is the sitcom a dying genre?

hi,

i am a third year media production student and for my dissertation i am considering the questions "is the sitcom a dying genre?" obviously there are some brilliant recent sitcoms such as the office and peep show, but when you compare the ratings and viewing figures to older sitcoms, or sitcoms such as my family there is a massive difference. does anyone have any views as to why sitcom has observed a decline in audience? do you think the sitcom is dying? and why was the sitcom so popular in the first place?

any response would be appreciated.

thanks,

rich brandon

A very interesting and contentious issue. (I've got a number of documentaries on the subject. PM me your address and I'll post a DVD to you.)

There are a hell of a lot of things which are taking their toll on sitcoms (and of course on TV as a whole). Rather than 3 channels competing for the nation's attention, there are now literally hundreds. People consume their media completely differently to the days of 'On The Buses', 'Fawlty Towers', 'Hancock's Half Hour', and so on. They'll record shows rather than watching them. Or catch repeats. Or they can download them. Or just wait for the DVD and buy/borrow/rent that! There's a lot more choice, both in terms of content, and how that content is received.
Regarding the content itself, there are many more genres of comedy now too. And with a much wider choice, it's inevitable that tastes will differ more.

Of course, if one is going to deal with % of the population rather than actual numbers, then one must take into account the larger population, and diversity of culture. You would not believe the number of people I've known who, even though they had lived here their whole lives, have never even heard of Fawlty Towers.

"Is the sitcom a dying genre?" I wouldn't say "dying", I would say "murdered" by most of the c*** telly today.

The thing is that sitcoms are more expensive to make that say "reality" TV, and when it comes to quality TV, most TV executives don't know the meaning of the term.

Yes, there's that to it to.

But then, there's the long-term payoffs with sitcom that one wouldn't get in the same way with reality shows. So a much greater return in the long run. Complex.

Good sitcoms need talent. Reality shows show no imagination so are easier to produce.

It's true what Aaron says and I was going to say this when I first starting reading. There are sooo many other channels now. But how many of those show old sitcoms? About 5 or 6 if not more so it's obvious people still like them.

Probably people just want to laugh after a grim day at work.

Producers just see numbers at the end of the day.

Reality Show --> cheap to film, always gain ridiculous viewing figures (can't understand it but it's true), usually involving public or people trying desperately to get back into the media spotlight so little development time in comparison with cheap casts, no retakes/rewriting time but most importantly of all -- is a *format* which which you can sell to the *whole* world and is what they are looking for at the moment.

A sitcom take an age to develop, is generally very expensive (comparative to other styles) and is rarely a 'format' ideal for export, so they don't bother.

Let's say you write the best sitcom ever about three flatmates from uni. It's never going to get exported to lots of countries as it's not appealing enough. And why should a production company spend £40grand on a critically-acclaimed half-hour episode of the best sitcom ever recorded for BBC3, when they could spend a quarter that on a mundane reality format ripe for export that the (frankly idiotic!) masses will watch in their droves and pay for in their texts to vote people blue.

Financially no contest. And unfortunately for us it results in a future of a world where nothing but reality shows and soap opera exist...

Dan, Harbinger of Doom

Very good points people - my views as to what is going wrong:

1. Not enough comedies are getting a second season. This is because of the current un-healthy obsession with trying to boost viewing figures. If many cancelled comedies had been given a second season they'd probably have improved and, ironically, brought in the ratings controllers want (e.g. see what happened with The Office that was given a chance). Note: I suspect this logic will not apply to Hyperdrive though!

2. As mentioned in posts above: Money. It's too expensive compared to other genres.

3. Fussiness (is that a word?) - anyway, people are now a lot more fussy about comedy and quick to dismiss anything that's not perfect. This is illustrated by the fact there's loads of blogs, forums, websites relating to comedy - how many people are talking about quiz shows though?!?

4. Writers. There's some plain un-funny people out there writing stuff at the moment and frustratingly there's some really funny people not able to get in!

5. More alternative entertainment. The internet, console games, more channels - its all resulting in less people wanting to watch TV.

Most of these are temporary I think. Networks are once again showing more faith in comedy (e.g. Hyperdrive's second season) and are pumping more money into comedy (ITV, Five and the BBC). There's also more new writers getting a chance to try stuff out on BBC3 etc. Not sure how 5 or 3 are countered though.

p.s. There's a couple of articles here www.comedy.co.uk/features which we published following one of the documentaries Aaron mentioned.

I'm a first year media production student!

Personally, I think there aren't enough good writers anymore. Maybe they are all intimidated by Only Fools etc instead of inspired. The sitcom isn't dying: My Family is still on. But I think the curtain will fall when Nicholas Lyndhurst finishes with After You've Gone. In fact, that will be appropiate if he is the one that announces the hibernation of sitcom.

But a better question would be, "Is the CLASSIC sitcom dying?"

"Personally, I think there aren't enough good writers anymore".

What about us?

thanks for all the responses, good stuff, great help!

Not giving new sitcoms chances is a major problem, if a sitcom is not quite pulling ratings in its first series it will be dumped, rather than giving it a couple of series for the characters to settle and improve. I mean The Office was never that big in its first series, same with Peep Show and now look how big those shows are when they were given a chance. But it only happens once in a while, I think most new sitcoms should be given at least 2 series to prove themselves.

Another thing is, it seems like its just the same group of people who commission new sitcoms nowadays, so you always get the same style sitcoms coming out with nothing new or original, they need to take more risks, commission innovative new sitcoms from new writers (like me or others on here lol).

Do thos Kommissioners really know good stuff - or original stuff? They can only go on what they guess. I think we need to start a revolution and overthrow them.

Quote: David Chapman @ March 28, 2007, 8:59 PM

Do thos Kommissioners really know good stuff - or original stuff? They can only go on what they guess. I think we need to start a revolution and overthrow them.

View original

That's a *great* premise for a sitcom!

Dan

There's an interesting article in The Times today that says British comedy is nearly dead but, despite that, it is doing really well abroad at the moment. Thankfully the power of the internet means you don't have to go out and get the over-priced paper to see the article - you can read it online for free

Mmm, yes, interesting indeed. He definitely makes some good observations, but I can't help but feel that's he's just trying to prove his own point (of view?), and not, in fact, actually providing a reasoned, balanced examination. Pity.