They have posting boards, recaps for maybe two dozen current shows, and lots of people who love to talk about how Arrested Development is the Parthenon of the Modern Age.
That's happened to me once and it drove me up the wall. During a mid-season of Buffy, I think!
Best Netflix story that I have: the Wife forced me to go out and buy Alias: Season Two because she couldn't bear to wait for the final couple of discs to arrive in the mail...
Great post, Eric. The only thing I want to add is that although I enjoy many of the single camera comedies currently on (in fact, I'm a fan of every single comedy Al Barger listed in his comment), I am worried that creators will assume that the single camera style will mask the problems that their comedy has. A good example of this, so far, would be Barbershop. Despite the use of many of the techniques that are unique to single camera shows, it is still horribly unfunny. I hope that most single camera comedies stay funny, interesting, and on the cutting edge but the pessimist in me thinks that one day, we will have a glut of unfunny single camera shows thinking that they are funny just because of the way they are shot.
Thanks very much, Sterfish. Yes, of course single-camera is no panacea. Shows will always come down to writing and casting and acting. Let's face it: Larry David talking about toe cheese in front of a cardboard wall will always be more interesting than 95% of the comedy that's out there.
Comedy is a really really hard game to pull off. Single-camera production gives the best ones a chance in many cases to be truly special.
The comedy that really started and innovated the single-camera visual style and influenced the others to come was (surprise) Malcolm in the Middle.
Curb Your Enthusiasm is my favorite show on TV, but it came much later.
All the good, intelligent comedies on TV now are single-camera comedies with no laugh track. Unfortunately, all of these wonderful comedies (Arrested Development, Scrubs, Bernie Mac) struggle for ratings, with the possible exception of Malcolm because of its appeal to kids and adults. America doesn't seem to be willing to give up the traditional, cheesy wacky family sitcom like you'll find on CBS or ABC. But even these have ratings nowhere near the level of NBC's comedies of the 80s and 90s. Everybody Loves Raymond was the last big traditional family sitcom of its kind, possibly forever.
That 70s Show has always struck me as slightly above average, mediocre but with a little more effort, but it's clearly "jumped the shark" long ago. They're trying to milk it out for one more season with a skeleton cast, but the show's never been a huge critical or ratings success. It'll be remembered slightly more fondly than a show like Becker or Dharma and Greg or Drew Carey but it's nowhere near an all-time classic. It was probably one of the best at targeting young adults, though.
That is all.
36 -
Lou
Aug 20, 2005 at 1:31 am
Eric NICE article man.
Good call with Entourage, its one of better new shows i've seen. Its definetly gotten much better as the season has gone on, but the gold standard on that show is Jeremy Piven. That guy is like onto a god. He is SUPERB in his role as a sleazy agent with a heart of gold that itself has a scumbag center. the young cast are ok, the lead and "E" are ok but a bit flat at times... Drama and turtle have awsome little side plot adventures thatadd alot.
Eric, I would primarily say that these shows are primarily an achievement of their screenplays, rather than anything else. I'm not sure why the number of cameras involved is such a central consideration. But sonofabitch the dysunfunctionally functional family logic of Malcolm's family really does it for me.
You could argue over whether animated shows would count as sitcoms. I don't know why not. Is the Simpsons NOT a classic family sitcom? Surely King of the Hill is. It's more nearly straightforwardly realistic than any of those live action shows on my little list.
I can see how you could take Monk as drama or comedy. Comedy really is the main selling point- as it was for Columbo. But Monk sure builds up a great head of real pathos frequently, more truly dramatic by far than Columbo.
Bob -- The original "mockumentary" for Curb aired in 1999, with Malcolm premiering in 2000 -- so you're close, but no cigar! The full season of both kicked off in 2000. I've seen snippets of Malcolm over the years, enough to know that it's watchable.
I definitely take issue with your opinion of That 70s Show and The Drew Carey Show. Both were top sitcoms in their prime on the strength of great writing.
Lou -- You are entirely right about Entourage and Piven. Ever since I saw our man in PCU I've been a huge follower of his. And he's never been better than as Ari, the most realistically sleazy (yet somehow weirdly likeable) character on television. Drama and Turtle are pretty fantastic as well.
