Crowd-sourced television opinion
The sitcoms a Reddit thread says got far more popular than they deserved — and the people arguing back
Which shows the thread actually named
Across all 2813 captured comments the answers concentrate hard: The Big Bang Theory draws 423 records, Friends 245 and Mrs Brown's Boys 118, followed by Two Broke Girls, Everybody Loves Raymond, How I Met Your Mother and Seinfeld. The reason given is rarely that a show was unfunny on its own: it is a laugh track doing the work, a marriage played as contempt, one joke stretched over a decade, or a group of characters the commenter says the show is inviting you to laugh at. Almost every one of those answers is contradicted inside the thread by people who watched the same show, and those replies are kept in the same card rather than moved out of the way.
- The Big Bang Theory is the biggest answer in the thread and the biggest argument in it
- The most-liked comment names no show at all, only a format: the schlubby husband and the hot wife
- Friends and Seinfeld are named far more often than their reputations would suggest
- Mrs Brown's Boys is the most one-sided answer in the corpus, and its defenders are almost all somebody's parents
- The laugh track is the thread's most-repeated complaint, and the argument about whether it is even a laugh track never ends
- Every defence is kept inside the show's own card, beside the criticism it answers
- These are opinions held by commenters, not verdicts on any show, writer or performer
The schlubby husband, the hot wife, and the shows built on themThe thread's opening answer described a format rather than a title, and these are the shows the replies attached to it. 327 records.
The trope itself, named without a titleThe most-liked answer in the thread names no show at all, and these are the records that argue about the shape it describes.
Answer card naming the show, what commenters said was wrong with it, and what the people defending it said back: The trope itself, named without a title
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
The trope itself, named without a title
Claim context: The trope itself, named without a title
Why it matters: The most-liked answer in the thread names no programme at all. It describes a format, and the records under it argue about which shows belong to it and where it came from. The recurring description is a heavy, joke-cracking husband married to a woman the commenters say the show treats as far out of his league, with the marriage played for hostility. Several records say the format is so common that naming it narrows nothing down; others trace it to studios repeating a proven shape rather than to any one writer, and one points out the version with the genders reversed is almost never made.
What readers reported: That show where some schlubby wisecracking guy has a hot wife and they hate each other.
Limit: Reported opinion only. Everything in this card is what commenters said about a show they watched; nothing in it is a verdict on the programme, its writers or its cast, and no production or ratings claim made in the thread has been checked.
Counterpoint: Commenters in this group disagree about what the format was for. Some read it as a straightforward insult to both spouses; others argue the shows were pitched at an audience that recognised its own marriage in it, and one records being annoyed by the same recurring storyline as a child in the early eighties.
What the replies added2
Kevin Can Fuck Himself is a good hate-letter to this trope.
Reminds me of quick cut I saw once in Friends. Chandler's got the TV remote and notes "Ohhhh - this is the episode of "Three's Company" where there's a huge misunderstanding....." and Phoebe snatches the remote from his hand, saying "Then I've already seen it!!!"
Source-record spotlights
That show where some schlubby wisecracking guy has a hot wife and they hate each other.
it's funny watching this paly out - the whole trope started by pandering to bored housewives, telling them that they were the rock of the household, and now it's "no, he's abusing you, through unspecified things"
In both shows the wife was the villain who mistreated their husbands
What the counts show
The exact phrase “hate each other” recurs across 2 of the 18 source records in The trope itself, named without a title; the complete archive stays available below.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments18 preserved records · 18 of 18 source records accounted for
Archive: 18 index entries preserve 18 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
The King of QueensThe thread's sharpest split: the same show is called insufferable and defended at length in the same replies.
Answer card naming the show, what commenters said was wrong with it, and what the people defending it said back: The King of Queens
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
The King of Queens
Claim context: The King of Queens
Why it matters: The most evenly split answer in the corpus. The complaint is the lead's shouting and voices, and lines between the two leads that commenters say have aged badly. But this node holds as much defence as attack: several records argue the marriage in it is more balanced than the thread claims, that the wife is at least as unkind as the husband, and that the supporting cast — Jerry Stiller's Arthur above all — is why people still watch it. Two commenters describe rewatching it as adults and coming to opposite conclusions.
What readers reported: King of Queens, I got sick of Doug yelling and screeching 'bout to bust a gut, doing stupid voices.
Limit: Reported opinion only. Everything in this card is what commenters said about a show they watched; nothing in it is a verdict on the programme, its writers or its cast, and no production or ratings claim made in the thread has been checked.
Counterpoint: The longest single defence in the whole thread is written about this show: a reply arguing at length that the couple hold roughly equal power, that the husband is a doofus rather than a bully, and that the reader of the original complaint cannot have watched much of it.
What replies pushed back on2
That trope basically goes all the way back to the honeymooners. People complain about movies reusing the same ideas but TV is a way worse offender. You have some good ones, like Al Bundy (more of an all in the family trope dad) still loves his family despite his love of hooters and his early manosphere group no ma'am. But imagine Kevin James character in some of those scenarios, when they decided to also make the husband a coward it really got bad. its like "youre dumb, fat, ugly, mean, and now also a coward. We have stripped any positive character traits".
Everybody loves Raymond is even worse as both characters are awful. Raymond is dumb as a bag of rocks but his wife literally hates him with every fibre of her being and doesn't hide it.
Source-record spotlights
The King of Queens and Everybody Loves Raymond. I hate those sitcoms where the husband is a douche to his wife but we're supposed to find it funny.
