The current sad state of network sitcoms

There’s an article in the new edition of ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY entitled “A Moment of Silence for the Network Sitcom.”  In the article, which basically says that network sitcoms are dead, they make the following points: Their ratings are horrible.  It’s a vicious circle.  It’s harder for one to breakthrough and since most have gone away, it’s hard to find companion pieces to schedule them with.  Networks today are more cautious than ever and don’t want to chance getting a low rating.  A better bet is an hour franchise.  Another reason given is the pilot process is flawed.  Network executives or former network executives were interviewed for this piece.

I don’t disagree with any of their points. 

But could I offer a few alternative reasons why network sitcoms are now almost non-existent? 

One:  The sitcoms they develop are not that good.  And then they note the writers to death.  These sitcoms are selected to fit agendas, not which are the most original, which are the funniest, which have the best writers.  Decisions are based on casting, relationships, ownership, cost, writers who are compliant, commitments, and societal pressure.   I sometimes wonder if these VP’s of Comedy Development were allowed complete autonomy whether they would choose totally different projects than the ones they did choose.  How many great pitches did they pass on because they knew they didn’t fit into their agenda and their bosses would never support them? 

And again, the notes.  Unless you’re Chuck Lorre, the notes are crushing.  And constant.  And given out of fear.  How many good ideas by good writers wound up becoming bland generic blobs by the time they were turned in?  Many of these writers have told me that by the time their pilot is filmed they don't even recognize it.  That should NEVER be. 

And do networks even know what they have?  CBS Entertainment President, Kelly Kahl touts their sitcoms by saying in the article: “If you look at all our comedies, they are about something.”  Really?  Their big new comedy is GHOSTS.  A bed & breakfast is haunted by goofy ghosts.  That says what exactly, other than (a) it’s a reboot of a British series (notice in the above photo they claim it's a "CBS original?"), and (b) it’s a premise that has been done to death.  CBS had a better version in 1952.  It was called TOPPER.   Wikipedia lists 99 series about ghosts.  99!  Oh, and omitted TOPPER.  So yeah, that’s fresh.   The Chuck Lorre comedies?  I would argue people tune into them because the shows try to be funny. 

The pilot claim:  I’ve heard this one for thirty years.  And every so often networks abandon pilots for “presentations” (a cheap way to make a pilot), order direct series and it blows up in their face.   Most of these “direct to series” get burned off in March.  Some never even air.   Pilots aren’t the problem.  The wrong pilots and meddling with pilots are the culprits. 

In the early ‘80s there was also this cry that sitcoms were becoming extinct.  Sitcome writers were writing specs of light dramas like MAGNUM P.I. thinking there was no future anymore in half-hour sitcoms.  Then CHEERS came along.  And COSBY.  And all of a sudden sitcoms were back!  There’s been no breakout sitcom in ten years.  Does that mean it’ll never happen again?  Of course not.  It’s not going to happen with the 100th ghost show.  Or reboot of ROSEANNE without Roseanne (or NIGHT COURT, which NBC is developing). And it’s not going to happen if networks are so afraid of something new that they’d rather do CSI Pittsburgh.  Did you see where NBC is bringing back the original LAW & ORDER? 

Make better sitcoms!  There’s room in your schedules.  Maybe instead of shitty reboots of game shows.  Let’s try some fresh sitcom instead of Anthony Anderson’s mom.  Take a chance.  Yeah, it’s been ten years.  Name me a network pilot in that time that was really FUNNY.   Instead of a moment of silence for sitcoms, how about some CPR? 


from By Ken Levine