The decade prior, sitcoms such as All in the Family, Maude, Sanford & Son, and Good Times (all not to coincidentally, were produced by Norman Lear) as well as M*A*S*H, The Mary Tyler Moore Show, and Barney Miller were considered daring and confrontational.

They also tackled a lot of serious issues in a natural way and contained riskier humor never seen in sitcoms up until that point. While they weren't exactly made specifically for children or families, anybody you could say, could still watch them and appreciate them.

Granted, not all popular sitcoms of the 1970s were known as being smart or controversial but that were at the top of the ratings later in the decade, such as Happy Days, Laverne and Shirley, and Three’s Company. But those were sort of the exceptions to the rule.

But when the 1970s turned into the '80s, did sitcoms deliberately become more family-friendly, light-hearted, and wholesome. It wasn't just that sitcoms more no longer set out to be edgy or confrontational but more of them featured children, and a lot of the child characters you could say, were interchangeable. Do you think for example that shows that started in the '80s like Webster or Small Wonder or Full House would've made it too far a decade prior?

While sitcoms of the '80s did still try to provide commentary on rape/sexual assault, racism, and many other heavy real life situations, they were typically in the form of "Very Special Episodes" about once a season.

There is a degree of vanity throughout the human race, IMO, where parents tend to pat themselves on the back as "perpetuators of the species". As babyboomers reached child rearing age, I suspect their priorities shifted from pushing boundaries, to feathering their own nests. I picture them sitting around the homestead sipping hot cocoa and listening to Crosby Stills Nash & Young's "Our House".

As shows such as Family Ties, and the Cosby show started to out perform The A-team, sponsors took notice.

I really think that explains it for the most part, the producers were just following the money.

And, I believe that this shift in priorities had a common 'root'.

Pushing boundaries is more fun when you yourself are not a keeper of the status quo. While those children in the 1960s were busy critiquing the world their parents had put around them, they found being an anarchist was easy. But once the torch was passed, being a critic was suddenly less amusing.

The Coca-Cola buyout of Norman Lear's production companies, Tandem and Embassy Television, were a complete disaster for thought-provoking, ground-breaking television. Lear's shows went from award-winning to merely funny under Coca-Cola's new ownership.

These corporate changes can be best seen on The Facts of Life, where the girls go from selling baked goods at Edna's Edibles to selling their souls at Over Our Heads: buying cheap merch and reselling it for a profit at their Spencer's knock-off store. Natalie goes from being an idealistic writer to dressing as the Material Girl herself, Madonna. They start ripping off customers, trying to get people to buy their low-quality merch (broken Kewpie dolls, inflatable palm trees, and stuff they can't even identify). Charlotte Rae left at the end of the season. It wasn't the same show: gone were the morals, the lessons... the show became an audio-visual representation of "greed is good".

There is a degree of vanity throughout the human race, IMO, where parents tend to pat themselves on the back as "perpetuators of the species". As babyboomers reached child rearing age, I suspect their priorities shifted from pushing boundaries, to feathering their own nests. I picture them sitting around the homestead sipping hot cocoa and listening to Crosby Stills Nash & Young's "Our House".

What does this have to do with Baby Boomers?

Baby Boomers had already reached child rearing age by the 1970s. The first wave were born in 1946.

And why does everyone keep bringing up Baby Boomers as an answer to everything? It's infuriating because it's so lazy and inaccurate. Are people are not aware that there were several generations of "older people" alive at the same time as Boomers and wielding as much political and cultural influence? I'm not a Baby Boomer, but most of the adults I dealt with as a child of the 1970s and 80s weren't Boomers. They were either Depression Era or WW2.

What's so bizarre about all this talk of Boomers is that it was older generations who were responsible for all of the "cutting edge" TV of the 1970s, as well as the "safe" TV of the 1980s. Norman Lear and Larry Gelbert were not Boomers. Lorne Michaels, who created SNL, was not a Boomer. Miller-Boyett, who produced a lot of "safe" family TGIF fare were not Boomers. Neither was Aaron Spelling.

The fact is that television changed a lot in the 1980s because of the Reagan Era. When Reagan took office, he and his administration ushered in a new era of 1950s-style conservatism as a response to the 1960s and 70s counterculture, with a heavy emphasis on "family values". (See 1984 era article here: https://www.upi.com/Archives/1984/06/16/Reagan-appeals-for-traditional-family-values/4992456206400/) Because of this, American culture changed dramatically. Everything became much more conservative, from the clothes and music to the TV shows and movies, and TV shows resurrected the "nuclear family" format of the 1950s, to reflect Reagan's "family values" platform.

So, to answer the question--people in charge of TV simply changed the format to appeal to the demographic they felt would give them the most viewers. In the 1960s and 70s, when pushing the envelope was all the rage, they produced envelope-pushing TV. In the 1980s, when conservatism and "family values" were all the rage, that's what they pushed--well, that is, until politically incorrect humor became the rage starting in 1987, which is how we got shows like Married with Children and Roseanne.

What does this have to do with Baby Boomers?


So, to answer the question--people in charge of TV simply changed the format to appeal to the demographic they felt would give them the most viewers..

\Because Boomers were that coveted demographic

In the 50's and 60s, sponsors wanted to sell us breakfast cereals and toys by Marx. In the 70s and 80s they wanted to sell us refrigerators and timeshares, in the 90s and 00s they wanted to sell us hormone boosters and offered to by back the timeshares we had made errors with, and in the 10s and 20s, they want to sell us medicare supplements and incontinence supplies.

Regardless if you approve of us or not, "Boomers" rock!! :seeya:

Baby Boomers had already reached child rearing age by the 1970s. The first wave were born in 1946.

.

It took a while for the boom to "ramp up" to a proportion that the producers had to reckon with. "Critical mass" is the preferred term, I believe.

Millennials are our "echoes"

The fact is that television changed a lot in the 1980s because of the Reagan Era. When Reagan took office, he and his administration ushered in a new era of 1950s-style conservatism as a response to the 1960s and 70s counterculture, with a heavy emphasis on "family values". (See 1984 era article here: https://www.upi.com/Archives/1984/06/16/Reagan-appeals-for-traditional-family-values/4992456206400/) Because of this, American culture changed dramatically. Everything became much more conservative, from the clothes and music to the TV shows and movies, and TV shows resurrected the "nuclear family" format of the 1950s, to reflect Reagan's "family values" platform.

So, to answer the question--people in charge of TV simply changed the format to appeal to the demographic they felt would give them the most viewers. In the 1960s and 70s, when pushing the envelope was all the rage, they produced envelope-pushing TV. In the 1980s, when conservatism and "family values" were all the rage, that's what they pushed--well, that is, until politically incorrect humor became the rage starting in 1987, which is how we got shows like Married with Children and Roseanne.

Good answer. I'd also add that the Reagans were very much interested in, and actively pushing for, their conservative ideology on television; we see this, for example, when Nancy Reagan made a guest appearance on Diff'rent Strokes to push her "Just Say No" campaign.

By the mid-1980s, Reagan-style trickle-down economic policies and conservatism had overtaken much of the TV industry: a good portion of Miami Vice was about the fashion; the girls on The Facts of Life were now dressed like models, with giant permed hair, huge shoulder pads, and giant junk jewelry. Conspicuous wealth became common to see on television, as television executives were reportedly stealing expensive desks, acting like jerks, and eventually flaming out. I suspect a good portion of these people were using cocaine.

It's difficult for me to watch some of the shows of the later 1980s because I can actually see the change in philosophy occurring on screen.

Good answer. I'd also add that the Reagans were very much interested in, and actively pushing for, their conservative ideology on television; we see this, for example, when Nancy Reagan made a guest appearance on Diff'rent Strokes to push her "Just Say No" campaign.

By the mid-1980s, Reagan-style trickle-down economic policies and conservatism had overtaken much of the TV industry: a good portion of Miami Vice was about the fashion; the girls on The Facts of Life were now dressed like models, with giant permed hair, huge shoulder pads, and giant junk jewelry. Conspicuous wealth became common to see on television, as television executives were reportedly stealing expensive desks, acting like jerks, and eventually flaming out. I suspect a good portion of these people were using cocaine.

It's difficult for me to watch some of the shows of the later 1980s because I can actually see the change in philosophy occurring on screen.

Personally, I love the sitcoms of the 80s and their style. It's comfort food. Usually the pendulum swings one way, then the other way. The social-coms replaced the 'idiot'-coms of the 60s. The paradigm was due to shift again.

Personally, I love the sitcoms of the 80s and their style. It's comfort food.

I agree about the early 1980s, but the later '80s have some troubling undercurrents that really bother me. I notice many late 1980s shows pushing fashion, looks, and money over traditional values, and it's... uncomfortable. Characters lose what made them resonate with audiences.


Usually the pendulum swings one way, then the other way. The social-coms replaced the 'idiot'-coms of the 60s. The paradigm was due to shift again.

I, too, have observed that pendulum. Prior to the boob tube sitcoms of the 1960s, there were shows in the 1940s and 1950s with real social and cultural value. There's a reason R.D. Heldenfels called 1954 "Television's Greatest Year".

That's not to say all shows followed that pendulum, but in general, there have been these trends.

Good topic. Compliments to everybody here - I'm seeing a lot of interesting responses... :cool:

The Coca-Cola buyout of Norman Lear's production companies, Tandem and Embassy Television, were a complete disaster for thought-provoking, ground-breaking television. Lear's shows went from award-winning to merely funny under Coca-Cola's new ownership.

When and why did this happen? Wouldn't the sale of his companies indicate that they were already failing and needed a lifeline?

Because Boomers were that coveted demographic

They were not the only coveted demographic. It was anyone who was on board the post-1960s cultural revolution, which included Boomers and any other age groups who were a part of it.

Look at the age bracket of so many of the characters of so-called "edgy" feminist/working single mom shows like Maude, Alice and One Day at a Time. Those were aimed towards feminists of Gloria Steinem's generation who were beginning to hit middle age, not just the young Boomer females who burned their bras.

