The History Channel

[throatybeard]

Absolutely worth re-visiting. No doubt about it. (I even enjoyed the sequel, Closing Time, published many years later, revisiting the lives of the few characters who hadn't been killed off.)

So I said to one of my coworkers, I have two questions, and a hint: they both have the same answer.

1. What iconic American novel was published 50 years ago today?
2. What would St. Louis Rams receivers do if you threw them 50 footballs?

That is full of win.

[Kdogg]

Earlier in the week the channel managed to combine both Hitler and conspiracies with: Ancient Aliens: Aliens and the Third Reich.

[OldPhiKap]

Earlier in the week the channel managed to combine both Hitler and conspiracies with: Ancient Aliens: Aliens and the Third Reich.

PLEASE tell me that they also had sharks with laser beams, and my day will be complete.

[hughgs]

As a major history buff, the History Channel ought to be my favorite cable franchise.

It's not. I hate it.

I could try and explain why, buth South Park just summed up my contempt for the network wih this week's episode "A History Channel Thanksgiving."

I especially love their suggest motto for the network: 'The History Channel, where the truth is history."

When I first saw this thread something seemed incongruous to me and I finally figured out why. Here's a posting from the Big Bang Theory thread:

================================================

hates and loves

I'm kind of baffled by this thread ... so some of you don't like BBT or HIMYM ... or even Seinfeld (officially voted the greatest sitcom of all time).

So what.

It's a cliche, but like most cliche's it contains a strong core of truth: "there is no accounting for taste."

I can't stand Modern Family, Arrested Development or Desperate Housewives or Entourage. I never loved Lucy or Raymond. I never liked The Office or Mad Men and I don't like 30 Rock. I couldn't stand Avatar or Dances with Wolves. I despise Three and a Half Men (currently the most watched sitcom on TV).

On the other hand, I loved Seinfeld, Curb Your Enthusiasm (which I've always thought was Seinfeld on Steroids) and House (although it's getting stale). I prefer Vanilla to Chocolate. I prefer WB Yeats to Robert Frost. I prefered Deep Space 9 to Voyager or the Original Star Trek (although I preferred The Next Generation to any of them). I preferred Sorkin's Sports Night to his West Wing. I enjoy the Closer, South Park and think the Disney cartoon series Phineus and Ferb is great! I never missed an episode of Saving Grace.

That doesn't mean my likes are smart and good while my dislikes are dumb. Tastes differ. Enjoy what you enjoy ... if a TV show or a movie grabs a big enough audience, it prospers and and if it doesn't, it's gone. In the entertainment business that's the only morality.

So no matter how much I hate the Transformers series, I'm not coming here complaining that a Transformers IV is in the works. I just won't go see it. And if you don't like Big Bang, watch something else -- with cable, you now have 200-some choices.

I'll keep watching HIMYM (my favorite current sitcom -- by far). I'll catch Cheers and Seinfeld on cable. Every once in a while, I'll watch Big Bang. I'll give House a few more chances before I give up on it. Other than that, I'll watch as much sports and as many old movies as I can find.

But I won't I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this. about the shows that don't appeal to my taste.


================================================

I don't understand how someone should not complain about individual shows but can complain about individual shows if they're on the same channel. I like the History Channel. My wife got us digital cable (years ago) so I could watch the History Channel. Our current satellite package is partially based on having the History Channel. When I turn on the TV for entertainment the first thing I do is go to channel 269 so I can see what the History Channel and HII are showing. That said, I also avoid those shows on the History Channel that I deem to be drivel. But, just because some or even most of the recent shows are bad doesn't mean the entire channel is bad. As the wise and respected person said above:

I won't I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this. about the shows that don't appeal to my taste.

[Indoor66]

When I first saw this thread something seemed incongruous to me and I finally figured out why. Here's a posting from the Big Bang Theory thread:

================================================

hates and loves

I'm kind of baffled by this thread ... so some of you don't like BBT or HIMYM ... or even Seinfeld (officially voted the greatest sitcom of all time).

So what.

It's a cliche, but like most cliche's it contains a strong core of truth: "there is no accounting for taste."

I can't stand Modern Family, Arrested Development or Desperate Housewives or Entourage. I never loved Lucy or Raymond. I never liked The Office or Mad Men and I don't like 30 Rock. I couldn't stand Avatar or Dances with Wolves. I despise Three and a Half Men (currently the most watched sitcom on TV).

