There is a debate in the field Television Production concerning the future of the Sitcom. Take a position on the debate (supported by solid reasoning and examples of course) and arrive at an explanation of what this debate says about the state of television production.
Blogging Instructions:
You have two options when you comment. You can either directly address the question of the week, or react/respond/interact with another student’s entry or entries. You can interact with words, pictures, videos or anything that adds to the conversation. There is great value in either approach, but the more of the latter, the more the discussion will become “our own.”
Go to tvproduction.wordpress.com. To comment on the blog, go to the bottom of the bottom of the post and click where it says “X Comments>>.” Enter your name and your syr.edu email address. Entering your email address ensures the WordPress server that you are a person and not a spammer, and it will allow us to keep track of who has and has not commented. If you have any problems commenting, please email Alex.
READING MATERIALS THAT MIGHT HELP YOU ON THIS TOPIC:
- HAND-OUT – Last Laughs by Alan Sepinwall, The Star Ledger.
- HAND-OUT – Stop the Hearse! The Sitcom is NOT dead. by Ken Levine,
- HAND-OUT – Desilu, I Love Lucy, and the Rise of Network TV, by T.Schatz.
- HAND-OUT – Can this Man Save the Sitcom?, Posner, Ari. The New York Times, August, 2004.
OTHER THINGS THAT MIGHT HELP YOU ON THIS TOPIC:
- Carefully and critically analyzing our television screenings of the week.
September 8, 2007 at 1:24 pm
Blog-2: Is the Sitcom Dead?
By even considering that the sitcom is dead, means conceding to the fact that the definition of a “sitcom” has changed. In its most basic form a sitcom is nothing more than a show, following the same group of characters acting in the same basic setting each episode. Traditionally each episode of a sitcom is meant to stand on its own, each episode presents its own set of problems that is eventually fixed by the end of the show. Viewers should be able to watch any episode in a series and understand what is going on without any prior knowledge of characters or plots. Throughout television history most sitcoms have been cut from the same mold. The show followed either a family, or group of friends in a work or home setting, and their everyday adventures. However this has all begun to change, and a new breed of single-camera pseudo-reality based sitcoms have come to fruition. Over the past five years sitcoms have seen a decrease in viewers and the question is why? Did the traditional sitcom stop attracting viewers, and out of this came the new style of sitcom? Or was the new style of sitcom to blame for viewers tuning out? When it’s all said and done, sitcoms aren’t doing business and some say the genre is dead. In my opinion the sitcom isn’t dead, people just aren’t smart enough to understand the new breed of sitcom. I honestly believe that shows like curb your enthusiasm, and Arrested Development don’t catch fire with the public, because the public is too slow-witted to watch a show without a laugh track. I honestly believe that the majority of this country does not know what is and what isn’t funny without being told.
Sam Simon, one of the founding fathers of the Simpson has said, “The sitcom is dead.” This to me seems like a pretty cavalier blanket claim considering the ever-changing nature of the entertainment industry. No matter whom you ask in the “business,” everyone will agree that the industry moves in cycles. Every genre has its moment, over and over again (hopefully reality TV won’t). Yes, the traditional style of sitcoms in the vein of “I Love Lucy,” “Friends” and “Married With Children,” is DEAD. However I don’t think this is because people are sick of the genre but rather because the most recent installments of this kind, have for lack of a better word sucked. Shows like “Veronicas Closet,” “King of Queens,” and (my personal favorite), “Yes Dear” (it’s on TBS at least 8 times a day) are in my opinion unwatchable.
While this traditional sitcom set-up is dead, the sitcom as a genre is not. The problem is the public has not been able to adapt to the new world of single-camera, more reality based shows. Even the ones that have lasted multiple seasons like “The Office,” and “Curb your enthusiasm,” don’t have close to the same following as shows like “Frasier,” and “Will and Grace” did. The problem is for every “Office,” there is fifteen “Arrested Developments,” aka, great shows that while critically acclaimed tank in the ratings. One show I found especially good was HBO’s “The Comeback,” staring Lisa Kudrow. It was shot as a fake reality show, using a single camera type of feel. This show truly made the viewer uncomfortable to watch, you would sit at the edge of your seat cringing. The show actually made the viewer a part of the show, watching the show was an emotional experience. But like so many others like it, “The Comeback” was canceled. It wasn’t funny in a traditional sense, but nonetheless it was funny.
In summation the old form of sitcoms has died, while the new style is yet to arrive. Sadly I don’t see this happening any time soon, unless people learn to find humor without the help of an automated laugh track.
September 8, 2007 at 5:01 pm
I posted this once and it didn’t show up so sorry if this post comes up twice:
I agree with much of Kleinman’s analysis on the Sitcom, so to avoid bringing up the same points I decided to look at the question, Is the Sitcom dead?, by way of my personal television watching trends.
First, when I thought about the topic of this week’s blog I remembered an article I read in Entertainment Weekly’s March 24, 2004 Cover Story, that asked this same question as Friends was wrapping up their tenth and final season. I looked it up an online excerpt, http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,604140,00.html
I think it’s interesting to read this article as well because it asks some ‘heavy hitter’ past sitcom writers how they feel, adding another dimension to the topic.
Knowing I had heard this question in the past, my initial response to the topic was yes, the Sitcom is dead because I’ve heard this complaint before, oh aren’t I just a bit narrow minded? So after reading all the articles I thought, what television do I watch? Now, of course I never change the channel if “Friends” comes on, or “Seinfeld” – I will even admit to watching “Home Improvement” on a regular basis – but again these are all old school programs. What kind of TV do I watch today? Well my absolute favorite sitcom is “That 70’s Show” but again that’s another one that I have to catch the reruns for. And then it hit me, I don’t watch any recent sitcoms. But before you stop reading out of disappointment, I think my reasoning is quite interesting to this topic. I am one of those people that can never watch a movie if I miss the beginning, and the same goes for television series. So often I hear how great “Arrested Development” is and “Curb your Enthusiasm”, and I really want to watch more of “The Office”, but I just can’t get myself to watch half way through a season or find the time to buy or rent the DVDs so I can catch up.
Now I know this may seem trivial but I think it says a little bit about the current sitcom situation, and that is: yes, a lot of these series are just too smart or appear too smart to just watch on a whim. Now I wouldn’t consider myself “not smart enough to understand the new breed of sitcom” as Kleinman puts it, but honestly I think that some people (like myself) sit down to watch TV and just want to be entertained. Sometimes you don’t want to think about what they are saying or the hidden meaning, you just want a stupid gag to make you laugh and take your mind off the stress from your day. That’s why I think intelligent comedy isn’t always popular.
Another point that I wanted to address, when looking at the television watching trends of young Americans, it seems shows like “Hannah Montana” and “The Suite Life of Zach and Cody” are hitting homeruns when it comes to viewers. These shows seem to flood the top iTunes Downloads each week and anytime something becomes popular on the Disney Channel these days (High School Musical), you always hear about it. So on that note, I think that Sitcoms have a chance to survive, especially if such a large number of Today’s youth is finding entertainment in these types of shows already.
