TVSquad

Come and gone. It's a victim of very weak writing when modern day television audiences expect characters and stories with depth. If someone could write a funny weekly series (I won't use the word "sitcom"; the "situation comedy" is an underwhelming idea, I think) with depth, it could be successful.

Or something like Chuck, an hour-long farce that combines drama and comedy elements, all in the name of having a good time. (The really, really hot babes help, too!)

Then again, Two and a Half Men has stuck around for quite a while. But perhaps it's because the acting troupe is so strong.

Reply

Everything is cyclical. Some of the audience will want depth in their comedy, others prefer it shallow. Some want their comedy to be challening, others like it simple and direct. Some like character development, others like characters who deliver catchphrases for a laugh.

Some people like comfortable, like the people who order the same mass-produced beer every single time. Others like to try new things and after suffering through some lousy beers may find that one beer that's better than any they've ever tasted. I think more people fall into the former category, which explains why According To Jim outlasted Arrested Development.

Look at how poorly Cheers did in its first season. Look at how Seinfeld barely made it to air in the first place. Look at how According To Jim lasted seven or eight years.

Bottom line: Nobody knows what's going to be a hit and what won't. There's room for every kind of entertainment, and network programmers don't care any more if they've come up with the next 30 Rock or the next Cop Rock, as long as the show can make money.

Reply

This genre of "family entertainment" was fine when there were few TV channels. Advertisers had to target children AND their parents. As cable became widespread, TV shows have started targeting smaller and smaller niches.

For example, Disney Channel has had huge success with Hannah Montana, Suite Life and Wizards or Waverly Place. What's the big secret? These shows are run by a lot of the team behind ABC's TGIF sitcoms in the 1990s.

Instead of having sitcoms aimed for children to be passed off as "family entertainment", the producers are producing series aimed just for kids. Since these shows are on cable, they have a smaller budget than broadcast, and have been highly successful.

ABC is being quite ambitious with their programming of a 2 hour sitcom block on Wednesday nights this fall. If any of them make it to 100 episodes, there is big money to be made.

However, this is what I propose. These major studios should launch sitcoms on their cable properties, letting them grow an audience. Once they hit 100 episodes, package them for syndication on over the air broadcast stations. It has worked for Sex and the City and South Park. However, these shows weren't designed to be stripped like Two and a Half Men was.

Reply

I agree that things are cyclical, but it makes me worry that a previous creator is at the wheel again. Look at Ruby and the Rockits--family sitcom that belongs way back when. I'm not saying they'd all fall prey to that, but I think we need a fresh perspective on the family sitcom, and while I enjoyed Home Improvement, I just wonder whether they would have the fresh angle.

Reply

I welcome the return of the family sitcom. I would also like to see the return of the serial western.

Reply

The family sitcom has migrated to the cable networks, and is alive and well. We really enjoy the Bill Engvall Show, if you want you can consider that an expansion of his comedy act.
I'd like soemthing more than CSI and Law and Order as choices at night.

Reply