"Black" shows (The Jeffersons, Sanford and Son and Good Times) were aimed towards audiences in the post-Civil Rights era. Again, they weren't just Boomers but older generations who had fought for rights going back to the days of Brown vs Board of Ed and Rosa Parks (1950s). It's why the characters were all middle-aged.

MASH may have been a statement on Vietnam, but it referenced the Korean War, and none of the producers, writers or actors were Boomers.

The point isn't to downplay Boomer influence on culture. If anything, it's the opposite--to stop people from casting aspersions on them. I've been hearing a lot of very bizarre attempts to blame Baby Boomers for everything or use them to explain why things are the way they are.

This thread is an example of that. We had edgy shows in the past because America on the whole was still mired in the 1960s and 1970s counterculture and naturally, TV networks wanted to capitalize on it. And then Reagan got elected, and that changed everything. Rightwing reactionary conservatism became popular, and so the TV execs and studios decided to capitalize on that in the 1980s. Had nothing to do with Boomers having a change of heart. It was because of Reagan.

If you want to see a startling example of how much of an impact he had, compare an episode of Three's Company to the first episode of Three's a Crowd. On Three's Company, you had jiggle jokes, scenes of people waking up in bed together, the girls exposing their panties in revealing teddies, Jack and Larry infer over and over again that they're sleeping with "loose" women, etc., etc.

But then on Three's a Crowd, it was a whole other ball game. Vicki shows up to bed in a frumpy granny nightgown, and the entire joke of the episode is Jack being terrified of getting into bed. Not to have sex. Just to sleep in bed, because it was suddenly "scandalous" in the Reagan Era for an unmarried couple to be sleeping in the same bed together.

Good answer. I'd also add that the Reagans were very much interested in, and actively pushing for, their conservative ideology on television; we see this, for example, when Nancy Reagan made a guest appearance on Diff'rent Strokes to push her "Just Say No" campaign.

Bingo!

By the mid-1980s, Reagan-style trickle-down economic policies and conservatism had overtaken much of the TV industry: a good portion of Miami Vice was about the fashion; the girls on The Facts of Life were now dressed like models, with giant permed hair, huge shoulder pads, and giant junk jewelry. Conspicuous wealth became common to see on television, as television executives were reportedly stealing expensive desks, acting like jerks, and eventually flaming out. I suspect a good portion of these people were using cocaine.

You just reminded me of a show that screamed Reagan Era--Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous. That was the show that turned people onto the materialistic "Greed is Good" mantra of the 1980s.

When and why did this happen? Wouldn't the sale of his companies indicate that they were already failing and needed a lifeline?

Lear's companies definitely didn't need a lifeline. His shows were hugely profitable, and Coca-Cola paid a huge amount of money to buy him out. Coke paid Lear and his partner $485 million in July 1985 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/1985/06/18/coke-buys-embassy-tandem/3c4cb46d-d80e-413c-a499-f3b47b4a4ce6/) (the equivalent of $1.86 billion in today's dollars).

Coca-Cola, I think, originally wanted product placement as a way of advertising. There are a ton of promotional photos of Coke products being used at celebrity gatherings, and Coke pushed for Coke products to be used in the hotel rooms at TV syndicator conventions. Embassy Television's divisions were required to have a "A Coca-Cola Company" on their logo.

Charlotte Rae quickly left The Facts of Life. There are photos of a Cloris Leachman Coca-Cola shirt, but I suspect she refused to wear it. She told people not to drink Coke, that it was an unhealthy product.

The buy-out was a huge disaster, and Coke sold off its television division just 2.5 years later. Coke's chosen executives were nightmares to work under, as revealed in this 1990 story in the LA Times (https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-10-14-fi-3724-story.html). They weren't creative and they were obsessed with fame and fortune. One of them even allegedly stole a number of high-end desks (which eventually came out of his salary) (https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-10-14-fi-3724-story.html).

As soon as the Coca-Cola purchase happened, Embassy Television's The Facts of Life opened a shop reselling cheap merch. After Coke sold Embassy (in December 1987), Over Our Heads just as quickly closed (in January 1988).

You just reminded me of a show that screamed Reagan Era--Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous. That was the show that turned people onto the materialistic "Greed is Good" mantra of the 1980s.

I'd completely forgotten about that show. You are right! :lol:

Personally, I love the sitcoms of the 80s and their style. It's comfort food. Usually the pendulum swings one way, then the other way. The social-coms replaced the 'idiot'-coms of the 60s. The paradigm was due to shift again.

I was a huge 1980s kid and practically ate, slept and drank those shows. But as an adult, I find them so cringe-inducing now. Everyone acts, looks and sounds very "sitcommy" to me and unnatural compared to shows from the 1970s and 1990s. Some of the concepts and characters haven't aged well, either. I find stuff like Diff'rent Strokes, Benson and Silver Spoons really weird today. I remember as a kid finding Miss Kraus so funny, but today, she comes across as such an over the top, dated stereotype, like something that would've definitely worked on a show like Get Smart but was very corny by 1980s standards.


Ironically, the only 1980s shows I can stand are the ones that flew under the radar or were very un-80s--stuff like Mr. Belvedere, Night Court, Too Close for Comfort and yes, even Small Wonder.

I was a huge 1980s kid and practically ate, slept and drank those shows. But as an adult, I find them so cringe-inducing now. Everyone acts, looks and sounds very "sitcommy" to me and unnatural compared to shows from the 1970s and 1990s. Some of the concepts and characters haven't aged well, either. I find stuff like Diff'rent Strokes, Benson and Silver Spoons really weird today. I remember as a kid finding Miss Kraus so funny, but today, she comes across as such an over the top, dated stereotype, like something that would've definitely worked on a show like Get Smart but was very corny by 1980s standards.
I was thinking the same thing shows like Different Strokes; Family Ties; Who's The Boss?; It's Your Move; Silver Spoons; Growing Pains all featured pre-teens that were either central or supporting characters and like you said the dialogue just feels unnatural even though I was an 80's kid myself.


Ironically, the only 1980s shows I can stand are the ones that flew under the radar or were very un-80s--stuff like Mr. Belvedere, Night Court, Too Close for Comfort and yes, even Small Wonder.
Another good observation here too, these shows while well known were never ratings grabbers, Small Wonder can be too dumb at times. But Mr. Belvedere never succumbed to kid sitcom tropes even though the character Wesley was popular on it.

I was a huge 1980s kid and practically ate, slept and drank those shows. But as an adult, I find them so cringe-inducing now. Everyone acts, looks and sounds very "sitcommy" to me and unnatural compared to shows from the 1970s and 1990s. Some of the concepts and characters haven't aged well, either. I find stuff like Diff'rent Strokes, Benson and Silver Spoons really weird today. I remember as a kid finding Miss Kraus so funny, but today, she comes across as such an over the top, dated stereotype, like something that would've definitely worked on a show like Get Smart but was very corny by 1980s standards.


Ironically, the only 1980s shows I can stand are the ones that flew under the radar or were very un-80s--stuff like Mr. Belvedere, Night Court, Too Close for Comfort and yes, even Small Wonder.

I can relate to this. Certain Diff'rent Strokes make me cringe--I find myself unable to sit thru "special episodes" like Bicycle Man. I remember really enjoying Benson years ago during the first run; now, I can't really relate to it anymore. With me it's not so much Miss Kraus but that silly governor. I guess back then I thought he was funny, but now just plain stupid.

One you didn't mention, Newhart, I remember enjoying at the time--now, they're all just, again, stupid--ridiculous. Another is Family Ties--I remember watching it back then, now I find the whole thing a bore, just something that can be on, but not paid attention to.

I also find myself agreeing on Small Wonder. I guess maybe it's so absurd it's enjoyable--was and still is. Also, I never tire of Mama's Family.

I was a huge 1980s kid and practically ate, slept and drank those shows. But as an adult, I find them so cringe-inducing now. Everyone acts, looks and sounds very "sitcommy" to me and unnatural compared to shows from the 1970s and 1990s. Some of the concepts and characters haven't aged well, either. I find stuff like Diff'rent Strokes, Benson and Silver Spoons really weird today. I remember as a kid finding Miss Kraus so funny, but today, she comes across as such an over the top, dated stereotype, like something that would've definitely worked on a show like Get Smart but was very corny by 1980s standards.


Ironically, the only 1980s shows I can stand are the ones that flew under the radar or were very un-80s--stuff like Mr. Belvedere, Night Court, Too Close for Comfort and yes, even Small Wonder.

Like you, Dee, I was a huge sitcom watcher back in the 1980s, when I was a kid. I watched the crappiest shows along with the best, not yet really understanding the difference between "good" and "garbage". In my world, at that time, if they were funny, I was going to watch them.

I find Small Wonder really bizarre, now. They treated that robot as their daughter during the day, and then locked her in a cabinet at night! :lol:

There were many shows like Silver Spoons, Diff'rent Strokes, Rags to Riches, even Fresh Prince, etc. which were basically Cinderella stories, or Rags to Riches TV (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RagsToRiches). (I know, I know, Fresh Prince didn't debut until 1990), and I strongly suspect that many (not all, but many) of these shows were inspired by Reaganomics and the idea that greed is good.

I grow very uneasy watching the later seasons of The Facts of Life, watching the girls rip off customers by selling cheap knock-off merchandise they know is going to fall apart five minutes after it leaves the store, or even stuff so crappy, they don't even know what it is. All throughout the first six seasons of the show, Mrs. Garrett would have (and did) tell her girls that stealing was wrong, and as late as Season 6, she told Jo that Jo mass-producing pizzas, selling low-quality food, was wrong and dishonest. In Season 7, after the Coke buy-out, Mrs. Garrett suddenly doesn't care about making customers happy; Charlotte Rae left the show at the end of that season. The dialog is often weird, the scripts contradict existing continuity, and in several instances, the scripts seem to be written "backwards".

