Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

New York Times: "Back in the vault, please" to "I Love Lucy" and other classic TV shows

Maybe you’re one of those irritating people prone to complaining, “Why can’t they make shows as good as [name of a vintage TV series] anymore?”

For years, that was a safe whine because the shows existed only in the memories of those who had seen them the first time around. But then, in addition to releases on videotape and DVD, came cable. Outlets like Nick at Nite and TV Land discovered that they could live off rebroadcasts of ancient series, and now, in case you haven’t noticed, all sorts of imitators have discovered that, too.

This past Saturday afternoon at 1:30, a Comcast customer in central New Jersey like me could choose from among “7th Heaven” (on a channel called Up that promises “uplifting entertainment”), “Good Times” (TV One), “The Virginian” (Inspire), “The Bill Cosby Show” (Aspire), “The Golden Girls” (TV Land), “Maverick” (Encore Westerns) and others. Expecting to feel nostalgic on Thursday night at 10:30? Cozi has “Magnum P.I.,” Antenna TV has “Sanford and Son,” and Aspire offers “The Flip Wilson Show.”

The problem with the ready availability of this old stuff — don’t even get me started on Internet streaming — is that it forces us into a wistful but abstract longing for what was. And the reality is: All this retro TV is too much of a good thing, or, more correctly, too much of a thing that wasn’t really as good as memory makes it seem. It’s fine to pay respect to the shows of yore, to acknowledge and admire them for delineating and expanding the form and so on. But to actually watch 50-year-old shows all day? I’d rather rip out my eyeballs.

Sure, it’s fun to indulge occasionally — once a week, say. Maybe you’ll get lucky and stumble on a 1966 episode of “Bewitched” called “Man’s Best Friend,” where a young actor named Richard Dreyfuss, still a teenager, made one of his first appearances. Or perhaps you’ll hit upon one of the two “Alfred Hitchcock Presents” episodes from the 1950s directed by the unknown Robert Altman.

But if you’re watching this fare all day, every day, you need help, because “venerable” doesn’t necessarily mean “still watchable.” Sluggish pacing, wooden acting, wince-inducing jokes and obvious plot twists abound in the television of the distant and even not-so-distant past. Too much of this will turn your brain to mush as surely as too much of today’s reality TV will.

I know this is heresy to some, but since I’m in this far, I might as well go whole hog. Here are nine great, important, fabulous vintage (or soon to be) shows that I never want to see again. I don’t know if they are currently being shown on any of the channels mentioned above, but surely somebody has programmed them or plans to in the future. No! Back in the vault, please:

‘I LOVE LUCY’ (premiere: 1951) Yeah, I know; it’s at or near the top of a lot of Best TV Series of All Time lists, and rightly so. In its time, it was defining. But today the broad humor draws only the occasional chuckle. The show is like your high school girlfriend: Just because you loved Lucy once doesn’t mean you still do.

‘THE HONEYMOONERS’ (1955) Same problem, only louder. Couples defined by screaming seem more sad than funny today.

THE MANY LOVES OF DOBIE GILLIS’ (1959) Considering that it gave us one of the most memorable characters in television’s first half-century, the beatnik Maynard G. Krebs (Bob Denver), this series is remarkably drab. Teenagers perhaps found that it spoke to them. If those same people, with a lifetime of perspective now in their heads, were to watch it today, the memory of that would make them flush with embarrassment. At their age, that would constitute a health risk.

‘GILLIGAN’S ISLAND’ (1964) Considering the cultural impact it had, this show wasn’t around for long, but if you were a child when it was on, it looms large. Such characters! Such a predicament! Preserve that innocence by not watching it again, because most of the episodes were actually kind of lame, and some dismaying stereotypes floated through the island from time to time.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 128July 31, 2018 10:45 PM

‘GREEN ACRES’ (1965) Speaking of stereotypes, there was this empty-headed series. Along with “The Beverly Hillbillies,” “Gomer Pyle” and a few others, it made sure “rural” and “stupid” would be wrongly linked for years to come.

‘WELCOME BACK, KOTTER’ (1975) Love the John Sebastian song; hate the hair and the sight of John Travolta. Even if Mr. Travolta hadn’t mangled Idina Menzel’s name at the Oscars, I don’t think I could take hearing the phrase “up your nose with a rubber hose” again.

‘DALLAS’ (1978) What’s dismaying isn’t so much that this series was ever on, it’s that it ran for 13 years and then was revived in 2012.

‘BOY MEETS WORLD’ (1993) This was and still is a wonderful show. I just don’t want to see it on TV again, because its mere presence might remind me of the sequel that just started, “Girl Meets World,” which doesn’t come close to clearing the bar the original set.

‘SEX AND THE CITY’ (1998) It’s perhaps not quite “vintage” yet, but this series already has the feel of a show whose original fans, when they’re older and wiser, might upon revisiting it say: “Gosh, I really didn’t know anything back then, did I? And some of those clothing choices didn’t age well.”

by Anonymousreply 1July 29, 2014 3:08 AM

Very arrogant article. But yes, SATC does not hold up well. Very dated.

by Anonymousreply 2July 29, 2014 3:18 AM

I'm not sure it's fair to accuse the old shows of having "obvious plot twists." They're obvious now, because they've been done to death over the years, but at some point they were new.

by Anonymousreply 3July 29, 2014 3:23 AM

As we move further and further into the new century, more and more of the century's beloved culture is re-assessed and consigned into the garbage bin of history.

by Anonymousreply 4July 29, 2014 3:26 AM

I can't take seriously anyone who doesn't appreciate the wonderful insanity that is GREEN ACRES.

by Anonymousreply 5July 29, 2014 3:34 AM

I've never seen an episode of "The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis." Did I miss anything?

