If you're at this site, that means you love television, and if you love television, you have some pretty strong opinions when it comes to its content, its history, its future. So let's fight about it.
After the jump are five opinions/ideas that I have. You're probably not going to agree with me on some of them (or any of them), but I think they're a great jumping-off point to get some arguments intelligent discussions going. Be warned that the following contains opinions that are probably going to tick you off and maybe even some that will make you think I've lost my mind.
1. The 90s cast of Saturday Night Live was better than the 70s cast.
I know, I know, this is heresy in the land of SNL. Rich is doing a cool history of the show and it was groundbreaking. The 1970s cast had Belushi and Curtin and Aykroyd and Murray! They had Lisa Loopner and the land shark and the Bass-O-Matic! They weren't even ready for prime time, for God's sake! How can you say the 90s version was better?
Because it was. Look, I loved the original cast of SNL, and I'm old enough to have been in front of my television when it premiered in 1975. But look at the talent that the late 80s-to-late-90s cast had. Phil Hartman! Mike Myers! Jan Hooks! Toonces! Robert Smigel! Church Lady! Jack Handey! I think the later cast had more versatility and took more chances and had better riffs on politics and current events. And when it comes to quoting characters that cast members portrayed, I can think of many more quotes from the 90s cast than the older cast (sorry, wild and crazy guys).
I think part of our love for one era of a TV show over another is when it came in our own life, how it affected us, what it meant to us. Maybe that's part of why I love the Phil Hartman years of SNL more than the Dan Ackroyd years. But I also happen to think that overall it holds up better.
2. Ryan Seacrest isn't so bad.
No, I'm not drunk right now (though I have had a lot of caffeine today). But come on, be fair. Beyond the fact that he hosts a show that a lot of people hate, and those "is he gay?" questions that no one should even care about, why hate the guy? I don't see anything wrong with the him. In fact, he seems like a rather ambitious, talented guy. American Idol would fall apart without him (he controls the show perfectly). He has said many times that he wants to be the next Dick Clark, and with his work ethic (hosting Idol, hosting on E!, doing a daily 5 hour radio show, hosting a weekly top 40 show, producing TV shows and specials, etc), he's well on his way.
3. Heroes' second season was great.
Oh, I know, bleeding eyes Maya and her dumb brother were the Nikki and Paolo of NBC, but beyond that, the season turned out pretty great. Fans were (and maybe still are) up in arms because the second season supposedly wasn't as good as the first. You know what? It wasn't, but not because the second season was so bad, it's that the first season was just so crazy good (cliffhangers at the end of every episode!). It was still new to us. The second season almost had to start out the way it did, because the makers had to restart the show in light of the events of the first season finale. While I agree that Hiro stayed in old Japan maybe two episodes too many, the show just kept on getting better and better as the season went along: the people in the pic being murdered one by one by an unknown killer, Syler seducing the twins to get him to the U.S., the mystery of why Nate was disfigured in the mirror and why Peter had amnesia, the cast additions of David Anders and Kristin Bell. We'll never know what exactly would have been the final verdict on the second season because of the writers strike, but I think that at the end viewers would have forgotten the slip-ups and said it was great.
4. Conan O'Brien and Craig Ferguson are lame talk show hosts.
I've gone back and forth with this one. Both O'Brien and Ferguson seem like good chaps, and they can both be very, very funny, depending on what they do and what they're doing. But they're not late night talk show hosts. O'Brien still, after over 10 years, is uncomfortable in his monologue. Tonight, for me, do this: count how many times he says "yeah" in his monologue. And his interviewing technique consists of trying to overpower his guests with his comedy. Part of this is to save the interview, I understand, but a big part of it is not knowing when to let go. I really wonder what's going to happen when O'Brien takes over the Tonight Show next year. Totally different audience and vibe. It's going to be interesting to see what he does.
As for Ferguson, he relies too much on that damn audio box that has things like whip noises and animal noises. Every time he says something like "naughty monkey," it's because he has nothing else to say, and I change the channel. Funny, David Letterman repeats a lot of gags too, but with him you sense they could go off in odd, unpredictable directions. Ferguson just says "naughty monkey," mugs for the camera, and the audience howls. I don't get it. And while I appreciate the sort of extended story monologue he does, that gets grating too.
5. They should release TV show DVDs with commercials.
Again I say that I'm not drunk right now (nor am I doing any of this). And let me make clear that I'm not talking about the ads that often come before the show/movie starts on our DVDs, the ads from studios for other DVD collections or other movies. I'm talking about the commercials that air when the show airs on TV. That's right, I would like to see regular commercials on DVD sets.