Aside from the episode where Natalie loses her virginity, the scripts don't tackle controversy, the shows are mostly "fluff" (guest stars, musical guest stars, dream sequences, and parody episodes), and they rarely tackle serious issues. They are still quite funny, but the Lear-and-team touch is gone. Lisa Whelchel begins dressing so conservatively that she is covered from neck to toe; Nancy McKeon begins dressing like a human barbie doll. All the girls begin wearing the same wardrobe as the Golden Girls, which is weird when you consider they were 40 years younger.

Having said all that, I do find some episodes where the "magic" is still there, and the girls don't feel like Pod People. It's better in episodes where the Over Our Heads store isn't shown (much), or in the episodes post-OOH.

I can relate to this. Certain Diff'rent Strokes make me cringe--I find myself unable to sit thru "special episodes" like Bicycle Man. I remember really enjoying Benson years ago during the first run; now, I can't really relate to it anymore. With me it's not so much Miss Kraus but that silly governor. I guess back then I thought he was funny, but now just plain stupid.

One you didn't mention, Newhart, I remember enjoying at the time--now, they're all just, again, stupid--ridiculous. Another is Family Ties--I remember watching it back then, now I find the whole thing a bore, just something that can be on, but not paid attention to.

I also find myself agreeing on Small Wonder. I guess maybe it's so absurd it's enjoyable--was and still is. Also, I never tire of Mama's Family.

Newhart just became so over-the-top preposterous around the time Larry and the Darryls were introduced. Eventually, it became clear the entire town was crazy. I enjoyed it at the time, but I feel like they took too many writing shortcuts which resulted in all the characters becoming Too Dumb to Live.

I do still love the ending, and the episode with Michael's crappy "twin" sitcom starring Stephanie, which I recently re-watched on YouTube.

It's been so many years since I've seen Benson that I hardly remember the characters other than Miss Kraus, Benson, the daughter...? Was there a gay butler...?

On Benson the daughter (Katie?) was really a cute kid, played by Missy Gold. A normal kid with a cuckoo father.

That final episode of Newhart was of course a classic. I don't remember if he told Pleshette he had a dream or a nightmare--to me it turned into a nightmare. They drained the well of Larry and the Daryls totally dry (they were actually in the first episode, but weren't overused until later), same with Michael and Stephanie. I think they needed a few more sane people than Dick and Joanna--eight seasons was way too long for this show.

On Benson the daughter (Katie?) was really a cute kid, played by Missy Gold. A normal kid with a cuckoo father.

I honestly have almost no memories of the father. I do remember the daughter being very cute, and being Tracy's sister.


That final episode of Newhart was of course a classic. I don't remember if he told Pleshette he had a dream or a nightmare--to me it turned into a nightmare. They drained the well of Larry and the Daryls totally dry (they were actually in the first episode, but weren't overused until later),

Guess I forgot that!

same with Michael and Stephanie. I think they needed a few more sane people than Dick and Joanna--eight seasons was way too long for this show.

I don't think even Joanna was all that sane... I mean, she was more sane than the rest of the town, but she also threw Dick many curve-balls. It mostly seemed to be Dick as the straight man.

Right, Joanna was sane only by comparison. Dick was surrounded by loonies.

On Benson the father was the goofy governor, Gatling, played by James Noble. He was kind of a male Gracie Allen.

I never did relate Missy and Tracy, interesting to know.

Another good observation here too, these shows while well known were never ratings grabbers, Small Wonder can be too dumb at times. But Mr. Belvedere never succumbed to kid sitcom tropes even though the character Wesley was popular on it.

The reason why I loved Small Wonder is that it wasn't like all other kid's shows at the time that was beating you over the head with all of these serious real world topics. I think there was only one "serious" episode--an anti-drug one where a kid was showing up at the school to push pills--but even that was treated in a very lighthearted way so you didn't feel awkward or depressed.

If another show had done that episode, we would've seen one of the main characters actually strung out and almost accidentally killing their father, or crying after one of his best friends OD's from drug or something. (Because, of course, that's why kids and teens watch sitcoms, to be depressed out of their minds! :lol:) With Small Wonder, I was so relieved there was a show that wasn't mired in that real world crap.

The 80s were more similar in tone to the 50s than the 70s or 70s. To quote the show Murphy Brown, 'The 80s are like the 50s, Reagan is just Eisenhower with hair.'

The 80s were more similar in tone to the 50s than the 70s or 70s. To quote the show Murphy Brown, 'The 80s are like the 50s, Reagan is just Eisenhower with hair.'

:lol:

I love that the 80s sitcoms were more innocent and family-oriented. I view that as a good thing.

I love that the 80s sitcoms were more innocent and family-oriented. I view that as a good thing.

The pendulum had swung, as another poster mentioned. In politics, and with sitcoms. And if it was a "heavy" topic, you'd know it--for example, Conrad Bain comes on-screen before the episode, and warns you. Thank you, Conrad, I'll pass on Bicycle Man, particularly part 2.

As far as FOL goes, I have all the seasons on DVD, and copied some middle-season episodes from Comcast on demand several years ago. I know the first four or five seasons pretty well, but I know virtually nothing about the later seasons, especially with Cloris. Sounds like, from the descriptions above, the show went downhill.

The pendulum had swung, as another poster mentioned. In politics, and with sitcoms. And if it was a "heavy" topic, you'd know it--for example, Conrad Bain comes on-screen before the episode, and warns you. Thank you, Conrad, I'll pass on Bicycle Man, particularly part 2.

As far as FOL goes, I have all the seasons on DVD, and copied some middle-season episodes from Comcast on demand several years ago. I know the first four or five seasons pretty well, but I know virtually nothing about the later seasons, especially with Cloris. Sounds like, from the descriptions above, the show went downhill.

There were some good late-season episodes of FOL, mixed in with some clunkers. If you like light entertainment, the last three seasons, with their lighter fare, can be entertaining. I prefer a little meat with my sitcoms: abortion, dead teachers, coked-up teachers, suicidal students, lost pensions, etc. But that's my preference. It's hard for me to watch the girls going against everything Mrs. Garrett taught them about greed and money matters, but I can see how someone who just wants to watch a funny show will be entertained.

As far as FOL goes, I have all the seasons on DVD, and copied some middle-season episodes from Comcast on demand several years ago. I know the first four or five seasons pretty well, but I know virtually nothing about the later seasons, especially with Cloris. Sounds like, from the descriptions above, the show went downhill.

Not in my opinion. I thought that Cloris Leachman was a great addition to the show and I love the later seasons. They are my favorites. :wave:

Ok, thanks--I'll have to get out my DVDs and finally check them out. In memory of Cloris!

Plus, I think that after beating the same drum long enough, it starts to sound "preachy", ultimately fomenting indifference as people become callused and "tune out" the message. Lear, et. al. had a good run, but it was time to try something new.

Plus, I think that after beating the same drum long enough, it starts to sound "preachy", ultimately fomenting indifference as people become callused and "tune out" the message. Lear, et. al. had a good run, but it was time to try something new.

The Lear era have birth to the 'very special episode' which had their hayday in the 80s and early/mid 90s. They could be ham-fisted or tonally-awkward but it was an effort.

As someone who grew up as a child of the 1970’s and a teenager/young adult of the 1980’s, there was for various reasons a paradigm shift of attitudes from the 1960’s/1970’s and the 1980’s. The late 1960’s into the 1970’s was a shift towards more liberal values. You can see this in programming. For example, the Norman Lear show Maude did an episode on the title character getting an abortion in an episode in November of 1972. You have to think that Mayberry RFD ended its run the previous year.

I am amazed on how far Norman Lear pushed the boundaries, and really he got to do what he did because the viewing public wanting his shows. The culture of America really changed in the 1960’s, and the people wanted more adult programming, with adult themes and adult topics. Frankly with some exceptions, (like Dick Van Dyke Show, and even Andy Griffith) was mostly silly TV as we see TV today. This is my opinion. One can just look at what shows were popular in the 1960’s and what shows were popular in the 1970’s and see the seismic shift. Lear opened that door.

Not everyone likes Lear, conservatives hated him and for good reason. Even I think he occasionally went too far (the Edith sexual assault episode for example). But his shows and other shows like it were the sign of the times and more of an openness in the 1970’s.

The country because partially of Reagan by the 1980’s sort of backpeddles back to a conservatism, as in the 1970’s went way too far. The war in Vietnam, the bad economic conditions of the 1970’s, a resurgence of conservative religion (like the Moral Majority), and somewhat a sense of many people wanting and desiring more traditional ways and rules. The 1980’s were a rejection of the late 1960’s and 1970’s and again, one can see that in programming. Lear lost favor in the 1980’s. Not a big fan of The Jefferson’s, but even that show by the 1980’s lost its edgy racial humor. Again, the viewing public got tired of it.

TV reflects the culture of the time. The 1970’s was a revolutionary time for TV and in the 1980’s that was scaled back. People wanted to be entertained and not preached at, if that makes sense.

As someone who grew up as a child of the 1970’s and a teenager/young adult of the 1980’s, there was for various reasons a paradigm shift of attitudes from the 1960’s/1970’s and the 1980’s. The late 1960’s into the 1970’s was a shift towards more liberal values. You can see this in programming. For example, the Norman Lear show Maude did an episode on the title character getting an abortion in an episode in November of 1972. You have to think that Mayberry RFD ended its run the previous year.

That was definitely a huge paradigm shift. Going from, say, The Beverly Hillbillies (ended in 1971) to Maude (started in 1972) we see the huge cultural shift from funny-but-brainless to TV shows discussing real-world issues.

Now, several of us have named Norman Lear as a major reason for that shift in Hollywood television... but can anyone else name someone else pushing for relevance and hot-button issues in sitcoms in that era? Someone not working for Embassy/Tandem Productions?


I am amazed on how far Norman Lear pushed the boundaries, and really he got to do what he did because the viewing public wanting his shows. The culture of America really changed in the 1960’s, and the people wanted more adult programming, with adult themes and adult topics. Frankly with some exceptions, (like Dick Van Dyke Show, and even Andy Griffith) was mostly silly TV as we see TV today. This is my opinion. One can just look at what shows were popular in the 1960’s and what shows were popular in the 1970’s and see the seismic shift. Lear opened that door.

