Pop Culture Reunion: Family Ties

Some TV shows seem to age very well, while others don't.  One need look no further than "I Love Lucy" which had it's heyday in the 1950s to see one program that seems to have endured the test of time (in Black & White, no less.  In fact, the CEO of CBS Les Moonves recently disclosed that "I Love Lucy" still makes CBS $20 million a year - impressive!).  Indeed, "I Love Lucy" has never left the airwaves since it first premiered in 1951 and while the prevalence of reruns isn't what it was a few years ago, it still continues to entertain audiences as much as it did in the fifties.  On August 6, 2011, Google dedicated one of it's popular interactive "Google Doodles" to honor what would have been the 100th birthday for actress Lucille Ball, whose namesake appears in the title of this classic TV show (see HERE for that, or visit the short link at http://goo.gl/srVSQ).

On the other hand, other programs don't seem to age nearly as well.  In my assessment, a variety of factors play into a show's becoming "dated".  Sure, hairstyles and fashion will always reflect current trends of the times (for example, "Maude" which was a '70s show featuring actresses Bea Arthur and Adrienne Barbeau features not only fashions of the era, but the set's kitchen where Maude had countless interactions with her various housekeepers featured Coppertone-Brown colored appliances which look positively dated today).  While well-written, the content was very much attuned to trends in that era, hence it hasn't been regularly on the rerun circuit until AntennaTV picked it up a few years ago after a long hiatus.  However, aside from fashions, I think a show's basic premise which is at the heart of it's script may also help it stay current, or accelerate a show's decline in relevance.  Maude was very much about women's lib and divorce (both were very current in the seventies) and to some extent, tremendous progress has been made in that area.

Back in the 1980's, for a time, the NBC TV show "Family Ties" was the second-highest watched TV show in America (after "The Cosby Show"), but it's important to note that although cable TV was widespread at that time (indeed, cable subscriptions more than tripled from 15 million in 1980 to 47 million in 1989), the traditional broadcast networks still dominated viewership.  NBC was tops at the time, with what it branded as "Must See TV" (catch my post HERE or by visiting http://goo.gl/Vzbcn for that post) with such shows as "The Cosby Show", "Family Ties", "Night Court" and a host of others that put the Peacock network on top in terms of ratings.

Yet at it's core, "Family Ties" was about the meshing of two different generations, with flower-children/hippie parents raising kids more drawn to then-current Reagan-era conservatism.  But if one looks past some of the very dated references in the show, the core of the show seems to age reasonably well in spite of character Mallory Keaton's (played by Justine Bateman, who is Jason Bateman's - another child actor's - real-life sister) positively dated hairstyles and fashions or Alex P. Keaton's (played by actor Michael J. Fox) repeated references to long-since-retired treasury secretaries and politicians, or even his carrying of a briefcase everywhere, which has long since fallen out of fashion even on Wall Street.

Beyond that, the cast has aged in various ways.

Michael J. Fox, more than any other cast member, achieved superstar status with success not only on TV, but also on the big screen, too.  On the other hand, Justine Bateman who played Mallory Keaton has since worked only periodically (for example, she guest starred in a recurring role on a 1990s sitcom known as "Still Standing" as a lesbian neighbor to Bill and Judy Miller, and Justine Bateman's character had a son who dated the Miller's daughter Lauren).  Just how extensive the references to "current" events and fashions may also play a role.  Towards the end of "Family Ties", there were many then-current references weaved into the scripts, which in my honest opinion is the reason that the earlier seasons of this particular show are more enjoyable than later seasons were.  But beyond the older two children, the other kids are no longer in the entertainment business. Tina Yothers, who played Jennifer Keaton has largely stayed out of the TV business (though she did "work" in a rock band), although she returned to entertainment after a nine-year absence in show business by working on stage in lead role for "Lovelace the Musical", which was a 2004 stage show based on the life of former pornographic movie star Linda Lovelace.

Meanwhile, in March 2010, Brian Bonsall, who played youngest sibling Andy Keaton on "Family Ties" was arrested in Colorado and charged with hitting his best friend with a bar stool (see HERE or short link http://huff.to/7pp7Fq).  But aside from one former child star (one who was on the show for less time than all the others) descending into typical child-star-turned-bad behavior, most are finding things to keep themselves busy and not spiraling out of control.  And, in 2009, actress Merideth Baxter, who played the mother Elise Keaton on "Family Ties" revealed (see http://youtu.be/iRfu_rotO_c for the TV interview) that she was, in fact, a lesbian.  Her coming out story typified what many gays and lesbians did until the 1990s, which was to try and live their lives as heterosexuals, but offers a fascinating example of just how far gay rights have come since the 1960s.

Very recently, it was announced last week that actor Michael J. Fox had signed a plum deal with NBC television for a brand new TV series that will begin in the fall of 2013.  It is being described as a new family television series which he will star in.  The industry trade press also reported that NBC went to pretty great lengths to seal the deal, including committing to the show before anybody had even shot the pilot episode. Also, the show will reportedly feature Mr. Fox as a father and will incorporate his Parkinson's Disease into the script (see HERE or http://n.pr/O2er1N for details).