There's an episode where Doug sneaks into a support group for people with abusive partners, simply because they have better snacks than the Overeaters Anonymous meeting he's supposed to be at. He starts to realize that he's being abused by Carrie, but he's still portrayed like a jerk for overreacting. But it ends up pointing out how much danger he's in.
If anything, these comments are proof that many things in life are products of their time and can be a bit misunderstood as time goes on. Shows like The King of Queens and Everybody Loves Raymond (although not even in my top 10) definitely had legitimately funny episodes and the comedy was fitting for the ’90s into the early ’00s. They're objectively not the WORST sitcoms considering all the crap which has graced a TV screen.
Related evidence elsewhere in the index
What the counts show
Across 38 source records, the most common observable tactic structure is “Turn it into a game” (3 records). This is a wording pattern, not a measured outcome.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Observable tactic structures
Counts show source records whose wording matches the tactic structure; biological explanations remain commenter claims unless separately checked below.
Browse the original comments38 preserved records · 38 of 38 source records accounted for
Archive: 38 index entries preserve 38 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Everybody Loves RaymondMore records than any show outside the CBS block, and the one where the complaint is about the marriage rather than the jokes.
Answer card naming the show, what commenters said was wrong with it, and what the people defending it said back: Everybody Loves Raymond
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Everybody Loves Raymond
Claim context: Everybody Loves Raymond
Why it matters: The complaint here is almost never about the jokes. It is about the marriage and the in-laws: commenters describe every adult character as unpleasant to the others, and several say that removing the laughter would leave something closer to a drama about a miserable family. The recurring line is that the show has two jokes, one about the spouse and one about the parents, and that neither changes across nine seasons. The strongest defenders say exactly the same thing and call it the point.
What readers reported: I agree I hated this show. It's mostly just watching two spouses yell at each other like omg just get a divorce already. It's made worse by the fact that BOTH spouses are insuffererable. I can only assume people related to it somehow? If that's true y'all need to get some help.
Limit: Reported opinion only. Everything in this card is what commenters said about a show they watched; nothing in it is a verdict on the programme, its writers or its cast, and no production or ratings claim made in the thread has been checked.
Counterpoint: A large minority of these records like the show and say the unpleasantness is deliberate — that the mother-in-law is written to be insufferable, that the supporting cast is the draw, and that people who grew up in large families recognise the dynamic rather than being repelled by it.
What the replies added2
Have you ever seen Kevin Can F Himself? It's basically that exact concept of it being a drama when the laugh track goes away. I really liked it!
They wrote 2 jokes for that entire show... I hate my husband/wife I hate my in laws
Source-record spotlights
Despite some of the talent floating around, I absolutely HATE Everybody Loves Raymond with a PASSION. The writing is lazy and you can see each and every actor phoning it in. Even THEY know its bad. Its so bad that it becomes a fucking drama about a fucked up marriage if you remove the laugh track. There's not a single likeable character slithering through that show. My wife likes sitcoms (theyre dumb and easy to watch after draining days at work) and we're watching The Middle. The **ONLY** rule we have about picking a sitcom is **NO** Everybody Loves Raymond, so she absolutely loses her shit whenever there's a cameo reunion. Fuck that show.
Wild that so many people don’t understand this. I still watch the show every single night and love that it drives some people up the wall. Frank would approve.
I hate that show too.
Related evidence elsewhere in the index
What the counts show
Across 96 source records, the most common observable tactic structure is “Turn it into a game” (2 records). This is a wording pattern, not a measured outcome.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Observable tactic structures
Counts show source records whose wording matches the tactic structure; biological explanations remain commenter claims unless separately checked below.
Browse the original comments96 preserved records · 96 of 96 source records accounted for
Archive: 96 index entries preserve 96 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
According to JimAnswered mostly by people who say they never watched it, and defended by a few who say they did.
Answer card naming the show, what commenters said was wrong with it, and what the people defending it said back: According to Jim
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
According to Jim
Claim context: According to Jim
Why it matters: This answer is carried by its run rather than by anything in the episodes: the record that opens it just states how many seasons it got, and much of what follows is from people who say they never watched it and cannot work out who did. Several describe catching it only while changing channels or because it sat next to something they did want. One commenter reports meeting somebody paid to sit in its audience who says they were told when to laugh.
What readers reported: According To Jim aired for NINE SEASONS
Limit: Reported opinion only. Everything in this card is what commenters said about a show they watched; nothing in it is a verdict on the programme, its writers or its cast, and no production or ratings claim made in the thread has been checked.
Counterpoint: A small group of records defend it warmly as comfortable, low-stakes background television, and one commenter calls it their favourite show and describes watching it weekly with a friend.
What the replies added1
As much as I want submit Family Matters, I simply can't disagree with this
Source-record spotlights
According To Jim aired for NINE SEASONS
I don't think anyone in real life has ever mentioned that show to me. I can't make the math work about who was actually watching it.
According to Jim. Wrong kid died.
What the counts show
The exact phrase “watched for about five minutes before” recurs across 2 of the 39 source records in According to Jim; the complete archive stays available below.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments39 preserved records · 39 of 39 source records accounted for
Archive: 39 index entries preserve 39 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Home Improvement, and everything Tim Allen did nextTwo arguments in one: whether the original holds up, and whether the shows that followed it are the same show again.
