# Sitcoms - over?



## jilter (Oct 4, 2002)

I believe with PaR ending, the sitcom as we know it may officially be dead. 
What is there? While still enjoyable 
- MF is getting predictable and not as funny as it once was, IMO. Almost every new sitcom this last season was cancelled before given any chance. There is no motivation for a production company to assemble a cast, a quality writing staff, and develop a show knowing full well the lights are likely to be turned off before an audience is found. If an audience is found, the cast demands a fortune to continue, causing the network to cut the amount of episodes it is willing to order. 
Very little at this point that is worthy of recording and watching. I hope something turns this around.


----------



## Alfer (Aug 7, 2003)

You must have totally missed watching "Fresh off the Boat" and The Goldberg's, both are (IMO) quality "sitcoms". Last I checked there are a handful of these shows that are big in ratings still on....Big Bang...Mom...Blackish etc.


----------



## jschuman (Feb 20, 2001)

My family really enjoys The Middle.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

There's always going on
a few very good sitcoms 
a few more decent sitcoms
1 season crappy sitcoms

always plenty of those every chunk of years


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

I gave up on all sitcomes, including Modern Family. We're watching Jane the Virgin. But since it's an hour long show, it's more like a dramedy.

And there's only a handful of network shows I watch. JTV, Empire, The Bachelor, Survivor, Shark Tank, Agent Carter to name a very few.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

gossamer88 said:


> I gave up on all sitcomes, including Modern Family. We're watching Jane the Virgin. But since it's an hour long show, it's more like a dramedy.
> 
> And there's only a handful of network shows I watch. JTV, Empire, The Bachelor, Survivor, Shark Tank, Agent Carter to name a very few.


Outside of BBT and Parks and Rec, I don't think there are any sitcoms I really watch

I'd rather rewatch Better Off Ted again and again than semi-crappy sitcoms


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

Undateable


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

There are still a good number of decent sitcoms. I agree they are too quick to kill them, though... IMO sitcoms take longer to "gel" than other types of shows. I know Bad Judge didn't get much love here, for example, but I really liked it.

For things still around, Brooklyn 99 is very good, Sirens is excellent. BBT is often funny. blackish is usually very funny. I still like MF most of the time. I've only seen one "Fresh off the Boat" but it was not bad.


----------



## TonyTheTiger (Dec 22, 2006)

The Odd Couple starts tonight, sandwiched between new episodes of BBT and the finale of 2.5 Men.

I don't hold out too much hope, but I'll give it a look.

Problem is finding a good premise without being cliche. Most new comedies are about dating, sex, family or other well-worn situations. IMO, BBT was successful because it's different and, although a little 'smart Friends'-like, often comes up with new socially awkward scenarios.

The recipe for a good sitcom is much harder to perfect than a good cop procedural or drama.


----------



## tlc (May 30, 2002)

I think the best ones on are:

The Goldbergs
Episodes
Brooklyn Nine Nine
But these are still very watchable:

The Middle
Modern Family
Do these qualify?

Bob's Burgers
Archer


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

2 Broke Girls

Sure, it's rude and crude. But I think it's funny. It doesn't try to make any real serious statements about anything


Brooklyn Nine Nine is great too.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

I was skipping animated shows but

Bob's Burgers is probably my favorite comedy on TV. 
Always loved H. Jon Benjamin!
Dr. Katz, Home Movies, and now Bob's Burgers
GOLD


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

TonyTheTiger said:


> The Odd Couple starts tonight, sandwiched between new episodes of BBT and the finale of 2.5 Men.
> 
> I don't hold out too much hope, but I'll give it a look.


Someone else here mentioned that they should have Patrick Warburton and David Hyde Pierce in the two roles. I would have looked forward to that pairing.


----------



## Bob Coxner (Dec 1, 2004)

madscientist said:


> There are still a good number of decent sitcoms. I agree they are too quick to kill them, though... IMO sitcoms take longer to "gel" than other types of shows. I know Bad Judge didn't get much love here, for example, but I really liked it.
> 
> For things still around, Brooklyn 99 is very good, Sirens is excellent. BBT is often funny. blackish is usually very funny. I still like MF most of the time. I've only seen one "Fresh off the Boat" but it was not bad.


It bugs me how little attention Sirens gets. I think it's one of the funniest shows on tv at the moment.

Also, all of the above comments are regarding network tv. The list of good to great sitcoms on cable/premiums is lengthy. Broad City, It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, The League, Workaholics, Portlandia, Episodes, Veep, Web Therapy, Hot in Cleveland, etc. That's without counting the numerous excellent animated sitcoms like Archer, Rick & Morty, South Park and so on.


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

MikeMar said:


> I'd rather rewatch Better Off Ted again and again than semi-crappy sitcoms


I totally miss BOT, time to grab my copies and toss them on my phone to watch at the gym on the elliptical again. It's sad that it didn't become a hit, I have to suspect it was just too smart for its own good.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

Sitcoms on NBC are over. It really is a shame since they brought us lots of quality shows. I still watch Big Bang, Mom, Mike & Molly, 2 Broke Girls, Modern Family, Fresh Off the Boat, Brooklyn 99, New Girl, & Mindy Project, but none of those have the same feel of NBC's past successes. Cable & premium shows will need to fill the void.


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

TonyTheTiger said:


> The Odd Couple starts tonight, sandwiched between new episodes of BBT and the finale of 2.5 Men.


Ooooh thanks for the reminder.


----------



## TIVO_GUY_HERE (Jul 10, 2000)

realityboy said:


> Sitcoms on NBC are over. It really is a shame since they brought us lots of quality shows. I still watch Big Bang, Mom, Mike & Molly, 2 Broke Girls, Modern Family, Fresh Off the Boat, Brooklyn 99, New Girl, & Mindy Project, but none of those have the same feel of NBC's past successes. Cable & premium shows will need to fill the void.


Showtimes "Episodes" is (IMO) one of the best on the air right now.


----------



## mwhip (Jul 22, 2002)

jschuman said:


> My family really enjoys The Middle.


We will see if it will be on next year. Apparently all the actors deals expire at the end of this season and ABC is notorious for not extending them until they have been picked up. Well the actor who plays the oldest son took a job on another pilot. Sure he could be easily written out if that pilot gets picked up but the show would not be exactly the same.


----------



## mwhip (Jul 22, 2002)

tlc said:


> I think the best ones on are:
> 
> The Goldbergs
> Episodes
> ...


Do you watch anything besides terrestrial TV? LOL

I would suggest:

Silicone Valley
You're The Worst
It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Black-ish.


----------



## kettledrum (Nov 17, 2003)

The only sitcoms we watch are BBT, Parks & Rec, and the Goldbergs. 

I asked my wife if she wanted me to record the Odd Couple and she said Meh.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

jilter said:


> I believe with PaR ending, the sitcom as we know it may officially be dead.


Well, I don't watch P&R, so I guess the sitcom was already dead to me.

