promotion image of download ymail app
Promoted

Do you think tv shows are better today or from the 90s?  Why or why not?

Update:

I’m talking about all tv shows (comedy, drama, reality)

8 Answers

Relevance
  • Zheia
    Lv 6
    1 month ago
    Favorite Answer

    I think they are better from the 1990s because TV nowadays shows too much violence.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 month ago

    Better in the 90s

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 month ago

    Broadcast TV is awful and just keeps getting worse, but then the trend to these popular immersive shows with in depth story building on the streaming networks & some of the cable channels is way better than the old formulaic TV from '90s broadcast.   

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    2 months ago

    In general yes.  Not that there weren't some excellent shows in the 90s.  In particular, I think that the state of sitcoms was better back then than now.  You just don't see some of these towering sitcoms like Friends or Seinfeld anymore. 

    Part of the reason that TV is better now is just that there's so much more of it.  Back in the 90s it was really all network tv with the cable networks really just beginning to get into original scripted dramas.  Oz, which I believe was the first original scripted drama on HBO, only debuted in the late 90s.  Now there's just so many more shows out there because of the explosion of scripted tv on cable and the rise of streaming services.  This gives us many more opportunities to have good shows come out.  The business model of some of these cable and streaming services, where they're not necessarily trying to fill air to sell ad time, means that they can also often afford to pass on really bad ideas.  This gives us a better signal to noise ratio than on the networks, who have to program 3 hours of primetime every night. 

    But it's also about changes in the types of stories that tv shows are telling.  Back in the 90s almost everything was episodic.  This was true even of shows that we might now refer to as "prestige dramas".  Think of the big shows like ER and while they might have ongoing subplots, they were often very episodic, especially earlier in the decade.  Again, part of this is determined by the business model of broadcast tv, where they make their money by selling ad time.  Having an episodic show allows people to miss an episode without losing the story.  Now, with the rise of cable and streaming they've been able to turn tv shows more into novels for television.  You've got shows like Game of Thrones, or Westworld, or Haunting of Hill House which tell a continuing, ongoing, story, rather than an episodic one.  This gives them some more creative freedom because they're not limited to a half hour or hour format.  And the plethora of shows, and the decoupling of successful tv from a mass audience, means that they're experimenting more in terms of content.  There was certainly some of that back in the 90s.  But even something like X-Files, which was regarded as fairly adventurous, was a pretty standard format.  While it dealt with odd creatures, it was basically a police procedural, with Mulder and Scully investigating, and solving, a new crime every week.  Think of some of the big hits of recent years.  Something like Game of Thrones would never have gotten past the elevator pitch stage in the 1990s: "let's do a bleak, rape and violence filled, high fantasy show which is filled with tons of lore and where you'll be completely lost if you miss a single episode".  Or take something like Chernobyl: "Let's do an ultra bleak show, featuring British actors, about a bunch of Soviet bureuacrats trying heroically to stop a nuclear disaster".  The conceptual and tonal options available to tv creators now are just so much more broad than they were in the 90s.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Liz
    Lv 5
    2 months ago

    Speaking from a moral standpoint, they weren't much better than the tv shows today. They featured violence and immoral behavior, but now tv has a definite slant toward homosexuality. Really if a person is looking for good tv, they might be better off watching the Weather Channel. LOL 

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 2 months ago

    I think that 90's TV was literally, black and white. You had white sitcoms and black sitcoms, the end. The minority in either would be the nerd or the bumbling idiot (Joey on Friends, for example, the only Italian and they made him dumb). A TV show nowadays can have whomever, whatever they want in it and that's cool; you rock the interacial trans threesomes, good on you. Have nothing but Asian leads, great. But it's NOT accurate to have black royalty set in 17th century France, if you get where I'm going. It's just NOT. Shows are that try to be historically accurate always get accused of being whitewashed. Well, hate to break it to you, but that's how it was...so...don't know what you want us to do about that. 

    I'm happy that more and more talented minority groups are making their voices heard, 100%, as they should. There is no reason nowadays why an Indian dude can't be a romantic lead. There is a reason why he can't be a romantic lead in 18th century England. I'm glad we're seeing MORE today than in the 90's. 90's TV was good, but I think it's better now. 

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Kathy
    Lv 7
    2 months ago

    They were better before the 2000's.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 2 months ago

    today I guess, because I have no idea what most 90s tv shows are about

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.