SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Edwarda who wrote (36850)5/6/1999 10:07:00 AM
From: jbe  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 108807
 
E, I have to get out of here for an appointment, but I should like to share a few preliminary thoughts with you.

1) The commentary is indeed facile -- indeed, so facile, IMO, that its conclusions do not bear examination. Sitcoms! I personally have always detested them, whether of the "family" variety or of the "Seinfeld" variety. (I except "The Simpsons", although I am no particular fan of that show, either. BTW, it is a "family sitcom", whatever Matt Groening -- sp? -- may say.) Hence, I take umbrage at the suggestion that "we" are in any way defined by the sitcoms "we" watch. Who is this "we"? And should pop culture ever be used as a measure of "our" attitudes? I like very few "popular" things, and I know I am not alone!

2) There was a time when I, too, thought that "the ongoing contact and exchange" afforded by the internet might "bring us all closer and
engender insight and empathy". That was the reason I began participating in the Clinton forums here. I had been buried for years in the politics of another country, and I thought I should begin informing myself about the politics of my own.

At first, I was delighted to find that people of all political persuasions were participating. They were, in fact, meeting (in cyberspace) with people they would probably never think of talking to elsewhere, or even have occasion to talk to. Soon, however, it became clear that few participants were even interested in finding out what "the other side(s)" really thought, still less in reaching some sort of consensus with them. On the contrary. Many, perhaps most, of the participants were using this mode of communication (the internet) in order to seek out and destroy "the enemy". In the end, all the "moderates" (i.e., the people who DID hope for some mutual understanding) were driven away. Take a look at the Insanity Thread now, for example. Total deterioration. Nothing but reciprocal abuse!!!
(And note also that it already has many more posts than Feelies, even though it is of much more recent vintage.)

3) Speaking of abuse: internet manners are much worse than manners in any other social setting one could imagine. Many people adopt net personae that clearly reflect sides of their personalities that they fear to express in "everyday" life. Anonymity, net rage, etc., also contribute to sour interpersonal communications.

4) There are many exceptions to the above, of course. But that is when the participants, as a group, have written or unwritten codes of behavior that they stick to.

5) As long as we are being negative here <smile>, here is another downer. Some people become internet addicts. That is to say, they use their communication with cyber people as a way of walling themselves off from/escaping from the real people that surround them. As the intensity of their basically undemanding relationships with cyber friends grows, their ability (or desire) to sustain more demanding relationships with "real" friends & family members weakens.

6) Now for the positive! What I personally enjoy on a thread like this one is the opportunity to exchange ideas/match wits with intelligent and informed people on a whole variety of subjects. It is, quite simply, fun.

Eeek, I'm late! Bye...

Joan



To: Edwarda who wrote (36850)5/6/1999 11:07:00 AM
From: The Philosopher  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 108807
 
I would love to read the article and respond, but the nytimes site does not allow you access without accepting cookies, and I don't accept cookies unless they are for my benefit. So please post the article contents. Thanks.



To: Edwarda who wrote (36850)5/6/1999 1:25:00 PM
From: Jacques Chitte  Respond to of 108807
 
Edwarda - I wasn't able to get to the posted article. So I'll have to guess about it from the body of your post.

If sitcoms are being seriously floated as a representation of real life - I am filled with despair. While isolated lines or jokes might ring true, the matrix of every sitcom family I've seen is outrageously artificial. Does ANYONE here know a family as articulate and vari-experienced (and smartmouthed in a strangely unhostile way) as the Cosbies ot the Bunkers or (your favorite here)?
Sitcoms came to us as a bubble of escape, as self-consciously unreal. If they are being promoted as the new arbiters of cultural identity - this would STINK. Because it would signify a big step away from each of the watchers defining themselves through themselves.
Jmho



To: Edwarda who wrote (36850)5/6/1999 3:59:00 PM
From: Father Terrence  Respond to of 108807
 
NY Times article on SITCOMS...