On OTA, I watch 2BG, M&M, BBT, 2.5M (farewell!), Goldbergs, MF, B99. B99 is probably my favorite.

I watch a bunch of cable sitcoms/dramadies, too many to bore you with, but a couple of highlights: Episodes (best cable sitcom around), Sirens, Vice, yada yada.

Nope, not dead yet.

BTW, I've read 3-4 reviews for The Odd Couple, and they ranged from "absolute dreck", to "who do I sue for that waste of time". I have yet to see a decent review. Yeah, I'll try it, but it's starting on thin ice. Coincidentally, I watch the original movie about a month ago, I had forgotten how funny it was. Sure a little dated, but laugh-out-loud funny.


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

This thread has a very odd premise, one low rated sitcom (that I love) is ending so sitcoms are dead ? Despite quite a few really popular sitcoms being on the air right now.


----------



## bruinfan (Jan 17, 2006)

mindy project is the best written sitcom on tv.

modern family a very close second, but has better actors/characters.
i like veep too.
i enjoy BBT, brooklyn99.

i miss happy endings.


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

I don't consider most of these, sitcoms


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

It wouldn't be the first time somebody wrote an obituary for sitcoms. The final episode of The Cosby Show began with a caption that said something like, "The TV situation comedy is dead - TV executive (since fired).")

Show styles come and go, mainly because one show becomes a hit and the other networks think, "Hey, we can do that too!", then, years later, "Nobody is watching these any more, but they're watching those, so let's make more of those!" Remember when "nighttime soaps" were big? Where are they now?

I believe that there will always be network sitcoms, for no other reason that there will always be a need to air them in local syndication. Remember when shows that were a decade or more old were popular in local syndication? Now, it's hard to find anything besides Modern Family or The Big Bang Theory.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

pdhenry said:


> Someone else here mentioned that they should have Patrick Warburton and David Hyde Pierce in the two roles. I would have looked forward to that pairing.


Niles Crane and Jeff Bingham as roommates would be hilarious.



mwhip said:


> We will see if it will be on next year. Apparently all the actors deals expire at the end of this season and ABC is notorious for not extending them until they have been picked up. Well the actor who plays the oldest son took a job on another pilot. Sure he could be easily written out if that pilot gets picked up but the show would not be exactly the same.


When an actor takes a pilot gig like that while already under contract for another show, the pilot gig is in second position, and everyone knows that the first job will have the option to keep the actor and the pilot will have to recast.

Network sitcoms I currently watch:

Parks & Rec (RIP)
New Girl
About a Boy
Marry Me
Fresh Off the Boat
Modern Family
Black-ish
Big Bang Theory
Two and a Half Men
Undateable
The Simpsons
Family Guy
Bob's Burgers

I also liked recently launched and canceled Enlisted, Selfie, and Bad Judge. A to Z was not as good.

Premium/Cable sitcoms I watch:

Silicon Valley
Veep
The League
You're the Worst
Married
Louie (not sure this is a sitcom)
Togetherness (not sure this is a sitcom)
Community
Cougar Town
Archer
American Dad

I also enjoyed the recently canceled Benched.


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

Bob Coxner said:


> It bugs me how little attention Sirens gets. I think it's one of the funniest shows on tv at the moment.


Sirens is one of our favorites! It is very funny!

I also watch lots of the ones mentioned in this thread as being good. I don't see sitcoms being dead at all.


----------



## Howie (May 3, 2004)

Things just haven't been the same since Dobie Gillis went off the air.


----------



## spartanstew (Feb 24, 2002)

Mine:

The Goldbergs
Modern Family
New Girl
Cougar Town
Brooklyn Nine-Nine
About a Boy
Sirens
Married
You're the Worst
Welcome to Sweden
Marry Me
Simpsons

I don't think the genre is over.


----------



## midas (Jun 1, 2000)

MikeMar said:


> I was skipping animated shows but
> 
> Bob's Burgers is probably my favorite comedy on TV.
> Always loved H. Jon Benjamin!
> ...


Then you really need to check out Archer. I didn't think I'd like it based on the promos, but someone insisted I give it a try. I ended up binge watching the first 5 seasons in just a few days.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

This trope - the "demise of the sitcom" - is as annual and predictable as the "SNL isn't what it used to be". 

Sitcoms that I watch and enjoy:

Parks & Rec (RIP)
New Girl
Marry Me
Modern Family
Black-ish
Big Bang Theory
The Mindy Project

I've heard good things about Fresh Off The Boat, so I need to check that one out. 

Premium/Cable sitcoms I watch:

Silicon Valley
The League
You're the Worst
Married
Togetherness (not sure this is a sitcom)
Community
Man Seeking Woman

I need to check out Veep and Louie - I just don't have time normally.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

astrohip said:


> Well, I don't watch P&R, so I guess the sitcom was already dead to me.
> 
> On OTA, I watch 2BG, M&M, BBT, 2.5M (farewell!), Goldbergs, MF, B99. B99 is probably my favorite.
> 
> ...


The NYT actually gave it a decent review.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

So the OP's favorite sitcom or two is coming to an end so the sitcom is dead? Based on the ratings for MF and TBBT alone I'd say not even close. I watch at least 6-7 sitcoms on network TV probably 3-4 more on cable. So at least for me, it's far from dead.


----------



## spartanstew (Feb 24, 2002)

spartanstew said:


> Mine:
> 
> The Goldbergs
> Modern Family
> ...


If I compare that to the sitcoms I watched in 1995 (for example):

Newsradio
Cybil
Ned and Stacey
Drew Carey
Almost Perfect
The Single Guy
Caroline in the City
The Naked Truth
Simpsons

I'd say sitcoms are more alive now than 20 years ago (at least for me).


----------



## mike_k (Sep 20, 2005)

Bob Coxner said:


> It bugs me how little attention Sirens gets. I think it's one of the funniest shows on tv at the moment.


 I really like Sirens, I just can't record it since it's a little too risqué for my kids to watch.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

jilter said:


> I believe with PaR ending, the sitcom as we know it may officially be dead.


Or not.
Probably not.

I don't like any current sitcoms other than PaR and that's ending so the genre must be dead. Really?
Basing this all on your personal tastes rather than on any actual evidence is hilarious. Whether MF is predictable or not isn't really relevant. People are still watching so advertisers are still paying and it's still winning the Emmy every year for outstanding comedy series. Fwiw, MF has always been predictable.

I don't like cop shows or hospital shows, so I guess they're officially dead too.


----------



## chunkybug (Oct 24, 2011)

IMHO

It's all relative to what you perceive to watch..


So are sitcoms dead on the major networks (abc,nbc,fox,cbs)

Maybe so but this is what i think...


I do only OTA and my HTPC


Which is better than any other platform to beat by far...


Been a TV Junkie since the concept of Replay TV..


Dishplayer Webtv UltimateTV AOL TV

I enjoy watching what I like and Time shifting

Maybe not what the standard is but after a long run with STBoxes from many since Replay Tivo is the best for OTA


I get over 80 channels OTA with Premiere ATL area. Granted out of the 80 or so channels I get I only record the main..