Answer card naming the show, what commenters said was wrong with it, and what the people defending it said back: Home Improvement, and everything Tim Allen did next
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Home Improvement, and everything Tim Allen did next
Claim context: Home Improvement, and everything Tim Allen did next
Why it matters: Two arguments run at once. The first is whether the original holds up: commenters describe a running joke built on grunting and power tools, sexual harassment written as banter, and a lead who is taught the same lesson every week and never keeps it. The second is about the shows that followed, which several records say are the same programme rebuilt around a character who is now always right; one commenter describes every episode of the later show ending by reversing itself in the last three minutes.
What readers reported: They’re not even really rewritten Home Improvement, Tim Taylor was a clumsy, flawed dude who could admit when he was wrong and often took advice from Wilson. His new sitcoms are basically “I’m a good republican man who’s always right and I’m just surrounded by stupidity and *femininity!*”
Limit: Reported opinion only. Everything in this card is what commenters said about a show they watched; nothing in it is a verdict on the programme, its writers or its cast, and no production or ratings claim made in the thread has been checked.
Counterpoint: The defence is that the original was closer to an anti-trope than a trope: the loud man is wrong in almost every episode, the quieter colleague is the competent one, and several commenters say the format was progressive by the standards of the early nineties. Others simply refuse to hear a word against it.
What the replies added2
They’re not even really rewritten Home Improvement, Tim Taylor was a clumsy, flawed dude who could admit when he was wrong and often took advice from Wilson. His new sitcoms are basically “I’m a good republican man who’s always right and I’m just surrounded by stupidity and *femininity!*”
That's unfortunately how most "family" sitcoms were, even Home Improvement. I'm nostalgic for that show and always viewed it in the same light as King of the Hill, but trying to go back to rewatch it a few months ago shattered that illusion. Sure, Tim was a clumsy goof and took advice from Wilson, but "clumsy goofy dad" was the sitcom dad trope at the time (hence Homer, who was a parody of said trope), but it doesn't change that at the core the show was full of mysogney, subtle homophobia, and "real men" talking points like how all men are supposed to be into tools, cars, and sports. It's worth noting that while he did take advice from Wilson, that advice almost never stuck past the individual episode (as Tim would have to learn the same lessons repeatedly, and often missing a core underlying lesson like "respect your wife as your equal & stop acting like Mark not like sports or cars is a bad thing," but he also *ONLY* takes advice from other tradionally masculine men (including Wilson who, while being more emotionally intelligent, is still comes off as a self-confident, worldly man who can survive any hardship hrough his cunny & ingenuity). Whenever women or less masculine men try to tell him anything, he rebuffs them as not knowing what they're talking about until Wilson affirms the other person... But even then it doesn't always stick from episode to episode (and God forbid across seasons).
Where commenters report limits
That's unfortunately how most "family" sitcoms were, even Home Improvement. I'm nostalgic for that show and always viewed it in the same light as King of the Hill, but trying to go back to rewatch it a few months ago shattered that illusion. Sure, Tim was a clumsy goof and took advice from Wilson, but "clumsy goofy dad" was the sitcom dad trope at the time (hence Homer, who was a parody of said trope), but it doesn't change that at the core the show was full of mysogney, subtle homophobia, and "real men" talking points like how all men are supposed to be into tools, cars, and sports. It's worth noting that while he did take advice from Wilson, that advice almost never stuck past the individual episode (as Tim would have to learn the same lessons repeatedly, and often missing a core underlying lesson like "respect your wife as your equal & stop acting like Mark not like sports or cars is a bad thing," but he also *ONLY* takes advice from other tradionally masculine men (including Wilson who, while being more emotionally intelligent, is still comes off as a self-confident, worldly man who can survive any hardship hrough his cunny & ingenuity). Whenever women or less masculine men try to tell him anything, he rebuffs them as not knowing what they're talking about until Wilson affirms the other person... But even then it doesn't always stick from episode to episode (and God forbid across seasons).
Source-record spotlights
Anything Tim Allen did after Home Improvement, which are all basically rewritten Home Improvements.
Everything Tim Allen has been in.
Last Man Standing was a great show
Related evidence elsewhere in the index
What the counts show
Across 59 source records, the most common observable tactic structure is “Turn it into a game” (4 records). This is a wording pattern, not a measured outcome.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Observable tactic structures
Counts show source records whose wording matches the tactic structure; biological explanations remain commenter claims unless separately checked below.
Browse the original comments59 preserved records · 59 of 59 source records accounted for
Archive: 59 index entries preserve 59 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Mike & MollyThe records here are about one joke, and about the actor commenters say deserved better material.
Answer card naming the show, what commenters said was wrong with it, and what the people defending it said back: Mike & Molly
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Mike & Molly
Claim context: Mike & Molly
Why it matters: The complaint is one joke, described in almost identical terms by record after record: the leads' weight, restated as the punchline for several seasons. What separates this node from the rest of the thread is that the anger is pointed past the show, at the material the lead actor was given rather than at her. Several commenters say she is the only reason they watched at all, and one asks whether any sitcom before it let a fat character be a person rather than a gag.
What readers reported: Mike and Molly. Couldn’t stand that show. Watched a few episodes when it was the only thing on and the jokes were pretty much just “oh no, I’m fat. How will I manage to get through this situation intended for skinny people.” They did this for like 6 or 7 seasons!
Limit: Reported opinion only. Everything in this card is what commenters said about a show they watched; nothing in it is a verdict on the programme, its writers or its cast, and no production or ratings claim made in the thread has been checked.
