makafint foenix quembee
Silvina Spindler
Every sitcom for the past several years seems as if some network executive looked at a Saturday Night Live sketch -- not the good ones, they ones they bury in the post 12:30 a.m. spots -- and decided it was somehow hip and quirky enough to appeal to the 18-34 crowd. So where you used to have meddling network executives trying to fark up sitcoms from staffs that had a track record of making successful shows, now you have them farking up shows that are, at best, one-note premises or shows based entirely on shock value, which have nothing to offer in terms of funny once the shock aspect becomes familiar and boring.
It seems like the best comedy shows -- e.g. Veep and Silicon Valley -- are aimed towards a more sophisticated niche audience. They're primarily satires.
Meanwhile network shows pander to the least sophisticated and broadest possible audience with shows that get insanely repetitive over 22 episodes.
Maybe we need shorter seasons like the UK?
I've developed a system called the airplane test. I often end up flying coach on a long trip where the batteries of your electronics can't last and you have to succumb to whatever entertainment's available on the seatback screen (if there is one.) Those systems usually either broadcast TV or VOD, and in both cases there's often only reruns available. I've found that I would rather sit and stare in silence than compound in-flight misery with a bad sitcom. It's a great place to catch up on some I've missed, and there's only one new one that's passed this test in recent months: "Mom."
Plus the big farting elephant in the room, commercials. I can dvr something to fast-forward over the ads, but even then, gunning the cable box's motor for such long stretches makes watching a sitcom more like picking the bacon out of a shit salad.
See? I made myself incoherent with rage. Back to bed...
I think it's cyclical. There was a huge article in TV Guide in early 1982 proclaiming the genre was dying out - which was another way of saying no recent hits had been introduced. And we all know what happened over the next few years.
There's a pretty good AV Club article about sitcoms from that era, although some of the opinions are certainly open to debate:
-sitcoms-50003
Your micromanaging point is dead on I think. Case in point -- remunerated seat-fillers in the 'live' audience? If you get this gig, you're officially hired as an "Audience Model." Granted, you're probably way up in the cheap rows -- jobbing LA performer-hopefuls (cue right age demo...) are ringers that are paid to ensure the capacity audience for the live pilot/episode shoot @ minimum wage.
We're a long way from those man-in-the-street test screenings in Huntington Park.
Glad you also like "Mom," J.K. -- and it's appropriate to note here that its first season has just been issued on DVD, for anyone who wants to catch up on the backstory before season 2 starts next Monday night.
Of course, it helps that "Mom" is run by Chuck Lorre, whose clout and track record (particularly with CBS) enables him to shepherd a series to fruition with minimal interference. (For example, CBS thankfully didn't force him to copy the broad humor that marks Lorre stablemates "The Big Bang Theory" or "Mike And Molly.")
CBS won't get a "Big Bang"?"Cosby" megahit out of "Mom" (though it's nice to see the network give it a push), but it should be a reliable part of its lineup for several years. (Heck, even Andrew Parker might like it once he gets over his sitcom snobbery.) It then will go to syndication, just as my other favorite current sitcom, "Hot In Cleveland" (manned by a batch of sitcom pros, both on-screen and off), is doing this fall.
When Network and Studio Executives brag about the hit shows they've developed, it usually means they didn't give enough bad notes to kill it, or that the writers who created it managed to make the Executives think they were following their notes, while actually doing what they wanted.
"...so I do have a certain familiarity with the subject."
Love that line. So beautifully understated.
Production-by-committee seems to work great for car building or airplane manufacturing. Storytelling, not so much.
It seems that betting on the success of a pilot is a poor financial risk. However, more curious is why the networks place their bets on a creative process-by-committee, which almost guarantees failure, rather than on the vision of a leader with a proven track record of entertainment success.
When I'm king, things will be different...
Well said.
From the outside it appears that networks are happy to base their decisions on next-to-no data. If something is a hit, they copy it at a face value. If something is a failure, they avoid its most obvious traits.
If GOLDEN GIRLS was a surprise hit today, it's hard not to imagine that there'd be a sudden slue of postmenopausal women on TV -- because clearly that's what the public would want. The thing that made GOLDEN GIRLS a hit is the fact that it contained women of retirement age. Not the fact that it was funny, entertaining, or different(!). It's the old ladies -- people love old ladies.
