Article about how comedies aren't as popular in general and not as likely to get syndicated: https://deadline.com/2020/08/broadcast-tv-comedy-future-business-woes-indie-studios-broadcast-model-1203019378/#comments

One of the key things mentioned was single camera shows being so much more expensive than multi camera shows. So why not just start making more multi camera comedies again? :rolleyes:

One of the key things mentioned was single camera shows being so much more expensive than multi camera shows. So why not just start making more multi camera comedies again? :rolleyes:

Yeah you would think they would do that then. I do know looking at ratings most of the sitcoms of the last 10-15 years haven't been much of hits (only a few are really) and most of them got cancelled early on.

Why not follow the British model? Six to eight episodes a season.

Why not follow the British model? Six to eight episodes a season.That is a horrible model. Nothing would ever get to syndication that way.

I honestly think it's heading that way. Years ago many shows had at times up to 30+ episodes a year (for example the Honeymooners had 39 episodes in one season). Then in the early 70's, maybe a bit earlier but 22-24 episodes became the standard amount. Now many shows have much less, for example This Is Us, which is a HUGE hit only gets 18 episodes a year.

18 episodes for This is Us still isn't too far under the standard 22 episode season. 6-8 is less than half that total.

I honestly think it's heading that way. Years ago many shows had at times up to 30+ episodes a year (for example the Honeymooners had 39 episodes in one season). Then in the early 70's, maybe a bit earlier but 22-24 episodes became the standard amount. Now many shows have much less, for example This Is Us, which is a HUGE hit only gets 18 episodes a year.

Those models were brought over from radio, which demanded a half-hour of airtime for a certain period of time. Scripts were rushed many times to do just that. So bad scripts would get through just to fill the slot.
There are advantages to the Brit model. Richard Curtis (Blackadder) said in an interview once that it forces you to put your best stuff forward since you only have a limited amount of episodes.
It doesn't mean you'll have a funny show. But at least you'll know pretty fast whether its worth watching.

That is a horrible model. Nothing would ever get to syndication that way.

Streaming has changed the rules.

I don't watch modern or current TV. However don't all types of shows they make these days do very poorly as far as the amount of viewers go? This may sound a little extreme but I don't see why they even bother making any new shows at all.

I don't watch modern or current TV. However don't all types of shows they make these days do very poorly as far as the amount of viewers go? This may sound a little extreme but I don't see why they even bother making any new shows at all.

Modern network and cable TV is aimed toward the 50+ audience.

Too much political correctness is choking the life out of the modern sitcom. Can't have shows like Seinfeld or Three's Company in this day and age.

Too much political correctness is choking the life out of the modern sitcom. Can't have shows like Seinfeld or Three's Company in this day and age.

^THIS

Too much political correctness is choking the life out of the modern sitcom. Can't have shows like Seinfeld or Three's Company in this day and age.

Exactly. Especially after what's going on now.

Too much political correctness is choking the life out of the modern sitcom. Can't have shows like Seinfeld or Three's Company in this day and age.

Give me some specific examples to what you are claiming.

Back to the outdated statement: absolutely true. Local channels pay networks for their content, cabe companies pay local channels for their content, and customers pay cable companies for that content, plus having to see the ads. And this double dip is what keeps them going. It's a ridiculous setup that's doomed to failure.

The original concept was CATV, community antenna TV. It was a very workable concept which was ruined paying for content which was intended to be free, with only the ads being the fly in the ointment.

Give me some specific examples to what you are claiming.

Just the other day, I saw a quick news brief that HBOmax has now placed a special introduction and disclaimer on Blazing Saddles. The major studios voluntarily editing or totally removing tv shows/episodes for trivial content that could be misunderstood is another example. Actors being fired or forced to resign for an off color remark.

Sitcoms are becoming an endangered species, because they don't fit in with new age group think. Cherish, enjoy
and laugh with them while you still can, cause the day is coming where it will be illegal to watch classic tv.

People who whine about "political correctness" are the same ones who call everything nowadays trash and say it's too sexualized and vulgar. Nonsense. Can't even keep your stories straight.

