Agreed. My family was dysfunctional, as are a lot of families, and I've never understood where TV got the idea that they were anything like what was on TV in the 50's, 60's, and 70's. Cosby might succeed with this show on INSP, Bounce TV, or The Disney Channel, but I don't think that it will work on network TV.
I think that you have a good point, especially when it comes to dramas. I do think that sitcoms are a little different, since it seems like most people watch them to have something to relate to, rather than to be inspired. But I could be off about that of course.
Everyone thinks of the Cosby show as this clichéd idealized family. However from the first episode it was actually somewhat groundbreaking in that the dad could be cranky and the kids could be screw ups. I remember watching the first episode of the Cosby show. And when Theo made the speech about failing in school and how he hoped his father would still love him, everybody in the audience was waiting for the then Cliched sitcom hug. Instead, when Cosby said 'son that is the stupidest thing I've ever heard,' both the studio audience and everybody at home went nuts. Because that was exactly what a real dad, not a television dad, would say.
Cosby worked out a lot in the past, and most likely is (like George Takei) quite fit for a older man, so that might not be a problem (unless you're talking about his mental facilities.)
The problem with sitcoms to me isn't that they're too idyllic, so much that they tend to have very low writing standards. Gag-driven writing, formula-driven stories, overuse of character gimmicks, leaning on well known standup comedy cliches which are hilarious when a guy says them into a mic for five minutes but tedious and stupid when characters act that way for half an hour. I would also disagree with the notion that children doing whatever authority figures say should be called 'idyllic'. Children are supposed to establish their independence when they're teenagers. I've heard stories from one of my old bosses about a 26 year old employee who had his mother call him and say that he's been too hard on him. That's what happens if children never rebel against their parents. That's probably how the Full House kids ended up, completely relying on authority figures for all direction in life. The period from about 12 to about 18 is the time period when children are supposed to transition from being dependent on their parents to being fully independent adults. Instead we force them to stay dependent until they're 18 then say "Well, you're an adult now! Time to be independent!" Then we wonder why so many college grads have trouble leaving the nest, or they immediately become drug addicted sex junkies the moment they arrive at college. So, I'm totally in favor of having idyllic families. But let's base the ideal on how humans are really designed to behave, not some 50's-Protestant painting of it that denies that basic human desires even exist.
Exactly. The show was awesome because it was in fact a realistic portrayal of family life. Or at least families like the one I grew up in.
When has Star Trek been 'dark' according to you? The two new movies aren't dark, TNG wasn't dark, DS9 was dark a little bit, Voyager was TNG lite and so in a way was Enterprise-there hasn't been a dark or completely dark Star Trek by my reckoning in 30 years. If Star Trek has to deal with the darkness of humanity or alien races-be it a novel, movie, comic book, TV episode or video game-so what if it does, and is? The best literature and movies do this, and are better for it.
It is self-admitted in the last movies's title, for goodness sake. Maybe it's a bad and completely inaccurate title? Blame Marketing if the movie doesn't in fact promise Star Trek moving into darkness. But I really wasn't thinking of the title until you asked. And it's really not about what has come before in the movies you mention. It's not even about Star Trek. It's about trends. The most recent example is the grittier, more "realistic" Batman. Like the Tealization of Hollywood, there's also the Darkening of Hollywood because they think that's what people want. I guess it's the trend that sells right now. Like any trend, people get tired of the formula, or when there are wars or life is tough for everyone, people want to move on and see hope - not despair. If you go back and look at my comment in its context of a reply to Spot's Meow's post, and also consider Chris Pine's recent comment covered in the Trek Today article posted by T'Bonz on January 22, you'll find more understanding. Chris Pine is quoted, "Well, for anybody who’s seen the second one, given the fact that Kirk’s been revived by Khan’s blood, I think there’s definitely room for Kirk to go dark, which we’ve obviously seen in the original series, and that would be fun, I think.” http://www.trektoday.com/content/2014/01/what-pine-wants-for-star-trek-iii/ Kirk goes Batman. It was really disheartening to see Pine fall into cliché like Gollum to Sauron's Ring. Might as well make the movie all teal and orange too.