On the other hand, I loved Seinfeld, Curb Your Enthusiasm (which I've always thought was Seinfeld on Steroids) and House (although it's getting stale). I prefer Vanilla to Chocolate. I prefer WB Yeats to Robert Frost. I prefered Deep Space 9 to Voyager or the Original Star Trek (although I preferred The Next Generation to any of them). I preferred Sorkin's Sports Night to his West Wing. I enjoy the Closer, South Park and think the Disney cartoon series Phineus and Ferb is great! I never missed an episode of Saving Grace.

That doesn't mean my likes are smart and good while my dislikes are dumb. Tastes differ. Enjoy what you enjoy ... if a TV show or a movie grabs a big enough audience, it prospers and and if it doesn't, it's gone. In the entertainment business that's the only morality.

So no matter how much I hate the Transformers series, I'm not coming here complaining that a Transformers IV is in the works. I just won't go see it. And if you don't like Big Bang, watch something else -- with cable, you now have 200-some choices.

I'll keep watching HIMYM (my favorite current sitcom -- by far). I'll catch Cheers and Seinfeld on cable. Every once in a while, I'll watch Big Bang. I'll give House a few more chances before I give up on it. Other than that, I'll watch as much sports and as many old movies as I can find.

But I won't I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this. about the shows that don't appeal to my taste.


================================================

I don't understand how someone should not complain about individual shows but can complain about individual shows if they're on the same channel. I like the History Channel. My wife got us digital cable (years ago) so I could watch the History Channel. Our current satellite package is partially based on having the History Channel. When I turn on the TV for entertainment the first thing I do is go to channel 269 so I can see what the History Channel and HII are showing. That said, I also avoid those shows on the History Channel that I deem to be drivel. But, just because some or even most of the recent shows are bad doesn't mean the entire channel is bad. As the wise and respected person said above:

I won't I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this. about the shows that don't appeal to my taste.

The great arbitrator of taste is the Remote Control. If you don't like it change the channel.

[Olympic Fan]

When I first saw this thread something seemed incongruous to me and I finally figured out why. Here's a posting from the Big Bang Theory thread:

================================================

hates and loves

I'm kind of baffled by this thread ... so some of you don't like BBT or HIMYM ... or even Seinfeld (officially voted the greatest sitcom of all time).

So what.

It's a cliche, but like most cliche's it contains a strong core of truth: "there is no accounting for taste."

I can't stand Modern Family, Arrested Development or Desperate Housewives or Entourage. I never loved Lucy or Raymond. I never liked The Office or Mad Men and I don't like 30 Rock. I couldn't stand Avatar or Dances with Wolves. I despise Three and a Half Men (currently the most watched sitcom on TV).

On the other hand, I loved Seinfeld, Curb Your Enthusiasm (which I've always thought was Seinfeld on Steroids) and House (although it's getting stale). I prefer Vanilla to Chocolate. I prefer WB Yeats to Robert Frost. I prefered Deep Space 9 to Voyager or the Original Star Trek (although I preferred The Next Generation to any of them). I preferred Sorkin's Sports Night to his West Wing. I enjoy the Closer, South Park and think the Disney cartoon series Phineus and Ferb is great! I never missed an episode of Saving Grace.

That doesn't mean my likes are smart and good while my dislikes are dumb. Tastes differ. Enjoy what you enjoy ... if a TV show or a movie grabs a big enough audience, it prospers and and if it doesn't, it's gone. In the entertainment business that's the only morality.

So no matter how much I hate the Transformers series, I'm not coming here complaining that a Transformers IV is in the works. I just won't go see it. And if you don't like Big Bang, watch something else -- with cable, you now have 200-some choices.

I'll keep watching HIMYM (my favorite current sitcom -- by far). I'll catch Cheers and Seinfeld on cable. Every once in a while, I'll watch Big Bang. I'll give House a few more chances before I give up on it. Other than that, I'll watch as much sports and as many old movies as I can find.

But I won't I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this. about the shows that don't appeal to my taste.


================================================

I don't understand how someone should not complain about individual shows but can complain about individual shows if they're on the same channel. I like the History Channel. My wife got us digital cable (years ago) so I could watch the History Channel. Our current satellite package is partially based on having the History Channel. When I turn on the TV for entertainment the first thing I do is go to channel 269 so I can see what the History Channel and HII are showing. That said, I also avoid those shows on the History Channel that I deem to be drivel. But, just because some or even most of the recent shows are bad doesn't mean the entire channel is bad. As the wise and respected person said above:

I won't I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this. about the shows that don't appeal to my taste.

Interesting take ... and since the long posting that you quote was mine, I feel like I should respond.

I agree 100 percent that it's a waste of time to I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this. about a show that I don't like. As you say, the answer is the remote control.

But I suggest that my complaint about the history channel -- the complaints of many people who joined my protest -- is different ... and justified.

