LOL jk it's not a novel but if it were I'd totally buy it.

This is why Chuck Lorre (creator of Two and a Half Men, Big Bang Theory, etc) scares me: as someone who looks at the sitcom as an art form, he deliberately trashes it by refusing to move forward, by refusing to use anything but cheap jokes, and by refusing to give us characters that are not only not relatable, but aren't believable.

Putt, putt back a few steps before anyone accuses me of not seeing the sitcom for what it truly is - a medium to escape, to laugh, and that is all. Lucille Ball was notorious for arguing against the Norman Lear type sitcoms that got too heavy. But what I'm not arguing for is heaviness, it's for art. It's for substance. What Lucille Ball did was cleverly crafted, cleverly written, cleverly acted, and is rightfully placed in its spot as sitcom gold, an example among countless others. Maybe, as a writer, as someone who endeavors to work in this medium some day soon I am biased. I, too, hate the mindlessness of reality TV. But what I hate even more is the mindlessness of scripted TV.

Here are some examples of why Chuck Lorre and his sitcoms give me the negative feels:

I won't get into the fact that he is extremely sexist and self-absorbed and is really, very awful at masking how much he hates women. Okay, I'll get into it a little bit. Only recently has the Big Bang Theory added a multi-dimensional woman on its show (Mayim Bialik's character), after having scrapped Sara Gilbert's character, a living, breathing lady with real live thoughts in her head. The reason? The writers claimed they didn't know how to write for her. Previously, Chuck Lorre's sitcoms have only seemed to be able to manage the one-dimensional pretty lady. Thoughtless blanks or nags. Two and a Half Men is notorious for this. Even the mother is plagued as being solely responsable for any and all of the Harper brothers' emotional problems. For Christ sakes, Penny doesn't even have a last name. Curse ye, vaginas!

But it's more than just the fact that I'm fairly positive Chuck Lorre would try to pull some sleazy moves on me if I were alone in a room with him. I have a problem with lazy writers. It is clear that there has been a change in the way the sitcom is told. Over the past 20 or so years, methods have shifted. And that's okay! Guys, that's okay! That means it's growing as an art form. But no. Not so, says Chuck Lorre, and the general public agrees. Numbers soar, ratings don't lie. But I read an article recently who put it this way...Chuck Lorre's sitcoms don't get fans, they get viewers. Eyeballs. They are easy to digest. But how many people truly love Two and a Half Men? How many people sit down to dissect it or debate it with fellow fans? Do they inspire any sort of feelings in their viewers whatsoever? Best to you if they do, but I find it unlikely. These shows refuse to laugh with their characters. They choose to laugh at them. People can't relate to the caricatures of the Big Bang Theory, so how could we? And who the hell cared when Charlie Harper died? I suppose it's fine to laugh at characters sometimes, though. That's where a lot of comedy is based - seeing people fall on their asses or get into ridiculous situations. But don't we typically want to see them through it? If Jack Tripper died, if Liz Lemon died...I wouldn't appreciate the show opening with a view of a casket and an audience filled with laughter.

It's funny, because I could point out lots of shows with unlikeable people that are enjoyable (Married...With Children) but it seems that whatever a show is lacking in, it makes up for in other aspects. Sure the people are MWC are gross, but they aren't hurting anyone. They don't pick on a certain group of people aside from themselves or preach and whine. Chuck Lorre's shows just don't have any redeeming qualities.

Another point I'll make is the writing styles of these shows. The jokes are one-dimensional, rehashed things I've heard people say before. You know, people without any professional comedy or writing experience. Cheap shots. Rather than follow anything to do with the plot, they are largely thrown out there, disconnected with no rhyme or reason. Whenever I hear audience laughter at what was supposed to be a joke, all I can imagine is a bunch of guys sitting in a room, telling stories that demonstrate how much they hate the world and whatever jabs pop up in those stories, they throw into the show. Voila! Comedy!

On a final note, please understand I respect those who enjoy these shows opinions. We all have different tastes. But bear in mind that the sitcom is evolving, it is becoming more of an art form in and of itself, and despite Chuck Lorre's success, despite numbers, he won't win out in the end. I know far too many young writers who are the future of this business who could argue that point along with me.

As for Chuck Lorre, it'd only be fair if I let him have his say. To quote him,
"You [critics] have absolutely no power to affect ratings and the likely success or failure of a TV show. In that arena you are laughably impotent. You are not unlike a flaccid penis flailing miserably at a welcoming vagina."

Gross.

__________
Sources:
11 Reasons Geeks Hate the Big Bang Theory (http://www.ugo.com/tv/11-reasons-geeks-hate-the-big-bang-theory)
The Hypermodern (http://www.thehypermodern.com/2010/11/24/i-hate-the-big-bang-theory/)
The Good Men Project (http://goodmenproject.com/arts/two-and-a-half-shades-of-masculinity/)
Essays on Sucking (http://cheadlesucks.blogspot.com/2010/12/who-chuck-lorre-is-and-why-he-sucks.html)

Interesting thread.

