1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Do you like the new history channel better then the old history channel?

Discussion in 'Now Playing - TV Show Talk' started by tootal2, Jun 8, 2013.

  1. cheesesteak

    cheesesteak Meh. TCF Club

    Jul 24, 2003
    15 mins...
    Even H2 documentaries are becoming annoying. For example, How Sex Changed The World is full of loud, obnoxious sound effects and the announcer sounds like a carnival barker. I have a hard time watching what should be an interesting show but they've tried so hard to make it entertaining to the short attention span audience that it's a turn off.
  2. sharkster

    sharkster Well-Known Member

    Jul 3, 2004
    I just don't even get what the 'brand' is anymore.

    Before, when its programming represented what one would think of as a 'History Channel' brand, they would not take on the Kennedy mini series as it didn't fit their brand. Now, it's 'hillbilly this and redneck that'. Seriously? Guess they changed brands somewhere along the line.

    Needless to say, I don't watch the channel 99.999% of the time.
  3. Rob Helmerichs

    Rob Helmerichs I am Groot! TCF Club

    Oct 17, 2000
    But that's become true of specialty channels in general. That they're NOT general, that is...that the more specialized they are, the more audience they lose, and thus the less specialized they become.

    I fear the days of true specialty channels is gone, and now we'll have increasingly homogenized channels that lean in a certain direction (a reality channel with a sci-fi flavor, a reality channel with a history flavor, a reality channel with a science flavor, etc.). And I wish I were joking, but I'm at least 50% and possibly more than 75% serious.
  4. Einselen

    Einselen ɹǝsn pǝɹǝʇsıƃǝɹ

    Apr 25, 2006
    Seeing how just a few days for the D-Day anniversary all History showed was a Pawn Stars marathon I am in the no camp. I understand that realty TV shows are cheap to make and get high ratings but this is a huge event in history. I like American Pickers as that has some history behind it but for me Pawn Stars is a stretch and I think that is their main show.
  5. sieglinde

    sieglinde Active Member

    Aug 11, 2002
    Sebastopol, CA
    See if they do that next June on the 70th Anniversary
  6. Worf

    Worf Active Member

    Sep 15, 2000
    It's probably because of threats like a la carte channel selection. So instead of being able to force people to take History and a dozen other History owned channels (each specializing, while the main History shows stuff the general public love so they'd subscribe and pull the other channels for "free").

    With a la carte, it means you can pick and choose channels, so now each channel has to fight for subscribers. So all the formerly specialized channels now have to branch out and appeal to others on their own so people picking and choosing will pick them as well.

    You also see this when top-line shows are redistributed, for the same reason. The other channels will carry them eventually - delayed a season or so.

    Just an unintended consequence - the channels are all under pressure to now pay their own way to attract subscribers. No longer can they just rely on carrying programming that a few of the History subscribers will find interesting, but they must carry programming that appeals to not just history subscribers, but the general public as well so they'd pick up the channel as well.

    Something like History or Discovery channel usually demand that if a subscriber carries them, then their six other sister channels must be in as well. All of which get paid for. (Something like Discovery costs $0.25 per subscriber per month, but because they have to be bundled with a half dozen other channels means the real cost is just under $0.50 per subscriber per channel).
  7. Barmat

    Barmat Member

    Jun 1, 2001
    Livermore CA
    We don't have a la carte and we never will as long as FCC heads are former cable execs or industry heads. What is wrong with starting a channel for a niche audience and staying with that niche? Must all channels try to forever increase their ratings even if destroys the purpose they were created for? Is every one just in it for greed's sake? Do the people that own and operate these channels care nothing about the channels purpose?

    I used to be a loyal Sci - Fi channel viewer right from the beginning. When they started showing nothing but light fluff sci - fi I stopped watching anything on that channel. Defiance is just a smidgen above awe full. Their horrible Monster of the week movies, wrestling, reality shows and lack of hard Sci-Fi drove me away. Now my sci-fi viewing is scattered all over the channel grid.
  8. Steveknj

    Steveknj Lost in New Joisey

    Mar 10, 2003
    New Jersey
    Those in favor of a la carte, be careful what you wish for. If everything goes a la carte, instead of "choice" you will wind up with a lot fewer channels to choose from as channels like H2 with marginal ratings will just be disbanded. And as stated above, the existing "niche" channels will move more and more into general programming which will eventually resemble the big four networks. Is that what everyone here really wants?

    The biggest proponents of a la carte are those that don't watch sports. Sports is what drives up the cost of TV (full disclosure, I'm an AVID sports fan, who's viewing every week is probably about 25% sports related). So better than a la carte and fewer choices, I'd suggest better use of tiering. Sports in one teir, maybe drama channels in another, and comedy in a third, documentary in a 4th. That sort of thing. Pay for the TEIRS you want, not the individual channels. That makes more sense, and would probably be cheaper to the consumer in the long run.

    As far as History, I can't stand most reality shows. They've turned into "freak shows" for the most part. Most of the starts of reality shows are freaks of some sort (if they were regular people, would they be remotely interesting?). Of course freak shows have always sold well throughout history, so this is nothing new, just on a more modern scale. I find straightforward documentaries on subjects I like far more interesting than this stuff. So I don't watch History all that often anymore. MTV built the model that all channels follow now. They moved away from their core years ago, and other channels have realized that they no long have to be what's in their title. How long before History rebrands to HTV?
  9. MarkofT

    MarkofT ****

    Jul 27, 2001
    The Tall City
    Not everyone. But most channels are part of a larger corporation. They get put on more systems due to bundling. So most channels get pushed into appealing to the largest audience possible and away from why they were founded.

    I don't see this as what has happened with History. Their shows are all still history focused, just some are appealing to those with shorter attention spans. Unlike SyFy who has morphed into USAToo.
  10. mattack

    mattack Active Member

    Apr 9, 2001
    Can't believe nobody has made the "Hitler Channel" reference yet.
  11. sieglinde

    sieglinde Active Member

    Aug 11, 2002
    Sebastopol, CA
    All Hitler all the time. Early on History has managed to get way from that. The problem is that WW II and that era is probably the first massively filmed and documented era. How many countries throughly documented genocide?. Plus we have people from all the fronts, Nazis, resistance fighters, prison camp inmates who are still alive to tell their stories. They could do more Vietnam From both sides but they don't.

Share This Page