Not everyone likes Lear, conservatives hated him and for good reason. Even I think he occasionally went too far (the Edith sexual assault episode for example). But his shows and other shows like it were the sign of the times and more of an openness in the 1970’s.

The country because partially of Reagan by the 1980’s sort of backpeddles back to a conservatism, as in the 1970’s went way too far. The war in Vietnam, the bad economic conditions of the 1970’s, a resurgence of conservative religion (like the Moral Majority), and somewhat a sense of many people wanting and desiring more traditional ways and rules. The 1980’s were a rejection of the late 1960’s and 1970’s and again, one can see that in programming. Lear lost favor in the 1980’s. Not a big fan of The Jefferson’s, but even that show by the 1980’s lost its edgy racial humor. Again, the viewing public got tired of it.

But was it the viewing public growing tired of edgy television, or was it studio and network executives who decided audiences wanted something else? I have seen no evidence that Lear lost favor in the 1980s.

I linked earlier to an article which talks about what was occurring on Embassy Television after Norman Lear was bought out: the head of Embassy was busy promoting Coca-Cola products, rather than thinking about the quality of the shows. He was busy stealing expensive desks for his offices, rather than spending time on the sets. He was reportedly a nightmare to work with. This guy is an example of just how greed and avarice now permeated the culture of the former Lear empire: when asked by a reporter about the stolen desks, he "explains" that two of them are knock-offs, and didn't cost nearly as much as what people are claiming. He says this. To a reporter. Who is asking why the desks haven't been paid for.

In that type of environment, a culture where "greed is good", shows which have some redeeming cultural or moral value would be seen as "quaint". But I don't believe audiences were clamoring for relevance-free television. No-one asked for She's the Sheriff, but we got it anyway.

I believe that many people watch television as a form of escape. As a result, I think many simply grew tired of having "issues" thrust in their faces, especially with a "slant" already built-in by self styled 'activist" producers.

The Lear era have birth to the 'very special episode' which had their hayday in the 80s and early/mid 90s. They could be ham-fisted or tonally-awkward but it was an effort.

Guilt peddling works, so long as you don't over do it. Once it becomes the wallpaper, people become adept at tuning it out.

As a result, the constant drumming might very likely have had a neutralizing effect upon real-world instances, where the viewers had already been desensitized by the dramatizations.

I believe that many people watch television as a form of escape. As a result, I think many simply grew tired of having "issues" thrust in their faces, especially with a "slant" already built-in by self styled 'activist" producers.

You think audiences were clamoring for escapist television, and were tired on issue-based television? If that is the case, it didn't last long. By 1989, the #1 show on television was Roseanne, and Small Wonder, She's the Sheriff, Manimal, and Life With Lucy had been cancelled.

If you want to see a startling example of how much of an impact he had, compare an episode of Three's Company to the first episode of Three's a Crowd. On Three's Company, you had jiggle jokes, scenes of people waking up in bed together, the girls exposing their panties in revealing teddies, Jack and Larry infer over and over again that they're sleeping with "loose" women, etc., etc.


Even from the early episodes of Three's Company versus the later episodes (minus the Ropers, and esp. with Terri), the conservative shift is noticeable.

I liked that Family Ties started well off with acknowledging viewpoints in a family differ with conservativism (Alex) versus his liberal parents.

I just didn't understand why they Mallory dumber as the show progressed, similar to the making Chrissy dumber (on Three's Company) as that show progressed, although it's unrelated to the time era influences.

The new trend is wokeness. Saved By the Bell reboot is a wokeness on stereoids. Although they follow a similar sitcom pattern and make one character (Jessie's son) really dumb.

On another note, as much as 80's TV became bleh with influences from it as shown with examples like Facts of Life as it progressed, I enjoy 80's music to this day.

1980s and 90s network television is one of the reasons turned to British Comedy at that time.

You think audiences were clamoring for escapist television, and were tired on issue-based television?

Without any doubt whatsoever, yes I believe that. Further, I believe that people tune in to CNN and Fox news as a form of escapism.

They prefer to be told news that they find comfort in believing. You don't believe that Rush Limbaugh is a journalist do you? He is an entertainer.

And, just like those "later era" sitcoms preaching a cause, I believe had mostly like minded followers watching with clenched fists thrust high, jubilant that their source was "dealing" the message....while the rest of us were watching Married with Children, Herman's Head, Unhappily Ever After, and Eek the Cat.

:clap::guitar::clap:

Even from the early episodes of Three's Company versus the later episodes (minus the Ropers, and esp. with Terri), the conservative shift is noticeable.

I agree. You do feel a conservative trend: even the clothing becomes more conservative.


I liked that Family Ties started well off with acknowledging viewpoints in a family differ with conservativism (Alex) versus his liberal parents.

I just didn't understand why they Mallory dumber as the show progressed, similar to the making Chrissy dumber (on Three's Company) as that show progressed, although it's unrelated to the time era influences.

That's one of the things I don't like about many sitcoms: once it's established that a character is less intelligent, or a little flaky, pretty soon that becomes shorthand for "dumb". Then that progresses, and by the middle of the series, the character is Too Dumb to Live.

I call it the Jackie Harris Syndrome. Jackie (on Roseanne) started out intelligent but sometimes flaky, and unlucky with men. By the end of the original series, she was basically Gilligan... she even portrayed him in a dream sequence.


The new trend is wokeness. Saved By the Bell reboot is a wokeness on stereoids. Although they follow a similar sitcom pattern and make one character (Jessie's son) really dumb.

Oh no. I hadn't watched that, yet, and was hoping for something good.


On another note, as much as 80's TV became bleh with influences from it as shown with examples like Facts of Life as it progressed, I enjoy 80's music to this day.

My gosh, the '80s had some awesome music, all the way through. Sure, there might have been an overemphasis on sax and synths, but so much of it holds up really well.

I agree. You do feel a conservative trend: even the clothing becomes more conservative.



That's one of the things I don't like about many sitcoms: once it's established that a character is less intelligent, or a little flaky, pretty soon that becomes shorthand for "dumb". Then that progresses, and by the middle of the series, the character is Too Dumb to Live.

I call it the Jackie Harris Syndrome. Jackie (on Roseanne) started out intelligent but sometimes flaky, and unlucky with men. By the end of the original series, she was basically Gilligan... she even portrayed him in a dream sequence.



Oh no. I hadn't watched that, yet, and was hoping for something good.



My gosh, the '80s had some awesome music, all the way through. Sure, there might have been an overemphasis on sax and synths, but so much of it holds up really well.

I still enjoyed the SBTB reboot in the end, as it was clever at times, and I liked seeing the original cast again. But I'm critical at times too and thought they went woke overboard initially and didn't get how Jessie's son could be so dumb even though it was kind of funny. At least he started off dumb and didn't progress to it, like Chrissy and Mallory. Mallory ended up being too one-dimensional on Family Ties, which made the show rely on a lot more on Alex, the conservative son, who sparred with his liberal parents.

As for Jackie on Roseanne, she was intelligent in the show beginning. I didn't watch the show towards its end as much. On The Conners, she does seem too dejected and crazy, but at times, she acts like an aunt providing advice of some wisdom to Becky or Darlene.

In total candor, back in that era I worked as a problem solver for a fortune 500 company. I had my plate full of challenges, every day. I was good at it and my superiors found that sending problems to me, made them go away...I enjoyed that.

But, one thing I didn't need, was "entertainment programming" dumping more problem in my lap during my off hours. Especially since that channel invariably included pre-concocted spin, INSISTING what the ONLY acceptable solution needed to be. no thanks!!

I don't believe that I would any sooner look to television sitcoms for "values" than I would phone my dentist seeking guidance on how to unclog a drain...

Simply having "credentials" is no assurance of one having a qualified opinion on matters outside their field.

Without any doubt whatsoever, yes I believe that. Further, I believe that people tune in to CNN and Fox news as a form of escapism.

They prefer to be told news that they find comfort in believing. You don't believe that Rush Limbaugh is a journalist do you? He is an entertainer.

I don't believe audiences were the ones in the 1980s clamoring for an end to relevant topics in television. I do believe executives thought they could cash in by airing trendy shows, conspicuously demonstrating wealth, and reflecting the empty-headed culture that had come to dominate Hollywood in the 1980s.

But while some of these 1980s "trendy" shows were very briefly popular, they were quickly replaced in the Nielsen Ratings by series which demonstrated some cultural significance. In other words, most audiences weren't all that interested in shows devoid of intelligence. Escapist shows like Harry and the Hendersons didn't last long; The Golden Girls, with its issues, ran for seven seasons.


And, just like those "later era" sitcoms preaching a cause, I believe had mostly like minded followers watching with clenched fists thrust high, jubilant that their source was "dealing" the message....while the rest of us were watching Married with Children, Herman's Head, Unhappily Ever After, and Eek the Cat.


Those shows all debuted after Norman Lear was no longer regularly producing TV so you couldn't have been been watching them while Lear was producing more relevant fare. I do know that Married with Children was intended to be the anti-sitcom, but by the time of its debut, Norman Lear had largely vacated the TV industry.

Certainly, though, Susan Harris, another writer whose shows were known for tackling real-world issues, was at her creative and financial peak in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Maybe it's time we discuss her contributions to TV during an era when most sitcoms were becoming safer and saccharine.

I still enjoyed the SBTB reboot in the end, as it was clever at times, and I liked seeing the original cast again. But I'm critical at times too and thought they went woke overboard initially and didn't get how Jessie's son could be so dumb even though it was kind of funny. At least he started off dumb and didn't progress to it,

Thanks for the review! I appreciate it.


like Chrissy and Mallory. Mallory ended up being too one-dimensional on Family Ties, which made the show rely on a lot more on Alex, the conservative son, who sparred with his liberal parents.

