Poor people in current sitcoms?

[jamesanthony]

Are there any? I don't watch all the new shows so I don't know. Shows like Good Times and Sanford and Son were about people who were basically poor and shows like Welcome Back Kotter (the students),Honeymooners and Alice were about people who were definitley living within a budgeted income. I can't think of any characters on now who don't seem to be living at least in comfort (living in their own house in a middle class environment at the very least or in a nice apartment with enough disposable income to afford nice outfits and the latest gadgets etc). I have a theory that poverty isn't shown now because its depressing and would remind viewers of the current state of the economy.

[Chain Gang Member]

So were the Bundys

[*GoodMorningCalgary*]

Originally posted by Jackhammer
So were the Bundys

Al was a shoe salesman and no one else in the house really had a job but did you see the size of theyre house and all the stuff they had? so that wasn't realistic either...

But in George Lopez they always have financial problems. Alotta the storylines revolve around saving/making money but you can never tell though because they have a huge house, theyre girl goes to private school, they have a huge SUV, Blah Blah blah etc....

[SBTB Geek]

Isn't the family from "Malcolm In The Middle" poor?

[Pentimento]

This is a very interesting subject. Now that I think about it, the only current sitcom family anywhere near the poverty level that comes to mind is the Malcolm in the Middle family, and they're not nearly as destitute as any of those '70s families that have been mentioned. The only other fairly recent ('90s) example I can think of is Roseanne.

I suppose the sad state of the economy could be a factor, but I think we can also blame Cosby, at least in part, for breaking the stereotypical mold of minorities as being more impoverished and not as educated as the typical middle class whites who were so prevalent in early sitcoms. Thankfully, it's become less fashionable to depict minorities as comprising the lower strata of society, but for some reason that seems to have put an end to producing any sitcoms about the poor and unsophisticated. Interesting.

[jamesanthony]

Hey Pentimento:

I was just thinking about the current shows on now and no one is really struggling living from check to check or week to week, but I know a lot of people who are in real life, black, white, latino, regardless of color.

On shows like Roseanne and Sanford and Good Times the characters actually wore a lot of the same outfits over and over again. It's been posted on the Good Times site that James seemed to only have one pair of pants. What characters on TV now would be caught dead in the same attire more than once?

As for Cosby his show I guess has made it politically incorrect to show poor blacks, but what about poor whites? Other than the trashy talk shows like Jerry Springer, you don't really see them in sitcoms anymore. A lot of the black shows now have characters who are amazingly materialistic. Every one of the UPN black shows has at least one character like that. Girlfriends has an entire cast like that.

[Pentimento]

I think you're right about political correctness having a lot to do with it, at least with regard to how minorities are portrayed.

Another possibility might be that with the proliferation of pay and cable channels, most of which seem to prefer tackling the grim and gritty aspects of life since they're allowed more latitude with sex and violence, the networks have chosen to stick with less depressing programming. ABC's Friday night schedule, for instance, reflects a more family-friendly line-up than what you'll see on cable. I don't think we need to worry about all network TV reverting to the blandness of Ozzie and Harriet and Leave it to Beaver, but there does seem to be a trend toward shows that don't remind us of the very things that we turn on the TV to escape.

[jamesanthony]

The shows on now on broadcast aren't cutting edge, that's for sure. Some are OK though. King of Queens is about working class people who aren't filthy rich. The husband is an average sort of guy and they're not overly sarcastic like on the sister series, Everybody Loves Raymond.

I don't think that shows have to be groundbreaking and cutting edge to be good. Just tell good stories and have some heart and there is a lot of heart and soul in something like Good Times or Roseanne where they had constant money troubles but you felt that the characters really cared about each other and you felt uplifted after watching it.

[Chain Gang Member]

Al was a shoe salesman and no one else in the house really had a job but did you see the size of theyre house and all the stuff they had? so that wasn't realistic either...

Actually Peggy worked at clock store in an episode.Also as a make up salesman(neither of them worked out)

Bud worked at the DMV for a while

Kelly became a waitress for a while

[Pentimento]

Originally posted by jamesanthony
The shows on now on broadcast aren't cutting edge, that's for sure. Some are OK though. King of Queens is about working class people who aren't filthy rich. The husband is an average sort of guy and they're not overly sarcastic like on the sister series, Everybody Loves Raymond.

I don't think that shows have to be groundbreaking and cutting edge to be good. Just tell good stories and have some heart and there is a lot of heart and soul in something like Good Times or Roseanne where they had constant money troubles but you felt that the characters really cared about each other and you felt uplifted after watching it.

I agree. And there has been a shift back toward telling uplifting stories. They get lost in the swelling tide of "reality" shows (which, in my opinion, are not about reality at all but are in fact the ultimate escapist fare -- putting real people in fantasy situations), but there are a few quality "heart and soul" type of shows struggling for popularity, and they seem to be making it. Not only comedies, but dramas like Joan of Arcadia, Everwood and 7th Heaven, while considered overly sentimental by the more cynical viewers, seem to have found an audience and taken root. They don't celebrate the typical hapless-but-happy, poverty-stricken sitcom family as many of the shows in the '70s did. Rather, the struggles and hardships the current characters face are generally less obvious. Their problems are the undercurrent of the natural ebb and flow of their daily lives rather than an ever-present backdrop, but the conflict is essentially the same: facing life's challenges with courage and dignity, and overcoming them with the support of family and friends.

I'm cynical enough to avoid most of the really saccharine stuff that's out there, but when stories of the heart are told well, I find myself coming back each week to see a little more and, apparently, so do a lot of other viewers. I hope this is a trend that continues, and won't be compromised or squelched entirely by less than stellar ratings or critical sneers. We may crave the rush of car chases, explosions and gratuitous sex and violence or the voyeuristic thrill of reality TV, but we need to be uplifted now and then.

[jamesanthony]

Well put, Pentimento

[dawsongirl]

Originally posted by jamesanthony
On shows like Roseanne and Sanford and Good Times the characters actually wore a lot of the same outfits over and over again. It's been posted on the Good Times site that James seemed to only have one pair of pants. What characters on TV now would be caught dead in the same attire more than once?

No one on TV nowadays wears the same shirt more than one episode. Like that really happens.