Just the other day, I saw a quick news brief that HBOmax has now placed a special introduction and disclaimer on Blazing Saddles. The major studios voluntarily editing or totally removing tv shows/episodes for trivial content that could be misunderstood is another example. Actors being fired or forced to resign for an off color remark.

Sitcoms are becoming an endangered species, because they don't fit in with new age group think. Cherish, enjoy
and laugh with them while you still can, cause the day is coming where it will be illegal to watch classic tv.

Okay.
Except I asked "give me some SPECIFIC examples".

Okay.
Except I asked "give me some SPECIFIC examples".That Blazing Saddles example Charley gave was specific, and HBO Max did the same thing with Gone with the Wind.

HBOMax is a bad example as it's a subscription streaming service, and a brief disclaimer before a movie airs isn't convincing of political correctness ruining those movies.

And, what happened to free market, free speech and liberties. Can't HBO decide how it wants to operate its service?

...comedies aren't as popular in general and not as likely to get syndicated

Something like this would be very bad for CBS because of their continuing struggles to get an in-house produced sitcom to have enough episodes for syndication for, like, forever. The last one they had was Rules of Engagement, but the distribution for that one was handled by co-producer Sony.

CBS's best effort in this so far was Man with a Plan, which the network cancelled last May after 69 episodes over four seasons (two full, two abbreviated). And right now, The Neighborhood is starting to look like their best hope (or, as this article implies, perhaps their last?). I really, really hope CBS chooses that one for the Super Bowl 55 lead-out spot, because I'm tired of CBS always picking reality shows for that slot (and maybe then they'll learn from that The World's Best misfire the last time they had the SB). If they don't then this article is also an implication that all hope for CBS's in-house studio will be lost, because CBS will just keep on favoring and pushing sitcoms produced by Warner Bros. TV, especially those by Chuck Lorre, thereby making vertical integration pointless.

Something like this would be very bad for CBS because of their continuing struggles to get an in-house produced sitcom to have enough episodes for syndication for, like, forever. The last one they had was Rules of Engagement, but the distribution for that one was handled by co-producer Sony.

CBS's best effort in this so far was Man with a Plan, which the network cancelled last May after 69 episodes over four seasons (two full, two abbreviated). And right now, The Neighborhood is starting to look like their best hope (or, as this article implies, perhaps their last?). I really, really hope CBS chooses that one for the Super Bowl 55 lead-out spot, because I'm tired of CBS always picking reality shows for that slot (and maybe then they'll learn from that The World's Best misfire the last time they had the SB). If they don't then this article is also an implication that all hope for CBS's in-house studio will be lost, because CBS will just keep on favoring and pushing sitcoms produced by Warner Bros. TV, especially those by Chuck Lorre, thereby making vertical integration pointless.

I was surprised Man With A Plan was canceled because of it. I've never seen the show but knew many who did and it seems odd to cancel right away. I watched that Worlds Best last year and ugh, not great. Compare that to Fox which also aired a reality show but one extremely popular, the Masked Singer.

I honestly think it's heading that way. Years ago many shows had at times up to 30+ episodes a year (for example the Honeymooners had 39 episodes in one season). Then in the early 70's, maybe a bit earlier but 22-24 episodes became the standard amount. Now many shows have much less, for example This Is Us, which is a HUGE hit only gets 18 episodes a year.

Sorry I missed this thread earlier, but you are right.

For decades, the number of episodes per season has been gradually whittled down. As you say, it was typically 39 during the late 1950s (in the 1940s and early 1950s, it might have been far more than that). We're starting to get into that weird British model where as few as six episodes are counted as a "season": Game of Thrones' final season was just six episodes.

Sorry I missed this thread earlier, but you are right.

For decades, the number of episodes per season has been gradually whittled down. As you say, it was typically 39 during the late 1950s (in the 1940s and early 1950s, it might have been far more than that). We're starting to get into that weird British model where as few as six episodes are counted as a "season": Game of Thrones' final season was just six episodes.