by Anonymousreply 6July 29, 2014 3:37 AM

What R5 said. I wouldn't want to make a steady diet of "Green Acres," but you'd have to be completely humorless not to appreciate the surreal quality it occasionally employs.

by Anonymousreply 7July 29, 2014 3:40 AM

[quote]But if you’re watching this fare all day, every day, you need help

If you're watching ANY television all day every day you need help.

by Anonymousreply 8July 29, 2014 3:48 AM

"Here are nine great, important, fabulous vintage (or soon to be) shows that I never want to see again. "

Fine. Don't watch them then.

by Anonymousreply 9July 29, 2014 3:59 AM

Out of that list I Love Lucy is the only one that still holds up.

by Anonymousreply 10July 29, 2014 4:03 AM

I started watching DOBIE GILLIS a couple of years ago and found it quite enjoyable. Ditto with BACHELOR FATHER(love that house!).

by Anonymousreply 11July 29, 2014 4:03 AM

Dobie Gillis is charming in its own way. Not laugh out loud funny, but the dialog is well-written and Dwayne Hickman is engaging. It's like Archie comics.

by Anonymousreply 12July 29, 2014 4:05 AM

What a whiny bitch, trying to create a problem where there isn't one. Perhaps the writer should shoot himself/herself to make sure they never come across another old tv show again.

by Anonymousreply 13July 29, 2014 4:06 AM

R6 Yes. Warren Beatty, Tuesday Weld, and proto lesbian Zelda.

This used to run on Superstation TBS, in the early days of cable. Funny and adorable. Plus, I had a baby-crush on Dobie.

Trivia: The "Scooby-Doo" gang are based on this: Maynard/Shaggy, Velma/Zelda, Daohne/Thalia, Fred/Scooby.

Who pissed in the NYT guy's Cheerios?

by Anonymousreply 14July 29, 2014 4:52 AM

NY Times: Please watch modern cynical and even Satanic shows that will teach you to hate your neighbors and fear and distrust the world around you.

by Anonymousreply 15July 29, 2014 5:13 AM

Geez, he doesn't even tell us what ones he prefers....

by Anonymousreply 16July 29, 2014 6:45 AM

R13 Thank you. Saved me the typing.

by Anonymousreply 17July 29, 2014 6:49 AM

They still publish the New York Times?

by Anonymousreply 18July 29, 2014 6:49 AM

Perfect example of an article that has no purpose but to fill space. Better to write something on what it was about these shows that tapped into the cultural zeitgeist of their eras. This was a piece EW would have rejected.

by Anonymousreply 19July 29, 2014 10:24 AM

When I die, I want my headstone to say: "He watched a lot of TV."

by Anonymousreply 20July 29, 2014 12:22 PM

[quote] But to actually watch 50-year-old shows all day?

Who does that?

Nobody.

If you watched reality tv all day or game shows all day or CNN all day you'd be retarded, too.

by Anonymousreply 21July 29, 2014 1:15 PM

Green Acres was a surrealistic TV show. Sorry the NYT's OP didn't get that.

by Anonymousreply 22July 29, 2014 1:16 PM

There's hundreds of TV channels and they're not all going to fill their air time with original programming. If only one could change the channel to something else if he or she doesn't want to watch these shows.

by Anonymousreply 23July 29, 2014 1:22 PM

Leave it to the New York Times to spew such an obnoxiously classist piece of dreck as 'journalism'.

Notice the author didn't call-out Seinfeld... Gee, wonder WHY??

by Anonymousreply 24July 29, 2014 1:24 PM

Hasn't I Love Lucy been on the air in reruns ever since the last original episode was shown in the 1950s. That kind of consistency must mean decent ratings.

by Anonymousreply 25July 29, 2014 1:26 PM

I don't understand why we don't have MORE from the vaults.

These retro networks should be digging deeper.

by Anonymousreply 26July 29, 2014 1:28 PM

This is one of those "drive up web traffic" pieces the Times has been doing to goad people into linking and sharing articles.

If you don't get the skill and talent of Jackie Gleason in the Honeymooners. Not much can be done for you.

by Anonymousreply 27July 29, 2014 1:30 PM

Slightly off topic but why is Encore, a pay channel, showing shows like Magnum, PI? Don't get me wrong; there's nothing softer on the eyes than Tom Selleck in shorts. I'd rather they put that show on one of the other family channels I already pay for.

by Anonymousreply 28July 29, 2014 1:33 PM

Any of these shows is better than one minute of any of the Real Housewives shows or the Kardashians. Maybe people are watching them all day long because they are avoiding their other crappy "new" alternatives. Kim Catrall's Samantha is more entertaining than these reality stars trying to imitate it.

by Anonymousreply 29July 29, 2014 1:38 PM

I enjoy the older shows. They were originals for the most part and catered to a less cynical audience.

What I don't get is why the author just doesn't change the channel.

by Anonymousreply 30July 29, 2014 1:38 PM

That the author thought that Boy Meets World was a great show made me lament the wasted time I spent reading this thread.

Sad that he'll never understand the genius of Green Acres.

by Anonymousreply 31July 29, 2014 2:01 PM

Did he ever actually watch an episode of [italic]Green Acres[/italic] all the way through? And when do they ever show reruns of [italic]Welcome Back Kotter[/italic]?

by Anonymousreply 32July 29, 2014 2:06 PM

I don't think people watch retro tv shows to bust a gut laughing or be uproariously entertained. They do it out of sense of nostalgia. It's a tv version of comfort food.

The article is totally wrong about I Love Lucy and Green Acres. Some of ILL's best bits, such as the candy factory scene, are still funny as hell. And I think the author just doesn't "get" the surreal humor of Green Acres. That show wasn't just a "rural" show; it was damned weird, in a very amusing way.

