A Quote by Bryan Cranston

When I was a kid there were a very select few channels - programmes had to have more of a large appeal and they just didn't offer very much. Now you have a situation where the television world has expanded and there's hundreds of channels.
Television in the 1960s & 70s had just as much dross and the programmes were a lot more tediously patronising than they are now. Memory truncates occasional gems into a glittering skein of brilliance. More television, more channels means more good television and, of course, more bad. The same equation applies to publishing, film and, I expect, sumo wrestling.
When you had just three and then four channels, I could always find something that was watchable because the standard of TV was much higher. In those days, they had so much more money to put into so many less programmes.
Something economically changed. It used to be that you needed 20 million people to watch a TV show for it to be a hit. Now, with just a few million people watching, you're considered very successful, for a lot of these streaming services, or cable channels. Now, that allows people to do much more creatively ambitious work, because it's not lowest common denominator.
I'm an old git now, so I would say this, but television was better when there were less channels. There was more concentration and selection in terms of the output.
Without the BBC, the proliferation of television and radio channels by the private sector would simply result in more and more channels, with tiny audiences, all seeking to do the same thing. The future would be one of fragmentation - fragmentation without either plurality or diversity.
People underestimate the degree to which only having three or four channels changes your outlook on television; it makes everything much more memorable because there are so few other options.
I'm on all the channels. I'm on every channel. Not just Fox. I'm even on the channels that attack me all the time.
There are innumerable television channels and papers, all very aggressive and not willing to take no for an answer.
I was inspired by comedy channels. I loved that they got to do sketches and could be funny and crude and make people laugh. But most of those channels, if not all of them, were done by guys.
There seems to be a contradiction in the fact that there's more music around and more channels or downloading music or more channels on TV, and yet at the same time, in some ways it doesn't seem to be as vital as it once was. It seems to be just another entertainment option or lifestyle enhancement aid or something.
When I was a kid, we got up, we walked a number of paces to a television, turned it on, and changed channels.
I understood that as much as I had resisted the outside, as much as I had constricted my life, as much as I had closed and narrowed the channels into me, there were still many takers for the quiet heart.
Flip through the channels, and there is no denying it: The world of cable news - and their network chat-show brethren - is very, very white.
I watched a lot of cooking shows when I was younger on PBS and TLC and those channels. It's a very cool genre of television.
Theatre has had a very important role in changing South Africa. There was a time when all other channels of expression were closed that we were able to break the conspiracy of silence, to educate people inside South Africa and the outside world. We became the illegal newspaper.
When Geoff Ramsey and Jack Pattillo started 'Achievement Hunter,' we expanded heavily into 'let's play'-style gaming videos and have since expanded with a massive roster of gaming talent and multiple channels dedicated just to gaming videos.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!