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.
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.
January 28, 2008 at 3:05 pm
I think that when the experts say that situational comedies are dead can be both wrong and right in many ways. When I think of this term “dead” I believe that sitcom’s have trouble moving away from a genre that has been experimented with over and over. By this I mean when dealing with sitcom’s its very hard to come up with a totally original show. This only proves the fact that now-a-days it’s hard to be funny. It is certainly true that the family sitcom is slowly coming to its death with predictable plots and often forced laughs. In the Article Last Laughs they say that sitcom’s reached their height in the 90’s and that younger, and I believe older viewers as well, have turned more towards reality tv shows for entertainment. This is astonishingly true when looking at television ratings today, but we should not be so quick to say that the sitcom has no future. It seems funny to me that Sam Simon can say the sitcom is “dead” when his show The Simpson’s is the longest running sitcom in television history. This contradicting fact makes me believe that the sitcom is still very much alive.
So how do we compare the sitcoms today versus the plentiful sitcom’s of the mid-nineties. I think that sitcom’s today are looking to target new and younger audience that are coming of age. These new sitcoms seemed to be caught in a very “fuzzy” period in which I believe they are transferring from one generation to the other. I often hear my parents rant and rave about the genius of older sitcoms such as Seinfeld and Friends. I am not saying that these shows were not very well written, but I then ask my parents about shows such as The Office 30 Rock and Curb Your Enthusiasm I get answers such as “I don’t get it” or “That’s Stupid”. The new dry humor and mockumentary style of the Office is very disvalued by the older generations. Ask anyone under the age of twenty five about the Office and I’m sure you’ll get quite a different response. I think that Ken Levine is right in saying that the genre will preserve itself and although it seems as if we are in a transitional period the sitcom will reign again!
January 30, 2008 at 12:30 am
The fact that Sam Simon would announce that “sitcoms are dead” is pretty disheartening. Television has always served as a tool of amusement, and to think that writers aren’t planning to make me laugh anymore scares me. With the surge of reality shows and the popularity of dramas, the prospect of sitcoms becoming obsolete is kind of daunting. It’s true that television constantly fluctuates in terms of programming trends. Levine suggests that sitcoms are in somewhat of a dry-spell and they are bound to bounce back eventually. If gauchos can come back in style, anything is possible.
I could take the cynical approach and talk about the money factor. Levine’s article tells us that sitcoms have the best syndication value. This is an industry where it all boils down to the money. Would networks really jeopardize their profits by giving up on the sitcom format? No one wants to sit and watch Rock of Love the second time around. I already know who threw up and which girl’s tour has ended. But when an old episode of Seinfeld comes on, I get a warm fuzzy feeling when I can yell with the soup Nazi. I think there is an unspoken acceptance of watching comedies over and over again, with it still being funny every time.
If there is one trend that I’m noticing, it’s the dramedy. It seems like shows have been trying to integrate aspects of comedy with drama. One example is Scrubs. I think it was well received because it was funny and quirky. Since the show was set in a hospital, and there were also dramatic moments exchanged between doctors and patients, and the doctors themselves. This kind of format is always appealing because it’s more true to life. There’s no campy laugh track in the background, and I don’t feel mentally exhausted come the closing credits. Some laughs, some tears…it’s a nice balance.
Imagining television without a large selection of comedies is well…depressing. Sitcoms, in my eyes, are the go-to format for the boob tube. I appreciate that there are writers out there like Ken Levine who are fighting against the notion that the sitcom is dead. There will be a resurgence of sitcoms when we can no longer stand watching the horrid love lives of B-celebrities or glamorous forensic science shows. And considering I just saw a commercial for a reality show about blowing things up called Smash Lab, I’m hoping this day comes sooner than later.
