Tweet Proposal for new forum on "Early TV"

[Mike Gebert]

Chris Snowden offered the suggestion, which I am throwing out for discussion now, of a new forum devoted to vintage or early television:

There's a lot of overlap with the classic cinema era, in terms of personnel. I don't mean just "guest stars" and character actors, but also cinematographers, writers, directors, etc.... Most of that prime-time programming was actually filmed, and very often filmed by the same studios (WB, Universal, etc.) that produced the movies of the golden age. Therefore the product was largely the same (just shorter); only its distribution channel was different.

I see it slightly differently. I don't know that we need a specific place to discuss Joseph Pevney's work on Star Trek, say, just because he directed some B's in the 40s. If somebody wanted to do that, they could just do so in Talking About Talkies. And I don't especially want to see a sudden blooming of discussion about Bewitched or Kojak; that belongs somewhere else, obviously. But the early years of TV were a continuation in many ways of the vaudeville and comedy era that's often discussed here. It's something like Music of the Era-- the Carter Family or Lily Pons are technically music of the same era, but the discussion has focused on music of that time which has a familial relationship to the movies of that time, the performers who were in Vitaphone shorts, etc.

So my title for it would be not "Vintage TV" (which is in the eye of the beholder and could, if you're young enough, include Seinfeld or Cheers) but "Early TV." But first, I'd want to know that this is something anyone would be interested in. So weigh in below, thanks.

<object width="480" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-dyo_Q-9GFw?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-dyo_Q-9GFw?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="390"></embed></object>

It sounds interesting but, as you say, it could easily become a discussion area for TV from all eras, eg. Crawford in NIGHT GALLERY, etc.

I say give it a try.

I'm also generally inclined to think that the talkies section adequately serves the needs of the occasional TV-related discussions we've had (or even the silents section, if we're talking about Mack Sennett or Gloria Swanson's appearances). But if the "Early TV" section were created, I think it should encompass radio as well, since both forms of broadcasting had significant overlap from about 1948-60 (and not just with live television--"Gunsmoke", after all, was a radio series three years before the TV series started). Furthermore, much of early radio doesn't really fit comfortably into the Music section.

Still, even the radio discussions we've had have fit pretty well into the silent or talkie sections, depending on which performers we've been talking about. So either the creation or non-creation of a new forum won't be a problem with me.

-Harold

Yes, an early TV/Old Time Radio section would certainly be welcome.

I vote yes on creating a new section.

No.

I don't see anything wrong with having it. Those who are not interested don't have to read it.

Early TV and radio were as much a part of the cultural landscape as the movies (especially during the studio era), in that they all influenced each other. In that context, I think a section on early TV and radio would be welcome. Just keep the focus narrow, make sure everybody knows the parameters for such discussions, and things should be fine.

As with so many proposals, it's very vague. How do we define "early" tv? Pre-1950? Before the collapse of the Dumont network? Pre-Star Trek? Before the rise of 1500 channels via cable with nothing on except TCM? I'd like some idea of the ground rules before weighing in with my highly-regarded opinion.

Bob

If it can adhere to pre-1960, I could see it. I often think of those THIS IS YOUR LIFE programs from the early '50s that brought together Mack Sennett, Buster Keaton, Gloria Swanson etc. with priceless addendums to their earlier careers. As such, I'd prefer to see early TV being a connective way with early Hollywood, and how it offered new outlets and perspective for those very much still around, rather than a wholesale discussion of programs and people that don't particularly relate to this website's main intent.

Hey, remember Charles Farrell being featured in MY LITTLE MARGIE?

I never thought there'd be so much discussion about whether to allow a discussion!

Seems to me that dedicating a corner of Nitrateville to classic broadcasting can only be a good thing. Those who'd want to participate, can. Those who'd rather denounce The Birth of a Nation, or argue for Chaplin vs. Keaton, can do that too. (Over and over and over.)

Would a discussion comparing The Twilight Zone with One Step Beyond really draw more scowls than another post about Her Wild Oat not being on DVD?

[Mike Gebert]

If it's just a matter of allowing the discussion, you can go have it right now in Talking About Talkies or somewhere, Chris, and I promise I won't pull it unless it goes to some absurd point, any more than I've pulled Chris Jacobs' posts that include a few 70s movies on blu-ray. I mean, it's not like there's any danger of Burt Reynolds winding up on the masthead...

