SEEN ANYTHING GOOD ON TV LATELY?
Gary's response to my "Alias Addiction" post (below) got me thinking: What do YOU consider to be "quality television"? I know there are some who consider television in general to be a waste of time and a waste of the mind. Granted, there's a LOT of garbage on TV that's not worth anyone's time to watch. A good book, some exercise, or conversation with family or friends is a better option in most any case. However, I believe that there are SOME TV shows that are well written, entertaining, and worthy of being considered artistic, just as we might consider a well written play or book to be "art" or a well written movie as Oscar-worthy.
What do you think? Consider the TV shows that you watch. Some of them you might watch just because they're fun, although you might agree that they're not "quality writing." But are there any that you believe are good because of the quality of their writing, acting, production values, etc.? (Reality shows don't count because there are no writers controlling their content or actors practicing their art in them.)
Tell about the "quality" TV shows that you watch, and explain what makes them stand out as "good" amidst an ocean of pretty dismal, sometimes awful television programming.
I think that South Park is a good quality show. I know that there are a lot of people that might disagree with me, but they must be doing something right to be able to have thier show on for 8 seasons and they are still getting very good ratings.
ReplyDelete-Nick Winzer
Nick, you write that SOUTH PARK "must be doing something right" because it's been on a long time and gets good ratings. What is the "something" that SOUTH PARK does right? What makes it a "quality" show compared to other animated shows that you might consider "worse" shows?
ReplyDeleteWell if you want "well written, entertaining, and worthy of being considered artistic" I would definitely nominate The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. TDS also brings some other good adjectives to mind: witty, hilarious, sweet, good, and my favorite adjective, f**king awesome. It has also been deemed Emmy-worthy for the past couple of years. And even if you don't find Jon's witty repertoire (good word . . .) amusing, you can watch for the "news."
ReplyDeleteJOHN K
I must say that I COMPLETELY agree on the nomination of THE DAILY SHOW as quality television. Some people criticize it as an unfairly biased news show, but Stewart is adamant about his show being about comedy first and foremost. "The news" just provides the material for their humor. It's well written because it's writers know how to make puns, allusions, satire, parody, irony--and how to do it in a way that's accessible to the viewing public. Awesome, indeed.
ReplyDelete(oops--change "because it's writers" to "because its writers"--naughty apostrophe)
ReplyDeleteSouth Park?.... Well, I'll respect your right to an opinion if you guys respect mine... Buffy. I love it. They've got their own little way of talking and if you're a geek of the series like I am they've got all sorts of inside jokes that you catch. The characters grow and evolve and are so real. Well, I catch do it justice, in my opinion. Who's for Sex In The City? Don't know why but this is one of the shows I try to catch most often. I miss Rupert from Survivor. He's a god. So dorky, but I like Dawson's Creek also. It reminds me of the past, present, and future. It's crazy.
ReplyDeleteWell, after reading the other comments, I thought that I would put in my two cents as well. ( This coming from Kevin's little (big) sister in Omaha!!!) I enjoy watching the drama CSI and its two spin-offs, CSI:Miami and CSI: New York. I find them very intriguing and educational in that they show you how they figure out how crimes were committed or how to identify an individual. On the flip side of the coin, it could be bad because it also gives people information on how to actually commit these hideous acts. Still.......very entertaining! Any rebuttles?
ReplyDeleteThings I've seemed to notice about the better quality television shows is that they aren't on the larger networks as often on smaller networks. I would think this mainly has to do with a higher tolerance for risk from these smaller networks. This produces many terrible shows on these networks too though. Another reason could include that smaller networks are more willing to hire younger people new to the industry that will have newer training and more reveloutionary ideas, as compared to the producers at the bigger networks. -John Schroder's two cents
ReplyDeleteP.S. nice webstie Moberg (found it through Ace Ericson)
Isn't it redunant to call him Ace Erickson, if Ace is an acronym for Andrew Collin Erickson? Hmm . . .
ReplyDeleteDid it just to clarify who I was talking about.
ReplyDeleteHow many Aces do you know?
ReplyDeleteHas anyone seen anything new this season that would qualify as "quality" television? For instance, both LOST and DESPERATE HOUSEWIVES on ABC have gotten rave reviews since their premieres this fall. Do you watch them? Are you watching anything else new this year?
ReplyDeleteAs far as television goes, I agree with John that The Daily Show is excellent. The show is simply hilarious because of its amazing writers and very talented correspondents. Is it biased? Yes, and that's a good thing. I'll need some left-wing humor these next four years. . . .
ReplyDelete---Brendan---