Is there such a thing as a realistic sitcom? Is a "more" realistic sitcom inherently better than a "less" realistic sitcom?

A lot of shows suffer from being labeled unrealistic. Fantasy sitcoms of the '60s and family sitcoms of the '50s seem the biggest targets and as such are often deemed silly and ridiculous.

"Leave it to Beaver" and "Father Knows Best" are two '50s shows I enjoy very much. Many dismiss them as being completely unrealistic in their portrayal of family life, as being too "perfect" and laughably fake. In reality, life in the '50s was a safer time, though not nearly as is portrayed in these shows. But that is the basis of escapist TV- to give viewers a half-hour of respite from what they deal with every day and transport them to a place where things make sense in their own way. If some stories seem unlikely, that's fine. They are just trying to entertain you with a show that is reasonably realistic, or rather realistic enough, so that you can relate to the characters and see how they react in that setting. And there were problems in those "perfect" families. LITB dealt with several adult topics (alcoholism, divorce, etc.) and FKB even touched on the evils of racism. And yet at the end of the show the issues were resolved and the viewer is even left with a substantive life lesson they can actually use.

"I Dream of Jeannie" is a classic fantasy sitcom from the '60s. Is it realistic that Major Nelson will find a full-grown elephant (or whatever) in his office that he has to get rid of before Dr. Bellows arrives? No. But are his reactions realistic? I think so. This comes down to the essence of good comedy. An effective plot need only set up good character reactions and not necessarily be realistic or believable in its own right. How random or outrageous the plot is depends on the style of the show. IDOJ could get away with practically anything and still keep it funny because the humor was character-driven rather than situation-driven.

I'm not familiar with any wholly realistic sitcom. It seems to me that a show that could 100% happen in real life couldn't be very entertaining to watch. A show needs a little creativity in plot device to get a good story going.

A show doesn't have to be realistic to be funny. I think I gravitate more toward realistic ones now, but there's many "un realisitic" ones I have always enjoyed too.

I think it depends on what the show is trying to do. Obviously, a show like AITF needed to be as realistic as possible because it was dealing with real life issues. And it succeeded. On the other hand, something like Bewitched or IDOJ or the Munsters didn't deal with issues for the most part, so as long as the characters and their reactions and dialogue were relatable, they could also be a success.

And yes, ultimately, most problems are not solved over a period of a few days like they are in sitcoms. But anyone who expects that sort of total realism has a fundamental misunderstanding of what drama (or comedy) is. It is supposed to mirror real life, not BE real life. Physical and time constraints press on all works of fiction. People gripe about the M*A*S*H series lasting 11 years while the war was only 3 years. It's called dramatic license; I just assume each year of the war equaled about three seasons of the show. If you can't suspend your belief at all, you really shouldn't bother watching fictional television.

GREAT, thought-provoking post, by the way! :thumbsup:

Good read.:) But I think some can be realistic and succeed at being funny. As Time Goes By I think is very realistic, yet is funny.

Thanks Retro4Life and Torgo. :wave:
I agree that more realistic sitcoms have their place as well and can be just as funny. Shows like All in the Family and other '70s shows are more firmly grounded in reality and simply have different styles in which the comedy is made. I think there's room for both of them, and I have several favorite shows from that decade.

My point basically is that level of realism is not an effective measure of how much you will enjoy a show (which can go both ways). And I agree with Alan Brady's Hair that all shows fall on some spectrum of realism, never quite reaching mundane reality in the literal sense.

There's one aspect of this sitcom 'realism' question that I always found dumbfoundingly amusing. The consistent argument goes that the 1970s comedies (of the Norman Lear ilk) brought 'realism' into sitcoms, versus all those phoney-baloney 1950s/1960s family sitcoms. My response is that most of those aforementioned older sitcoms, like "Father Knows Best," "Beaver," "Donna Reed," "My Three Sons," etc.,were far more reflective of my own life experience, in terms of family, events, environment, tone, worldview, and such, than what was routinely presented in those 1970s counterparts. Considerably so.

But here's the rub. I have no problem whatsoever, understanding and believing that many others arguing this topic had different life experiences in which those 1970s-type shows are indeed much more aligned and consistent with. Yet it seems to be a curious one-way street, because these very same arguers somehow always adamantly refuse to accept that my own experiences lined up more with those older shows. It's THIS that I always find so bizarrely fascinating. That they maintain an almost dogmatic unwillingness to recognize or accept the 'reality' of my experience and perspective. Never ceases to bemuse me.

There's one aspect of this sitcom 'realism' question that I always found dumbfoundingly amusing. The consistent argument goes that the 1970s comedies (of the Norman Lear ilk) brought 'realism' into sitcoms, versus all those phoney-baloney 1950s/1960s family sitcoms. My response is that most of those aforementioned older sitcoms, like "Father Knows Best," "Beaver," "Donna Reed," "My Three Sons," etc.,were far more reflective of my own life experience, in terms of family, events, environment, tone, worldview, and such, than what was routinely presented in those 1970s counterparts. Considerably so.

But here's the rub. I have no problem whatsoever, understanding and believing that many others arguing this topic had different life experiences in which those 1970s-type shows are indeed much more aligned and consistent with. Yet it seems to be a curious one-way street, because these very same arguers somehow always adamantly refuse to accept that my own experiences lined up more with those older shows. It's THIS that I always find so bizarrely fascinating. That they maintain an almost dogmatic unwillingness to recognize or accept the 'reality' of my experience and perspective. Never ceases to bemuse me.

I have no problem with that perspective at all. In fact, I always thought that LITB was the most accurate portrayal of childhood I ever saw on a sitcom, which I guess is weird because I grew up in the 1970s while the show was set about 15 years earlier. I think the small towns of America were pretty much still in the 50's and 60's atmosphere in the 70's; at least mine was.

Never saw Donna Reed or FKB honestly. They just never broadcast those shows in my area.

I think when I am talking about the less "realistic shows" I'm speaking more of the fantasy based shows of the 60's, such as Bewitched, IDOJ, The Munsters, etc. But again, there is no aspersion attached to "unrealistic" at least in my view. I loved those shows.

ones i can think of are:
boy meets world
step by step
frasier
Bachelor father
family Affair its not really realistic but it had some realistic moments!!!
dear john
Mr Belvedere