Topic Options
#601897 - 02/13/13 02:29 PM Is Girls the end of this TV "golden age"?
MBunge Offline
Member

Registered: 07/19/01
Posts: 3386
Loc: Waterloo, Iowa, United States
Ever since Buffy and The Sopranos, it seems like television has come to be more and more aesthetically dominated by this type of show that critics gush over but the general public ignores. We now appear to have reached some kind of turning point in that paradigm with Girls, a show that gets monster-sized attention from entertainment media and pundits but gets fairly shitty ratings EVEN BY CABLE TV STANDARDS. But it's on HBO and the chattering classes love it, so Lena Dunham winds up on the cover of Rolling Stone for making a show that gets fewer viewers than random episodes of Law and Order than have been rerun so many times you can practically recite the dialog from memory.

How much further can this process go? Will the next "It" show be something you can only view by re-hooking your TV to a UHF antenna and holding it with a roll of aluminum foil in your other hand?

Mike


Edited by MBunge (02/13/13 02:40 PM)

Top
#601911 - 02/13/13 11:51 PM Re: Is Girls the end of this TV "golden age"? [Re: MBunge]
Allen Montgomery Offline
Member

Registered: 05/08/00
Posts: 7070
I haven't watched the show, but I've seen Dunham and Allison Williams on the late night talk shows. The only things I could piece together from that and a quick Google search is that the fat girl gets naked every episode and the hot girl refuses to get naked ever.
_________________________
"The trouble with being a ghost writer or artist is that you must remain anonymous without credit.
If one wants the credit, one has to cease being a ghost and become a leader or innovator."
Bob Kane

Top
#602072 - 04/27/13 08:59 PM Re: Is Girls the end of this TV "golden age"? [Re: MBunge]
Michael Neno Offline
Member

Registered: 05/10/99
Posts: 45
Loc: Central Ohio
I disagree that television is more aesthetically dominated by critically acclaimed but poorly rated shows. I think television is more aesthetically dominated (if I'm understanding what you mean by that) by trashy (or at least dumb) shows that get huge ratings.

It's nothing new. Critically acclaimed novels/films/TV shows/record albums/Broadway shows rarely get the sales they deserve. Sometimes there is overlap, but usually not. It was true in (say) 1920 and it's true now.

I'm curious to know why it seems to bother you that someone, somewhere out there is watching a critically acclaimed, but poorly rated show. Aren't the low ratings punishment enough for the show's creators and fans?

Top


Moderator:  Rick Veitch, Steve Conley