Everything WRONG With Modern Television

Right; TV budgets are massive now. The level of time, talent, and production that goes into it is higher than lots of movies were just a few decades ago. There's lots of "garbage," as you say, but that doesn't overshadow the good stuff, because we don't have to watch the bad stuff. And while we probably share similar ideas of what constitutes "garbage," obviously it has value to lots of other people.

It's pretty hard to put a price on breadth of programming, too: there's a show for almost everything, and that's awfully nice when you find one you really like. It's easily worth 999 other shows you're not interested in, and there's no way to have that kind of niche programming without, by definition, having a smaller percentage of shows that are interesting to any one person.

The argument is that it would cost more all else being equal; it can reduce your bill relative to what it would be even if your bill is still going up overall, the same way you can eat less than you used to, but still not necessarily lose weight.

That said, I've never heard of a cable bill going higher every few months for no reason. Are you in a highly rural area, or going month-to-month, or something? Every time I've gotten cable I've had a rate locked in for something like two years, and even when it went after, it was a modest amount and didn't, as far as I can remember, just keep climbing.

Correct, I was talking about the infomercial issue. There's not much that can be done there, because people who can only watch TV in the middle of the night and can afford cable but also can't quite afford DVR (which, at least where I live, can be had for something like an extra $15-20 month, a fraction of the total bill) must be awfully rare. It'd be kinda crazy for them to pass up on that revenue for what much be a vanishingly small demographic.

Things like product placement and popup ads are the inevitable result of the DVR. Which is a pretty good trade, I think, given how convenient DVR is.

What show was it? I can't say this has ever happened to me.

This is definitely more viable than it used to be. If you can pick a handful of shows you can't live without and just purchase them the next day, you might save a lot of money. I watch a broad array and like live sports, so I'm stuck with the old way, but maybe one day I'll do the same.

This complaint deals with the News Media - they always say that coming up they're going to delve into some interesting item - then when they FINALLY get to it, they don't tell you anything they didn't already say, they basically just repeat the "headline."

A couple weeks ago, one network kept advertising that "up NEXT" was the story of a baby elephant trapped in a well - they'd show a 2 second clip of a man wrapping straps around some large wrinkly thing. They kept saying, "Up Next," but would then advertise the story again before the next commercial (so it wasn't up next for over the half hour I was watching).
And they'd say, "Stay with us to see the miraculous rescue and find out the fate of that baby elephant!"
I watched for a half hour, sitting through the endless droning about Presidential candidates because I wanted to see this rescue of the damn baby elephant!

So they finally get to it... they show the same 2 second clip of a guy wrapping straps around something (they never show a full shot of the elephant ). They say, "A baby elephant who somehow got trapped in a well had to be winched out, they say he's doing okay."
They never showed the winching operation, they gave no details on what happened: where the elephant was from (the wild? a circus? a zoo? someone's work animal?), who found it, how long it took to set up the rescue, where the elephant's family was (or if it had one), where they released it (if they did). Nothing - they only repeated what they'd already said and added that "he's doing okay."

Of course they did. They gotta increase ad revenue.

__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.

Today's observation deals with the state of educational TV.
Remember when networks with names like "The Learning Channel" had actual educational programming? Now their focus is "reality" TV, like "Honey Boo Boo."

So many science-based networks have gone that route only to have other networks pop up with actual science, but then slowly devolve to cater to the lowest common denominator. And when is the last time you saw a show about art (painting, drawing, sculpture, architecture, art history, music composition, opera, theater, etc.) on the "Arts & Entertainment Network"?

One of the most heinous examples is that networks like the Discovery Channel, Animal Planet and the History Channel have been airing what are being called "fake-u-mentaires."
They're not documentaries, nor "mock-u-mentaries" (an intentionally comedic spoof on documentaries), but programs that attempt to present false information as if it's part of a real documentary. These will use actors posing as scientists, historians, academics or eye-witnesses, and will produce fake scenarios and special effects concocted in a studio and present it as real life footage.

Don't get me started on The History Channel showing stuff like Ancient Aliens

The Discovery channel, among others, annoys the hell out of me. Before a commercial break, they tell you what you're gonna see in the next segment. Don't f----cking show me what I'm about to see before I see it! Then after the commercials, they recap what you just saw 4 minutes earlier, as if you're some idiot who can't sustain a thought. They happen to be right in my case, but many aren't.

Then they do this reversal thing towards the end, where you fast-forward past the commercials to settle in on the next segment, only to find it's 30 seconds long, like a teaser, which takes you into another set of commercials, leaving you feeling as a viewer, used, abused and angry as hell. No wonder after watching a show about life in rural Alaska I want to rip someone's head off-- mainly that sh-t sucking little weasel executive who thought that up.

Ok, vented, done.

__________________
Under-the-radar Movie Awesomeness.
http://earlsmoviepicks.blogspot.com/

Although Ancient Aliens fits to support my point, I don't mind the show... here's why:

It doesn't purport to be something it's not - it continuously repeats (almost to an annoying degree) that what they're presenting is the opinion of a select group based entirely on their interpretation of what they consider evidence.