Al -- Sure, you can consider The Simpsons and King sitcoms, but I'm not really looking at animated comedies here.
And I'm not sure if single vs. multi-camera is a central consideration, but it's surely a very important one. It really changes a great deal about a program.
In addition to camera work, I think you have to look at what it is shot on- the video vs film shows.
I don't think either really change that much more than how the writers go about writing each show. With the limitations of a single camera and/or film- there is more pressure for good writing. Because it is a waste if you use those things on a lame show. So when you can make a show on the cheap- you can get away with less compelling writing and mediocre acting.
Drew Carey top-notch? That was definitely a show aiming for the bottom of the middle-brow barrel. I'm intentionally mixing metaphors there because I think it describes the show well -- it had no real message, broad jokes, muddled storylines and blah characters. I suppose we can agree to disagree on that show, though -- are you from Cleveland too, by any chance?
Berlin, I think we have to be somewhat precise here. There are different kinds of single-camera shows. Malcom invented the quick-cutting, slightly absurdist visual style that you see today on Scrubs and somewhat on Arrested Development as well.
While I love Larry David, that 1999 HBO special wasn't inventive visually. The content was interesting and it was actually written (unlike the improv of the superior Curb shows to come) and well-written at that, but that pilot's not the main influence for the current generation of single-camera shows. Malcolm has been cited in a few articles as a direct influence on how TV comedies have developed and it's still the only single-camera comedy on network TV with any ratings longevity. I think we've sort of forgotten the stories and critics who wrote about how different the show looked when it first aired because our eyes have grown used to it.
It's not my favorite show out of the group, probably more like fifth, but it was historic in its own way.
E - I don't agree with you at all. You're basically saying that multi-camera basically allows writers to be lazy and mediocre? I don't see that -- I see it as a form that is limiting and that is pretty far past its prime now (with a very few notable exceptions).
Bob - I think you're correct in calling for precision. Curb was innovative for using the single-camera and bringing an improvisational feel to a half-hour comedy. Malcolm was innovative for going single-camera and using lots of quick-cuts, flashbacks, and so on.
I need to see more of Malcolm to speak more about it. Unfortunately, I wrote it off at the time because I couldn't stomach yet another family-based sitcom. But then, like with all good shows, I kept hearing good things about it.
I stand by my thoughts that The Drew Carey Show was often funny and always above average. The writing and characters were strong, and the acting always refreshingly good. I could watch Ryan Styles read a computer manual, for instance.
Maybe you find the show "middlebrow" because it focuses upon middle class people in Middle America? (I'm actually from New York and currently live in LA, so I'm as quote-unquote "elite" as they come).
I look for laughs and I look for a reason to stick around when I watch a television sitcom, and Drew and crew definitely had both.
I should also add that as a traditional multi-camera, The Drew Carey Show took lots of chances and played liberally with the form. That in itself deserves merit.
It had a surprisingly long run ('95-04) so most of my comments relate to its first five or so years. From what I saw, it declined in the early '00s.
Oh, on the screenplay: I'm actually "in talks" about writing one with a friend in LA, Bob.
And I actually think High Fidelity is an outstanding movie (based on an outstanding book -- a rare feat indeed). Maybe it's "male geek archetypal" (something most males relate to, by the way) but it's certainly in touch as hell.
I was kidding about the "High Fidelity" reference because EVERY screenplay written by a semi-literate guy in his 20s or 30s these days that I've read is clearly Nick Hornby-Lite, Kevin Smith-Lite, or Quentin Tarantino-Lite.
I think it's probably much easier to break in writing comedy screenplays than drama, simply because it's easier to write comedic fiction than serious fiction. What kind of stuff do you write?
I believe it on the Hornby, Smith, and Tarantino-lite.
I've written short stories, almost done with my first novel (after 18 too long months cracking at it), and lots of non-fiction blog-world stuff.
So scripts are very new to me, but it's always something I've been interested in from afar. I did write sketch comedy for a comedy troupe in the late 90s in San Francisco, and the live laughs that came from stuff I wrote was about the biggest thrill I could have imagined.
Anyway, I'm still in the process of figuring out the kind of writing that I want to be really serious about, as opposed to just mucking about.
Soon enough you'll be sucked backed into the vortex, Mat...
