A new MAGNA report was out last week and I just got around to reading it. It has a very interesting conclusion. While viewers are watching more comedies than ever, it's the "classic" comedies on cable and in syndication that they're watching, not new ones in broadcast prime-time.
Over the past several years, as long-running hits such as Friends, Frasier, Will & Grace, and Everybody Loves Raymond ended their broadcast runs, no comparable successes have emerged to fill the void.
In fall 2003, there were a record 50 comedies on the broadcast networks. By fall 2007 there were an all-time low 21 hours (and it was the first time that NBC had no new fall comedies). Last fall, there were just 22 comedies on the broadcast networks (only three of them new, none of which will return this fall). And none of the comedies that debuted this mid-season are performing well.
Every year at this time, the networks start revealing their program development plans for the new season. Press stories abound about how they might try to revive the network comedy. Seldom noted in these stories, however, is the fact that people still like watching comedies, and are in fact watching them more than ever.
This is the paragraph that grabbed me:
What are the most popular comedies on television today?
Would you believe, the top 15 are Family Guy, George Lopez, Two and a Half Men, Home Improvement, Fresh Prince, Everybody Loves Raymond, Seinfeld, Family Matters, That ‘70s Show, King of Queens, Friends, Frasier, Andy Griffith, Roseanne and M*A*S*H? Of these, only two, Family Guy and Two and a Half Men, will be on a broadcast network this fall.
Very interesting reading. You can download the entire report here.
That has to be based off of cumulative audience as those shows air 5 times a week where as network comedies only air once. Otherwise I have a really tough time believing that George Lopez among others is beating Big Bang, HIMYM etc.. on a weekly basis.
So the problem isn’t that people don’t like comedies, it’s that they don’t like the comedies the nets are offering.
Mike, it certainly has to be aggregate audience not maximum single episode audience, but the point remains about old comedies competing with new ones. If you read the full report it shows that the large number of comedies on cable and in syndication is a rather new phenomena.
Funny thing about me. The last sitcom I ever watched I think was Parker Lewis Can’t Lose. And that was only because Melanie what’s-her-name was on it, and the show was also completely insane with bizarre CGI sight gags and the like.
Before that, you have to go back to the ’70′s for me and “Soap” which was brilliant with a monster cast including Billy Crystal.
Most sitcoms might or might not make me laugh a bit (jokes ARE funny, I do recognize that!), but most of them bore me. I listened to one episode of Friends one night a few years ago – on a radio, not a TV so I didn’t see the visuals, oddly enough – and the jokes all went flat on me. Boring!
The premises of ninety nine percent of comedies just are boring to me.
Here’s a question? Has there ever been a “science fiction based comedy” like SpaceBalls or something on broadcast TV? Big Bang Theory is about as close as it comes, I think. And I’ve only watched the one episode of that with Summer Glau in it for obvious reasons.
Chuck at least is a “dramedy” about spies, like Get Smart. I used to watch Get Smart a bit back in the day.
But the nine million versions of “family/group of idiots with even more idiotic friends in one apartment house/bar/office/wherever” just doesn’t excite me. I couldn’t stand Cheers – bunch of losers sitting around a bar. Yawn!
If I had to agree with the people who think the entire national audience is composed of morons, I’d point to the comedies as evidence.
M*A*S*H is the obvious exception. That was a classic and frequently had great dramatic moments as well as top notch acting (Gary Burghoff, by the way, is from my home town and went through my father’s NRA Hunter Safety Course with his brother). Not even in the same league as most sitcoms.
It’s not surprising. The networks just aren’t making the Friends or Seinfeld style of sitcom anymore. (How I Met Your Mother might be the closest remaining example.) Now you have non-traditional sitcoms like The Office or The Big Bang Theory, which while successful, haven’t been “smash hits”. If you look at the top rated programs by year, a sitcom hasn’t been rated number 1 since Friends in 2002. What’s even more interesting is the number 1 programs in the years following. CSI in 03 and 04, which spawned all the forensic procedural shows, and American Idol from 05-08, which spawned a bunch of reality shows. The dramas and reality shows are the ones being made now, and I don’t think that we’ll see another Friends or Seinfeld type number 1 sitcom for a while.
I don’t find this too surprising. Seinfeld is aired both on TBS and in syndication on local broadcast nets. TBS runs two episodes Monday through Friday, plus filler around movies and sports. If it were not doing well in the ratings, I doubt TBS would be airing it so often! The same is likely true for the syndicated airings on local stations.