January 30, 2008 at 2:10 am
I agree. The sitcom isn’t dead, but merely evolving. If you think back, you can clearly see the various stages that it has gone through. It actually originated on the radio, with shows such as the famous ‘Amos ‘n’ Andy.’ Then in the 1950s, it turned to mutli-camera television, with classics like I Love Lucy. The 1960s brought about more paranormal and mystical elements with shows like ‘The Munsters’ and ‘Bewitched,’ as well as featuring non-nuclear families like in ‘The Andy Griffith Show’ and ‘The Brady Bunch.’ The early ‘70s carried a musical component with ‘The Monkees’ and ‘The Partridge Family’, and also began addressing more serious issues, such as in ‘Mash.’ The late-eighties began a new trend that involved sitcoms being based around stand-up comedians (‘The Cosby Show’, ‘Roseanne’, and eventually ‘Seinfeld’). And the early ‘90s introduced the ever-popular cartoon sitcom, with ‘The Simpsons’. In the mid-1990s, several began to involve the continuing storyline from episode to episode, in a soap opera style. ‘Friends’ is a classic example of this.
So as we reached the millennium, obviously another change was inevitable. And that was turning to single-cam. Originally, I believe, done in ‘Malcolm in the Middle’, this technique can now be found in the most successful sitcoms today, such as ‘The Office,’ ‘Scrubs’, and ‘Curb Your Enthusiasm.’ Another unique aspect of this new generation of sitcoms is the fact that there is no laugh track, which I think we can all agree was a damn good advancement.
There’s an episode of ‘Scrubs’ that pokes fun at the differences between sitcoms of today and yesteryear. In ‘My Life in Four Cameras,’ JD meets a writer from ‘Cheers,’ and begins to picture how his life would be in a sitcom. Multi-cam is used, there’s a laugh track, everyone is perky, and everything wraps up nicely in the end. I think Clay Aiken even performs, if I remember correctly. But when he is jolted back to reality, JD realizes that not everything works out the way it does in sitcoms. And that’s real life.
So I reiterate the fact that I don’t believe the sitcom is dead, but (thankfully) changing. Because although I do love the classics, there are only so many episodes I can watch where the bad guy is always caught, the family always comes home to a hot dinner, the patient never dies. Because that’s just not real. And frankly, I don’t like being told when to laugh.
January 30, 2008 at 10:01 am
I do not think the sitcom is dead. For that matter, I don’t think the traditional multi-camera, laught track filled sitcom is dead. Personally, I hope the future of the multi-cam sitcom is not Hannah Montana, however, it is the number one teen show on television. If the only major old sitcoms were on Disney, I might consider the old sitcom dead. However, CBS still has old style sitcoms as well with shows like Two and a Half Men and the Big Bang Theory. Now, whatever oppinions people may have over those shows quality, they are popular and supprisingly old fashioned. I think that multi camera shows make people feel safe and happy. With the exception of the end of that multi camera episode of Scrubs, multi camera sitcoms make people comfortable. I think that blaming the format for the staleness of sitcoms is like the argument that hand drawn animation is the reason that “Home on the Range” stunk. Multi Camera Sitcoms will return.
Now, even if the Multicamera sitcom was dying, the sitcom in general is not. The sitcom name tend to envelop all television comedys (including Scrubs) and to claim that one of the two masks of drama will be eased out of television is odd. People have predicted the sitcom before and will again. The simple fact is that comedy seems to work better than drama in the half hour format and half hours are easier to schedual (especially for syndication). People are more likely to stop and watch a half hour show in the middle of the day on a whim than an hour show (talk shows are appointment viewing for many people). I do think the sitcom will change, but that is because everything changes in television. TV today looks and sounds different. However, the basic types of shows remains almost the same. I don’t think that will change.
January 30, 2008 at 11:30 am
The sitcom isn’t dead…it is has been in a bad car accident and is bruised real bad, perhaps a punctured lung even. But not dead. We are in a time right now without a “Sienfeld”, “Friends”, or “Will and Grace”. Instead, we have been given Survivor, The Gauntlet 3, and Big Brother 37. Reality TV has overstayed its welcome and the television industry will feel the backlash very soon. After that backlash, the shows that are all in production will have their chance to shine.
The sitcoms on television today are all brand new and have not had time to flourish yet. We all grew up when sitcoms had all been established already, we never had to deal with the cancellation and replacement of our favorite shows until recently. We watched “Friends” for 10 years and when it left, there was a void so we proclaim “sitcoms are dead!” instead of looking for a replacement. Scrubs is in its last season, leaving “The Office,” “Ugly Betty” and “30 Rock” as the three power hitters in the sitcom world. However, after watching TV last night, I’m confident that “Aliens in America” really has a fighting chance to become one of the top dogs. Truth be told, even though sitcoms have been badly beaten, syndication will live forever.