HTPC and Tivo ota makes alot of tv

My only problem that I have is switching from PC to Tivo which is no real big deal..

but that does not limit me to what i can do with my HTPC as I watch everything that I like

HTPC and Tivo OTA is a great thing since OTA is by far the best pic ..No compression 


Long Live my beloved Dishplayer as by far it had the best program guide 


Kev


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

midas said:


> Then you really need to check out Archer. I didn't think I'd like it based on the promos, but someone insisted I give it a try. I ended up binge watching the first 5 seasons in just a few days.


Oh love Archer, but always forget to include it, kinda has a different vibe than the other 3


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

realityboy said:


> Sitcoms on NBC are over.


I think these both are basically cancelled, and even I think they're worse than many others mentioned in this thread, but I like "About a Boy" and to a lesser degree "Marry Me".


----------



## leswar (Apr 14, 2005)

Anybody watching Schitt's Creek?


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

Don't worry, it's his sister.

Hilarious punchline for the episode but I actually just deleted the season pass because I don't have time to watch everything I'd like to. The parents and mayor are great; the kids are boring.


----------



## jilter (Oct 4, 2002)

I will check out Sirens; seems to be widely liked.

For the record, I do not watch Parks & Rec (witness my bungling of the abbreviation.) 
Too late to edit my thread title, but in retrospect, perhaps if I wrote: Sitcoms-Over for Me, it would not have been a point of contention.
I did not intend to be presumptious about what other people may or may not enjoy in current sitcom choices. To me the choice feels sparse.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

Sitcoms like _The Office_, _30 Rock_, and _Modern Family_ have mostly ruined the traditional 3 camera filmed in front of a live audience sitcom.

Instead of enjoying the traditional format, people complain about the "laugh track."


----------



## 59er (Mar 27, 2008)

DevdogAZ said:


> When an actor takes a pilot gig like that while already under contract for another show, the pilot gig is in second position, and everyone knows that the first job will have the option to keep the actor and the pilot will have to recast.


That happened with Damon Wayans, Jr. on THE NEW GIRL (due to the surprise renewal of HAPPY ENDINGS).

But in the case of THE MIDDLE, it sounds like that actor is no longer under contract beyond this season.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

Turtleboy said:


> Sitcoms like _The Office_, _30 Rock_, and _Modern Family_ have mostly ruined the traditional 3 camera filmed in front of a live audience sitcom.
> 
> Instead of enjoying the traditional format, people complain about the "laugh track."


Yep... we watched The Odd Couple last night, and the loud laughter (not sure if it's an actual laugh track or not) was off-putting.

However, it never bothers me on the Big Bang Theory for some reason. Maybe that show doesn't have the laugh volume as high.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

Is "sitcom" being used as just a generic term for comedies on TV, or is it being used as a type of comedy on TV.

I would say Veep or Sirens are not "sit-coms". I think they may fit the description, but I feel they are not the same thing as Two and a Half Men or Everybody Loves Raymond.

-smak-


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

smak said:


> Is "sitcom" being used as just a generic term for comedies on TV, or is it being used as a type of comedy on TV.
> 
> I would say Veep or Sirens are not "sit-coms". I think they may fit the description, but I feel they are not the same thing as Two and a Half Men or Everybody Loves Raymond.
> 
> -smak-


I think the term "sitcom" is generally used for most 30-minute comedies on TV. There are different types of sitcoms, and the ones you're talking about are usually referred to as "multi-camera" or "three (or four) camera." The ones like Veep or Sirens are "single camera." But being a single-camera sitcom does not make a show any less a sitcom. Ultimately, if the show is a comedy based on situations, then it fits the definition, regardless of the camera placement or whether there's an audience present.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

DevdogAZ has it IMO.

Oh, and I forgot to mention _You're the Worst_, because it's not been on for a while... loved it. And of course _Archer_ is fantastic. Literally!


----------



## Bob Coxner (Dec 1, 2004)

DevdogAZ said:


> I think the term "sitcom" is generally used for most 30-minute comedies on TV. There are different types of sitcoms, and the ones you're talking about are usually referred to as "multi-camera" or "three (or four) camera." The ones like Veep or Sirens are "single camera." But being a single-camera sitcom does not make a show any less a sitcom. Ultimately, if the show is a comedy based on situations, then it fits the definition, regardless of the camera placement or whether there's an audience present.


This one got me curious. From Wikipedia there were single camera sitcoms almost from the start. McHale's Navy 1962-66, MASH 1972-83, The Adventures of Ozzie & Harriet 1952-66, Leave it to Beaver 1957-63 and others. I was a big McHale's Navy fan and I still enjoy a re-run occasionally.

Multi-camera sitcoms also go back to the start. I Love Lucy and Amos 'n Andy in 1951 used them.

The main difference is that multi-camera shows are almost exclusively filmed in front of a live audience in chronological order. Single camera shows don't have a live audience and are filmed out of sequence - the same way a movie is filmed.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Desi Arnaz is widely credited with the three camera live show.


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

smak said:


> Is "sitcom" being used as just a generic term for comedies on TV, or is it being used as a type of comedy on TV.
> 
> I would say Veep or Sirens are not "sit-coms". I think they may fit the description, but I feel they are not the same thing as Two and a Half Men or Everybody Loves Raymond.
> 
> -smak-





DevdogAZ said:


> I think the term "sitcom" is generally used for most 30-minute comedies on TV. There are different types of sitcoms, and the ones you're talking about are usually referred to as "multi-camera" or "three (or four) camera." The ones like Veep or Sirens are "single camera." But being a single-camera sitcom does not make a show any less a sitcom. Ultimately, if the show is a comedy based on situations, then it fits the definition, regardless of the camera placement or whether there's an audience present.


Did you see the Emmy changes?

"The Television Academy announced some major changes to its voting rules on Friday, further defining the differences between comedy and drama series. As per the Academy's new rules, series with episodes of 30 minutes or less will now be defined as a Comedy and series with episodes of more than 30 minutes are considered Drama. "

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/20/emmy-awards-rules-change_n_6721972.html


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

cherry ghost said:


> Did you see the Emmy changes?
> 
> "The Television Academy announced some major changes to its voting rules on Friday, further defining the differences between comedy and drama series. As per the Academy's new rules, series with episodes of 30 minutes or less will now be defined as a Comedy and series with episodes of more than 30 minutes are considered Drama. "
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/20/emmy-awards-rules-change_n_6721972.html


That's a good change. Now you won't have shows like Orange is the New Black and Shameless deciding they've got a better shot in the comedy category and just arbitrarily changing categories despite being hour-long shows that are mostly drama.

I wish the Academy would go a little further and just get rid of the names Drama and Comedy and just have categories for 30 Minutes and Under, 31-60 minutes, and 61+ minutes (for TV movies).


