Do you watch TV?...at all?

[game-lover]

Oh definitely. TV is awesome.

I like so many shows and cartoons.

Life would be way lame without TV.

 

[Mugen Weston]

Not really, if i ever want to watch something, i'll stream it online or download it

 

[funguy2121]

Ive noticed somthing interesting, after a few years of having very little access to TV and developing interests and such

Ive found that I now hardly ever actually watch it, ecept for mabye like two shows, other than that its just background noise

now Im in Auatralia, currently I just have the standard analouge channels (and I have to screw around with the rabbit ears now and again....yeah Im still using rabit ears) I think I do get the digital channels but they are unwatchable

so all up thats 5 channels

TEN
9
7
SBS (sort of...with some wishhful thinking)
ABC (government funded, probably the best one)

I dont have foxtel....and now I actually dont really see the point, aparently its alot more crap than it used to be even though I like the occasional documentry

anyway I dont know what its like in america

but back to what I was saying before[/B] not only do I not watch much TV but it...just kind of annoys me, half the time Im just shaking my head about how "dumb" it all is, and its all so...."mainstream" ...and just soooo....stupid (its the ads mainly..especially ads for their crap reality tv shows)

I mean if its not games then the rest of my entertainment comes from the internet more or less, its like filled the void that TV used to...uhh fill, so Im wondering is this the case with anyone else?

and its weird because TV used to be a main scource of entertainent....especially when I was a kid

that said however I probably would watch it more if I bothered to get ABC and SBS working properly

No Tivo in Australia? That's why they put ads IN the shows now, 'cos we're all skipping them. No, I actually am not interested to hear what funny jokes Tampax's marketing company has come up with. Dancing applicators - yes! That's so fresh and original.

I am sure that there's more programming available in Australia than what you described. Stateside, there's more choices available, even on broadcast (non-cable), than ever before. Cooking, fake detective shows, real detective shows, all kinds of comedies, real medical shows, fake medical shows by people who know a thing or two about medicine, fake medical shows (ahem! Grey's Anatomy) by people who think that all doctors are sluts, fake lawyer shows by people who think that all lawyers are sluts (anything created by David E. Kelly), and apparently, My Little Pony.

So, there's a helluvah lot more quality programming, and also a hellovah lot more crap.

 

[bdcjacko]

I only watch tv on sunday nights. I watch a lot of netflix, if that counts.

 

[SadakoMoose]

There is also a lot of terrible, dull, boring, unimaginative and unoriginal programming on TV. The fact that the History Channel and Syfy (<- another terrible marketing decision that somehow got no one fired) both have an extensive list of "reality" shows is indicative of the level of intellect going into creating material and the level of intellect of majority viewers. Shit, Syfy even has WWE or WCW or whatever the fuck the fake wrestling base is called. SYFY HAS WRESTLING. WHAT?! There are so many reality shows out there that it's as if the network executives collectively decided to phone it in and cash out. The fact that they've been actually successful at this shows us just how dumb and base the majority of viewers are.

The way things are going with TV right now have a lot to do with overreaction.
TV executives might be reading all of these trendy articles on social media, the Web 2.0, and the vast amount of choice and commercial skipping ability that the average consumer has and it's making them nervous. Because of this fear, they're taking what they view to be more in the way of "sure things" and conservative investments. Shows that prove to be both popular, according to their flawed (over analyzed) market data, but require little actual investment.
The reason that serious science fiction programs have hard time catching on is due to the networks doing little to really cultivate an audience. In the 90's, they had some success but messed it up with their increasingly risky marketing and investment strategies. It's like why AOL Time Warner was filing for bankruptcy at the start of the new millennium.
Now that the Television industry starts to look uncertain, with much of what was considered a given even a decade ago now disappearing, it's no surprise that we're seeing a flood of reality shows and copycats.
While I have many qualms with the way education and pedagogy have traditionally been carried out in this country, I still think that there are a wide variety of peoples out there who appreciate good TV. If I can see a 10 year old get into Game of Thrones, then there's no reason to assume that "the masses" (a term that I refuse to give much credence) wouldn't appreciate good TV. Hell, even the ICP likes Bradbury. (Think about it, Something WICKED this way comes? Dark Carnival? It's really obvious) Provided it was being promoted right, and that they actually had access or knowledge of it's existence.