For the positive, the only Chuck Lorre (is it pronounced LORE or LORRY or neither?) show I really like is Mike and Molly. This is one of two of my favorite sitcoms (next to Parks and Recreation on NBC). Every character on that show is funny and I find the characters quite believable (except that a 350 plus pound man can be a beat cop.) It does go into bawdy and sex jokes, but what makes it work is that the characters who say them. I don't know who was the casting director, but he/she did a great job. Hell, even the mutt dog is hilarious.

I haven't watched The Big Bang Theory since its first season. Nothing against it, I am just not interested in the story, and I just don't find the characters to be funny outside of Sheldon. Four geeky guys trying to woo over a neighbor woman. Probably Sara Gilbert was fired because she was not attractive to focus groups of viewers. Sorry, but she isn't very attractive, and having her on there was just a connection to "Roseanne" to draw viewers.

I haven't watched a nanosecond of Two and a Half Men. Basically because I do not like Charlie Sheen personally, and what I have heard, the Charlie Harper character is pretty much Charlie Sheen. He makes millions and millions on this show, quits and then went on his ridiculous "Tiger blood" idiocy. Here is a guy who is in his mid 40's, did not graduate high school, is a total narcissist and tool, a wife beater, alcoholic and coke addict, and only broke into Hollywood because of daddy. Yes, he has some talents and I did like Major League. But him complaining about his successes rings really hallow with me.

I watched Two Broke Girls for the first episode, and besides having Garrett Morris in the cast, I didn't care for it at all and turned it off about halfway through. My wife is Chinese (Yong Fang is her name) and I felt insulted about the way the diner manager (or owner, whatever) was portrayed. Racist and demeaning. I guess it is OK in this day and age to reduce the Asian man as a weakling and a loser. Like I said, I haven't bothered watching this again. Want to watch a somewhat similar show that is a lot funnier? See "Don't Trust the B**** in Apartment 23". That's a funny show.

Honestly, I think some TV shows just go on and on under their own steam, and liked the OP said, it is not so much that these shows have fans, just viewers. Monday is a good night for CBS and has been for a long, long time (much like NBC was on Thursdays). I come home from work, I am tired, I plop down on the sofa and there it is. It is something to watch. The funny thing to me is that the people who are "fans" of a show are the programs that do poorly in the ratings but have a devoted following.

Two older shows like that were Everybody Loves Raymond and According to Jim (on ABC). I liked Raymond, but it was the same formula week after week. Slightly lunkhead man with hot wife, parents living across the street, mother in law berates hot wife, hot wife gets mad at mother in law. Lunkhead man has an unloved, weird brother who feels unloved. This show went on for nine years.

I think that there is now too much sex and sex talk on television. It gets ridiculous at times. I wonder if teenage boys write these shows sometimes. To most adults, sex is no big deal, it is something that adults do. I don't sit around with other adults and talk about sex frankly, this is uncomfortable. I don't watch HBO and Showtime (except for Shameless) because of the nudity. I don't need to see asses and genitalia. Really, I don't. Again, I am a middle aged adult. I know what boobs, penises and vaginas look like.

For the record, Lucille Ball hated All in the Family. I read that she complained to someone that this trash was on HER network. However, she did like Three's Company and especially John Ritter.

Chuck Lorre is not the man's real name. For some reason, people of his ethnicity like to change their names. Also, people of Lorre's ethnicity is much more open to taboo subjects than others, especially frankness and loudness. People of Lorre's ethnicity control Hollywood and call the shots. Only someone of his ethnicity would say......

"You [critics] have absolutely no power to affect ratings and the likely success or failure of a TV show. In that arena you are laughably impotent. You are not unlike a flaccid penis flailing miserably at a welcoming vagina."

Chuck Lorre is the Seth MacFarlane of the sitcom. He did have some good material in the past (Dharma and Greg) but everyone like to focus on and bash his franchise shows for some reason.

Amazing thread Ashlee and I agree 100%. I have a true love of the sitcom and it makes me seriously angry that people like Chuck Lorre basically only view it as a way to make money. I don't even have much else to add because you said it all....but it does make me sad that lazy Chuck Lorre shows get the big numbers despite only having "viewers" while the well-crafted shows with huge rabid fanbases get small numbers even though the level of passion for those shows could destroy all of Chuck Lorre's shows combined.

Chuck Lorre is the Seth MacFarlane of the sitcom. He did have some good material in the past (Dharma and Greg) but everyone like to focus on and bash his franchise shows for some reason.
I think Ashlee sort of outlined the reason, no?

Chuck Lorre is not the man's real name. For some reason, people of his ethnicity like to change their names. Also, people of Lorre's ethnicity is much more open to taboo subjects than others, especially frankness and loudness. People of Lorre's ethnicity control Hollywood and call the shots. Only someone of his ethnicity would say......