I agree about Sex In The City, though. I never could understand the appeal of a show about four very annoying women who did nothing but parade around in ridiculously expensive shoes and clothes and talk incessantly about sex.

by Anonymousreply 33July 29, 2014 5:16 PM

The late afternoon-early evening block of "The Andy Griffith Show" on TVland has become appointment viewing for my sisters and me, all of us in different states. Excluding most of the later, post-Don Knotts color episodes, the series holds up extraordinarily well.

When TVLand had a July 4th weekend marathon of Andy Griffith, I happily lazed about and watched most of it, for the first time ever opting out of SyFy's Twilight Zone marathon.

by Anonymousreply 34July 29, 2014 5:22 PM

I realize that it's cool to hate SJP and SATC but it's worth pointing out that the episodes of SATC that are rerun on networks other than HBO are the heavily edited versions that are pretty dull.

by Anonymousreply 35July 29, 2014 5:31 PM

This sounds like the presumptuous bullshit that Slate specializes in. Stupid article that assumes everyone back then thought these shows were a real slice of life any more than people today think current shows are.

As for my favorite, I Love Lucy, it'll always be my favorite show. And Richard Dreyfuss was on many sitcoms/dramas in the 60's - I thought he was unappealing then and I still do. Bewitched certainly didn't need him to be watchable.

by Anonymousreply 36July 29, 2014 5:55 PM

R32 "Kotter" is on MeTV every weeknight at 9:30.

by Anonymousreply 37July 29, 2014 6:04 PM

I'm becoming accustomed to the increasingly common attitude of "all media from before my time is awful" found in both real life and message boards, but I refuse to accept it from someone who supposedly thinks and writes about media for a living. If you lack the ability to consider the standards of the time in which something was made, you're lacking a basic skill required to do your job.

Over on The Onion's AV Club recently, I read what was allegedly a high-brow round-table discussion on the legacy of I Love Lucy, written by a group of people I assume were in their twenties and thirties. Some of the writers disliked it just because it was in black and white. Others couldn't get past the antiquated social mores it presented. But what took the cake was the person who said the plots were derivative. Yes, someone paid to analyze a TV show actually criticized it for ripping off a format that it pioneered from the shows that came after it. That's like when a twelve year old hears Michael Jackson's "Beat It" and sneers, "he totally ripped that off of Fall Out Boy!"

Looking to these people for media criticism is like turning to a vegetarian to review a Texas barbecue. You don't have to like meat, but if you don't, I'm not going to value your opinion on how it tastes.

by Anonymousreply 38July 29, 2014 6:07 PM

re: Green Acres, I crashed my car once while on a mood stabilizer and I've always said to every shrink since: 'when the label on the bottle says don't operate heavy machinery they're talking about a CAR -- not Oliver Douglas on that tractor!

The shrinks always giving a knowing nod at that reference.

by Anonymousreply 39July 29, 2014 6:11 PM

I love R38.

by Anonymousreply 40July 29, 2014 6:14 PM

Whenever they start in on Green Acres and The Beverly Hillbillies making fun of rural folk I tune out because they don't get it.

The Beverly Hillbillies was making fun of the (fictional) Real Housewives and Kardashians of the 60's kissing up to the Clampetts who were sometimes naive but never stupid. It's time for an update.

Green Acres, as many posters have commented, is a wonderfully surreal looney tune crazy fest. The scripts are terrific as is the direction and editing and performances across the board are great.

by Anonymousreply 41July 29, 2014 6:15 PM

If I could order my cable channels a la carter I'd choose: MeTV, ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, FX, Comedy Central and HBO.

by Anonymousreply 42July 29, 2014 6:16 PM

When I first started watching I Love Lucy reruns, it was in the 60s, I was a kid, and even *I* knew it was an unreal, crazy comedy. Even as a kid I thought it was strange the way Ricky treated Lucy as a child, and I wondered why Ethel was married to such an old coot.

It STILL makes me laugh, though. Perhaps that should be the subject of the next NYT article. I know plenty of people much younger than I am who enjoy watching it.

by Anonymousreply 43July 29, 2014 6:20 PM

A couple of years ago someone predicted that no one would remember who "Lucy" was in 25 years. It could be true.

by Anonymousreply 44July 29, 2014 6:23 PM

Green Acres lunacy.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 45July 29, 2014 6:27 PM

Lucy from Season 2 - 5 are hard to beat. Are there bad episodes? Sure. They were also producing 30 episodes a season at one point. But many episodes hold up well against just about every sitcom but Frasier and All in the Family, maybe Cheers at its peak and Newharts first.

And Lucy has something else going for it - you can see the backstory - TV genius entertainer Desi/Ricky plots a sitcom to feature a childlike bride with Taming of the Shrew cringeworthiness, and in a matter of two seasons it became clear that Lucy's wit and diabolical brain were more interesting. Even the change in her style from dumpy frau to polished schemer are fun to watch.

Most sitcoms go downhill after Season 2 or 3. Lucy went in the other directoon.

by Anonymousreply 46July 29, 2014 6:40 PM

Seinfeld is very dated. Even when I watched reruns in the late 90s the earlier seasons were dated. I never laughed at any of the jokes but I thought some of the stuff was clever. I haven't watched it in 15 years and have no plans of watching it ever again.

I'm not in the mood to watch any sitcom reruns now. If I was then "I Love Lucy", "The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air", "Roseanne", "Married With Children", and "Will and Grace" would be shows I'd watch.

There is a lot of shows from my childhood that do not stand up to time even shortly after I watched them they were dated but I have fond memories of them. I've learned from watching a few old shows and commercials that I haven't seen in ages is my memories are very different from what the shows and commercials were so it's like watching them new again.

by Anonymousreply 47July 29, 2014 6:55 PM

Exactly, (R46). The writers learned to write to Lucy and Viv's strengths and the show really took off.

I know others disagree, but the Hollywood season is my favorite. It seemed so glamorous and still yet hilarious when I was a kid.