Yeah, I feel like the writers painted themselves into a corner with both Mallory and Chrissy: once they made those girls extremely dumb, they felt they couldn't go back.

This is demonstrated in the episode where Mallory fails a test, and has to retake the oral exam. After some goading by the teacher, Mallory blurts out some facts about Thomas Jefferson, and the teacher, impressed by Mallory's knowledge of the material, says, "Finally. The real Mallory Keaton". But in the very next episode, Mallory is as dumb as ever. The writers must have felt as though they couldn't restore Mallory's brain, and it's sad to watch that Flowers for Algernon experience. Even as a kid, "I was like, "This sucks! They just showed us in the last episode that Mallory was smarter than this!" :lol:


As for Jackie on Roseanne, she was intelligent in the show beginning. I didn't watch the show towards its end as much. On The Conners, she does seem too dejected and crazy, but at times, she acts like an aunt providing advice of some wisdom to Becky or Darlene.

Yeah. At times, I feel like they depict the original Jackie... but then they forget and she's loopy.

I don't believe audiences were the ones in the 1980s clamoring for an end to relevant topics in television. I do believe executives thought they could cash in by airing trendy shows, conspicuously demonstrating wealth, and reflecting the empty-headed culture that had come to dominate Hollywood in the 1980s.

.

I think what you are overlooking, perhaps by choice, is that the concept of relevance is entirely subjective.

The "clamoring" was made through the Nielsen's.

Those shows all debuted after Norman Lear was no longer regularly producing TV so you couldn't have been been watching them while Lear was producing more relevant fare. .

I thought it was you who asserted that other "socially provocative" programming came along later, after the "materialism" feeding frenzy had subsided? The shows I cited were alternatives to that later generation of "wokeness"

Nevertheless, I remain steadfast that while the "woke" programming certainly had it's fanbase, I believe the vast majority of those were viewers having a vested interest (the "clenched fists held high in the air" crowd that I mentioned earlier.) And you know what? I say "good for them"... they are as deserving of entertainment as any devout fan of Rush Limbaugh might have been.

But to suspect broad swaths of mainstream viewers viewing reformist-bent sitcoms and having epiphany type moments, exclaiming "I have been SO wrong all my life"...is IMO, a tad fanciful. YMMV

When you look at 1980s TV in general, in a way it was a decade of pleasant television. Even a lot of the dramas such as Dynasty,Dallas and so on were on the lighter more escapist side. There were some gritty programs like Hill Street Blues for example, but over all the tone of 1980s television, at least from the big networks was light and for the most part pleasant.

80's sitcoms:

"Very special episodes" became the icky norm.

Characters were required to "hug it out" over the slightest conflict as the live audience was prompted to over-respond.

In the 70's Lear brought tart lemons to TV, in the 80's they watered it down to "Learade.''

80's sitcoms:

"Very special episodes" became the icky norm.

Characters were required to "hug it out" over the slightest conflict as the live audience was prompted to over-respond.

In the 70's Lear brought tart lemons to TV, in the 80's they watered it down to "Learade.''

Don't forget that sitcoms were endangered in the early 80s. The head of ABC declared the sitcom dead at one point. Miller-Boyett left long-time studio Paramount for Lorimer with the intent of producing family dramas. It wasn't until The Cosby Show hit it big and brought back the sitcom in a big way.

I thought it was you who asserted that other "socially provocative" programming came along later, after the "materialism" feeding frenzy had subsided?

No. The 1970s and early 1980s are when Lear was at his peak. It was the mid-to-late 1980s when materialism became common to see on television. Lear sold his production companies in 1985.

I think what you are overlooking, perhaps by choice, is that the concept of relevance is entirely subjective.

Is it, though?

You don't think Maude having an abortion on 1970s era television is irrelevant, do you? And Michelle Tanner's birthday party being ruined, on Full House, that is relevant television? The idea that relevance is entirely subjective doesn't seem well-supported. In fact, the shows that made a difference in people's lives -- the ones which prevented suicide, or caused someone to decide to go to AA meetings -- are the ones that are still talked about today. They're still relevant.

To me an intersecting example was the ABC sitcom “Soap”. I loved Soap, to me it was one of the most hilarious and original shows ever on the air. A soap opera comedy. A bad idea on paper that worked wonderfully. There are some stray episodes on Youtube I still see from time to time.

But from the outset that series was vilified by all fronts. The conservatives and the “born again” Christians went out on protest and outrage. I am from Memphis, Tennessee in the “Bible Belt” and the local ABC affiliate did not show Soap the first year (getting instead, on prime time around 1977, Gomer Pyle!). What we annoyingly now call “cancel culture” was on display mightly here, not only by the conservatives but also by some liberals, especially homosexual rights groups. People the first year seriously went nuts (in a bad way) about Soap and Soap did survive and thrive a bit ironically because of the backlash and that it was a solid, excellent show. Even had a spin-off “Benson” (which I didn’t care for, because it was a traditional sitcom show)

The 1970’s were an interesting time. The country was in many ways becoming much more open and liberal for a time (from the late 1960’s) but by the early 1980’s somewhat withdrew from that. However, I was a 1980’s kid and miss that era a lot.

Also, people in the 1980’s dressed better than in the 1970’s. Hair was another thing however. Revenue from hairspray products saved NBC in 1982. Look it up.

Is it, though?

You don't think Maude having an abortion on 1970s era television is irrelevant, do you? And Michelle Tanner's birthday party being ruined, on Full House, that is relevant television? The idea that relevance is entirely subjective doesn't seem well-supported. In fact, the shows that made a difference in people's lives -- the ones which prevented suicide, or caused someone to decide to go to AA meetings -- are the ones that are still talked about today. They're still relevant.

I'll try to go to a neutral corner, and try to explain what I am trying to say using an abstract context....

If I am obese, and someone launches a new sitcom where the "hero" figure is obese, yet competent in all other aspects of their life, I'm likely to identify with that character, and perhaps even celebrate that "folk like us are finally getting our due"...so, using the example earlier I might sit on my couch with clenched fist held high in the air, under the presumption that the rest of the world is finally "gettin schooled"

And, while obese people everywhere might be similarly entertained, I'm not sure the rest of the world is obligated to view the show through that lens.

My point is that the former is FAR more likely than the later.

And, pursuing the logic to an absurd extreme, even fewer people would find the example cited to be a motivation to eat more at meal time. ;)

I don't think that children at home were inspired to jump out of their second story window, simply because they saw the Coyote chasing the Roadrunner and fall off a cliff without suffering irrepairable harm

To me an intersecting example was the ABC sitcom “Soap”. I loved Soap, to me it was one of the most hilarious and original shows ever on the air. A soap opera comedy. A bad idea on paper that worked wonderfully. There are some stray episodes on Youtube I still see from time to time.

But from the outset that series was vilified by all fronts. The conservatives and the “born again” Christians went out on protest and outrage. I am from Memphis, Tennessee in the “Bible Belt” and the local ABC affiliate did not show Soap the first year (getting instead, on prime time around 1977, Gomer Pyle!). What we annoyingly now call “cancel culture” was on display mightly here, not only by the conservatives but also by some liberals, especially homosexual rights groups. People the first year seriously went nuts (in a bad way) about Soap and Soap did survive and thrive a bit ironically because of the backlash and that it was a solid, excellent show. Even had a spin-off “Benson” (which I didn’t care for, because it was a traditional sitcom show)

The 1970’s were an interesting time. The country was in many ways becoming much more open and liberal for a time (from the late 1960’s) but by the early 1980’s somewhat withdrew from that. However, I was a 1980’s kid and miss that era a lot.

Also, people in the 1980’s dressed better than in the 1970’s. Hair was another thing however. Revenue from hairspray products saved NBC in 1982. Look it up.

Thanks for sharing your recollections of 1970s television, YF. I was very young in the 1970s, and really only remember the last few years of that decade, although I've seen reruns of many 1970s-era shows, and of course reruns of 1970s shows aired extensively in the 1980s.

I do remember the conservative shift in the 1980s, along with the huge commercialization of kids' shows (action figures or dolls for every cartoon series). In the 1970s, there was almost no Bullwinkle or Pink Panther merch. By the 1980s, Smurfs, He-Man, Star Wars, Garfield, and a hundred other series were cashing in.

One thing that needs to be discussed, here, is the rise of the Miller-Boyett sitcoms of the mid-to-late 1980s. M-B became a major producer of saccharine sitcoms which had a thin veneer of those past Norman Lear sitcoms, but without much of the substance. It was like they were taking shortcuts, producing scripts that didn't have moral ambiguity, but instead a ham-fisted lesson for the kiddies.

I watched most of them as a kid, even then recognizing that there was a weird formula these shows were using.

The Lear era have birth to the 'very special episode' which had their hayday in the 80s and early/mid 90s. They could be ham-fisted or tonally-awkward but it was an effort.

I'm not sure if the Lear era gave birth to it so much as made it popular. There were episodes like this years before Norman Lear, but they were few and far between. The two that immediately come to mind are The Honeymooners episode when Ralph and Alice are denied by an adoption agency and Father Knows Best, when Bud meets a homeless kid who goes couch surfing after his parents abandon him. There was also the Bewitched episode where Tabitha cast a spell where she and a black girl were covered in polka dots.

A lot of Norman Lear’s shows are still good. I have literally watched All in the Family for 50 years (the show debuted in 1971), and sure, it is dated (talking about Nixon and politics of the era) is really timeless because it did what couldn’t be done now, have a frank and funny conversation about race, politics, religion, and sexuality. It was a show that needed to be done because frankly shows in the 1960’s were mostly silly and without much relevance.

However I think Lear took it too far. I hate the “Edith Bunker almost gets raped” episode. If I was the head of CBS, that episode would have been buried. Maude and abortion? Seriously? This is supposed to be a COMEDY....remember? I thibk relavance was a good thing but it went overboard. By the 1970’s, parents had to basically screen out what their kids could watch, again, do you want to be with your preteen child and watch Edith being sexually assaulted or Maude and daughter talking about abortion? I don’t know.