You can listen to the "Family Ties" theme song "Without Us" below, or by visiting http://www.sitcomsonline.com/sounds/familyties-1.mp3.



Of course, the highlight of today's post is the 2007 cast of "Family Ties" (excluding Brian Bonsall) who reunited on NBC's Today Show after 20 years!  A few years ago, the cast of "Family Ties" (excluding Brian Bonsall) were reunited on NBC's Today Show.  The original link was at http://on.today.com/vAfAyU although NBC has since removed it, but another reunion of the cast was saved by Entertainment Weekly around the same time which can be watched on YouTube at https://youtu.be/6eTf-Pja6g8.



Much of the cast also appeared at the TV Land Awards in 2012, see http://bit.ly/2c7qkGm for the clip.  Of course, the entire series of "Family Ties" can be seen on DVD, and has made appearances on various broadcast and/or cable networks (check your listings for Antenna TV, Retro Television (RTV), or Me-TV).

This was one cast reunion that seemed to be very genuine insofar as the cast members seemed pleased to be reunited.  Unlike some other cast reunions where cast members rivaled one another for another chance in the television spotlight again, the cast of "Family Ties" (minus Andy Keaton) appears happy to be reunited.

Now, Sit Ubu, Sit!
(You may catch the Gary Goldberg book by the same title noted in the cast reunion above at http://amzn.to/PhsxOL).

What Happens to TV As We Know It When The Business Model No Longer Works?

Television is a huge part of American pop culture.  Those of us in Generation X grew up in a time when we shared far more of pop culture than future generations are likely to experience.  Indeed, I think it's safe to say we're probably the last generation to have that collective experience.  As authors Gael Fashingbauer Cooper and Brian Bellmont wrote in their introduction to the book "Whatever Happened to Pudding Pops: The Lost Toys, Tastes, and Trends of the 70s and 80s" (see my post HERE for more on that book) eloquently observed:

"For a supposedly fractured generation, we kids of the 1970s and 1980s share a far more universal past than kids today.  We all watched the same five channels, shopped at the same few chain stores, hummed the same commercial jingles."

Today's post looks at the topic of television and whether we'll ever watch TV together again.

It's courtesy of my local NPR affiliate, WNYC and ran on May 25, 2012.  They interview two different media guys, specifically David Carr, New York Times media reporter and Matt Zoller Seitz, TV critic at New York magazine.  Have a listen below, or you can visit the affiliate's website at http://www.wnyc.org/story/212463-future-tvs-community/:



Now, in that conversation, New York Times media reporter David Carr makes the following (scary) observation:

"Dish Network announced a technology right before the Upfronts, 'Hey, we can give you a product that's gonna vaporize all the commercials.' My concern as a consumer is that when the business model goes away, all this yummy programming that Matt [Zoller Seitz, TV critic at New York magazine] and I really enjoy might go away."

We may have an expectation as far as TV is concerned that could potentially disappear as we know it.

I don't think anyone is claiming that television is going away... yet.

Far from it.

But the content we've come to enjoy on TV has come at the expense of others (specifically, advertisers) and that business model is becoming increasingly difficult to sustain.  It's not inconceivable to imagine a future where television entertainment becomes primarily a subscriber medium, and those who can afford to pay for it will have the benefit of watching TV from, say their nursing homes, while those who can't will need to live out their golden years in search of something else to fill their days (and nights, for that matter).  Combine that with newspapers and magazines struggling to survive, and it really makes me wonder.

That may be a very pessimistic outlook, although it is a possibility.  I certainly hope it doesn't come to that.

My readers may recall that I recently shared an April 30, 2012 NPR interview with Warren Littlefield (interviewed by Audie Cornish), who was the former President of NBC.  I covered that in a recent post that can be viewed HERE.

Mr. Littlefield defends the current model to some extent, noting that "What audiences want and need are shared viewing experience. And what Must See TV was all about was one network, one night for one decade. And a third of the country would come and watch Must See TV. And you didn't dare go to work the next day because if you hadn't watched, you would be left out of the conversation, that water cooler conversation, that connection."

However, Ms. Cornish does ask "At the same time, you know, if you look at the numbers this quarter for the networks, ABC lost 21% of its average viewing audience.  I mean, this is in the last four weeks. NBC also lost percentage. Fox lost 20%. It just seems as though with the shift, where the eyeballs are going - people watching it on their own - I'm wondering how you still have that same creative process in development if there's this kind of fleeting paycheck."

Mr. Littlefield responded that Must See TV is not doable again, at least not that size and not that magnitude, but he does suggest that it is still feasible to draw a fairly large, widespread audience, such as with a hit like "Modern Family" (ABC) which appeals to adults and kids, audiences of all ages. He says that's still, at nearly 20 million people a week, a pretty broad-based hit that really far exceeds what's being watched on cable. But unlike, say HBO, which is subscription-based, networks can't really do big-budget productions without massive audiences.