The William Holden/Brown Derby episode is probably my favorite, and I'd give anything to have watched Lucy rehearsing the nose putty business. You know she spent hours getting it exactly right, and that is why it holds up.

by Anonymousreply 48July 30, 2014 12:07 AM

R38: The Onion AV club hates anything made before 1975.

by Anonymousreply 49July 30, 2014 12:10 AM

MAUDE is another sitcom that holds up well despite being hugely "70s"

by Anonymousreply 50July 30, 2014 12:37 AM

Typical Times media writer.

How anybody thinks their opinions are worth being read are beyond me.

I Love Lucy is worth the entire series just to watch Vance bite a potato off of a fork while Lucy is trying to diet.

Green Acres just to have Oliver think that Arnold's birthday party is for him.

Beverly Hillbillies for Jethro thinking the pasta is covered with marijuana sauce.

And Bewitched for the great Marion Lorne and Alice Pearce.

Richard Dreyfuss? The worst actor ever along with Jeremy Piven? Is he kidding?

by Anonymousreply 51July 30, 2014 1:01 AM

R11, ITA on BACHELOR FATHER. Love the show, love the house. That kitchen could stand today as a fairly modern kitchen. Peter so cracks me up. Did you see the one last week when Peter starts his own fortune cookie business. SO funny. My neighbors must think I'm nuts laughing my head off between 4 and 5 am. Insomnia is horrid but BF makes it bearable for at least one hour. I have to say I'm not a fan of Jack Benny or Burns and Allen. I wish they'd give those two hours to BF too.

by Anonymousreply 52July 30, 2014 1:29 AM

R38, like most people in this thread, is wrong about everything.

[quote]I'm becoming accustomed to the increasingly common attitude of "all media from before my time is awful" found in both real life and message boards, but I refuse to accept it from someone who supposedly thinks and writes about media for a living. If you lack the ability to consider the standards of the time in which something was made, you're lacking a basic skill required to do your job.

You seem to be lacking some basic comprehension skills. The ability to "consider the standards of the time in which something was made" has NOTHING to do with the writer's premise. His very obvious point is that a lot of these old shows are boring and clumsy when viewed today. And he is correct.

[quote]Over on The Onion's AV Club recently, I read what was allegedly a high-brow round-table discussion on the legacy of I Love Lucy, written by a group of people I assume were in their twenties and thirties. Some of the writers disliked it just because it was in black and white. Others couldn't get past the antiquated social mores it presented. But what took the cake was the person who said the plots were derivative. Yes, someone paid to analyze a TV show actually criticized it for ripping off a format that it pioneered from the shows that came after it. That's like when a twelve year old hears Michael Jackson's "Beat It" and sneers, "he totally ripped that off of Fall Out Boy!"

If it is not what I've linked below, please provide the link to the roundtable discussion you are referencing.

If my link is what you are making reference to here, you are simply making shit up. If anything, the writers at the link are pretty glowing in their praise for the show.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 53July 30, 2014 3:02 AM

The Brown Derby ep is my hands down favorite, R48. The comedic timing and chemistry between Lucy and Bill Holden is a joy to watch!

by Anonymousreply 54July 30, 2014 3:16 AM

[quote]The ability to "consider the standards of the time in which something was made" has NOTHING to do with the writer's premise.

The writer's premise is idiotic.

[quote]His very obvious point is that a lot of these old shows are boring and clumsy when viewed today. And he is correct.

By "correct" you mean "agrees with me." I don't value either of your opinions, for reasons described in my original post.

The piece you linked is not the piece I was referring to. It was about the entire series, not just that range of episodes. However, I have no interest in digging through that website just to prove a point to you, so consider yourself the winner of this debate.

by Anonymousreply 55July 30, 2014 3:55 AM

[quote]The writer's premise is idiotic.

But you were still wrong. Either you're a blind fool or you just didn't read it in the first place.

[quote]However, I have no interest in digging through that website just to prove a point to you, so consider yourself the winner of this debate.

You're a really poor liar.

by Anonymousreply 56July 30, 2014 4:17 AM

GILLIGAN'S ISLAND was suppose to be renewed for the fall of 1968 but there was something along the lines of either GILLIGAN or GUNSMOKE would be renewed but not both and Bill Paley was a huge fan of GUNSMOKE and it won out.

by Anonymousreply 57July 30, 2014 4:19 AM

See above re: not respecting your opinion.

Take care.

by Anonymousreply 58July 30, 2014 4:22 AM

[quote]If you lack the ability to consider the standards of the time in which something was made, you're lacking a basic skill required to do your job.

Again, "the standards of the time in which something was made" has absolutely nothing to do with what the critic was talking about. You were wrong. That is not an opinion.

[quote]Over on The Onion's AV Club recently, I read what was allegedly a high-brow round-table discussion on the legacy of I Love Lucy, written by a group of people I assume were in their twenties and thirties. Some of the writers disliked it just because it was in black and white. Others couldn't get past the antiquated social mores it presented. But what took the cake was the person who said the plots were derivative.

You say you read this "recently," yet there's not a trace of it on the AV Club website, or Google. The only thing that comes up, again and again, is the roundtable I linked to that is mainly praise for the show.

I'd love to see you back up your claims, but of course you won't, because you can't.

by Anonymousreply 59July 30, 2014 4:27 AM

[quote]Over on The Onion's AV Club recently, I read what was allegedly a high-brow round-table discussion on the legacy of I Love Lucy, written by a group of people I assume were in their twenties and thirties. Some of the writers disliked it just because it was in black and white. Others couldn't get past the antiquated social mores it presented. But what took the cake was the person who said the plots were derivative.

I'm a pretty faithful AV Club reader, and I find it very hard to believe one of the writers would dismiss a show because it's B&W. I have no memory of reading this, and I just checked the archives and could find no trace of it.

