It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Sitcoms that go past their prime

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 03:06 PM
One of my favorite shows "Reno: 911" was canceled after its sixth season. I think that was about right as the show started to show some signs of aging. It also got me thinking about the many sitcoms that should of been canceled but ran way past their prime. I believe sitcoms should follow a five year rule: leave the airway after five seasons. There are some that may be able to go longer, but five years is plenty to have and still go out on top.

I think the main reason they stay on so long is that the stars make such huge paychecks for such easy work. It is hard to blame them, and the networks like to make the money off them also. Here are some sitcoms that went on way too long:

"All in the Family": This show should have gone off the air when Sally Struthers and Rob Reiner left the show. It was running out of steam before then, but the addition of a small child is always a death knell on a show. (I do not count "Archie Bunker's Place" as the same as "All in the Family".)

"M*A*S*H": This show should have left after five years. It started to wind down as Larry Linville left after the fifth season. It become known as the Alan Alda show after that and not an ensemble show.

"Bewitched": After Dick York left because of chronic back pains and problems, the show should of left with him. Instead we were treated to Dick Sargent's portrayal of Darren as a grumpy and downright mean person. The show also recycled many of its scripts for the next three seasons. If the rerun has the second Darren, I will change the channel.

"The Beverly Hillbillies": This show was not very good to begin with, but its final seasons are extremely painful to watch. Miss Hathaway having the hots for Jethro? That was a horror movie in the making!

There are many others, and I will list them as I think of them.

posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 03:12 PM
"My Three Sons": Mike disappeared off the face of this series and he was replaced by Ernie. Enough said!

"Happy Days": there is another rule of TV that states the addition of Ted Mcginley is a series killer. That is not really the case here as the show lost its steam with Ron Howard still in the cast. The episodes with a young Joanie are the best, and after Mr Howard left the show was on fumes. (The famous jump the shark phrase got its start with this series also.)

posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 03:52 PM
I agree, many series should tank after a couple of years but they will beat a dead horse forever if it generates ad$.

I'm working on one now that could be getting stale but they change directors often and that keeps it semi fresh and edgy. Actually this shouldn't be classified as a sitcom.

[edit on 25-8-2009 by whaaa]

posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 03:32 PM
"Breaking Bad" is hard to classify. Most of the critics think the series is uneven, but they give series star Bryan Cranston rave reviews.

Other sitcoms that went beyond their limit:

"Roseanne": The last two seasons were excruciatingly painful. The show started to go downhill before when star Roseanne started to act crazy and also got cosmetic surgery. She seemed to forget we loved the old Roseanne for being a blue collar type comedian.

"Married With Children": See the Ted McGinley rule. The show was cartoonish to begin with, but with the loss of actor David Garrison it seemed to really suffer. He has great comic timing and was a perfect opposite of the Bundys.

"Leave It to Beaver": When an actor is 14 years old, do not dress him up in a bunny outfit for laughs. The show still wrote the character as an eight year old as the actual actor aged to a young man. This was unfortunate at many other shows during the early time of TV. Many child actors grew up and their characters stayed the same age. See "Family Affair" for the worst offender.

posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 06:39 PM
reply to post by kidflash2008

The reason is that a show isn't really marketable until they have 7 years in the can for syndication. That is where it turns a reel (pun) profit. The one example that you gave that I don't agree with is M*A*S*H. I actually think it got better with the cast changes. Well, except for the loss of Radar. Klinger was good, but Radar was better.

posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 02:51 PM
reply to post by JaxonRoberts

Actually, it is five years (about 100 episodes) that makes a show viable for stripping it five days a week. I use the five year rule because the reality is most shows are good for that long.

Maybe I was a little hard on M*A*S*H, but it was such a good show that the drop in quality (which does happen as a show ages) seemed to hurt more than it did. I have given the later episodes a second look and they are better than I remember.

[edit on 8/27/2009 by kidflash2008]

posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 03:03 PM
"That '70s Show": I really liked the early episodes, but the show overstayed its welcome. When Tanya Roberts left, the show started to decline even though she has a relatively small part. (It wasn't her, it was the writing.) The final season should never have been made (Jackie and Fez?), as it basically repeated the same jokes from the first season. It also never helps to have actors pushing their thirties playing teenagers.

"The Simpsons": I still don't mind watching this show, but lets face it: The show has been on ten years too long.

"Murphy Brown": The baby rule applies here: The show went down hill markedly after Murphy had her baby. This was one of the best shows to lose its quality, and some of the later episodes are just painful.

"Laverne & Shirley": Not a great show, but a cute comedy. The show made a big mistake by moving the girls from Milwaukee to Los Angeles. This is another rule in TV: Moving the characters is never a good idea.

top topics


log in