4 ms·

“Cheers,” which ran for 11 seasons on NBC, starting in 1982, was the first great hangout show: neutralizing the depiction of class and removing the pressures of

“Cheers,” which ran for 11 seasons on NBC, starting in 1982, was the first great hangout show: neutralizing the depiction of class and removing the pressures of work. Life is hard enough, “Cheers” said; let’s just make TV. Ever since, television started taking it easier on us. Bill Clinton was in the White House, and the economy had improved. On “Seinfeld,” “Living Single,” “Friends,” “Ellen,” “It’s Like, You Know,” “Sex and the City,” “Girlfriends” and, much later, “Happy Endings” and “New Girl,” the commingling, childless men and women might have had jobs, but almost none had consequential careers. How many jobs did Elaine and George have on “Seinfeld”? And in how many fields? And Kramer — how was he paying to live across the hall from Jerry? Hangout shows placed friendship above family, obviating the typical economic ecosystem. Belonging to a family of friends probably means you only have to support yourself. TV became — and still is — a medium struggling to understand “average,” “ordinary,” “normal.” Why would you go into any of these shows expecting anything resembling reality. They are all clearly entertainment in the form of light drama and inconsequential, whitewashed sexual tension. To expect anything else is to set yourself up for failure. Deeper shows exist - The Wire, Breaking Bad, House of Cards - but headlining TV shows are not created to address issues anymore. The shows reflect the main demographics of TV watchers, because that's what keeps them watching, and that's what generates ad revenue. So I'm not too concerned with the state of TV - it's an echo chamber for older, more conservative folk.

ArkyBeagle 10y ago
Why? Because any broadcast medium will be part of a normative ... structure. It's like a social pilot beacon. There's an "Independent Lens" about the breaking down of this effect in Romania under the Ceuchescau regime - "Chuck Norris vs. Communism." TV grew up under the Silent Generation. I recall distinctly when my parents stopped watching "The Smothers Brothers" because it got "too political".
untog 10y ago
Funny you should mention demographics and House of Cards - it was literally created because Netflix's data suggested that many subscribers enjoyed the Social Network (Fincher), Kevin Spacey movies and the British version of House of Cards. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/25/business/media/for-house-of-cards-using-big-data-to-guarantee-its-popularity.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/25/business/media/for-house-o... It's not demographics in the traditional sense, but make no mistake - Netflix and the like do not create unique pieces of art just because they feel like it. They are also making a show to fit a market, just with better data. > it's an echo chamber for older, more conservative folk. I'm not so sure about that. One of the best shows I saw last year, Mr. Robot, was made by the USA Network, of all people.
- caseysoftware 10y ago
  USA Network has had a refreshing run of great series - Monk, Psych, White Collar, Suits, Mr Robot, Burn Notice - that don't quite fit the "older, more conservative folk" mold described. And this is what they've done without much budget, credibility, or star power. I'm pleasantly surprised and sincerely impressed.
  - wj 10y ago
    I've referred to the USA lineup as popcorn TV. They are kind of fun shows with a little bit of comedy and a little bit of drama and suspense that don't force you to think too hard after a long day. Sometimes I am in the mood for something deep and dripping with intrigue (House of Cards) and sometimes I just want to lay in bed and watch something where it doesn't matter if I miss some small part of plot that becomes something big later (the shows you list). I would add Royal Pains to that list. Cover Affairs was another one I enjoyed (I love spy shows and books) but is now off the air.
    - zepto 10y ago
      Would you describe Mr Robot as "kind of fun shows with a little bit of comedy and a little bit of drama and suspense that don't force you to think too hard after a long day"?
      - wj 10y ago
        That one was probably a bit of an outlier from the others on that user's list. I would say that I do take it a bit less seriously than other conspiracy shows such as Rubicon.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    I wouldn't call Monk, Psych, White Collar, Suits, and Burn Notice "great series". Formulaic detective/action/buddy TV at best. Mr Robot is a little better, but itself is no "Wire" (or any other really great show).
- 10y ago
bobbyi_settv 10y ago
The claim of the article is that we never see regular people with ordinary jobs except for "police precincts, crime-and-forensics teams and legal-medical-Beltway dramas". The counterexamples you came up with are shows where the characters are police, politicians and drug dealers, and you had to reach back to a show that has been off the air for 8 years to even find those. Doesn't that kind of demonstrate the article's point?
- CocaKoala 10y ago
  An obvious counterexample is the sitcom "How I Met Your Mother", which featured an environmental lawyer, an architect (turned college professor in later seasons), a teacher, and a news reporter.
  - dmclain 10y ago
    I don't think a show featuring a lawyer, college professor, media personality and whatever the heck it is Barney does is a counterpoint at all. All those jobs are upper class, college degree requiring positions. Other than a few episodes where Marshal (the lawyer) contemplates a job he doesn't love to pay off the massive consumer debt accrued by his wife (the teacher), the money problems and job tradeoffs on the show are very much in the classless hanging out genre the article describes. Even the consumer debt is from spending on luxury goods, which is surprising for a teacher supporting a law school student in New York, ostensibly the arrangement in the first few seasons.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > All those jobs are upper class, college degree requiring positions. No, they are middle class roles (either independent business owners dependent on their own labor rather than primarily renting other's labor to apply to their capital -- the classic petit bourgeoisie -- or elite educated workers with likely some personal capital but still dependent on wage labor for support, but not as immediately at risk as the working class without reserves are.) The upper class in a capitalist society are the owners of capital who primarily rent labor to apply to that capital, they are occasionally major characters on TV shows, but I can't think of many shows with more than one as a significant protagonist. Generally, most of the protagonists are middle class, or notionally working class but somehow living a middle class lifestyle.
coldtea 10y ago
>Why would you go into any of these shows expecting anything resembling reality. They are all clearly entertainment in the form of light drama and inconsequential, whitewashed sexual tension. To expect anything else is to set yourself up for failure. Because even light drama and entertainment can reflect society and middle class -- and the article gives many examples of that in the past. Besides, the "deeper shows" you mention are equally disconnected from what's under discussion. Neither "House of Cards" nor "Breaking Bad" reflect American middle class life -- Heisenberg might be someone who can't afford health care, but the base of the plot and its concerns afterwards is entirely different.

