Talk:Twentieth Century (TV series)
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
likely be frowned on today[edit]
Interesting.
Is it because the viewership would be too low, relative to the advertising potential? Doesn't that Sunday evening time-slot have a low potential anyways? In terms of viewership volume, and its demographic (older, conservative spending patterns). CBS's 60 Minutes has virtually that exact same time slot today, is a similar TV show in terms of being a documentary, and appears successful. So to say that this would "likely be frowned on today", is perplexing.
Or was the TV ad-revenue business model much different in the late 1950s than it is today?
--Atikokan (talk) 15:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
A series about events of the past, with documentary footage, would most likely not be allowed on commercial network TV (as opposed to cable) because it is not "commercial" enough to the network executives. Look at how the History Channel has changed (and ruined IMHO) its programming to reality shows instead of documentaries simply because its producers thought that the public would consider historical documentaries too stuffy.
"60 Minutes" is a current events series, not a historical one. And the more "juicy" the story, the more people watch. "The Twentieth Century" might today be considered too painfully dry and dull for today's younger audiences. AlbertSM (talk) 23:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Don't Merge[edit]
The Twentieth Century and 20th Century with Mike Wallace are two different shows, broadcast a quarter-century apart, and should NOT be merged. There are similarities in name and format, and the theme music for the 1990s-2000s Mike Wallace show was adapted from the first show's theme, and both have some CBS pedigree, but otherwise different beasts.
- Do not merge. I don't know who wrote the comment above, but I agree with the sentiment. Two shows with two different hosts broadcast 25 years apart surely deserve separate articles. The article has been tagged for merging for two years. If no other comments are made, I'll try to remember to remove the tag. JimVC3 (talk) 00:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)