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Bob Coxner said:


> This one got me curious. From Wikipedia there were single camera sitcoms almost from the start. McHale's Navy 1962-66, MASH 1972-83, The Adventures of Ozzie & Harriet 1952-66, Leave it to Beaver 1957-63 and others. I was a big McHale's Navy fan and I still enjoy a re-run occasionally.
> 
> Multi-camera sitcoms also go back to the start. I Love Lucy and Amos 'n Andy in 1951 used them.
> 
> The main difference is that multi-camera shows are almost exclusively filmed in front of a live audience in chronological order. Single camera shows don't have a live audience and are filmed out of sequence - the same way a movie is filmed.


Wasn't I Love Lucy the first 3 camera sitcom? I think I remember reading that somewhere, and how it changed doing the TV sitcom forever.

Edit: Or what TonyD79 said


----------



## Bob Coxner (Dec 1, 2004)

Steveknj said:


> Wasn't I Love Lucy the first 3 camera sitcom? I think I remember reading that somewhere, and how it changed doing the TV sitcom forever.
> 
> Edit: Or what TonyD79 said


If Wikipedia is correct: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple-camera_setup

Although it is often claimed that the multiple-camera setup was pioneered for television by Desi Arnaz and cinematographer Karl Freund on I Love Lucy in 1951, other filmed television shows had already used it, including the CBS comedy, The Amos 'n Andy Show, which was filmed at the Hal Roach Studios and was on the air four months earlier. The technique was developed for television by Hollywood short-subject veteran Jerry Fairbanks, assisted by producer-director Frank Telford, and first seen on the anthology series The Silver Theater, another CBS program, in February 1950.[3] Desilu's innovation was to use 35mm film instead of 16mm, and to film with a multiple-camera setup before a live studio audience.


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

I'm one of the folks who don't like sitcoms anymore and won't watch anything with a laugh track. 

However, I am enjoying the following 30 minute shows that most people consider to be sitcoms:

blackish
Fresh off the Boat 
Archer

I liked Veep when I had premium channels. 

Reading this thread is making me want to check out Sirens.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Beryl said:


> I'm one of the folks who don't like sitcoms anymore and won't watch anything with a laugh track.
> 
> However, I am enjoying the following 30 minute shows that most people consider to be sitcoms:
> 
> ...


By most people, are you saying in your opinion they aren't sitcoms? I don't watch Archer but the other two are classic sitcoms, they just don't have a laugh track (which even back in the 70s/80s MASH had tried in a few episodes and that is a classic sitcom as well.)


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

They're both sitcoms. A sitcom is a "situation comedy." 

It's just that from the 70s-90s, all of the greatest sitcoms were three camera/live audience: 

All in the Family, Good Times, Happy Days, Mork and Mindy, Cheers, Cosby Show, Family Ties, Seinfeld, Friends. These all had "laugh track

In the 2000s, the pendulum has swung back to single camera - The Office, 30 Rock, Parks and Rec, Modern Family.

They are all sitcoms. 

What is annoying is that hour long "dramedys" that try to pass themselves off as "comedy" for the Emmys. I think it started with Ally McBeal, but may have been earlier.


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

Steveknj said:


> By most people, are you saying in your opinion they aren't sitcoms? I don't watch Archer but the other two are classic sitcoms, they just don't have a laugh track (which even back in the 70s/80s MASH had tried in a few episodes and that is a classic sitcom as well.)


I agree that they are all sitcoms. I also used to enjoy the classic laugh tracked sitcoms - from Gilligan's Island up to King of Queens. I just don't care for most sitcoms anymore.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

Turtleboy said:


> They're both sitcoms. A sitcom is a "situation comedy."
> 
> It's just that from the 70s-90s, all of the greatest sitcoms were three camera/live audience:
> 
> ...


Even back then I felt like Ally McBeal was way more comedic than any of the hour long shows discussed here, like OITNB, or old favorites like Desperate Housewives.

-smak-


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

cherry ghost said:


> Did you see the Emmy changes?
> 
> "The Television Academy announced some major changes to its voting rules on Friday, further defining the differences between comedy and drama series. As per the Academy's new rules, series with episodes of 30 minutes or less will now be defined as a Comedy and series with episodes of more than 30 minutes are considered Drama. "
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/20/emmy-awards-rules-change_n_6721972.html


This is a good change. There are so few hour long comedies, that it should be left to file an exception for an hour long show to be treated as a comedy.

-smak-


----------



## midas (Jun 1, 2000)

I think it's a dumb rule. A comedy is defined by it's contents, not it's length. Two and a Half Men just had their series finale. It was 60 minutes long. So now it's a drama? The Bold and Beautiful is 30 minutes long. So that's now a comedy? 

Dumb rule, dumb rule.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

midas said:


> I think it's a dumb rule. A comedy is defined by it's contents, not it's length. Two and a Half Men just had their series finale. It was 60 minutes long. So now it's a drama? The Bold and Beautiful is 30 minutes long. So that's now a comedy?
> 
> Dumb rule, dumb rule.


Two and a Half Men was two episodes aired together.

The Bold and the Beautiful is still on? Daytime TV is covered under an entirely different Emmy Event with different categories.


----------



## bruinfan (Jan 17, 2006)

fwiw

ratings for week ending 2/8

grammys
ncis
BBT
ncis:NO
mom


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

bruinfan said:


> fwiw
> 
> ratings for week ending 2/8
> 
> ...


Ratings have numbers. That's just a list with no context.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

smak said:


> Even back then I felt like Ally McBeal was way more comedic than any of the hour long shows discussed here, like OITNB, or old favorites like Desperate Housewives.
> 
> -smak-


But I never felt Ally McBeal, Desperate Housewives or any of that ilk were "sitcoms". They were dramas with comedic touches.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

midas said:


> I think it's a dumb rule. A comedy is defined by it's contents, not it's length. Two and a Half Men just had their series finale. It was 60 minutes long. So now it's a drama? The Bold and Beautiful is 30 minutes long. So that's now a comedy?
> 
> Dumb rule, dumb rule.


While I agree in principal, the Emmy's have taken the definition of a sitcom to a whole new level. I've watched a few episodes of Orange is the New Black, and that is FAR from a sitcom. (or I think it's actually defines as a Comedy series). The idea is to stop the manipulating of the categories to give a show a better chance of winning.


----------



## midas (Jun 1, 2000)

Steveknj said:


> While I agree in principal, the Emmy's have taken the definition of a sitcom to a whole new level. I've watched a few episodes of Orange is the New Black, and that is FAR from a sitcom. (or I think it's actually defines as a Comedy series). The idea is to stop the manipulating of the categories to give a show a better chance of winning.


But it doesn't. If a show is a comedy, it's a comedy. It doesn't matter how long it is. The example I gave above about the Two and a Half Men finale shows what's wrong. Yes they classified it as two 30 minute episodes. But it wasn't. There were no credit rolls at 30 minutes into it. There was no "To Be Continued" at the 30 minute mark. It just flowed as 1 episode. But they manipulated it to be 2 30 minute episodes for just the reason you mentioned that designed to stop the manipulation.