PART 1
Traditional Family TV Sitcom May Be a Dying Breed

By JAMES STERNGOLD

LOS ANGELES -- "Seinfeld" was often called the prototype of the
post-modern sitcom, and so it seemed apt that the last episode
involved a strange dream sequence and a sinister finale for a group of
self-absorbed singles stumbling in an amoral world.

Now compare that with the recent taping of the final episode of "Home
Improvement," a prime-time hit on ABC for the past eight seasons. After the tearful star, Tim Allen, told a joke for a cast and crew drenched in tears, they taped a slightly maudlin story, scheduled to air May 25, in which Allen's character reaffirms his love for his wife and family, and his loyal sidekick finds the love that had long eluded him, lending the closing a poignant moral gravity.

The episode was touching and, many people in television believe, a historical relic, as the traditional family sitcom -- a staple of the medium for more than four decades -- goes the way of the western.

"If that show was pitched to a network today, nobody would take it," lamented Matt Williams, one of the creators and an executive producer of "Home Improvement" and previously a producer of another traditional family sitcom, "The Cosby Show." "This show was created to celebrate the American family, and I'm not sure you can do that in the same way now."

At one time domestic sitcoms like "Father Knows Best," "Leave It to Beaver," "The Dick Van Dyke Show," "The Brady Bunch" and even "All in the Family" and "Sanford and Son" virtually defined television while conveying powerful images of an often idealized if somewhat quirky middle-class existence built around family units. Households across the United States generally had a single television, there were only three networks, and the experience of watching such shows was shared.

No longer. Homes frequently have many television sets; 74 percent of homes now have more than one, compared with 35 percent in 1970. And there are scores of channels transmitting images that have changed subtly but significantly. Singles dominate sitcoms -- shows like "Friends," "The Drew Carey Show" or "Ally McBeal," for example -- and the networks for the most part no longer even try to attract broad audiences. Audiences are deeply divided by age and even by race. Advertisers press the networks to pursue thin slices of the audience -- preferably younger, affluent, white men -- and pay dearly to reach them.

Advertising Age, a trade publication, reports that advertisers pay $425,000 for a 30-second spot on "Friends," compared with $210,000 for an ad on "Home Improvement" and just $115,000 for an ad on "Cosby."

Perhaps the most successful family sitcom still on the air is "The Simpsons," Fox's animated sendup about a dysfunctional family whose creator, Matt Groening, openly describes it as "the anti-Cosby show."

"The idea and delight we once took in celebrating family, community seems to be vaporizing before us," said Norman Lear, the creator of shows like "All in the Family" and "The Jeffersons." "You now have all these shows about lone people coming together. It seems to me this is part of something profound. It's a disease of our time. There's a television in every room and the family has become splintered."

One of the last popular domestic sitcoms is "Everybody Loves Raymond," on CBS. Phil Rosenthal, a creator and an executive producer, said he faced enormous resistance from network executives when he presented the idea several years ago.

"To be honest, there was nothing about the premise of this show that anybody at a network found attractive," Rosenthal said. "They said it had to be edgier, hipper, not so family. But what you have to realize is that this is a show about a family with kids, but it is very much for an adult audience. It's not aimed at the broad audiences. It's a new kind of family show, maybe an evolutionary step."

Indeed, there are people who believe that while the old-style show may be dying, there is plenty of demand for new-style family shows. "Perhaps it won't be a traditional family sitcom, but I think America is waiting for the next one," said Warren Littlefield, a producer who was president of NBC Entertainment when it put shows like "Seinfeld" and "Friends" on its schedule. "The rule in television is follow the trends, then buck them."

--End PART 1--




To: Edwarda who wrote (36850)5/6/1999 4:48:00 PM
From: Edwarda  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 108807
 
I posted the article and so did (!!) FT.

What I find discussionable is what I posted, the parts that caught my attention. There may be more that I missed in an otherwise light bit of writing pretending to be more.