Family Guy is run on FOX (new and repeats), TBS, and Cartoon Network regularly – if it weren’t bringing in the eyeballs (per Nielsen), I doubt it would be on so often.
As for the other offerings, I can’t say I watch them much. I can say that a few friends have asked me “have you ever seen George Lopez? You should watch the show, it’s funny!”
On the other hand, broadcast network comedy has never been better in my opinion so maybe less is more. I’d rather a couple of shows like how I met your mother and The Office than 30 Charles in Charges.
One of the things that I think is hurting TV now is how high-concept it’s become. The most popular sitcoms by in the past two decades by almost any definition are Seinfeld and Friends: those shows were, like, cultural phenomenons. And what were they about?
Seinfeld was about a group of friends hanging out at a coffee shop in New York.
Friends? Was ALSO about a group of friends hanging out at a coffee shop in New York.
Shows needn’t be much more than that. Just create a charismatic, funny group of friends with different, interesting personalities and let them just hang out and live their lives – hilariously. Obviously you need good writers and actors, but those are still around, they’re just not given the right thing to do. A cute gimmicky concept about lists of ill deeds or hidden cameras at the Parks department of a small town only goes so far until it gets stale. Shows like How I Met Your Mother are closer to the right direction (although the mother-guessing aspect is a little gimmicky as well) but those shows are on CBS, and… young people simply aren’t going to watch CBS.
But that’s sincerely what NBC needs. Get like 4-6 attractive, funny young people, give them all a variety of quirks, assign the usual roles (a sarcastic one, a dumb one, a geekier one, etc.) Make two of them in an unrequited love story, throw them in a city and boom. You got a successful sitcom. It’s not complicated to see the trends.
“Just create a charismatic, funny group of friends with different, interesting personalities and let them just hang out and live their lives – hilariously”
Sounds a lot like The Big Bang Theory to me. And before anyone says their personalities are all geek, imho they’re all very different and it’s unfair to lump them as geeks just because they’re all incredibly intelligent. Well, maybe not Wolowitz, he’s only got a Masters degree (to quote the show).
@RSH, if you count animation, then Futurama is a sci-fi based comedy, IMHO. It did not fare well on broadcast nets but it’s holding up nicely for Comedy Central.
As for the attitude toward the general viewers as “morons” due to sitcoms, I respectfully disagree. Seinfeld in particular was a brilliant series with a very basic premise (again IMHO). Seinfeld focused an entire episode around a taboo of which we cannot speak on broadcast television. They focused an entire episode around waiting for a table at a restaurant, in real time. They got a bit controversial when a character’s death was played for comedic effect. And they repeatedly poked fun at themselves with the “show about nothing” idea
.
Cheers did fairly well with the basic gathering of characters too, but not as well as Seinfeld IMHO. I can’t say I ever understood how “Friends” became a hit as big as it was, though. Friends was dreadfully boring to me! Then again, next to Seinfeld, my favorite comedy is “South Park,” so make of my taste what you will. I might be a moron.
clarification on Futurama: It aired on FOX broadcast briefly, for two seasons as I recall. Did well enough on cable to spawn the DVD’s.
Just create a charismatic, funny group of friends with different, interesting personalities and let them just hang out and live their lives – hilariously”
NBC called it “Coupling” and it failed miserably.
It seems to me there are two types of comedies on today: the snarky, cynical, all too clever wink to the audience work-based such as Office, 30 Rock, Parks & Recreation and the young horny, sex-obsessed groups. Looking at the list above, there was an actual viewpoint expressed in the best of those through very good writing. I haven’t watched a half hour sitcom regularly in four or five years. Tried all of them and was quickly bored out of my mind.
“Get like 4-6 attractive, funny young people”
That was the Friends formula and the truth of the matter is that it worked all of one time. When casting a sitcom, the main concern should be casting funny people irregardless if they are young or attractive.
I’m surprised Scrubs isn’t on the list. That show is aired in syndication on like 4 different networks, plus this past season of new ABC episodes.
The problem is that the networks haven’t had any comedies that are actually funny in the past year or two. Parks and Rec, Kath & Kim, In the Motherhood, the list goes on.
But still, most of my favorite shows are comedies. I do think there are a number of brilliant ones out there. 30 Rock, The Office, How I Met Your Mother, Scrubs, Chuck, Old Christine, Big Bang Theory, and you can’t forget Family Guy and The Simpsons. I can’t think of very many dramas I’d prefer watching over these shows.
TBBT is very closely related to Friends imo.