I liked a lot of 1980’s TV because it had a good balance of what a sitcom should be, funny and relatable, didn’t throw out uncomfortable topics and was adult too. Except for “Different Strokes” with the pedophile, kids being kidnapped etc. I can do without the “Very Special Episodes”. Give me the funny.

However I think Lear took it too far. I hate the “Edith Bunker almost gets raped” episode. If I was the head of CBS, that episode would have been buried.

I also hated that episode with a passion. It took me another 20 years after first seeing it to sit through the entire thing. You can hear how uncomfortable the audience is. They're nervously laughing throughout the entire attempted rape scene, either not sure of what they were seeing or how far the show was going to take it.

I don't even see the point of that episode. I mean, there was another episode with Gloria exploring the exact same topic, so why do another one with Edith? What, to let everyone know that middle aged women get raped, too? Well, no :censored:, Sherlock!

Another episode from AITF that I hate is the one where the drag queen gets murdered, which leads to Edith having a crisis of faith. That character started out on such a hilarious, lighthearted note, and then the show had to really go dark and have him murdered. Do writers not get that when they go dark like that, it ruins whatever fond memories the audiences may have had of the character? :mad:

Lear's companies definitely didn't need a lifeline. His shows were hugely profitable, and Coca-Cola paid a huge amount of money to buy him out. Coke paid Lear and his partner $485 million in July 1985 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/1985/06/18/coke-buys-embassy-tandem/3c4cb46d-d80e-413c-a499-f3b47b4a4ce6/) (the equivalent of $1.86 billion in today's dollars).

Coca-Cola, I think, originally wanted product placement as a way of advertising. There are a ton of promotional photos of Coke products being used at celebrity gatherings, and Coke pushed for Coke products to be used in the hotel rooms at TV syndicator conventions. Embassy Television's divisions were required to have a "A Coca-Cola Company" on their logo.

Charlotte Rae quickly left The Facts of Life. There are photos of a Cloris Leachman Coca-Cola shirt, but I suspect she refused to wear it. She told people not to drink Coke, that it was an unhealthy product.

The buy-out was a huge disaster, and Coke sold off its television division just 2.5 years later. Coke's chosen executives were nightmares to work under, as revealed in this 1990 story in the LA Times (https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-10-14-fi-3724-story.html). They weren't creative and they were obsessed with fame and fortune. One of them even allegedly stole a number of high-end desks (which eventually came out of his salary) (https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-10-14-fi-3724-story.html).

As soon as the Coca-Cola purchase happened, Embassy Television's The Facts of Life opened a shop reselling cheap merch. After Coke sold Embassy (in December 1987), Over Our Heads just as quickly closed (in January 1988).

Thank you for that detailed writeup. I was aware of Lear's big hits from the 1970s, and I knew he had come up with Diff'rent Strokes, but all of those shows had gone off the air or were fading by 1985. I didn't know that he had younger (albeit less acclaimed) shows like Silver Spoons, Who's the Boss, and 227 on the air or in the pipeline.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1985-06-18-fi-3341-story.html

WRT to the bad new management, the nightmare exec featured in the article you posted was inherited from Embassy. I'm not disputing your overall narrative, though.

Thank you for that detailed writeup. I was aware of Lear's big hits from the 1970s, and I knew he had come up with Diff'rent Strokes, but all of those shows had gone off the air or were fading by 1985. I didn't know that he had younger (albeit less acclaimed) shows like Silver Spoons, Who's the Boss, and 227 on the air or in the pipeline.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1985-06-18-fi-3341-story.html

WRT to the bad new management, the nightmare exec featured in the article you posted was inherited from Embassy. I'm not disputing your overall narrative, though.

No, I didn't think you were. :wave: With the Lieberthal situation, he didn't come from Coke, but Coke elevated him, even knowing he "wasn't a creative", and also knowing he had nearly been fired previously.

The article you linked also mentioned Alan Horn leaving Embassy at the time of the buy-out. Alan Horn, Mindy Cohn has revealed, was the one who introduced Mindy to Kim Fields; he also gave Natalie her last name in the summer of 1979.

With the "creatives" and the moral crusader Lear leaving the companies, and greedy execs now in charge, Lear's former empire simply couldn't prosper, and we see this on the air on The Facts of Life, as all the girls begin dressing like the Material Girl, embracing capitalism and scamming their customers.

Of course, there had already been a steady push in both capitalism and conservative politics on television, so Coke's buy-out of Tandem/Embassy certainly wasn't the only factor in TV shows becoming more saccharine; Miller/Boyett becoming a major production company also was a factor, and let's not forget the abandonment of Metromedia Square as a production hub independent of the networks (Fox bought Metromedia in 1985).

I think a lot of viewers and TV executives had gotten tired of the dramatic and preachy aspects of some of the 70's sitcoms, especially All in the Family, Maude and Good Times, and were ready for style over substance, and main characters that were more likable and more dynamic.

You also had new audiences to attract--- the kids who would become Gen-X. Depending upon how they were being raised, I can't see many kids back then, myself included, thinking the Norman Lear sitcoms would be entertaining. But we could relate to the girls on Facts of Life, the quirky and optimistic Punky Brewster, and the savvy Huxatable kids. We wanted characters who dressed like us, talked like us, and had the same taste in clothes and music. And in order to keep up with the times, shows had to as well. (Although it's interesting that many of the 80's cop/crime shows followed the 70's formula, just with more modern appearance and music).

Looking back and seeing some of these sitcoms now, yes, a lot of it is cringy, with Disney channel style acting and the "very special episodes" stand out as extreme cringe, but there's a reason so many look back on the 80's shows fondly. Even the most unlikeable characters are still miles better than the unlikable or those considered likable on today's sitcoms.

I think a lot of viewers and TV executives had gotten tired of the dramatic and preachy aspects of some of the 70's sitcoms, especially All in the Family, Maude and Good Times, and were ready for style over substance, and main characters that were more likable and more dynamic.


But just because a sitcom is not dramatic or preachy does not mean it lacked substance. Plenty of shows in the 80s had heartwarming moments and taught lessons and family values. I don't consider that lacking substance.

Looking back and seeing some of these sitcoms now, yes, a lot of it is cringy, with Disney channel style acting and the "very special episodes" stand out as extreme cringe, but there's a reason so many look back on the 80's shows fondly. Even the most unlikeable characters are still miles better than the unlikable or those considered likable on today's sitcoms.

I guess we all view things differently because I don't view the 80s shows as cringy at all. I find them very interesting, comforting and entertaining and among my all-time favorite shows.

I am surprised Norman Lear never had much success after the 1970s. Sure he had some degree of success. There were some shows he was involved in and so forth, but nothing like the extraordinarily successful run of shows he had during the 1970s.

I am surprised Norman Lear never had much success after the 1970s. Sure he had some degree of success. There were some shows he was involved in and so forth, but nothing like the extraordinarily successful run of shows he had during the 1970s.

You raise a good point: he did have a few shows in the 1990s, but nothing lasted long, and nothing like the strong of hits he had in the 1970s. What was it about the 1970s that made so many of his series hits?

I think a lot of viewers and TV executives had gotten tired of the dramatic and preachy aspects of some of the 70's sitcoms, especially All in the Family, Maude and Good Times, and were ready for style over substance, and main characters that were more likable and more dynamic.

You also had new audiences to attract--- the kids who would become Gen-X. Depending upon how they were being raised, I can't see many kids back then, myself included, thinking the Norman Lear sitcoms would be entertaining. But we could relate to the girls on Facts of Life, the quirky and optimistic Punky Brewster, and the savvy Huxatable kids. We wanted characters who dressed like us, talked like us, and had the same taste in clothes and music. And in order to keep up with the times, shows had to as well.

Some good points, here, too.

One thing I noticed about 1980s shows, as opposed to 1970s shows, is that they didn't mind having huge casts, including (in family shows) multiple kids, the parents, grandmother, aunt, the wacky neighbor, and the dog. That was much more rare in the 1970s.

When I think of late 1980s/early 1990s sitcoms, I think of the Miller-Boyett sitcoms, which were Lear-like in the sense that they wanted to tell stories with some lessons, but they were anti-Lear in the sense that these lessons were often trite: they usually didn't have the impact of the Lear shows.


Looking back and seeing some of these sitcoms now, yes, a lot of it is cringy, with Disney channel style acting and the "very special episodes" stand out as extreme cringe, but there's a reason so many look back on the 80's shows fondly. Even the most unlikeable characters are still miles better than the unlikable or those considered likable on today's sitcoms.

I don't know about that! Screech, Urkel, and Vicki the Robot were some of the most one-dimensional characters in any medium, be it film, television, or books!

It was the combination of conservatism making a comeback in the 80's and people simply tired of being preached to oh btw for every Cosby Show and Family Ties and Growing pains there was Night Court and Married with Children.

Some good points, here, too.

One thing I noticed about 1980s shows, as opposed to 1970s shows, is that they didn't mind having huge casts, including (in family shows) multiple kids, the parents, grandmother, aunt, the wacky neighbor, and the dog. That was much more rare in the 1970s.

When I think of late 1980s/early 1990s sitcoms, I think of the Miller-Boyett sitcoms, which were Lear-like in the sense that they wanted to tell stories with some lessons, but they were anti-Lear in the sense that these lessons were often trite: they usually didn't have the impact of the Lear shows.



I don't know about that! Screech, Urkel, and Vicki the Robot were some of the most one-dimensional characters in any medium, be it film, television, or books!

Urkel and Vicki the Robot were fun fantasy characters aimed at children and families. Pure escapism.

A lot of seventies entertainment was too serious. Many of the movies were depressing, happy endings were out in favor of sad or tragic ones. People want to escape with tv.

Norman Lear worked in the 70s because it was different, but his shows ran their course. Lear tried in the 80s and 90s to make something happen but AKA Pablo, Sunday Dinner, The Powers That Be and 704 Hauser all bombed hard.

