Most comedies start out by targeting a specific demo. Once a concept is a proven winner in that demo, network executives always want to expand the audience beyond that niche. That invariably means slanting the content to incorporate more material aimed at female audiences. The Big Bang Theory is another classic example of that trend, or did you really think the addition of all those female characters was a coincidence...

Hollywood decision-making is relentlessly driven by demographics and what niche each show needs to appeal to. This is driven by advertisers looking for specific audiences. Almost all major network decisions come down to this fact.

I think showing more Jenny is still aimed at male viewers ... Grrrr!

As in "on the record" or "off the record"?

That's typical, happy days had Mrs. C and short cake, and later on Lori Beth, but they knew there place, the guys were the stars of the show and that's what made it successful!!

Was the Fonz real manly, like Colonel Hogan? Or fake manly, like Maxwell Smart?

Doesn't matter, people bought in to the fonze and Richie, was a major hit!!

He can't name names.

I suspect that television programs became less manly when the 16-24 year old male demographic started playing games. They aren't watching as much television anymore. So a program featuring a bunch of jerk guys plus Loni Anderson's cleavage is less likely to be a success.

How much of this can be traced back to the Atari 2600 and Nintendo NES eras?

During the early -> mid 1980's, there were tons of "manly" and/or violent tv shows such as:

- The A-Team
- Magnum PI
- Miami Vice
- Dukes of Hazzard
- Knight Rider
- Airwolf
- etc ...

IIRC as the 1980's went on, I don't remember there being as many violent prime time tv shows by the time it was late 1980's. Shows like The Cosby Show, ALF, Roseanne, Murder She Wrote, etc ... were becoming more popular.

ie. 2 Broke Girls. Can't stand the delivery. If the delivery were any more forced they would need a C-section

Yeah, too bad it sucks. Tim is still the man, and I always liked Nancy Travis but her delivery is forced too. Whoever the replacement daughter is I'd like to punch her right in the face. She just bothers me so I stopped watching. But much of the delivery on that show seems forced. Can't hold a candle to Home Improvement.


I think the Middle is about as close as you can come to a traditional family sit-com. But so few people here watch it, I guess that serves as an answer to the OP question.

The Middle is one of the best network sitcoms on TV. I'm glad it's ratings are at least "just enough" to continue the renewal every season.

I watch Last Man Standing because Tim Allen is one of my favorites and it's essentially Home Improvement 2.0, however, it's not a good show. The writing is atrocious and most of the cast is rather unlikable. I don't like the forced political BS they tend to throw in almost every episode and the replacement daughter is a terrible actress.

I know they had to retool the show, but the first daughter was hot. The new one is a total butterface.

I don't think one has anything to do with the other. Lost, 24, Breaking Bad, Walking Dead, Game of Thrones seem to refute that notion. Guys are watching plenty of TV.

The problem is the quality and production value of dramas has increased tenfold while sitcoms flatlined a decade ago. Why waste time on a lame sitcom with cookie cutter characters with forced one liners we've all heard before when there is something like Breaking Bad on?

You could convincingly argue that. After all, sitcoms were to some extent a byproduct of the time when TV had a lot less to work with. Whatever else the digital age has done, it has certainly raised the bar for TV production values, and as such, you can put out lots of pretty compelling and technically accomplished stuff, thus rendering the sitcom format somewhat old hat. Hell, Boy Meets World was shot on videotape, I'm sure that constituted it as a pretty cheap production, even back then. Even soap opera can shoot in high def now, the game has changed, you can offer more than just snappy and funny dialogue with TV now, that's for certain.

The point is guys are not watching sitcoms, the girly shows just don't interest the heterosexual guys. Id rather watch Monday nite raw or Dallas, than two broke girls!!

You can't just make that blanket statement though. I'm sure plenty of guys watch Big Bang Theory. If there were a decent sitcom worth watching, people (including guys) would watch. The problem the last decade is that any sitcom geared toward guys has typically been misogynist, dude-bro centric, or filled with moronic characters like Puddy from Seinfeld.

