Sitcom Genres

[Fifthfiend]

Making this another thread. All the archetypes and shit talk goes in here, let's let the House thread be about House.

I'd argue that, with the bulk of American sitcoms in history being family-centric, that anything else would be the subgenre.

Have they really been? I mean you have Friends / Seinfeld / Whichever shitty sitcom they had running at a given time after Seinfeld, going back there was stuff like I Love Lucy or Mr. Ed, even a lot of stuff that ostensibly featured families like the Dick Van Dyke Show or Bewitched weren't really "family sitcoms" as we would understand them today. I feel a lot of people of our age group will actually have a skewed perspective of this matter due to having grown up at a time when such programming was unusually prevalent (that TGIF deal that ABC used to do was the mothership for this shit) but I don't feel it's more prevalent overall than any other particular subgenre.

[R|Я]

Home Improvement, Bernie Mac, Everybody Loves Raymond, Malcolm in the Middle, Full House, The Simpsons, Family Guy, Even Stevens (to a degree, at any rate), Two and a Half Men and that's just scratching the surface for sitcoms family centered with kids. For sitcoms family centered with couples, there's 'Til Death, King of Queens, and tons more. This is all in the 02-07 ('cept home improvement) time period. I'd have to say POS makes a pretty strong case.

Now one could make the case that sitcoms based around aquaintances (Fraiser, Friends, Seinfeld) might be more prevelant and were ususally better than family centered, but seriously, it's a hard thing to tally (there's so friggen many!)

[Mike McC]

For Everybody Loves Raymond the kids were there, but most of the time they were more part of the scenery than anything else.

[R|Я]

I'm not giving it it's own damn category. Raymond doesn't deserve it.

[POS Industries]

Basically, most (if not all) stereotypical American sitcoms are either:

A) All in the Family
B) The Honeymooners
C) The Brady Bunch
D) Some combination of the above.

[Smarty McBarrelpants]

am addressing your argument. I'm pointing out that it's ill-informed and inaccurate and positing a hypothesis as to why based on previous statements by you both in and out of your actual argument.
But you never actually referred to my argument. You just said "You don't watch a lot of tv and are from NZ what would you know".
If you wanted to put out I'm illinformed then you should point out ill informed bits of my argument first. Which you tried to do more in the rest of this post so thank you.

Anyway, I'm not going to bother quoting the rest of the post because oh man is that ever long. I'm not saying that Scrubs is not a sitcom that isn't written in the American comedic mindset if you dissect it to its very core. What I'm saying is that it isn't the American sitcom archetype. It is not a perfect example of a stereotypical American comedy show outside of being a comedy show made by Americans for Americans.

There are archetypes. Full House, for instance, is probably the shining example of the archetypal American sitcom. Everything about Full House was the most generic American sitcom trope in the history of television.

Now aside from having jokes with a set-up and a punchline, there is no similarity between Scrubs and Full House. If Full House is the classic archetype and Scrubs is nothing like Full House, then Scrubs is not the archetype.

Again you show a misappropriation.
The fact that you referred to Full House as full of tropes show exactly what I've been saying all along that you are confusing content with context. The appearance of tropes is useful for an archetype in its most superficial form but if we examining shows like this there is very little difference between British and American shows and that is not what I was arguing.
And your last point is exactly my point. That the American sitcom is based upon the set-up and the punchline and Scrubs is a good example to use in making this point because it doesn't use punchlines in the convential sense but it uses them in the structural sense.

[Mike McC]

You know, Barrel, using your criteria, I could put every sitcom ever made under "archetypal American sitcom". If you stretch enough, look enough, scour enough, it's not that hard.

In short, you're criteria has dissolved into a puddle of muck that really makes little sense and you have a multitude of people pretty much saying "Uh.. A-no." So, either more sharply define what you are talking about with multiple examples, perhaps some YouTube (http://youtube.com/watch?v=a1Y73sPHKxw) clips illustrating your points, also showing us the opposite so that there is a sense of contrast, or just agree that your viewpoint on what makes a archetypical American sitcom is not universal.

[POS Industries]

But that doesn't make it the archetype. That just makes it similar. My point is that you're misusing the term and saying that, because at its most basic level it uses a type of set-up/punchline formula (which all comedy has, don't kid yourself), it is the perfect generic example of any and all American sitcoms, which is false.

I'm not saying Scrubs is good or bad, I'm just saying that it is far from what you say it is.

[R|Я]

Wouldn't the title archetype be subjective in this sense? What you define american humor as and what Barrel does are different, so how can you say that his definitive american sitcom isn't the archetype? (though, I do have to say if you think scrubs is the archetypal american sitcom, I'd advise you to watch more american television)

[POS Industries]

Well, an archetype is generally something that is a generally accepted definition of the subject. If something is not generally accepted as the definition, then it really can't be the archetype.

[Sithdarth]

I'm going to try to break this down a bit. All sitcoms use "punchlines" this has been agreed upon. Punchlines by definition only work in the context of the proceeding "joke" this would be the build up. Any sort of comedy relying on punchlines has build up. Now the punch line can be delivered as words, as the final logical culmination of a crazy situation, or the sudden interjection of a non-nonsensical scene. This tree types of punch lines are all share similarities but are fundamentally different. Similarities like the build up and a slight, or not so slight, stalling of forward plot momentum. They are also fundamentally different in the types of humor they can convey. Totally dialog based punchlines can't convey the same things as logical plot extension punchlines ect.

