Ask JKM a Question: Are We in the Golden Age of TV?

A reader named Jason writes:

"Every so often someone will report how we live in a Golden Age of TV.  I can see where they're coming from: there are a multitude of series boasting superlative writing, acting, production design, et al. Series are allowed to spread an epic story over the course of a season or two in a grand work of fiction, and it's pretty rad.

And yet... maybe it's my imminent curmudgeon-hood, but I feel like the older series did it better.  

Older series like Land of the Lost or Star Trek or Space:1999 knew how to tell compelling, memorable stories in the space of 30 to 60 minutes (less with commercials!) that have stood the test of time.  

It's a little bit of an apples and oranges argument, but I put it to you: which do you think makes for a better series?  

Would you prefer one long epic story, or a seasons' worth of done-in-one adventures?"

Jason, that is a great question, and one of the defining ones, I believe, of pop culture studies in 2017. 

I, myself, have used the "Golden Age" description for modern TV. Why? In part because the TV landscape is one of plenty for fans. MST-3K is back. Twin Peaks is back. The X-Files is back. Star Trek is returning. Lost in Space is also returning.

Basically, the fact that we have moved into a fractured TV landscape, with niche programming, means that networks (or streaming sites like Netflix) don't need huge audiences to justify reviving a show, or keeping one on the air.  This approach has lead to the creation of remarkably ambitious and unusual programs, such as The O.A., Black Mirror, The Handmaid's Tale, and Stranger Things. 

Those are all positives for modern TV. Similarly, modern series such as Fear the Walking Dead survive on lower ratings, in this new era, than those achieved by hits (like The X-Files) in previous generations. That is also a positive. We have fewer genre shows canceled for low ratings.

On the other hand, would we want beloved series to return, if we didn't have a previous golden age? An age that gave us Star Trek, The Twilight Zone, The X-Files, and so on?  Those series have become the bedrock foundation of genre programming.

Perhaps, we have had two or three Golden Ages at this point. And we musn't forget that nostalgia plays a role in this perception, too.

Still, my answer is going to come at this problem sideways, you might say. I think our feelings of quality or a "Golden Age," may finally come down to how we ultimately engage with the drama.

I agree with you your perception of the new-age, circa 2010-2017, let's say. I love Game of Thrones, The Walking Dead, iZombie, Vikings and other modern programs that do all the things you enumerate. They are epic. They are well-written. Their production values are remarkable.  

And yet, frankly, after I finish watching them, I doubt I will return to them in any kind of meaningful way. 

And by contrast, I have returned to Star Trek, Space:1999, Land of the Lost, The Twilight Zone, The X-Files, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Millennium, The Outer Limits, One Step Beyond and other "older" series again and again, with fresh eyes, over the years, across the decades. 

Is it because these programs were better? Even without the option for serial storytelling (in some cases), or extravagant production values?

My theory is that the quality doesn't matter so much as the personal choice -- and energy -- to interact with these programs. Growing up, I was -- and I think you were -- at the mercy of local stations. Would they show a Twilight Zone or Space:1999 you had not seen yet?   

Remember when there were still three episodes of Star Trek you had never seen, and you scoured the listing in your paper or in TV Guide to look for them?

In hopes that they would, you would have either had to stay up till 3:00 am to watch, in some cases, or set your VCR.

Even in the DVD age, you had to shell out money for box sets, and seek out those box sets. Perhaps just to see six episodes of a 48 episode series.  

There was an act you had to take, to pursue knowledge, to pursue experience, and follow something you were interested in. It cost something to be a fan of a particular director, or program. And that cost is different than the cost of a "service" like Hulu, or Prime.

In the age of streaming, there is no hard work, and therefore no discovery. You are presented with a menu of possible programs, and you can select what's there.  You can't see what isn't there.

If you choose not to, a world of TV programs will be unavailable to you, that you never see. Since Millennium isn't up on Netflix or Amazon Prime, do curious viewers seek it out?

I try not to be a cranky old man, or curmudgeon, as you say, but two semesters teaching film to college students has deeply rattled me. 

These students have never seen a Hitchcock film. They never saw The Matrix, or Fight Club. They haven't seen Alien, even, or the original Planet of the Apes.  If it's not right in front of them, at the right time, they aren't going to see it.

It isn't that they aren't smart. They are smart. 

It is that they have no curiosity about the history and world of film or TV, beyond what Netflix can offer them, on a moment's menu scan.  They have never seen a silent film. They have never seen a black and white film, at all.  They select only the new and the popular, and I find this fact deeply disturbing.

In my class, I have begun assigning them reviews of older films (like The Gold Rush, and Sunset Boulevard), so they HAVE to watch something outside their limited experience, but this is not enough.  It's a mind-set the culture is battling. I wish they were curious about older shows, older films, but they aren't.

So we might be in a golden age of programs, but we are not in a golden age of viewers.  It may not be about the programs at all, but about how are culture is choosing these programs.

Regarding your final question -- serial vs. standalone storytelling -- my preferred mix is the one exemplified by The X-Files. I appreciate a level of serialized continuity, but too much is exhausting. 

Sometimes, I just want to be "one and done," for example (as in the case of The Twilight Zone, or Space:1999.)  I like arcs, but arcs that go on too long, or travel to improbable places (like the voluntary sacrifice of indoor plumbing, by a technological society on the new Battlestar Galactica) largely make me regret the journey, the time invested.

Don't forget to ask me your questions at Muirbusiness@yahoo.com