And finally, I just wanted to point out something I think makes or breaks a sitcom and is crucial to their survival, character chemistry. I think these are why the shows I have mentioned and many other classics have done so well. I know that the writers give great comedy to these actors, but so many shows ‘hit the fan’ when there is not a strong connection between the actors/characters.
September 9, 2007 at 7:40 pm
The 30-minute sitcom as we know it, will likely be officially dead within ten years. The emergence of DVR technology has completely altered the sitcom universe. As more and more Americans record their shows to watch at a later date, advertisers are being put in a really tough spot since the general public is fast-forwarding through all their commercials. Nielson has started to keep track of how many homes are recording their favorite shows since networks were so concerned that nobody was actually tuning in during the scheduled hours. “Lost” for example, lost a third of its viewers during the 9:00 time slot when the show traditionally airs, because people were taping the show during the week and watching it on the weekends.
The point I’m trying to make is that advertisers are the ones who pay for the sitcoms to be made. And if no one is watching the commercials, then networks are gonna start making a lot less money, which will create a snowball effect that will kill the 30-minute sitcom. What I believe will happen, is that advertisers will start writing the shows themselves, creating a likeable TV show that is nearly 100% infused with product placement; which the networks will then pick up and air. This solves the problem of the DVR’s fast-forwarding through commercials.
So in the end, I’m saying that a new length, 20 to 22 minutes, will take over and sitcoms will continue air. As long as people can continue to write funny material there will be sitcoms.
September 10, 2007 at 3:14 pm
I don’t think the sitcom is dead, I just think its hibernating at the moment.
The networks have recently been focusing on recreating the success of recent hits (reality, hour-long dramedy, serialized dramas, and this season, fantasy themed shows), and ignoring the harder to duplicate sitcom success. Once the last of the turbo sitcoms died out, the network pendulum swung a different direction, as television tends to do. As has already been said, television moves in cycles, and while I don’t think we’ll ever return to the 1990s Must See TV era, I think the networks have the potential to rediscover the sitcom in the future.
Viewers and critics alike still have the appetite for sitcoms, as has been demonstrated even in the recent sitcom wasteland, they’re just on two opposite sides of the spectrum. On the critically acclaimed side, the programs look very different from the standard three camera formatted sitcoms of yore. Premium channels have their Weeds and Entourages. NBC has its Comedy Night Done Right lineup of My Name is Earl, Scrubs, The Office, and 30 Rock, which has a small but very loyal following.
Then there are the less critically acclaimed, though much more popular sitcoms. Two and Half Men is consistenly one of the highest rated shows on television. CBS also has done well with The New Adventures of Old Christine and King of Queens. Cable networks have their own breed of sitcoms as well, the Disney Channel and Nickelodeon never stopped putting on kid oriented sitcoms. Hannah Montana and The Suite Life of Zach and Cody are monster hits for Disney. TBS has My Boys and ABC Family has Greek. Sitcoms, from Friends and Frasier to older shows like Cosby and Full house, still thrive in syndication.
Obviously, there is a sitcom-ready audience out there somewhere.
Bottom line, people like to laugh. There are well recieved sitcoms off all kinds out there, the networks just have to figure out how to better capitalize on them. The problem is the rift between critically acclaimed, more modern sitcoms, and the tired, old school sitcoms that Kleinman ranted about in his post (and I also can’t stand), but that tend to get higher ratings. Though I would love to just force everyone to watch The Office on Thursday nights, and to yell at people who don’t like shows like Arrested Development, I can’t. If the networks can’t figure out a way to get people to watch these (awesome) innovative new sitcoms just yet, they have to figure out a way to write good sitcoms that fit into the more popular format.
In my opinion, shows like Friends, Frasier, Will and Grace, Cheers, Mary Tyler Moore etc. bridged the gap between standard format and smart writing that captured interest across the board. There really haven’t been any shows like that recently. Even in the ends of their runs, Friends, Will and Grace, and Frasier grew tired and turned into caricatures of their former selves.
I do think the networks will figure it out eventually. One example of a current show that bridges the gap, in my opinion, is CBS’s How I Met Your Mother. The show is basically a standard format sitcom, complete with the hated laugh track. But the writing is so excellent that I really don’t pay attention to it. If the laugh track feels somewhat organic, I can deal with it. Especially if it means more people will watch it, and it won’t get cancelled.
I didn’t give the show a chance at first, because I figured it would be a tired old school sitcom like all the others that had come out recently. But, when my beloved EW kept talking it up, I netflixed it, loved it, and now am an avid fan. The ratings for the show still aren’t fantastic. My guess is that its still a little too seralized for people to start watching in the middle.
I’m also looking forward to Fox’s Back To You, because it looks like it has the potential to bridge the gap as well. The show is a fairly standard format as well, but there is a great deal of talent involved, both in front of and behind the camera. If the writing is as good as the two stars’ previous shows, maybe it will signal some sort of tide turn-age.
Producers need to stop trying to force more and more sitcoms based on increasingly cliched premises (a family with an unattractive comedian dad, a beautiful mom, a daughter who dates too much, and a crazy little brother) and start focusing on creating likeable, nuanced characters and well-written scripts.
If you write it, they will come.
September 10, 2007 at 11:34 pm
Ok, so I know I’m not in the class anymore, but I just had to. I wrote an article at the eve of last summer about the single-cam/multi-cam debate, and seeing as the woman I sent it to never responded to it or the resume I sent or the cover letter that went with it, I wanted to put it to use. If you don’t like it, well then whatever.
“Single-Serving: Does Comedy Still Need Three Cameras?”
Michael Scott often missteps in his own words. Played by Steve Carell, with the same comedic talent as his UK counterpart Ricky Gervais, Michael Scott is the lame-phrase-pushing, unknowingly offensive boss on The Office. In the pilot episode, Michael is being interviewed by the documentary crew that shoots and edits the daily office on-goings at Dunder Mifflin, a Scranton-based paper company. With a confused yet egocentric gaze, Michael sums up a feeling by saying, “It’s simply beyond words. It’s incalculcable.”
This nice, subtle line of dialogue has no laugh track following it but is funny nevertheless. This is because The Office is an example of a single-camera comedy, shot on set with no studio audience. Steve Carell’s mischievous antics as Scott, which include spying on his employees’ e-mails to see if they think he is funny, have garnered Carell a Golden Globe win, an Emmy nomination and a growing fan base for The Office. That and more than a handful of other subtle touches and you have the ingredients necessary to make this quirky show work. But trying to imagine The Office work on the levels of a multi-camera sitcom, which utilizes a three-walled set, several tracking cameras and a live studio audience, is incalculcable as well.
Although possible, the single-cam format of The Office and other shows such as My Name is Earl and Scrubs allow for liberties with narrative that multi-camera cannot reproduce. Such liberties are becoming increasingly noticed by audiences and critics who demand more single-camera comedies. In response, networks are giving audiences what they want this year more than ever before.
The 2006 network television lineup for half-hour comedies is decidedly split between single-camera and multi-camera programs. Of ABC’s expected 18 comedies, 11 will be single-camera. NBC has ordered 10 pilots, with six to be shot single-cam, as are seven of Fox’s 11 comedy programs. In fact, CBS is the only big network not to jump on the singles bandwagon; it promises only one among 13 other entries. (Andreeva and Littleton).