Counterpoint: Two counterweights sit inside this group. Some records report the show widening out after a while and running fewer weight jokes; and one argues that the actor chose that style of physical comedy herself, naming the comedians she has said inspired it, and that treating her as a victim of it removes her agency.
What the replies added1
If Mike and Molly premiered at any point between 2020-2024 it would be on that Wikipedia article about TV shows cancelled after 1 episode. I’m not sure how Last Man Standing lasted that long AND 2 channels decided to pick it up. The sitcoms about wise middle aged guys who hate their wives also got too popular. Also the only contribution 2 broke girls had to society is that young me got to look at Kat Dennings when my mom watched it.
Source-record spotlights
Mike and Molly. Couldn’t stand that show. Watched a few episodes when it was the only thing on and the jokes were pretty much just “oh no, I’m fat. How will I manage to get through this situation intended for skinny people.” They did this for like 6 or 7 seasons!
imagine if they gave melissa mccarthy that kind of platform with actual character work instead of 'fat person falls down' choreography. the fact that she built a whole career despite those roles says everything about her talent and nothing about hollywood knowing what to do with it
Hey now, she can fall, and she can also make food jokes. She’s multi talented.
What the counts show
The exact phrase “fat lady go boom” recurs across 3 of the 28 source records in Mike & Molly; the complete archive stays available below.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments28 preserved records · 28 of 28 source records accounted for
Archive: 28 index entries preserve 28 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Married with ChildrenRepeatedly pulled out of the pile by commenters who say it was mocking the format, not obeying it.
Answer card naming the show, what commenters said was wrong with it, and what the people defending it said back: Married with Children
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Married with Children
Claim context: Married with Children
Why it matters: The show is pulled into the thread by the trope answer and then pulled straight back out again. The criticism is that it is mean beyond the point of being funny and that the parents in it are written as negligent. The defence is more common in these records: commenters argue the hostility is open rather than veiled, that the show was satirising the format the thread is complaining about, and that the two leads were treated as a match rather than a mismatch.
What readers reported: Married With Children just seems too mean spirited to be funny. Peg is a lazy witch, and Al feels like a closeted gay guy, and that’s why he acts like a misogynist. Also, talk about neglectful parents. Pretty sure Al and Peg are worse parents than Homer and Marge. I get that suffering is part of comedy, but the audience shouldn’t be the ones who suffer.
Limit: Reported opinion only. Everything in this card is what commenters said about a show they watched; nothing in it is a verdict on the programme, its writers or its cast, and no production or ratings claim made in the thread has been checked.
Counterpoint: Several commenters here object to the show being listed at all, and the group contains an unresolved argument about whether a parody of a format still counts as an example of it.
What the replies added2
He didn't score 4 touchdowns against Andrew Johnson High School to win the city championship for Polk, just to be insulted on Reddit!
Married with Children definitely made my joke 30 years ago.
Source-record spotlights
Leave Al Bundy out of this.
I remember liking Married With Children in part because it seemed to satirise that trope, while also taking part in it themselves. To this day i don’t know why Al Bundy didn’t want to bang his wife, played by Katey Segal in her prime!
Married with Children. No Ma’am
What the counts show
Within 16 source records, 2 ask a question and 0 explicitly say they intend to try the idea; neither signal is treated as an outcome.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments16 preserved records · 16 of 16 source records accounted for
Archive: 16 index entries preserve 16 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
George LopezA small set of records, split between people who could not stand the delivery and one who liked the rest of the cast.
Answer card naming the show, what commenters said was wrong with it, and what the people defending it said back: George Lopez
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
George Lopez
Claim context: George Lopez
Why it matters: A short set of records with a consistent complaint: the delivery. Commenters describe punchlines shouted or performed rather than written, and one says trying to rewatch it as an adult failed on the lead's timing alone.
What readers reported: george lopez show. he’s not funny. it’s not humorous to just say punchlines in spanish dramatically.
Limit: Reported opinion only. Everything in this card is what commenters said about a show they watched; nothing in it is a verdict on the programme, its writers or its cast, and no production or ratings claim made in the thread has been checked.
Counterpoint: The same commenter who could not get past the lead says the rest of the cast is funny a few seasons in, naming the in-laws, the friends and the children as the parts they liked.
What the replies added1
I dont remember why i used to love that show, but I tried to watch it last year and I couldn't get past George's delivery. I think most of the cast is pretty funny a few seasons in. I like the in-laws and the friends and the kids more than George's character.
Source-record spotlights
See, the problem with the George Lopez show is that it perpetuates the stereotype that George Lopez is funny.
Same with George Lopez. “It’s a self-fulfilling prophylactic!”
Oh my GOD I hated this show (but I'd still hate watch). I can't stand that dude
What the counts show
This report keeps all 6 source records for George Lopez together and surfaces traceable examples without converting anecdotes into proof.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments6 preserved records · 6 of 6 source records accounted for
Archive: 6 index entries preserve 6 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Everybody Loves the King of Queens According to JimThe running gag where commenters stack the titles into one sentence because the shows had stopped being distinguishable.
Answer card naming the show, what commenters said was wrong with it, and what the people defending it said back: Everybody Loves the King of Queens According to Jim
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Everybody Loves the King of Queens According to Jim
Claim context: Everybody Loves the King of Queens According to Jim
Why it matters: A running joke rather than an answer, and one of the most-liked exchanges in the thread: commenters stack the titles of the husband-and-wife sitcoms into a single sentence, adding one show each time, on the argument that they had stopped being distinguishable from each other. Home Improvement, Still Standing, Married with Children and George Lopez all get folded in.
