Quote: Ian Wolf @ July 24 2008, 1:22 PM BSTI think the only way you can tell if a sitcom will be remembered in a hundred years time is to wait until 2054: The 100th anniversary of "Hancock's Half Hour". If that is remembered, then the statement is true.
I will be 97 if I survive and I doubt that very much
Quote: Finck @ July 24 2008, 1:21 PM BSTThe problem is whether people can still relate to it in future. Novels and plays have an advantage there, because they leave enough room for imagination and interpretation (I guess that's why Jane Austen novels are adapted every 5 to 10 years). Comedy that relies to heavily on obscure contemporary references (Big Brother 'persons', for example) will be hard to watch even in ten years.
Also there's the problem of the sheer amount of stuff that is produced at the moment. That doesn't mean that the good stuff couldn't somehow get through the filter, but I doubt that it would have a really broad significance. There's too much on the table and you pick what you like, unlike 30 years ago when there were only two (or so) programmes and the family gathered round the TV and just watched whatever was on.
I know only two other persons in real life who even know the shows I watch, whereas I couldn't tell whether or not there has been a Big Brother series in Germany this year.
I tend to agree. It's the sitcoms that say something about the human condition, like Fawlty Towers or One Foot In The Grave, which transcend the cultural references contained within them so that they don't date.
Quote: Alan C @ July 24 2008, 1:23 PM BSTI will be 97 if I survive and I doubt that very much
I'll be 68, and I'd probably would watch (provided global warming or something else doesn't get me first).
Quote: Ian Wolf @ July 24 2008, 1:22 PM BSTI think the only way you can tell if a sitcom will be remembered in a hundred years time is to wait until 2054: The 100th anniversary of "Hancock's Half Hour". If that is remembered, then the statement is true.
Ah, they'll still be finding 'lost' episodes of it then...
There are plenty of books (hundreds and thousands) that are published cos they are cheaper than a 'production'. Only the really great will stand the test of time. There must have been loads of books in the 1950s that no-one remembers, but only a few stand-out. It'll probably be the same with sitcom.
With all due respect to authors like Mike Gayle and Lisa Jewell (both of whom can write a compelling story), they'll never be remembered as 'great' authors and won't be remembered for the books they've published recently (one a year basically for five or six years).
I've realised here I have no point.
Dan
Quote: Ian Wolf @ July 24 2008, 1:22 PM BSTI think the only way you can tell if a sitcom will be remembered in a hundred years time is to wait until 2054: The 100th anniversary of "Hancock's Half Hour". If that is remembered, then the statement is true.
But as many have mentioned, Hancock's Half Hour and Dad's Army, etc. are still popular today. Why should we assume that sometime in the near future people suddenly won't watch sitcoms anymore?
Quote: swerytd @ July 24 2008, 2:13 PM BSTI've realised here I have no point.
Some are. Some aren't.
Nature of the beast.
Are some of the very earliest sitcoms still being watched on TV? Yes - Hancock's Half Hour etc. Therefore, there is evidence that the best sitcoms will always be with us (and there's no evidence to the contrary - I don't think).
Even if Hancock's Half Hour is still being watched (and as far as I'm aware it's not on any channels at the moment), it's the blink of an eye in historical terms. Shakespeare wrote his plays over three hundred years ago, and his stuff is still regularly performed. People also still read Charles Dickens and Jane Austen, and adapt there work.
I don't deny that sitcoms aren't well loved, and often achieve a high standard of writing and acting, just that as an art form they're bubblegum. Although, as has been pointed out, this is true of the medium of television in general.
Don't forget TV's not been around that long, in comparison to books. The best sitcom writers of the 1500's would still be known today, if Michaelangelo got his 'great mind' in order, rather than painted naked fat birds.
Dan
Exactly - TV hasn't been around long enough to prove anything either way. But based on an other comparable media - plays - it's looks good for classics sticking around.
Quote: chipolata @ July 24 2008, 3:39 PM BSTEven if Hancock's Half Hour is still being watched (and as far as I'm aware it's not on any channels at the moment), it's the blink of an eye in historical terms. Shakespeare wrote his plays over three hundred years ago, and his stuff is still regularly performed. People also still read Charles Dickens and Jane Austen, and adapt there work.
I don't deny that sitcoms aren't well loved, and often achieve a high standard of writing and acting, just that as an art form they're bubblegum. Although, as has been pointed out, this is true of the medium of television in general.
You have to be aware that Roger Hancock has complete control of his brother's work and does not let it be repeated ad infinitum until viewers are sick of it (ie most of UKGold). It is also black and white and many broadcasters have a narrow view on whether audiences would accept b/w anymore.
Many critics see television as a lower art form but this is the view of a minority. The same people pour millions of tax payers money to prop up the Opera. The vast majority of the population have their lives reflected on television screens by the very best shows and it impacts their lives - whether conciously or sub-conciously. Shows like Cathy Come Home, Steptoe, Till Death Us Do Part and so many others have changed views of politicians and impacted peoples thinking in so many ways. It is so easy to criticise TV because it shows lots of dross as well but they invented remotes/sky+ etc to give people a choice to view or not to view.
Comparing other art forms with television is like comparing apples to oranges.
Hmmm. I'd have to guess that some may well still be watched in the same way that some people still watch and love the old silent movies, especially the comedies. Some of those are heading towards being 100 years old.
All those years that we had plays and all they can come up with is Shakespear? Lets have 500 years of TV then worry about whether its any good!
Quote: Griff @ July 24 2008, 5:47 PM BSTPlays are rubbish innit Pete. All that boring talking and all that.
That's an odd attitude for a writer? Have you seen a good play?
Quote: Simon Stratton @ July 24 2008, 4:04 PM BSTExactly - TV hasn't been around long enough to prove anything either way. But based on an other comparable media - plays - it's looks good for classics sticking around.
But far less material made it into print in the 16th century, and that which did naturally had greater longevity because culture changed more slowly back then. With today's neophilia and rush to fill every available airwave with STUFF, I think future generations may ignore anything that wasn't produced in the previous week.
I'm joking of course, when I talk about "future generations". We are in the end times as any fule kno.