Single-cam has recently been the mark of critical success as well. Four of this past season’s five Emmy-nominated comedy series were single-cam (Arrested Development, Curb Your Enthusiasm, The Office, and Scrubs, alongside the multi-camera Two And a Half Men) (Hendrickson). The surgence of single-cam might only be a growing trend, but perhaps it’s America’s cue for producers to cut the laugh track permanently.
According to a recent article conducted by Daily Variety, multi-camera may be down, but not out. Susan Levinson, Senior Vice President of Comedy Development at Fox, believes multi-camera is a medium “that audiences, when they find a show that’s well executed and funny, embrace in huge numbers” (qtd. in Hendrickson).
That might explain the success of CBS’ Two And a Half Men, the Charlie Sheen/Jon Cryer multi-cam sitcom about an uncle (Sheen) forced to take in his brother (Cryer) and his son after the brother’s divorce. Last week, summer reruns of the show came in at No.2 in the Nielsen ratings with an average of 10.4 million viewers. During last year’s regular season, the show was seated at No.16 (“Summer Slump”).
Still, the Jason Lee comedy My Name is Earl, a single-cam comedy that debuted last fall, has captured ratings and critical success and has become NBC’s highest rated half-hour among adults 18-49 (Lisotta). Last year, Earl placed No.19 in the Nielsen ratings (“TV Winners and Losers”). This September, Earl begins its first full season on NBC’s Thursday night lineup, along with The Office, Deal or No Deal, and ER. Despite Deal or No Deal’s ratings success, a single-cam comedy or two with steam could warrant a move to Thursday night (as Earl and The Office moved from Tuesday night). If so, the original “Must-See-TV” lineup of multi-camera programs could become a thing of sitcom past.
In truth, the most appealing thing about single-cam is that its appeal is up to debate. Television critic Matt Roush notices that single-cam shows, “come off as smarter and hipper, whether they are or not,” while Vivi Zigler, Executive Vice President of Current Primetime Series at NBC, believes it is the reality of the world “that this fictitious character lives in” that makes “things [that] seem real” (qtd. in Hendrickson).
Although following single-cam lives may seem more real, the liberties with narrative can sometimes create absurdist fantasies. For example, “Floating Head Doctor,” a funny recurring non-sequitur on Scrubs, imagines the main character (J.D.) as a severed head and body that multi-task in disastrous ways. Bill Lawrence, creator and executive producer of Scrubs, believes that it is the business of trends and trendsetting to which television adheres. After unsuccessfully selling the single-cam humor of Scrubs in 2001 to the networks, Lawrence smirks to see that the tables have turned and now the single-camera format is hot. Lawrence bets “that the next comedy to really make it big will be one that bucks that trend and is really a well-written multi-camera sitcom” (qtd. in Rhodes, 36).
Works Cited
Andreeva, Nellie and Cynthia Littleton. “Nets’ POV on Comedy: Single-cam Hot for ’06.” The HollywoodReporter.com 9 Mar 2006. LexisNexis. Syracuse University Lib., Syracuse, NY. 18 Aug 2006
Armstrong, Jennifer. “TV Winners and Losers.” Entertainment Weekly’s EW.com. 21 Aug 2006
Hendrickson, Paula. “Laffers Ask, ‘Are You Single?’” Daily Variety 7 Aug 2006: A1. LexisNexis. Syracuse University Lib., Syracuse, NY. 18 Aug 2006
Lisotta, Christopher. “Single Camera Captivates Nets; ‘Earl’s Success in Crop of Comedy Pilots.” Television Week 20 Mar 2006. LexisNexis. Syracuse University Lib., Syracuse, NY. 18 Aug 2006
Rhodes, Joe. “Doctor, This Show is Behaving Erratically.” New York Times 9 Apr 2006: section 2, column 1; Arts and Leisure desk; Television; p 36. LexisNexis. Syracuse University Lib., Syracuse, NY. 18 Aug 2006
“Thanks to Dismal Ratings, ABC still in Summer Slump.” Los Angeles Times 16 Aug 2006. Calendarlive.com. 20 Aug 2006
September 11, 2007 at 12:15 am
I agree with the idea that the sitcom is dying, at least what were initially sitcoms in television. My opinion as to why this is happening is because people have gotten over the allure of television as a medium of entertainment, it has become a part of life as most audiences know it. Viewers are looking for television that is interactive, innovative (whether intelligent or not), and for lack of a better word, new. As mentioned in the Star Ledger article children have a flourishing amount of sitcoms on the Disney channel, which helps to prove my point. Children are new to television compared to the older audiences which sitcoms on broadcast and cable channels are targeting, who have been watching sitcoms since their childhood. Everything changes and television isn’t excluded from this: the sitcom is dying for the moment but that doesn’t mean it can’t come back when audiences get tired of the reality TV shows.
As I feel Steph was commenting, the episodic versus serial story line also seems to be a problem as well as the boredom of the usual. I completely agree that watching a half hour sitcom these days requires viewing the past episodes to fully appreciate the humor and plot. In my personal viewing habits, I can only pick a few shows to keep up on and really get to know the characters. Something that’s popular these days such as reality TV often don’t require you to know the characters by watching because they are a) celebrities you previously know about through other media b) always changing as in contest shows. Also, perhaps episodic is just dying itself because viewers want more to their TV entertainment.
September 11, 2007 at 11:50 am
If the sitcom really died, I don’t remember the funeral. I agree with what has been said, particularly that the sitcom format has not died but has evolved and changed into shows such as “The Office,” “Arrested Development” and “Curb Your Enthusiasm”. Sure, the basic setup of “Friends” and “Seinfeld” are not as prominent as they once were in the 1990’s, but it does not mean that people have forgotten how to laugh. To be honest, “The Office” makes me laugh more than “Friends” ever has. I say this not to undermine the quality of “Friends” but rather how the new format has contributed in making the sitcom funnier, grittier, and more realistic. The new direction of the sitcom should be something to celebrate, while also honoring the foundations of television that brought it to this point.
Reality television has certainly exploded in this decade, becoming a fixture on every network’s primetime lineup. Much of the change of the sitcom format can be linked to the rising popularity of “reality/verite” television, where we watch “real” people in “real” situations ACTING/reacting in “real” ways. The true nature of reality television is an entirely different debate, but networks have been forced to adapt to the changing climate. “The Office” is a perfect example of a hybrid sitcom, which includes the traditional elements of a sitcom, while also accepting the role reality television has had on our television-viewing lives. Its filming style resembles that of a reality show (very “Real World”-esque) with its cast confessionals, characters looking directly into the camera during scenes, single handheld camera movements, and an overall documentary feel. In fact, the events at Dunder Mifflin are the inspiration for a reality/documentary show. As the Posner article relating to “Arrested Development” states, “It’s very much a post-reality-show sitcom, capitalizing on the influence of the fledging genre and translating its conventions into a new kind of comedy…” Sitcom creators and writers understand the effect reality television has on audiences and have chosen to include (and mock) this format within their ideas and episodes. On many levels, this is comedy at its best.
