Does TV on DVD or On Demand hurt your enjoyment of weekly television broadcasts?

[Coco]

Okay, I got to thinking after last night's episode of Dexter finished.

I watched the first two seasons of Dexter for the first time on DVD and loved them. In contrast, I watched the third season week by week as each episode aired for the first and liked it, but not as much as the other two seasons. While the objectively higher quality of the first two seasons accounts for some of this difference in how I received the third season on first viewing, I started thinking of something else when I got around to rewatching the third season on DVD. I seemed to enjoy the season more when watching it in bulk. The phenomena interested me. One possible explaination for this is that a week in between episodes gives you time to dwell and be unimpressed if there's an average or below-average episode for the week. It's harder to get bogged down like that when you get to watch two, three, or even four episodes a night though. And so I pondered on.

I watched The Sopranos recently as well as most of the first two seasons of Mad Men, both on DVD. I loved both, but I imagine that my interest might not be as great if I had to wait a week or more in between episodes. In becoming accustomed to convenient access to large quantities of high quality television, I find myself almost struggling to get interest in tuning in to something on a weekly basis that I may not be able to develop as strong an interest in as I would if I was exposed to it on a daily basis.

However, the DVDs may not be the cause of this phenomenon. Perhaps TV in general is just inherently funner to watch in bulk and it's had not effect on attitudes towards weekly TV viewing. A couple years ago (before I got into TV on DVD), I tried to get into Pushing Daisies but couldn't. However, it was one of the first shows I saw on DVD in bulk and I loved it. I was shocked that such a fantastic show slipped through the cracks on my weekly schedule. It made me wonder if weekly TV broadcasts, while enjoyable in the past, were about to be exposed as the second rate way of doing things they've always been now that there's a new way to watch TV.

Is TV on DVD ruining your enjoyment in weekly TV shows or were weekly broadcasts on thin ice to begin with? Or am I on crack?

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

This is a good question. But, I'm more worried about TV on DVD, Demand, or DVR hurting the shows that I watch rather than their availability in these forms hurting my enjoyment of them. Save for two shows (The Office and It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia), I never watch any show live. While I myself make no difference to the ratings of a show, people doing what I do en masse might. However, I have yet to encounter a show that could possibly suffer such a fate as the one I've described: NBC always gives shows a fair shot, FOX cancels shows whenever they feel like it, I watch nothing on ABC, and the show that I DVR on CBS (CSI) has a huge audience. Although not as big as CSI's audience, all other shows that I watch that aren't on the Big Four have a large enough live audience to warrant their renewals. So, I've been lucky so far (Eliza Dushku fans, I feel for you).

 

[FromTheSouth]

I think that DVR's do, to a certain extent, hurt the enjoyment of television shows.

What? you might ask...

Well, part of television's appeal for years was the way it brought Americans together. 60 million people were watching the Beverly Hillbillies together every week. Twice that many saw MASH's finale, together. That doesn't happen anymore, except with sports.

 

[Dysturbed]

Great thread! It made me think and therefore I'm about to be posting a novel lol.

I watched The Sopranos recently as well as most of the first two seasons of Mad Men, both on DVD. I loved both, but I imagine that my interest might not be as great if I had to wait a week or more in between episodes.

I actually got to experience both sides with that. I had watched a few episodes of The Sopranos in the earlier seasons here and there but never truly followed the show or even watched two episodes in a row for the first four seasons. I first started watching the show weekly beginning with season 5. Since my only experience (when actually caring) was to watch that season weekly I was fine with it. Then, in between seasons five and six I borrowed the first two seasons from a friend and then caught season three and four on demand . Having at that point been able to watch the show like that I couldn’t imagine once again having the same interest while waiting weekly. I ultimately ended up being fine with the weekly wait as I watched the remainder of the series.

Then theres Burn Notice. I started watching in season 2 and watched it weekly. Then I bought the season one dvd and was thrilled to not have to wait each week to see the next episode. Then I waited again when it was back on with new episodes. With both experiences I was content.

Perhaps TV in general is just inherently funner to watch in bulk and it's had not effect on attitudes towards weekly TV viewing.

In any given case I’m sure that plenty of people do hold off on watching a show in order to just watch it all at once on dvd but for a lot of people I think that it has less to do with the enjoyment of watching it on dvd (even though it's probably a factor) and more to do with them wanting to see it all at once because they have another show on at the exact same time or more important things to do with their time than watch the show as it airs. In that case waiting instead of just catching an episode here and there probably makes sense to them.