The long and short of this is that comparing comedic acts solely on how punchlines are lead up to is missing the forest for the trees. The actual type of punchline used and the content of said punchline is much more important because all the major differences are concentrated there. Its like classifying fruit by how long it takes to fall off the vine/tree instead of its genes.

[Frostatine]

So what you're saying is that Lost in Space and Sex in the City would be the same if either one were funny?

[R|Я]

Well, an archetype is generally something that is a generally accepted definition of the subject. If something is not generally accepted as the definition, then it really can't be the archetype. Doesn't that vary by location, though? The Americans have a pretty generally accepted definition of American humor and the... New Zealanders (I know, I failed) have theirs. Are we only accepting the opinion of the country whose humor is in question, or are we going by forum consensus? (both scenarios in which Scrubs would NOT be the archetype of american sitcoms)

[POS Industries]

We're going by common sense, RR.

[R|Я]

Look, the whole everyone's from different countries thing really throws a whole different skew on it, alright?

EDIT: Hindsight. 20/Fucking 20. Point: POS.

I'm going to bed, as when I'm tired I try to debate with stupid points.

[Mirai Gen]

Wait wait wait.

(though, I do have to say if you think scrubs is the archetypal american sitcom, I'd advise you to watch more american television)
EXACTLY!

[Fifthfiend]

In short, you're criteria has dissolved into a puddle of muck that really makes little sense and you have a multitude of people pretty much saying "Uh.. A-no."

In fairness I think I basically agree with him or at least see what he's getting at. BFS as I am reading him is saying that if you strip out all the various genre trappings and extravagances a standard sitcom as we understand it it is basically a machine for delivering gags in a model of setup-punchline setup-punchline setup-punchline in the form of quippy remarks or wacky happenings, with whatever all actual plot and character elements and other extravagances wrapped around that basic skeleton. And in his estimation Scrubs strips out as much as possible of the plot and character and whatever all else to make room for the absolute maximum of visual puns and quippy remarks and dudes being inexplicably dressed as ladies and whatever other thing.

Basically, most (if not all) stereotypical American sitcoms are either:

A) All in the Family
B) The Honeymooners
C) The Brady Bunch
D) Some combination of the above.

I still say you're weighting things way too far in favor of family sitcoms and giving short shrift to office sitcoms, teen sitcoms, city-singles sitcoms, and magical bullshit sitcoms (your Mr. Eds and Bewitcheds and Small Wonders and Sabrina the Teenage Witches).

Side note (in a thread which is itself one long side note, natch) - Mr. Ed should totally be one of those internet meme things. I mean come on it's a talking horse! And in one episode he surfs! Get on that, The Internet.

[POS Industries]

I still say you're weighting things way too far in favor of family sitcoms and giving short shrift to office sitcoms, teen sitcoms, city-singles sitcoms, and magical bullshit sitcoms (your Mr. Eds and Bewitcheds and Small Wonders and Sabrina the Teenage Witches).
Fair enough, though many of these other genres still tend to fit in the above molds. However, I did leave out I Love Lucy, which was a mistake on my part, especially when you take into account that The Honeymooners was just I Love Lucy with the genders swapped.

In fact, most of the "teen sitcoms" and "supernatual bullshit" sitcoms tend to borrow more heavily on the "backfiring crazy scheme" comedy that the Lucy/Honeymooners type relies on. "Bewitched", "I Dream of Jeannie" and "Sabrina the Teenage Witch" are all basically centered around Lucy with magical powers. The teen comedies also tend to work as such, with "Kenan and Kel" or "Saved By The Bell" sharing obvious similarities with the aforementioned (Zack=Kenan=Ralph=Lucy and Screech=Kel=Ed=Ethel are always getting into some crazy scheme, and they always got some 'splainin' to do for Mr. Belding=Kenan's Dad=The Wives=Ricky).

The "city singles" genre is perhaps a combination of I Love Lucy and The Brady Bunch. They're usually an eclectic mix of similar-aged people who all mostly occupy a common space (apartment/house/building) who end up getting wrapped up in a zany scheme that invariably backfires at the end of the show. However, this could be reaching a bit.

Now, the "office sitcom" is one that I totally did skip over, and I believe it all mostly originates with The Mary Tyler Moore Show, but an earlier example would be welcomed. Your Murphy Browns and NewsRadios all come from this common progenitor.

Also, you know what I just couldn't really fit into anything? Get Smart.

[Mirai Gen]

And in his estimation Scrubs strips out as much as possible of the plot and character and whatever all else to make room for the absolute maximum of visual puns and quippy remarks and dudes being inexplicably dressed as ladies and whatever other thing.
Well it seems strange to assume that Scrubs, a show where a musical montage that goes through the characters' hardships of the episode is created long before the show is finished being written, (http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/05/08/094600.php) somehow nudges out plot and character in the way of jokes.

Really I've watched lots of Scrubs, it's got the stupid-funny crazy stuff that happens but the show has lots of heart and character development. I don't see the problem.

EDIT: I know perfectly well it's a huge jump to assume this but it seems, Barrel, that you really haven't seen much of Scrubs. Or at least the good episodes.

[Fifthfiend]

Also, you know what I just couldn't really fit into anything? Get Smart.

Shit yeah, Get Smart.http://forum.nuklearpower.com/images/icons/icon13.gif

[Archbio]

Deconcom? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbj9otRPdiM)