What readers reported: Everybody Loves the King of Queens According to Jim.
Limit: Reported opinion only. Everything in this card is what commenters said about a show they watched; nothing in it is a verdict on the programme, its writers or its cast, and no production or ratings claim made in the thread has been checked.
Counterpoint: The joke is interrupted twice by commenters who genuinely liked one of the shows being folded into it, including one who calls Still Standing the best of them and notes it is not on any streaming service.
What the replies added2
Everybody Loves the King of Queens According to Jim.
According to Jim, Everybody Loves the King of Queens being Married with Children.
Source-record spotlights
Ah yes, Everybody Loves the King of Queens
Ok, but I really did like Still Standing
This, in my opinion, was the absolute best of them all. And it sucks cause it’s never on a streaming service. I wonder why?
What the counts show
The exact phrase “being married with children” recurs across 2 of the 9 source records in Everybody Loves the King of Queens According to Jim; the complete archive stays available below.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments9 preserved records · 9 of 9 source records accounted for
Archive: 9 index entries preserve 9 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
The Honeymooners and the trope's ancestorsWhere the replies traced the format back to, and the people who objected to it being traced there.
Answer card naming the show, what commenters said was wrong with it, and what the people defending it said back: The Honeymooners and the trope's ancestors
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
The Honeymooners and the trope's ancestors
Claim context: The Honeymooners and the trope's ancestors
Why it matters: Where the replies traced the format back to. Commenters name The Honeymooners as the origin of the loud husband and the exasperated wife, and then follow the line forward into animation — the Flintstones and the Jetsons are both raised, one of them as a case where the shape was inherited and one where it was subverted.
What readers reported: The Honeymooners. Most animated shows like The Simpsons, Family Guy etc.
Limit: Reported opinion only. Everything in this card is what commenters said about a show they watched; nothing in it is a verdict on the programme, its writers or its cast, and no production or ratings claim made in the thread has been checked.
Counterpoint: Two records refuse the premise outright and say the older show is excellent, which is the only defence offered in this group.
What the replies added1
George Jetson subverted the trope by being lean instead of chunky!
Source-record spotlights
We should probably start with The Honeymooners.
Don’t talk bad about The Honeymooners
George Jetson subverted the trope by being lean instead of chunky!
What the counts show
Within 7 source records, 1 ask a question and 0 explicitly say they intend to try the idea; neither signal is treated as an outcome.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments7 preserved records · 7 of 7 source records accounted for
Archive: 7 index entries preserve 7 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Kevin Can F Himself, the answer the thread kept giving backThe counter-example commenters kept raising, and what they said it shows about the shows it is answering.
Answer card naming the show, what commenters said was wrong with it, and what the people defending it said back: Kevin Can F Himself, the answer the thread kept giving back
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Kevin Can F Himself, the answer the thread kept giving back
Claim context: Kevin Can F Himself, the answer the thread kept giving back
Why it matters: Not a complaint but the thread's own counter-argument, raised independently in three separate threads. Commenters describe a show that films the husband's scenes as a brightly lit multi-camera sitcom and everything after them as a drama, and they use it to explain what they think is wrong with the shows the thread is attacking: that the wife in that format is living with someone the audience is asked to find loveable. Several call it cathartic for exactly that reason.
What readers reported: Kevin Can Fuck Himself is a good hate-letter to this trope.
Limit: Reported opinion only. Everything in this card is what commenters said about a show they watched; nothing in it is a verdict on the programme, its writers or its cast, and no production or ratings claim made in the thread has been checked.
Counterpoint: One record makes the case against its own example: a show built to subvert an obnoxious format still has to show you a great deal of that format, and another commenter reports finding the sitcom halves tiring enough to stop watching.
What the replies added2
Is that the show that switches between a sitcom style camera to a drama style when the main character isnt around?
Goddamn that was a brilliant, amazingly well executed concept AND I like when shows get set in Seedy Massachusetts.
Source-record spotlights
Kevin Can Fuck Himself is a good hate-letter to this trope.
Kevin can Fuck Himself. It's on Netflix, has only 2 seasons so is a relatively quick watch (and tells a complete story). The premise is essentially answering the question "What would life actually be like for the suffering wife married to a stereotypical idiot sitcom husband?" The cinematography is unique: half the show is a brightly lit, multicamera, laugh tracked sitcom style, where all the tropey hijinks happens. Then the fallout of the hijinks switches to a drama: it gets a darker/cooler pallete, the laugh track and extra camera angles disappear. It's a dark comedy, and explores stuff like abuse and manipulation.
I never watched the second season of Kevin can go F\*+x himself, but appreciated what I did watch of it - it was never funny and I don’t think it was trying to be funny. I liked that it was set in Worcester MA, and that the lead actress was the spoiled rich daughter in Schitt’s Creek.
Related evidence elsewhere in the index
What the counts show
The exact phrase “the laugh track” recurs across 2 of the 11 source records in Kevin Can F Himself, the answer the thread kept giving back; the complete archive stays available below.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments11 preserved records · 11 of 11 source records accounted for
Archive: 11 index entries preserve 11 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
The CBS block, and the producer the thread kept blamingThe largest category by a distance, and the one where the argument between detractors and defenders is loudest. 696 records.
