What the CBC has done for you lately...

Ricki Bobbi · October 30, 2006

How can I assure anything? er....

That's the point. Maybe you shouldn't make such outrageous claims.

jbg · October 30, 2006

Everything could be. It's a question of what works the best.

And given the condition of the roads, you think the government does a good job? There isn't a province in Canada where the roads are not falling apart.

Except, I hear, Saskatchewan, where they're the envy of the gardener of a golf green.

kimmy · October 30, 2006

And given the condition of the roads, you think the government does a good job? There isn't a province in Canada where the roads are not falling apart.

Except, I hear, Saskatchewan, where they're the envy of the gardener of a golf green.

The time I drove on the Trans-Canada outside of Regina took a year off the life of my poor Reliant, and that thing's life expectancy was tragically short to start with.

-k

cybercoma · October 30, 2006

The time I drove on the Trans-Canada outside of Regina took a year off the life of my poor Reliant, and that thing's life expectancy was tragically short to start with.
-k

HA! Reliant! "K" Car! "K" is for Kimmy! Woo! bahaha :lol:

kimmy · October 30, 2006

The sit-com is the lowest of low-brow programming, and it has become virtually extinct.

That's kind of an elitist stance. Sitcoms can be great entertainment. What more do you want? I'm sure I can give you a list of great sitcoms from the seventies and eighties that will more than match anything on TV now in terms of quality, as well as entertainment.

A guy who thumbs his nose at everything currently on TV is accusing me of elitism? Odd...

For the sake of argument, bring on the list. I've seen many of these shows and while "quality" and "entertainment" are pretty subjective, most of the sit-coms I've seen from the 1970s and 1980s was about as entertaining as my root-canal and as high-quality as my late Reliant. I'd much rather watch "Corner Gas" or "The Office" or "My Name is Earl".

Yeah, I know what you mean, and I know why you're saying it. You're forgetting an essential element in your assessment. The culture then was different than it is now. I don't want to sound maudlin, but society was much more innocent and much less sophisticated. Things which caused hilarity in the seventies no doubt just make you frown and shake your head. Drama which was cutting edge then is trite and hackneyed now.

Well, that's true.

I'd also suggest that the older shows had dismal production values, and by and large pretty mediocre actors and simplistic scripts.

And I'll give this to those earlier shows. They were trying to be unique. They came up with novel ideas, and took risks. They might seem backward now, but they were cutting edge then. What's cutting edge now? Could All in the Family even get on TV today? And if it did, YOU KNOW that Archie would be a slick, handsome man, and Edith would be played by Michele Pfeifer or some other gorgeous doll, while Mike and Gloria would be plastic and perfect. Dick Van Dyke was the first show to show a man and a woman in bed together. Archie Bunker wasn't allowed to show a toilet, so the flush of a toilet off screen became a signature sound. Maude actually talked about abortion, while MASH was the ultimate show for questioning authority. All that now seems hackneyed.

The fact that toilets flushing or a couple sharing a bed was shocking at the time is indeed a fascinating commentary on the times you grew up in, but doesn't do much to convince me that these astonishing innovations are evidence of quality. If being groundbreaking in 2006 was as easy as flushing a toilet, everybody would be breaking ground left and right.

Archie Bunker would be played by a slick handsome man? Of course! Because all leading men on sit-coms are slick handsome men. Chiselled, rugged studs like Jim Belushi and Brent Butt, lady-killers like Jason Scott Lee and Michael Rappaport. Oh yes. Be still my heart.

These shows talked about social issues? Ok. TV shows do in 2006, too, but I guess that's not risky or groundbreaking anymore.

TV rarely takes chances any more. Everything is just a rehash of something which played last year, or ten years ago.

On the one hand you're asking me to admire the old shows because they were flushing toilets or sharing beds in an era when toilets were scary and married people slept in separate beds. On the other hand you're blasting today's shows for not pushing the envelope, in an era when there's no envelope left to push.

