What is your Favorite Sitcom of All-Time?

Films, TV shows, and books of the 'modern' era
jdb1

Post by jdb1 »

I agree with you on Roseanne. I liked it on first run, but I liked it even more seeing it in re-runs. Very funny, and very insightful.

I remember watching the very first episode broadcast, seeing the Connor household, a family with three kids and two working parents, with its worn-looking furniture, and kids clothes and other stuff strewn all about, and I thought "At last, a realistic family sitcom!"

I hated the way the TV critics kept referring to the family as "dysfunctional." How old were these critics? Why would they think that a family that bickers and fights is dysfunctional unless they had no experience of real family life? I found the hard-working Connors to be just like practically every family I've ever known. An arguing family is not necessarily a dysfunctional family. George and Martha in Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf are dysfunctional; Dan and Roseanne are perfectly normal, IMO. In fact, I think that for most of the show's run they handled the stresses of their lives exceptionally well.
User avatar
srowley75
Posts: 723
Joined: April 22nd, 2008, 11:04 am
Location: West Virginia

Post by srowley75 »

jdb1 wrote: I remember watching the very first episode broadcast, seeing the Connor household, a family with three kids and two working parents, with its worn-looking furniture, and kids clothes and other stuff strewn all about, and I thought "At last, a realistic family sitcom!"
Exactly...among other things, TV finally had a family that, like the rest of us, looked like regular working stiffs who struggled to make ends meet and pay the bills. Both the mother and father floated from job to job (because of layoffs, nasty employers, etc.) while encountering the same economic woes the rest of us face day to day. None of these scenarios where the father is a doctor/lawyer/architect and the mother is either housewife of the year or a society matron with a maid named Alice or Hazel.
jdb1 wrote: I hated the way the TV critics kept referring to the family as "dysfunctional." How old were these critics? Why would they think that a family that bickers and fights is dysfunctional unless they had no experience of real family life? I found the hard-working Connors to be just like practically every family I've ever known. An arguing family is not necessarily a dysfunctional family.
This is funny - I think of an article I read years ago in which Martin Scorsese talked about the oh-so-perfect family in the original Cape Fear being complete strangers to him. It's so funny how people find truth so threatening. And you can apply that to so many situations in the movies as well.

All that said, I just know that after being in this miserable University setting that I'm currently trapped in, where virtually everyone is either Frasier Crane or Diane Chambers except without the charm or wit, I need someone with the who-the-hell-do-you-think-you-are outlook of a Roseanne Conner, or the good-humored yet frustrated fallibility of Jackie. It was like when I was working in customer service and would come home and watch Fawlty Towers. Both are just like getting a back rub.

-Stephen
User avatar
cinemalover
Posts: 1594
Joined: April 17th, 2007, 10:57 am
Location: Seattle, Washington

Post by cinemalover »

I really enjoyed Roseanne for the first few years of its run and then I kind of drifted away from it. I have not watched an episode since then. I would be very curious to watch some of the first couple of seasons (which I think were very well crafted and clever) and see how they hold up compared to my memory.
Chris

The only bad movie is no movie at all.
User avatar
movieman1957
Administrator
Posts: 5522
Joined: April 15th, 2007, 3:50 pm
Location: MD

Post by movieman1957 »

Chris:

You bring up something that often happens to me with sitcoms. I have been a fan of various shows over the years only to lose interest in them, for some reason, after three or four years.

I'm not sure if over the summer I got out of the habit of watching or they've tweaked things so I don't find it interesting or I just got bored. (I think I suffer from all three depending on the show.)

Anyway, to anyone, does this happen to you with shows you watch regularly? If so, what do you think is the primary cause of not returning to it?
Chris

"Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana."
User avatar
cinemalover
Posts: 1594
Joined: April 17th, 2007, 10:57 am
Location: Seattle, Washington

Post by cinemalover »

Chris,
With me it tends to happen quicker with comedies than with quality dramas. I used to watch a ton of sit-coms and right now there is not one airing that I follow.

I enjoyed Frasier, but then just got tired of it. I think it is hard to maintain a comedy over several years and still seem fresh. On the other hand, a quality drama, like West Wing, I will continue to follow even when the quality dips or they have an "off" season. I think that for me it has to do with the story arcs that weave through the best dramas that keep you attuned to so many different characters. This is something that began for me with Hill Street Blues, which was a revolutionary series in construction. That was the show that brought bme back to the TV after several years of little or no interest. The types of shows that have spun off from that more realistic style of story-telling capture and hold my interest.
Chris

The only bad movie is no movie at all.
jdb1

Post by jdb1 »

Cinemalover Chris, I think you point is well made -- it seems easier for a drama rather than a comedy to maintain one's interest. I believe this is because the situation comedy often doesn't know what to do with itself once the novelty of the premise has been exhausted. I enjoyed "All in the Family," at first, but began to lose interest in it after the first season -- OK, I get it, he's a bigot, now what?