I think R38 has some serious problems with basic reading comprehension.

by Anonymousreply 60July 30, 2014 6:40 AM

Agree with R48 and R48. The Hollywood season, stretching over Season 4 and 5, took the show to a different level.

But while the star-stalking episodes are supposed to just be funny, you know they're coming from a place where obsessed fans were already scary. Lucy sends them up in a wicked way by making it effortlessly seem like it was her that was crazy. The comic payoff is great, but for me, the psychotic way she stares at Holden (which he then brilliantly turns back on her) was done at a time when Hollywood was all glitz and trying to make the stars look so flawless, when in fact that same fame-driven rage was there.

Hiding under Cornel Wilde's dinner cart? Hilarious. But it's the creepy aspect of her being in his room that really gives it an edge. It's that kind of pairing that makes it smart. Yes, it's brilliantly staged with Lucy trying to climb down from the balcony while Ethel distracts Ricky. But the ridiculousness of Lucy's plan, the way her brain works, and Ethel's reaction that's even more funny.

There are also great episodes like Ethel's Birthday, Lucy Cries Wolf, Lucy Gets a Business Manager, Ricky's Screen Test, etc., where it was clear that the writers had left the thin characters of Season 1 behind and made all four of them witty in their own way. Ethel and Fred could spar with Lucy, etc. Great great stuff.

by Anonymousreply 61July 30, 2014 7:26 AM

I'm just your average young buck, a twentysomething dudebro #nolabels. But I agree with R38. After a long workout with my fellow young dudebros (#nohomo), we like to unwind by watching 60 year old sitcoms with some lady who acts like a retard and yells a lot.

Also, even though I am very hot and young and am packing 11 inches, I am exclusively attracted to 60-plus elder-gayz, especially arrogant retired academics who can't admit when they are wrong.

by Anonymousreply 62July 30, 2014 7:37 AM

Vivian Vance is brilliant in that Cornel Wilde episode.

by Anonymousreply 63July 30, 2014 8:36 AM

R62=Adele Sliff

by Anonymousreply 64July 30, 2014 8:44 AM

I love how R38 was called out for being totally wrong and he just pouted and left the room.

So sad this place is filled with pig-headed old people who think they know everything.

by Anonymousreply 65July 30, 2014 5:05 PM

There'll still be an audience for [italic]I Love Lucy[/italic] after 99% of the early 21st century critic-bait is forgotten, along with the insipid writer OP mentioned.

by Anonymousreply 66July 30, 2014 5:11 PM

Dream on, R66. I Love Lucy is essentially unknown to anyone under the age of 40.

Why are you people so threatened by modern pop culture? It's sad.

by Anonymousreply 67July 30, 2014 5:22 PM

[quote]Why are you people so threatened by modern pop culture? It's sad.

Why are you so afraid of enjoying anything that isn't current? That's sadder. The stuff that's on the air now wouldn't be possible without it.

by Anonymousreply 68July 30, 2014 5:24 PM

The cunt who wrote that article is an IDIOTIC CUNT! That cunt would likely prefer a marathon of Honey Poo Poo and the Kartrashians. That cunt from the NY Times can go back to her cunty Duck Dynasty and leave her opinions where they belong... in her cunt.

by Anonymousreply 69July 30, 2014 5:29 PM

R69

What is it you cuntface?

by Anonymousreply 70July 30, 2014 5:31 PM

I Love Lucy has devotees around the world.

It is the only television show to hold up and be really, really funny and interesting.

All of it is great: the acting, writing, sets, clothing, timelessness--everything.

There are no jokes that are dated or cornball.

I have seen every episode since childhood approx. twenty times and I laugh out loud STILL!

I Love Lucy is brilliant.

by Anonymousreply 71July 30, 2014 5:35 PM

In the now-closed comment section of OP's link:

[quote]I started working in television in the early eighties, creating sales presentations for the syndication sales of "Classic" TV shows from the 50s-70s and editing and formatting movies from the 30s and 40s for television. I was always disappointed with the pacing, production values compared to then current fare of media offering. The same goes for music, and to steal Dick Clark's metephor, they become the soundtrack, or in this case, "mediatrack" of our lives.

People like him are why there is now an epidemic of ADHD. I hold him and his ilk personally responsible for the tyranny of the tl;dr crowd.

by Anonymousreply 72July 30, 2014 5:40 PM

Though not a roundtable, I would guess this is the Onion AV Club discussion r38 was referring to.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 73July 30, 2014 5:45 PM

Perhaps they should show more than just the same handful of shows over and over again.

by Anonymousreply 74July 30, 2014 5:54 PM

R73, if that's the case, it still is nothing like what R38 described.

I think R38 has a problem in that he responds to what he think a writer has written, not what a writer actually has written.

by Anonymousreply 75July 30, 2014 5:55 PM

r67, you are such a moron.

What makes you think people who appreciate I Love Lucy are "afraid" of what's current? Most people with taste can appreciate TV from the past and watch current stuff. You clearly can't.

by Anonymousreply 76July 30, 2014 6:03 PM

I have a DVD/Blu-ray collection with dozens of shows from the 1950s to the present day. Represented among this eclectic cornucopia are [italic]I Love Lucy, The Wonderful World of Disney, Leave it to Beaver, Bewitched, I Dream of Jeannie, The Prisoner, Monty Python's Flying Circus, The Mary Tyler Moore Show, All in The Family, The Jeffersons, Mary Hartman Mary Hartman, Soap, The Facts of Life, The Golden Girls, Designing Women, The Simpsons, SpongeBob SquarePants, Futurama, Mad Men, Modern Family[/italic] and [italic]Breaking Bad[/italic], and that's just for starters.

by Anonymousreply 77July 30, 2014 6:06 PM

I know trying to reason with stubborn elderly people who mistake their own nostalgia for some sort of mark of quality, but it's so painfully obvious most of you hissers didn't even bother reading what the critic actually wrote:

[quote]It's fine to pay respect to the shows of yore, to acknowledge and admire them for delineating and expanding the form and so on. But to actually watch 50-year-old shows all day? I'd rather rip out my eyeballs.

