tubewad.com— This article takes a look at the falling-off of the 4-camera sitcom format, and the five elements that combined to make all the great shows of the past. Where'd they all go?
Apr 16, 2007View in Crawl 4
Didn't read all of these piece, but my quick scan led me to one frustrating point -- that sitcoms would be made better by live audiences.Live audiences can be great, but the laughs are so "sweetened" now that the trust of laugh track is broken. I interviewed Louis CK when he was doing "Lucky Louie." He pointed out that once the laugh track started to get used in situations like Gilligan's Island, Brady Brunch and the Flintstones - the laugh track become something that pushed people away rather than draw them in. He mentioned that they put "Lucky Louie was taped before a live audience" in front of every episode because of the violation of that trust. They wanted viewers to know they could trust the laughs were real. If you watch that show, the laughs are not uniform like a laugh track. There are true cackles, sometimes jarring ones - you can tell live people were laughing instead of a machine recording. Sadly Lucky Louie didn't last long enough to start a trend.Until Hollywood gets off it's addiction to mixing in the laugh track, being filmed in front of a live audience is not necessarily an asset to sitcoms.
My biggest pet peeve: "musical comedy""Scrubs" used to be a good show, and then it got pretty bad (budget cuts?). Then they did an entire episode as a musical - I didn't laugh once, fast forwarded through the entire thing, and now I'll never watch that show ever again.Same goes for the world's best cartoon, "Family Guy". I hate the occasional musical comedy - I just can't stand it!!!
I'm surprised that in the day and age of Arrested Development, The Office, Peep Show and the rest, anyone can advocate the use of a studio audience. How is it "classy"? It doesn't provide a quality filter, it reduces every joke to its minimum. Half the jokes in the shows I mentioned would be ruined by the sound of laughter.
I agree. What's wrong with being a little silly? Granted, you've got to set up the silliness properly so the preposterousness of the situation is all the more entertaining - and that takes great writing. But it can still be entertaining.
I think the best way to tell if a show is any good (regardless of it's genre) is to read the transcripts. I know that sounds loony, but it brings the show to light away from all the crap that doesn't matter. Many shows which used to suck me in and then bore the crap out of me have lost that power since I started using this method to screen shows before I wasted time watching them - if the show isn't well written I'm just not interested.More on topic, I've found that very few sitcoms are any good at all - but especially the crap that's on today. I've heard some comments about how they're more realistic and they don't "tell you when to laugh". Well it's TV so it will never be realistic and I hope audiences have at least enough self control to be able to control themselves and not laugh unless they find something funny - this argument is just irrelevant.In terms of well written comedies - probably Frasier and Cheers... not much else actually - Seinfeld is probably one of the worst written shows ever to air (and this is coming from someone who is still a huge fan of the show - I watched it before I developed this screening technique).
deadfrogApr 16, 2007
Didn't read all of these piece, but my quick scan led me to one frustrating point -- that sitcoms would be made better by live audiences.Live audiences can be great, but the laughs are so "sweetened" now that the trust of laugh track is broken. I interviewed Louis CK when he was doing "Lucky Louie." He pointed out that once the laugh track started to get used in situations like Gilligan's Island, Brady Brunch and the Flintstones - the laugh track become something that pushed people away rather than draw them in. He mentioned that they put "Lucky Louie was taped before a live audience" in front of every episode because of the violation of that trust. They wanted viewers to know they could trust the laughs were real. If you watch that show, the laughs are not uniform like a laugh track. There are true cackles, sometimes jarring ones - you can tell live people were laughing instead of a machine recording. Sadly Lucky Louie didn't last long enough to start a trend.Until Hollywood gets off it's addiction to mixing in the laugh track, being filmed in front of a live audience is not necessarily an asset to sitcoms.
b3mus3dApr 16, 2007
82725 9919 725...3I wonder how accurate I got that :)
Closed AccountApr 16, 2007
L&W has been on its last legs for about 5 years now. Those are some damn fine legs if you ask me.
hagbard72Apr 17, 2007
6. Jewish producers and writers. In fact, mandatory.
swordphishApr 17, 2007
My biggest pet peeve: "musical comedy""Scrubs" used to be a good show, and then it got pretty bad (budget cuts?). Then they did an entire episode as a musical - I didn't laugh once, fast forwarded through the entire thing, and now I'll never watch that show ever again.Same goes for the world's best cartoon, "Family Guy". I hate the occasional musical comedy - I just can't stand it!!!
freezingmoonApr 17, 2007
I'm surprised that in the day and age of Arrested Development, The Office, Peep Show and the rest, anyone can advocate the use of a studio audience. How is it "classy"? It doesn't provide a quality filter, it reduces every joke to its minimum. Half the jokes in the shows I mentioned would be ruined by the sound of laughter.
parrotheaderApr 17, 2007
I agree. What's wrong with being a little silly? Granted, you've got to set up the silliness properly so the preposterousness of the situation is all the more entertaining - and that takes great writing. But it can still be entertaining.
nlatimerApr 17, 2007
I read this whole article and didn't hear one mention of Titus, and that dissapointed me.Its only real flaw, the dreaded laugh track.
cimordnilapApr 21, 2007
barney's impersonation of letterman a few weeks back was hilarious, right down to the repeating of jokes that bombed.
funky8t6rNov 10, 2007
I think the best way to tell if a show is any good (regardless of it's genre) is to read the transcripts. I know that sounds loony, but it brings the show to light away from all the crap that doesn't matter. Many shows which used to suck me in and then bore the crap out of me have lost that power since I started using this method to screen shows before I wasted time watching them - if the show isn't well written I'm just not interested.More on topic, I've found that very few sitcoms are any good at all - but especially the crap that's on today. I've heard some comments about how they're more realistic and they don't "tell you when to laugh". Well it's TV so it will never be realistic and I hope audiences have at least enough self control to be able to control themselves and not laugh unless they find something funny - this argument is just irrelevant.In terms of well written comedies - probably Frasier and Cheers... not much else actually - Seinfeld is probably one of the worst written shows ever to air (and this is coming from someone who is still a huge fan of the show - I watched it before I developed this screening technique).