I think the powers behind "M*A*S*H" recognized this sort of viewer fatigue, and wisely expanded the parameters of the show to include not just some heavier drama, but the backstories and development of all of the principal characters. The featuring of supporting characters is something that is easier to do with dramas than with comedies, because most sitcom characters aren't that well developed. Of course, the fact that "M*A*S*H" had excellent actors to begin with helped to keep most of us coming back for 11 years. All too many sitcoms can't make that claim, and they fizzle out pretty quickly.

I agree with you about "Frazier," I got bored with it after not too long, but I enjoy watching it from time to time in re-runs. But it's also a matter of personal preference: I never get tired of "I Love Lucy." Maybe that's because I've been seeing it since birth and it's completely ingrained into my being. Or maybe because it's good.
User avatar
movieman1957
Administrator
Posts: 5522
Joined: April 15th, 2007, 3:50 pm
Location: MD

Post by movieman1957 »

I have had similar experiences with dramas as well. You mentioned "Hill Street Blues" and it was like that as well as "NYPD Blue." Hung with for several seasons and then it was like it went away but I really did. I loved "House" until this year. Some shows get to be style over substance. (I'm thinking "CSI.")

I've managed to stay with "Law and Order" pretty much the whole way. I just think it's really smart.

I watched "Raymond" the first couple of years but he got to be such a twit I couldn't watch him anymore. Because men on sitcoms are such idiots anymore I don't really watch them.
Last edited by movieman1957 on June 12th, 2008, 12:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Chris

"Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana."
User avatar
srowley75
Posts: 723
Joined: April 22nd, 2008, 11:04 am
Location: West Virginia

Post by srowley75 »

cinemalover wrote:I really enjoyed Roseanne for the first few years of its run and then I kind of drifted away from it. I have not watched an episode since then. I would be very curious to watch some of the first couple of seasons (which I think were very well crafted and clever) and see how they hold up compared to my memory.
One of the biggest problems as the show went on was Roseanne's personal life - specifically, her plastic surgery. In interviews on the discs, she's stated that she regretted ever having the work done, but with season 5, she no longer looked like the average midwestern American "domestic goddess." With the new long dyed hair, fake tan and nose job, she looked like an aging LA desperate housewife, while the rest of the cast seemed to stay true to their roles in terms of how they looked.

I recently began viewing season 7 and after watching 5-6 episodes, I think I may throw this season in the garbage. The drop in quality from season 6 to 7 is shocking to me, mainly because I remember USA Today favorably reviewing several episodes from that year - and as I remember, many of them applauded Roseanne's handling of controversial issues such as abortion and drug abuse, which today ironically seems exploitative and clumsy. The episode in which Darlene's drug use is exposed is surely one of the worst-written sitcom episodes I've ever sat through - as discriminating as Roseanne was said to have been with regard to the writing on her show, I can't believe this script ever made it on the air. I saw few episodes during this season's first run, but I remember my friends saying that by then Roseanne's show had basically become a soap opera, and I believe it. I watched several episodes and I don't think I laughed more than twice.

-Stephen
Last edited by srowley75 on June 12th, 2008, 12:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mr. O'Brady
Posts: 123
Joined: April 3rd, 2008, 10:06 pm

Post by Mr. O'Brady »

Chris, I don't think it's us. I think the writers get lazy and keep reusing the same ideas over and over, correctly assuming most of us won't notice or care. The only comedy that ever stayed fresh for me was "Seinfeld", and thankfully they quit before I tired of it as I did "M*A*S*H". Sorry, Judith!

I feel the same way with dramas for the most part. "Criminal Minds" is the only remaining drama that I watch anymore, but they seem to be in a rut too. I probably won't watch it next year. I find myself watching drivel such as "American Gladiators" and "So You Think You Can Dance" lately. :?

Pat
User avatar
srowley75
Posts: 723
Joined: April 22nd, 2008, 11:04 am
Location: West Virginia

Post by srowley75 »

movieman1957 wrote: I watched "Raymond" the first couple of years but he got to be such a twit I couldn't watch him anymore. Because men on sitcoms are such idiots anymore I don't really watch them.
It's funny you should bring up ELR after jdb mentioned people's response to the Connors of Roseanne being a dysfunctional family. When I think "dysfunction," I think of something closer to the Barones' situation - a very manipulative mother and insensitive father (both of whom are also hypersensitive when it comes to anything about themselves) and kids that end up psychological messes because of the parents.