"You [critics] have absolutely no power to affect ratings and the likely success or failure of a TV show. In that arena you are laughably impotent. You are not unlike a flaccid penis flailing miserably at a welcoming vagina."
Brilliant post, I agree with just about everything you said. Mr. "Lorre" is not interested in making a good sitcom, he is interested in pushing the envelope and by having successful shows he gets more leeway. As you stated adults have sex and while it may occasionally be mentioned in conversation, it is not talked about obsessively like it is on "Two and a Half Men". The only people who may go around speaking that way are teenagers, especially those who are not actually having any sex. I wonder if Mr. "Lorre's" youth was spent being the boy who never got any and he uses this show to obsess over the subject. I did not see the episode but recently the mom on the show was suddenly revealed out of nowhere to be bisexual. It seems like that was just thrown in after all these seasons of the show purely for shock value or a cheap laugh. It certainly did not take any creativity. Before you could "push the envelope" writing sitcoms took real talent by being able to be funny without the luxury of going to cheap sex jokes every single episode.

I love all three of Chuck Lorre's current sitcoms: The Big Bang Theory, Mike and Molly, and Two and a Half Men. In fact, Two and a Half Men is my all time favorite comedy (excluding the current season, which is only okay).

Interesting thread.

For the positive, the only Chuck Lorre (is it pronounced LORE or LORRY or neither?) show I really like is Mike and Molly. This is one of two of my favorite sitcoms (next to Parks and Recreation on NBC). Every character on that show is funny and I find the characters quite believable (except that a 350 plus pound man can be a beat cop.) It does go into bawdy and sex jokes, but what makes it work is that the characters who say them. I don't know who was the casting director, but he/she did a great job. Hell, even the mutt dog is hilarious.

I haven't watched The Big Bang Theory since its first season. Nothing against it, I am just not interested in the story, and I just don't find the characters to be funny outside of Sheldon. Four geeky guys trying to woo over a neighbor woman. Probably Sara Gilbert was fired because she was not attractive to focus groups of viewers. Sorry, but she isn't very attractive, and having her on there was just a connection to "Roseanne" to draw viewers.

I haven't watched a nanosecond of Two and a Half Men. Basically because I do not like Charlie Sheen personally, and what I have heard, the Charlie Harper character is pretty much Charlie Sheen. He makes millions and millions on this show, quits and then went on his ridiculous "Tiger blood" idiocy. Here is a guy who is in his mid 40's, did not graduate high school, is a total narcissist and tool, a wife beater, alcoholic and coke addict, and only broke into Hollywood because of daddy. Yes, he has some talents and I did like Major League. But him complaining about his successes rings really hallow with me.

I watched Two Broke Girls for the first episode, and besides having Garrett Morris in the cast, I didn't care for it at all and turned it off about halfway through. My wife is Chinese (Yong Fang is her name) and I felt insulted about the way the diner manager (or owner, whatever) was portrayed. Racist and demeaning. I guess it is OK in this day and age to reduce the Asian man as a weakling and a loser. Like I said, I haven't bothered watching this again. Want to watch a somewhat similar show that is a lot funnier? See "Don't Trust the B**** in Apartment 23". That's a funny show.

Honestly, I think some TV shows just go on and on under their own steam, and liked the OP said, it is not so much that these shows have fans, just viewers. Monday is a good night for CBS and has been for a long, long time (much like NBC was on Thursdays). I come home from work, I am tired, I plop down on the sofa and there it is. It is something to watch. The funny thing to me is that the people who are "fans" of a show are the programs that do poorly in the ratings but have a devoted following.

Two older shows like that were Everybody Loves Raymond and According to Jim (on ABC). I liked Raymond, but it was the same formula week after week. Slightly lunkhead man with hot wife, parents living across the street, mother in law berates hot wife, hot wife gets mad at mother in law. Lunkhead man has an unloved, weird brother who feels unloved. This show went on for nine years.

I think that there is now too much sex and sex talk on television. It gets ridiculous at times. I wonder if teenage boys write these shows sometimes. To most adults, sex is no big deal, it is something that adults do. I don't sit around with other adults and talk about sex frankly, this is uncomfortable. I don't watch HBO and Showtime (except for Shameless) because of the nudity. I don't need to see asses and genitalia. Really, I don't. Again, I am a middle aged adult. I know what boobs, penises and vaginas look like.

For the record, Lucille Ball hated All in the Family. I read that she complained to someone that this trash was on HER network. However, she did like Three's Company and especially John Ritter.

Chuck Lorre is not the man's real name. For some reason, people of his ethnicity like to change their names. Also, people of Lorre's ethnicity is much more open to taboo subjects than others, especially frankness and loudness. People of Lorre's ethnicity control Hollywood and call the shots. Only someone of his ethnicity would say......

"You [critics] have absolutely no power to affect ratings and the likely success or failure of a TV show. In that arena you are laughably impotent. You are not unlike a flaccid penis flailing miserably at a welcoming vagina."
Two Broke Girls is not a Chuck Lorre Show.