Before the torches and crowds start lining up at my front door, let me explain that part of this is nostalgia. I own thousands of videotapes from the 80s and 90s, for such shows as Spenser: For Hire and Stingray and Riptide and Remington Steele and Max Monroe: Loose Cannon, and the tapes contain the original commercials from the 80s and 90s. I love watching this stuff. It's like a tiny time capsule, a look at the products and trends that were happening at the same time the show originally aired. Why not do this with DVD sets? Maybe they can make an ad version of the DVD and an ad-free DVD version, so we can choose. Of course, this might not be cost effective (though I would bet advertisers would love this idea and foot the bill), so maybe there could be an option on the DVDs to watch an episode without the ads, sort of like you can shut the commentary track on and off.
Just a few thoughts. Feel free to argue amongst yourselves and with me in the comments.
The TV Squad Podcast: Vik Sahay of Chuck, Oprah talk, brutal timeslots, and more!
TV Squad Ten: Top Ten ESPN shows from worst to first
Andy Richter: The TV Squad Interview
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
4-29-2008 @ 10:40AM
Melissa said...
I completely agree about the commercials on DVD sets, especially for the older shows. I just finished taking a television history class with Robert Thompson and when he plays TV shows for us in class, the commercials are always left in. He does it to provide cultural context for the show and I think it really does add something that you can't get through watching sans commercials. Plus there are already DVDs with classic commercials on them anyway; why not put them in with the shows where they belong?
Reply
4-29-2008 @ 10:47AM
Richard said...
I agree with the commercials also.
I bought the Pee Wee's Playhouse boxed set, and watched 3 episodes back-to-back. It was visually exhausting. The shows are designed around those 2 minute breaks, and they really help the viewer.
Reply
4-29-2008 @ 11:06AM
Akbar Fazil said...
Well, unfortunately the producers of the DVD sets are usually the studio that makes the show. Commercials are put in place by the broadcasters. Let's not even talk about nationally syndicated commercials (or even local ones.) I can't ever foresee there being a link up of those two. Also, you want old commercials, go to youtube.
@richard: there is this little thing called the pause button that is amazing for taking breaks in watching something on DVD. ;)
I agree that the 90s cast of SNL is great and equal to the original. But not greater.
Reply
4-29-2008 @ 11:17AM
bd said...
Now we're lining up to watch commercials? Really?
Reply
4-29-2008 @ 11:22AM
annacsmith08 said...
I actually agree with all 5 points.
I'll just say that in my opinion the 90's anything is better than the 70's everything.
Heroes WAS great. I never understood the arguements against the second season, anyway. It was different, and probably not as good as the first, but that doesn't make it bad.
Yeah, Ryan Seacrest isn't so bad... He did a pretty good job hosting the one time I actually watched American Idol. and that awards show he hosted.
Never been a fan of Conan. He's kind of annoying. and Ferguson, well, he just has cool accent. That's about it.
The commercials on DVD would work if you could have it as an option - like the commentary - that would be okay. Something I would want to watch some of the time, but not everytime i wanted to sit down with my favorite show.
Reply
4-29-2008 @ 11:26AM
fred said...
* No, the 2nd season Heroes sucked, really bad. Granted, the season finale before it was a real mess as well and kinda completely ruined the first season already, but this season was still crap.
* I actually like both Conan & Ferguson, but we can have different opinions. But really, I'd rather watch an interview from Conan over one from Letterman any day.
I'm sorry, I didn't watch Letterman "back in the days", I only know him from his current CBS days, and he sucks.
Sometimes all he does is laughs at his own (unfunny) jokes, then waits, than laughs, then waits again.
Sure, when Jim Carrey is on it doesn't matter, the guy doesn't need anyone. When it's say Nicole Kidman, you have no interview, moments of silence, it's a real shame.
You know what, I'd watch Conan, with or without writers, over Letterman with writers any day, no question!
* DVDs with ads?? Yeah, right. Because I too love to pay for commercials. Are you kidding me? What's next, commercials during movies, too ?
I mean, sure we pay our freaking tickets already, but imagine a commercial right in the middle of a movie, every 10 minutes, on the big screen, cause nothing's better than paying for commercials! I'm sure advertisers will love it. If you love movies on the other hand...
Don't worry though, NBC is ahead of you, they're turning the shows themselves into commercials! yay!!
Jee, why am I so pissed today?
Reply
4-29-2008 @ 11:28AM
Galley said...
Commercials on TV Show DVDs? That's crazy talk!
Reply
4-29-2008 @ 11:38AM
Darren said...
