Mostly, yeah, but then again genuinely funny ones were always rare.
Worse (in terms of sitcoms as a genre) they almost never stand up to time. And that’s where some of the older ones have an advantage. Survivor bias. The shitty ones aren’t in syndication any more. So we only see maybe the top ten percent of all of them with any regularity.
But it is damn hard to come up with the right combo of writers, cast, and zeitgeist. Look at the Dick van Dyke show as an example. Some of the best comedic actors in the business all in one place, with the best writers or the era, making a show that is about a situation that’s damn near immortal because it focused on core segments of life. Because of that, even the less acceptable humor (and it never went bad) is easy to shrug off.
Since the executives in charge production are a product of decades of cynicism and money only thinking (it was almost always money first, but that is different), they take no risks, and want mostly reheated dreck. That’s never a good foundation for comedy. It has to happen by accident when that constrained.
That being said, it does happen from time to time. While I’m not a sitcom fan, and not into it, always sunny manages to work for most people because they’re willing to keep riding absurdity so that they don’t need a real sense of continuity. There was the office (which, again, isn’t my thing) that was one of those perfect storms of on-screen and off talent being allowed to go ham in a situation that is damn near universal in scope for its target area. Even if you haven’t been stuck in an office, you likely know someone that has. It makes the jokes hit better, and the ones that don’t can get carried by the cast’s talent.
But, yeah, I don’t think the current era is good for sitcoms. The old networks are running scared and chasing an old paradigm. The steamers are past the point of throwing money and seeing what sticks. The audience is spread out even more than the cable dominated era. It’s hard to justify a non proven formula, and formulas don’t work as well as they used to
One problem everyone is facing–from music to TV to movies to books to videogames–is people have accessto the full history of awesome media. Who is going to watch a new TV show these days when they could be watching The Wire, Game of Thrones, Mad Men, ALF, The Sopranos, Breaking Bad, etc. for the first time?
I’d say it’s here that sitcoms have a real chance to shine, because, as you’ve said, most sitcoms have not aged well–the aforementioned ALF being a notable example–and even an ephemeral modern sitcom can compete in that space.
Survivor bias is definitely a major factor here - I can vaguely remember at least a dozen sitcoms from my childhood and early adulthood that didn’t survive (or got soft-rebooted into something better).
Mostly, yeah, but then again genuinely funny ones were always rare.
Worse (in terms of sitcoms as a genre) they almost never stand up to time. And that’s where some of the older ones have an advantage. Survivor bias. The shitty ones aren’t in syndication any more. So we only see maybe the top ten percent of all of them with any regularity.
But it is damn hard to come up with the right combo of writers, cast, and zeitgeist. Look at the Dick van Dyke show as an example. Some of the best comedic actors in the business all in one place, with the best writers or the era, making a show that is about a situation that’s damn near immortal because it focused on core segments of life. Because of that, even the less acceptable humor (and it never went bad) is easy to shrug off.
Since the executives in charge production are a product of decades of cynicism and money only thinking (it was almost always money first, but that is different), they take no risks, and want mostly reheated dreck. That’s never a good foundation for comedy. It has to happen by accident when that constrained.
That being said, it does happen from time to time. While I’m not a sitcom fan, and not into it, always sunny manages to work for most people because they’re willing to keep riding absurdity so that they don’t need a real sense of continuity. There was the office (which, again, isn’t my thing) that was one of those perfect storms of on-screen and off talent being allowed to go ham in a situation that is damn near universal in scope for its target area. Even if you haven’t been stuck in an office, you likely know someone that has. It makes the jokes hit better, and the ones that don’t can get carried by the cast’s talent.
But, yeah, I don’t think the current era is good for sitcoms. The old networks are running scared and chasing an old paradigm. The steamers are past the point of throwing money and seeing what sticks. The audience is spread out even more than the cable dominated era. It’s hard to justify a non proven formula, and formulas don’t work as well as they used to
One problem everyone is facing–from music to TV to movies to books to videogames–is people have accessto the full history of awesome media. Who is going to watch a new TV show these days when they could be watching The Wire, Game of Thrones, Mad Men, ALF, The Sopranos, Breaking Bad, etc. for the first time?
I’d say it’s here that sitcoms have a real chance to shine, because, as you’ve said, most sitcoms have not aged well–the aforementioned ALF being a notable example–and even an ephemeral modern sitcom can compete in that space.
True. Mad Men is not centered around physical violence.
LOL!
Survivor bias is definitely a major factor here - I can vaguely remember at least a dozen sitcoms from my childhood and early adulthood that didn’t survive (or got soft-rebooted into something better).