Well I love Chuck Lorre's shows. I think TBBT and Mike & Molly are 2 of the best shows on TV. They just make me laugh which is what a comedy is supposed to do. I'm not as big of a fan of Two and a Half Men. I do think that show gets gross far too often. I was a big fan of Dharma & Greg back in the 1990's.

Two Broke Girls is not a Chuck Lorre Show.
Let's be honest though, it's trying to be.

Let's be honest though, it's trying to be.
and that's probably why I like it. lol

I would say that "Dharma & Greg" kind of ruins your argument here. Not only was it a multidimensional sitcom, but it's female characters were very well fleshed out, very layered and more than one-note. Kitty, Abby, Dharma and Jane all had flaws, were likeable but also human.

It was a funny series with layers to it, it covered serious topics when needed and still kept the light flavor it needed.


The Big Bang Theory is also very good, it has a lot of layers to it and isn't nearly as crass or cheap as 2.5 Men, which I agree is terrible in every account.

I can't defend 2 1/2 Men and I watch the show almost every week. It's a very mediocre sitcom that goes for cheap laughs which I admit make me laugh sometimes, but I hardly ever watch the reruns. It's even worse now with the addition of Ashton Kutcher, but that's a different subject for a different time. ;)


You're wrong about the Big Bang Theory, IMO. Penny is not a one dimensional character and I'm sure many fans of BBT would agree with me on that. People care about the characters and if you don't believe it, go to the BBT message board at imdb sometime. I'm certainly no critic, but to me, the show is well written and has been from the beginning. Where else can you see a group of nerds bidding on the time machine from the movie "The time Machine", winning it and fighting over who gets to keep it? :lol: Another thing that separates this show from 2 1/2 Men is there's actually character development on BBT.


I don't always agree with the things Chuck Lorre has done, but he does seem to be branching out with shows like BBT and Mike and Molly. I'm not really a fan of Mike and Molly, but it is different and the main characters are likable.

and that's probably why I like it. lol

:lol:

Here's the thing about Chuck Lorre: his of his sitcoms boil down to making fun of a certain kind of people. I will admit Dharma & Greg is a cut above his recent work, but it still falls under the Lorre formula of targeting a group of people and tearing them apart. Think about it, it holds true for all of his shows:

Dharma & Greg: Making fun of hippies.
Two and a Half Men: Basically, making fun of everyone, but especially women, rich people and...well, Charlie Sheen.
The Big Bang Theory: LOL ARENT NERDS HILARIOUS
Mike & Molly: Funny fat people hahaha!

It's just such a lazy way of doing comedy. And I really can't agree that Big Bang Theory or Dharma & Greg have "layers", sorry. Again, I'd place D&G a decent amount above Lorre's current sitcoms and Big Bang Theory doesn't quite hit the lows of Two and a Half Men, but they're still not great sitcoms in my opinion and the character work doesn't compare to what's been done in some of the all-time great sitcoms. Are you really going to try and tell me the nerds of BBT are as well-developed as the characters of...let's say, Cheers or Mary Tyler Moore? And BBT may have somewhat of a following but as someone who spends nearly all of his time on internet forums dedicated to TV comedy I can tell you the number of hardcore BBT fans is not even a fraction of the ones for shows like Arrested Development, 30 Rock, Parks & Recreation, and Community.

the show is well written and has been from the beginning. Where else can you see a group of nerds bidding on the time machine from the movie "The time Machine", winning it and fighting over who gets to keep it?
Is this an example of well-written comedy? Because that sounds...like a very generic, bland sitcom plot to me.

But other than that these shows make you laugh, can you really argue much for the quality of them? To me, it's an insult to my intelligence. I sit there and know for a fact that I could write better material than what he puts on the table. It's fine if it makes you laugh. That is what a comedy is supposed to do. I addressed that. But we all laugh at a corny sex joke sometime, don't we? Doesn't mean people should be paid for creating them. Or, in Chuck Lorre's shows cases, borrowing them from a perverted uncle.

As for Mike and Molly, that is one of his shows I haven't seen. Sometimes the actors take crappy material and do the best they can with it. Clearly Melissa McCarthy is very talented. I haven't seen Dharma and Greg since I was a kid, but I wouldn't say those were well fleshed out characters. Lorre seems to thrive on stereotypes and caricatures. Greg, the type A fancy boy. Dharma, the crazy hippy chick.

As for people being fans of BBT on IMDB...let me just say, they're not the hardcore TV comedy nerds Joe mentioned. IMDB is the first thing that comes up when you google a show. Trust. I don't see these shows as being anything too memorable.

Here's the thing about Chuck Lorre: his of his sitcoms boil down to making fun of a certain kind of people. I will admit Dharma & Greg is a cut above his recent work, but it still falls under the Lorre formula of targeting a group of people and tearing them apart. Think about it, it holds true for all of his shows:

Dharma & Greg: Making fun of hippies.
Two and a Half Men: Basically, making fun of everyone, but especially women, rich people and...well, Charlie Sheen.
The Big Bang Theory: LOL ARENT NERDS HILARIOUS
Mike & Molly: Funny fat people hahaha!