ABSOLUTELY NO WAY - NO commercials on DVD's - I don't watch the commercials NOW - I fast forward through them, I don't want to have to screw around on the DVD as well. I have every season of LOST and I absolutely love the fact that it goes from one scene to the next without the irritating commercial breaks! If we pay for the DVD we DON'T want advertising in them!
Reply
4-30-2008 @ 10:07PM
Simon Wakefield said...
I wouldn't be too adverse to ads on some TV Show's on DVD. It seems strange and its not for cultural reasons as I wouldnt even mind them being more modern ones than the ones that aired at the time .
I'll explain why, you see alot of shows that have issues with dvd releases especially due to music rights. If the sales arent going to be outstanding its often not profitable enough to release them and if they do they have to change the musical score. Some shows even see things like theme tunes changed for cost issues.
Now perhaps if there was a way for some of the difficult to get released shows could have the cost offset by some kind of advertising that would be better than nothing. I wouldnt expect to see it happen on new shows though, DVD releases are in the plans and now most musical score has the rights aquired for such releases
Reply
4-29-2008 @ 12:24PM
YouFaceTheTick said...
I agree with number 1. The rest I shrug.
Reply
4-29-2008 @ 12:37PM
Midnight13 said...
Pretty much every DVD that comes out has 5-10 minutes of previews of movies and television shows anyways. I don't mind watching previews for some films, but I also like skipping the previews for the films or television shows I don't care for. If you want commericals on you series you collect, just Tivo the series, and instead of fast forwarding the commericals watch them, and you can watch the show in real time and not in 45 minutes. If the tv shows on DVD came with commerials during thier commerical breaks, those already thick packages are going to be as heavy as a brick and take up 40 discs. No thank you.
Reply
4-29-2008 @ 1:40PM
RetUSMCGunny said...
I concur 100% with your take on SNL, but you failed to mention Dennis Miller's version of the Weekend Update. That 90's cast was hilarious, versatile and clever!
Ryan Seacrest will suffer backlash from overexposure...heck, I've been sick of him for years and now they want to put MORE of him on the airwaves? I'm changing the channel!
Reply
4-29-2008 @ 1:41PM
jun said...
I love both the 70s and 90s casts of SNL, but must point out that Dan's last name is spelled AYKROYD.
Reply
5-04-2008 @ 3:01PM
REX said...
C.F. is funny,you must not just get it,different strokes---
Reply
4-29-2008 @ 2:59PM
LC said...
I gotta agree with most of what you said. Between Miller, Hartman, Lovitz, Meyers Carvey and others, the late 80's through 90's brought so many memorable characters and always had me laughing. I can't remember the last time I watched a full SNL episode.
I don't really have an opinion on Seacrest since I don't watch AI.
I would agree with the commercial DVD idea (if it were even possible as Akbar pointed out) if they gave an option for instant commercial skip.
I couldn't enjoy Conan after Andy Richter left. It's like PB&J without the J.
Reply
4-29-2008 @ 4:04PM
Scott said...
In SNL: Hartman was a genius, but frequently he was wasted in sketches playing characters like Frankenstein. His Reagan and his Clinton are unparalleled. You use "Toonces" the driving cat as an example of how superior the 90s shows were? Ugh. Dennis Miller had the best "Weekend Update" of anyone. But Miller and Hartman aren't enough to say the 90s shows were better than the 70s shows.
On commercials on DVD: I understand where you're coming from. I also enjoy watching the commercials on my old videotapes. But DVDs are now the very last place that we can watch TV shows without commercials, and without annoying network bugs. I'm afraid that even including an alternate option to watch WITH commercials would be opening the door to more mucking around with the shows themselves, or making them mandatory instead of optional, like the ones in front of many movies.
Reply
4-29-2008 @ 4:25PM
dj said...
You can't compare the original SNL cast'75-'79. i'm 40 yrs old abd have seen every single episode of SNL. What the original Not-Ready-for-Primetime Players were doing had never been done before on TV and set the standard and the format for others to follow. Yes, the '90's cast had more versatile performers and catchphrases, but only because there was a template already for what works and what doesn't.
Reply
4-29-2008 @ 5:27PM
Ed U Kator said...
If you're not drunk, then what are you smoking? Commercials on DVD sets? One of the reason some people buy the DVD sets is to avoid the commercials.
Reply
4-29-2008 @ 5:51PM
heinlein said...
On Conan, I'm sorry for offending anyone, but I just can't get past his nasal voice...
Commercials on DVD is OK if it means that it will make the DVDs cheaper or as the only way to make it released, otherwise not.
Reply
4-29-2008 @ 7:26PM
Lindsey said...
I don't really agree with anything you just said.
Reply