(and thanks!)
50 -
Baronius
Aug 20, 2005 at 5:35 pm
I hate to say anything good about Ally McBeal, so I won't. It was a lousy show. It was the first show I recall that had the fantasy sequences, camera work, and in general screwed around with the form. You could argue that it was a lousy drama instead of a lousy comedy, but I think it was a forerunner to the kind of comedy we all like.
It's already happening. The wife and I just had a long discussion over regular cable vs digital cable (we can't get sattelite here) vs just doing netflix.
Wife and I had the same discussion a ways back. We settled on going low budget cable (about $15 / month for a goodly number of channels vs. $60 and up for the next "level") and Netflix. We added a fairly cheap DVR into the mix this year, which I enjoy immensely.
My biggest gripe is not getting the premiere shows on HBO and, to a lesser extent, Showtime.
Otherwise, I've been able to live without The Daily Show (though painful) and Sportscenter (less painful now that my sports addiction has mostly drifted away).
That's the option I've been pushing. It just doesn't seem worth the extra cash to get a few extra channels, when netflix could provide better entertainment.
What type of DVR did you buy. I want one bad, but no nothing about the medium to make a choice on which one to buy.
We lived off of internet broadcasts of the Daily Show while in France
We get a DVR from our local cable company. It's a bit clunky to operate (whereas I've heard TiVo is very easy) but it's cheap.
It's really revolutionized the way I watch TV in that you never have to worry about getting to the set at a specific time on a specific day. Likewise, I can scan through political shows for content I might be interested in. There's all kinds of ways that it makes television-watching easier and more enjoyable.
I'm not sure what you're asking, Mat. You need a computer with a DVD-ROM drive (at least) to burn video content to a DVD. A DVR doesn't play DVDs (perhaps that's what you're asking) -- it only records and stores and plays TV shows. You need a separate DVD player to play DVDs.
Oh, ok. Somewhere I though that the DRV would burn a dvd as well. So its basically like Tivo then eh? That's still pretty hip for all the reasons you mentioned.
excellent article, Eric, and i get where you're coming from here. in Britain, i noticed the trend, too. a move away from what you have as the multi-camera, living room, teenage brat type set-up, to the likes of The Office, Phoenix Nights, Black Books, Nathan Barley. with the exception of Black Books, none of those shows have laugh-tracks, either, which is a subtle but incredibly effective measure.
excellent stuff here. and where would The Simpsons fit in all this chaos? seems to me it borrows the trends of the "traditional" sit-com (although obviously it can do stuff live-action couldn't) and has the biting feel of the more recent efforts, the Curb Your Enthusiasms etc...
I place The Simpsons and South Park clearly in the multi-camera camp, simply because they can and will do anything.... because it costs exactly the same to them!
Therefore, you get time travel and going into character's thought processes and flashbacks and trips to the White House and on and on.
Animation is an incredibly liberating medium from that perspective, and I think that's why we see, finally, shows that are able to harnass it for an adult audience.
I think I'd place the laugh track alongside single- versus multi-camera as a separate area for examination. I almost universally hate the laugh track, and I'm always surprised to hear people defend it.
Has there even been a single-camera show WITH a laugh track?
That seems to be one of the major things the single-camera shows have rebelled against, with relatively poor results ratings-wise.
It's empirically proven that laugh track = ratings, which is disturbing to me but seemingly true.
The Simpsons and South Park don't use cameras, they're animation. If you were to classify them visually, they're definitely more single-camera, which itself was influenced BY animation. A show like Family Guy, for example, borrowed from the Simpsons but took it even further in having almost constant quick cuts to absurd fantasy sequences or jokes based on asides or tangential throw-away references. Visually, it's pretty similar to what Scrubs and Malcolm try to do with live-action, but of course much more manic and random due to the creative larks animation affords.
In terms of theme, The Simpsons is a straight satire of traditional sitcoms, you're right. It started out with Homer as a Walter Matthau-type character and has evolved into a pretty interesting, twisted take on American TV family. South Park is a satire of depictions of cute kids on TV and touches on some of the same themes.
I believe Sports Night may be one of the few examples of a single-camera sitcom (though it verged frequently in dramedy-territory) that used a laugh track, at least for half of the first season.