[quote]But if you're watching this fare all day, every day, you need help, because "venerable" doesn't necessarily mean "still watchable." Sluggish pacing, wooden acting, wince-inducing jokes and obvious plot twists abound in the television of the distant and even not-so-distant past. Too much of this will turn your brain to mush as surely as too much of today's reality TV will.

by Anonymousreply 78July 30, 2014 6:44 PM

Agree with the assessment of R67.

TV today is producing drama at a better level than it ever has. Even with Breaking Bad over, I'd put Homeland, Ripper Street, The Fall, Mad Men, Game of Thrones, Whitechapel, the Blacklist, and Broadchurch up there with the best in a long time. And apart that list I've been watching Äkta Människor, Borgen, Bron (all great from Scandinavia) ply Newsroom (solid), House of Cards (a good remake of a classic), and Masters of Sex (fair). And I like Looking from what I've seen.

But that's a dark entertainment. The only comedy that I currently think is worth tuning into is Veep for genuine laughs. Big Bang and Modern Family are wearing thin, and thanks to Maggie Smith Downton Abbey can be good for a smile. But that's not much for a laugh.

But having classic comedy, whether it's All in the Family, AbFab, Frasier, Vicar of Dibley, Lucy or Golden Girls to turn to lighten up, what's the big deal?

by Anonymousreply 79July 30, 2014 6:55 PM

R68 from another thread:

[quote]No, we see the even more awful decor, fashion, and "music" of our own times and get nostalgic for the 1970s.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 80July 30, 2014 6:57 PM

I Love Lucy will be around a lot longer than the New York Times.

by Anonymousreply 81July 30, 2014 7:03 PM

New doesn't equal good, either.

by Anonymousreply 82July 30, 2014 7:04 PM

Six years of being a Lostie killed my appreciation for hour-long dramas with continuing story lines. Now if the story doesn't wrap up in 60 minutes - goodbye.

I sat through 10 episodes of Broadchurch hoping for some big denouement - and nothing. They could have told that story in an hour. And now they're going to re-tell the same story again with almost the same script and American accents. (Although you can tell from the teasers it wasn't filmed in this country.)

by Anonymousreply 83July 30, 2014 7:08 PM

Poor r80. His only ammunition is to call people elderly or old (the ultimate insult in his eyes!) and babble on about things he doesn't know. The TV that will last from today is the cable stuff. Most of today's pop culture is expendable, but that's true of any era (The Monkees? The Archies?)

There is, in fact, quality in some of the shows from a previous era. But r80's too ignorant to realize is, so he falls back on "Old people!" to make his case.

by Anonymousreply 84July 30, 2014 7:09 PM

R84, please tell me that R38 isn't stubborn and elderly.

I know people like you are far to invested in being "right" -- and inadvertently proving that wisdom doesn't necessarily come with age -- but you and so many others in this thread don't even know what you are arguing about.

And who gives a shit that the best TV is on cable right now? The point is, there's some of the best television ever right now. People like you just won't admit it and cling to 50-year-old sitcoms.

Dataloungers just love to pat themselves on the back, but this place has basically become memory hour at the nursing home. DL is FILLED with threads about the past and filled with old cunts who scream about anyone who might be interested in anything created in the 21st century.

by Anonymousreply 85July 30, 2014 7:17 PM

R85, FU!

by Anonymousreply 86July 30, 2014 7:20 PM

Great comeback, R86.

Here's R84 on the "Boyhood" thread, stupidly hissing about shills:

[quote]Boy, the film's PR shills are working overtime on DL with this one. There was a thread just a few days ago with some queen creaming over how the film had changed his life,

Metacritic lists 46 reviews, all positive, giving the film the relatively rare 100 score on the site.

But all 46 of those critics are surely shills, right? They're all wrong, and you (who haven't even seen the movie) are right.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 87July 30, 2014 7:25 PM

I'm almost 50, but I hated I Love Lucy even as a kid. Broad, slapstick humor just isn't my thing. I barely watched TV in my 20s and 30s and I prefer today's quality cable shows to anything that aired during my youth.

Still, I have to agree with r38 and others that the article OP linked was pointless and based on an absurd premise. Old shows seem dated when you watch them today? Wow, what a newsflash. You don't find pioneering shows watchable 50 years later? Do what I do: don't watch them. But why do you need space in the NY Times to whine about it? Is your distaste for old TV shows really so important that you need to convince others to stop watching them, too? I think not. Enjoy what you enjoy and let others do the same. (And for god's sake, turn off your TV and go outside once in a while!)

by Anonymousreply 88July 30, 2014 7:25 PM

[quote] DL is FILLED with threads about the past and filled with old cunts who scream about anyone who might be interested in anything created in the 21st century.

If the 21st century had more movies, plays or TV shows about adults who acted like adults amongst the onslaught of sheer information, which is not the same as knowledge, facts, or intelligence, and less pandery garbage designed with no intentions other than parting fools for their money (if the practice was bad then, it's even worse now), especially if it's aimed at children. Have you actually sat down and watched what's on the Disney channel? Terrible, terrible shows, and they're being fed to children. Doesn't this have an effect on one's development?

The problem I have with this writer is that just because he's tired of the same old shows, that doesn't mean there isn't still an audience that hasn't seen them and wants to. He's the one who comes off like a cranky old man.

by Anonymousreply 89July 30, 2014 7:27 PM

And yet, R85 / R87, here you are in this place allegedly filled with the elderly. Why are you here, exactly? And on this thread specifically posting over and over to prove some kind of point?

No, you're making the same nasty, narrow-minded assumptions you're accusing other people of doing, and you are far too invested in proving you're "right".

