# what has happened to the history channel?



## tootal2 (Oct 14, 2005)

The history channel does not have much history on it anymore and most of there shows are realty tv shows. What happened to all the good shows they use to have?


----------



## weaver (Feb 27, 2004)

They went to H2.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

tootal2 said:


> The history channel does not have much history on it anymore and most of there shows are realty tv shows. What happened to all the good shows they use to have?


Scope creep. Same as many other cable networks.

Same reason neither Bravo nor A&E show arts stuff anymore, MTV and VH1 barely if ever show music videos, TLC doesn't show learning programming, and so on.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

I agree, what happened? Why bother to keep the moniker? They should do what MTV has done, and ignore exactly what MTV means. They should change their name to The H or something like that.

What next, no comedy on Comedy Central?


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> They should change their name to The H or something like that.


They should change their call letters to WTH.


----------



## CraigK (Jun 9, 2006)

Steveknj said:


> What next, no comedy on Comedy Central?


Or no more wrestling on SYFY.


----------



## Michael S (Jan 12, 2004)

Well Cloo is going to be less mysterious. On July 27 their going to be airing Sitcoms. At least their going to be classic sitcoms.

http://blog.sitcomsonline.com/2012/06/cloo-classic-olympics-begin-july-27.html


----------



## MarkofT (Jul 27, 2001)

I think the biggest issue is that History Channel has caught up. Wings was an awesome documentary series. But there is just over 100 years of history. So 200-300 hours of documentaries pretty much covers it completely. They've covered all of the known History that they could in large chunks. They can't make even a half hour show about a death clock or a plane spotting guide. So they make 5-7 minute segments about unrelated items and wrap those segments with a business about money.


----------



## Frylock (Feb 13, 2002)

Ehhh, I don't completely agree with the assessment. Things like Pawn Stars and American Pickers and American Restoration DO show history. Just in a different light. People were not watching the documentaries anymore. And they still air the old stuff, just during the day. There's only so many people interested in history like that. The channel needs to make money.

I credit them with finding new ways to get people interested in History.


----------



## lillevig (Dec 7, 2010)

Frylock said:


> Ehhh, I don't completely agree with the assessment. Things like Pawn Stars and American Pickers and American Restoration DO show history. Just in a different light. People were not watching the documentaries anymore. And they still air the old stuff, just during the day. There's only so many people interested in history like that. The channel needs to make money.
> 
> I credit them with finding new ways to get people interested in History.


:up::up::up:


----------



## YCantAngieRead (Nov 5, 2003)

H2 is where I go when I want to watch old school History channel stuff. And now that we actually get it, I'm really enjoying it.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Frylock said:


> Ehhh, I don't completely agree with the assessment. Things like Pawn Stars and American Pickers and American Restoration DO show history. Just in a different light. People were not watching the documentaries anymore. And they still air the old stuff, just during the day. There's only so many people interested in history like that. The channel needs to make money.
> 
> I credit them with finding new ways to get people interested in History.


I don't know Pawn Stars isn't what I think of as history. It's an excuse for a reality show that they could "put on a history related channel". It's kind of like calling a dairy like dessert ice cream.

But I understand why they do this. History is very "dry" for much of our population and they just aren't interested in spending their relaxing time on it. Maybe they should just change the name of the channel to "Vintage" or something like that.

I love good historical documentaries myself. I'm a big fan of American Experience (which I find the best documentary series on TV). History Channel outside of series like Hatfileds and McCoys has become another venue for reality TV for me, and I rarely watch.

BTW....why not show some historical based movies and mini-series? There's loads of them available. The Military Channel does this now. I'd love them to pull some old TV mini-series out of mothballs. Wings of War, Holocaust (where Meryl Streep first came into most people's consciousness), Roots, North and South to name a few. I think that would be ideal programming for this channel.


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

They could emulate Syfy and have the history of wrestling.


----------



## Frylock (Feb 13, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> I don't know Pawn Stars isn't what I think of as history. It's an excuse for a reality show that they could "put on a history related channel". It's kind of like calling a dairy like dessert ice cream.
> 
> But I understand why they do this. History is very "dry" for much of our population and they just aren't interested in spending their relaxing time on it. Maybe they should just change the name of the channel to "Vintage" or something like that.
> 
> ...


So you find Pawn Stars no good, but want mini-series instead?

How is Pawn Stars not History? They take in historical items, discuss them, and set a price. If anything, it tells people what things are really worth, which can also create an interest in it. If they didn't run shows like this, I imagine the channel would disappear. I can understand it not being everyone's cup of tea, but to say its not history, I would disagree with. Some prefer their history as a documentary. Others as a mini-series. Others as "reality-tv". What makes any one of them better than the other?


----------



## Bob_Newhart (Jul 14, 2004)

Steveknj said:


> I don't know Pawn Stars isn't what I think of as history. It's an excuse for a reality show that they could "put on a history related channel". It's kind of like calling a dairy like dessert ice cream.
> 
> But I understand why they do this. History is very "dry" for much of our population and they just aren't interested in spending their relaxing time on it. Maybe they should just change the name of the channel to "Vintage" or something like that.
> 
> ...


Yeah, I would love to catch some old miniseires like this.


----------



## marrone (Oct 11, 2001)

LoadStar said:


> Scope creep. Same as many other cable networks.
> 
> Same reason neither Bravo nor A&E show arts stuff anymore, MTV and VH1 barely if ever show music videos, TLC doesn't show learning programming, and so on.


Don't forget Cartoon Network airing non-cartoons.

Whilest I can see documentaries ABOUT cartoons, these are flat out non-cartoons!