A terrible mistake for an outstanding show.
But you're right in saying that the laugh track seems to be fine for most viewers. God knows why!
In any event, you can probably make the argument that as a whole, even in 2005, multi-camera shows with laugh tracks trend more ratings then the edgier, laugh-trackless single-camera shows.
Therefore, Arrested Development and Scrubs are getting beat down by Two and a Half Men, etc.
I wasn't saying multi camera made for worse writing, but it doesnt have the same limitations that single camera does that might push the writers to come up with better material. From my experience, it is a lot easier to shoot with a three camera set up than it is with one.
Granted, Entourage and Scrubs are the only shows you mentioned that I've ever watched regularly with a little of That 70s Show thrown in.
Yes, multi-cameria is much easier and cheaper to shoot, which is why it is still the standard.
Again, my general point is that single-camera allows more freedom for new ideas and innovation for a half-hour comedy. It still comes down to solid writing in the end, of course. Additionally, there are multi-camera shows (a few, anyway) that overcome the limitations and general malaise of the multi-camera format through a combination of outstanding writing and innovations built on top of the multi-camera main format.
Oh yes, I realize I'm preaching to the choir here. Your love for Arrested Development is well documented. I love it too and that's why it pains me that shows like it and Scrubs go mostly unnoticed by the general public. But, there's the A.D. season two dvd coming out October 11 and a whole new season to look forward to. At least until it's cut from 24 to 18 shows again.
Thankfully AD remains on the air for now. And Rescue Me just got picked up for a third season, so there's reason to hope that superior television can prevail... though it's mindboggling to even consider the logic of that statement!
I noticed Arrested Development just got picked up for syndication on our local Fox stations here. I would guess that it's probably not going to catch fire like it deserves to and that this season is its last chance, but at least it'll live on in syndication. We have a pretty good block of shows from 10 pm to 12:30 am that often beat the local news and the talk show hosts in the local ratings (Simpsons, Malcolm, Arrested Development, Seinfeld, Frasier).
Is it me or does it seem like shows are getting to the Promised Land of syndication much sooner than they used to? It used to have to be that you'd have to make it through a 5th season and 100 episodes before you'd get that magic syndication money. But now I see that shows like AD and Bernie Mac are being syndicated after only 3 seasons or so.
Maybe it depends on your market? I haven't noticed that here in LA. Then again, I don't catch very many commercials and/or repeats of shows these days.
My mistake, it turns out Arrested Development is not syndicated daily yet. The local Fox affiliate here just played re-runs from the last season at 11 pm for a week to get people interested.
Yes, two seasons would be awfully short to syndicate. It's so damned good, though, that I'd love to see it on the air everyday.
75 -
Franke
Sep 12, 2005 at 6:16 am
If you guys spent as much time writing your own sitcom specs, as you do writing on these blogs, we might actually have something interesting to watch on TV! :->
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Baronius
Sorry if I got obscure: the website is
www.televisionwithoutpity.com
They have posting boards, recaps for maybe two dozen current shows, and lots of people who love to talk about how Arrested Development is the Parthenon of the Modern Age.
27 - Tan The Man
you'll be in for a great treat when u get Babylon 5. Make sure u watch it in order, otherwise u'll miss the experience.
28 - Eric Berlin
Thanks Baronius. I don't know about the Modern Age, but I might vote for the Comedy Age!
Tan -- The brilliant thing about TV shows on DVD is that you can watch in order on your own schedule.
29 - Tan The Man
True, but with Netflix, they might send you a DVD out of order, don't be tempted.
30 - Eric Berlin
That's happened to me once and it drove me up the wall. During a mid-season of Buffy, I think!
Best Netflix story that I have: the Wife forced me to go out and buy Alias: Season Two because she couldn't bear to wait for the final couple of discs to arrive in the mail...
31 - Chris Beaumont
Another show just came to mind: The Office (either version)
32 - Eric Berlin
What about 'em, Chris? I almost wrote a bit about the UK version, but decided to keep it straight US at the last minute.
