>One thing I hate about modern TV shows is that they have been further sliced into ~5-10min sequences between ad breaks,

If it is on a broadcast tv network, it's not really worth watching. Sure, there are the one or two exceptional shows, but with so much premium content, why would you want to watch that?

▲

red369 3 days ago | parent [-]

I assume you mean it's not really worth watching if it's currently on broadcast TV?

Surely there's a huge list of old broadcast TV network shows that are worth watching, and that still suffer from the ad-break problem to various degrees.

Obviously I'm pulling from a wide time-period, and I'll probably get some of these wrong because I'm not in the the US and don't quite grok the network/cable divide, but off the top of my head, I think these are/were all worth watching: Seinfeld, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Freaks and Geeks, Arrested Development, 30 Rock, Community, Schitt's Creek, The Office, The X-Files, various Star Trek series, Cheers

That list could be easily improved on, but I assume it's missing your point anyway if you were only talking about current broadcast network TV (if it exists :) )

▲

thaumasiotes 3 days ago | parent [-]

> I'll probably get some of these wrong because I'm not in the the US and don't quite grok the network/cable divide

Almost all of those are broadcast shows. I strongly suspect that all of them are, but I don't have personal knowledge of the entire list.

As far as I can tell, the divide is pretty straightforward:

Cable: nudity

Broadcast: everything else

In theory there's no requirement for a cable show to have nudity, but since they're allowed to, they all do.

▲

dragonwriter 2 days ago | parent [-]

> As far as I can tell, the divide is pretty straightforward:

> Cable: nudity

> Broadcast: everything else

This is almost entirely wrong; non-premium cable (which is and was always the vast majority of cable) had and observed essentially the same structure and content rules as broadcast, with ad breaks and no swearing or nudity. Premium cable where each channel or later small branded group of channels is a separate surcharge on top of the broad package tended to have no ad breaks and looser content rules.

▲

thaumasiotes a day ago | parent [-]

What are some shows that were made for non-premium cable?

▲

dragonwriter a day ago | parent [-]

Just a few examples:

Deadliest Catch (Discovery Channel, 2005-)

Monk (USA Network. 2002-2009)

Mad Men (AMC, 2007-2015)

The Shield (FX, 2002-2008)

Beavis and Butt-Head (MTV, 1993-1997 & 2011)

▲

umanwizard a day ago | parent [-]

24 and Breaking Bad are also very popular examples.

▲

NoMoreNicksLeft 15 hours ago | parent [-]

24 was Fox, if I'm not mistaken, and its format is very much the same as all broadcast shows.

Breaking Bad isn't the same format. No obvious commercial breaks, no saccharine Hays-Code-like bullshit.

Others mentioned The Shield, which is FX, and I tend to think of FX shows as not being of the broadcast mold. Monk was USA, I think, which as a network was borderline, but seems like a few of their original programming shows were not-horrible. Then someone said Deadliest Catch, but that's just cheap reality tv sludge and I feel dirty having typed out its title. Even the worst 1980s NBC sitcom was better than reality tv shows.

It's come to my attention that you're all, every last one of you, watching tv wrong.

▲

dragonwriter 11 hours ago | parent [-]

> Breaking Bad isn't the same format. No obvious commercial breaks

Breaking Bad (like Mad Men, also on AMC) was presented with commercial breaks on AMC in its original run, and is structured around those breaks.

	▲	NoMoreNicksLeft 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Can't tell to watch the blurays. Hats off to the editors, I guess.