I didn't grow up with Lucy but I appreciate it, and several of us have listed "current" TV that we clearly are watching. You can't concede one can like both because you're on some rant about the elderly.

Get help.

by Anonymousreply 90July 30, 2014 7:30 PM

Green Acres also broke the "forth wall." It was pretty ahead of its time.

The Honeymooners also depressed me.

by Anonymousreply 91July 30, 2014 7:33 PM

[quote]Have you actually sat down and watched what's on the Disney channel? Terrible, terrible shows, and they're being fed to children.

Why would a grown adult watch the Disney Channel?

And if you're trying to claim that TV for kids being crap is a new development, you should look at 90 percent of Saturday morning cartoons from the past several decades.

by Anonymousreply 92July 30, 2014 7:35 PM

what about the fact that this Neil Genzlinger is such a bad witless writer himself?

'I'd rather rip out my eyeballs.'

Clever stuff, that

by Anonymousreply 93July 30, 2014 7:38 PM

[quote]Why would a grown adult watch the Disney Channel?

That's my point. They used to have stuff for both kids and adults to watch together. Not anymore.

by Anonymousreply 94July 30, 2014 7:46 PM

R81 has made the most succinct comment.

by Anonymousreply 95July 30, 2014 7:56 PM

[quote]That's my point. They used to have stuff for both kids and adults to watch together. Not anymore.

I have no idea why you are bringing the Disney Channel into this.

by Anonymousreply 96July 30, 2014 8:17 PM

I dunno, I just watch the old shit because it's fun. I don't try to analyze it. It wasn't made for that stupidity. It was made to entertain, to tell jokes, to make you laugh, that's all. Nothing cerebral.

NY Times writer is a moron.

by Anonymousreply 97July 30, 2014 8:22 PM

R20, I always joked that I wanted my tombstone to read To Be Continued....

appropriate for a television thread, even on based on an article that is no more interesting than a friend's Facebook opinions.

by Anonymousreply 98July 30, 2014 8:49 PM

*one. Pardon, Oh Dearies.

by Anonymousreply 99July 30, 2014 9:07 PM

I love this thread. So much hissing!

by Anonymousreply 100July 31, 2014 4:18 AM

Not only was George Burns always breaking the fourth wall but he was also watching his own tv show on his own television set along with the audience.

by Anonymousreply 101August 1, 2014 10:37 PM

What I liked about the Honeymooners is that they were the only ones who lived worse than my family.

by Anonymousreply 102August 1, 2014 11:16 PM

I loved Power Ranges when I was a kid, but I tried to watch it on Netflix recently and it turns out it isn't as good as I remembered.

Wonder why?

by Anonymousreply 103August 1, 2014 11:27 PM

I actually really disagree with this article. Thanks to youtube, I've watched lots of old shows like "Lucy", "Ozzie and Harriet" and "Family Affair" among others and I was surprised at how much I enjoyed them and how funny and charming they were. Sure the fashions and situations are dated, but the comedy is still there. I kind of miss that old sitcom style and I'd watch that stuff over 90% of what's on TV these days.

by Anonymousreply 104August 1, 2014 11:31 PM

"Gilligan's Island" was as surreal as "Green Acres." Really, the absurdity of that show was astounding, which made it the cult favorite that still is.

Probably the thing that most people comment on is why the Howells, on a "three hour tour" brought along a wardrobe for every conceivable situation that the show could come up with. How did they bring all that crap on board the tiny minnow? Not to mention the ton of cash that brought along, too. Ginger had an ample supply of sexy evening gowns; evening gowns on a boat tour? And Mary Ann had a variety of cute country girl outfits. Only Gilligan, the Skipper and the Professor wore the same clothes over and over again, clothes that never faded or became threadbare and worn.

And of course everybody wonders why the Professor, with all his vast knowledge and capabilities, was unable to figure out a way to patch up a hole on a boat.

by Anonymousreply 105August 1, 2014 11:32 PM

THE PERSON WHO WROTE THAT RIDICULOUS ARTICLE IS THE SICK ONE WHO NEEDS ALOT OF MENTAL HELP. IF HE/SHE IS TRYING TO COMPARE THE SHOWS OF YESTERDAY WITH TODAY HE/SHE IS NEAR CLOSE TO BEING PSYCHOTIC. THE SHOWS TODAY SUCK..ID RATHER SIT THROUGH I LOVE LUCY OR THE HONEYMOONERS EVERYDAY THEN TURN ON TV AND FIND REALITY SHOWS LIKE LEANN AND EDDIE, THE KARDASHIANS. SHARK TANK, WIPE OUT KITCHEN THIS OR HELL THIS!!! ...I HAVE NEVER WATCHED ONE REALITY SHOW AND NEVER WILL..WHO CARES ABOUT PEOPLES SORROWS AND PROBLEMS WHEN WE ALL HAVE OUR OWN!! GET IT TOGETHER U DUMB IDIOT WHO STARTED THIS ARTICLE!!!!!

by Anonymousreply 106August 2, 2014 1:02 AM

I think something many people fondly remember Gilligan's Island for is that it was the first show we got to see in color when we got our first color TV. I know handfuls of people who have had that experience...GI being the first one

by Anonymousreply 107August 2, 2014 1:37 AM

I like watching the old shows, in fact I wish more of them were rebroadcast along with all the classics. The Joey Bishop Show, the Loretta Young Show, He and She, Good Morning World, the Doris Day Show (!), My World and Welcome to It... There are a lot of shows that have never been syndicated. Most of them were probably worse than I remember (Love That Bob? Unwatchable.) but AFAIK none of these are on DVD. I just get tired of seeing the same old same old in the program listing.