ArkyBeagle 10y ago

Why? Because any broadcast medium will be part of a normative ... structure. It's like a social pilot beacon. There's an "Independent Lens" about the breaking down of this effect in Romania under the Ceuchescau regime - "Chuck Norris vs. Communism." TV grew up under the Silent Generation. I recall distinctly when my parents stopped watching "The Smothers Brothers" because it got "too political".

untog 10y ago

Funny you should mention demographics and House of Cards - it was literally created because Netflix's data suggested that many subscribers enjoyed the Social Network (Fincher), Kevin Spacey movies and the British version of House of Cards. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/25/business/media/for-house-of-cards-using-big-data-to-guarantee-its-popularity.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/25/business/media/for-house-o... It's not demographics in the traditional sense, but make no mistake - Netflix and the like do not create unique pieces of art just because they feel like it. They are also making a show to fit a market, just with better data. > it's an echo chamber for older, more conservative folk. I'm not so sure about that. One of the best shows I saw last year, Mr. Robot, was made by the USA Network, of all people.

caseysoftware 10y ago
USA Network has had a refreshing run of great series - Monk, Psych, White Collar, Suits, Mr Robot, Burn Notice - that don't quite fit the "older, more conservative folk" mold described. And this is what they've done without much budget, credibility, or star power. I'm pleasantly surprised and sincerely impressed.
- wj 10y ago
  I've referred to the USA lineup as popcorn TV. They are kind of fun shows with a little bit of comedy and a little bit of drama and suspense that don't force you to think too hard after a long day. Sometimes I am in the mood for something deep and dripping with intrigue (House of Cards) and sometimes I just want to lay in bed and watch something where it doesn't matter if I miss some small part of plot that becomes something big later (the shows you list). I would add Royal Pains to that list. Cover Affairs was another one I enjoyed (I love spy shows and books) but is now off the air.
  - zepto 10y ago
    Would you describe Mr Robot as "kind of fun shows with a little bit of comedy and a little bit of drama and suspense that don't force you to think too hard after a long day"?
    - wj 10y ago
      That one was probably a bit of an outlier from the others on that user's list. I would say that I do take it a bit less seriously than other conspiracy shows such as Rubicon.
- coldtea 10y ago
  I wouldn't call Monk, Psych, White Collar, Suits, and Burn Notice "great series". Formulaic detective/action/buddy TV at best. Mr Robot is a little better, but itself is no "Wire" (or any other really great show).
10y ago

bobbyi_settv 10y ago

The claim of the article is that we never see regular people with ordinary jobs except for "police precincts, crime-and-forensics teams and legal-medical-Beltway dramas". The counterexamples you came up with are shows where the characters are police, politicians and drug dealers, and you had to reach back to a show that has been off the air for 8 years to even find those. Doesn't that kind of demonstrate the article's point?

CocaKoala 10y ago
An obvious counterexample is the sitcom "How I Met Your Mother", which featured an environmental lawyer, an architect (turned college professor in later seasons), a teacher, and a news reporter.
- dmclain 10y ago
  I don't think a show featuring a lawyer, college professor, media personality and whatever the heck it is Barney does is a counterpoint at all. All those jobs are upper class, college degree requiring positions. Other than a few episodes where Marshal (the lawyer) contemplates a job he doesn't love to pay off the massive consumer debt accrued by his wife (the teacher), the money problems and job tradeoffs on the show are very much in the classless hanging out genre the article describes. Even the consumer debt is from spending on luxury goods, which is surprising for a teacher supporting a law school student in New York, ostensibly the arrangement in the first few seasons.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > All those jobs are upper class, college degree requiring positions. No, they are middle class roles (either independent business owners dependent on their own labor rather than primarily renting other's labor to apply to their capital -- the classic petit bourgeoisie -- or elite educated workers with likely some personal capital but still dependent on wage labor for support, but not as immediately at risk as the working class without reserves are.) The upper class in a capitalist society are the owners of capital who primarily rent labor to apply to that capital, they are occasionally major characters on TV shows, but I can't think of many shows with more than one as a significant protagonist. Generally, most of the protagonists are middle class, or notionally working class but somehow living a middle class lifestyle.

coldtea 10y ago

>Why would you go into any of these shows expecting anything resembling reality. They are all clearly entertainment in the form of light drama and inconsequential, whitewashed sexual tension. To expect anything else is to set yourself up for failure. Because even light drama and entertainment can reflect society and middle class -- and the article gives many examples of that in the past. Besides, the "deeper shows" you mention are equally disconnected from what's under discussion. Neither "House of Cards" nor "Breaking Bad" reflect American middle class life -- Heisenberg might be someone who can't afford health care, but the base of the plot and its concerns afterwards is entirely different.