But it's worth talking about what things go on the front page and convey a message about what we're about. Bob's point, that it's kind of vague as described now, is to my mind one of NitrateVille's strengths, and what allows us to wander a little while still maintaining a generally shared, internalized sense of what the main parameters are. (What I call "flashlight focus," in contrast to a food board I used to be on that bragged of "laser focus" and really would zap anything that strayed even a little.) If we gain a long discussion on Star Trek, say, I think we lose something of our specialization on a certain era of film, so I do think it's important to gauge how we expand our, I guess you'd call it self-image, the shared sense of what we're about here. (I'm also reminded of the value of fencing in our territory a little by the fact that several old AMSers are having politico-religious wars over on Facebook right now. Which seems an excellent place to keep them...)

Anyway, there seems to a general consensus that this would not be a bad thing. So here's what I'm thinking, tucked under Music of the Era:

Talking About Broadcasting
Open, general discussion of old-time radio and early television

I think that nudges things in the direction of the nitrate era and its personalities while still achieving the desired vagueness. If the subject matter takes off in a big way, it can always be divided into radio and TV, or even further.

I suppose the first thing that ought to go in it is the Kovacs thread.

[Christopher Jacobs]

After thinking about it for awhile, I think Mike's suggestion of starting with a subforum "Talking About Broadcasting" under the TALKIES main forum is the best idea (and just below the "Music of the Era" subforum is the best place for it). If it suddenly explodes in an overwhelming flurry of posts, then I think there should be a separate main forum called EARLY BROADCASTING (between TALKIES and FILM PRESERVATION), with subforums divided into "World War II and before" (radio and experimental television), "The Golden Age of Radio-TV Networks" (1940s through early 60s), and have some arbitrary cutoff after the adoption of color by all the networks in the mid-1960s. If these become super-busy, perhaps separate Radio and TV forums could be added later under EARLY BROADCASTING. The latest I think we would want to allow would be something like "Color TV before VCRs (or before widespread cable)" with a cutoff in the mid-70s and no later than 1980.

The biggest advantage I can see to allowing television discussion of the 60s and even the 70s (conveniently isolated in its own forum, rather than clogging up the Talkies film forum), would be a potential for attracting new (and perhaps younger) members seriously interested in television programming who would then become exposed to our ongoing discussions of the pre-TV origins of those actors and directors, and might even click on the silents forum out of idle curiosity. This could, in turn, lead to broadening the fanbase and appreciation of silent films and early talkies to some who might never have considered it. They might even try to figure out what "nitrate" refers to and find themselves interested in a whole new subject. This is, after all, "NitrateVille," and the earliest TV series of the late 1940s would still have been filmed on nitrate film (in fact I used to have a Bell Telephone Hour episode with "Nitrate" in the margins). It was also TV that got many of us into classic films in the first place, sometimes by accident when due to "technical difficulties" a favorite network show might have been replaced at the last minute by a local station's old movie showing. And those of us who were kids while Johnny Carson was on were exposed to countless old vaudeville and movie stars (by then often familiar guest stars or character actors in TV sitcoms) reminiscing about the coming of sound and classic films of the 1930s-40s.

--Christopher Jacobs
http://hpr1.com/film
http://www.und.edu/instruct/cjacobs
http://www.und.edu/instruct/cjacobs/Old ... BluRay.htm

It seems that every organisation I've ever been involved in has made an attempt to `attract younger people' at least once. Without exception, it pleases nobody and attracts nobody. A board like Nitrateville will attract who it attracts - no more, no less - and that is something that counts in its favour.

Though I'm a big fan of early radio and have a passing interest in early television, my interest extends mainly to their relation to pre 1934 film, which is exactly why I come to Nitrateville. Its focus is small and compact, just like mine is. They are certainly worthy topics of discussion, but whatever aspect I would want to discuss is already covered in `Talking About Talkies'.

Not to stray into the noxious world of mission statements, but `Talking, collecting and preserving classic film' seems a pretty good summary of Nitrateville's aims.

My going rate is 1c a paragraph (not including this one ).

After thinking about it for awhile, I think Mike's suggestion of starting with a subforum "Talking About Broadcasting" under the TALKIES main forum is the best idea (and just below the "Music of the Era" subforum is the best place for it). If it suddenly explodes in an overwhelming flurry of posts, then I think there should be a separate main forum called EARLY BROADCASTING (between TALKIES and FILM PRESERVATION), with subforums divided into "World War II and before" (radio and experimental television), "The Golden Age of Radio-TV Networks" (1940s through early 60s), and have some arbitrary cutoff after the adoption of color by all the networks in the mid-1960s. If these become super-busy, perhaps separate Radio and TV forums could be added later under EARLY BROADCASTING. The latest I think we would want to allow would be something like "Color TV before VCRs (or before widespread cable)" with a cutoff in the mid-70s and no later than 1980.