Does anybody actually care if Orange is the New Black is in the comedy category? If it's not funny, it won't win. If they cut them into 30 minute episodes how does that change what the show is and whether it's funny or not funny?


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

Having a one hour special episode for a show that is normally 30 minutes probably won't require a petition to be considered in the Comedy category. When it makes it to syndication, it'll be two 30 minute episodes.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

midas said:


> But it doesn't. If a show is a comedy, it's a comedy. It doesn't matter how long it is. The example I gave above about the Two and a Half Men finale shows what's wrong. Yes they classified it as two 30 minute episodes. But it wasn't. There were no credit rolls at 30 minutes into it. There was no "To Be Continued" at the 30 minute mark. It just flowed as 1 episode. But they manipulated it to be 2 30 minute episodes for just the reason you mentioned that designed to stop the manipulation.


Even if any of that were true (it's not), you're talking about a single episode, where all the other episodes are 30 minutes. And since the Emmys make their decisions based on single episodes, it would only matter if that finale episode were the one being submitted for consideration.



midas said:


> Does anybody actually care if Orange is the New Black is in the comedy category? If it's not funny, it won't win. If they cut them into 30 minute episodes how does that change what the show is and whether it's funny or not funny?


Do you know who cares? The actors/writers/producers of traditional comedies that don't get a nomination because shows like OITNB are manipulating the game.


----------



## midas (Jun 1, 2000)

DevdogAZ said:


> Do you know who cares? The actors/writers/producers of traditional comedies that don't get a nomination because shows like OITNB are manipulating the game.


How about if, I don't know, they make better comedies. They're not getting the nomination because they aren't very good, not because a show that might be borderline in the category gets submitted. If the nominating committee finds OITNB funnier than their show then it's nobody's fault but their own.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

midas said:


> How about if, I don't know, they make better comedies. They're not getting the nomination because they aren't very good, not because a show that might be borderline in the category gets submitted. *If the nominating committee finds OITNB funnier than their show* then it's nobody's fault but their own.


There's the major flaw in your argument. The Emmy voters are not voting on what's "funnier." They're voting for things like "Best Actor in a Comedy" or "Best Writing in a Comedy." Once the show decides to classify itself as a comedy, that's all that matters. It has nothing to do with whether it's funny. So you've got a one-hour drama with meaty, dramatic roles competing against 30 minute shows that are trying to make people laugh. Of course voters are going to think the acting in the drama is better, because it's a totally different style and tone that's geared more toward acting than jokes. I suspect that was the original reason for having separate Drama and Comedy categories in the first place, because everyone recognized that if your primary goal is to make the viewer laugh, you can't employ some of the acting techniques that a traditional drama actor would do to make the viewer believe that character exists.


----------



## midas (Jun 1, 2000)

DevdogAZ said:


> There's the major flaw in your argument. The Emmy voters are not voting on what's "funnier." They're voting for things like "Best Actor in a Comedy" or "Best Writing in a Comedy." Once the show decides to classify itself as a comedy, that's all that matters. It has nothing to do with whether it's funny. So you've got a one-hour drama with meaty, dramatic roles competing against 30 minute shows that are trying to make people laugh. Of course voters are going to think the acting in the drama is better, because it's a totally different style and tone that's geared more toward acting than jokes. I suspect that was the original reason for having separate Drama and Comedy categories in the first place, because everyone recognized that if your primary goal is to make the viewer laugh, you can't employ some of the acting techniques that a traditional drama actor would do to make the viewer believe that character exists.


So if OITNB decided to have 30 minute episodes for their next season you wouldn't have any problem with that?


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

midas said:


> So if OITNB decided to have 30 minute episodes for their next season you wouldn't have any problem with that?


They were very clear that you can ask for consideration in another category, time is not the be all and end all of comedy vs. drama, you can ask that your 60 minute show be considered in the Comedy category just like you can ask that your 30 minute show be considered in Drama.


> The Academy's statement noted that "producers may formally petition a new Academy industry panel to consider their series' eligibility in the alternative category."


So while they will tend to automatically lump folks, it's not written in stone.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

midas said:


> So if OITNB decided to have 30 minute episodes for their next season you wouldn't have any problem with that?


 Do you really think a show is going to drastically alter its format, sacrificing artistic integrity just to make it easier to win awards?

But to answer the ridiculous question anyway, if the rule says that shows of 30 minutes or less are comedies, and they start producing 30 minute episodes of OINTB, then I would have no problem with that show being submitted as a comedy, since that would be in compliance with the rule.


----------



## midas (Jun 1, 2000)

DevdogAZ said:


> Do you really think a show is going to drastically alter its format, sacrificing artistic integrity just to make it easier to win awards?
> 
> But to answer the ridiculous question anyway, if the rule says that shows of 30 minutes or less are comedies, and they start producing 30 minute episodes of OINTB, then I would have no problem with that show being submitted as a comedy, since that would be in compliance with the rule.


Well I guess I just don't understand. If they changed nothing other than the time format the same people you purport to protect are still going to get screwed.

Change the name to Best whatever in a 30 minute show and I'm OK with it. It just seems crazy to me.

And frankly I don't even think OITNB should qualify for the Prime Time Emmys. Since it's not actually broadcast it could just as easily be nominated for the day time Emmys. They really need another category, if they should be considered at all.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

midas said:


> Does anybody actually care


That would have been my initial reaction to the subject, but clearly you have proven me wrong. I just don't get why anyone would care so passionately about such an inconsequential mundane thing


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

midas said:


> Well I guess I just don't understand.


Agreed.


----------



## midas (Jun 1, 2000)

scandia101 said:


> Agreed.


Always nice to see you offer your superior intelligence to these conversations.

Sorry to say I won't see it from this point forward. As they say, PLUNK!


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

The only real difference now is that the Emmy people can now make the determination of whether a show is a comedy or a drama rather than having to accept a show's self designation as one or the other.

Dianebrat gave a great explanation that makes this very clear.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

midas said:


> Always nice to see you offer your superior intelligence to these conversations.


Agreed.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

midas said:


> But it doesn't. If a show is a comedy, it's a comedy. It doesn't matter how long it is. The example I gave above about the Two and a Half Men finale shows what's wrong. Yes they classified it as two 30 minute episodes. But it wasn't. There were no credit rolls at 30 minutes into it. There was no "To Be Continued" at the 30 minute mark. It just flowed as 1 episode. But they manipulated it to be 2 30 minute episodes for just the reason you mentioned that designed to stop the manipulation.
> 
> Does anybody actually care if Orange is the New Black is in the comedy category? If it's not funny, it won't win. If they cut them into 30 minute episodes how does that change what the show is and whether it's funny or not funny?


To your first point, that was a special episode of a show that is normally 30 minutes, so that's a bad example. There have been 60 minute episodes of normally 30 minute shows since the 1950s. Name another sitcom that is *normally* an hour long?

On your second point, while you or I might not care, if OITNB takes up a slot that is normally reserved for a REAL comedy, those shows care. And if it is nominated as one of the 5 comedies, at least some feel it was worthy enough to be nominated. What is the criteria of winning that category? Is it just to be funny or is it something else?