January 30, 2008 at 12:53 pm
The sitcom today is behaving like the average teenage child. And we are the tired and weary parents and relatives. We moan and groan about how cute and fun they were when they were younger and how they have changed so much, for better or for worse. What I am trying to get at with this rather obscure comparison is that the sitcom is evolving. It’s format is changing, its audience is changing, even the content is changing. But this change doesn’t mean that we have lost sitcoms forever.
I completely agree with what Ken Levine mentions about sitcom syndication. While surfing through channels a while ago, I noticed that Everybody Loves Raymond airs at about 5:30, Friends airs from 6 to 7, Two and a Half Men airs from 7 to 8. Seinfeld comes on at 10pm and reruns of Scrubs air at 10:30. (All these shows air on different channels.) This just goes to show the massive appeal the sitcom has today. And this appeal of sitcoms extends over American boundaries. Friends, Raymond, Seinfeld and Scrubs are some of the most popular shows in India even today. I don’t think the networks would want to give up this money making genre. I think that the networks have just found an easier way out with Reality T.V., but eventually they will return to the sitcom.
Going back to the point about the fact that sitcoms are changing. Ror the most part, the laugh track is gone and shows are moving more towards single camera formats. I agree with Stephanie again about the new concept of “dramedies”. In Scrubs the patient doesn’t always survive and everything isn’t always going to be right in the end. Sitcoms/dramdies have taken to showing a more realistic slice of life to their audience while still retaining the apparent craziness of a traditional sitcom.
We all miss the old, classic sitcom. But the very genre of the sitcom is far from dead.
January 30, 2008 at 5:48 pm
My short answer is, yes. It is dead. Longer answer: I read an article on variety recently that said pilot season, as we know it, is dead. And, sadly, pilot season is where sitcoms are developed. Pilot season is also when networks throw absurd sums of money at many potential sitcoms, many of which either get on the air and do not become a series, or don’t go anywhere at all. And, why do that if it is cheaper to make a reality series that is successful or develop a potential lucrative series for the web?
The reason the pilot season is “dead” is because the strike has forced us to take a long hard look [finally] at where this Internet thing has taken us. Mainly, how the consumer has eaten it all up. NBC, for example, is now going to focus more on the quality of a select number of pilots that will go straight to series. So, what does this mean for scripted programming, and, if this is such a rational idea, why has making fewer pilots never occurred to anyone before?
Sitcoms tend to take longer to find their place on television, which is why they are typically not picked up automatically as series. This is not good for the televised sitcom. But, perhaps, if they are concentrating on developing quality from the start, the goods will be there from the start.
I think once this Internet thing gets a’ goin,’ most of the stuff that gets developed for the web, won’t look anything like sitcoms, but will be shorter form – more sketch comedy-like, OR the bastard child of Ask a Ninja and Lonely Girl 15, brought to you by script writers left longing for the good ole’ days of sitcoms.
January 30, 2008 at 8:43 pm
Are sitcoms dead? I think to look at that we need to look at what is on the air right now. Some of the hottest primetime shows are sitcoms: The Office, 30 Rock, My Name is Earl, Two and a Half Men, and Ugly Betty. And there are a lot of sitcoms that aren’t necessarily at the top of the ratings charts but are still stalwarts in the network’s lineups: New Adventures of Old Christine, According to Jim, How I Met Your Mother, and ‘Til Death. It’s true, sitcoms don’t dominate like they did in the past, and there aren’t any real big “Friends” or “Seinfeld” look-alikes on the horizon, but that’s not to say that there won’t be a resurgence in the genre. As has been mentioned by others, television evolves in cycles. For now, we’re in the midst of another evolution. Single-cam shows and funny dramas (more drama than comedy, so as not to be considered dramadies…) are taking over where reality is not. I think this lull in sitcoms might actually turn out to be a good thing; as things turn over here, fresh ideas and fresh situations will rise to the top, a perfect prescription for an oversaturated genre. New players will bring new ideas, new outlooks, and new blood. I think we’ll see more diverse casts, more unique situations (no more groups of post-college friends or multi-generational in-law households), and different approaches to humor. Ari Posner’s article cites Arrested Development as a “post-reality-sitcom,” a show that was cancelled before its style caught on. Arrested Development might have tried to move too quickly; however, the trending changes it helped institute haven’t been cancelled.