Leonard: An intelligent man who overthinks things sometimes especially when it comes to Penny whom he likes/loves
Wolowitz: A ladies man, or he likes to think so haha, who thinks by speaking in flawless russian or sumatrian is going to impress the ladies. And who still lives with his mother
Raj: A guy who does like his culture but is willing to point out its flaws and he cannot speak to women unless he is steaming durnk
Sheldon: Not interested in relationships. Far too shallow and egotistical to delve into things like that
So there is an interesting dynamic going on which is why TBBT has become very successful. Superbly written show
RSH, you should try scrubs and weeds. Scrubs has a boring premise(young doctors) but its also very character driven, funny, and touching.
Weeds is all sorts of brilliant, get a hold of the DVD’s and watch the first couple seasons, and you’ll see its quite unlike any other sitcom. Your comment implies you like shows that are character and story driven as oppose to just hit/miss jokes. Weeds is very much story and character driven.
Four scifi based comedies that aired on the big broadcast networks come to mind:
Quark, which lasted all of seven episodes. My recollection is that it was very funny, but obviously too esoteric for mass audiences in seventies. (These seven episodes are available on DVD.)
Third Rock From The Sun
Although I enjoyed watching this one, it wasn’t on my “must see” list. It was well written, and the brilliant cast did a great job, IMO.
My Favorite Martian
Not a stellar example of either a sitcom or a scifi show, but I have fond memories or Ray Walston and Bill Bixby in it.
Mork and Mindy
The show that introduced Robin Williams to the world. I have always liked non-sequitor, free-association type humor, and the final season when Jonathon Winters and Robin Williams could go crazy was the best, IMO — despite the horrible mish-mash of the show’s storyline.
(Although not a sitcom, Max Headroom was very sharply written and had a lot of humor in it, including a wickedly subversive view of television networks, a lot of which seems to be coming true.)
“Sounds a lot like The Big Bang Theory to me. And before anyone says their personalities are all geek, imho they’re all very different and it’s unfair to lump them as geeks just because they’re all incredibly intelligent. Well, maybe not Wolowitz, he’s only got a Masters degree (to quote the show).”
It’s still a gimmick. You ask anyone who knows what the show is, what it’s about and they’ll say “Oh, it’s about these geeks and this hot girl.”
That’s a gimmick. Whether or not the gimmick is fair to use is immaterial, it’s known as a show with a little gimmick and that’s not going to get the kind of broad-range appeal. Of course they’re all different kinds of geeks, no one claiming they have the exact same personality – but it’s clearly not the kind of thing I’m talking about.
Again, I also think it being on CBS hurts it. CBS is known, nationwide, as a channel for old people. That may not be fair (although I think it is), but that’s the way people see it. The fact that Big Bang and HIMYM do fairly well on CBS is great – they are a bit closer to the ideal, but I think they’d both do a lot better on an NBC or an ABC, which has a younger audience.
“NBC called it “Coupling” and it failed miserably.”
They also called it almost every sitcom they made in the 90s. Some worked, some didn’t – obviously. So to drag out one example from years ago (when, by the way, Friends was still on the air being the perfected version of what I’m talking about) is folly.
“That was the Friends formula and the truth of the matter is that it worked all of one time. When casting a sitcom, the main concern should be casting funny people irregardless if they are young or attractive.”
I’m not saying funny’s not important, or that it’s not most important – but there can be no argument that attractive people don’t hurt. And to act as if it only worked one time is silly. Most sitcoms of that era had relatively attractive people. They don’t ALL have to be – but it would go along way. One of the Focus Group criticisms for Parks & Recreation actually was the lack of attractive men. Some people are shallow. There’s lots and lots of funny actors out there – some are good-looking and some aren’t, there’s no logical reason not to go for good-looking ones.
The most successful sitcoms even now: The Office, HIMYM, Scrubs, etc. – DO have some attractive people. As did the great ones back in the day. Cheers had Ted Danson and skinny Kirstie Alley, etc.
The attractiveness is a good issue, but I don’t think it’s the sole issue. Think of Roseanne, for instance. A monster hit that still gets big numbers in cable, but I don’t think that any of the cast is particularly attractive. Some of them are not bad looking, but beautiful would be a stretch.
The problem with sitcoms, ultimately, is that the networks don’t have good ones with mainstream appeal (except for CBS) and even when they get them, they’re scheduled poorly. I think that Better of Ted is a good comedy, but it’s not mainstream and will never be (like Arrested Development, which was probably the funniest TV show to ever air). The very last sitcom that I saw (not including CBS) that was funny and mainstream was Less than Perfect, but ABC bumped it all over the schedule until it lost its audience and didn’t even air the last dozen or so episodes.