----------



## midas (Jun 1, 2000)

Steveknj said:


> To your first point, that was a special episode of a show that is normally 30 minutes, so that's a bad example. There have been 60 minute episodes of normally 30 minute shows since the 1950s. Name another sitcom that is *normally* an hour long?


First, let's clarify one thing. The category is comedy, not sitcom. So, while it's actually 90 minutes, I would offer SNL as one. The old Carol Burnett show was 60 minutes.

And getting back to the supposed reason for this new rule, OITNB, according to the people that are in charge of that show, is a 60 minute comedy.



> On your second point, while you or I might not care, if OITNB takes up a slot that is normally reserved for a REAL comedy, those shows care. And if it is nominated as one of the 5 comedies, at least some feel it was worthy enough to be nominated. What is the criteria of winning that category? Is it just to be funny or is it something else?


Hey, when you figure out what the criteria is for winning an Emmy please let us all know. I think history has shown that nobody knows the answer to that question.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

midas said:


> First, let's clarify one thing. The category is comedy, not sitcom. So, while it's actually 90 minutes, I would offer SNL as one. The old Carol Burnett show was 60 minutes.


You are reaching here. Both of those are considered variety shows, which is also a category. In fact, they both won the Variety category.

Looking at the comedy series winners, they are all acted programs as far as I can tell with an exception or two in the 1950s.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

BTW, the only hour long sitcom I could think of was the Lucy-Desi Comedy Hour.


----------



## midas (Jun 1, 2000)

TonyD79 said:


> You are reaching here. Both of those are considered variety shows, which is also a category. In fact, they both won the Variety category.
> 
> Looking at the comedy series winners, they are all acted programs as far as I can tell with an exception or two in the 1950s.


Last year Kate McKinnon was nominated for 'Outstanding Supporting Actress - Comedy Series' for SNL. So while the series was nominated as a variety show individuals were nominated in the comedy category.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

midas said:


> Last year Kate McKinnon was nominated for 'Outstanding Supporting Actress - Comedy Series' for SNL. So while the series was nominated as a variety show individuals were nominated in the comedy category.


So what point are you making here? The academy is tightening up their definitions as you prove they are sloppy. Why are you up in arms?


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

scandia101 said:


> ...I just don't get why anyone would care so passionately about such an inconsequential mundane thing


Have you been reading this board?? It seems most arguments are over inconsequential mundane things.


----------



## midas (Jun 1, 2000)

TonyD79 said:


> So what point are you making here? The academy is tightening up their definitions as you prove they are sloppy. Why are you up in arms?


I wouldn't exactly say I'm up in arms. I just think it's very simple. If you want to have a category for 30 minute or less programs, call it that. Don't call the category comedy. Frankly, I think if the voting members can't tell the difference between a comedy and a drama any way other than by run time then they shouldn't be voting on the awards.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

midas said:


> I wouldn't exactly say I'm up in arms. I just think it's very simple. If you want to have a category for 30 minute or less programs, call it that. Don't call the category comedy. Frankly, I think if the voting members can't tell the difference between a comedy and a drama any way other than by run time then they shouldn't be voting on the awards.


The VOTERS aren't supposed to determine if the category is right. They are supposed to vote on the QUALITY of the show/performance. The Emmys had too loose of standards (if any at all). Now they start with a set of rules that are arbitrary with a process to handle exceptions. Seems right to me. Almost every scripted comedy in HISTORY has been 30 minutes, so it is a far point to start.

If someone decides to remake All in the Family as an hour show, they can allow it by process. If all sitcoms switch over to the 45 minute format ABC failed with, they can adjust the rules.


----------



## midas (Jun 1, 2000)

TonyD79 said:


> The VOTERS aren't supposed to determine if the category is right. They are supposed to vote on the QUALITY of the show/performance.


Sorry, I find that hard to believe. But let me be clear, when I talk about the voters, I'm talking about the people that vote to determine the nominations, not the actual winners. If what you say is true then the whole system is screwed up.

The funny thing is, if they followed my advice there would be no controversy. Just call one category 30 minutes or less and the other longer than 30 minutes. No judgement is needed. Nobody could petition to have their 1 hour show judged in the 30 minute category. It's very simple.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

midas said:


> Sorry, I find that hard to believe. But let me be clear, when I talk about the voters, I'm talking about the people that vote to determine the nominations, not the actual winners. If what you say is true then the whole system is screwed up.


I'm pretty sure it's the same people who make nominations and then vote on the winners. Basically, members of the Academy vote on who they think should be nominated, and then the nominees that receive the most votes become the official nominees that can be voted on to win the award.


----------



## midas (Jun 1, 2000)

DevdogAZ said:


> I'm pretty sure it's the same people who make nominations and then vote on the winners. Basically, members of the Academy vote on who they think should be nominated, and then the nominees that receive the most votes become the official nominees that can be voted on to win the award.


If I'm reading THIS right, all academy members vote on who should be nominated but the actual winners are picked by a smaller group of voters.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

midas said:


> If I'm reading THIS right, all academy members vote on who should be nominated but the actual winners are picked by a smaller group of voters.


Here are the official rules:

http://www.emmys.com/sites/default/files/Downloads/pte14_rulesandproced_v7.pdf

Once the nominations are announced, the actual winners are chosen by "judging panels" which consist of volunteers that agree to watch each of the nominated entries in their specific category (actors vote for actors, writers vote for writers, etc.). The judging panel for the series categories consists of people from all disciplines and is much larger than the individual achievement judging panels.


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

Azlen said:


> Have you been reading this board?? It seems most arguments are over inconsequential mundane things.


How dare you! We certainly do not!


----------



## midas (Jun 1, 2000)

Yea that's pretty much what the other article said. So every idiot with a membership card votes for who gets nominated. No wonder things are so screwed up.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

midas said:


> Sorry, I find that hard to believe. But let me be clear, when I talk about the voters, I'm talking about the people that vote to determine the nominations, not the actual winners. If what you say is true then the whole system is screwed up. The funny thing is, if they followed my advice there would be no controversy. Just call one category 30 minutes or less and the other longer than 30 minutes. No judgement is needed. Nobody could petition to have their 1 hour show judged in the 30 minute category. It's very simple.


How would time length make any sense?


----------



## midas (Jun 1, 2000)

TonyD79 said:


> How would time length make any sense?


Because it's their new rule, not mine.

30 minutes <> comedy

30 minutes = 30 minutes

Seems simple enough to me.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

midas said:


> Because it's their new rule, not mine.


and you don't understand the purpose of the new rule.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> they just don't have a laugh track (which even back in the 70s/80s MASH had tried in a few episodes and that is a classic sitcom as well.)


Maybe it's apocryphal (but many people, such as Larry Gelbart, told it as being true), but supposedly the agreement with the network for MASH was that any scenes in the operating room had no laugh track. So Larry started putting more and more scenes in the operating room.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

midas said:


> Because it's their new rule, not mine. 30 minutes <> comedy 30 minutes = 30 minutes Seems simple enough to me.


