Talk:Golden Age of Television (2000s–present)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Rename

Shouldn't we rename this, as it concerns only one specific country? --98.122.20.56 (talk) 23:23, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. While it is clear that US TV has had something of a golden age in theast twenty years, British TV has gone down the toilet in the same period. -213.205.241.169 (talk) 00:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

The golden age of the Internet

• Can you guys imagine this possibility? Espngeek (talk) 00:40, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

It's been and gone. Personally I think that was probably c. 1997- c. 2012.Social media and censorship ended that.-213.205.241.169 (talk) 00:23, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Question

Can I add Ken Burns on this article? Espngeek (talk) 12:07, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Order of lists

Is there any logic to the list of notable shows? Shouldn't it be alphabetical or chronological? Concept14 (talk) 01:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Addition to the List

This is a simple thing, admittedly - but perhaps True Detective season 1 should be added to the long list of notable television shows featured in this article. Yea, nay? 2601:87:4400:AF2:E575:EB8C:2E11:99E3 (talk) 22:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

The list of shows

...is so long as to be essentially useless. There are few large shows from recent decades that aren't on the list. And, to boot, most of the citations do not provide qualifying evidence that they belong on the list. The Eric Andre Show, for instance (though it pains me--I love it), is not labelled "peak TV" or anything of the sort in the linked citation. This is the case for many of the shows listed, which were added, I assume, because a fan wanted them to be.

To be logically notable within this particular list, a cited source should indicate that a show is notable in this particular era. That, of course, is not a good criteria either--the lead says the era could have begun as early as the 80s (which makes the whole designation meaningless, given that's nearly half the existence of television; also, I think that's a misreading of both the Vulture and UPROXX pieces--they suggest its origins are in the 80s or 90s, not necessarily that it was already then). Meanwhile, the title specifies the scope as the 2000s (and many people would agree, I think, that the Sopranos marks the true beginning). Yet the list is filled with earlier shows.

tl;dr I think the article badly needs

1. a firmer clarification of scope in terms of time, significance, and reception
2. citations that accurately fit the needs of the list and its claimants

anthologetes ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

• Can we delete shows from the late 80s - early to mid 90s? Espngeek (talk) 23:07, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Just fixed the lists. Wanna check? Espngeek (talk) 23:53, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

    I still think there's a lot of issues with the lists, simply because they've been piled together over time with no oversight. I selected a few items at random, and none of them should logically be included:

    • The Orville's cited source makes no case for its inclusion in the list--fans love it and critics hate it, but how does that fit into the framework that it contributes to the phenomenon discussed in the article? The review doesn't use the words "peak," "golden," "best," etc.
    • The Amazing Race, The Voice, etc. are all cited from this article. But that article is clearly arguing that reality TV is having its own renaissance--not that the shows are part of the specified phenomenon of "Peak TV" or the Golden Age. The list, as a whole, has issues with concurrency: just because a show is occurring during this period does not mean it is representative of or notable in the Golden Age.
    • Under notable people: why are Kimmel and Fallon included? It's the same as the previous bullet: the source says it is a golden age for late night shows--not that the shows/showrunners are part of the phenomenon of Peak TV. They are occupying a concurrent golden age, but that does not automatically include them in this phenomenon.
    • A variety of other shows are listed with their linked sources simply being "best of" lists. This goes for many of the animated shows and scifi shows. Such sources do not refer to Peak TV or a golden age--simply that shows are "best." But does that automatically warrant inclusion here?

    Again, I think there needs to be a discussion of what criteria are being used to determine the included shows. The whole history section suggests (what I think is generally accepted as the reality, though citation needed) that Peak TV is defined largely by major dramas--Mad Men, the Sopranos, Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones--yet the list is stuffed with comedies at which both critics and audiences have balked. What is Peak TV, what contributes to it, and what sources support the inclusion of shows within this framework? anthologetes ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:29, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

The Thick of It

I think The Thick of It is a show that needs to be added to this list when talking about great shows from the current Golden Age of Television. However, I want to make sure this is a strong enough reference for its' inclusion. Please let me know if this is good enough.

Wait a second. Sorry, but I think I found another reference. Mr. Brain (talk) 00:43, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Veep counts, but as I say above, British TV is not in its golden years. I think the Thick of It is a great series by the way. -213.205.241.169 (talk) 00:25, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Still a golden age to this date?

There seems to be some debate whether there still is a golden age going on for American TV as of 2020/2021. Perhaps this should be included in the article. Alialiac (talk) 08:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I think 2019 was television's peak year. Chernobyl was made that year. It was also the year Game of Thrones ended. Law & Order ended in 2010 and The X-Files in 2018. George Floyd killed off the cop drama. This was a staple not long ago. 99to99 (talk) 16:17, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

99to99, sorry, but it doesn't matter what you (or I) think; what matters is what reliable sources say. See also WP:NOTFORUM. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 20:47, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Alialiac, the second paragraph (in the lead) already covers this, although there's currently little in the article body, if that's what you meant. Some of those refs cited in the lead could be used to flesh out a paragraph in the body discussing the dispute. Be bold! — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 20:47, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Does MST3K count as a past show associated with Golden Age?

Cheesy Movie Lovers, Rejoice: ‘Mystery Science Theater 3000’ Returns - The New York Times Netflix's Mystery Science Theater 3000 Revival Is Witty and Packed With Jokes Like You'd Expect| NDTV Gadgets 360 Espngeek (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Confusing Terminology

I think the phrase "turned on" in "The new Golden Age turned on creator-driven tragic dramas of the 2000s and 2010s, including" is confusing because it has multiple meanings. "turned on" can mean to turn away, disconnect from. The context indicating its meaning is very nuanced since the article hints at the golden age possibly starting in the 90s: "Buffy the Vampire Slayer[25] and Oz,[25] which both first aired in 1997; 1999's The Sopranos". So, I have changed it. Eezurr (talk) 17:23, 21 March 2022 (UTC)