Urkel and Vicki the Robot were fun fantasy characters aimed at children and families. Pure escapism.

But was it "pure escapism"? I remember the morals they tried to teach on Family Matters and Small Wonder. I think several of us remember the racism episode of FM and the "girl on the milk carton" episode of SW. Even though the premises were often silly, Miller-Boyett and Peter Engel Productions were still trying to include moral lessons... they usually didn't have the impact of Lear's sitcoms, but they were attempts at teaching people (kids, families, etc) some life lessons.


A lot of seventies entertainment was too serious. Many of the movies were depressing, happy endings were out in favor of sad or tragic ones. People want to escape with tv.

Norman Lear worked in the 70s because it was different, but his shows ran their course. Lear tried in the 80s and 90s to make something happen but AKA Pablo, Sunday Dinner, The Powers That Be and 704 Hauser all bombed hard.

That's a good analysis of 1970s television; if 1970s TV was too serious, then, it seems like 1980s television was too glib... until Roseanne, I guess.

But was it "pure escapism"? I remember the morals they tried to teach on Family Matters and Small Wonder. I think several of us remember the racism episode of FM and the "girl on the milk carton" episode of SW. Even though the premises were often silly, Miller-Boyett and Peter Engel Productions were still trying to include moral lessons... they usually didn't have the impact of Lear's sitcoms, but they were attempts at teaching people (kids, families, etc) some life lessons.



That's a good analysis of 1970s television; if 1970s TV was too serious, then, it seems like 1980s television was too glib... until Roseanne, I guess.

I remember Joel Zwick, who directed episodes of Webster (https://books.google.com/books?id=n9EOEAAAQBAJ&pg=PT740&lpg=PT740&dq=very+special+episodes+%22webster%22&source=bl&ots=ATHrDFqnJt&sig=ACfU3U3nc1AfagYBW4v2yIhFaMnHxn_mTw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiEjvnV5fLuAhVRK80KHRL3CNMQ6AEwC3oECBAQAw#v=onepage&q=very%20special%20episodes%20%22webster%22&f=false) said on an episode of the E! True Hollywood Story on Emmanuel Lewis, that he was aware that they did many (https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:z3y1__b_vGQJ:https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1985-01-24-ca-11471-story.html+&cd=15&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us) "very special episodes" (https://www.quora.com/Why-did-otherwise-kid-oriented-80s-sitcoms-like-Diffrent-Strokes-and-Punky-Brewster-have-to-have-so-many-dark-episodes), but their intent (https://www.quora.com/Why-did-otherwise-kid-oriented-80s-sitcoms-like-Diffrent-Strokes-and-Punky-Brewster-have-to-have-so-many-dark-episodes) at the time was to educate.

But just because a sitcom is not dramatic or preachy does not mean it lacked substance. Plenty of shows in the 80s had heartwarming moments and taught lessons and family values. I don't consider that lacking substance.



I guess we all view things differently because I don't view the 80s shows as cringy at all. I find them very interesting, comforting and entertaining and among my all-time favorite shows.

I know a lot of people still love watching 80s shows and don't find them cringy. Personally, I love to re-watch the 80's crime shows, like TJ Hooker and Hart to Hart. And the appeal of Knight Rider has lasted for over 30 years---especially with the resurgence of 80's style music that singers and bands are making, and indie musicians are making whole albums of instrumental synth music, reminiscent of themes like Knight Rider and Airwolf, and the video games. The 80's aesthetic is really being embraced by younger generations and honestly I'm loving it. But when I try to re-watch some of these sitcoms, I just can't----however I still feel they are miles above many of the sitcoms on now, and I don't watch any of the modern ones.

I personally believe it started in the 60s. The early 60s had shows such as The Dick Van Dyke Show, Leave It to Beaver, The Andy Griffith Show, amongst a host of other shows. By the late 1960s, the times were changing and people wanted more culturally relevant programming that depicted the times, which is why the Rural Purge happened. Starting in 1970 and beyond, you shows such as The Mary Tyler Moore Show and All in the Family, both of which were groundbreaking in their own right. Then shows such as Mash, Happy Days, Alice, Threes Company, Laverne and Shirley, etc.. followed later. By the late 1970s, the novelty of shows such as "MTM" and All in the Family" had worn off, which led to their cancellation. Many others followed suit and if they weren't cancelled in the late 70s, they ended their run in the early 80s (Happy Days, The Jeffersons, Mash). It was no longer the 70s and the cultural revolution "died out" and people got sick of shows like All in the Family, and they craved more regular sitcoms, which is how we ended up with so many dreadful 1980s sitcoms. There's only a handful that I really like (Roseanne and The Golden Girls)

I remember Joel Zwick, who directed episodes of Webster (https://books.google.com/books?id=n9EOEAAAQBAJ&pg=PT740&lpg=PT740&dq=very+special+episodes+%22webster%22&source=bl&ots=ATHrDFqnJt&sig=ACfU3U3nc1AfagYBW4v2yIhFaMnHxn_mTw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiEjvnV5fLuAhVRK80KHRL3CNMQ6AEwC3oECBAQAw#v=onepage&q=very%20special%20episodes%20%22webster%22&f=false) said on an episode of the E! True Hollywood Story on Emmanuel Lewis, that he was aware that they did many (https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:z3y1__b_vGQJ:https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1985-01-24-ca-11471-story.html+&cd=15&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us) "very special episodes" (https://www.quora.com/Why-did-otherwise-kid-oriented-80s-sitcoms-like-Diffrent-Strokes-and-Punky-Brewster-have-to-have-so-many-dark-episodes), but their intent (https://www.quora.com/Why-did-otherwise-kid-oriented-80s-sitcoms-like-Diffrent-Strokes-and-Punky-Brewster-have-to-have-so-many-dark-episodes) at the time was to educate.

I think some of those shows did educate. Whether anyone learned anything useful from the "milk carton" episode of Small Wonder is debatable, but it's clear these productions were trying to educate with these VSEs. I vaguely recall the episode of Webster where he burns down their house.

I personally believe it started in the 60s. The early 60s had shows such as The Dick Van Dyke Show, Leave It to Beaver, The Andy Griffith Show, amongst a host of other shows. By the late 1960s, the times were changing and people wanted more culturally relevant programming that depicted the times, which is why the Rural Purge happened. Starting in 1970 and beyond, you shows such as The Mary Tyler Moore Show and All in the Family, both of which were groundbreaking in their own right. Then shows such as Mash, Happy Days, Alice, Threes Company, Laverne and Shirley, etc.. followed later. By the late 1970s, the novelty of shows such as "MTM" and All in the Family" had worn off, which led to their cancellation. Many others followed suit and if they weren't cancelled in the late 70s, they ended their run in the early 80s (Happy Days, The Jeffersons, Mash). It was no longer the 70s and the cultural revolution "died out" and people got sick of shows like All in the Family,

But was that ("people got tired of shows like AitF") really the case? All in the Family was a top 10 hit even at the end, with 18.6 million viewers. Otherwise spot-on observations, though!

Personally, I love the sitcoms of the 80s and their style. It's comfort food. Usually the pendulum swings one way, then the other way. The social-coms replaced the 'idiot'-coms of the 60s. The paradigm was due to shift again.

This just reminded me of this blog post (https://www.manic-expression.com/2014/06/01/random-thoughts-the-other-diffrent-strokes-curse-3/) from about seven years ago, that argues that the sitcom genre began to stagnant in the '80s (or at the very least, from the time period of 1978-1984) because they got way too safe in the formula.

I'm very doubtful that the audience in general gets tired of different categories of shows. The shows at the core of the rural purge - the three Henning shows plus Mayberry - were at the end of very long runs. They had run out of steam, as every show does eventually. But Glen Campbell and Hee Haw had good ratings in newer country variety shows; when the Waltons showed up a year or so later it had strong ratings. The rural sitcoms that had been cancelled just weren't replaced by much. Carter Country showed up in 1977. It seems it was #32 in its first season, which to me is a very surprisingly strong rating for that show. Then Dukes of Hazzard shows up in 1979, and it was a pretty solid hit. It always happens in TV - you get one hit, then keep copying it till the copies don't hit anymore. That doesn't mean that the audience wouldn't have been happier with shows of different types.

Great point about the networks following trends, while the audience would actually prefer to see some variety. I know we saw that tendency with Westerns in the 1950s and 1960s, rigged game shows in the 1950s, "reality" shows starting in the 2000s, etc.

Too close For Comfort is underrated

Not in my opinion. I thought that Cloris Leachman was a great addition to the show and I love the later seasons. They are my favorites. :wave:

Very underrated

I personally believe it started in the 60s. The early 60s had shows such as The Dick Van Dyke Show, Leave It to Beaver, The Andy Griffith Show, amongst a host of other shows. By the late 1960s, the times were changing and people wanted more culturally relevant programming that depicted the times, which is why the Rural Purge happened. Starting in 1970 and beyond, you shows such as The Mary Tyler Moore Show and All in the Family, both of which were groundbreaking in their own right. Then shows such as Mash, Happy Days, Alice, Threes Company, Laverne and Shirley, etc.. followed later. By the late 1970s, the novelty of shows such as "MTM" and All in the Family" had worn off, which led to their cancellation. Many others followed suit and if they weren't cancelled in the late 70s, they ended their run in the early 80s (Happy Days, The Jeffersons, Mash). It was no longer the 70s and the cultural revolution "died out" and people got sick of shows like All in the Family, and they craved more regular sitcoms, which is how we ended up with so many dreadful 1980s sitcoms. There's only a handful that I really like (Roseanne and The Golden Girls)

That doesn't make them dreadful just because they weren't heavy and super dramatic. A sitcom should be fun. I don't mind shows like All In The Family but there's nothing wrong with a sitcom being fun. If I wanted drama, I would just watch a hour-long show, like, Starsky and Hutch.

The 80s were more similar in tone to the 50s than the 70s or 70s. To quote the show Murphy Brown, 'The 80s are like the 50s, Reagan is just Eisenhower with hair.'