If there's going to be such a forum, the cutoff point should be the fifties. But even that is setting the cutoff point too high. The talkies forum generally discusses thirties movies, only occasionally forties movies, so why is there a sudden need to discuss TV shows from the fifties and sixties, maybe even later than that? I think the Nitrateville forum is perfect as it is. If you want to spread out, why not a forum about the music (including radio) of the teens till the forties? That would be more in tune (pun not intended) with the taste of Nitrateville posters.

[Mike Gebert]

For what it's worth, joking at April Fool's aside I'm not interested in attracting younger people, except insofar as people who are interested in the subject matter here happen to be younger people.

How about setting the cut-off point as the transition from B&W TV to colour?

Regarding Mike's clip of Buster: who was the babe? And just how tall was she? And was that Jackie Gleason as the fat guy near the end?

Jim

How about setting the cut-off point as the transition from B&W TV to colour?

Jim

The transition from B&W to colour was actually a rather drawn-out process in the U.S.--the NTSC colour standards were approved in 1953; NBC began airing (non-experimental, non-closed circuit) colour broadcasts in early 1954 and RCA began marketing colour sets about the same time.

The first TV program that transitioned permanently to colour was, I believe, "Howdy Doody" in September 1955. Nevertheless, NBC didn't become 100% colour until "Concentration" converted in November 1966. And some of ABC's daytime programs were in B&W as late as December 1967. (A few non-major network programs, like "MisteRogers", were in B&W even later).

Colour broadcasting wouldn't begin in Europe until July 1967 when BBC2 began airing some programs in colour. Still other countries waited until the 1970s or early 80s.

....all of which really proves nothing other than B&W/colour isn't all that viable a method for cutting off discussions of programming beyond a certain era. If that's really a concern to posters here, perhaps we need some more specific guidelines. Firm lines in the sand, however, can lead to legalistic silliness just to the right or left of that line.

-Harold

The gist of the discussion so far indicates that there are some people who'd enjoy talking about early TV and others who wouldn't be. That's why a dedicated section would be a good idea. Those who aren't interested at all could avoid the topic and those who are could just let it develop as the give-and-take of the conversations warrant.

[Mike Gebert]

To Harold's point, that's why I prefer to rely on an intuitive sense of what fits and what doesn't, which also allows leeway in terms of posters-- if Chris Jacobs posts about a 60s or 70s movie in the blu-ray thread, you know he's merely straying for the moment from a base of interest in the main things the site is interested in, but if a totally new poster comes on and posts about that era exclusively, they're probably in the wrong place.

I think the break is somewhere around where color became common, but with the understanding that Francis X. Bushman on Batman is probably closer to being on topic than the first, black and white seasons of Bewitched. Maybe Ernie Kovacs' death should be the line

If you want to spread out, why not a forum about the music (including radio) of the teens till the forties?

Isn't that what Music of the Era is? What's the distinction I'm missing?

The gist of the discussion so far indicates that there are some people who'd enjoy talking about early TV and others who wouldn't be. That's why a dedicated section would be a good idea. Those who aren't interested at all could avoid the topic and those who are could just let it develop as the give-and-take of the conversations warrant.

Yes, this about covers it for me too.

Somewhat on topic, as a kid I recall the first color TV in our house. It was 1966. It was also the time a great many TV series were making the change to color. Networks were always announcing ( a la the NBC peacock) that the following show was in color; that went on for years. Interesting to find out when that finally ended.

I always think of defining early TV as ending around 1966, when color began to dominate.

[Mike Gebert]

Okay, this seems 1) harmless and 2) at least somewhat of interest, so I guess we'll give it a try.

I moved Kovacs and the "Guest Stars" thread there, if anything else already exists that seems like it belongs there, just post a note in it and presumably we'll see it and move it.

I think it's a good idea, there was a lot of great TV back in the day, but I don't think it'll compare (yet) to your other great topics. It'll catch on and almost everyone will contribute and you're sure to add new members.

But I have to say I love that Keaton clip, Michael! Thought it was hilarious and it was my first time seeing it. But what was it? TV show? Or, seeing Phillip Van Zant and Eddie Gribbon, was it a Columbia short? I didn't recognize anyone else in the clip, but the girl was tall - and a good dancer! LOL My idea of Clip of the Week!

Steve Rydzewski, Phila

[Mike Gebert]

I just spotted it on YouTube; the note says it's from his 1951 "Life With Buster Keaton" series.