Aside from a small number of exceptions like The Hill Street Blues or Archie Bunker, very little programming from older eras compares well to today's shows.

And which of today's shows compares well with All in the family for daring, risk-taking, novelty and terrific writing and acting? The Mary Tyler Moore show was hilarious, but it was also cutting edge, showing a young, unmarried, working woman on her own. Bob Newharts shows, MASH, Laverne & Shirley, The Odd Couple, and Barney Miller, they were all great, inventive comedies with terrific writing. For their time.

"For their time" seems to be a common refrain here. Were people just easily amused in yesteryear?

As I said earlier, I'd rather watch The Office, Corner Gas, or My Name is Earl than the stuff you mention. I guess they're not "taking risks" like flushing the crapper and zipping up their pants after emerging from the can, but they're still inventive comedies with terrific writing, and a lot funnier... by 2006 standards. Ugly Betty is hilarious and socially relevant, though rather new on the block.

Out of curiousity, what could a show do in 2006 that you'd consider "taking a risk"?

So what compares to them today? What's cutting edge? What has outstanding writing every week? What critiques society and pushes the envelope?

Many of today's medical and legal shows have storylines that force viewers to think about social issues.

Drama? What drama today can match The Waltons or Little House on the Prairie for outstanding writing and acting week after week? Mind you, entertaining dramas really came into their own in the eighties, with Hill Street Blues, China Beach, Magnum PI, Moonlighting, Miami Vice, St Elsewhere, Remington Steele, Cagney and Lacey, etc.
But even they are products of their age and culture. Two decades later, much of them seem backward and unsophisticated. Still, they were great for their time.

What's great for this time? Which shows are routinely outstanding in terms of writing, acting and entertainment value, regularly tug at the heart strings, make the pulse beat faster, enlighten and inform, cause people to laugh out loud, push the envelope?

Because believe it or not, the good shows in the sixties, seventies and eighties did that. I don't see any shows doing that today. They've reinvented the serial - which I never liked, mind you. They've got a few soaps and a few kids shows. But really, where's the beef?

The current Battlestar Galactica series has superb writing, a superb cast, and production values that are unequalled by pretty much anything TV has ever seen before. House is a great show and compares well to medical shows of the past. Courtroom shows aren't new or groundbreaking, but Shark and Justice are far better than Matlock and Perry Mason ever were. Fish-out-of-water stories aren't fresh or groundbreaking, but Ugly Betty isa charming and funny show. Even the shows that have been around for a while (the CSI franchise, the Law and Order franchise) still put good programs on the tube each week.

In terms of the quality of the shows, I don't think you can look at any of the major networks and find scripted programming that flat out sucks, as you could have in the 1970s or 1980s.

TV still takes risks. The series "Boomtown" of a couple of years ago was an extraordinary program. It was a cop-show, which is not "groundbreaking" or "innovative", but used a non-linear story-telling technique to recount events from a number of perspectives, to transform ordinary events (a kidnapping, a domestic disturbance, a string of robberies...) into an emotionally involving story. They unveiled the story a piece at a time by showing a new perspective (from one of the policemen, or the victim, or the criminal...) to add a new dimension to the story. By the time the whole story was revealed, they had created deeper understanding of the characters. It was truly outstanding, a wonderful program. Sadly, most viewers were just too dumb to "get" it. The show only lasted for a season.

TV takes risks, but sadly most don't pan out. This season had some new shows that took risks in terms of style or subject matter, and some seem to have clicked (Heroes...) but more (Smith, Six Degrees, The Nine...) are either cancelled or heading that way.

-k

kimmy · October 30, 2006

The time I drove on the Trans-Canada outside of Regina took a year off the life of my poor Reliant, and that thing's life expectancy was tragically short to start with.

HA! Reliant! "K" Car! "K" is for Kimmy! Woo! bahaha

I bought and paid for it with my very own money! Sadly, it was exactly the kind of car you'd expect a 16 year old to afford on a McWage.