-Stephen
jdb1

Post by jdb1 »

I thought it was just me who finds Raymond revolting. I think the characters are truly ghastly -- I don't understand why anyone laughs at that show. I have a very high tolerance for dump-on-the-Italian-Americans-type humor. I was prepared to find something familiar and amusing about Raymond. I hated it the first time I watched it, and never went back. (I'd never heard of Ray Romano before his show went on the air - I'm not surprised that I hadn't.)

I loathe Seinfeld as well - those characters are even more objectionable, and I can't find any reason to laugh with them or at them. Every once in a while I try to watch a re-run; I try to find some redeeming something there that might justify the mystifying popularity of that show. I love comedy; I love to laugh. But the only reactions I ever have to Seinfeld exasperation and consternation. I guess my ideas about what's funny fall outside today's norm. I guess I fall short in the Urban Sophisticate department.
User avatar
movieman1957
Administrator
Posts: 5522
Joined: April 15th, 2007, 3:50 pm
Location: MD

Post by movieman1957 »

I am not a fan of "Seinfeld" either. I think my primary problems were with George (it's a wonder he had any friends) and Kramer (he's just too weird for words.)

I couldn't get into "Friends" either. Maybe I was just too old. (Of course, I was born old.) I thought they were too self absorbed, in some cases too stupid and hard to buy into that different a group being so close. And that was all on top of not finding it funny.

I ran away from "According to Jim" on the first episode. In ten minutes Belushi showed himself completely incapable of buying a Valentine's Day gift. Another dolt. "King of Queens" was just annoying.

While I'm at it, if I haven't mentioned it yet, I think the few episodes of "Two and A Half Men" may be among the most revolting things I've seen on commercial television. The frequent slang references to the thing that makes them males and the blatant sexual references are way over the top for a 9pm show.

I do have a sense of humor. The doctor found it last week.
Chris

"Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana."
User avatar
srowley75
Posts: 723
Joined: April 22nd, 2008, 11:04 am
Location: West Virginia

Post by srowley75 »

jdb1 wrote:I thought it was just me who finds Raymond revolting. I think the characters are truly ghastly -- I don't understand why anyone laughs at that show. I have a very high tolerance for dump-on-the-Italian-Americans-type humor. I was prepared to find something familiar and amusing about Raymond. I hated it the first time I watched it, and never went back. (I'd never heard of Ray Romano before his show went on the air - I'm not surprised that I hadn't.)
I enjoy Raymond primarily because I can identify with the family situation. Scary but true. The opener for season six, "The Angry Family," is one of my favorite TV sitcom episodes.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who found NBC's popular 90s sitcoms annoying: Friends and Seinfeld. Literally all of my acquaintances loved those shows, and I always felt like an oddball because I never watched them or liked them. Friends was to me about as vacuous and sickening as TV could get. Six pretty stylish people wafting around the city, bedhopping and mumbling in a coffee shop have no problems that I can identify with. Give me an episode of Daria - even if it was animated, it was more realistic and down-to-earth than Friends.

-Stephen
jdb1

Post by jdb1 »

Oh, how I miss Daria. That was a really realistic look at what teenagers, especially teenage girls, are like. And it was consistently funny, too. Gotta love those Morgendorffers. Especially Daria's younger sister, Quinn, and the whining way she drew out the syllables of the word "Mom," in a way that I can't recreate here with a mere 26 letters.

Many people I know never saw Daria because it was run on MTV and they assumed it would be mindless drivel. Too bad.
User avatar
mrsl
Posts: 4200
Joined: April 14th, 2007, 5:20 pm
Location: Chicago SW suburbs

Post by mrsl »

jdb1:

I never saw Daria, for the reason you stated. I don't even know what number MTV is on, on my Dish, my grandson could probably tell me - he has his favorite list on the bedroom TV.

Most of the remarks about comedy vs. drama are on the mark about how to keep audiences coming back. One of the few shows I watch on a regular basis is NCIS - it stays with the mystery theme most of the time, but occasionally breaks off to do a personal back story show on one of the characters - just often enough to keep you curious, but little enough to keep with the actual idea of the show. JAG was similar in this, plus they kept the romance between the two main characters on the back burner for all ten years of the shows' run, but using them as flashback characters who get together - good idea - kept the lady audience coming back. NUMB3RS is another good one. Those of you who like using your brain a little may like this one. I have to admit though, that my guilty pleasure is Ghost Whisperer. I get a kick out of it, and will probably watch until it goes off. I started in the beginning year with Medium but lost interest by halfway through year 2.

Anne
Anne


***********************************************************************
* * * * * * * * What is past is prologue. * * * * * * * *

]***********************************************************************
Post Reply