Exactly. I often use several shows as an example of this. For example, three shows lasted two seasons: The Munsters, the Addams Family and the Monkees. The Addams Family had 64 episodes, the Monkees 58 and the Munsters had 70. These are a lot of shows for most 2 season shows today, if a show got two seasons and a full order they would have somewhere between 44-48 episodes, not 58, 64 or 70, those would be after possibly a third season or even fourth. I think we will see 13 episodes as a typical season because that seems to be the average in cable and streaming services and network is heading that way.

Exactly. I often use several shows as an example of this. For example, three shows lasted two seasons: The Munsters, the Addams Family and the Monkees. The Addams Family had 64 episodes, the Monkees 58 and the Munsters had 70. These are a lot of shows for most 2 season shows today, if a show got two seasons and a full order they would have somewhere between 44-48 episodes, not 58, 64 or 70, those would be after possibly a third season or even fourth. I think we will see 13 episodes as a typical season because that seems to be the average in cable and streaming services and network is heading that way.

Yes. I don't really like it because I feel like it does a disservice to fans to expect them to wait almost a full year between "seasons". But it's clear the networks are moving to "el cheapo" model. I had been suspecting this since the 1990s, when many shows moved from the 26-episode model to the 22-episode model. Then the 22-episode model became 18, and then 13.

Ten years from now, we'll be saying, "The new season of The Simpsons was even worse than the last one! Both episodes sucked!" :lol:

Yes. I don't really like it because I feel like it does a disservice to fans to expect them to wait almost a full year between "seasons". But it's clear the networks are moving to "el cheapo" model. I had been suspecting this since the 1990s, when many shows moved from the 26-episode model to the 22-episode model. Then the 22-episode model became 18, and then 13.

Ten years from now, we'll be saying, "The new season of The Simpsons was even worse than the last one! Both episodes sucked!" :lol:

Yeah we are heading that way. I know there are shows I watch that end and then I wait almost a year, like South Park. The good thing is that it's easy to binge (which is were this is heading).

Like I mentioned earlier I do not watch modern or current TV so I don't have a horse in this race. However in addition to seasons having much fewer episodes aren't the episodes even getting shorter, aren't they about 15 minutes long per half hour time slot these days.

Depends. I've noticed with streaming shows they seem to be longer but network yeah they are shorter. The reason is due to commercials.

That's what I meant, on commercial TV.

Like I mentioned earlier I do not watch modern or current TV so I don't have a horse in this race. However in addition to seasons having much fewer episodes aren't the episodes even getting shorter, aren't they about 15 minutes long per half hour time slot these days.

Yeah, the standard on network TV now is just 18 minutes for the show, I've heard, which is crazy. I have a satellite dish with DVR, so I just record everything and then fast-forward through the commercials. I have seen very few commercials since 1996, when I first subscribed.

I used to post a lot about the sickening amount of commercials allowed on modern American TV channels but I try not to now because I don't want to sound like a broken record. However putting the ultra low quality of modern programs aside for a moment, when they started allowing channels to show as many commercials as they want to, that basically ruined American TV channels. For anyone that still may not know, this happened around 1997. That is why there are 4-5 times the amount of ads compared to let's say the 1970s. If anything, excessive commercials have been a major contributor to the broadcast model being outdated or as I prefer the term, unwatchable.

Yeah, the standard on network TV now is just 18 minutes for the show, I've heard, which is crazy. I have a satellite dish with DVR, so I just record everything and then fast-forward through the commercials. I have seen very few commercials since 1996, when I first subscribed.

I DVR almost everything too. In my opinion these days you have to. I can't even tell you what's advertised on TV anymore. I never watch commercials anymore. I have not for quite some time now. However it is a shame we have to do that. Many other countries still regulate advertising. Sometimes I just want to watch a program while it is being shown and not have to record it.

One final thing about commercials. The US is the only country in the world that allows prescription drug advertising. In every other country it is still properly banned and it used to be banned in the US too. That all changed during the later 1990s. The only reason I mention this is because a lot of people do not know this.

Too much political correctness is choking the life out of the modern sitcom. Can't have shows like Seinfeld or Three's Company in this day and age.

So, in over 50 years of TV comedy, these are your benchmarks for what we're losing because of political correctness? I enjoy both shows, but with classic comedies like I Love Lucy, The Honeymooners, Bewitched, etc., would it really be a great loss?

