It's both. Sitcom is the genre. Animated is its format. TAS was an animated drama. Cartoons can be comedy or drama.No... it's a cartoon.
Tawny Newsome and Justin Simien developing new live-action Trek series
- Thread starter Precious Tritium
- Start date
A sitcom is a live-action half-hour show, traditionally shot before a live audience. Modern sitcoms are sometimes shot more like a drama and consequently no live audience, so no laugh track.
A cartoon is an animated show that's intended to provoke laughter in the viewer.
Lower Decks is a cartoon.
Nope. Simpsons is a sitcom. Family Guy is a sitcom
Cartoons are any animated story. Star Trek the Animated series is a cartoon. Batman the Animated Series is a cartoon. Neither are intended to provoke laughter.
DC had Powerless, about office workers at Wayne Security, and Marvel had She-Hulk, which is possibly stretching the definition of sitcom, but was definitely a comedy. The Star Wars show was called Detours. They wrote 100 scripts, produced 40 of them, and then locked them all in a vault so no one ever accidentally saw them.What were they?
They are cartoons, dude.
All cartoons are animated; not all animations are cartoons.
I'd never heard of Powerless. I thought She-Hulk was supposed to be serious? Was it that bad?
Never heard of Detours either.
Over simplification. Lower Decks is a sitcom in format.
Because Star Trek is a variety platform and can encompass many different story telling platforms.A Star Trek sitcom? Why?I ask this as someone who enjoys a good sitcom.
Not everyone defines 'cartoon' in the same way, it can mean childish kids animation or just animation in general. But the word 'sitcom' definitely paints a vivid picture and is generally accepted to apply to both live action and animation.
So, there's no need to debate this one!
So, there's no need to debate this one!
And yet…
Whatever, dude, you do you.
No, it's a cartoon. I Love Lucy, that's a sitcom.
You're missing my point. Taking a serious show and turning it into a sitcom is stupid and bad taste, at least to me anyway. I am trying to express that I do not like the idea, not at all.
I don't watch enough animated shows to care, to be honest. If it's funny, it's cartoon, if it's serious, it's an "animated series," and if it's from Japan, it's anime. Beyond that, I don't really care.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
Star Trek has done comedy, done sitcom style, as well as drama and serious style.
The whole point of the Star Trek idea, the Wagon Train to the Stars that Roddenberry pitched, was that it was a variety that allowed for multiple formats of storytelling to be told. From military drama, to comedy, to drama, Star Trek could be used in many different ways.
Not sure how its in bad taste. It's just a format.
They are to me, but that may stem from the fact that I don't watch many animated shows.
Are we talking episodes or series? I'm approaching from the POV of "as a series," not individual episodes. From my POV, we've had 8 dramas, 3 animated shows, and 1 series of shorts. No sitcoms, not yet, anyway.
Within a series, sure, I'm down for all of that. I like the comedy episodes. I like 2 of the 3 animated shows (Lower Decks and Prodigy). What I have ZERO interest in is Star Trek cheapened into a low budget sitcom.
Conversely, I do not want to see a sitcom retooled into a heavy-handed drama where there's little humor. I don't want to watch a drama spun off into a sitcom.
I don't want to watch a sitcom spun off into a drama.
Harry and the Hendersons is a brilliant movie. The sitcom is stupid, because it removed all of the drama from the movie "to be funny."
Episodes, especially in TOS. And Lower Decks is a animated sitcom, so one sitcom exists. And more can be done.
I feel that you would not enjoy most of the sitcoms that I enjoy. Many of them involve drama and mix of humor and drama. Which I love because that's real life.What I have ZERO interest in is Star Trek cheapened into a low budget sitcom.
That's your choice. That doesn't prohibit Trek from doing that. It's not in bad taste because Trek can very well do that. The sandbox style would support it.
Sitcom stands for “situational comedy”, which perfectly describes LOWER DECKS. “Cartoon” and “Sitcom” are not mutually exclusive terms and to keep pretending it is shows a lack of understanding.
Besides, Trek in the past has dabbled in so many genres, including sitcom. Do not tell me that this scene would not fit perfectly in a sitcom by Aaron Sorkin.
Besides, Trek in the past has dabbled in so many genres, including sitcom. Do not tell me that this scene would not fit perfectly in a sitcom by Aaron Sorkin.
Right, the context I am discussing is "series" not episodes. We've had 3 animated shows, no sitcoms. I will die on this hill.
I watch sitcoms to laugh, I watch drama for drama. Sitcoms I like enough to go out of my way to watch include: Cheers, Frasier (90's), The Jeffersons, and... well, that's 33 seasons of TV right there which is plenty.
Trek can do a sitcom, but to me, it will be as bad as the Deep Blue Sea sequels.
I know what a sitcom is, cartoons aren't sitcoms.
The scene is funny, but it's not "sitcom" funny. Who is Aaron Sorkin?
It's an absurd place to do so. Sitcom is just a format. Literally means "situational comedy." It has nothing to do with live action or animation, save for in a very limited definition.Right, the context I am discussing is "series" not episodes. We've had 3 animated shows, no sitcoms. I will die on this hill.
I watch sitcoms for laughs and drama. And usually get my fill of both. MASH, Night Court, Brooklyn 99, do a great job of it.
Depends on the writing. I give Newsome some props for knowing comedy from Lower Decks so she might have some talent at it.Trek can do a sitcom, but to me, it will be as bad as the Deep Blue Sea sequels.
A great writer.
…
Okay,
Okay,
The fact that you keep insisting cartoons can’t be sitcoms shows you don’t understand what a sitcom is or at the very least only have a very narrow definition of what constitutes a sitcom.I know what a sitcom is, cartoons aren't sitcoms.
