(5:09:17 PM) WaterBurnd: There is so much TV that is
actually good these days it is mindblowing.
(5:09:25 PM) WaterBurnd: Like TV has been crap my
(5:09:30 PM) WaterBurnd: What happened?
(5:10:35 PM) Crunchyfrogcmd: what happened with what?
(5:10:41 PM) WaterBurnd: TV.
(5:10:46 PM) WaterBurnd: It was crappy forever.
(5:10:49 PM) WaterBurnd: Now it's good.
(5:10:57 PM) WaterBurnd: Well not all.
(5:10:59 PM) WaterBurnd: But a lot.
I've been thinking about this. I agree completely, the quality of television has improved immensely. It used to seem that television was either a medium where movie stars got their start, or where has-been movie actors went to die. It was considered a real shame when someone got so typecast in a role that they could never move to movie star status, like the cast of the X-Files, the first two Star Trek shows, or...well, actually I can't think of a non-sci-fi example, though I'm sure they exist. Now, with some great shows like Heroes or My Name is Earl (a non-sci-fi example), it seems that star status is ensured to much of the cast, and in such a way that it will not destroy their future careers.
So the question is, which came first, decent actors/writers/producers/directors or just better quality television? Did they just pump so much money into tv that it HAD to get better, and decent people just jumped on board, or did the gradual introduction of good people mean they felt like they felt they had a better chance of a good return of their money, so they are more willing to sink lots of money in, thus improving production value? Or some combo of both? Or did the rapid improvement of television technology, and the more commonplace large widescreen high-def televisions in many households dictate the television quality improve to match?