And Seinfeld and Three's Comedy aren't even close to being "modern." They ended decades ago! Not only that, Three's Company even became dated in its own time. The show actually dropped the premise of the show (passing Jack off as gay to avoid the stigma of living together) precisely because of how corny it had become in the 1980s. Also, the AIDs crisis was just getting underway.

I DVR almost everything too. In my opinion these days you have to. I can't even tell you what's advertised on TV anymore. I never watch commercials anymore. I have not for quite some time now. However it is a shame we have to do that. Many other countries still regulate advertising. Sometimes I just want to watch a program while it is being shown and not have to record it.

Yep. I don't understand how that was allowed to happen, but I got tired of it in the 1990s, when it was still better than it is now.

The other thing I've noticed is that the commercials are much louder than the show. Nope. No need have the TV shout things at me. So, I just DVR anything I'm going to watch. I certainly don't need to see those adverts for prescription medication, where the side effects are far worse than the ailment they're supposed to be preventing. :lol:

Yep. I don't understand how that was allowed to happen, but I got tired of it in the 1990s, when it was still better than it is now.

The other thing I've noticed is that the commercials are much louder than the show. Nope. No need have the TV shout things at me. So, I just DVR anything I'm going to watch. I certainly don't need to see those adverts for prescription medication, where the side effects are far worse than the ailment they're supposed to be preventing. :lol:
Yeah they became louder. Modem commercials are just obnoxious in every sense of the word. I can't even stand listening to them let alone watching them. And I noticed another thing. When they let advertising go umchecked, a lot of TV channels became I don't exactly how to describe it, but maybe sleazy is one way. And stuff like reality junk and in your face type programming Also really took off. Is it a coincidence, I don't know. I thing unchecked advertising is at least partly to blame.
And by the way I used to like commercials, but that was decades ago when they were pleasant and often clever.

Oh yeah modern commercials are just obnoxious in every way and this type of advertising for the most part started when they deregulated advertising. And I noticed another thing. When they deregulated advertising, a lot of TV channels became I don't exactly how to describe it, but maybe sleazy is one way. And stuff like reality junk and in your face type programming really took off. Is it a coincidence, I don't know. I thing unchecked advertising is at least partly to blame.
And by the way I used to like commercials, but that was decades ago when they were pleasant and often clever.

I couldn't agree more. I remember clever commercials. And as you say, a lot of commercials are sleazy or at least set the bar very low.

And Seinfeld and Three's Comedy aren't even close to being "modern." They ended decades ago! Try reading Charley's post again. He was not saying Seinfeld and Three's Company are modern shows.

I couldn't agree more. I remember clever commercials. And as you say, a lot of commercials are sleazy or at least set the bar very low.

Yet hardly anyone ever talks about this. People just wonder why 7 minutes of an All in the Family rerun for example are cut out when it is shown on TV now. Or they wonder why their screen is full of clutter and so on. They wonder why commercial channels hardly show closing credits anymore. Or why reruns of older shows are often sped up.They just seem to accept it.

Try reading Charley's post again. He was not saying Seinfeld and Three's Company are modern shows.

I guess I should've done a better job of articulating what I meant.

I didn't mean to say that he was claiming they were modern. I think I was trying to express how strange the comment seemed to me. Seinfeld and Three's Company are very dated and a product of their time, so it doesn't make sense to mention those shows and modern sitcoms in the same breath to make the point that because of PC, they wouldn't make it on the air today. It suggests to me that the person isn't aware of how dated these shows were. With or without PC, they wouldn't make it past the green light stage today anyway based on the setup alone.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that he could've chosen some better examples, like older shows with timeless humor or more modern humor (All in the Family? The Jeffersons? Roseanne?).

I guess I should've done a better job of articulating what I meant.