by Anonymousreply 108August 2, 2014 2:24 AM

Someone a few pages back made a point with which I agree -- I think one of the reasons why some people fondly watch reruns of old shows is that they harken back to a kinder, gentler time. Yes, a few shows had their bullies and boors but, for the most past, people were friendly and got along, families were close-knit and not ashamed to show they loved each other. Compare that to modern shows. I never cared for "Seinfeld" because I never really liked the characters and that show helped pave the way for lead characters who were "unlikeable" in that you wouldn't want to know them if they existed in real life but you sat down and watched their fictional lives regardless. Now we have shows full of anti-heroes - murderers, psychopaths, drug dealers - people who would normally be the dregs of society. I guess it's all just society moving ahead and norms changing.

by Anonymousreply 109August 2, 2014 2:25 AM

Newspapers will be history soon; unfortunately for this writer, there will be no reruns of his articles.

by Anonymousreply 110August 2, 2014 3:12 AM

Just a note for our elderly DLers. Many of you come across a lot like R106.

by Anonymousreply 111August 2, 2014 3:50 AM

You El-der-gays are DELUSIONAL if you think I Love Lucy has any more life left to it.

We live in an era where you can watch pretty much whatever you want, when and wherever you want. No one under the age of 50 cares about some billion year old sitcom with people yelling at each other.

by Anonymousreply 112August 2, 2014 8:22 AM

[quote]what about the fact that this Neil Genzlinger is such a bad witless writer himself?

What's even better is that some stupid bint on Indiewire was complaining that Genzlinger was a poor writer, then went on to quote some nobody on Twitter who also didn't like Genzlinger as proof that Genzlinger really is a hack.

Because quoting some dipshit on Twitter in what's supposed to be a professional entertainment article is SO not being a hack or anything.

Entertainment news is just one big circle jerk nowadays, and I hate to see the NYT jump into the fray, but when in Rome...

by Anonymousreply 113August 2, 2014 8:34 AM

I am finding myself addicted to the original "Goldbergs" on the Jewish cable station.

Molly goes from hawking Rybutol as she leans out of the window to walking right into the start of the episode, interacting with her cast members. It is a hoot.

Gentle comedy. If there is a crisis of any kind, it is Molly to the rescue even if she does mess it up at times. Familiar faces show up in small parts at the start of their careers.

There was much drama with the original husband actor and the blacklisting and the "Commie infiltrators" and the sponsors and so on and so on. Sad story.

by Anonymousreply 114August 2, 2014 10:29 AM

I Love Lucy has very little resonance with anyone under 50, and virtually none with anyone under 40.

by Anonymousreply 115August 2, 2014 6:22 PM

I Love Lucy must be popular with more than just a few people, otherwise why publish a New York Times story that took aim at the show in the headline of the article.

by Anonymousreply 116August 2, 2014 6:37 PM

I'm 38 and only barely remember seeing reruns of Lucy when I was a little kid.

I tried watching a few episodes last year after reading some thread here proclaiming her a comic genius. I don't get it. It's just a bunch of unlikeable people screaming at each other.

by Anonymousreply 117August 2, 2014 9:45 PM

"I don't get it. It's just a bunch of unlikeable people screaming at each other."

That's not I Love Lucy, that's Datalounge.

by Anonymousreply 118August 2, 2014 9:48 PM

"I don't get it. It's just a bunch of unlikeable people screaming at each other."

That has always been my feeling about "Roseanne", a tv sitcom that some people love but I loathe. Everybody on that show was a loser, a weirdo, a harpy, a bum...I can't think of one positive character on that show.

by Anonymousreply 119August 2, 2014 11:59 PM

Well, I'm under 50, and I love Lucy.

I also really enjoyed the Goldbergs - I've seen a few episodes (Netflix probably) and I thought it was great.

Marcus Welby is the one I'm getting into now.

Of course, I watch Murder She Wrote repeatedly, so take it for what it's worth...

by Anonymousreply 120August 3, 2014 12:43 AM

It's true. I LOVE LUCY has no resonance and no one wants to watch it.

That's why the I LOVE LUCY CHRISTMAS SPECIAL was the most watched program on the night it aired last year. You dumbasses will never learn.

by Anonymousreply 121August 3, 2014 12:59 AM

"Seinfeld is very dated."

So is "Cheers".

by Anonymousreply 122August 3, 2014 1:06 AM

"I Love Lucy" rocked and should never be locked in a vault. I think the comedy still holds up very well. as far as Lucy's other shows were concerned, "The Lucy Show" and "Here's Lucy" were complete excrement, even at the time. I hated those two shows with a passion. They had none of the magic of "I Love Lucy."

As far as "Magnum, PI", NEVER lock that show in a fucking vault. Tom Selleck was sex on wheels in the '80s, not to mention that the show was (and still is) awesome entertainment. Nobody rocked short shorts like Tom!

by Anonymousreply 123August 4, 2014 5:50 PM

I've had sufficient

by Anonymousreply 124July 31, 2018 2:54 PM

[quote] As we move further and further into the new century, more and more of the century's beloved culture is re-assessed and consigned into the garbage bin of history.

Not high culture. Just popular culture. And that's always been the case--I'm sure you can't today whistle the tune of "Who Put the Overalls in Mrs. Murphy's Chowder?".

by Anonymousreply 125July 31, 2018 3:31 PM

Lucille Ball and Vivian Vance?

I've had sufficient.

by Anonymousreply 126July 31, 2018 10:33 PM

Yes, back in the vault because we need more Real Housewives of (insert city here), and Big Brother.

by Anonymousreply 127July 31, 2018 10:45 PM

I remember years ago when Dick Cavett still had a regular column in the NYT, and he devoted an entire column to how good The Sopranos are, and how he had to defend the show from his snobby friends who sneered at it. I mean, can you imagine, one of the best shows in history and a bunch of Upper West Siders were sneering at it?

by Anonymousreply 128July 31, 2018 10:45 PM
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.

×

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!