Latter_Feeling2656

Latter_Feeling2656 t1_j5q93d0 wrote

Live audience shows had almost died out by 1970. Mary Tyler Moore started a live show in 1970, followed soon after by All in the Family and Sanford and Son, and then The Odd Couple switched from single camera with a laugh track to multicamera with an audience. And for the next 20 years, nearly all hit sitcoms were live audience. So, the next hit could turn the whole thing around again.

1

Latter_Feeling2656 t1_j5pxdfd wrote

"It will take a show I might actually like and enjoy and turn it immediately into something I simply can’t watch."

This is where your argument just fails. There's no physical allergy to listening to mixed laughter. If there's a TV episode that's a 10 out of 10, addition of laughter doesn't drop it to 0 out of 10. At least not if you intended to laugh in the first place. People laughed at silent films, black & white films, no film (aka, radio). A laugh track doesn't disqualify something from being funny.

There's an All in the Family episode where Mike is unloading a bag of groceries and commenting on the products. He pulls out some kind of cleaner and says, "Look at this label, 'New and Improved.' Everything we buy today is new and improved. What were we using yesterday - old and lousy?" And this is what we've seen in recent years - an effort to disqualify older shows from consideration because these new shows have discovered some secret formula. It's marketing, not art or even criticism, and people who just can't watch Seinfeld or Cheers or MASH or Andy Griffith or Lucy have just fallen for a sales pitch.

1

Latter_Feeling2656 t1_j1nvme3 wrote

About the only "filler" for me would be seasons churned out after the show's quality has declined, but while a portion of the audience has remained due to loyalty. The show has nothing left to say, but can still earn for someone.

An episode can be analogous to a chapter in a novel, or it can be analogous to a short story complete in itself. So a season can be analogous to a full novel, or a collection of short stories. Either sort of book can be padded with material that's only tangentially related to the designated subject.

6

Latter_Feeling2656 t1_iy7tsap wrote

I think it's pretty much universally accepted that Penny, Bernadette, and Amy were more normal, functional, and attractive than Leonard, Howard, and Sheldon, respectively, while Raj and then Stuart are presented as classic losers. A claim of misogyny can't be sustained when the premise of the show is that all of the male characters are inadequate.

7

Latter_Feeling2656 t1_iwonpi6 wrote

It's a pretty interesting show: in most military sitcoms, the army is the enemy, and the protagonists are the operators who are trying to get around the army's rules and have a little fun. Hogan's different - there are no episodes where the group is trying to get around Klink because there's a party in Hamelburg. They're commandos with a mission every week, and the comedy has to arise from the mission. This is a long way around of saying that it's actually a distant James Bond clone, closer in concept to the Man from UNCLE than it is to McHale's Navy or the early years of MASH.

Co-created by Albert Ruddy, who went on to produce The Godfather.

14