It's just such a lazy way of doing comedy. And I really can't agree that Big Bang Theory or Dharma & Greg have "layers", sorry. Again, I'd place D&G a decent amount above Lorre's current sitcoms and Big Bang Theory doesn't quite hit the lows of Two and a Half Men, but they're still not great sitcoms in my opinion and the character work doesn't compare to what's been done in some of the all-time great sitcoms. Are you really going to try and tell me the nerds of BBT are as well-developed as the characters of...let's say, Cheers or Mary Tyler Moore? And BBT may have somewhat of a following but as someone who spends nearly all of his time on internet forums dedicated to TV comedy I can tell you the number of hardcore BBT fans is not even a fraction of the ones for shows like Arrested Development, 30 Rock, Parks & Recreation, and Community.


Is this an example of well-written comedy? Because that sounds...like a very generic, bland sitcom plot to me.

I think you are very much misinterpreting the intent of these series. I don't see anybody being made fun of on D&G or TBBT, both of these shows two me are more about highlighting the quirky and unique nature of their characters, and I think have been very sensitive in their approach. I feel like the writing on these two series is solid. I can agree with you on 2.5 Men and Mike and Molly, they suck.

but I think you are oversimplifying things a bit to say they are just about making fun of people. D&G in particular was about accepting each other for who you are and becoming better people; The whole Kitty/Dharma thing was about conflicting viewpoints co-existing, and I feel that none of the characters were ever the butt of the joke at the sole expense of the character, they served a larger purpose.

I think the problem is that you get a false sense of what is popular by visiting internet message boards. Most people in America are not hardcore fans like that. I was a big fan of Chuck and if you read all the message boards and forums, you would think it was a monster hit. It was not. It lasted as long as it did because it was on NBC and the few fans it did have were very vocal. That's pretty much the same as it is for Community and P & R. There's no denying TBBT's fanbase. It's reruns are getting the same ratings as original episodes of most shows. And I know the fans of NBC's low rated lineup will say, the ratings don't tell the story. Well it's all we got. And as for quality, it's all a matter of opinion. I don't think a lot of today's shows could hold a candle to the classics of the past. I'll admit TAAHM goes overboard. I don't even watch it that much. Lorre's other 2 shows are great IMO and are 2 of the better sitcoms that are on nowadays. You do get to care about the characters. I wouldn't watch a show if I didn't like them. A few years ago I was hardly watching any sitcoms at all and now I'm back to watching them again.

Like I said I do consider Dharma & Greg to be a bit better than Lorre's other sitcoms, but it's still a show that took two-dimensional stereotypes and, from my experience of watching it (a lot as a kid because my parents liked it, but admittedly not much recently), mostly stuck to those stereotypes. Oh sure, there were probably happy "be yourself!" speeches at the end of every episode, but that doesn't take brilliant writing to pull off. At the end of the day the premise of the show was "a hippie and a straight-laced guy get into wacky hijinks!" and it really capitalized on those stereotypes. I will admit I don't find it to be as mean-spirited as Lorre's other shows though. There does seem to be a real love between Dharma and Greg that is completely absent on a lot of Lorre's other work. Maybe Lorre has soured with time? (Oddly enough, when Dharma and Greg were brought back on an episode of Two and a Half Men this season they were brought back as a bitter, angry couple on the verge of divorce, something the show never portrayed them as). As for TBBT, well, clearly you are a fan and I am not, and every time I watch all I can think of is "nerd jokes!". But, that's my view of it.

I think the problem is that you get a false sense of what is popular by visiting internet message boards. Most people in America are not hardcore fans like that. I was a big fan of Chuck and if you read all the message boards and forums, you would think it was a monster hit. It was not. It lasted as long as it did because it was on NBC and the few fans it did have were very vocal. That's pretty much the same as it is for Community and P & R. There's no denying TBBT's fanbase. It's reruns are getting the same ratings as original episodes of most shows. And I know the fans of NBC's low rated lineup will say, the ratings don't tell the story. Well it's all we got. And as for quality, it's all a matter of opinion. I don't think a lot of today's shows could hold a candle to the classics of the past. I'll admit TAAHM goes overboard. I don't even watch it that much. Lorre's other 2 shows are great IMO and are 2 of the better sitcoms that are on nowadays. You do get to care about the characters. I wouldn't watch a show if I didn't like them. A few years ago I was hardly watching any sitcoms at all and now I'm back to watching them again.
I don't think Ashlee and I are arguing that more people are watching the cult single-cams than The Big Bang Theory. That's obviously not true. What we're arguing is that the smaller percentage of people who watch these shows have more passion than the fans of TBBT. There may be no way to prove this but the fact that I've seen website after website after website dedicated to P&R or Community or 30 Rock or Arrested Development and not so for Lorre's sitcoms back us up. (Chuck would also fall into the dedicated fan category, yes). Really I guess it depends on what you value more. As an aspiring comedy writer I think I'd choose having a smaller amount of dedicated fans rather than a large amount of fans who don't care all that deeply about what I'm doing. (Assuming my ratings are at least high enough to remain on the air that is).

