The Specials and Variety Shows

Films, TV shows, and books of the 'modern' era
Ollie
Posts: 908
Joined: January 18th, 2008, 3:56 pm

Post by Ollie »

The question is, "Would I watch variety shows today?" I suspect not. They'd fill them with so-called "music" of today that I won't watch on channels supposedly dedicated to that kind of garbage. I don't watch those, so would I watch a modern variety show?

I don't even watch SAT NIGHT LIVE, and it's about as "variety esque" as we can get.

Watching Re-Runs of old ED SULLIVANS, etc. - now THAT might be interesting. But it sure won't be on TVLAND, which has abandoned the shows that made it a popular channel in the first place, and has decided to stick in 1-2 hour blocks showing '80s and '90s TV shows instead of the hundreds of '50s and '60s options.
User avatar
MissGoddess
Posts: 5072
Joined: April 17th, 2007, 10:01 am
Contact:

Post by MissGoddess »

Not only that, Ollie, but TVLand is turning into "MOVIELand" which makes absolutely no sense. It looks now to be a complete clone of AMC.
User avatar
mrsl
Posts: 4200
Joined: April 14th, 2007, 5:20 pm
Location: Chicago SW suburbs

Post by mrsl »

Ollie bring up a good point. Considering what they use for opening and fillers on the various awards shows, I certainly don't want that stuff in my living room.

BTW, I was 100% correct about The Dreamgirls - good lord, 2 hours of so-called singing at top volume - I kept turning the volume down so my neighbors wouldn't complain. All those girls do is yell, there is no tune, or melody, and a high pitched eeeeeeeeee is not your typical background accompaniment. I much prefer the 'screeching' of J. Powell, M. MacDonald, and D. Durbin, at least they sang a melody. When that movie first came out I said this about the singing but everyone said "no, no, you have to see it to appreciate it", well folks, I've seen it, and you are welcome to it.

Anne
Anne


***********************************************************************
* * * * * * * * What is past is prologue. * * * * * * * *

]***********************************************************************
jdb1

Post by jdb1 »

I had the same reaction to Dreamgirls, Anne, when I finally tried to watch it on TV. I just gave up; I couldn't stand it. Even the so-called ballads were at full volume. There's a place for high-volume, enthusiastic singing, but not in every goshdarn number in a show.

This appears to be the new taste in singing: loud. After all, who usually makes it to the top on American Idol? Those who can sing the loudest (I use "sing" in its metaphorical sense, of course). TV viewers have been conditioned to fast and loud, and they have no patience with any kind of subtlety. That's why there are no variety shows on TV any more. If you want to see such things, you have to watch foreign-language TV.
jdb1

Post by jdb1 »

JohnM wrote:I agree. I don't want to hear that crap, either. I also agree about <b>Dreamgirls</b>. I wasn't even a fan of that show on Broadway. I do recommend <b>Hairspray</b>. I don't like it as much as John Water's original (one of my favorite films), but it is fun and melodic.
I loved Hairspray on Broadway, John. It has a much wider variety of song stylings, and while some are loud, some are not. The only problem I had with it was not the music itself, but the volume of the sound in the theater. It was set so loud that the reverberations cancelled out some of the lyrics, and one of the performers, who projected as if she weren't miked (and she was), was so loud as to be unintelligible. I saw the show in previews -- I wonder if that problem was corrected during the run. I haven't seen the movie.
Post Reply