Episodes of many of these new wave sitcoms are not self-contained, but rather extend through multiple episodes and seasons. Sure, there is still a problem/solution that is essentially wrapped up in every episode, but “The Office” follows more of a serial format that dramas often have. The Jim & Pam love saga and the Dunder Mifflin downsizing problem are just a few examples of storylines that have been included in all three seasons of the show and will probably be ongoing throughout the series. The new sitcom format encourages audiences to watch from the beginning and become fully involved in the story it is trying to tell.
As others before me have said, the sitcom style has changed with a number of shows, but many of the old formats still remain with hit shows such as “Two and Half Men.” While the other shows that have shifted its style are often perceived as edgy and unique, “Two and Half Men” is still the highest-rated sitcom on television, showing that audiences may still prefer this “old” method of the sitcom genre. Other shows such as “30 Rock” and “Curb” have ditched the laugh track and multicamera setup and have faced an uphill battle in acquiring the mass audiences of “Friends” and “Will & Grace.” If “The Office” consistently held the top rated comedy from season to season, the old format of the sitcom may in fact be dead (or in critical condition), but this is simply not the case.
At least not yet. I do believe that these smarter, edgier sitcoms will continue to attract audiences, but it will occur over time and not over night. People are nostalgic for the multicamera, studio sitcoms (like “I Love Lucy” and “MASH”) and I certainly don’t blame them. Just look at what shows are in syndication and the popularity they still boast. These shows laid the foundations for the modern sitcom and should be honored for what they achieved. But like everything, there is a cycle of change and we are currently witnessing it. On the other hand, there is no doubt the sitcom format is in jeopardy any way you slice it. Serialized dramas such as “24”, “Lost”, and “Grey’s Anatomy” are simply too popular to compete with. The style of drama has certainly changed too, becoming more cinematic, stylized, and experimental in content and format, which has attracted audiences and critics away from the typical sitcom. While comedies such as “The Office” and “Arrested Development” have been embraced critically, they still fight for the audiences that are essential for staying on air (R.I.P. AD), probably because of their seemingly off-putting situations, pseudo-documentary styles, and straying away from sitcom conventions (laugh track, multicamera, self contained episodes). At the same time, why shouldn’t sitcoms be pushing the envelope in terms of content, story, and style? There is no doubt the sitcom is changing but if you look close enough, it is probably for the better.
September 11, 2007 at 5:42 pm
I don’t think the sitcom is dead at all, I think it’s just growing up. I also don’t think that I can contribute anything more than what’s been said already, but I’ll try. Crespy pretty much got everything right, the sitcom is changing for the better and we should be thankful for it. That isn’t to say that old sitcoms are all bad. “Seinfeld” is the Babe Ruth of TV shows as far as I’m concerned. I’ve even caught myself laughing at “Friends” without being embarrassed. I never caught myself laughing at “Joey” though. Or watching it for that matter. And that brings me to my first point: some shows just plain suck. I guess it’s not fair for me to single out “Joey” since I’ve never seen it, but there have been many shows I tried giving a chance that just weren’t any good. What are they? I don’t know, they were too bad to remember. There was one with Jason Alexander and there was one with Michael Richards and they both sucked. There was “Andy Richter Controls the Universe” and I thought that sucked (regrettably, too, because I like Andy Richter). I gave “The Tick” a try, but like the rest of America I couldn’t get into that either. These shows just didn’t work because they were either bad ideas or bad writing (at least compared to what else was on). These shows, as far as I can remember, were all traditional sitcoms, too. But it’s not their format that contributed to their demise, it was their quality.
“Two and a Half Men” and “How I Met Your Mother” follow the traditional sitcom format and are both, in my opinion, pretty good shows. They make me laugh, and that’s all I really look for. These shows are consistently nominated and awarded Emmys. They are also popular. A good indicator of this is that they made it more than 6 episodes without getting canceled. These are the only two traditional sitcoms I watch, but they are NOT the only sitcoms I watch. I love “The Office” and “Scrubs” and “Curb Your Enthusiasm” and even “My Name Is Earl”, but these are grown up sitcoms. They have accounted for changes in what people like and changes in the entertainment industry (the frequently mentioned reality tv craze). Our tastes as a whole change, and that’s why we go through all of these cycles as Steve pointed out.
However, just because the traditional sitcom isn’t as popular as the new grown up sitcom does not mean that the traditional sitcom is dead, and it definitely doesn’t mean that the sitcom is dead. Right now, this new, single camera, non laugh track, reality-ish half hour comedy is what’s really popular. BUT we’ve still got “Two and a Half Men” and “How I Met Your Mother” which are, as far as I can tell, traditional sitcoms.
So maybe Sam Simon was referring to the traditional sitcom. If so then I find him to be wrong. The traditional sitcom is not dead, it’s just not nearly as prevalent as it was for the first 50 years of American TV. The traditional sitcoms that we DO still have that DO succeed are usually quite good. So I don’t really know what Sam Simon was thinking when he said that. We have a variety of great half hour comedy shows, some traditional, some groundbreaking, and we all seem to be pretty happy with what we’ve got. Maybe Sam Simon just meant sitcoms he likes are dead. Poor guy.
September 11, 2007 at 7:49 pm
As soon as I started reading this prompt I heard Jerry and George bickering about something in the background, maybe about whether or not their genre was dying out. After a second or two of thinking I was crazy I realized my roommate had just turned on Seinfeld. So, now I have to decide whether or not the sitcom is dead while my roommate is sitting behind me watching one. Easy – the sitcom is alive, because of people like my roommate. Seinfeld is on every night, along with other sitcoms, and there are people who watch these shows every night.
Examples like Arrested Development shot in the single-camera style are part of the transition phase that is happening in the genre. Sitcoms will not die out, but they are changing. It is unfortunate that AD, a good show in the eyes of critics, gets cancelled because it can’t find an audience. Give it time, I say. The audience is out there they just need to realize it. I partly blame myself for the failure of shows like AD, because while I’m almost positive I’d love it, I never watched it while it was on (sorry, guys). Once this new style becomes more familiar (shows like The Office are helping), audiences won’t be intimidated by the style and nothing will get in the way of the laughs. The sitcom will see another heyday in its new form.
When you are selling laughter you can’t really go out of business. If you look at it from a money standpoint syndication is where the money is made – and sitcoms have that covered. My roommate doesn’t care to re-watch the American Idol episodes he has already seen, but he will watch Seinfeld over and over again. Also, while dramas do well in syndication, they don’t compete with sitcoms. “Even blockbusters like ER and West Wing don’t get the syndication numbers Seinfeld, Raymond, or even MASH does (Levine article).
Levine, while sounding at times a bit desperate to make sure he can still run his fantasy camps, makes a good point about the future of comedy. He says, “The reality is that in 10 years, you may be writing for a venue that hasn’t been invented yet. But in some form, they’re always going to need comedy.” (Sepinwall article). In ten years I think this form will be the single camera sitcom. The audience is just a little bit behind the critics, but this style of sitcom is financially sound. Even Arrested Development got picked up for syndication, never mind the fact that it only has 53 episodes. This will bring in more revenue that other genres aren’t as likely to tap into. The sitcom makes money and that is usually a good sign that it isn’t going anywhere just yet.