And it would mix the genres more than they are now. An hour show is an hour show so drama mixes with variety and news.

They are trying to keep them separate. The 30 minute thing is because the overwhelmingly vast number of scripted comedies (aka sitcoms) are and have been 30 minutes. And it is not a hard fast rule.


----------



## midas (Jun 1, 2000)

TonyD79 said:


> And it would mix the genres more than they are now. An hour show is an hour show so drama mixes with variety and news.
> 
> They are trying to keep them separate. The 30 minute thing is because the overwhelmingly vast number of scripted comedies (aka sitcoms) are and have been 30 minutes. And it is not a hard fast rule.


If they can tell what shows belong in the variety category, and they can tell what shows belong in the news category, why can't they tell what shows belong in the comedy and drama categories?

But wait, if someone wants to submit a 60 minute show as a comedy, they'll still need to make a decision. Just like they should have been doing in the past when OITNB was nominated in that category.

Like I said originally, dumb rule.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

midas said:


> If they can tell what shows belong in the variety category, and they can tell what shows belong in the news category, why can't they tell what shows belong in the comedy and drama categories? But wait, if someone wants to submit a 60 minute show as a comedy, they'll still need to make a decision. Just like they should have been doing in the past when OITNB was nominated in that category. Like I said originally, dumb rule.


Forget it. It's been explained to you before. You are just being stubborn.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

midas said:


> If they can tell what shows belong in the variety category, and they can tell what shows belong in the news category, why can't they tell what shows belong in the comedy and drama categories?
> 
> But wait, if someone wants to submit a 60 minute show as a comedy, they'll still need to make a decision. Just like they should have been doing in the past when OITNB was nominated in that category.
> 
> Like I said originally, dumb rule.


No it's not dumb. It gives the Emmys the power they should have had all along. In he past everyone being nominated decided for themselves if it was a comedy or drama and submitted for awards accordingly. The 30/60 minute thing isn't the end of it, it is only a starting point. A 60 minute show can ask to be considered a comedy. Previously, an actress could be nominated for best supporting role in a comedy for the same show that is nominated for best drama. Now the Emmys decides if a show is a comedy or a drama and that show and everyone/everything associated with it can only be nominated for that category. No more mixed bag.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

midas said:


> If they can tell what shows belong in the variety category, and they can tell what shows belong in the news category, why can't they tell what shows belong in the comedy and drama categories?
> 
> But wait, if someone wants to submit a 60 minute show as a comedy, they'll still need to make a decision. Just like they should have been doing in the past when OITNB was nominated in that category.
> 
> Like I said originally, dumb rule.


Previously, they didn't really make decisions. Shows just submitted in whatever category they wanted. Now 1-hour dramadies will need to get permission to be in the comedy category. That's really the only change. Its a specific rule to address a specific problem. They can always change it later if it doesn't work.


----------



## midas (Jun 1, 2000)

realityboy said:


> Previously, they didn't really make decisions. Shows just submitted in whatever category they wanted. Now 1-hour dramadies will need to get permission to be in the comedy category. That's really the only change. Its a specific rule to address a specific problem. They can always change it later if it doesn't work.


If OITNB decides to submit to the comedy category this year there's no way it gets denied.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

midas said:


> If OITNB decides to submit to the comedy category this year there's no way it gets denied.


On what are you basing that opinion? I think they made the rule specifically to prevent OITNB (and Shameless) from starting a trend of hour-long shows thinking they'll have a better chance at awards by submitting as comedies. OITNB has some comedic elements, but it's far more a drama than a comedy. I would be shocked if OITNB petitioned to be a comedy and ATAS granted the petition.


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

At least OITNB has always submitted as a comedy. Shameless changed last year. 

What happens with "Looking" on HBO? Clearly not a comedy.


----------



## midas (Jun 1, 2000)

DevdogAZ said:


> On what are you basing that opinion? I think they made the rule specifically to prevent OITNB (and Shameless) from starting a trend of hour-long shows thinking they'll have a better chance at awards by submitting as comedies. OITNB has some comedic elements, but it's far more a drama than a comedy. I would be shocked if OITNB petitioned to be a comedy and ATAS granted the petition.


I base my opinion on only my gut feeling. My gut tells me that if they actually had the stones to be confrontational that they would have gone about this in a more direct way.

We'll know who's right in August when the nominations are announced.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

midas said:


> I base my opinion on only my gut feeling. My gut tells me that if they actually had the stones to be confrontational that they would have gone about this in a more direct way. We'll know who's right in August when the nominations are announced.


In what way. When someone criticizes something, it lends some weight to their opinion if they give a solid alternative.

And not show length as the category as you did before. The problem they are trying to solve is to not allow dramadies to steal comedy awards. What is your better solution.


----------



## midas (Jun 1, 2000)

TonyD79 said:


> In what way. When someone criticizes something, it lends some weight to their opinion if they give a solid alternative.
> 
> And not show length as the category as you did before. The problem they are trying to solve is to not allow dramadies to steal comedy awards. What is your better solution.


My solution is to use whatever mechanism they plan to use for the appeals, but expand it. Whether that's a single person or a committee, expand it. Make every nomination subject to review. If the review determines something is in the wrong category, disqualify it.

The beauty of this system is that the show that attempted to gain an edge by submitting to the wrong category would not be able to resubmit in the correct category because the submissions would already be closed and the nominations announced. Instead they'd be completely shutout from the awards for that year.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

midas said:


> My solution is to use whatever mechanism they plan to use for the appeals, but expand it. Whether that's a single person or a committee, expand it. Make every nomination subject to review. If the review determines something is in the wrong category, disqualify it.
> 
> The beauty of this system is that the show that attempted to gain an edge by submitting to the wrong category would not be able to resubmit in the correct category because the submissions would already be closed and the nominations announced. Instead they'd be completely shutout from the awards for that year.


Now that is a dumb idea. - It would open an entirely new can of PR and legal problems.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

It's an idea. So, you'd need guidelines which they never had before. Without them, all judgements would be completely arbitrary. 

The new rules are the guidelines. In rule form. 

I don't like your idea. It is too political.

But at least you had one.


----------



## midas (Jun 1, 2000)

TonyD79 said:


> It's an idea. So, you'd need guidelines which they never had before. Without them, all judgements would be completely arbitrary.


How is that any different than the decision that will need to be made when a 60 minutes show petitions to be a comedy? It's the same decision. There are either guidelines or it's arbitrary. But either way, it's the same decision.

The difference in what I'm proposing is the penalty. With the system now, if a show is denied entry into a different category they can still be included in the other category. They can still get the spoils of a nomination or even an award. With my method, by the time the decision is made it's too late. They are shut out from that years awards.

I think my way would do more to curb the abuse. It's no more arbitrary or political than the system they just created.


----------



## Numb And Number2 (Jan 13, 2009)

TonyD79 said:


> I don't like your idea. It is too political. But at least you had one.