I sold it a few years ago, but sometimes I still miss it. I did have some good times with the old beater.

-k

jefferiah · October 30, 2006

Some people might like CBC or some shows on it. And some people might like George Strombalopolous. I like Hockey Night In Canada. But the thing is, there is not a real choice in the matter that is representative of the people when the publically funded CBC is airing shows that most people dont want to watch. I understand that some people dont like what sells big either. Neither do I always. I understand that some people dont want to watch the standard sitcoms. But when you start deciding what everyone has to watch because you fancy your choices are more intelligent, then, yes, that is elitism. I watch Corner Gas by the way. But just because it is on. Really I think it is not all that funny, and the acting is pretty stiff and awkward. "Hank" comes across as the only one who could possibly be a decent actor, because it seems as if he is really that character. Archie Bunker was an amazing show. I dont think you could compare Brent Butt to Archie Bunker. I know art on some level is a personal matter. But really. I would never compare any Canadian show to something like Seinfeld. The one thing about Canadian TV I will vouch for is that there is something in the common crappiness of our television that makes us who we are. "There's a voice that keeps on calling me. Down the road thats where I'll always be." Or Relic from the Beachcombers. You know what I mean.

Ricki Bobbi · October 31, 2006

The one thing about Canadian TV I will vouch for is that there is something in the common crappiness of our television that makes us who we are. "There's a voice that keeps on calling me. Down the road thats where I'll always be." Or Relic from the Beachcombers. You know what I mean.

Yes, completely agreed about the crapiness.

Don't know what can be done about it, but $1 Billion a year to subsidize the CBC and the political agenda it pushes is not the answer...

jdobbin · October 31, 2006

Some people might like CBC or some shows on it. And some people might like George Strombalopolous. I like Hockey Night In Canada. But the thing is, there is not a real choice in the matter that is representative of the people when the publically funded CBC is airing shows that most people dont want to watch. I understand that some people dont like what sells big either. Neither do I always. I understand that some people dont want to watch the standard sitcoms. But when you start deciding what everyone has to watch because you fancy your choices are more intelligent, then, yes, that is elitism. I watch Corner Gas by the way. But just because it is on. Really I think it is not all that funny, and the acting is pretty stiff and awkward. "Hank" comes across as the only one who could possibly be a decent actor, because it seems as if he is really that character. Archie Bunker was an amazing show. I dont think you could compare Brent Butt to Archie Bunker. I know art on some level is a personal matter. But really. I would never compare any Canadian show to something like Seinfeld. The one thing about Canadian TV I will vouch for is that there is something in the common crappiness of our television that makes us who we are. "There's a voice that keeps on calling me. Down the road thats where I'll always be." Or Relic from the Beachcombers. You know what I mean.

So you wouldn't mind if they folded all of Canadian TV and radio and just became American affiliates?

Ricki Bobbi · October 31, 2006

So you wouldn't mind if they folded all of Canadian TV and radio and just became American affiliates?

Uhh no. HNIC is going to leave the CBC anyways. The economically viable stuff will stay. Even the stuff that stays afloat with minor funding from Heritage Canada is ok.

Still saves taxpayers a billion a year for an outlet that blatantly pushes an agenda.

Argus · October 31, 2006

The sit-com is the lowest of low-brow programming, and it has become virtually extinct.

That's kind of an elitist stance. Sitcoms can be great entertainment. What more do you want? I'm sure I can give you a list of great sitcoms from the seventies and eighties that will more than match anything on TV now in terms of quality, as well as entertainment.

A guy who thumbs his nose at everything currently on TV is accusing me of elitism? Odd...

You're making assumptions. I never thumbed my nose at "everything" currently on TV. Some of it seems good, though flawed. And as I rarely watch TV any more I can't say that I've personally watched everything - especially the last couple of seasons.

I'd much rather watch "Corner Gas" or "The Office" or "My Name is Earl".