September 11, 2007 at 8:26 pm
Yes, the traditional sitcom is dead but the sitcom as a genre is still very much alive-it is just in a state of limbo right now. It is amidst a transition from the multi-camera format to the more innovative (and I think more creative), documentary-like format. Just like any change, the new era of sitcoms will take getting used to. I disagree with Kleinman that people aren’t smart enough to understand the new sitcom. The new sitcom format has only been around for a couple years, compared to the fifty years of the traditional multi-cam format. Older shows like I Love Lucy and MASH and even the more recent shows like Seinfeld and Friends did so well during their run and are doing so well now in syndication because that format is all we’ve ever known. People do not like change and do not adapt quickly to it. Two and a Half Men does well in the ratings because it follows the popular old-school format. People like to laugh and I think that people are smart enough to know what is funny. Like Steph said, people just want to be entertained. The Office and Arrested Development aren’t too smart for people-viewers are used to simply just watching and laughing, that’s it.
I think that this new wave of sitcoms will come around in due time. Posner writes of Arrested Development, “it’s very much a post-reality-show sitcom, capitalizing on the influence of the fledging genre and translating its conventions into a new kind of comedy.” People are obsessed with reality shows and it’s hard not to these days when a new one seems to pop up every week. We are used to watching the lives of other people through shaky camera work and confessionals-there is no reason for sitcoms that adopt these techniques not to succeed in the ratings. In 2004 Arrested Development averaged a disappointing 6.2 million viewers a week, but it seems to have a devoted audience. Just reading through of lot of these blogs, most of the people who have seen the show love and swear by it. I have only seen the show once and like Jeff said, I’m sure I would love it if I gave it a chance. I feel like shows such as this are much like indie music. The crowds aren’t huge but the fans are loyal. If the networks can find a way to better market the shows and draw more attention to them more people will watch, even if just out of curiosity. They need to create hype. The more we watch shows in this new format, the more familiar it becomes and it will continue to grow and become more accepted.
September 11, 2007 at 9:48 pm
If the sitcom is dead, when it comes to comedies, George Washington is still President of the United States, I’m the lead singer of Aerosmith, and our class gets a free trip to Bora Bora at the end of the semester for rocking everybody’s socks off. Yes, the amount of sitcoms being produced in the zero’s of the 21st century versus the nineties is substantially less. But, unless we are in elementary school and first is the worst, last time I checked Two and Half Men, a sitcom, is the highest rated comedy show in the country. Reruns of Seinfeld, Everybody Loves Raymond, and King of Queens are getting paid big bucks for syndication. The Single Cam Thursday Night Line Up on NBC is still coming in third, with the hairy chest, every week in it’s time slot, while Saturday Night Live a multi-cam studio show always wins its time slot.
Schatz reminds us that when I Love Lucy aired for the first time on October 15th, 1951 it was an immediate hit. Desilu stumbled on the glory of a form that fit television and that was the comedy sitcom. The beauty of the sitcom is as Kleinman remarks, “Viewers should be able to watch any episode in a series and understand what is going on without any prior knowledge of characters or plots”. I love the single cam comedy shows and root for them like fans of Arrested Development do, a big fan myself of Arrested Development, but when I leave college and am working at least a nine to five job everyday I’m not sure I will make the time to follow what is going on between Pam and Jim on The Office and instead watch a show with a laugh track to make me laugh out loud as I hold the baby in one arm and cook a grilled cheese with the other. Arrested Development is brilliant, but it’s not easy watching like the sitcom it requires a certain commitment that the sitcom doesn’t require.
HBO, in my opinion, one of the leaders of single cam television’s logo is, “It’s not TV it’s HBO.” I agree. Sitcoms die when TV dies and that isn’t anytime soon in my opinion. Heed the words of Ken Levine, “Television goes in cycles.” American Idol gets over 30 million viewers for it’s final episode. For Pete’s sake America’s Got Talent rocked the ratings this summer delivering over 10 million viewers. These shows that could be considered vaudevillian, might have been thrown out the door at networks twenty years ago, are making chumps out of Single Cam shows in ratings. What does NBC want more than anything? The next Seinfeld or the next Friends. They don’t cost a lot to produce and are cash cows sending their executives on trips to Bora Bora for rocking peoples socks off. I think that the sitcom doesn’t have a deathly virus, but rather a common cold. It’s in a slump, afraid that it can’t produce the next Cheers or Seinfeld, but I’m going to put my money on the fact that there is a sitcom, hopefully pitched by someone in our class, that hasn’t happened yet, but will give the sitcom a whole new twist and nurse it back to health.
We still read newspapers, if video killed the radio star why can I listen to him in my car, and sitcoms are still calling my name on a quiet weeknight. Sign me up for the next Ken Levine seminar, because I think he understands what is going on, maybe Sam Simon should take it too.
September 12, 2007 at 12:46 am
Okay so try not to laugh at the secret I’m about to divulge, remember what happens in 452, stays in 452. Okay so here it goes – I love The Disney Channel (okay fine laugh a little). So I know I’m an “adult” and I should be watching adult television, which I do, but who doesn’t love to just forget about life, and not have to think about their problems, and just sit down to a good laugh. Sometimes I’m selfish and I don’t feel like worrying about other characters problems as much as my own. So whenever I’m in a funk I turn on “Hannah Montana” or “The Suite Life of Zack and Cody” and laugh away my problems. And believe me when I tell you I’m not the only one (I won’t name names).
The sitcom obviously still lives on, and is clearly making its’ mark on younger generations as well as older ones. As Levine points out: “Networks want to lure young viewers. What are preteens watching? ‘Hannah Montana’ and other sitcoms on The Disney Channel. And not just sitcoms – old school, retro, multi-camera, cheaply produced sitcoms. Tomorrow’s network audience sure doesn’t think the form is dead.” In other words, as future television producers, directors, etc., it’s essential we continue to cater to even the youngest generations, because even they aren’t giving up the sitcom for dead yet. Shows like “Hannah Montana” have witty dialogue and characters that are easy to identify with (despite the fact that Hannah’s a pop star). And yeah the sets may be cheap, and the storyline a bit unrealistic, but it’s fresh and exciting, and makes for a great laugh. Shows like this are supposed to be campy and bit over the top, otherwise we wouldn’t laugh. Plus what kid doesn’t dream of becoming a pop star or having an entire hotel at their disposal. Maybe I know too much about this, but just ask my little sisters or any of my 12 cousins under the age of 13, who would just die if sitcoms on The Disney Channel ceased to exist.
I whole-heartedly agree with what most everyone is saying about the ways in which the traditional sitcom is reinventing itself, but don’t leave it for dead just yet. As Levine points out even the “old school” days of multi-camera and cheap sets are still entertaining even our toughest critics, children. There are whole generations of kids out there just waiting for a good laugh, or a funny joke. Not everyone is old enough (or boring enough!) to watch serious hour-long dramas about doctors and lawyers. People just need to have faith in the sitcom, if it’s able to live on through syndication, it can prevail against all odds. Maybe “That’s So Raven” isn’t exactly the type of sitcom everyone hopes to see flourish (it’s sadly in reruns now), but the genre as Levine declares “ preserves.” Comedy, as far as I’m concerned, is alive and well, and as long as writers are willing to write, audiences are willing to sit down and have a good laugh.