But yea on to wrestling
It's no coincidence that professional wrestling has been a major part of television history.
From Gorgeous George inspiring Muhammad Ali on the DuMont Network
to Rikidozan drawing whole Japanese towns to gather around the shop window TV display
to All Star Wrestling introducing Britain to Johnny Saint
to Stu Hart giving Canada something else to watch on Saturday
to Telecatch showing the modernizing Brazil the magic of TV
to the Legend of El Santo in Mexico

Pro wrestling is entertaining, hasn't usually required much of an investment on the behalf of the networks, and becomes a major part of the modern culture. In my approximation, pro wrestling may be cheaper programming, but it's not on the level of reality TV. It's an art form, and a sport that requires years of training and dedication to perfect. It draws fans all over the world, and for reasons related to it's overall artistry, rather than cheap schadenfreude like reality TV.

Now, that's not to say that it isn't a mismatch with SyFy.
However, WWE Smackdown on SyFy is less the result of marketing blandness, and more the result of corporate hegemony.
Smackdown used to hosted on UPN (Formerly PAX, Paramount owned), with RAW being hosted on USA (NBC Universal.) In 2006, UPN and the WB merged into the CW, where Smackdown stayed for a few years. Eventually they jumped ship to the new MyNetwork TV (Fox owned), due to them making a better offer. This set up had always paid off, as it gave them both a cable flagship (RAW) and a terrestrial flag ship (Smackdown). In 2009, MyNetwork TV announced that it was phasing out of all original programming. With the writing on the wall, the WWE sought help from NBC to find a new home for the show. Since they had experimented with wrestling on SyFy before, by putting their C show, ECW (and then NXT), on at 10 PM, Smackdown seemed like a decent pick. So yeah, that's why SyFy has wrestling. Titan Sports just has a really close relationship with NBC.
Eventually a better relationship will come along, and Smackdown will move yet again.

But when it leaves, how will TV have changed? In a world where I can DVR my shows, does it matter when they come on or where? What's going to happen to the traditional network structure, when DVR is as widely adopted as cable and when on demand services are standard.
More so, where will it all go once the internet becomes a viable market for exclusive big budget shows?

I don't know...
But at least I won't have to watch commercials.

 

[Reaper195]

Futurama, South Park, Dexter, True Blood, Fringe and Game of Thrones are the only series I watch. And since I live in New Zealand, I have to download them for torrent sites since they either don't come out on TV here for sometimes even years later, or they don't come out at all.

That, and I don't have a cable for my TV from the TV to the wall, and I already have unlimited bandwidth with my ISP. Although I do make it up by buying the DVDs when they (Finally) come out here.

 

[AMX58]

NCIS and Sunday Night Baseball and NHL not much more then that I would watch FRIENDS but its canceled

 

[Stammer]

I watch television when I'm waking up (for about half an hour) and when I'm going to bed (for another half an hour). Aside from that, the only TV I watch is all stuff online. Things like Extra Credits and Nostalgia Critic.

 

[Vault101]

Snipped the aerial three year's ago, cancelled the TV license and have never looked back. Highly recommended.

oh yeah...you have to have a liscence to have a TV in briton right?

if youll excuse my language....thats sooo...fucking....stupid, like are you going to abuse it by making your children watch terrible shows or somthing?

really Im just...amazed at the very Idea

It's not a license to prove that your are competent to own and operate a TV. It's a mechanism to fund the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), a public body that is meant to produce quality public service programmes on TV, radio and elsewhere. Which it has done; by and large. The license gives you the right to receive broadcast television in the UK, whether you watch/gain benefit from BBC programmes, or not. The BBC can then take the money and make good quality, interesting programmes that, perhaps, would not otherwise be made by commercial television producers.

Like good quality educational programmes for children, for example, or innovative new delivery mechanisms - like the BBC iPlayer. Or a decent, global news network with local language support, like the World Service.

I am certain that it seems strange in a country where national provision of public services like healthcare and television is an alien concept. Different strokes... and all that.

To be honest, many in the UK are questioning how the BBC can balance public funding with commercial pressures in a global market. They don't always get it right - but I like the BBC and I have no problem with the concept of a license that most people in the UK contribute to.

ohhh right..well that makes alot more sense, I guess I just assosiate license with "compitence" or somthing

anyway Im in Australia so we have healthcare and government funded TV (the ABC which is actually better than the comercial stations, and at times felt kind of like a spinoff from the BBC)