There is no inherent value in having an idea, especially not the least of ideas, unless it's a participation trophy that's sought. O' course there is no value in a participation trophy either.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

midas said:


> How is that any different than the decision that will need to be made when a 60 minutes show petitions to be a comedy? It's the same decision. There are either guidelines or it's arbitrary. But either way, it's the same decision.
> 
> The difference in what I'm proposing is the penalty. With the system now, if a show is denied entry into a different category they can still be included in the other category. They can still get the spoils of a nomination or even an award. With my method, by the time the decision is made it's too late. They are shut out from that years awards.
> 
> I think my way would do more to curb the abuse. It's no more arbitrary or political than the system they just created.


I think the main drawback of this idea is that it would require too much oversight. If I'm understanding correctly, they would need to categorize all shows submitted instead of the few shows that blur the lines. I could take or leave the penalty. If they're going to review every show to determine eligibility, there's no need to have shows submitted in specific categories.


----------



## midas (Jun 1, 2000)

realityboy said:


> I think the main drawback of this idea is that it would require too much oversight. *If I'm understanding correctly, they would need to categorize all shows submitted instead of the few shows that blur the lines*. I could take or leave the penalty. If they're going to review every show to determine eligibility, there's no need to have shows submitted in specific categories.


Not all submitted, just those that make it to the point of being nominated. And frankly, I'm OK with a little effort. It's not like they just send out a press release announcing the winners. There's a lot of money involved in this process. A lot of time and effort goes into producing the award show. I don't think it's too much to ask them to put 1% that much effort paying attention to the actual awards.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

midas said:


> Not all submitted, just those that make it to the point of being nominated. And frankly, I'm OK with a little effort. It's not like they just send out a press release announcing the winners. There's a lot of money involved in this process. A lot of time and effort goes into producing the award show. I don't think it's too much to ask them to put 1% that much effort paying attention to the actual awards.


Ah. Now I understand. That seems reasonable. I'm assuming alternates would be available to replace the disqualified nominees.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

midas said:


> Not all submitted, just those that make it to the point of being nominated. And frankly, I'm OK with a little effort. It's not like they just send out a press release announcing the winners. There's a lot of money involved in this process. A lot of time and effort goes into producing the award show. I don't think it's too much to ask them to put 1% that much effort paying attention to the actual awards.


Wait, you are going to nominate programs THEN vet them for category? Yeah, that makes sense.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Arguments like this one are one of the many reasons I care little about awards shows  They never influence what I may or may not watch and much like critics, it's a bunch of "professional" TV watchers who vote on these things. Their opinion is just that, and means about as much as mine (to me, I'm sure they mean something to the networks who use crap like this as an advertising tool).


----------



## midas (Jun 1, 2000)

TonyD79 said:


> Wait, you are going to nominate programs THEN vet them for category? Yeah, that makes sense.


Makes perfect sense to me. First, if the people that nominate were doing their job no show would ever be nominated in the wrong category. Second, there's no reason to expend any energy on shows that are irrelevant.

I see it the same as hiring someone. You don't do full background checks, check references and drug tests on every applicant for a job. You only do that for someone you're thinking of actually hiring.

But bottom line, you want an award? Submit to the right category. It's your responsibility. Try to game the system, you're gonna get screwed.


----------



## abovethesink (Aug 26, 2013)

DevdogAZ said:


> Niles Crane and Jeff Bingham as roommates would be hilarious.
> 
> When an actor takes a pilot gig like that while already under contract for another show, the pilot gig is in second position, and everyone knows that the first job will have the option to keep the actor and the pilot will have to recast.
> 
> ...


Wow. I bet the crossover audience for a collection like Big Bang and Two and a Half versus the audience of Silicon Valley, Community, and Louie are not high. Rare to find someone who enjoys both the proverbial high brow and low for lack of a better way to put it.

Anyway, off the top of my head and probably forgetting something, we watch:

New Girl
Brooklyn Nine Nine
Black-ish
Fresh Off the Boat
Community
Silicon Valley
Togetherness
Married

Wife watches Mindy. We'll miss Parks and Rec for sure too.


----------



## MPSAN (Jun 20, 2009)

As I posted in the Fresh Off The Boat topic, am I the only one who is about to stop watching these comedy series because of the VERY overdone Laugh Tracks? I mean there are a few shows where the Laugh Track is played every other sentence!


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

MPSAN said:


> As I posted in the Fresh Off The Boat topic, am I the only one who is about to stop watching these comedy series because of the VERY overdone Laugh Tracks? I mean there are a few shows where the Laugh Track is played every other sentence!


No laugh track on Fresh Off The Boat. (I think you figured that out on the other thread. )


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

MPSAN said:


> As I posted in the Fresh Off The Boat topic, am I the only one who is about to stop watching these comedy series because of the VERY overdone Laugh Tracks? I mean there are a few shows where the Laugh Track is played every other sentence!


You mean the ones filmed in front of a live audience with actual people laughing?


----------



## Alfer (Aug 7, 2003)

MPSAN said:


> As I posted in the Fresh Off The Boat topic, am I the only one who is about to stop watching these comedy series because of the VERY overdone Laugh Tracks? I mean there are a few shows where the Laugh Track is played every other sentence!


As you know there is no laugh track on FOTB and no, I don't plan to stop watching any shows I enjoy because of a laugh track or because there is a live studio audience laughing.


----------



## MPSAN (Jun 20, 2009)

Beryl said:


> No laugh track on Fresh Off The Boat. (I think you figured that out on the other thread. )


Yes, I was thinking of Cristela!


----------



## MPSAN (Jun 20, 2009)

Turtleboy said:


> You mean the ones filmed in front of a live audience with actual people laughing?


You know, I believe even those are "augmented".


----------



## MPSAN (Jun 20, 2009)

Alfer said:


> As you know there is no laugh track on FOTB and no, I don't plan to stop watching any shows I enjoy because of a laugh track or because there is a live studio audience laughing.


I think that my problem is that we watch these 1/2 hour sitcoms in bed late at night and it just seems annoying then.


----------



## abovethesink (Aug 26, 2013)

You are not alone. I cannot watch anything with a laugh track.


----------



## megory (Jan 23, 2003)

Are sitcoms over?
They are for me.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

abovethesink said:


> Wow. I bet the crossover audience for a collection like Big Bang and Two and a Half versus the audience of Silicon Valley, Community, and Louie are not high. Rare to find someone who enjoys both the proverbial high brow and low for lack of a better way to put it.
> 
> Anyway, off the top of my head and probably forgetting something, we watch:
> 
> ...


I watch both high and low brow. To me, they are different but not mutually exclusive that someone can't enjoy both. So I watch highbrow stuff like Silicon Valley and Togetherness, but also enjoy Sirens and The Big Bang Theory. I'm not sure where shows like Modern Family and The Middle land, and I like those too.

But, clearly the Sitcom isn't dead. Quite contrary, it's making a resurgence.


----------