September 12, 2007 at 12:46 am
So, launching a successful sitcom is “harder than trying to sell buggy whips in the age of the automobile.” Is that what it’s come down to? The content may be “challenged” but I wouldn’t start reading it its last rites. Today, it may be harder for a sitcom to get noticed in the clutter of reality shows like “American Idol” and “So You Think You Can Dance” and dramas like “Grey’s Anatomy” and “Desperate Housewives,” but I don’t think the sitcom has keeled over just yet.
Like Ken Levine, I believe the bad, stale, family sitcom with tired rhythms, forced laughs, and bogus characters is dead. This fall, there are only 17 half-hour comedies on the big four networks. The number may not be as impressive as past seasons, but this is no reason to get discouraged. Rebound time may be just around the corner. I don’t know if the American sitcom will reach a peak of popularity like it did in the ’90s, but I do think people will return to the format. Some people never left. Some are embracing the single-camera approach to the medium because it is shot on film and doesn’t have a laugh track.
I completely agree with Steph on the point that people just want to be entertained. Give them a good laugh and they will keep tuning in for more. The trick is to keep them laughing and that’s where these modern sitcoms have been falling short. They last a season and then are toast. Nothing in the past decade seems to be as sustainable as “Friends.” But, what is it about “Friends” that kept us laughing all those years? It would have to be comedy in its simplest form. Characters that people easily identify with, comradery between those characters, and situations that can and do happen to regular joes. As long as sitcoms continue to incorporate these elements and keep the audience laughing, the format will thrive.
Sitcoms are a great escape from the rigors of the world in which we live. When you turn on the tube, you see coverage on The War in Iraq, Michael Vick and his dogfighting scandal, and Britney Spears and her comeback crisis. Besides the hard news, I don’t know about all of you, but I even need an escape from the supposed “entertainment” on TV today. Enough already with The Three Sluts of the Apocalypse and Anna Nicole Smith this and that. I get a headache just watching all the hullaballoo. In my opinion, sitcoms fill the void between mindless and smart, entertaining TV. For example, this summer after I came home from a long day of media saturation at CNN (Needless to say, I became super savvy on the world’s current events, which isn’t a bad thing) all I wanted to do was sit there with my Lean Cuisine and watch “The King of Queens.” The show helped me to destress and take a breather, plus the content was entertaining and always made me laugh.
Victor Borge once said, “Laughter is the shortest distance between two people.” If sitcoms can bridge the gap between its jokes and the audience’s funny bone, they can and will laugh all the way to the bank.
September 12, 2007 at 12:53 am
I personally have never been a huge fan of sitcoms ever since I visited a live studio recording of “Hang Time” in junior high and realized that what I had seen onscreen was extremely different than what I imagined it to be in real life. Everything was a set and not an actual place! The school café was not an actual café, but rather a set, which was quite the eye opening and traumatic experience for me. And the audience was cued when to laugh. It was an interesting experience to say the least and not to mention my utter disappointment and disbelief. The comedic atmosphere was forced. The chemistry between actors was tangibly awkward. But then again, perhaps “Hang Time” was neither the greatest nor the most humorous sitcom on the planet.
I thought Kleinman provided a wonderful, clear, and encompassing definition of a sitcom. Although I am not much of a sitcom viewer myself (I think mainly due to the aforementioned traumatic experience), I don’t think it’s fair to say that sitcom is dead. Not yet, at least. Perhaps it’s in somewhat of a decline. It seems that reality tv is taking over, but reality shows, as Ken Levine says, “have no shelf life.” And I don’t think they have a very long career ahead of them either. Reality tv is a fleeting phase and I think it is at its climactic point right now because people are still somewhat fascinated by the “reality” aspect. I agree with whoever said that sitcoms are hibernating. In other words, they’re simply going through a dormant phase right now. I think it will certainly be difficult (an understatement) for sitcoms to make a stellar comeback to their popularity in the nineties due to the evermore development of new technology (especially the internet) and the vast number of available outlets. With the increasing availability of different outlets, the freer flow of information, entertainment… you name it. And I don’t think Levine is joking when he says, “In ten years, you may be writing for a venue that hasn’t been invented yet.” Absolutely!
It’s important and necessary to remember that the television industry is all about cycling. Even though “the stale, family sitcom with tired rhythms, forced laughs, and bogus characters [may be] dead,” as Levine puts it, comedy, regardless, is forever. Immortal. It’s human nature to be comedic. Human nature gives birth to comedy. And as long as there’s comedy and loyal followers/viewers, there will be sitcoms.
It would be interesting to see how sitcoms will transform and even recycle themselves in ten years. Better yet, it will be fascinating to observe how the changes in sitcom (the rise and fall) will transform not only the state of television production, but also television history and the way we watch television as a whole.
September 12, 2007 at 4:09 am
I am pretty wary in general of calling anything dead, even my dead relatives. It seems to be some crazy Christ-like fixture of societal obsession: the whole “We thought it was dead, but now it’s not!” bullshit. If I remember correctly, and to go a tad off genre topic, people thought the gameshow was dead until Regis strapped on some shiny ties and brought the genre roaring back with “Who Wants To Be a Millionaire.” And what was “reality TV” but some Bob Saget on “America’s Funniest Home Videos” joke-in-waiting before along came “Survivor”? The point is TV programming is a very fluid entity, shows and genres fall in and out of popularity, but nothing really dies.
I do find it funny this question was brought up in the first place because I think the response is almost laughably predictable from the class. Maybe not everybody in the class wants to be a writer, especially for sitcom, but the second you mention to a bunch of creative people that an art form is “dead,” well watch out. Kind of reminds me of the article about that Sitcom Room seminar, where Sam Simon came in and said the sitcom is dead. “How incredulous, how dare he, that was pretty amusing though” kind of sums it up.
I think what happens is periodically people in the TV industry, or film industry, will say something is dead, just so there can be the story of that person who “saved” whatever it is that was killed off. Which kind of relates to the ridiculousness that is that article from the NY Times about that dude who created “Arrested Development.” I don’t think that show really saved anything though, it just didn’t suck. This brings me to my point that no, I don’t think the sitcom is dead, nor will it ever be dead. To say that the sitcom died after, say, “Seinfeld” would be like saying philosophy died after Aristotle or something (kind of a dramatic analogy, but go with it). We say (non-animate) things are dead when we’re afraid it’s never going to be as good again.
That being said, at the moment, yes, sitcoms do suck. Reality TV crap-a-ramas rule the airwaves, and the most popular traditional sitcom is one where Charlie Sheen is playing a womanizing, arrogant bastard (such a stretch, Sheen). But if this summer’s movies were any indication of trends, it’s that a huge chunk of the country is more interested in funny than almost anything else. Two of the biggest movies, both critically and commercially, were also two of the most unlikely hits…movies without any real stars in them, about loser nerds either trying to hook up with the hot chicks in “Superbad” or succeeding and paying for it in “Knocked Up.” Can this obvious desire for funny be translated into the form of the traditional sitcom? If the consistently good ratings for syndicated shows such as “Seinfeld” and “Everybody Loves Raymond” are any indication, I believe yes, it is possible. I think the key will be to focus less on the sit, more on the com and relatable characters.