I didn't mean to say that he was claiming they were modern. I think I was trying to express how strange the comment seemed to me. Seinfeld and Three's Company are very dated and a product of their time, so it doesn't make sense to mention those shows and modern sitcoms in the same breath to make the point that because of PC, they wouldn't make it on the air today. It suggests to me that the person isn't aware of how dated these shows were. With or without PC, they wouldn't make it past the green light stage today anyway based on the setup alone.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that he could've chosen some better examples, like older shows with timeless humor or more modern humor (All in the Family? The Jeffersons? Roseanne?).While All in the Family is popular, it is highly dated with all the topical political references from its decade. The constant fighting on it is a turnoff for me, I prefer pleasant escapist comedies. Roseanne the person I always thought was a crude and vulgar loudmouth. And with her getting fired from the ABC revival, a lot of the Roseanne show's former fanbase doesn't like her anymore. Seinfeld is a product of its 90s era but is still popular today. My CW affiliate airs Seinfeld in primetime 7 nights a week, with the full 10PM hour Monday-Friday. It is the only 20th century classic left on any of my locals still airing syndicated repeats except for Andy Griffith. And I don't like Three's Company but it has always been one of Antenna TV's highest rated shows. There are several other shows I prefer on Antenna's schedule, but most of them haven't done as well as Three's Company.

I don't watch modern or current TV. This may sound a little extreme but I don't see why they even bother making any new shows at all.

I basically have the same opinion. With very few exceptions, I don't watch TV shows made from 1980 and forward. I have DVD's of my favorite shows from the classic TV years 1950's to 1970's, I watch the DVD's and have no need to watch the retro channels.

While All in the Family is popular, it is highly dated with all the topical political references from its decade. The constant fighting on it is a turnoff for me, I prefer pleasant escapist comedies. Roseanne the person I always thought was a crude and vulgar loudmouth. And with her getting fired from the ABC revival, a lot of the Roseanne show's former fanbase doesn't like her anymore. Seinfeld is a product of its 90s era but is still popular today. My CW affiliate airs Seinfeld in primetime 7 nights a week, with the full 10PM hour Monday-Friday. It is the only 20th century classic left on any of my locals still airing syndicated repeats except for Andy Griffith. And I don't like Three's Company but it has always been one of Antenna TV's highest rated shows. There are several other shows I prefer on Antenna's schedule, but most of them haven't done as well as Three's Company.

I don't really care for some of the Norman Lear shows either.

Streaming has changed the rules.

I honestly think it's heading that way. Years ago many shows had at times up to 30+ episodes a year (for example the Honeymooners had 39 episodes in one season). Then in the early 70's, maybe a bit earlier but 22-24 episodes became the standard amount. Now many shows have much less, for example This Is Us, which is a HUGE hit only gets 18 episodes a year.

We're talking about broadcast syndication (and maybe cable syndication); Streaming is kinda irrelevant in this conversation. The British model is simply not going to work in U.S. Broadcast syndication, because 6 to 8 episodes per year are just too little. 20-plus episodes per season are preferred by the syndicators, and scripted TV shows usually enter syndication after their fourth (full) season/80th episode. The fewer episodes a show has, the longer it will be for that show to reach syndication eligibility. It will also be more difficult for that program to reach particular milestones during its original run, such as its 100th 150th, or 200th episodes.

The broadcast networks are reducing their scripted shows' seasons to 16 episodes because of increased production costs associated with COVID-19 safety protocols. The syndicators will NOT be pleased about this. If broadcast-TV shows do, in fact, go with the British model. it will take, like, 8-10 seasons before we start seeing reruns of it in broadcast syndication, which I'm the most worried about. The 100-episode milestone for syndication has been lowered to 88 in recent years, mainly because production companies are willing to offer discounts on licensing fees to the networks to encourage renewal. Because of fewer episodes per season, can that threshold be lowered to 65 at the very least, which will be reached no later than its fifth season.

TV today is an absolute mess. All this cross-compensation for this content and that, PLUS those awful commercials discussed above, it's absolutely ridiculous. Then the providers get into a snit, and it's blacked out. Or in Comcast's case, they just pay the price and jack up the rates (which they just did again). Cable started as Community Antenna TV, which was a good idea that's gone totally awry.

And don't get me started on the ads themselves. On a channel like Antenna TV, it's a constant stream of infomercial-style dreck. Tide ads would be a welcome change.

