format. Over the past fifteen years or so....networks and now streaming services have just been pouring cash into new series.
As for recommendations....I cannot recommend the show 'Patriot' on Amazon Prime enough. Only got two season due to poor viewership numbers....but I can easily say that it is one of the best written and most unique shows that I've ever watched.
-
(https://scontent.ffod1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-9/s640x640/60499281_892678794403553_2371161816744067072_n.jpg?_nc_cat=104&ccb=1-4&_nc_sid=9267fe&_nc_ohc=Jm2VvmQ2H7wAX-6TPYe&_nc_oc=AQlqlzGCCAxXdVyehNdfYCF3vkgBccfbid_XvWlmTxHjXePPEqQcIcR7a_NCDlIvqEY&_nc_ht=scontent.ffod1-1.fna&oh=6d1c52741f3629f2330aac3e30442fc0&oe=61356FEB)