Instead it was FRIENDS that last hit BIG. So clearly everyone wants to see young, attractive 20-somethings.
Likewise, after a few years where no multi-camera sitcoms connected with audiences in a big way, Hollywood declared the genre dead. Not because the shows weren't funny, entertaining or different... it was because of the number of cameras they used.
In his famous impassioned acceptance speech, Kevin Spacey made the excellent point that people just want to watch GOOD CONTENT. These days they don't even care if it's on their computer, never mind how many cameras were used to film it. Funny is funny. Entertaining is entertaining. The rest is window dressing.
In fairness, I'd bet a lot of these decisions are actually based on as much market research that they can muster. It makes sense to try and make decisions based on data. But the problem with market research is that it's very easy to do badly. It's very easy to think you're hearing answers that aren't there.
According to market research THE MARY TYLER MOORE SHOW and SEINFELD were both destined to be flops. According to market research even the iPhone was going to be a failure in the US. I'm sure there's countless other even better examples.
In CREATIVITY, INC., Pixar's Ed Catmull does a great job of explaining the sort of environment where quality content can be consistently produced. In Pixar's model, feedback doesn't just have its place, it's the core of how and why they've been so successful.
But it has to be done in the right way. The people giving notes on shows should be fellow creatives who understand the problems being faced. And the environment should be akin to doctors solving a complicated medical case: Those giving feedback are fellow doctors trying to help you solve your problem, but ultimately it's up to you how you use their advice.
The system in TV at the moment appears to be rife for usurping. As soon as the new content providers figure out that it's not just edgy content that people are looking for, I imagine that's exactly what's going to happen.
The next big sitcom could well come from Amazon, Netflix or Yahoo!
Friday question:
Hi Ken,
Any opinion on the new ABC sitcom, "Black-ish". Only the pilot has aired, but based off that one episode, it feels like every other bland, single camera comedy that just happens to be taking on topical themes. It seems as though critics latch onto that sole fact and are therefore calling this a "great" comedy along the lines of "The Cosby Show".
I just thought it wasn't terribly funny. Thoughts?
Thanks!
I look at Marvel Studio Movies (Not SHIELD, that show is 15 years out of date). They've been knocking it out of the park. They made Captain America, a character from WW2, a bold challenger of 21st century drone warfare. They've got Thor, who has family issues. They've got Iron Man, who is about growing up and maybe even getting sober. They've got Guardians of the Galaxy, which features talking trees and racoons. They have the two biggest movies of the year.
And they have like 30 people on staff producing hugely popular, well made, intelligent movies that my parents can see without rolling their eyes and saying "comic book stuff at our age? No way."
You're right Ken, it's not science it's an art. And an MBA can't quantify art on computer.
On the other hand, NCIS gets 20 million people a week to watch it, and the best I can say is that it's a pleasant show that doesn't challenge or offend me in any way.
Two points:
1. The "Anonymous" poster who mentioned "You're The Worst" as being very funny is spot-on. But, its very biting humor and filled with adult language/themes so it wouldn't translate well to networks. Still, the leads are attractive-but-not-in-a-model-way and they can delivery funny & heartfelt with their faces or their voices.
2. "Enlisted" should be a case study for how a network can & will screw up a good thing. It is obvious despite buying the show FOX never gave it a chance. Airing episodes out of order (one week he has a steady girlfriend, the next week he meets her for the first time!), little promotion, and Dead Zone Friday night timeslot following dreck like "Rake."
I'm certainly biased (retired military) but I found the show very funny and yet also touching. The cast was on the same page from the pilot episode and there was no lack of potential storylines. Given the bafflingly huge numbers for stuff like the NCIS franchise it could & should have been a long-running, though likely modest, hit.
I agree with Jae...it seems as though so much praise is being heaped upon Black-ish because a network sitcom focused entirely on a black family has been basically missing for a long time. I watched the pilot wanting to like it (mostly because it's fresh and different from all the other crap-ola on networks today, but also because I like many of the cast), but I didn't find myself laughing much and was kind of bored with it. Too bad, I wanted to like it.
90f70e40cf