This is a great thread to get the pulse of the community as I like to say. I agree with most of what's been said so far. In terms of pure "quality" the single-camera sitcom is clearly having it's heyday right now. Sadly enough, the audience-filled multi-cam sitcom - the format developed and pioneered by some of history's greatest comedic talents - is woefully stagnant. The last truly great multi-cam show was probably Frasier and that ended 8 years ago. Since then, Chuck Lorre has come to the forefront and unfortunately, nothing he ever created was truly inventive. Quite sad that he is presented to us as the best the format has to offer.

I really enjoyed The Big Bang Theory for the first 4 seasons however I acknowledge even at it's best it does nothing to advance the artform of sitcoms. It's really old hat with it's zingers, one-dimensional characters, and pretty unrealistic plot. Seems like everyone I talk to is under the impression it's groundbreaking or something. Nonsense. It's tepid entertainment that makes for easy viewing - nothing more. This should rate as one of a genius' lesser creations, not the best. For some reason people have accepted the fact the most prolific multi-cam sitcom creator in this day and age makes mediocre shows that are working backwards.

^I agree! Although, I'm going to not look like a hater of the multi-cam sitcom for a minute and say that I think Everybody Loves Raymond was quietly a really strong show and probably the last really great multi-cam for me. It wasn't innovative or amazing but it didn't really rely on cheap laughs and did a good job of establishing and writing well for its characters.

But yeah, total agreement that the single-cam is in its heyday and the multi-cam is suffering due to the Chuck Lore-ifaction of the format. It's lead to a lot of false beliefs that the multi-cam sitcom is a dead artform in terms of quality and innovation which I don't think is true. (I think 30 Rock's live episodes have proved there's still plenty of life left in the format if its done right).

I think the problem is that you get a false sense of what is popular by visiting internet message boards. Most people in America are not hardcore fans like that. I was a big fan of Chuck and if you read all the message boards and forums, you would think it was a monster hit. It was not. It lasted as long as it did because it was on NBC and the few fans it did have were very vocal. That's pretty much the same as it is for Community and P & R. There's no denying TBBT's fanbase. It's reruns are getting the same ratings as original episodes of most shows. And I know the fans of NBC's low rated lineup will say, the ratings don't tell the story. Well it's all we got. And as for quality, it's all a matter of opinion. I don't think a lot of today's shows could hold a candle to the classics of the past. I'll admit TAAHM goes overboard. I don't even watch it that much. Lorre's other 2 shows are great IMO and are 2 of the better sitcoms that are on nowadays. You do get to care about the characters. I wouldn't watch a show if I didn't like them. A few years ago I was hardly watching any sitcoms at all and now I'm back to watching them again.

have you looked at the TV ratings? Chuck Lorre shows are monster hits, all of them, not to mention they are also critically supported with Emmy, Golden Globe and SAG noms.

The last truly great multi-cam show was probably Frasier and that ended 8 years ago. Since then, Chuck Lorre has come to the forefront and unfortunately, nothing he ever created was truly inventive. Quite sad that he is presented to us as the best the format has to offer.

.

I agree with most of what you said, except this part, there have been other truly gratl multi-cam shows since Frasier, um... off the top of my head:

-Will & Grace
---Friends
----Everybody Loves Raymond (although I hate that show)
-----The New Adventures of Old Christine
----How I Met Your Mother
------That 70's Show
------Reba

I think each and every one of these shows would qualify as a truly great mutli-cam sitcom that elevated the genre to new heights and used it's creativity to create memorable characters.

have you looked at the TV ratings? Chuck Lorre shows are monster hits, all of them, not to mention they are also critically supported with Emmy, Golden Globe and SAG noms.
Yea I follow the tv ratings every day. I've done it for years. I was speaking about shows like Community and P & R not getting the big ratings. There's no doubt that Chuck Lorre's shows are big hits. All 3 have been nominated for Emmy awards in some category so it isn't like they're not getting any critical aclaim either.

Here's the thing about Chuck Lorre: his of his sitcoms boil down to making fun of a certain kind of people. I will admit Dharma & Greg is a cut above his recent work, but it still falls under the Lorre formula of targeting a group of people and tearing them apart. Think about it, it holds true for all of his shows:

Dharma & Greg: Making fun of hippies.
Two and a Half Men: Basically, making fun of everyone, but especially women, rich people and...well, Charlie Sheen.
The Big Bang Theory: LOL ARENT NERDS HILARIOUS
Mike & Molly: Funny fat people hahaha!