The Big Bang TheoryThe biggest answer in the corpus and the biggest argument in it, with a phrase that gets restated dozens of times and a defence that keeps arriving with it.
Answer card naming the show, what commenters said was wrong with it, and what the people defending it said back: The Big Bang Theory
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
The Big Bang Theory
Claim context: The Big Bang Theory
Why it matters: The largest answer in the corpus and the largest argument in it. One sentence is restated dozens of times, in and out of quotation marks — that it is what people who are not clever imagine clever people are like — and it arrives with a cluster of related complaints: that the reference is the joke, that the jokes are explained immediately after being made, and that the characters are laughed at rather than with. A substantial group of records objects specifically to the lead being written with what they read as autistic traits while the show declines to say so. Others report the opposite experience: scientists, engineers and autistic commenters who say they liked it, found it relatable, or were compared to it and did not mind.
What readers reported: Bing bang theory. It's the dumb people's idea of what smart people are like. Without laughtracks it's just a string of unfunny cringe weird stuff
Limit: Reported opinion only. Everything in this card is what commenters said about a show they watched; nothing in it is a verdict on the programme, its writers or its cast, and no production or ratings claim made in the thread has been checked.
Counterpoint: The defence in this node is as loud as the attack and takes three forms: that the show is mediocre rather than uniquely bad, that disliking it has become a way of signalling cleverness, and that the laugh-track argument is wrong on the facts because it was recorded in front of an audience. Each of those is itself contested in the same replies.
What replies pushed back on7
I thought the first few seasons were a reasonable look into what happened to those wunderkinds we heard about. Living comfortable lives with good disposable income. Doing dead end research at Universities and butting heads with administration. Struggling with real world relationships. All seemed like good answers. Then they decided that Sheldon was gold and should be in every scene. And when he's not on camera all the other characters should be asking "Where's Sheldon?" and it went to hell quick. Young Sheldon kind of goes the opposite of that interestingly. It starts off as Bazinga fest and then slowly drifts to fleshing out all the other characters. Better than people might assume.
I love that show lol but I don’t disagree. I think it’s my affection for Kaley Cuoco. And I love the blooper reels and the fact they had a studio audience (unlike HIMYM)
The 2 spinoffs are even worse.
Disagree, strongly. Sheldon is obviously over the top, and some of it is cringe-worthy, but that's the point. If you've ever met postdoc researchers they're often some of the most unhinged nutjobs on the planet. You expect creepy, you expect enough social anxiety and mental health issues, and frankly, the show does just enough to show what some nerdy people like in a representable way. To be blunt, TBBT is a show that's easy to hate because hating it makes them feel smart.
Two Broke Girls is worse, and Reddit seems fine with that. Perhaps because boobs. All of the responses here prove my point, though... Redditors hate TBBT. Which is fine. Taste is subjective. But acting like something is objectively bad because of subjective taste is pretty silly, and something that occurs more frequently on Reddit than any other social media platform. It's really highly focused hate on anything popular: TV (TBBT), video games (Call of Duty, EA's sports games), music (TSwift), movies (La La Land, most Nolan films), etc.
It's spawned at least 2 spin-offs, so is very much an ongoing threat. /s I don't get either the hate or the love for the show. It's a mediocre sitcom. I'm a world where 2 Broke Girls exists, calling Big Bang Theory the worst sitcom seems ridiculous.
People love to laud it as some "nerd's getting the limelight", but if you're not braindead, it's obvious all the jokes are at the expense of the nerds. There was a really good essay I read a while back that broke this down and made the argument that "Community" was the true "nerd king" sitcom made for nerds, by nerds. It's notable that sorting by Best and Controversial, I haven't seen "Community" mentioned yet.
Where commenters report limits
To be fair, I do think that I am both lame and funny! But yeah, I guess that's maybe a wording thing on my part in my original comment, because what you said is basically what I mean. Like, I looked at the show and said "this is for me!" but then watched it and was like "this is not for me, this is *about* me!"
Personally I hate it because it's not funny in the slightest and at times extremely sexist.
Source-record spotlights
Bing bang theory. It's the dumb people's idea of what smart people are like. Without laughtracks it's just a string of unfunny cringe weird stuff
Actually (although they’ll never admit this is the reason) this show unironically made my family member want to be a quantum physicist and they actually are one now making $350k plus about 2 years outta school so I will always have a fond place in my heart for this show no matter how unrealistic and silly it may have been.
Pure trash. The “Friends” of the 2010s.
Related evidence elsewhere in the index
What the counts show
Across 423 source records, the most common observable tactic structure is “Turn it into a game” (11 records). This is a wording pattern, not a measured outcome.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Observable tactic structures
Counts show source records whose wording matches the tactic structure; biological explanations remain commenter claims unless separately checked below.
Browse the original comments423 preserved records · 423 of 423 source records accounted for
Archive: 423 index entries preserve 423 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Two and a Half MenNamed steadily and defended thinly, usually with a note about which seasons the commenter means.
Answer card naming the show, what commenters said was wrong with it, and what the people defending it said back: Two and a Half Men
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Two and a Half Men
Claim context: Two and a Half Men
Why it matters: Named steadily and defended thinly. The recurring complaints are that the material is sexual innuendo with nothing under it, that the same few jokes are stretched across twelve seasons, and that the second lead was rewritten from one kind of unpleasant into another. Several records date their answer to the cast change, and a few say the show's own ending is the most interesting thing about it.
