MovieChat Forums > General Discussion > 5 Reasons why TV shows suck now-a-days

5 Reasons why TV shows suck now-a-days


1. High Definition cameras give shows an overly clean look, it’s way too sanitized looking and kills all sense of realism. If the environment of the show looks like it’s a fantasy world it’s hard to connect to the characters.

2. The casting is too diverse and unrealistic. Every show has to have one Asian, two Blacks, one gay dude, a handicap person, and one Hispanic chick. What happened to the good old days when minorities weren’t thrown into shows for the sake of being PC?

3. Way too many characters!!!!! Game of Thrones has like 100 characters for crying out loud, how are we supposed to care about any of them when many disappear for episodes on end or only get 4 lines of dialogue? Remember when shows use to be more simple and you could follow along without being confused? Well that all came to an end once ‘Lost’ came out.

4. Most Characters are no longer relatable on any level, they’ve become caricatures of themselves. Either the lead characters are perfect in every aspect or they are presented as complete morons, there is no in between. TV shows in the 70’s on through the 90’s had characters you could relate to in some way, they were more humble and acted like real human beings.

5. The Actors are too good looking, they all look like models and I find it hard to connect with them. Back in the day each show would have usually one hot female on board and maybe two at the most. Now-a-days even the middle aged mother looks like a Victoria Secret model and dresses like a teenager. We need more ugly looking actors and women with normal bodies getting selected, when I see a character they should look like some random girl at a drug store buying milk, not some Model looking Pop singer.

reply

[deleted]

Okay how about cast women who are vaguely f^€kable, it’s hard to get excited when there are no flaws with these women. I mean how on earth are we supposed to imagine banging a California 10/10? We would have to pull a Brock Turner because these women would never give a normal dude the time of day.

reply

[deleted]

JJL wasn’t unattractive in that movie but I think her psycho vibe was convincing enough that I could believe dudes would avoid her.

reply

[deleted]

You hit it solid, PH, especially 2, 3, 4.

Stout work.

reply

If you haven't, try watching some British TV shows. I like them because most of the characters are not some Hollywood Barbie or Ken look-a-like. They look like the could be your neighbor. I can't watch most of what Hollywood puts out these days. Much better writing in British shows, in my opinion. Intelligent is the word I'd use to describe their shows.

reply

Yes I agree with that, I think it's far more interesting when you have real looking people and the audience can identify with that.
Although there are plenty of plastic looking people over here!
It's weird orange looking faces with thick black eyebrows and overly big-for-their-mouth white teeth😵

reply

Same here with the real-looking people. It's depressing how many people buy into Hollywood's vision of "real life," which is why I've given up on Hollywood product. I don't see myself going back (with rare exceptions). A very plastic society we have here in the US.

reply

I agree with you on the UK shows - more more realistic when it comes to the looks department.

reply

You certainly have some good points. I would also add that shows have way too much going on from the very first episode and that every character apparently needs some traumatic past experience or over-the-top drama going on in their lives.

reply

^ This
Far too much going on from the outset is a real turn off, then they don't solve any mystery, rather each week they add more!
I hate when a new show starts with flash back to some event that only becomes relevant half way through the season.

reply

Watch movies instead...

reply

Good advice.

reply

I came to this conclusion after finally giving into all of my friends advice to check out this or that series... Invariably each one was 'supposedly' unlike anything else on TV and cinematic, yet after watching several shows, I realised that it didn't matter how much these shows tried, they simply weren't cinema and weren't worth the time...

Even the rare shows that were good for an episode or two, quickly turned into soapy melodrama or empty cliffhangers and end up relying on caricature, shock value and new characters to 'spice things up'... dedicated episodes for particular side character, etc...

Even when I watch a bad movie, it's just less than two hours that I've wasted and even the mediocre movies have some good moments or elements... However, I would hate to waste 8 episodes or more on a show only for it to become another soap opera or repetitive... I can't imagine watching 4 or 5 seasons of something and having it remain quality. That's 15 to 20 movies!

I realise that shows fit in a lot of people's lifestyles, to be able to watch something for an hour after putting the kids to bed, etc... Movies demad more focused attention and time, so can be less convenient.

reply

Jack Elam would never get any work today.

reply

[deleted]

Agree with number 3...the more characters you have...the less character development.

reply

There’s a huge reason for the decline in broadcast TV scripted narrative shows that I’m surprised no one has mentioned, though a couple, e. g., Stratego, have brushed up against it: the script itself! The writers have no idea how to construct a coherent narrative, which requires skill, concentration and discipline, so we get disjointed narratives, gussied up with a plethora of shallow, iconic (in the worst sense of the word), excessive reliance on CGI, and—my least favorite—the PLOT TWIST. Allied with the lazy writing is the lazy audience, which is growing. They have an attention span measured in nanoseconds. They’re screwing around on their tablets and phones—so why give more than a half-show to an audience that’s only half-watching. On a topic in Westworld, someone recently asked about the fate of a character. The final scene of the episode clearly showed what happened to her! Here on MC, I
see, based on stupid questions, that more people than ever aren’t paying attention to what they watch. When we were discussing the series Big Little Lies here on MC, one poster was very disappointed that the finale did not have what s/he thought was the de rigeur TWIST. NEITHER DOES THE BROTHERS KARAMAZOF! Great narrative does not need twists. This has been a long screed to say that the modern TV audience has no idea of what constitutes quality. They would be stunned by an episode of Have Gun, Will Travel, and would sneer at its black-and-white technology. Some others would be impressed by its literacy, and how much story was packed into that half-hour. The modern TV writer is, at best, cynical, at worst, a hack, and, in both cases, lazy.

There is one other factor in the steady erosion of the TV scripted narrative form: time. The time allotted to the editorial content of today’s “one hour” TV show is 42 minutes. Sixty years ago, it was 55 minutes. To be fair, more time is not always going to make for a better story, especially not if it is written by a hack. Several episodes of Daredevil that I’ve seen on Netflix are stuffed with boring filler, as Netflix demands they all run for an hour. On the other hand, HBO is smart enough to let its writers decide how much time it takes to tell their story. That said, the more time with which a capable writer has to work, the better able s/he is to develop characters, and subtlety and nuance in narrative. Just not much time for, you know, commercials.

reply