33 - Sterfish
Great post, Eric. The only thing I want to add is that although I enjoy many of the single camera comedies currently on (in fact, I'm a fan of every single comedy Al Barger listed in his comment), I am worried that creators will assume that the single camera style will mask the problems that their comedy has. A good example of this, so far, would be Barbershop. Despite the use of many of the techniques that are unique to single camera shows, it is still horribly unfunny. I hope that most single camera comedies stay funny, interesting, and on the cutting edge but the pessimist in me thinks that one day, we will have a glut of unfunny single camera shows thinking that they are funny just because of the way they are shot.
34 - Eric Berlin
Thanks very much, Sterfish. Yes, of course single-camera is no panacea. Shows will always come down to writing and casting and acting. Let's face it: Larry David talking about toe cheese in front of a cardboard wall will always be more interesting than 95% of the comedy that's out there.
Comedy is a really really hard game to pull off. Single-camera production gives the best ones a chance in many cases to be truly special.
35 - Bob A. Booey
The comedy that really started and innovated the single-camera visual style and influenced the others to come was (surprise) Malcolm in the Middle.
Curb Your Enthusiasm is my favorite show on TV, but it came much later.
All the good, intelligent comedies on TV now are single-camera comedies with no laugh track. Unfortunately, all of these wonderful comedies (Arrested Development, Scrubs, Bernie Mac) struggle for ratings, with the possible exception of Malcolm because of its appeal to kids and adults. America doesn't seem to be willing to give up the traditional, cheesy wacky family sitcom like you'll find on CBS or ABC. But even these have ratings nowhere near the level of NBC's comedies of the 80s and 90s. Everybody Loves Raymond was the last big traditional family sitcom of its kind, possibly forever.
That 70s Show has always struck me as slightly above average, mediocre but with a little more effort, but it's clearly "jumped the shark" long ago. They're trying to milk it out for one more season with a skeleton cast, but the show's never been a huge critical or ratings success. It'll be remembered slightly more fondly than a show like Becker or Dharma and Greg or Drew Carey but it's nowhere near an all-time classic. It was probably one of the best at targeting young adults, though.
That is all.
36 - Lou
Eric NICE article man.
Good call with Entourage, its one of better new shows i've seen. Its definetly gotten much better as the season has gone on, but the gold standard on that show is Jeremy Piven. That guy is like onto a god. He is SUPERB in his role as a sleazy agent with a heart of gold that itself has a scumbag center. the young cast are ok, the lead and "E" are ok but a bit flat at times... Drama and turtle have awsome little side plot adventures thatadd alot.
-Lou
37 - Al Barger
Eric, I would primarily say that these shows are primarily an achievement of their screenplays, rather than anything else. I'm not sure why the number of cameras involved is such a central consideration. But sonofabitch the dysunfunctionally functional family logic of Malcolm's family really does it for me.
You could argue over whether animated shows would count as sitcoms. I don't know why not. Is the Simpsons NOT a classic family sitcom? Surely King of the Hill is. It's more nearly straightforwardly realistic than any of those live action shows on my little list.
I can see how you could take Monk as drama or comedy. Comedy really is the main selling point- as it was for Columbo. But Monk sure builds up a great head of real pathos frequently, more truly dramatic by far than Columbo.
38 - Eric Berlin
Bob -- The original "mockumentary" for Curb aired in 1999, with Malcolm premiering in 2000 -- so you're close, but no cigar! The full season of both kicked off in 2000. I've seen snippets of Malcolm over the years, enough to know that it's watchable.
I definitely take issue with your opinion of That 70s Show and The Drew Carey Show. Both were top sitcoms in their prime on the strength of great writing.
39 - Eric Berlin
Lou -- You are entirely right about Entourage and Piven. Ever since I saw our man in PCU I've been a huge follower of his. And he's never been better than as Ari, the most realistically sleazy (yet somehow weirdly likeable) character on television. Drama and Turtle are pretty fantastic as well.
Al -- Sure, you can consider The Simpsons and King sitcoms, but I'm not really looking at animated comedies here.
And I'm not sure if single vs. multi-camera is a central consideration, but it's surely a very important one. It really changes a great deal about a program.
40 - -E
In addition to camera work, I think you have to look at what it is shot on- the video vs film shows.
I don't think either really change that much more than how the writers go about writing each show. With the limitations of a single camera and/or film- there is more pressure for good writing. Because it is a waste if you use those things on a lame show. So when you can make a show on the cheap- you can get away with less compelling writing and mediocre acting.
