Discussions

Are cable shows better than network TV???

Posted by magnamatt • 10/31/08 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: cable, satellite, TV

Most of the shows I currently (or recently) enjoy are on cable. I didn't even have cable growing up.

Dexter, The Sopranos (over), The Wire (over), Battlestar Galactica, Weeds, Big Love, etc.

These shows are so much better than some of the crap on network tv.
Have you watched CSI Miami lately?? The plot-lines are so ridiculous.

Good shows--Chuck, Scrubs, The Office

Is the 11-12 cable episode season better? Do they put more effort when there is a shorter season?

User Comments

10/31/08

alangayandstraight

I only watch the news...CNN...and Canadian news

I like Larry King,
and Ellen and Oprah, but don't get to watch too often

[reply]
10/31/08

Xight

I don't watch TV anymore, I ended up using my 40" HDTV as my computer monitor.

[reply]
10/31/08

dosox

No TV...

[reply]
10/31/08

drjay1966

I don't have cable or any reception, but watch shows (all of them from cable) on line or on DVD, including:

The Daily Show
The Colbert Report
Weeds
The Wire
Dexter
The Shield

[reply]
10/31/08

bradhart

Shows on cable get away with more because they are less beholden to advertisers who get freaked out at people being offended, so they are often better. That isn't to say there aren't a few shows on network that are willing to tackle sensitive issues like House. I am surprised there is as much snarking on religion as there is in Bones and quite like it.

As for the shorter seasons I would love to see the networks go to 10 to 13 episode seasons. More fine actors would be willing to do TV, the writing would be better since they know they have to conclude a story arc in a more succinct time frame. Lastly you could run it uninterrupted beginning to end, and then rerun if need be in a different time slot.

The biggest benefit to a short season is networks wouldn't be so quick to drop shows that are slow to catch on. They would get a full season because it is easier than trying to find something to replace it with. You can also run experimental shows more easily. You could run two mini series or one long rather long epic mini series over a season, which always bring in viewers.

Back to the issue of new and experimental shows, if it catches on great they can bring it back, if it doesn't you don't irritate the fans by only airing 4 or 5 episodes. Networks need loyal viewers now more than ever, so a network irritating a group is a very bad idea.

[reply]
1. 11/01/08
  
  magnamatt
  
  Oooh...I like Bones. I forgot about it.
  David Boreanez is great.
  
  I wonder if they'd call 24 "12" by cutting it in half.
11/01/08

humorsmith

Oh yeah...I loves me some good programs about telegrams. Yes sir, nothing better than a cable show.

[reply]
1. 11/01/08
  
  humorsmith
  
  "Oh yeah...I loves me some good programs about telegrams. Yes sir, nothing better than a cable show."
  
  Y'see, they used to refer to telegrams as cables, and, ummm...never mind.
  
  humorsmith.com
11/01/08

robertstevenson

TV Land has my vote. With, of course, the Andy Griffith Show has the number one all time best series. (especially pre-color)

[reply]
11/01/08

Anok

I don't watch it enough to really know if I watch cable or network, anyway

Let's see, we watch PBS for cartoons and news. Disney Channel, for cartoons.

And then, I like some of the ghost hunter shows on whatever channels they're on, and Son's of Anarchy is the only show my husband and I actually MUST watch every week. He knows what channel it's on, I have no clue LOL.

[reply]
1. 11/01/08
  
  robertstevenson
  
  Disney would be our second most watched channel.
2. 11/01/08
  
  Anok
  
  It's got some good cartoons in the AM. I'm not too fond of the shows that come on after that, though.
11/01/08

wehireu

The internet is better than cable television. I like youtube better than television.

[reply]
11/01/08

ekim941

Why would anyone want to pay for television which broadcasts commercials?

[reply]