-Mike


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Dang, nobody's made the "Hitler Channel" joke yet?

BTW, they just had cable's highest ratings ever for a historical drama -- Hatfields vs McCoys.

Also, I like(d) the show I used to see (err, Tivo) I think Sundays at 6AM.. there were only maybe 20 of them. The history of various objects, then they would show where it was now. Someone's leg disconnected from their body, for example.

The history game show (that I only saw in reruns) was decent too.


----------



## Worf (Sep 15, 2000)

I think it's all the cable channels preparing for the a la carte fight - where you can pick and choose what channels you want to receive rather than buying packages of channels, and if you happen to like the wrong set of channels, having to buy the entire set of cable channels just to get the 4 you want. This means each channel that can't support itself (e.g., a lot of Discovery's other channels, etc) will fold.

So it's each channel preparing for that fight so when it comes time, they'll likely be picked up by a bunch of subscribers. So each channel in the group will try to inherit the other's old shows in an attempt to get everyone to pick them up en masse. Hence Discovery and History doing what they're doing to attract a core audience, then trying to farm them into their subsidiary channels that they already get.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Frylock said:


> So you find Pawn Stars no good, but want mini-series instead?
> 
> How is Pawn Stars not History? They take in historical items, discuss them, and set a price. *If anything, it tells people what things are really worth, which can also create an interest in it.* If they didn't run shows like this, I imagine the channel would disappear. I can understand it not being everyone's cup of tea, but to say its not history, I would disagree with. Some prefer their history as a documentary. Others as a mini-series. Others as "reality-tv". What makes any one of them better than the other?


That's not history. To me, a show like Pawn Stars is a reach as far as being history. But it's popular and you're right, they need shows like this to stay afloat. Just like wrestling has nothing to do with SciFi and sits on the SyFy channel, and Real World has nothing to do with music. I admit that I'm not really that big a reality show fan, especially that style of reality show.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

mattack said:


> Dang, nobody's made the "Hitler Channel" joke yet?
> 
> BTW, they just had cable's highest ratings ever for a historical drama -- Hatfields vs McCoys.


Which shows that historical mini-series and movies would do well, and fit into the scope of the channel. It's doesn't have to be all dry documentaries. There are HUNDREDS of movies that fit a historical context. There have been lots of old TV series. Heck, if you go and think about it, even something like Mad Men would fit, a show that took place during another time in history. One of the things I find fascinating about a show like Mad Men is how they really researched how people lived in the early 60s. Why not a realistic look at life in say the 1870s or 1920s. Not one that shows romanticized cowboys or Jazz Age mobsters. One about how life was really like in those eras?


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I've been complaining (or whining) about the History Channel for the last two or three years. It should be called the Diet History Channel or History Lite. Thank God for H2.


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

Odd hos the Kennedy miniseries didn't fit their brand, yet now they have all these nutter than hell reality shows on their channel. alrighty then.


----------



## tootal2 (Oct 14, 2005)

Now there starting to add games shows. there first game show picked off starts wednesday at 9pm. They have some good shows on today american eats and modern marvels


----------



## Frylock (Feb 13, 2002)

sharkster said:


> Odd hos the Kennedy miniseries didn't fit their brand, yet now they have all these nutter than hell reality shows on their channel. alrighty then.


Different team running the network. The same person who turned A&E around is running History now.


----------



## kaszeta (Jun 11, 2004)

MarkofT said:


> I think the biggest issue is that History Channel has caught up. Wings was an awesome documentary series.


Somewhat apropos to the topic... "Wings" was indeed an awesome series... but it aired on Discovery, and not the History channel...


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

tootal2 said:


> Now there starting to add games shows. there first game show picked off starts wednesday at 9pm. They have some good shows on today american eats and modern marvels


Umm, like I said before, they had a game show years ago.. Hosted by the same guy who did that "how it's made" like show on FOOD. (Who used to be a local news guy here in the SF bay area eons ago.)


----------



## Gregor (Feb 18, 2002)

I think the History channel thinks they are 'making History'.

There's only a limited amount of historical documentaries around, and once History got a taste of reality show ratings, they were hooked.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Frylock said:


> Different team running the network. The same person who turned A&E around is running History now.


I just looked up A&E's show lineup. Mostly reality show crap. No wonder I don't remember the last show I watched on A&E. People apparently like this kind of stuff though.


----------



## scooterboy (Mar 27, 2001)

mattack said:


> Umm, like I said before, they had a game show years ago.. Hosted by the same guy who did that "how it's made" like show on FOOD. (Who used to be a local news guy here in the SF bay area eons ago.)


Food Tech?


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

Frylock said:


> Ehhh, I don't completely agree with the assessment. Things like Pawn Stars and American Pickers and American Restoration DO show history. Just in a different light. People were not watching the documentaries anymore. And they still air the old stuff, just during the day. There's only so many people interested in history like that. The channel needs to make money.
> 
> I credit them with finding new ways to get people interested in History.


Totally agree. It's a new/alternative way to show/introduce people to history.


----------



## lambertman (Dec 21, 2002)

scooterboy said:


> Food Tech?


Nope. "History IQ" with Marc Summers.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

lambertman said:


> Nope. "History IQ" with Marc Summers.


Good, someone can figure out my ridiculously vague memories of shows!


----------



## ADent (Jan 7, 2000)

It is the money. Pawn Stars gets a lot more viewers than some show about history. IRT is a big hit too.

Trading Spaces was the single highest rated show in the history of cable (up to that point) - guess what TLC became.

IIRC A&E said their highest rated show is Storage Wars - they even have theatrical trailers (aka commercial) for this season.


Not only are these shows getting ratings, they are cheap to make.


----------

