[quote name=\'TheInquisitiveOne\' date=\'Jul 8 2003, 10:38 PM\'] Well, since the fire has already started, I guess I will add fuel to it.
What our friend here is saying is spot on...all the way to the whole WWE argument. More about that later. Rather than break from the trend of today's insidious programming, GSN (as they are now called) wants to become PART OF IT.
I am not saying that the channel should be an all-classic channel. Of the originals that they show, Lingo and Russian Roulette are my favorites. I will stick to my reasoning that I am far from anti-original. However, one thing that bothers me is that these shows are aired ad nauseum to the point where the novelty wears off QUICKLY. The latest offerings of Cram, Naturally Stoned, and Funny Money also show me that they are not sure as to what audience they want to get, whether it is the comedy club hoppers, insomniacs, or the latest breed of Spike TV and E! viewers.
This is EXACTLY what has happened to Moron Television (MTV), Vehicular Homicide One (VH-1), and the Pseudo-Cartoon Newtork (Nickelodeon). Rather than serve the purpose that the channel implies, they are throwing crap at the wall and seeing what sticks. Sure, they have their money and their audience of nearly mindless drones who are suckers for anything, but the quality of programming is being sacrificed, and those who actually watch television for meaning suffer.
The "recent rerun acquisition" method is pretty tiresome, as well. It is hard to give a static schedule to shows that lasted less than a year and were aired on and after 1999. The "major announcement" about gaining 21 was more of a "minor disappointment" than anything. Also, the future airings of G4 related programming show me that GSN is running off in a tangent, much like many other cable networks. Much like the channels that I have mentioned above, GSN used to be a channel that you could never pull me away from. Now, I have to find my pleasure elsewhere. It is sad when I have more fun TAPE TRADING than watching GSN.
I am sure that there is hope for GSN and am not as quick for placing the tombstone on this young network. I just say that it should do what works; the documentary of the Michael Larsen incident was a kick-ass effort, despite its cheesy moments. Documentary type formats are good for GSN; it is innovative, yet it does not stray from its purpose. All the small things will help to make this a big network. Hell, they may do something to commemorate their 10th anniversary, which is very soon!
My point is, GSN should let the audience starve for it, and not the other way around. Mix things up, and let variety be the spice of life.
The Inquisitive One [/quote]
Thanks for the feedback, TI1. So you understand my comment about the WWE, huh? Can I assume you're another who is tired of being made to worship at the altar of Triple H? ;-)
Yeah I agree that the originals we do have contain some watchable programs, which is more than we can say for certain past \"efforts\" that shall not be named. Besides the one you name, Whammy is all right once you've gotten over that this is PYL without network backing. My problem, I guess, is with the affixation on more suspect choices of programs and acquisitions. The video game programming, as far as I've heard, has nothing to do with game shows (a doc on the history of VGs may be cool, though, I admit). I am reminded of my problem with the old Game TV, which sometimes seemed to be about GS once or twice a week (they'd have a guest sometimes, and then there was Friday with Fred Wostbrook). And getting recent, short lived series just comes off as looking cheap and lazy. Besides, why would I care about programs that I saw not too long ago and wasn't overly impressed with, and/or lack that element of \"pleasant memories\"? Yeah, I know I defend Adult Swim on CN, but somehow shows like Futurama and Family Guy fit in more naturally. I don't know why. Plus they're pretty good too ;-)
Now, if you're on the GSN boards, you may be familiar with two characters whose initials are JC and BC1234/5/5555. I am in no way the \"extremists\" they are, but sometimes I wonder a bit whether we really had it that bad under Fleming? I know he was going the same direction and probably even WORSE, but the schedule of classics seemed less inhibited as it is now somehow.
I think I wouldn't mind so much if I wasn't totally disenchanted by, oh, 85% of everything else on TV. I hardly watch the networks, and with cable it's usually looking for something that looks interesting, at the spur of the moment. Like with too many other forms of entertainment, I believe that things are now largely not about the acting, the talent, and the entertainment value in general. It's just about petty things like how you look, and if said person/show is the \"flavor of the month.\" The shows I do make a point to catch are like blips on the map. (Off the top of my head, of the ones \"freshest\" to me there's PYL Wednesdays; My Hero and Coupling on Fridays and Saturdays on different PBS stations; Superman and the Popeye Show on CN Saturdays; and...that's about it!)
Looks like I turned in another rant here!
J.