41 - Bob A. Booey
Drew Carey top-notch? That was definitely a show aiming for the bottom of the middle-brow barrel. I'm intentionally mixing metaphors there because I think it describes the show well -- it had no real message, broad jokes, muddled storylines and blah characters. I suppose we can agree to disagree on that show, though -- are you from Cleveland too, by any chance?
Berlin, I think we have to be somewhat precise here. There are different kinds of single-camera shows. Malcom invented the quick-cutting, slightly absurdist visual style that you see today on Scrubs and somewhat on Arrested Development as well.
While I love Larry David, that 1999 HBO special wasn't inventive visually. The content was interesting and it was actually written (unlike the improv of the superior Curb shows to come) and well-written at that, but that pilot's not the main influence for the current generation of single-camera shows. Malcolm has been cited in a few articles as a direct influence on how TV comedies have developed and it's still the only single-camera comedy on network TV with any ratings longevity. I think we've sort of forgotten the stories and critics who wrote about how different the show looked when it first aired because our eyes have grown used to it.
It's not my favorite show out of the group, probably more like fifth, but it was historic in its own way.
That is all.
42 - Bob A. Booey
I do think Drew's a pretty funny stand-up, a great TV talk show guest, and a pretty cool, weird guy but that show SCREAMED mediocrity.
We should still write a screenplay together, though, Berlin. It can be like High Fidelity but less out of touch and male geek archetypal.
That is all.
43 - Eric Berlin
E - I don't agree with you at all. You're basically saying that multi-camera basically allows writers to be lazy and mediocre? I don't see that -- I see it as a form that is limiting and that is pretty far past its prime now (with a very few notable exceptions).
Bob - I think you're correct in calling for precision. Curb was innovative for using the single-camera and bringing an improvisational feel to a half-hour comedy. Malcolm was innovative for going single-camera and using lots of quick-cuts, flashbacks, and so on.
I need to see more of Malcolm to speak more about it. Unfortunately, I wrote it off at the time because I couldn't stomach yet another family-based sitcom. But then, like with all good shows, I kept hearing good things about it.
44 - Eric Berlin
I stand by my thoughts that The Drew Carey Show was often funny and always above average. The writing and characters were strong, and the acting always refreshingly good. I could watch Ryan Styles read a computer manual, for instance.
Maybe you find the show "middlebrow" because it focuses upon middle class people in Middle America? (I'm actually from New York and currently live in LA, so I'm as quote-unquote "elite" as they come).
I look for laughs and I look for a reason to stick around when I watch a television sitcom, and Drew and crew definitely had both.
I should also add that as a traditional multi-camera, The Drew Carey Show took lots of chances and played liberally with the form. That in itself deserves merit.
It had a surprisingly long run ('95-04) so most of my comments relate to its first five or so years. From what I saw, it declined in the early '00s.
45 - Eric Berlin
Oh, on the screenplay: I'm actually "in talks" about writing one with a friend in LA, Bob.
And I actually think High Fidelity is an outstanding movie (based on an outstanding book -- a rare feat indeed). Maybe it's "male geek archetypal" (something most males relate to, by the way) but it's certainly in touch as hell.
46 - Bob A. Booey
I was kidding about the "High Fidelity" reference because EVERY screenplay written by a semi-literate guy in his 20s or 30s these days that I've read is clearly Nick Hornby-Lite, Kevin Smith-Lite, or Quentin Tarantino-Lite.
I think it's probably much easier to break in writing comedy screenplays than drama, simply because it's easier to write comedic fiction than serious fiction. What kind of stuff do you write?
That is all.
47 - Eric Berlin
I believe it on the Hornby, Smith, and Tarantino-lite.
I've written short stories, almost done with my first novel (after 18 too long months cracking at it), and lots of non-fiction blog-world stuff.
So scripts are very new to me, but it's always something I've been interested in from afar. I did write sketch comedy for a comedy troupe in the late 90s in San Francisco, and the live laughs that came from stuff I wrote was about the biggest thrill I could have imagined.
Anyway, I'm still in the process of figuring out the kind of writing that I want to be really serious about, as opposed to just mucking about.
48 - Mat Brewster
Great article Eric! It almost makes me want to start watching TV again.