The key, at least from my perspective, is that works as long as advertisers are willing to sponsor it.  Let's hope that continues to reach enough people to remain a viable advertising channel.

Luckily I have a pretty substantial DVD collection, much of which is "classic" television that doesn't even get rerun in syndication very much anymore.  But I'd still like to watch TV when I get old without having to pay for the privilege!  

Why Must-See-TV Is History; But Is It The End of "Shared" Pop Culture?

With 200+ Channels, DTV, On-Demand, DVRs, Roku, Hulu and and personal libraries of DVDs, a veteran TV guy ponders the future of one of pop culture's most prominent channels ...

A recurring theme here at "Harvest Gold Memories" is that in the days before digital cable TV and 200+ channels, DVRs, On-Demand programming, YouTube, Hulu and Roku streaming internet video players, TV viewers had much more of a shared, collective experience with this particular form of pop culture (television).  Indeed, as "Whatever Happened to Pudding Pops?" authors Gael Fashingbauer Cooper and Brian Bellmont wrote in the introduction to their book (check out my coverage of that book HERE):

"For a supposedly fractured generation, we kids of the 1970s and 1980s share a far more universal past than kids today.  We all watched the same five channels, shopped at the same few chain stores, hummed the same commercial jingles."

That "shared" element is something that's lost when truly customizable TV programming has become the norm, and the trend away from it appears likely to continue.  For advertisers, its easier to sell to different niches of consumers than to try and do mass-marketing.  Although advertisers aren't the only factor behind this trend, they play an important role.

It's for this reason that I found a recent (April 30, 2012) NPR "All Things Considered" interview with former President of NBC, Warren Littlefield very interesting and informative.  Mr. Littlefield posits (and I'm inclined to agree with him) that there will like never again be an experience like what NBC television called "Must See TV" back in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

Have a listen below, or by visiting NPR at http://n.pr/L2VEB2:

I'm not one to dwell too heavily on a past that cannot be resurrected, but I do find the issue interesting for a variety of reasons.  Notably, it makes me wonder just how sustainable the notion of being an "American" really is anymore?  One need only look at election results over the past 25 years or so to see the incredible fracturing taking place (according to a new report from the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, Americans' values and "basic beliefs" are more polarized today than at any point in the past 25 years).  But politics aside, there is similar fracturing in a once largely-homogenous U.S. pop culture, especially television and to some extent, radio, too.  Mr. Littlefield described what's happened this way:

"We lose some of that massive collective experience," he said, "and that will never come back."

But less anyone be led to believe that all the hyper-fragmentation is good for all parties involved, don't be mistaken: Mr. Littlefield believes it's not specificity that viewers want most; rather it's good television. He added "I think what audiences covet, really, are the high-quality."

Neither he, nor anyone else in television, see the old days with massive TV audiences coming back.  However, we ARE seeing a return to some actual sitcoms after a nightmare of almost nothing but bad reality TV shows on almost every network for several seasons.  Those were seen as cheap to produce, with a cast that worked for free, but who the hell wants to watch reruns of past seasons of American Idol, The Amazing Race, Survivor or The Bachelor/Bachelorette?  That's completely disposable entertainment whose appeal dissipates when the conclusion is aired.

As for quality programming, we're seeing a mixed bag on that.  There are some standouts, but with so many choices, I suspect the creativity of networks and TV producers is being stretched a bit thin.  For every standout like Modern Family or Glee, there are also duds like The Playboy Club or Unforgettable (apparently, it was forgettable, it ended after just 1 season, with the final episode on May 8, 2012).

I would say much of the reason "Must See TV" is history is driven by technology.  Today, viewers don't see television as something they need to schedule their evenings around, but as something that comes to them whenever (and wherever) they want it.  The VCR was the first move in this direction, but few people could really program them (heck, few people could even set the damn clocks!), then came DVRs which made it sooo much easier.  Along with that, we have digital cable with on-demand, as well as streaming internet video via Netflix, Hulu or other sites.  Even if you don't pay for television, digital broadcast tripled the number of VHF TV stations available, and now includes things like RTV (Retro Television) or Antenna TV.  And you can even set your DVR to record something with your mobile phone so it records something you can watch when you get home.

If you're interested in learning more, Mr. Littlefield has a book available entitled "Top of the Rock: Inside the Rise and Fall of Must See TV" by Warren Littlefield and T. R. Pearson.  The book can purchased online, or downloaded as an ebook via the usual places (Amazon.com, iTunes, Google Play/Android Marketplace and elsewhere), or you can check it out at your local public library.  Besides the book, there's also a CD entitled "NBC: A Soundtrack Of Must See TV" containing theme songs featured on "Must See TV" consisting of around 50 songs.  That one, as I understand it, is only available on CD but you can likely find it online.