The 25 worst sitcoms ever (1 Viewer)

[GuruAskew]

Did you actually watch it?

I mean, if you just think "The Tick" in general is horrible that's one thing but if you dug the cartoon I'm assuming you didn't even give the live-action version a chance.

Of the 9 episodes 6 were written by writers of the cartoon, and for the most part the "newbies" were no slouches. We're talking about Larry Charles and Barry Sonnenfeld here.

 

[MatthewA]

60 Minutes had a segment several years ago about how sitcom writers under 40 can't find work, and former writers for M*A*S*H are leaving that show off their resumés.

I also read an interview a few years ago with Mary Tyler Moore about how she, in her more recent TV endeavors, has had to deal with under-30-years-old network suits who think they know funny because they learned it in college.

Food for thought.

 

[DaveF]

I also agree that the live action Tick was not particularly good. I loved the cartoon and subsequently read some of the comics. The live action wasn't nearly as good as either.

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

I think you meant "over 40" - and it isn't just sitcom writers. Everyone in Hollywood makes the idiotic assumption that only people of a certain age can write material for people of a certain age, and therefore they can't imagine a 40 or 50 year old writing something that will appeal to the 90210 demo. (They also insult young people by assuming that they couldn't possibly be interested in shows that feature grown-ups as leading characters. It is the same mentality that gave us the "kid sidekick" in superhero comics in the 40s. "We need to add a young boy to the mix so that the kids will have someone to identify with." Kids, of course, identified with the adult characters. Every 12 year old boy I ever knew wanted to be Batman. None of them fantasized about being Robin. )

By this reasoning childrens' books should be written by actual children, no woman should be able to enjoy a book written by a man (or vice versa) and neither J.K. Rowling nor J.R.R. Tolkein ever wrote a best-selling book - because both were much older than the people who most enthusiastically embraced their work, and Hollywood has already proven that this is impossible.

A competent writer of a certain age, who knows structure and knows comedy and drama, can soak up enough "local color" to write well about todays teens and 20-somethings in a few hours at the nearest mall or watering hole. For one thing, he was a teen and 20-something not so long ago, and the species hasn't changed so much in the past few years (except in external and superficial ways) that his experience won't translate. What he brings to such stories, which a younger writer can't is perspective and craft - which you only develop by writing a lot of scripts. He'll also write the older characters in his script a hell of a lot better than a younger writer.

Finally he'll bring life experience to the whole process - something else a younger writer generally lacks. That's why so much of what we see in film and TV these days references - film and TV. Or video games. Literature and - Heaven forbid - real life don't get as many mentions because writers write what they know, and when you're a 22 year old film school prodigy what you know is film and TV. Not life.

Regards,

Joe

 

[DaveF]

Then ironically they cast 25+ year olds to play 16-year old high school students.

 

[Malcolm R]

They're cast based on their mental age & maturity.

 

[MatthewA]

We all know that. However, Hollywood forgot that or just doesn't care. It's all about the young people.

This is part of why I can't stand most of today's popular "culture." Immaturity is the credo by which they all live.

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

If fairness to Hollywood, there are practical and sensible reasons for this approach:

1) At any age under 25 or so, a slightly older actor is going to be easier to communicate with and direct than an actor of the exact age. A short five year old can "play act" as a babyish three year old, and is a lot easier to work with than an actual three year old.

2) Using older actors avoids the highly-restrictive rules that govern the use of child actors.

3) Most people change less between 25 and 30 than they do between 16 and 21. So depending on whether or not you want a "show year" to equal a real year, there can be a real advantage over the typical 5 year span of a show to having an older actor in a given role. (Especially given that good lighting, good makeup and good genes can hide a multitude of sins.)

Of course, they also get the advantages of having more seasoned actors, pros who know the business and its requirements, and human beings who have enough distance from high school to have a little perspective on the whole teenage thing - but that isn't why Hollywood does what it does.

Regards,

Joe

 

[TonyD]

it really is amazing what people think is funny.

here's the list.