So, I think the sitcom is still viable, if only in small doses for now. Because the public will continue to return to sitcoms for youthful humor, for a fresh perspective, or just for 23 minutes of laughter. And frankly, as long as everybody still loves Raymond, as long as things go according to Jim, and as long as Anthony Clark can still get work, we’ll have sitcoms.
January 30, 2008 at 10:07 pm
The mere fact that the majority of hit syndicated programs (ex: Everybody Loves Raymond) are hot commodities in television proves to me that the sitcom genre is still alive. People still want to watch it, and great sitcoms have more longevity than any other television show genre. It shows in the rerun numbers, DVD sales, etc. As big as American Idol is, and as emotional a good drama can be, there is a reason why their reruns do not perform as well.
As far as today’s primetime scene goes, sitcoms are clearly not the leading genre. Even for today’s most successful sitcoms (Two and a Half Men, The Office, 30 Rock, etc.) it is an uphill battle as reality television and other genres now reign supreme. However, the aforementioned sitcoms are still doing good numbers. Some even perform good numbers in while broadcasted directly against the heavyweight dramas.
Ken Levine brings up very good points. From a network standpoint, sitcoms are generally much less expensive to produce than dramas and rerun better than reality shows. Plus, the huge success The Disney Channel and Hannah Montana is having with the primetime audience of tomorrow is more undeniable proof the sitcom genre is not dead.
I do not think I am the only human being who laughs more than he cries and/or gets surprised. It is more natural to hear or see the same funny thing again and laugh than hear or see the same dramatic moment and relive that same initial dramatic emotion again. In the cyclical world of television, will the old multi-camera sitcom format once again dominate primetime? Who knows. But I do know that whether it is single cam, multicam, laugh track or no laugh track, people will always need to laugh. People will always turn to television for that escape and release. Until all that dies, the sitcom will continue to live.
January 30, 2008 at 10:23 pm
I agree with most of the posters thus far that the sitcom as a genre is not dead, but is rather going through a structural readjustment period like the radio or newspapers did in years past. Newspapers developed in an era when there was no faster means of mass-communication available and once broadcast mediums became available it shifted into a new niche. There are still good newspapers around like the New York Times, Wall Street Journal or the Boston Globe just like there are still good sitcoms like 30 Rock or the Office, however what is clear is that both mediums have passed their primes. Like newspapers, sitcoms are a product of the era in which the emerged. Since there were only three viable networks, it was advantageous to put out inoffensive programming and play to the lowest common denominator. Occasionally, edgy sitcoms did break through such as All in the Family, but the large majority of sitcoms were rather mindless.
As Ken Levine points out, the economics of the television industry will ensure that the sitcom will always have a place, but in the age of cable and satellite the sitcom has reached a point of fundamental contradiction which no show has yet reconciled. Because of the proliferation of available channels, viewers now have the option of hundreds of shows to watch at any given moment and are no longer confined to watching the least objectionable show. This has forced shows to choose between critical acclaim and mindless appeal.
As much as we (snobbish college students) lavish praise upon 30 Rock or the Office, they cannot break the top 20 in ratings. However, the only sitcom to break into last week’s top 20 was Two and a Half Men, a rather low brow show. It seems to be the fate of intelligent, ground-breaking shows like Futurama or Arrested Development to be prematurely cancelled since they cannot attract the masses of uncultured rubes that are watching television at any given time and forced onto nighttime slots on cable channels.
The last show which was able ride the fine line of broad-based appeal and cutting-edge humor was the Simpson’s. However, the Simpson’s was the beneficiary of extraordinary circumstances in that debuted on a young channel willing to take chances – fox – yet it was still developed under the old network regime which allowed them to attract a staggering amount of writing talent. The Simpson’s has since slid in quality and the ratings and no show has been able stepped in to fill the void.
For the foreseeable future it seems that any innovative sitcom will be doomed to ratings purgatory, only to be posthumously rewarded with syndication and DVD sales.
January 30, 2008 at 10:31 pm
When I was a kid I used to love Saturday morning cartoons. The X-men, Looney Tunes, The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and the various incarnations of Transformers were my favorites. As I got older I started needing creative excuses for why I was still watching Saturday morning cartoons. When I realized my best excuse was, “I’m not watching cartoons,” I started feeling ashamed of myself and began sleeping in.