Is TV on DVD ruining your enjoyment in weekly TV shows

For me not at all. I’m cool with waiting a week even though it's fun to watch everything at once. I don't find myself having the patience to wait til a show is on dvd to first see it unless I don't have a choice (like not having access to the station that it's on). That refers to shows that I already know that I like or have a lot of interest in. If it were a show that I didn't really know much about until the season was half over I would probably be more willing to wait.

Or am I on crack?

Not at all.

or were weekly broadcasts on thin ice to begin with?

I think that they were on thin ice to begin with but that it was a gradual step in that direction. As we all know there was a time when CBS, NBC, and ABC were really the only options and dvd’s weren’t even close to being options. At some point, once vcrs became popular, some people may have used their vcrs to record every week of a show to do what we now do with dvds but most people just chose one show to watch and watched it. Since stations were big on repeats they could catch up on another show while their normal one was on repeat. (These days when a lot of shows have breaks entirely different shows take their place on each station offering even more temporary options)

On Sunday nights at one point during my lifetime, and many of yours the few main stations primarily aired made for tv movies or formerly theatrical ones and Fox was basically movies every day of the week other than a few scripted shows on the schedule. Eventually Fox part of the big four and eventually there was UPN and WB (now CW). While the CW doesn’t get high ratings it’s still another option for any given person. Then there is the fact that eventually stations like TNT, FX, and even the pay movie stations have hit shows based on each stations standards. Even stations that were created for a specific purpose (A&E, TLC, AMC etc ) have some popular programming as we know.

Based on all of that I think that the positive of having so many options is also a negative because only one show at a time will get our live viewing if that (we might be busy with school, work, families, or something else and not get to watch something right away). Since viewing a show as it airs is more important to keeping it on than dvr viewing and dvd sales it helps put a lot of shows on thin ice.

One possible explaination for this is that a week in between episodes gives you time to dwell and be unimpressed if there's an average or below-average episode for the week.

I surprisingly find myself doing the opposite and find that, more often than not the anticipation of waiting a week is sometimes part of the fun so I don’t find enjoyment really being ruined. I am a huge fan of Lost and in that case, possibly more than any other show I hate the wait yet also embrace it because of being able to take the time to ponder what the show has thrown at me even if I knew that I might not get answers for a long time.
I'll be honest though when I say that that I'm a rarity in that I don't get down on most things when it comes to television. I notice the faults and notice if an episode of any given show is average, below average, has contradictions, plotholes, is etc but I usually am understanding of why most of those things happen even if I don't like it and don't let it ruin my enjoyment. Therefore I don't dwell too much on the bad aspects while waiting. Despite that I definitely agree that having the freedom to enjoy a show without having to wait is a nice luxury and can add a lot of enjoyment and be a very different experience. Speaking about the average person though I think that what you said there may be something that a lot of people agree with.

I don’t have Showtime so I purchase the Dexter seasons and can’t imagine waiting a week in between since that’s all that I have come to know with that particular show. At the same time, knowing my personality as I have shared, I think that I’d be pretty content if I did end up in the position of having to wait.

I think that DVR's do, to a certain extent, hurt the enjoyment of television shows.

This would be for another subject but the ability to find out certain tidbits of gossip on tv, online, or on magazines (even when not actively looking probably plays a role as well.

What? you might ask...

Well, part of television's appeal for years was the way it brought Americans together. 60 million people were watching the Beverly Hillbillies together every week. Twice that many saw MASH's finale, together. That doesn't happen anymore, except with sports.

Even before DVR’s existed viewership wasn't usually the same as in those times. Even if DVRs didn't exist at all the many channel options do exist. Therefore 60 million people watching tv at the same time in this day and age would be spread amongst a wider range of options on regular television alone, not to mention the many cable stations for those who have it. Therefore with or without dvrs in the equation the concept of more stations probably is the biggest factor for ratings being lower for big things now compared to in the times that you are referring to.

In those if someone didn't watch something as it aired or when it was repeated or went to syndication, you had no chance of seeing it. That alone increased anticipation and ratings especially if it was a highly buzzed about thing. Of course people were going to be brought together to watch something in such massive numbers when they didn't have much else to choose from if they were going to watch tv and when they couldn't just go online like they could today to find out what happened if they missed it.

Based on that I agree that the ability to record a show means that people may not feel like they have to watch it as it airs, even if it's something like a finale. The fact that there is less reason to have interest in the same programs based on more existing though is probably the biggest thing, not because they can record them and watch later but because they have more things to apply their tastes to. Also these days it's more common for the average household to have more televisions even if they don't have a dvr attached to any of them. Therefore, not only is viewership spread wider in general, but in a lot of cases it's spread spread wider within each household.(I know that not everyone has nielson boxes and counts towards ratings but you know what I mean)