A better analogy would be if a filmmaker took your favorite novel and ruined it on screen. Should you I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this. about that or just shrug and say I won't go see it? Would you grit your teeth when people discuss your cherished story and dismiss it because of a filmmaker's incompetence?

I don't get upset by movies and TV shows I don't like.

But I do love history. I love reading about it. I love talking about it. I love watching it on the screen or TV -- when it's done well. I DO I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this. (and you could find instances in other threads) when a filmmaker grossly distorts history in a movie or TV show. I would have no problem with Roland Emmerlich's absurd anti-Shakespeare film "Anonymous" if it was presented as a fictional Elizabethean drama ... and not being promoted by the filmmakers as the real history of the greatest author in the English language. I actively dislike Oliver Stone's "JFK" for the outright lies (not juist distortions) he tells about one of the most traumatic events in modern American history. I dislike "Rudy", which should be a fun, uplifting film because the filmmakers turn a realm person -- Dan Devine -- into a despictable monster. I hate Mel Gibson's "The Patriot" fro his grotesque distortion of our Revolutionary War.

I would argue that this isn't about taste -- it's outrage when history is trampled for entertainment or political purposes. That happens on the History Channel with disturbing frequency.

I think Faustus said it best earlier in this thread. To quote:

I still remember years ago when cable tv was first breaking out into the national existence it now holds, and that people raved about the possibilities:
"It will be fabulous! There won't just be those three mindless networks dominating matters with such limited shows that have to cater to the whole society. Oh no. There will be a channel for opera! For concerts! For lectures! Whatever your interest, there will be a cable network just for you!" And at first, it looked like it might kind of be like that. A&E and a few other cable networks DID show some occasional opera or Broadway stage shows, quirky movies that never made big bucks but were critically acclaimed... but not for very long. Probably got rotten ratings, as they were bound to do, let's face it, and these are for-profit organizations after all. Eventually it became obvious that just showing re-runs from those very same commercial networks Cable was SUPPOSED to provide an alternative to made enough money to keep the owners happy. Creativity quickly ended, seeking niche audiences gave way entirely. Now there are cable networks who simply show NCIS re-runs from last year, or endless re-runs of Friends, or the most horrific "reality" shows that are zillion times worse than the supposedly bad tv from the regular networks of years gone by, and now it's 70-some networks chasing the very same 18-35 mindless people's dollars instead of just three networks. A&E has no Arts or Entertainment. The Travel Channel doesn't show travel... there's no money in that. It's expensive to make actual travelogues, after all, because that would require someone... to travel. The Weather Channel doesn't even show local weather during prime time, because they can show "weather shows" (like how New York City COULD BE DESTROYED!!!!) instead. THis began when NBC bought the Weather Channel, mostly to then plug other NBC programs and its other cable networks, because here's another problem, the cable networks set up to provide alternatives to the Big Networks have instead been mostly bought up by those very same networks, all, again, trying to get top advertizing dollar by appealing to the same 18-35s who don't care about weather, or history. It's a terrible shame, but in the current set-up, it's the way it is. And sadly, there are increasing people in Congress now arguing that subsidies for PBS should end, and "the Market" should decide whether those shows, generally FAR superior in their way, "deserve" to survive in our society. But deserving is only counted in advertizing revenue. So if you want history, you have to read a book. It isn't on the History Channel."

I'm bitter because I feel cheated. If it was called the Conspiracy Channel or the Alien Channel, I would not have a problem with it. I'd gladly ignore it and let those who enjoy such things watch it.

But I want a HISTORY Channel. With 200-plus cable channels (on my system) there should be one that could show great documentaries and historical shows without burying itslf in Nazis and Aliens and Ice Road Truckers and Storage Bin buyers.

[hughgs]

Interesting take ... and since the long posting that you quote was mine, I feel like I should respond.

I agree 100 percent that it's a waste of time to I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this. about a show that I don't like. As you say, the answer is the remote control.

But I suggest that my complaint about the history channel -- the complaints of many people who joined my protest -- is different ... and justified.

A better analogy would be if a filmmaker took your favorite novel and ruined it on screen. Should you I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this. about that or just shrug and say I won't go see it? Would you grit your teeth when people discuss your cherished story and dismiss it because of a filmmaker's incompetence?

I don't get upset by movies and TV shows I don't like.

