What caused sitcoms in general to become safer and more saccharine in the 1980s

[TMC]

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.

[GentlemanJim]

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.

[GentlemanJim]

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.

[RetroGuy2000]

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".

[dee2364]

Originally Posted by GentlemanJim

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...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.

[GentlemanJim]

Originally Posted by dee2364

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!!

[GentlemanJim]

Originally Posted by dee2364

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"

[RetroGuy2000]

Originally Posted by dee2364

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...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.

[cnnbcbs]

Originally Posted by RetroGuy2000

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.

[RetroGuy2000]

Originally Posted by cnnbcbs

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.

[SledgeBarone]

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

Originally Posted by RetroGuy2000

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?

[dee2364]

Originally Posted by GentlemanJim

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.

[dee2364]

Originally Posted by RetroGuy2000

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!

Originally Posted by RetroGuy2000

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.

[RetroGuy2000]

Originally Posted by SledgeBarone

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 (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. 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).

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).

[RetroGuy2000]

Originally Posted by dee2364

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!