Corner Gas and Earl are too bumpkinish for me. The Office seems to have too much meanness.

I'd also suggest that the older shows had dismal production values, and by and large pretty mediocre actors and simplistic scripts.

I'd disagree. The only thing better now are special affects. Writing is almost universally pathetic and unimaginative. The sitcom died not because it was lowbrow, but because comedy is the ultimate test of a writer, and Hollywood doesn't enough good ones. As for production values - it's called colour - and yes, it has improved. Film quality has improved, and if the sets are fancier it's only to draw your attention away from the lousy writing, the terrible dialogue, the implausible plotlines, and the bad acting.

"For their time" seems to be a common refrain here. Were people just easily amused in yesteryear?

Kind of. It was a less jaded, less sophisticated time. You also have to remember that television had a wider reach. It didn't necessarily play to segment groups as TV does so much now. Most television was broadly aimed at everyone. When Hawaii Five Oh came on the whole family would watch it, including grandparents and teenagers, believe it or not. Same for All in the Family and the rest. Now everything seems aimed at people in their twenties - which is good for you, I suppose, but not so good for me.

The current Battlestar Galactica series has superb writing, a superb cast, and production values that are unequalled by pretty much anything TV has ever seen before.

Hmm, I wouldn't doubt it. I've see a few episodes. I've been a big SF fan all my life, you see. But I almost never watch BG because it's so dark in every way. It has implausible, if not ridiculous plots, and seems determined to not only be as dark as possible in its storylines but in its lighting. Can't anyone turn a light on in those ships!? I'm surprised they don't bump into each other more.

You know what? The original Star Trek might have had lousy production values but it was entertaining as hell. I'm not entertained by BG, I'm depressed by it. It's not something to enjoy, it's something to endure.

House is a great show and compares well to medical shows of the past.

Because he's an arrogant jerk? There were jerks on St. Elsewhere too.

Courtroom shows aren't new or groundbreaking, but Shark and Justice are far better than Matlock and Perry Mason ever were.

Haven't seen them, but then, I never liked Matlock either. I did like LA Law for a time, though.

Fish-out-of-water stories aren't fresh or groundbreaking, but Ugly Betty isa charming and funny show.

I think you've misunderstood the point I was trying to make. I know I mentioned the "risk taking" somewhat, but really, the problem I have with modern shows has nothing to do with them taking no risks. It has to do with not being entertained by them. Mind you, I'm harder to entertain than I was.

The idea of a naive, plain woman constantly being insulted by snotty, stupid people just didn't strike me as something I wanted to sit through.

Even the shows that have been around for a while (the CSI franchise, the Law and Order franchise) still put good programs on the tube each week.

Possibly, but after a few years I get bored. I used to watch Law and Order every week, but after five or six years it all just seemed to run together. I stopped watching the Sopranos for the same reason.

In terms of the quality of the shows, I don't think you can look at any of the major networks and find scripted programming that flat out sucks, as you could have in the 1970s or 1980s.

Well, admittedly, I haven't watched much TV for several years now, due to the continued deteriorating quality. I read up on what new shows were coming out, and wasn't tempted by them. Nothing sounded interesting. So however good the production values or scripts - well so what if they're not about anything I want to see? Put a couple of cops in a cop car and ride them around town for 44 minutes and I'll watch that. In the meantime, the last TV show I watched regularly was West Wing (which I admit, had great writing), and that's been cancelled, so I doubt I'll be watching much this year.

Ricki Bobbi · October 31, 2006

The Office seems to have too much meanness.

That's part of the brilliance of The Office.

It is funny because it is true.

Take the meanness for an example. You may not see such explicit meanness in a real office, but I guarantee people are thinking it.

geoffrey · October 31, 2006

House is a great show and compares well to medical shows of the past.

Agreed. I don't watch much TV, House is one of the few I try to catch.

Take the meanness for an example. You may not see such explicit meanness in a real office, but I guarantee people are thinking it.

Everyday.