The streaming world is a mess, too. To get all you're interested in, you'd have to subscribe to all kinds of services. Then their contracts change, and you lose something. This is one reason I like DVDs, which are unfortunately going by the wayside.

I think people in general are watching less TV and are moving to their mobile devices. I have. I live overseas and if I ever move back to America won’t even own a TV, much less pay for a cable.

Maybe there is, but there should be a service where I can pay for a series online and be able to watch it online.

To the points of political correctness, I don't think it is as much, as what would be realistically permitted.

I watch an episode of Three's Company today, and an example, is Chrissy's manager making an advance on her, Terri's manager in another episode, or Mr. Roper touching the breast of a woman (in the first episode) believing she was a guy.

If such was in a script today, we as viewers would see that wouldn't work, because everyone knows of sexual harrassment, and lawsuits.

It's more that realistic expectations would conflict with that type of storyline.

I believe the networks should look into a hybrid model. I was kind of dissapointed that NBC decided to cancel Superstore rather than move it to their streaming service Peacock.

On CBS All Access, it has The Good Fight, which is a spinoff of The Good Wife, which used to air on the CBS network. However, very few episodes of The Good Fight are produced and I don't think it has enough recognition in terms of staying power. Perhaps they should have looked into having regular Good Wife like episodes on CBS Network, and higher quality episodes on CBS All Access, but all part of a season.

I believe the networks should look into a hybrid model. I was kind of dissapointed that NBC decided to cancel Superstore rather than move it to their streaming service Peacock.
Superstore's death sentence was signed when America Ferrera decided to leave. It probably would have continued on NBC for one or two more seasons if she had stayed. But why continue it without their main character? I would also be ticked if a show I liked on broadcast TV moved to a streamer you have to pay extra for. Better to outright cancel it than take it away from broadcast TV while still continuing.

I think people in general are watching less TV and are moving to their mobile devices. I have. I live overseas and if I ever move back to America won’t even own a TV, much less pay for a cable.

Maybe there is, but there should be a service where I can pay for a series online and be able to watch it online.
Not wanting to pay for cable any more I get. But the picture quality of anything on a tiny phone compared to a big screen or good size regular TV wouldn't even be comparable and not worth it at all. While there have been a lot of cord cutters, totally removing TVs from a house does not seem like it would catch on. Even if you don't like what is on OTA, DVDs and Blu Rays will never go away. That is something you own physically, not subject to censorship from the way too politically correct streamers (yet they have no problem with all the raunch and filth from vastly increasing TV-MA shows :rolleyes:). Also, watching something on YouTube wouldn't be reliable either, as they often take things down because of copyright issues.

About 99 percent of TV and movies I can watch from a mobile device. My two IPhones are my TV now. There are a few movies (especially science fiction ones like 2001 and Star Wars) that need the big screen but to me 99.9999 percent don’t and don’t care. Online there are several websites where I can watch new shows every week, without commercials. YouTube makes me happy also. There are many old TV shows, TV movies, old theatrical films on there.

I live abroad and when I come home to America at my parent’s house, I don’t watch their TV because their cable “package” (a term I dislike, a package is a box mailed) is drowning in about two hundred channels I have no interest in watching, and one has to memorize the numbers of the channels you do like. It has been said on here many times but the consumer should be allowed to pick channels they want and pay for it. My elderly father watches FOX News, the ID (Crime) Channel (which is good) and that’s about it.

Not to mention when you are watching a channel the umpteen commercials. Commercial after commercial after commercial after commercial after commercial. I have said that there should just be a channel with nothing but commercials, and I bet you a dollar that people would watch it. Seriously.

More than likely if I go back to America I won’t even have a TV. TVs, especially those modern, thin, hang on the wall things are ugly. Also, people use TV mindlessly, as in they turn it on and not sit down to watch it but just as background noise while they are in the house. A lot of TV now is liberal and perverted brainwashing and hatred of the prevailing culture. TV is a brain softening propaganda device.

Also, can we not say “cord cutting”? No one is taking a pair of scissors and cutting cords in their house. Not everything needs a term.

^^ I definitely agree about modern flatscreen TVs, they are so ugly and sterile looking. They make any room they are in look worse.