Also, ultimate irony...taking an anti-gay stance on sitcoms featuring a gay character or gay actor but admit to watching oiled up dudes wrestle each other in their underwear. That's about as homo-erotic as it gets.

I'd rather stick hot needles in my eyes than watch 2 Broke Girls. I do enjoy some of the sit-coms. We watch Big Bang, The Middle, Modern Family, Goldbergs, along with a few others. Started watching About A Boy and enjoyed that last season.

Nothing says "heterosexual" like wrestling.

Monday Nite raw is the quintessential indicator of homosexual tendency.

I just hope JJ's single-wide is ready for the rainstorm as the axle on the left rear is going to sink when the cinder block gives in to the softened earth.

Took a while to weigh in, but here's my two cents (I talk about this a lot of my TV Guidance Counselor podcast)

- There's too many choices these days. There is such narrow, specific broadcast flavors out there that more "general" shows aren't produced as much as ones that are tend to be reality TV/Competition shows, which are cheaper to produce and get larger audiences/more audience engagement.

- Traditional three camera sitcoms are hybrid medium. There's a lot of left over skills and presentation cliches left over from the stage (and to a lesser degree radio). Most audiences are a lot less familiar with plays these days. I look at the three camera sitcom the same way I look at comic books. It's words and pictures but greater than the sum of it's parts. You can have a great writer and a great artist but if they can't do the specific skill that is creating a comic book it doesn't work. Three camera sitcoms are the same way. It's a very specific skill. A lot less writers for TV come from the stage world and are now from a generation now raised on classic sitcoms, so they don't have that well of knowledge to draw from and thus never developed that very specific skill set.

- Families don't watch things as families anymore. The traditional sitcom format became something for tweens and was "dumbed down" a bit.

- General trends have changed. People think single camera shows are "better", which isn't the case. They are easier to do for sure. I'm far more impressed by a great three camera sitcom than the best single camera comedies. It's a lot easier to use cinematic techniques, like cut-aways, camera moves etc, than to just have a show with great writing and great actors in one room. A show like Barney Miller, which still holds up and is funny and engaging and great, is always going to be more impressive to me than something like Modern Family or Arrested Development (which are quality shows for sure) just because of what it was able to pull off which such a simplified set of tools.

- Sitcoms are less likely to be able to be exploited as "event" television. With the way ratings work today if you can't make something an event then the networks aren't interested. Sitcoms, especially three camera sitcoms generally need a bit of time to find their voice and for an ensemble cast to gel, nobody takes that chance anymore.

The point about technology is a good one. The people who may have been drawn to writing a sitcom in the past now are able to be a true show runner and approach things with more control and in a more auteur style. Staging a show "live" with an audience and limited sets is going to appeal to a control freak a lot less than filming something more like a movie.

I think that it may swing back around at some point, with these types of shows finding a different outlet than network TV. Maybe a live web broadcast/live show kind of thing.

The chicks are hot on there and the story lines are kinda funny!!!

Well put last days!!! And I think the right show will turn it around!!

Looks like NBC is comming out with 3 new shows, bad judge, a to z, and marry me. Geeze, we just talked about this, and here we go again with these girly shows, wont make it past January!

I'm still unclear as to why gender plays a role in what jj determines is funny. Funny is funny regardless of gender, race or age. Anything written well enough can elicit a laugh. Will those three shows make it to January? Probably not, but it will be because they are unfunny not because they are "girly."

Also Mad About You was a fantastic show, would that be considered girly? What about I Love Lucy? Mary Tyler Moore?

The more this topic goes on I think it's an age issue....jj's age.

I guess homophobia can cloud a person's judgement. I think it has a lot more to do with j.j's insecurity about his own sexuality than anything else. God forbid he ends up liking a "girly" show. He can't have anyone thinking he's gay!