Ricki Bobbi · October 31, 2006

Take the meanness for an example. You may not see such explicit meanness in a real office, but I guarantee people are thinking it.

Everyday.

I have been in offices where i have thought it. One of the worse ones I actually witnessed far more depravity and evil beahviour than anything they could get away with on TV. Worst 15 months of my life...

Argus · October 31, 2006

Take the meanness for an example. You may not see such explicit meanness in a real office, but I guarantee people are thinking it.

Everyday.

I have been in offices where i have thought it. One of the worse ones I actually witnessed far more depravity and evil beahviour than anything they could get away with on TV. Worst 15 months of my life...

Yeah, okay but...

I was recently reading an article on, I think, the Telegraph site, or maybe it was the BBC, talking about the success of American shows, and in particular, American police shows vs British police shows.

The American shows featured hot, slick, sexy people, driving fast, shiny cars, working sexy cases, working in great offices with the best equipment, with great romances, etc. etc.

British TV shows tended to feature overweight, twice divorced, unhappy, alcoholic detectives driving rusting Fords working for miserable jerks in run-down police stations...

The point they were making was that people don't want to watch television about people whose lives are as crappy as their own, they don't necessarily want to see real life reflected on TV. They want bright, shining, escapism that takes them away from their dull, ordinary lives into a fantasy world of fun and excitement. They want to be entertained, not depressed.

M.Dancer · October 31, 2006

1) The Ontario lottery scandle in which it was discovered that an elderly man was being swindled by a store clerk and stonewalled by the Ontario Lottery Corporation (who has now apologised).
2) The slave trade.

...while not their's per se.....the do broadcast Doctor Who, The Mercer Report and Colleen.....

M.Dancer · October 31, 2006

Even Corner Gas doesn't get enough viewers to pay the freight. No Canadian program does except for sports. The Conservatives could end all of that and simply allow CTV, Global and CBC to be U.S. affiliates.

Pardon?

Canadian shows get profitable by syndication.......

jdobbin · October 31, 2006

Pardon?
Canadian shows get profitable by syndication.......

Most Canadians series do not get syndication. Even when they do get syndication, it takes many years for a Canadian themed series to make money back in Canada. Many will never recover the $500,000 to $1,000,000 it takes to make the show.

For this reason, Alliance Atlantis got out of television production except for the CSI series.

M.Dancer · October 31, 2006

Pardon?

Canadian shows get profitable by syndication.......

Most Canadians series do not get syndication. Even when they do get syndication, it takes many years for a Canadian themed series to make money back in Canada. Many will never recover the $500,000 to $1,000,000 it takes to make the show.

For this reason, Alliance Atlantis got out of television production except for the CSI series.

Allaince Atlantis continues to produce a host of reality (as such) shows like, the Mom show......

Great Canadian syndications.......Fraggle Rock, Starlost, The Beach Combers, Andromeda, Relic Hunter (which for some reason had nothing to do with the Beach Combers...) SCTV, Charmed.........

fellowtraveller · October 31, 2006

Canadian TV and radio is not economically viable. It is subsidized. The question is whether Canadians wish to have Canadian TV and radio or not.

I listen to excellent AND viable Canadian radio every day, on CKUA.

Non-commercial for the most part, wonderful programming, supported mainly by listener subscription, dollars going directly from my pocket to their bank account.

This is a perfect formula for the future CBC. If you love it - you pay for it. Directly, no need to involve your fellow taxpayers, and no need to ever have this discussion again.

What is CKUA?

It is much more than a community radio station, and much more popular. Unlike commercial stations - but like CBC - it has coverage throughout the province.. It is a former Alberta government owned and operated station, which had govt funding yanked a decade ago. It broadcasts throughtout Alberta and into BC, with production facilities in Edmontn and Calgary.

Now - in my opinion - it is example of how semi-public radio should be - both the flavour/sound AND the governance/funding of the station are excellent- great programming, heavily supported by listeners including myself. Every year I send them money because they are worthy. It is exactly what should be done with the CBC, if only so supposed supporters can put their money where their mouth is....