I recently decided to get up one Saturday with my brother while I was home for a weekend and watched some of the Saturday morning programming (Ok, that’s just another creative excuse). It was sitcom after god-awful sitcom. Hannah Montana, starring the daughter of Billy-Ray F’ing Cyrus, has become one of the most popular saturday morning shows. It’s been 15 years and I’m still trying to figure out how Achy Breaky Heart made Mr. Cyrus famous so contemplating his daughters fame is like eating a rock. There’s also a show starring Raven Symone, the former cute little Olivia from The Cosby Show. This trend goes back to Nickelodeon shows like Salute Your Shorts and Hey Dude, not the trend of annoying stars but of child targeted sitcoms.
The point is sitcoms aren’t dead. It’s much much worse. They’re attacking our children and feeding off their wee-little brains.
And don’t forget the super-awesome sitcoms on the cable networks. Reba McEntire has a sitcom and there are tons of sitcoms aimed at minorities.
That’s not to say that sitcoms will thrive in the future or that they aren’t “dying”. The internet is certainly a threat to the sustainability of traditional sitcoms so they need to evolve if they are to survive. The Office, Arrested Development and My Name is Earl are all sitcoms minus the traditional, overdone feel so I would say that’s a sign of evolution. Although, the evolved sitcom would technically be a different genre closely related to Sitcoms, so my point is pointless.
Liz’s point about pilot seasons is great and informative. The only thing I’d sort of like to counter with… well, it’s more of a spin on it I guess… is to say that in the case of sitcoms Quality and Marketability are very different. Most sitcoms on TV right now seem predictable and bland. If I watch a sitcom it’s usually to admire a particular actor’s performance. Patrick Warburton is hilarious despite the show he’s on. I don’t think Two and a Half Men is of particularly great quality aside from set design and some of the acting, but it’s certainly marketable.
Anyways, my main point is that the glory days of the sitcom are over but they’ll always have a space. Other than that though it’s not looking to good for sitcoms. If they do die entirely, it will be a long drawn out death and it will be fun to watch what people come up with to try to resuscitate it. Maybe they’ll go back to talking horses, genies and Michael J. Fox.
January 30, 2008 at 11:10 pm
The sitcom in the traditional sense is not dead, but may be in a coma. When we look to the airwaves for funny, the shows that we are primarily turning to are single camera, filmed shows. Yes, there are multicam remnants, some of which are still popular (e.g. the CBS Monday night which are all Chuck Lorre productions, as well as reruns of Everybody Loves Raymond). However, when viewed in comparison, the multicam shows are just less visually interesting.
What does that mean for the sitcom? First I believe it just means that they are maturing. These shows are more interesting in the writing, character development, and general feel. The “awkward pause” is possible in single cam because there is no audience to fill the void with laughter or some other gesture. Second, the sitcom had to go this route because reality TV has more than filled American’s appetite for plotless, characterless stories. Before reality clogged the schedule, a meaningless, predictable sitcom could have thrived. Do you think that something in the Full House vein would have survived today? I am leaning toward no.
Finally, I would also like to say that Liz’s point is both important and valid. When pilots go, so do sitcoms. That is bothersome.
January 30, 2008 at 11:29 pm
We must look at sitcoms’ past history before we predict the future. Sitcoms existed on radio before television reached the average Americans. When television emerged, radio sitcoms were literally transferred onscreen. As time went on, new methods and ideas were born, and pushed sitcoms to a new level. Sitcoms did not die because television invaded the radio audiences. Sitcoms simply took on a different form.
When motion pictures came to existence, the theatre was seen as a thing of the past, but years later, we still enjoy Broadway musicals and great plays such as Hamlet. I can ramble on and on about other examples of something new doesn’t always replace something old. Most of the times, the medium is simply different.
Even in the past, sitcoms have been evolving to meet the needs of the audience. They do occasionally fall out of favor here and there, but they survived. As a testimony to its existence, sitcoms have passed through two media forms and still exist today.