September 12, 2007 at 10:59 am
Over the summer I babysat my seven-year-old cousin. On a daily basis we would watch shows like “Zoey 101” and “Drake and Josh” on Nickelodeon. Most 21 year olds would probably be driven crazy by such silly and immature humor but these shows were funny and it made me miss the childhood sitcoms such as “Clarissa Explains it All” and “Keenan and Kel” that I used to watch when I was younger. As Ken Levine writes in his blog article, “Stop the hearse! The Sitcom is NOT dead”, “Networks wants to lure young viewers. What are pre-teens watching? HANNAH MONTANA and other sitcoms on the Disney Channel. And not just sitcoms-old school, retro, multi-camera, cheaply produced sitcoms”. I believe the sitcom is not dead and that there is something to say about why these types of shows are successful. Children are not hard to please. Give them brightly colored sets, a couple good looking actors to swoon over, and something to laugh at and they’re happy. Adults aren’t hard to please either. We just want to laugh.
I completely agree with Steph when she states that sitcoms today appear to be too smart. Let’s be honest here. As TRF students at Newhouse we are trained to approach television shows through a different lens. We are not necessarily your “average” TV watcher. We can deconstruct sets, stories, hidden meanings, etc. with the snap of our fingers so yes a lot of you enjoy shows like “The Office” and “Arrested Development” however I would rather watch reruns of “Frasier”, “Will and Grace”, “Friends”, and “Golden Girls” any day. Ask my friends and they would say the same thing. The problem for me with sitcoms today is this “too smart for my own good” mentality that some of these shows come off with. If you asked my 43-year-old mother what she thought about some of our favorite movies of today such as Napoleon Dynamite, Little Miss Sunshine and the 40-year-old Virgin, she would respond that they are either too weird, too over the top or too confusing. Then again, this is also coming from the woman who rather watch gossip shows on E! and reruns of soap operas on the SoapNet in her free time. Nevertheless, there is a lot that can be learned from her statements.
Sitcoms, as we knew them were simple, had great dynamic characters, dealt with real situations that many of us could relate to and could make us laugh with the drop of a hat. When I sit down to watch television this means that that time is my time to relax, to get transported into another world where I can forget my problems and worries. I feel that sitcoms today don’t really offer that. Unfortunately, we live in a world that judges books by its covers. I see “The Office” and I think boring. Before I actually watched an episode of “Curb Your Enthusiasm” I thought, now why would I ever want to invest my time into watching this lame old nerdy looking man. So I never even gave them a chance until one day my friend forced me to see sit down and watch Larry David make a fool of himself. Turns out, the man is pretty entertaining. However, American viewers don’t have people to force them to sit down in front of a television set. They either tune in because they want to or stumble upon shows through channel surfing but they aren’t going to do that if sitcoms aren’t advertised well, aren’t talked about amongst friends and don’t offer a real gateway to that “other world” that I mentioned earlier.
I don’t think the sitcom is dead. At least I would like to hope that it is not as some of my favorite shows are sitcoms and I have always dreamt of being able to work for one in the future. If children can find enjoyment in the sitcoms targeted to them then clearly there is still hope for these types of shows. I think that the sitcom is really just waiting patiently for a couple of amazing writers and creators to come along and make something out of it. People who are developing these shows need to just relax a little and stop trying so hard to impress people because viewers can see right through it.
September 12, 2007 at 11:05 am
the sitcom is not dying. as long as theres TV, networks will have written, fictional, situational, episode based shows. the sitcom is morphing and exploring new ground. here’s one thought i’d like to highlight:
our standard for everything in this world is exploding through the roof. and with that comes an even shorter attention span and craving for something new and beautiful. frankly, i’m not a huge TV watcher, but i can attest to curb, arrested development, and the office. to me, these are the staple, good sitcoms of today’s changing TV world. there’s one thing that jumps out when i rack my brain as to why these are different from the sitcoms of the past. they nurture an illusion of reality through the use of handheld cameras.
pardon me for sounding philosophical, but i think the invention and embracing of the home-owned camcorder has subconsciously inspired the ideas for this style of sitcom. these shows have shaky, rigid camera work that mimic Dad with the camcorder. home videos are REAL! and because we now know what camcorder work looks like through our own use, our brains perceive it as “real” home footage. with a little bit of an imagination (which, god knows, we all have we watch TV), this allows for a connection to characters and settings in an all new way. the fact that jim halpert can look YOU in the eye for an opinion carries unbelievable weight for a viewer. we feel that jim knows us and likes us because he literally looks at us. never before has a comedic drama used this tool so cleverly (i dont think). similarly, arrested development and curb cultivate the feeling of actually being in the room.
the fact that this discussion is even based on a question like “is the sitcom dead” means that people are doubting this style. but its brilliant. perhaps i’m a victim of the new attention span that craves wit and realism, but i think friends and seinfeld are entirely corny now… after seeing curb, arrested, and the office. these new shows are merging fictional stories and characters with realistic asthetics in incredible ways.
so no, the sitcom is not dying. the bulk of americans have just not embraced this higher level of tv creativity.
September 12, 2007 at 11:52 am
I have to start by agreeing with Marc’s reference to forerunners of the reality television and game show explosion that has taken place over the last decade. As any VH1 special will tell you, the long since cancelled program “Star Search” captured the attention of American audiences looking for the “next big thing” long before “American Idol” and “So You Think You Can Dance.” A multitude of early 90s pop stars can trace their debuts back to this televised talent competition, which launched careers similar to the television-host/Broadway star/recording artist progression that many Idol contestants are following. And yet, the time span in between these periods of entertainment programming, while relatively dry in successful reality talent competitions, did produce a number of imitation programs that failed to accumulate the ratings granted to like shows both before and after the 90s. Remember “Say What Karaoke?” Trends in the industry imply that there will be dry spells as genres rework themselves. In spite of their similarities, there are improvements that took place in the reality talent competition genre in the time between “Star Search” and “American Idol”- the concept of contestants living together, an ongoing competition rather than an episodic one, the gradual vote-off procedure, Simon Cowell…the list goes on. And yes, in this process of revision, some things are inevitably lost. Who knows what even greater peaks of success “American Idol” might rise to if it were to reincorporate the spokes-model segment that many considered the most memorable aspect of “Star Search.” The point that I am driving at here is not that reality TV is still alive, because I think that is quite evident. My point is that reality TV went through a period of decreased popularity, in which it still existed in a less refined form, and adjusted itself so as to appeal to modern audiences, with undisputed success. The situation comedy as a genre hasn’t even really disappeared. It is undergoing its transformation live on television in front of its viewers in the form of the phased-out laugh track and the hybrid multicamera/single camera shows currently in production. Plus, while the term “sitcom” is generally applied to television programs, the situation comedy films in production are still being churned out, and maybe even attempting to compensate for the state of the television sitcom. Daddy Day Care? That could be a 22 minute episode of “Yes, Dear,” except that it’s been elongated into a multi-movie series. To answer the question at hand, I would have to firmly assert that the sitcom is not dead, but just following a trend in television history. As Ken Levine says, “you know that television goes in cycles. There may never be the glut of sitcoms that we had in the past, but they will survive and rebound in popularity…the genre perseveres.” Let’s not forget that one of the aspiring sitcom writers in The Sitcom Room seminar was sixteen years old.