It's just such a lazy way of doing comedy. And I really can't agree that Big Bang Theory or Dharma & Greg have "layers", sorry. Again, I'd place D&G a decent amount above Lorre's current sitcoms and Big Bang Theory doesn't quite hit the lows of Two and a Half Men, but they're still not great sitcoms in my opinion and the character work doesn't compare to what's been done in some of the all-time great sitcoms. Are you really going to try and tell me the nerds of BBT are as well-developed as the characters of...let's say, Cheers or Mary Tyler Moore? And BBT may have somewhat of a following but as someone who spends nearly all of his time on internet forums dedicated to TV comedy I can tell you the number of hardcore BBT fans is not even a fraction of the ones for shows like Arrested Development, 30 Rock, Parks & Recreation, and Community.


Is this an example of well-written comedy? Because that sounds...like a very generic, bland sitcom plot to me.

I'm not comparing BBT to MTM, I'm just saying that more thought is put into that show than 2 1/2 Men. They even use a consultant on the show for all the scientific mumbo jumbo. If you were to watch an episode from season 1 and and episode from the current season of BBT you would see that the characters have changed a lot for the most part. Leonard isn't the same guy who couldn't talk to girls and Sheldon actually has a girlfriend. The character who has changed the most is Howard. He was basically a pervert in the beginning, and now he's probably the most normal character on the show now that he's getting married.


Give me a good example then. I'm not trying to knock your show, but is 30 Rock really that much different from shows like Buffalo Bill and the Larry Sanders Show? I've seen maybe 25 episodes of 30 Rock and they all look the same to me. Behind the scenes at a show, Alec Baldwin is a jerk and Liz Lemon can't find a date even though she looks like a model along with the writers making sarcastic jokes and of course theres Tracey Morgan saying something outrageous. Oh yeah, and the hundreds of appearances from special "A List stars".

I will never say that Big Bang Theory is a better written show than 30 Rock, but it's not as bad as you think it is. If I were to watch more than a couple of episodes of 30 Rock, I might not feel the way I do about it just like if you watched more than a few episodes of BBT you might feel differently. Never judge a book by the cover.

As for people being fans of BBT on IMDB...let me just say, they're not the hardcore TV comedy nerds Joe mentioned. IMDB is the first thing that comes up when you google a show. Trust. I don't see these shows as being anything too memorable.

Where are all these sites dedicated to television comedy?

Tumblr. The AV Club. Television Without Pity. Vulture. Hitfix. Reddit. Just a few. Go on there and you'll find rabid fans of those shows and not as many of the Chuck Lorre sitcoms.


Give me a good example then. I'm not trying to knock your show, but is 30 Rock really that much different from shows like Buffalo Bill and the Larry Sanders Show? I've seen maybe 25 episodes of 30 Rock and they all look the same to me. Behind the scenes at a show, Alec Baldwin is a jerk and Liz Lemon can't find a date even though she looks like a model along with the writers making sarcastic jokes and of course theres Tracey Morgan saying something outrageous. Oh yeah, and the hundreds of appearances from special "A List stars".
30 Rock is obviously influenced by The Larry Sanders Show but it's hardly a rip-off of it. And I would hardly say every 30 Rock episodes follow that formula. In fact Liz is currently in a committed relationship and Jack hasn't been a "jerk" since at least the first season. Not to say that those aren't plots the show goes back to, but every show has recurring plots and elements. The difference is 30 Rock (and the other shows I mentioned) built great characters that are relatable and not just paper thin stereotypes. Also what seperates 30 Rock from other shows to me is its excellent joke writing which is among the best in the history of the medium in my opinion. But I mean, I can't tell you what to like. If you prefer TBBT to 30 Rock that's your prerogative.

I'm not comparing BBT to MTM, I'm just saying that more thought is put into that show than 2 1/2 Men. They even use a consultant on the show for all the scientific mumbo jumbo. If you were to watch an episode from season 1 and and episode from the current season of BBT you would see that the characters have changed a lot for the most part. Leonard isn't the same guy who couldn't talk to girls and Sheldon actually has a girlfriend. The character who has changed the most is Howard. He was basically a pervert in the beginning, and now he's probably the most normal character on the show now that he's getting married.


Give me a good example then. I'm not trying to knock your show, but is 30 Rock really that much different from shows like Buffalo Bill and the Larry Sanders Show? I've seen maybe 25 episodes of 30 Rock and they all look the same to me. Behind the scenes at a show, Alec Baldwin is a jerk and Liz Lemon can't find a date even though she looks like a model along with the writers making sarcastic jokes and of course theres Tracey Morgan saying something outrageous. Oh yeah, and the hundreds of appearances from special "A List stars".

I will never say that Big Bang Theory is a better written show than 30 Rock, but it's not as bad as you think it is. If I were to watch more than a couple of episodes of 30 Rock, I might not feel the way I do about it just like if you watched more than a few episodes of BBT you might feel differently. Never judge a book by the cover.
I've watched quite a lot of 30 Rock. It does have it's moments but it's not as good as the Larry Sanders Show which I loved. I turn it on when I don't have anything else to watch. It's 100% better than The Office though which I could never get into. lol I think Alec Baldwin just plays himself in the series. lol I don't understand all the critical aclaim though. I think there is about 7 or 8 sitcoms better than 30 Rock including TBBT.

have you looked at the TV ratings? Chuck Lorre shows are monster hits, all of them, not to mention they are also critically supported with Emmy, Golden Globe and SAG noms.
Chuck Lorre shows are not critically acclaimed. The only awards they have received are acting awards (and maybe the occasional Emmy/Golden Globe nom so those awards shows can pretend they aren't biased against the single-cam sitcom). But...seriously. Chuck Lorre shows have the ratings. Let the single-cams have the acclaim at least lol.