I’m not stating whether sitcoms are good or bad, but sitcoms are not dead, yet. Sitcoms appeal to human nature, and touch the audience profoundly. Sitcoms are not dead until they stop moving the audience emotionally. Something about a sitcom that grabs the audience, and that is the means of existence. Overall, sitcoms are merely reflections of everyday life, the pain, the joy, the drama…etc.
January 30, 2008 at 11:35 pm
Like a lot of you on here, I do not believe that the sitcom is dead. I believe a better way to describe it would be to say “the sitcom is lost.” Take a look at the sitcoms that premiered this season:
- “Back to You” – a workplace sitcom about two anchors who hate each other but have a child together;
- “Cavemen” – a show based off of COMMERCIALS (let’s say that again), A SHOW BASED OFF OF COMMERCIALS
- “Carpoolers” – a sitcom about guys who talk about their lives on their way to work.
Wow! These ideas are so original. How in God’s name could someone ever say that the sitcom is dead? It’s because these shows lack originality and they’re really not that funny. What Ken Levine’s assistant said is completely true, “America just wants to laugh.” When networks come out with shows like the ones I mentioned, of course people will think sitcoms as we know them are dead because they’re not funny! Yes, shows like “Scrubs” and “30 Rock” don’t pull in huge numbers, but at least they are being creative and trying out new things (I would love to talk to whoever says that Tina Fey’s jabs at product placement aren’t funny). This reminds me of Disney’s decision to stop making 2D-animation movies and focus more on Pixar films because the prior were not moneymakers anymore. Do you know why? Was it because people grew tired of 2D movies because 3D movies were obviously better? No, it’s because the writing on the Pixar films were so much better than what was going on with the 2D films. This goes directly with what Levine, “yeah, the bad, stale, family sitcom with tired rhythms, forced laughs, and bogus characters is dead … thank goodness. But the genre perseveres.” People will always want to laugh. The sitcom will go through cycles of highs and lows until it finds its feet again, and then we’ll see who’s still calling it dead.
January 31, 2008 at 12:57 am
Not enough people are disagreeing, so I’m going to disagree with …. Sarah, and all the others that talked about the cycles that television programming goes through. Those are great points, and you touched on how the sitcom survived from radio to TV — survived through times of GREAT dramas (HBO). But now it’s a time where we’re transitioning to a more powerful medium than ever, the internet. It’s been around for a while but only recently has it been considered a competition to cable and satellite TV. Radio saws it’s doomsday when TV became popular in the 50’s — it’s still suffering through a long and painful death — mass media purgatory if you will (thanks Shawn). Looking at the past it kind of makes sense that TV is going to thin out as a mass medium and the internet is going to rise above. Users will have even more selectivity than TiVO can give them. Things will be very different and who’s to say if the sitcom will survive. I think I’d agree with Shawn that it will eventually join Radio somewhere between earth and heaven.. or earth and hell if you consider some of the sitcoms on air today.
I’m really not that pessimistic, just wanted to stir a convo. But I do think we have to plan for huge changes in the content that we provide to consumers in the future.
January 31, 2008 at 12:58 am
The sitcom isn’t dead, it has simply had a facelift. A lot of TV series production has moved from the multi-cam, live audience, 3-walled sets that we so closely associate with sitcoms, to single-cam, closed set dramadies. Most successful network comedies have abandoned the old school conventions for this single-cam style which requires more preparation but rewards more freedom.
Sitcoms used to be a chance for people to gather their families around the tube and spend good old, wholesome, quality time. While that might not have always happened, the refined content allowed it to. Today, however, the overall tone of programming is becoming increasingly more explicit. Whether you agree with the graphic turn the dialogue and sexual scenes have taken, you can’t possibly blame the content creators. In today’s entertainment market, everything is easily accessible. If the audience wants cinematic quality, they can easily “turn the dial” to one of their pay channels. If the networks aren’t providing the quality the audience desires they will be left in the dust.
January 31, 2008 at 12:59 am
I have to agree with Jessie ALlis in the Sepinwall article: it doesn’t matter how its shot.
I don’t think the public is sophisticated enough–well, I mean educated enough in the field of television as producers–to really know or notice the difference between a single cam and multicam show. And it doesn’t matter. If it’s funny and well written it will survive. This seems like a really obvious point, I know.