But I do love history. I love reading about it. I love talking about it. I love watching it on the screen or TV -- when it's done well. I DO I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this. (and you could find instances in other threads) when a filmmaker grossly distorts history in a movie or TV show. I would have no problem with Roland Emmerlich's absurd anti-Shakespeare film "Anonymous" if it was presented as a fictional Elizabethean drama ... and not being promoted by the filmmakers as the real history of the greatest author in the English language. I actively dislike Oliver Stone's "JFK" for the outright lies (not juist distortions) he tells about one of the most traumatic events in modern American history. I dislike "Rudy", which should be a fun, uplifting film because the filmmakers turn a realm person -- Dan Devine -- into a despictable monster. I hate Mel Gibson's "The Patriot" fro his grotesque distortion of our Revolutionary War.

I would argue that this isn't about taste -- it's outrage when history is trampled for entertainment or political purposes. That happens on the History Channel with disturbing frequency.

I think Faustus said it best earlier in this thread. To quote:

I still remember years ago when cable tv was first breaking out into the national existence it now holds, and that people raved about the possibilities:
"It will be fabulous! There won't just be those three mindless networks dominating matters with such limited shows that have to cater to the whole society. Oh no. There will be a channel for opera! For concerts! For lectures! Whatever your interest, there will be a cable network just for you!" And at first, it looked like it might kind of be like that. A&E and a few other cable networks DID show some occasional opera or Broadway stage shows, quirky movies that never made big bucks but were critically acclaimed... but not for very long. Probably got rotten ratings, as they were bound to do, let's face it, and these are for-profit organizations after all. Eventually it became obvious that just showing re-runs from those very same commercial networks Cable was SUPPOSED to provide an alternative to made enough money to keep the owners happy. Creativity quickly ended, seeking niche audiences gave way entirely. Now there are cable networks who simply show NCIS re-runs from last year, or endless re-runs of Friends, or the most horrific "reality" shows that are zillion times worse than the supposedly bad tv from the regular networks of years gone by, and now it's 70-some networks chasing the very same 18-35 mindless people's dollars instead of just three networks. A&E has no Arts or Entertainment. The Travel Channel doesn't show travel... there's no money in that. It's expensive to make actual travelogues, after all, because that would require someone... to travel. The Weather Channel doesn't even show local weather during prime time, because they can show "weather shows" (like how New York City COULD BE DESTROYED!!!!) instead. THis began when NBC bought the Weather Channel, mostly to then plug other NBC programs and its other cable networks, because here's another problem, the cable networks set up to provide alternatives to the Big Networks have instead been mostly bought up by those very same networks, all, again, trying to get top advertizing dollar by appealing to the same 18-35s who don't care about weather, or history. It's a terrible shame, but in the current set-up, it's the way it is. And sadly, there are increasing people in Congress now arguing that subsidies for PBS should end, and "the Market" should decide whether those shows, generally FAR superior in their way, "deserve" to survive in our society. But deserving is only counted in advertizing revenue. So if you want history, you have to read a book. It isn't on the History Channel."

I'm bitter because I feel cheated. If it was called the Conspiracy Channel or the Alien Channel, I would not have a problem with it. I'd gladly ignore it and let those who enjoy such things watch it.

But I want a HISTORY Channel. With 200-plus cable channels (on my system) there should be one that could show great documentaries and historical shows without burying itslf in Nazis and Aliens and Ice Road Truckers and Storage Bin buyers.

Thanks for the response. I always think of you as the level-headed poster, so seeing the two posts had me wondering.

I guess the difference that I see is that I don't assume that simply because they call themselves the "History Channel" means that they are going to show historically accurate shows. When they do I'm happy, when they don't I do some thumb exercises. But, just because they call themselves the History Channel doesn't mean that I think they're required to show some minimal amount of history. Yes, it would be great, and years ago it was. But their name is self-ascribed so they can show what they want. It's the same as MTV or VH-1. They mostly show reality shows but every once in a while I get to see a music special. When they show music specials I'm happy. If not I turn the channel and don't complain about it.

But, to each their own. Thanks again.

[hughgs]

The great arbitrator of taste is the Remote Control. If you don't like it change the channel.

If you're responding to my part of the post, then I suggest you reread the section where I say that if I don't like the show I don't watch it. If you're not responding to my post then next time give me a heads up.

[hughgs]

I thought y'all might like this:

http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/arch...p?comicid=1452

[throatybeard]

I thought y'all might like this:

http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/arch...p?comicid=1452

I was just coming to post that. You know what's funny, is for a second I forgot I was looking at a PhD Comic and I thought it was XKCD.

[hughgs]

I was just coming to post that. You know what's funny, is for a second I forgot I was looking at a PhD Comic and I thought it was XKCD.

I've tried to get into XKCD, but there's something about it that doesn't resonate with me. I can totally see why people think they're funny, but it's not the same. It's like that one opposite sex friend that everyone seems to have. You can totally see why people are attracted to her, but she doesn't float your boat.