The excitement is gone

[oldtvman]

I was in the grocery store today and while waiting to check out I was looking at the new format tv guide.

Back in the day you couldn't wait to see what new programs and specials were slated to be broadcast in living color.

In fact tv guide had a separate category devoted to what was in color for the coming week.

[David Roper]

In fact...

TV Guide had program listings.


Those were the days....

[old_tv_nut]

The main thing I found useful in TV guide was the comprehensive movie listing in the back - when they lost that, they lost me. I see no reason to waste money on a celeb rag.

[OvenMaster]

Instead of like what? 112 different editions? they now have one for the East coast, and the other for the West. I pick one of these new rags up and all I see are networks and cable listings. No local channel numbers or listings of any sort. If you don't go online to each TV station's website or religiously read the daily newspaper for TV listings, you can't tell what's on.
What is it, are people so lazy now that they don't even bother to see in advance what is going to be on the boob tube, and just pick the least offensive show that's on when they're sitting in front of the set? Don't people time-shift anymore? Don't they care what they watch?

What a stupid question. Of course they don't care.

TV Guide in its new, bland, useless, generic state is just one more indication of how lousy U.S. TV has become and another reason why I probably won't bother getting a new TV when it all goes digital in 2009.

Tom

[3Guncolor]

The reason that TV Guide is not what it once was is due to the fact that almost all satellite receivers and digital cable boxes have some form of built in guide.

[JimJ[VT]]

I don't get it...

[ChrisW6ATV]

Originally Posted by OvenMaster

What is it, are people so lazy now that they don't even bother to see in advance what is going to be on the boob tube, and just pick the least offensive show that's on when they're sitting in front of the set?

I think it was Paul Klein of NBC who came up with the "least objectionable program" theory, in the 1970's. And there was Newton Minnow who described broadcast TV as a "vast wasteland" in the 1950's.

I had quit buying TV Guides years ago, when they stopped including the one thing that made it worth paying for rather than using the free guides in newspapers: Program descriptions for shows in non-prime time.

[oldtvman]

But back in the day if you had a color set, you watched what was in color!

Didn't much matter the content of the program, until later.

[JimJ[VT]]

Originally Posted by oldtvman

But back in the day if you had a color set, you watched what was in color!

Didn't much matter the content of the program, until later.

Isn't that a good thing?

[ChrisW6ATV]

Originally Posted by oldtvman

But back in the day if you had a color set, you watched what was in color!

Didn't much matter the content of the program, until later.

Maybe that would explain the success of shows like "Green Acres"?

The same concept has worked for high-def in recent years. I watched a bunch of miscellaneous shows on Discovery HD just because they looked so clear, other than all the lousy DirecTV artifacts.

[Wigwam Jones]

The only things I watch on TV are on Cartoon Network and Nicktoons, with the occasional foray into Discovery, Nature, and PBS when they air a BBC-produced show. I could easily forgo TV, and I have done so in the past for years at a time - not owning a TV at all. We have one now because Mrs. Wiggy likes Food Network and HGTV. Otherwise, we just use it to watch DVD's.

[Celt]

Originally Posted by OvenMaster

TV Guide in its new, bland, useless, generic state is just one more indication of how lousy U.S. TV has become and another reason why I probably won't bother getting a new TV when it all goes digital in 2009.

Tom

Me either. I already know what my local internet/tee-vee cable provider is going to do. The rates will go up and they are going to charge an additional $15 per conversion box for those with old sets. No thanks. I'll kick their service to the curb and use my set for watching rented DVD's. As far as the internet goes, I'll hook up with DSL, that is, if I even care about the internet at that point.

[Carmine]

Pardon me for asking an off-topic question, but it's sorta related...

I haven't had internet in my house for just over a year now. Sometimes I "mooch" internet at a friend's house, or use my phone for quick replies. I dumped dial-up when I dumped my home phone. (Went out to AZ for a couple months and figured it was stupid to keep paying for a utility that only rang when somebody was trying to sell me some crap, now I'm cell-phone only)

Now winter will be setting in, TV sucks (More than ever! See the related content?) and I'd rather decompress with my world-wide old-TV friends than watch "reality" (Proud to say I've never seen an entire episode of that crap).

What would be the best route for me to get internet? I don't know anything about it, but I know a lot of you do. Cable would be a waste, I don't watch TV. Not getting a phone line just for dial-up/DSL. What kind of wireless options are there?

[Wigwam Jones]

Cheapest high-speed is still basic cable TV with internet.

I also use Skype for free (nearly free, since I have an actual phone number) phone calls. Works well.

Wireless is available - expensive, quirky, and spotty coverage. DSL too slow.

Sorry, calls 'em like I sees 'em. You can get cable TV with internet and leave the boob tube turned off, same as not having it.

[Carmine]

DSL ain't too slow for me... remember I came from dial-up, so DSL feels like I'm on the crack. Spotty DSL-speed wireless would be cool with me, in fact, I like the idea of being able to use a laptop on my front porch in the evening...

Makes the internet feel more like a country-time lemonade commercial.