Almost.
49 - Eric Berlin
Soon enough you'll be sucked backed into the vortex, Mat...
(and thanks!)
50 - Baronius
I hate to say anything good about Ally McBeal, so I won't. It was a lousy show. It was the first show I recall that had the fantasy sequences, camera work, and in general screwed around with the form. You could argue that it was a lousy drama instead of a lousy comedy, but I think it was a forerunner to the kind of comedy we all like.
51 - Eric Berlin
Good points Baronius, and I absolutely agree. I always hated the kind of stretched out reality of that show.
52 - Mat Brewster
It's already happening. The wife and I just had a long discussion over regular cable vs digital cable (we can't get sattelite here) vs just doing netflix.
53 - Eric Berlin
Wife and I had the same discussion a ways back. We settled on going low budget cable (about $15 / month for a goodly number of channels vs. $60 and up for the next "level") and Netflix. We added a fairly cheap DVR into the mix this year, which I enjoy immensely.
My biggest gripe is not getting the premiere shows on HBO and, to a lesser extent, Showtime.
Otherwise, I've been able to live without The Daily Show (though painful) and Sportscenter (less painful now that my sports addiction has mostly drifted away).
54 - Mat Brewster
That's the option I've been pushing. It just doesn't seem worth the extra cash to get a few extra channels, when netflix could provide better entertainment.
What type of DVR did you buy. I want one bad, but no nothing about the medium to make a choice on which one to buy.
We lived off of internet broadcasts of the Daily Show while in France
55 - Eric Berlin
We get a DVR from our local cable company. It's a bit clunky to operate (whereas I've heard TiVo is very easy) but it's cheap.
It's really revolutionized the way I watch TV in that you never have to worry about getting to the set at a specific time on a specific day. Likewise, I can scan through political shows for content I might be interested in. There's all kinds of ways that it makes television-watching easier and more enjoyable.
(Did I mention commercials?)
56 - Mat Brewster
Dumb guy question here. Can you burn regular dvds (say from netflix) with the DRV or is it just stuff from the TV?
57 - Eric Berlin
I'm not sure what you're asking, Mat. You need a computer with a DVD-ROM drive (at least) to burn video content to a DVD. A DVR doesn't play DVDs (perhaps that's what you're asking) -- it only records and stores and plays TV shows. You need a separate DVD player to play DVDs.
58 - Mat Brewster
Oh, ok. Somewhere I though that the DRV would burn a dvd as well. So its basically like Tivo then eh? That's still pretty hip for all the reasons you mentioned.
59 - Eric Berlin
Yep, TiVo is a type of DVR (Digital Video Recorder).
60 - Aaron, Duke De Mondo
excellent article, Eric, and i get where you're coming from here. in Britain, i noticed the trend, too. a move away from what you have as the multi-camera, living room, teenage brat type set-up, to the likes of The Office, Phoenix Nights, Black Books, Nathan Barley. with the exception of Black Books, none of those shows have laugh-tracks, either, which is a subtle but incredibly effective measure.
excellent stuff here. and where would The Simpsons fit in all this chaos? seems to me it borrows the trends of the "traditional" sit-com (although obviously it can do stuff live-action couldn't) and has the biting feel of the more recent efforts, the Curb Your Enthusiasms etc...
61 - Eric Berlin
Thanks Duke.
I place The Simpsons and South Park clearly in the multi-camera camp, simply because they can and will do anything.... because it costs exactly the same to them!
Therefore, you get time travel and going into character's thought processes and flashbacks and trips to the White House and on and on.
Animation is an incredibly liberating medium from that perspective, and I think that's why we see, finally, shows that are able to harnass it for an adult audience.
62 - Eric Berlin
I think I'd place the laugh track alongside single- versus multi-camera as a separate area for examination. I almost universally hate the laugh track, and I'm always surprised to hear people defend it.
63 - Bob A. Booey
Has there even been a single-camera show WITH a laugh track?
That seems to be one of the major things the single-camera shows have rebelled against, with relatively poor results ratings-wise.
It's empirically proven that laugh track = ratings, which is disturbing to me but seemingly true.