When I talk about TV shows with my peers, most of what we enjoy and talk about seems to be comedy. Admittedly, I am a huge fan of House MD, and the reason I am pointing this out, other than the fact that I love it, is that though it’s not technically a sitcom, it shares some of the same qualities. It’s funny, it has recurring characters and is generally taking place in the same setting. My point is that the demand for comedy isn’t going to go away.
While I think that laugh tracks are kind of stale, they still do work in some situations. (And some shows NEED them because the only way they’ll get a laugh is by someone instinctively laughing because they hear laughing…) Comedy is always changing a little bit, though, certain material becomes more acceptable to talk about/laugh about. I find The Sarah Silverman Program–though admittedly not every episode is golden–to be pretty innovative, in the least because of the topics they talk about and the really modern way in which they talk about them.
The other reason I think the sitcom isn’t going to go away is because pretty much all of what I hear people quoting is from comedies. Repeating jokes is a PAST-TIME…and quoting sitcoms is light enough that it brings people together and establishes common ground. The “Stop The Hearse!” article by Kevin Levine brings this up, too–_Friends_ does really well in syndication… Sitcoms become kind of like a way of life. Not a philosophy necessarily, but a common ground. To be well versed in a show’s dialogue (etc), will ensure that you can relate to people in the real world.
January 31, 2008 at 1:06 am
One more thing–to clarify–what I meant by sitcoms being a “way of life”, I was half kidding. What I am saying is that people like to related to characters and their situations and the comedy in those situations. I love sketch comedy, but I think it’s more temporal, and I think people like get to know their characters.
January 31, 2008 at 11:10 am
I feel it is important to note that the “dramady” is not new. For evidence, please consult almost any later episode of Mash.
February 5, 2008 at 4:45 pm
The sitcom is a dying breed. It’s a simplified, mind numbing experience that is polluting our ideas about television. It is certainly, in its simplest form, a mode of entertainment and advertising, and is even crafted to work for the viewer with a small attention span. However, television shows are evolving into more complex organisms and only the strong will survive.
Sitcoms are becoming more or less extinct in the world of mainstream network and basic cable channels. It is being replaced with reality television and more cinematic styled (single cam, hybrid cam) shows that resemble film narrative more closely than any tv sitcom. The sitcoms are designed with lower intelligence in mind. They’re not there to stimulate the mind or to ask questions or give answers, it’s simply filler between commercials. Their success lies in the fact that that is what most people want from television; simple entertainment where you can turn your brain off for an hour or two and just get sucked in. Television is changing into a environment of intelligence and purpose, following the path of HBO and Showtime. Film is one of the best story telling mediums and television is simply miniature version of this, or at least it should be. It obviously can’t create the same experience that a film in a theater or even un your home can create, but if its content begins to rival that of film, there is a chance for sitcoms to finally die out. Sitcoms still do exist in great numbers, specifically on the Disney Channel. However, consider the audience. It’s simple, unintelligent programming for simple, unintelligent people. This is no way that we should imagine our kids because they will of course grow up into us one day, so why are we feeding them that crap? I may be asking too much to change the program schedule of Disney, but if that’s where it has to stay for the rest of television to change, so be it. Sorry, kids, we’ll save you in a few years.
February 5, 2008 at 4:46 pm
PS – I realize this is super late, so sorry, but here it is anyway.
May 12, 2008 at 2:25 am
I disagree that sitcoms are dead and even though critics keep announcing “the death of the sitcom” I’m currently doing a media exam based on sit coms. If they were dead then why would we learn about them? Also on weekday mornings channel 4 show sitcom after sitcom eg. just shoot me, fraiser, will and grace – which if ive missed my school bus is incredibly enjoyable and uplifting to watch (even if i have seen them once or twice before). Although the genre is slightly changing as it has done in previous decades, i think that now its changing to target smaller, cult audiences eg. The Mighty Boosh, which my friends are obsessed about. This is also due to the fact of more channels to choose from, so they cant target a large audience simply because its just not possible.
To conclude i definatley dont think the sitcom is dead, just evolving – just like everything else has to. On a couple of occassions i have stayed in on a friday night to watch Ugly Betty instead of going out, i love it. And although i am young i absolutely loathe sitcoms based at children like hannah montanna and thats so raven, they look cheap and dont make me laugh. (it may have something to do with how American they are as well)