I've watched quite a lot of 30 Rock. It does have it's moments but it's not as good as the Larry Sanders Show which I loved. I turn it on when I don't have anything else to watch. It's 100% better than The Office though which I could never get into. lol I think Alec Baldwin just plays himself in the series. lol I don't understand all the critical aclaim though. I think there is about 7 or 8 sitcoms better than 30 Rock including TBBT.

30 Rock had one good episode that I liked, the one where they had the Night Court reunion. :lol: Alec Baldwin is the main reason I can't get into the show. Hard to like something when you can't stand one of the actors.

The problem I have with many of these single camera comedies is to me they aren't laugh out loud funny. Maybe some are well written as far as storylines go, but they don't make me laugh and that's the most important thing. And it has nothing to do with not having a live studio audience because I loved Arrested Development and My Name is Earl. A show like The Big Bang Theory may not get the critical acclaim of 30 Rock or The Office, but I'd rather watch the worst episode of BBT than the best episode of those shows because I know it will make me laugh.

*shrugs* Different strokes for different folks I guess. I laugh all the time at 30 Rock, and not so much at TBBT. Can't really argue about that though. Comedy is subjective.

What it all comes down to is...whether or not you like these shows, it's fine. We all have different taste. My thing is that Chuck Lorre is a piece of crap. He does not care about this medium. And anyone in this medium who does not care about it can frankly suck donkey balls. Now, I understand that for many years a good majority of the people in the business have been in it for the money, but see, I despise them as well. Right now, Chuck Lorre is THEE poster child of the TV creeps, so I'm picking on him. It's a little troublesome that the more people behind television shows actually care about what they're doing, the less they get recognized for it by the public. People relish in the stuff that *******s create! It's a major bummer to me.

30 Rock had one good episode that I liked, the one where they had the Night Court reunion. :lol: Alec Baldwin is the main reason I can't get into the show. Hard to like something when you can't stand one of the actors.

The problem I have with many of these single camera comedies is to me they aren't laugh out loud funny. Maybe some are well written as far as storylines go, but they don't make me laugh and that's the most important thing. And it has nothing to do with not having a live studio audience because I loved Arrested Development and My Name is Earl. A show like The Big Bang Theory may not get the critical acclaim of 30 Rock or The Office, but I'd rather watch the worst episode of BBT than the best episode of those shows because I know it will make me laugh.
I missed that episode. It sounds like a blast. :lol: I understand about Baldwin. I don't like him either although I have enjoyed his work as an actor. I know it's hard to separate the two sometimes. I have that problem with certain actors too. If you ever get a chance to see him on Knot's Landing, check it out. He's totally evil. :lol:

That's really what it comes down to. I know I like the multi-cam sitcoms better but there have been single cam sitcoms that I like. I like The Middle, Modern Family and Raising Hope and I've liked past hits like My Name is Earl, Doogie Howser and The Wonder Years. Most of the single cam comedies aren't laugh out loud funny. I can watch some of them but for the most part, they just don't make me laugh. Sometimes it's like watching a drama.

Two other new single cam sitcoms that I tried to give a chance to this year were New Girl and Up All Night. I finally gave up on New Girl this week. It's just not funny to me. I like Christina Applegate. I loved her on Married with Children. Although Up All Night isn't half bad, it doesn't really make me laugh that much.

This is a great thread to get the pulse of the community as I like to say. I agree with most of what's been said so far. In terms of pure "quality" the single-camera sitcom is clearly having it's heyday right now. Sadly enough, the audience-filled multi-cam sitcom - the format developed and pioneered by some of history's greatest comedic talents - is woefully stagnant. The last truly great multi-cam show was probably Frasier and that ended 8 years ago. Since then, Chuck Lorre has come to the forefront and unfortunately, nothing he ever created was truly inventive. Quite sad that he is presented to us as the best the format has to offer.

I really enjoyed The Big Bang Theory for the first 4 seasons however I acknowledge even at it's best it does nothing to advance the artform of sitcoms. It's really old hat with it's zingers, one-dimensional characters, and pretty unrealistic plot. Seems like everyone I talk to is under the impression it's groundbreaking or something. Nonsense. It's tepid entertainment that makes for easy viewing - nothing more. This should rate as one of a genius' lesser creations, not the best. For some reason people have accepted the fact the most prolific multi-cam sitcom creator in this day and age makes mediocre shows that are working backwards.I would like to extend to you a hypothetical proposal of marriage because YES to all of this.