The Simpsons and South Park don't use cameras, they're animation. If you were to classify them visually, they're definitely more single-camera, which itself was influenced BY animation. A show like Family Guy, for example, borrowed from the Simpsons but took it even further in having almost constant quick cuts to absurd fantasy sequences or jokes based on asides or tangential throw-away references. Visually, it's pretty similar to what Scrubs and Malcolm try to do with live-action, but of course much more manic and random due to the creative larks animation affords.
In terms of theme, The Simpsons is a straight satire of traditional sitcoms, you're right. It started out with Homer as a Walter Matthau-type character and has evolved into a pretty interesting, twisted take on American TV family. South Park is a satire of depictions of cute kids on TV and touches on some of the same themes.
That is all.
64 - Eric Berlin
I believe Sports Night may be one of the few examples of a single-camera sitcom (though it verged frequently in dramedy-territory) that used a laugh track, at least for half of the first season.
A terrible mistake for an outstanding show.
But you're right in saying that the laugh track seems to be fine for most viewers. God knows why!
In any event, you can probably make the argument that as a whole, even in 2005, multi-camera shows with laugh tracks trend more ratings then the edgier, laugh-trackless single-camera shows.
Therefore, Arrested Development and Scrubs are getting beat down by Two and a Half Men, etc.
65 - -E
I wasn't saying multi camera made for worse writing, but it doesnt have the same limitations that single camera does that might push the writers to come up with better material. From my experience, it is a lot easier to shoot with a three camera set up than it is with one.
Granted, Entourage and Scrubs are the only shows you mentioned that I've ever watched regularly with a little of That 70s Show thrown in.
66 - Eric Berlin
Yes, multi-cameria is much easier and cheaper to shoot, which is why it is still the standard.
Again, my general point is that single-camera allows more freedom for new ideas and innovation for a half-hour comedy. It still comes down to solid writing in the end, of course. Additionally, there are multi-camera shows (a few, anyway) that overcome the limitations and general malaise of the multi-camera format through a combination of outstanding writing and innovations built on top of the multi-camera main format.
67 - Scott
"Arrested Development and Scrubs are getting beat down by Two and a Half Men, etc."
It's a damn shame too. Arrested Development has more hilarity in 5 minutes than Two and a half men has in a whole season.
68 - Eric Berlin
You're so preaching to the choir there, Scott...
Which in part drives my Will to keep writing about TV.
One day... one day...
69 - Scott
Oh yes, I realize I'm preaching to the choir here. Your love for Arrested Development is well documented. I love it too and that's why it pains me that shows like it and Scrubs go mostly unnoticed by the general public. But, there's the A.D. season two dvd coming out October 11 and a whole new season to look forward to. At least until it's cut from 24 to 18 shows again.
70 - Eric Berlin
Thankfully AD remains on the air for now. And Rescue Me just got picked up for a third season, so there's reason to hope that superior television can prevail... though it's mindboggling to even consider the logic of that statement!
71 - Bob A. Booey
I noticed Arrested Development just got picked up for syndication on our local Fox stations here. I would guess that it's probably not going to catch fire like it deserves to and that this season is its last chance, but at least it'll live on in syndication. We have a pretty good block of shows from 10 pm to 12:30 am that often beat the local news and the talk show hosts in the local ratings (Simpsons, Malcolm, Arrested Development, Seinfeld, Frasier).
Is it me or does it seem like shows are getting to the Promised Land of syndication much sooner than they used to? It used to have to be that you'd have to make it through a 5th season and 100 episodes before you'd get that magic syndication money. But now I see that shows like AD and Bernie Mac are being syndicated after only 3 seasons or so.
That is all.
72 - Eric Berlin
Maybe it depends on your market? I haven't noticed that here in LA. Then again, I don't catch very many commercials and/or repeats of shows these days.
73 - Bob A. Booey
My mistake, it turns out Arrested Development is not syndicated daily yet. The local Fox affiliate here just played re-runs from the last season at 11 pm for a week to get people interested.
Bernie Mac, however, is syndicated this fall.
That is all.
74 - Eric Berlin
Yes, two seasons would be awfully short to syndicate. It's so damned good, though, that I'd love to see it on the air everyday.
75 - Franke
If you guys spent as much time writing your own sitcom specs, as you do writing on these blogs, we might actually have something interesting to watch on TV! :->