What readers reported: For me, it’s *Two and a Half Men*. I know it had a huge audience, but watching it now feels like someone stretched the same three jokes over 12 seasons and somehow got paid for all of them.
Limit: Reported opinion only. Everything in this card is what commenters said about a show they watched; nothing in it is a verdict on the programme, its writers or its cast, and no production or ratings claim made in the thread has been checked.
Counterpoint: The defenders here are unusually precise: most of them limit their defence to the early seasons, and describe the show as competent background television made by people who were good at their jobs rather than as something they would claim was good.
What the replies added1
Eh, I'd disagree. It's pretty mid although the seasons with Charlie Sheen are better than the ones with Ashton Kutcher imo. The ending is a masterwork of pettiness though, despite its general awfulness. As bad as Sheen got, Chuck Lorre is just as petty even if he isn't as much of a dumpster fire (he also wrote Big Bang Theory, whose quality is ymmv).
Where commenters report limits
It’s spiritual successor, anger management, turned out so good that i cant watch any episode of 2 1/2 men anymore, where most of what happens is allen being an idiot and made fun of by everyone, while anger management actually has quirky likeable characters all around and even some character development. Unfortunately they marketed it wrong, just saying “here is this new thing, all we let you know about it is its name, and charlie is in it with some explosions”
Source-record spotlights
charlie sheen’s meltdown was probably the best part of it anyway idk
Two and a Half Men. I can't understand what anyone saw in that rubbish.
Good god that show was written for people with n IQ of 90. Not even enjoyable to watch let alone funny.
Related evidence elsewhere in the index
What the counts show
The exact phrase “i never understood” recurs across 3 of the 61 source records in Two and a Half Men; the complete archive stays available below.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments61 preserved records · 61 of 61 source records accounted for
Archive: 61 index entries preserve 61 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Two Broke GirlsThe answer commenters most often explain by pointing at something other than the writing.
Answer card naming the show, what commenters said was wrong with it, and what the people defending it said back: Two Broke Girls
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Two Broke Girls
Claim context: Two Broke Girls
Why it matters: The answer commenters most often explain by pointing at something other than the writing. The criticisms are consistent — dialogue delivered at a shout, every line built as a set-up or a punchline with no conversation between them, and supporting characters whose entire function several records describe as an accent or a stereotype. The explanation offered for its six seasons, over and over, is the appearance of its leads, which commenters state bluntly enough that it becomes its own thread.
What readers reported: Two Broke Girls. The cast had talent and the premise had potential, but so much of the humor relied on repetitive stereotypes and predictable punchlines. Its popularity always felt bigger than the quality of the writing.
Limit: Reported opinion only. Everything in this card is what commenters said about a show they watched; nothing in it is a verdict on the programme, its writers or its cast, and no production or ratings claim made in the thread has been checked.
Counterpoint: A real defence exists inside the node: records that liked it as undemanding television, and a longer argument that it was one of the few sitcoms to show characters who were actually short of money rather than affluent people pretending not to be.
What the replies added4
I have the opposite problem with law and order svu. I really liked the show when it first came out and watched for a long time but then one episode I noticed how much Benson whispers her lines, a lot if the time for no reason and since then everytime i watched it id get irrationally annoyed by it to the point t I juat stopped watching it altogether.
Nah I actually appreciated how they acted actually broke, not like every other show where they sit there drinking coffee , or god forbid eating! at a cafe. No one who's broke can actually afford that and it drives me fucking crazy
God, this. It's my metric for the madness/badness of studio decision making. Many a time I've found myself going "can you believe they cancelled X after just Y seasons when Two Broke Girls got 6?"
Just off-dome 2 Broke Girls and Two and a Half Men from the same network and time period alone were worse than Big Bang Theory.
Source-record spotlights
I have a soft spot for Kat Dennings acting sassy, but yeah - that show was just awful.
It’s way better watching the highlight clips than trying to sit through and actual episode
I will always maintain that the writing on that show was pretty good and Kat was halfway decent, but the actual execution was embarrassingly bad. Whoever that director is should never find work again.
Related evidence elsewhere in the index
What the counts show
Across 126 source records, the most common observable tactic structure is “Turn it into a game” (3 records). This is a wording pattern, not a measured outcome.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Observable tactic structures
Counts show source records whose wording matches the tactic structure; biological explanations remain commenter claims unless separately checked below.
Browse the original comments126 preserved records · 126 of 126 source records accounted for
Archive: 126 index entries preserve 126 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Young Sheldon and the spin-offsThe spin-off that turns up as a defence more often than as an answer, and the records that name it anyway.
Answer card naming the show, what commenters said was wrong with it, and what the people defending it said back: Young Sheldon and the spin-offs
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Young Sheldon and the spin-offs
Claim context: Young Sheldon and the spin-offs
Why it matters: The spin-off turns up in this thread more often as a rebuttal than as an answer. Commenters who dislike the parent show repeatedly report liking this one, and explain the difference the same way: the child version of the character is written to be likeable and the adult version is not. A few records name it and its own spin-offs as answers in their own right.
What readers reported: Young Sheldon works by having the kid actually likeable. That's it. He's still an idiot, and written in-show as someone who pisses people off, but he's written in a way where you do actually want him to succeed and get out of bad situations he himself caused. In contrast, Sheldon in Big Bang is deliberately written to be *un*likeable.
Limit: Reported opinion only. Everything in this card is what commenters said about a show they watched; nothing in it is a verdict on the programme, its writers or its cast, and no production or ratings claim made in the thread has been checked.