This is probably in part, why it's safe to suggest that shows that came along in the latter part of the '80s like Married...with Children and Roseanne has aged decidedly better than many other sitcoms of the decade. They were much more relatable than more optimistic and saccharine stuff like The Cosby Show, Family Ties, or Growing Pains. This is especially the case in light of rising income inequality going into the 21st century.

They were also obviously were created to be anti-family comedies and portray dysfunctional working class families. MWC in particular, constantly tested the limits of what they could get away with on primetime network television at the time.

The whole decade was nothing but escapism guess at the time the harsh realty of a possible nuclear winter and people tired of the negativity of the 70's is what lead to it wish the Regan years were back.

Another trend in 1980's sitcoms I noticed is the "cute kid" syndrome with shows like Different Strokes, Silver Spoons, Webster, Punky Brewster, Small Wonder.

Or sitcoms that had the smart alecky know-it-all teen adolescents such as The Facts Of Life, Growing Pains, Its Your Move, The Hogan Family, Spencer.

Glad that trend ended

I just wanted to add a reminder that Petticoat Junction was not an "official" casualty of the 1971 CBS Rural Purge, as the show ended one season prior in 1970. Anyway, it is not often mentioned that The Doris Day Show switched from a mostly rural setting to practically all urban. Change was in the air.

This is probably in part, why it's safe to suggest that shows that came along in the latter part of the '80s like Married...with Children and Roseanne has aged decidedly better than many other sitcoms of the decade. They were much more relatable than more optimistic and saccharine stuff like The Cosby Show, Family Ties, or Growing Pains. This is especially the case in light of rising income inequality going into the 21st century.

They were also obviously were created to be anti-family comedies and portray dysfunctional working class families. MWC in particular, constantly tested the limits of what they could get away with on primetime network television at the time.
I believe that you're only speaking for yourself here.
To whom is "Married With Children" more relatable than "Family Ties"?
Yeah, that is what some people feel.
But I don't really mind the more optimistic shows.
Maybe my parents weren't dysfunctional enough to make me feel that they're "saccharine".
However, the world is big enough to allow both shows to exist.
Or it was back in the '80s, at least.

This is probably in part, why it's safe to suggest that shows that came along in the latter part of the '80s like Married...with Children and Roseanne has aged decidedly better than many other sitcoms of the decade. They were much more relatable than more optimistic and saccharine stuff like The Cosby Show, Family Ties, or Growing Pains. This is especially the case in light of rising income inequality going into the 21st century.

Not for me. I can relate to all sitcoms. Personally I prefer a sitcom to be optimistic. I don't want to feel sad watching a sitcom. However, I can relate to a lot of things. I can relate to the All In The Family type sitcoms and I can relate to the Cosby Show type sitcoms. Why does it have to be limited to just one kind of sitcom?

I believe that you're only speaking for yourself here.
To whom is "Married With Children" more relatable than "Family Ties"?
Yeah, that is what some people feel.
But I don't really mind the more optimistic shows.
Maybe my parents weren't dysfunctional enough to make me feel that they're "saccharine".
However, the world is big enough to allow both shows to exist.
Or it was back in the '80s, at least.

Great Post! I agree.

Another trend in 1980's sitcoms I noticed is the "cute kid" syndrome with shows like Different Strokes, Silver Spoons, Webster, Punky Brewster, Small Wonder.

Or sitcoms that had the smart alecky know-it-all teen adolescents such as The Facts Of Life, Growing Pains, Its Your Move, The Hogan Family, Spencer.

But what about earlier shows, like, The Brady Bunch, Julia, Gidget, The Patridge Family, Good Times, Bewitched, Dennis The Menance, A Family Affair, etc?

The wholesomeness of sitcoms started before the 80s, but I don't view wholesome sitcoms as a bad thing.

This is probably in part, why it's safe to suggest that shows that came along in the latter part of the '80s like Married...with Children and Roseanne has aged decidedly better than many other sitcoms of the decade. They were much more relatable than more optimistic and saccharine stuff like The Cosby Show, Family Ties, or Growing Pains. This is especially the case in light of rising income inequality going into the 21st century.

They were also obviously were created to be anti-family comedies and portray dysfunctional working class families. MWC in particular, constantly tested the limits of what they could get away with on primetime network television at the time.

If it wasn't for Bill Cosby's crimes, The Cosby Show would be airing on more channels than just TV One, likely today and wouldn't have an "aged" issue.

Married With Children and Roseanne have done well, but was the anti-family niche more unique than trend-setting? I thought those shows' success were more driven by its satire (for MWC) or for both - pushing the limits back then as you stated in the second paragraph, than it necessarily being more relatable. MWC might actually be more escapism than relatable or realistic. If a family has no food in their fridge, they just don't laugh it off like Peggy Bundy and the kids do on MWC.

Meanwhile there are dozens of family saccharine shows from the 80s/90s. Some are going to fall out of popularity. Full House has aged probably better than Growing Pains.

On income and class, there were shows like 227 that showcased a more working class family. (and in 89 and the early 90s, Family Matters before that show warped into Urkel's universe). Family Ties was set in Ohio. Not really a rich family on the level of what is shown on Modern Family or blackish, but probably upper middle class given that both parents were college educated and didn't have working class jobs. Although many writers commenting on the show have said the Keatons were middle class.

Nothing wrong with 'saccarine' wholesome comedy. Not everything has to be bitter or angry.

Glad that trend ended

Full House was probably the last truly "saccharine" Reagan-era sitcom of note. They still continued down that route even when they tried to give Stephanie more edgy storylines as she reached her teen years.

The family sitcoms of the '90s, while for the most part, still wholesome, had more of an edge compared to a decade prior. To give you a better idea, Boy Meets World and Blossom were coming-of-age shows and touched adolescent topics like sex and drugs. The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air addressed class and racial issues.

Home Improvement had Tim and Jill Taylor at each other's throats. And more often than not, they settled a compromise like a real married couple and their three sons were unapologetic brats.

Even shows from Miller-Boyett Production (the kings of safe and saccharine sitcoms) had more of an edge to them in the '90s. Family Matters had more than a few episodes about racism and gang violence (it was after-all, set in Chicago and the Winslows were clearly working class). The Foster-Lambert family in Step by Step was very dysfunctional and they acted more like a real blended family than the Brady Bunch.

Full House was probably the last truly "saccharine" Reagan-era sitcom of note. They still continued down that route even when they tried to give Stephanie more edgy storylines as she reached her teen years.

The family sitcoms of the '90s, while for the most part, still wholesome, had more of an edge compared to a decade prior. To give you a better idea, Boy Meets World and Blossom were coming-of-age shows and touched adolescent topics like sex and drugs. The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air addressed class and racial issues.

Home Improvement had Tim and Jill Taylor at each other's throats. And more often than not, they settled a compromise like a real married couple and their three sons were unapologetic brats.

Even shows from Miller-Boyett Production (the kings of safe and saccharine sitcoms) had more of an edge to them in the '90s. Family Matters had more than a few episodes about racism and gang violence (it was after-all, set in Chicago and the Winslows were clearly working class). The Foster-Lambert family in Step by Step was very dysfunctional and they acted more like a real blended family than the Brady Bunch.
I agree.
But let's not forget that "Full House" started with Danny losing his wife and three girls losing their mother!
They also did episodes about topics like child abuse, dementia, eating disorders, etc.
Likewise, it is not like the more edgy sitcoms of that era didn't have their silly moments.

Full House was probably the last truly "saccharine" Reagan-era sitcom of note. They still continued down that route even when they tried to give Stephanie more edgy storylines as she reached her teen years.

The family sitcoms of the '90s, while for the most part, still wholesome, had more of an edge compared to a decade prior. To give you a better idea, Boy Meets World and Blossom were coming-of-age shows and touched adolescent topics like sex and drugs. The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air addressed class and racial issues.

Home Improvement had Tim and Jill Taylor at each other's throats. And more often than not, they settled a compromise like a real married couple and their three sons were unapologetic brats.

Even shows from Miller-Boyett Production (the kings of safe and saccharine sitcoms) had more of an edge to them in the '90s. Family Matters had more than a few episodes about racism and gang violence (it was after-all, set in Chicago and the Winslows were clearly working class). The Foster-Lambert family in Step by Step was very dysfunctional and they acted more like a real blended family than the Brady Bunch.

I think the Miller-Boyett sitcoms of the 1990s only continued the saccharine sitcom tradition of the 1980s. They weren't more edgy, they rarely covered serious topics, and family members disappeared at a high rate, which no-one except the audience even seemed to notice.

Al on Step By Step might have hurled an insult at Dana, but neither character seemed to notice when their younger brother Brendan disappeared from the face of the earth. Was this "more realistic"?

I think the Miller-Boyett sitcoms of the 1990s only continued the saccharine sitcom tradition of the 1980s. They weren't more edgy, they rarely covered serious topics, and family members disappeared at a high rate, which no-one except the audience even seemed to notice.

Al on Step By Step might have hurled an insult at Dana, but neither character seemed to notice when their younger brother Brendan disappeared from the face of the earth. Was this "more realistic"?
"Family Matters" and "Step by step" were never as saccharine as "Full House" though.
But if they had been, so what?
There used to be a market for less edgy sitcoms outside the Disney Channel back in those days.
And I loved the Miller-Boyett shows, even though I watched "Blossom" and "Roseanne" too back in the '00s.
Besides, I don't believe that Al hurled insults at Dana.
Al would rather fight with Karen, and Dana was far more likely argue with JT.
So you don't seem to even remember the shows, which you want to criticize.
And as for disappearing kids, that is what happens when the writers don't know what to do with a character.
Brendan had never existed after he was written out as far as the other characters were concerned.
Thus, it is not like they could remember him.

Besides, I have just seen that you called Steve Urkel a one-dimensional character earlier in this thread.
And that is not true at all.
So I guess that you think that he did nothing but destroying the Winslow house and saying "Did I do that?"
But he was much more layered than that.