What should happen to the CBC, and soon.

Remiel · October 31, 2006

1. Didn't Degrassi do fairly well in the US?

2. I think that analyzing the good of Canadian programming just by comparing its cost to American programming isn't very honest. It's *always* more cost effective to buy someone elses TV show than to make your own. Hell, it's cheaper for Americans to buy Canadian shows than to make their own, but they don't do it that often. If you want to compare the worth of Canadian shows to American shows, use the actual cost of producing the American show, and take into account the massive population difference. Or, to say, is Program 1 cost Market A 1,000,000 to produce, and cost Market C 100,000 to buy, and Program 2 cost Market C 500,000 to produce, and Programs 1 and 2 have equal viewership, and each make Market C 600,000, then does Program 2 have no value and should Market C cease to exist and become part of Market A, even if Market C is trying to promote Culture C, which is similar, yet different, to Culture A?

margrace · October 31, 2006

Good shows coming out of the US

The odd one on PBS, sometimes CNN, I can't think of a single other good one. The're' mostly a load of crap.

jdobbin · October 31, 2006

Allaince Atlantis continues to produce a host of reality (as such) shows like, the Mom show......
Great Canadian syndications.......Fraggle Rock, Starlost, The Beach Combers, Andromeda, Relic Hunter (which for some reason had nothing to do with the Beach Combers...) SCTV, Charmed.........

Alliance Atlantis has only one co-production listed in children's programming. That's Lunar Jim. It produces no other series except CSI.

Charmed in not a Canadian series.

Fraggle was not a syndicated series. It was a co-production with HBO, NHK and the CBC.

Starlost was not a syndicated program. It was a network program on CTV and NBC and was produced by 20th Century FOX.

SCTV started as a network program on Global. It then became a network program on CBC. American TV bought the series for syndication after three seasons. It then became a network program for NBC.

The Beachcombers was a network program for CBC. It eventually became syndicated world-wide and continues to run.

Andromeda and Relic Hunter are the only two true syndicated series here. They were produced by Firestone, a Global company and Tribune for the U.S. Each company bought the series for their TV stations Global and Tribune.

Global got our of drama production and sold its library of TV and films to the British. They no longer produce syndicated TV series.

A true original syndicated series is one that is not mainly funded by a network but rather a syndicate of independent television stations.

Producers of programs such as DaVinci's Inquest are free to sell their series after the original network loses its exclusive rights to the series. DaVinci's Inquest now runs in the U.S. but it will be many years before it earns back the investment of $1,000,000 an episode.

jdobbin · October 31, 2006

1. Didn't Degrassi do fairly well in the US?
2. I think that analyzing the good of Canadian programming just by comparing its cost to American programming isn't very honest. It's *always* more cost effective to buy someone elses TV show than to make your own. Hell, it's cheaper for Americans to buy Canadian shows than to make their own, but they don't do it that often. If you want to compare the worth of Canadian shows to American shows, use the actual cost of producing the American show, and take into account the massive population difference. Or, to say, is Program 1 cost Market A 1,000,000 to produce, and cost Market C 100,000 to buy, and Program 2 cost Market C 500,000 to produce, and Programs 1 and 2 have equal viewership, and each make Market C 600,000, then does Program 2 have no value and should Market C cease to exist and become part of Market A, even if Market C is trying to promote Culture C, which is similar, yet different, to Culture A?

Degrassi wasn't an original syndicated series in the U.S. It was sold cheaply to PBS after it had been on for many years in Canada.

It remains a Canadian network series on CTV with distribution rights sold to an American cable network.

The comparisons I make on costs are not to say whether they are right or wrong but to show there is no economic reason for Canadian television.

Many people here criticize the CBC but CTV and Global also have poor records of attracting audiences because Canadians just don't watch Canadian programming in any great numbers.