I am trying to determine why some old shows are classic and are shown regularly on TV, while others are not shown and are largely forgotten. Someone on the "Make Room for Daddy" board said that it was because certain shows haven't aged well.

I remember "Make Room for Daddy" being on when I was a kid in the 1980s. I have recently been watching the few episodes that are posted on youtube. That was a pretty good show. However, it is becoming a forgotten sitcom. Why? Has it not aged well? I read someone's post stating that the show represents a bygone era in America, and that some of the episodes are not suitable and would not be enjoyed by modern audiences. Well, I have been enjoying the episodes, and I am only 35. What makes this show any different from "Leave it to Beaver"? Yes, I think "Beaver" is a much better show and probably more timeless, but it certainly is dated as well. Why does it not matter with certain shows, but it does for others?

A lot of those old '50s shows are not shown on TV anymore such as "Ozzie and Harriet", "Father Knows Best", "Donna Reed Show", etc. Is it because they are considered too dated? Do the networks think that modern audiences wouldn't like them? I only vaguely remember some of these shows being on when I was growing up. I would like to see them return because the current sitcoms are silly, not funny, and some are downright stupid. I would like to have a chance to sit down and be entertained by these older shows.

How is it decided whether a show has aged well or not? And why with some shows does it matter, but with others it doesn't? "I Love Lucy" is certainly dated, but people in 2015 still enjoy it and laugh just as hard as ever. I guess I don't see why a show can't be enjoyed just because it is dated. Sure, certain episodes wouldn't work in 2015 like they did in 1955, but who cares? I have been watching episodes recently on the 1970s hit, "One Day at a Time". This show, especially the early seasons, wreaks of the 1970s, but it is still great. "Roseanne" in some ways wreaks of the 1990s despite the fact that in most ways that show is timeless for all generations. There are still certain aspects that screams 1990s.

All shows to a certain extent are products of their time period. Why do some shows catch so much crap for not aging well?

Examples of shows that have been accused of not aging well are:
"Make Room For Daddy"
"Father Knows Best"
"Ozzie and Harriet"
"All in the Family"
"One Day at a Time"
"Maude"
etc.

^I actually think that "All in the Family" has aged perfectly. Sure, the names may be different but the issues are still the same.

For example, when I watch old SNLs, I know they are referring to Nixon, etc. In sitcoms, I don't always understand the references.

A good example of a show that I believe isn't dated as far as I'm concerned and is still in constant reruns is Three's Company and no I'm not referring to the fashion back then.

I have seen this show going on 31 years now (yes really, since I was a kid) and I never tire of it's jokes or outlandish premises which I think has to do with a talent that John Ritter was.

Except for a few 70's references in the earlier seasons there was never any reference to real life events and it never pandered to the "special episode" syndrome, it never meant to change the universe, it was just there to make TV viewers laugh and forget their troubles and it never needed to "dumb" it down for viewers.

But most important is that all actors were adults and they were never pressured by networks to include kid actors and besides little kids were already fans of the show, they would watch for Jack's wacky pratfalls and young males would watch for the girl eye candy.

Mace Dolex, I think you pretty much summed up "Three's Company" great.

One big reason I think "3C" also does well is it doesn't reference politics. It seems shows that do this a lot fail in syndication with the exception of "All in the Family".

John Ritter was a true performer.

Mace Dolex, I think you pretty much summed up "Three's Company" great.

One big reason I think "3C" also does well is it doesn't reference politics. It seems shows that do this a lot fail in syndication with the exception of "All in the Family".

John Ritter was a true performer.
Yeah that's why shows like Family Ties and especially Murphy Brown haven't done so well in reruns.

Although they do have a few politicial references, "Green Acres" (especially in the last couple seasons with Lisa's women's lib) and "Mama's Family" seem to be shows that could happen at any time. I like to call them "any time, any place U.S.A." shows.

Someone can enjoy Family Ties without being interested in politics. All in the Family, on the other hand, is disgusting. I can't stand that show anymore.

All in the Family, on the other hand, is disgusting. I can't stand that show anymore.

Tell me about it! AITF, IMO, has to have been one of the worst shows ever made. I don't think I would ever enjoy it.

Mace Dolex, I think you pretty much summed up "Three's Company" great.

One big reason I think "3C" also does well is it doesn't reference politics. It seems shows that do this a lot fail in syndication with the exception of "All in the Family".

John Ritter was a true performer.

3C however, in hindsight, comes across as one of those shows that perceived as "edgy" (because it employed a lot of double-entendres) for its time but now feels awfully campy or silly and benign. Also, would the premise of a man having to pretend to be gay in order to live w/ two other women (whom he wasn't related to or married to) realistically fly today?