If anything, it's a docu-series not on Ancient Aliens per se, but rather on what Ancient Alien theorists "believe."

It does mix in a lot of history and geography (and does so quite well by taking you to varied places with nice photography). I've heard interviews about the show and, with all the real scientists & historians they invite to appear, they never ask these guests to support the show's producers' dogma, but only to speak on their area of expertise. That's why they'll have, say, an Egyptologist talk about the construction of the pyramids, then after the expert has presented real facts, they'll say something like, "But Ancient Alien Theorists believe the interior architecture of the pyramids was designed to create an energy transmitter pointing to the stars as a signalling device!"

The show is laughable in that the Theorists will try to hammer any historical square peg into their round hole of "ancient aliens" as the answer to virtually everything... from Greek mythology to sightings of the Loch Ness monster to Nikola Tesla's alternating current!

So, they do present a lot of actual history while they present continuous disclaimers that their "evidence" of ancient astronauts fitting into the mix is strictly theory held by the show's creators.

Yeah, pay TV seems to be all about the commercials and getting us to spend our money...have you ever noticed when you watch something online, that no matter how many technical problems might come up with the tape you're watching, the commercials ALWAYS play PERFECTLY...also, we're not allowed to fast forward through commercials either. On the CBS website, if you want to fast forward through something, you have to watch five or six MORE commercials before the program continues at the point you fast forwarded to...it's aggravating beyond belief.

Latest TV rant:

Last night I caught the very end of the Olympics opening ceremony. I tuned in at the parade of countries. I figured I'd at least watch the United States enter and see what their costumes looked like.

Right after the Ukraine passed, NBC went to commercial. I thought it would be no big deal since I'd heard all about this "time delay" so that the airing would coincide with North America's prime time TV slot... so they'd just pause for commercials then resume.

When they got back, Uzbekistan was entering the stadium!
Can you believe, on American TV, they cut out the American's official entrance for commercials?
(That's rhetorical question... I can believe it. Why do we stand for this crap?)

I'm pretty shocked actually. Yesterday was the first opening I haven't seen in a while and I have never seen the US skipped.

__________________
Letterboxd

What gets me is they purposefully had set up this time delay so they had time to edit the entire thing around the commercials. But nope - U.S. about to enter and off to another 3 minute block of commercials that are repeated ad infinitum. And why put the commercial break right at that spot when they could've put it over any number of other countries? Why cut the U.S. out on TV in the U.S. of all places?

P.S. I saw on the news this morning that Michael Phelps was the American flag bearer and they said something about American audiences were "upset" over the time delay and commercials. They didn't elaborate, but I have to assume they meant people were upset that they cut out the U.S.'s entry for commercials.

Okay, I did some research.
I found a bunch of articles about NBC's marathon of commercials (interrupted by snippets of the Olympics ceremony)... so there's still that. But I couldn't find any mentions of the U.S. entry being cut out by commercials.

So... I learned that the countries' order in the parade was based on Portuguese (the language of Brazil)... so the U.S. entered under "Estados Unidos" in the earlier part of the parade as opposed to being near the end. So I don't know if the U.S. entrance was cut for commercials or not since I tuned into the parade near the end.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...al-breaks.html

Doesn't surprise me... Television is one big commercial.

I only watched two parts of that last night. One part was the ending of the ceremony. But the other part just happened to be when the United States entered. I turned it on just to see where they were in the ceremony and it was right before the commercial break. The announcer said they would be returning with the U.S., and then they eventually got to them. So, yes, they were shown and not ignored for commercials.

Think about it. They weren't going to be showing the opening ceremony here without showing our team. They would never do that. There wouldn't really be any point to not showing us. If they want to show commercials to make some more money, fine. But they would show us no matter what.

__________________
I became insane, with long intervals of horrible sanity - Edgar Allan Poe

Chinas opening ceremony still is the best one Ive ever seen. They had a perfect blend of technology, art, and timing. Rio tried.

So they put the ads where they thought/knew that most people would be watching waiting for the US team? I hope someone got a bonus for that one. That's very good.

Good for them.

I have to admit to a strong bias against commercialism.

Having studied psychology, I've learned that mass marketing & commercialism is one of the major things wrong with our society & culture and which has an extreme affect on principles of analytic and independent thought. Like a manufactured disease intended for bio-warfare, it is one of the most devious blights created by man to be used upon mankind as a means to profit at the expense of others.

Unfortunately, it is a double-edged sword since it goes hand in hand with the principles of capitalism and entrepreneurship. As with all things, a better balance needs to be worked toward.

I agree with you about there needing to be a better balance. I was being facetious.

Dang! I was hoping for a good debate!

The tip off should've been when I said I hope someone got a bonus for that. You know full well that anyone that low down the ladder is 'just doing their job', whereas that kind of thinking at a higher level is more than worthy of a bonus.