1.Small Wonder

2.Homeboys in Outer Space (1996-1997)

3.Yes, Dear (2000 – 2006)
4. Woops! (1992)
5.Cavemen (2007 – 2008)
6. Mama’s Family (1983 – 1984 NBC; 1986 – 1990 syndication)
7.Baby Bob (2002 – 2003)
8.My Two Dads (1987 -1990)
9.Perfect Strangers (1986 – 1993)
10.Double Trouble (1984 – 1985)
11.We’ve Got it Made (1983 – 1984 NBC; 1987- 1988 Syndication)
12.Harry and the Hendersons (1991 – 1993)
13.George (1993)
14.Shasta McNasty (1999 – 2000)
15.It’s a Living (1980 – 1982 ABC; 1985- 1989 syndication)
16.Life on a Stick
17.The Ropers (1979 – 1980)
18.Family Matters (1989 – 1998)
19.Mr. Belvedere (1985 – 1990)
20.Babes (1990 – 1991)
21.All-American Girl (1994 – 1995)
22.Webster (1983 – 1989)
23. The Nanny (1993 – 1999)
24.Charles in Charge (1984- 1990)
25.Veronica’s Closet (1997 –2000)

most of those i can understand

i would have perfect strangers and mama's family as 1 and two from the
choices on that list.

someone said they couldnt stand the sound of the nanny's voice then said they liked mama's family.

everybody on that show had as grating a voice as i can imagine.
plus what was funny about the show.
every time i saw it all i saw was mama clobbering someone.
it's always funny when some old women is beating family member s up and degrading them.

perfect stranger's lasted for years just because balki's accent was umm, funny.
not so much.

It's a Living also known as Making a Living was a decent enough show.
was funny and occasionally was touching. should not be on the list.

charles in charge started off as a funny and clever show.
the two boys were excellent foils for charles.

"comedy is not pretty"

 

[MatthewA]

It's at least as funny as a fat man strangling a 10 year old boy. :rolleyes

 

[TonyD]

ok i don't know what that means.
over my head i guess.

 

[DaveF]

I can't argue with those points, except to note that teenaged actors played teenagers not too many years ago. Somehow it worked then.

 

[TonyD]

ok so i guess i dont get why matthew was responding to me wit that one.
what did i say aout the simpsons

 

[Ethan Riley]

I don't know which is the worst sitcom ever, but my vote for the GHASTLIEST sitcom is the freakshow known as Will & Grace. Case in point; here's a typical exchange that occurred in basically every episode:

Karen: "Oooh, look at this new blouse I bought! Doesn't it SHOW OFF MY BREASTS? HAHAHAHHAA!"

(Studio audience is regailed with laughter)

Jack: "Yes, Karen...but never mind about you! You should have seen the busboy that waited on me today! OMG he was FIIIIINE!!!!"

(Studio audience is regailed with laughter).

Yep, Will & Grace...another must-see cackle-fest.

 

[MatthewA]

This won an Emmy for Best Comedy Series and their entire cast took home statues, yet neither of Bob Newhart's first two sitcoms got a damn thing from?

Megan Mullally makes Fran Drescher sound like Julie Andrews, IMO. At least Fran could make fun of her voice.

 

[Aaron Silverman]

Karen's voice is a put-on. Fran really talks like that (well, *almost* like that).

 

[Ethan Riley]

It was never Karen's voice that irritated me; it was the one-note representation of her character. Same with Jack. I'm sure the show's fans will beg to differ, and point out that each character had "very special moments" from time to time, but I cannot see either of those characters as anything but ghoulish, untextured lampoons of human beings.

 

[Johnny Angell]

I agree with you on this. I liked Will & Grace when it was about Will & Grace. Then it turned into the Jack & Karen show, and I lost a lot of interest.

 

[Mark Leiter]

I read most of this thread and seen some pretty good opinions. The thing I wonder is flipping this the other way around. I don't think I can name 10 sit-coms that were really any good?!? In my opinion the last one that was tolerable was Cheers.

I think of "I Love Lucy" as THE sit-com. Everything after Lucy is really a poor copy of Lucy. The actors change and the sets change but its still the same jokes recycled over and over and over again.

With the exception of "once in a decade" shows like MASH in the 70s and Cheers in the 80s and perhaps Seinfeld in the 90s (though i think this one is definitely a step down from the first 2) all sit-coms are un-watchable dribble that I find insulting to my intelligence to watch.

 

[Bryan^H]

There are a few on the list that didn't deserve to be. Perfect Strangers is actually pretty funny.

This reminds me of the list from Blender magazine about the 25 worst bands of all time. They cited The Doors as one of the worst bands. It blew my mind. I know it's just the writers opinion, but I'm sure if he tried hard enough, he could think of a worse band.