tv Great tv shows that have disappeared.

I can think of two, shows I would watch again if I could find them, and that really deserve new audiences.

Northern Exposure. Quirky, charming, character driven, beautifully written and acted. Everyone I know who watched this show loved it. It would be a hit, I'm sure, on, say, Netflix--something addictive with multiple seasons to binge away. I have no idea why it doesn't exist anymore.

A Nero Wolfe Mystery. A&E made 20 of these, over two seasons, back around 2000, with Maury Chayken as Wolfe, and Timothy Hutton as Archie Goodwin. I remember, when these played, reading all of Rex Stout's Nero Wolfe books and it was tremendous fun. It is one of the best TV adaptations--ever. Everyone involved had one goal: to depict what Rex Stout, what Nero Wolfe, was all about. And they just killed it. Virtually every bit of dialogue was taken directly from the novels. Every fan of Nero Wolfe loved it, and many who weren't fans, like me, became fans.

They are available on DVD, but they are kind of expensive, and . . . does anybody even have a DVD player any more? I think I set the last one I owned by the curb in my last Marie Kondo inspired purge.

They are all on the you tube, but this is no way to watch this show, in such a technically crappy format. They are so beautifully made, so stylish.
 
Last edited:
I'm not a TV person, but I thought TV was in a good state. People are always raving about this or that show. Do you mean network only?
 
I was thinking of things that were kind of landmark good, in television history, that should be, I guess, part of the archive, things, I would say, with a timeless quality and excellence that most people simply haven't seen. But yea, probably network, and yea, probably, now, nostalgic, at least for me.
 
Last edited:
Do you have any streaming services? A lot of the good TV is on streaming etc.
 
iI have three, Amazon, Netflix, and HBO, and, Christ, that's enough. Sometimes I miss TiVo, lol.
 
It's getting crazy with all the originals on certain platforms like Apple, Hulu, Disney+ etc.
 
Yup. I, for example, haven't seen Handmaids Tale and would like to. But you can't get them all! You kids might not believe this, but there was a time when television, above the hardware, was free!
 
Streaming was supposed to be the answer to cable. But it looks like we're going to need a "cable" solution to bundle all the different platforms.
 
I don't think there is/will be a solution - except that there are likely to be more mergers among streamers, which will reduce the numbers. But then more will sprout up :)
I'm not complaining 'cause I love watching things that wouldn't get onto network TV (which DOES have some good stuff).

I've recently started Julia, Minx, and Tokyo Vice on HBO Max and The Outlaws on Amazon Prime. I'm eagerly awaiting the return of Made for Love & The Flight Attendant on HBO Max later this month, as well as Russian Doll on Netflix.

Most of them would never draw big enough numbers to be worthwhile for a network years ago.
 
Yup, m, there is a lot of great stuff being made, due, I'm sure, to the streaming service model. I am current with a few, like Picard, which is not that great, but about which I feel, after having spent so much time with Star Trek, obligated :)

But, any more, it seems a horrible way to have to consume a story--one hour a week! The Netflix innovation, dumping the whole season at once, should be, in my opinion, mandatory :)
 
Last edited:
Bored Episode 15 GIF by The Simpsons
 
I may be wrong, this is just my personal perception. I think Northern Exposure got forgotten about because it was dramatically overplayed by A&E in the early 2000s. Or maybe just because they still own it, not sure. I do remember a time when I would turn on the tv looking for something to watch, and Northern Exposure was on. Then another episode, then again later that day. It was on pre streaming cable so much that I got completely burned out on it. I must have seen 300 episodes of a show with 50 episodes. Rob Morrow and Maura Tierney are both good, I think I just saw that one moose intro with the quirky Canadian folk music one too many times and my brain just refused any more. Like if you won a contest and received 10,000 Almond Joy bars. Regardless of how much you like them, there would come a day when you never wanted another almond joy bar again. I pretty much feel the same way about Law and Order.
 
Yup, m, there is a lot of great stuff being made, due, I'm sure, to the streaming service model. I am current with a few, like Picard, which is not that great, but about which I feel, after having spent so much time with Star Trek, obligated :)

But, any more, it seems a horrible way to have to consume a story--one hour a week! The Netflix innovation, dumping the whole season at once, should be, in my opinion, mandatory :)
I'm the same way about these new Star Trek shows. The early ones were such a big part of my childhood, that I feel like I should be watching the new ones. But the issue is that they are just horrible. Picard and Discovery are both filled with dishwater dull characters and forgettable plots. It seems like as franchises grow in scale, they are increasingly designed by committee. I just tried watching through Discovery for a 3rd or 4th time, and I just feel like every character is trying to represent some activist group or another, to the extent that they completely forgot to make them interesting. Even Jon Luc is boring me to tears in Picard. The main character in Discovery has so little charisma and personality that I kind of wish they had just hired Don Lemon instead. He would have made a much more exiting main character.
 
Now that I think off it, Northern Exposure might have been a little . . . prescious, lol. But I do remember (and it's been maybe 20 years) having great affection for some of the characters, like the DJ guy, which for TV is an accomplishment.

And as far as Star Trek--Discovery and Picard (I ignore the cartoons)--the problem might be, for me, this latest generation of writers and show runners. Characters are motivated by their feelings, their baggage, their past, their inner conflicts. (Picard himself, it seems, had an abusive father.) I imagine the writers think this is how you give a character some depth, but it accomplishes just the opposite. They become little formulas, reacting to some inner syllogism, (I am doing x because y happened to me) instead of to each other, or to the world around them. And, ultimately, it is just not that interesting, especially when this stuff starts to drive the plot.

I did like seeing the gay, and even trans, characters in Discovery. The are just characters, like everyone else, defined by their humanity, not their sexuality. Schitt's Creek kind of broke this ground not that long ago, and it is welcome and, I think, important.

And. . .Sir Patrick sure can, still, deliver a line :)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top