September 12, 2007 at 11:53 am
I also have to add that I too watch Disney Channel, Julie. Power to the people.
September 12, 2007 at 12:16 pm
I would have to also agree with Kevin Levine’s view that the sitcom as we know it is not dead, it is just sleeping. The sitcom is a tried-and-true television format, and is very inexpensive to make. Inexpensive is the key word here because no matter what trends are popular in television, money will always dictate what eventually ends up on the air. There are several other television formats that have been around forever and according to Bob Thompson’s history of primetime tv class, were more or less thought to be dead before coming back with immense popularity. I am talking about the game show and variety show formats. After the rise of Who Wants to be a Millionaire, game shows instantly saturated the market. The variety show has come back through shows like “America’s Got Talent”, and even the huge prime-time specials of old have made a re-appearance through the Hurricane Katrina Telethon, or even the seemingly endless lineup of awards shows. Who is to say that the sitcom cannot make a similar comeback? Once again I agree with Levine that the family-sitting-on-the-couch kind of sitcom may be a thing of the past. It is simply too cliche for it to really be relevant today. Audiences are so used to seeing reality programs that the sitcom has kind of changed to seem more real. I think there will be a return eventually. People will eventually get sick of the bleak realities of life and will want to escape back into the realm of fantasy again with sitcoms that are obviously shot on sound stages in front of a live audience. Look at the fall TV lineup: we have cavemen, the bionic woman, and several other shows that are examples of how reality is not necessarily the ideal people are shooting for. It’s just a matter of time…
September 12, 2007 at 6:31 pm
(Sorry if this is posted twice. I thought I already put it up, but now I don’t see it. Glad that I saved it in Word.)
From the beginning of the television era to the late 90’s, the sitcom genre was clearly king of the tube. Recently though, these half hour comedies have been diminishing in popularity. New genres of television shows, such as hour long dramas and reality TV, are dominating the networks. And with the recent finales of popular sitcoms, such as Friends and Everybody Loves Raymond, networks no longer have that staple sitcom to bring in viewers. Although many new sitcoms are introduced at the beginning of every television season, most usually do not last very long. Is this the beginning of the end of sitcoms or can they possibly make a comeback? What will we be chatting about around the water coolers in the future? For all of those sitcom lovers out there like me, we can only hope for that one big hit that brings these shows back into our lives.
The recent renaming of this class continues to prove the declination of sitcoms. Traditional sitcoms are historically filmed in a multicam process, hence the former name of this class. Now, with the surge of the singlecam process in television production, it obviously seemed appropriate for Newhouse administration to alter this course title. Only teaching us multicam is no longer suitable for TV-centered education. So if academia has given up on the sitcom, what hope does the genre have for a renaissance?
These were my thoughts until I read Ken Levine’s “Stop the Hearse. The Sitcom is NOT Dead!” article. What he discussed in this article made a great deal of sense to me. How can the sitcom be dead if reruns of Seinfeld and Everybody Loves Raymond get higher ratings than reruns of West Wing and ER? This proves that people still enjoy watching these 30 minute, multicam filmed situation comedies. There is just a lack of “watchable” present sitcoms to choose from. I agree with Jesse Allis in Alan Sepinwall’s article when he states that most traditional sitcoms produced today are just plain bad. But this doesn’t mean that viewers have given up on the genre all together.
Are there currently any big hit sitcoms on TV? Levine can think of a few, and I happen to agree with his choices. Most may not be filmed with the traditional multicam process, but the programs are comedies involving situations. So is the sitcom dead, or is it just that the definition of sitcom has been revised? The Office and Scrubs are definitely sitcoms; just not the type we are used to. One can make the argument that the traditional sitcom is dead, and even though I would disagree, he or she would probably find enough sources to back this claim. But how could you claim that the entire sitcom genre is on its death bed? Give it 10 or so years when a hit sitcom (whether it be multicam or singlecam) is dominating the airwaves and the pages of Variety magazine and we are discussing whether or not the Reality Show is dead.
September 12, 2007 at 7:36 pm
I begin my debate on this television sitcom discussion by agreeing with Jacob’s statement, “as long as we have television, we will have a sitcom”. I cannot imagine television surviving in the coming years without a line up of new fall sitcoms. I mean, isn’t part of the suspense of television tracking and watching pilot episodes of the new tv season? Ok, maybe that’s just me.
I personally believe that the sitcom is not completely a genre of the past; it’s just undergoing a re-construction period and with this change comes many obstacles. What I mean to say is that the traditional sitcom format has changed on television. We might not have the next “Full House” or “Friends” sitcom in store for this season, but that doesn’t mean that sitcoms are entirely lost on tv. In his article Sepinwall states perfectly that “the sitcom genre is not dead, it is just napping”. It might be a long nap at that, or a coma, but definitely not a long term coma. Ken Levine’s assistant’s comment that “America just wants to laugh” falls nicely into this discussion. Because she’s true, the purpose of tv is to entertain and give people humor and it is the tradition of the sitcom to do just that.
As many people have stated before me, the immense popularity and high viewer ratings of shows on the Disney Channel for tweens such as “The Suite Life of Zach and Cody” and “Hannah Montana” prove that there is still a young audience worthy of the sitcom. Take for instance the show “Hannah Montanna”. During my internship at MTV this past summer we had Miley Cyrus (Star of Hannah Montana) as a guest on TRL. To be perfectly honest, before googling her, I had no idea who this Miley girl was or what this “Hannah Montana” craze was about. However, I was soon informed by MTV staff and interns that “Hannah Montanna” was not just a stupid Disney show as it was one of the highest grossing shows on television today and an obsession show among kids of all ages.
But back to sitcoms. As evident by the amount of people watching Disney Channel shows, the sitcom audience is not completely lost. In fact, this new generation of Disney Channel viewers proves even more the need for increased sitcoms on television. I think it is the perfect time to generate a new comeback strategy for sitcoms. Because honestly, even though shows like “American Idol” and “So You Think You Can Dance” nab the highest viewer ratings, those shows are not meant to be repeated and will not be around in five years. I mean, I’m not going out to buy a DVD of last season’s American Idol episodes….I’d much rather buy season one of Arrested Development or Friends ( shows I can watch on repeat, quote lines and never get sick of laughing to). I must also agree with Diane that I seriously hope the sitcom is not dead because I too have always wished to work on one… I can’t say I have the same amount of enthusiasm to work on the next “America’s Got Talent” show.
May 11, 2008 at 9:45 am
haha this is all great for my GCSE Media Exam question which is:
‘Critics keep announcing the death of the sitocm. We beleive the genre is doing fine. Give us your views on the current state of the situation comedy and thell us how you think it might develop.’