Counterpoint: The dissent runs in both directions here. Two records say the spin-offs are worse than the original, and one says the show has no redeeming qualities at all, against a majority in this node defending it.
What the replies added2
Yeah i think it's a really good look at middle America and how hard you can work and try to do right and how easily it can come crashing down and turn your decent family into Texas Trash really quick.
Tbf it also shows the issues cultural pressure cause too. Mary could have gotten an abortion, Mandy ABSOLUTELY should have. Georgie ends up as a dad at 17 to a 29 year old wife because that somehow made more sense than her just getting an abortion and everyone pretending it didn’t happen. Cultural shame led to said situation.
Source-record spotlights
Young Sheldon is surprisingly deep, when you consider that Sheldon had a fairly problematic upbringing, a dead father, and siblings that had to suffer and adapt around having a genius brother. I liked both TBBT and YS, but they're so different that it's at times surprising that they're based on each other.
young sheldon is soo much better than big bang theory
young shelon has literally zero redeeming qualities
Related evidence elsewhere in the index
What the counts show
The exact phrase “big bang theory” recurs across 3 of the 16 source records in Young Sheldon and the spin-offs; the complete archive stays available below.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments16 preserved records · 16 of 16 source records accounted for
Archive: 16 index entries preserve 16 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Dharma & GregNamed as an answer three times and defended nine, mostly by people calling it their comfort show.
Answer card naming the show, what commenters said was wrong with it, and what the people defending it said back: Dharma & Greg
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Dharma & Greg
Claim context: Dharma & Greg
Why it matters: Named three times as an answer and discussed nine more times as a defence. The criticism is the premise itself, summarised by one commenter as two opposite caricatures colliding every week. Several records also note that the characters have dated in an unexpected direction, with the political types they were built on no longer matching the people they were meant to satirise.
What readers reported: "Look how free and spiritual I am!" "I love you because I'm the opposite - I'm so grounded in reality and afraid to leave my comfort zone!" *wacky scenarios ensue*
Limit: Reported opinion only. Everything in this card is what commenters said about a show they watched; nothing in it is a verdict on the programme, its writers or its cast, and no production or ratings claim made in the thread has been checked.
Counterpoint: Most of the records in this node are affectionate. Commenters call it a comfort show, praise the lead performance, and one describes the kindness in it as something they needed to see at the time.
What the replies added1
"Look how free and spiritual I am!" "I love you because I'm the opposite - I'm so grounded in reality and afraid to leave my comfort zone!" *wacky scenarios ensue*
Source-record spotlights
I liked Dharma and Greg. The first season anyway. Jenna Elfman was adorable and very funny.
I loved dharma and greg, at the time I was also a fan of Ally McBeal. Looking back, I don't know what was wrong with me, I must have caught a nasty dose of basic bitch
It jumped the shark when she went platinum
What the counts show
Within 14 source records, 1 ask a question and 0 explicitly say they intend to try the idea; neither signal is treated as an outcome.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments14 preserved records · 14 of 14 source records accounted for
Archive: 14 index entries preserve 14 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
MomThe show the thread interrupts itself to defend when someone condemns the whole catalogue.
Answer card naming the show, what commenters said was wrong with it, and what the people defending it said back: Mom
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Mom
Claim context: Mom
Why it matters: The show the thread interrupts itself to defend. It appears almost entirely inside the answers condemning a producer's whole catalogue, as the exception those commenters want carved out: records praise the size of its cast of flawed women, the lead performance, and the fact that it tries to show what recovery is actually like.
What readers reported: I feel a small need to defend *Mom* here. It's genuinely enjoyable, Allison Janney is amazing as usual, and I'm not sure we've ever gotten a show with such a large cast of flawed complex women.
Limit: Reported opinion only. Everything in this card is what commenters said about a show they watched; nothing in it is a verdict on the programme, its writers or its cast, and no production or ratings claim made in the thread has been checked.
Counterpoint: The one complaint inside the node is about the laughter track over the top of that material, which one commenter says finally made the show unwatchable for them despite having enjoyed it for years.
What the replies added2
Agree. I’m no where close to the demographic of that show and it’s brilliant performances and solid writing. It’s a show my partner has on the background all the time and I love it. You can step into the show at any time and be entertained.
This show is fucking awesome. Janney is by far the best part, but its so nice to have a show actually try to capture what being in recovery is like.
Source-record spotlights
I feel a small need to defend *Mom* here. It's genuinely enjoyable, Allison Janney is amazing as usual, and I'm not sure we've ever gotten a show with such a large cast of flawed complex women.
Mom is good, but the laugh track is insufferable. I used to enjoy the show, and the last time I watched it, I couldn't make it through an episode. :(
I really liked it, only the final season was a bit meh but it wasn't their fault, the main actress had to attend to personal affairs and sometimes things just have to go that way.
What the counts show
The exact phrase “the final season” recurs across 2 of the 13 source records in Mom; the complete archive stays available below.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments13 preserved records · 13 of 13 source records accounted for
Archive: 13 index entries preserve 13 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Bob Hearts AbisholaA short argument about whether the premise is sweet or is the same formula again.
Answer card naming the show, what commenters said was wrong with it, and what the people defending it said back: Bob Hearts Abishola
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Bob Hearts Abishola
Claim context: Bob Hearts Abishola
Why it matters: A short, contained argument. One record calls it the dumbest show ever made and another says the leads had no chemistry and the supporting cast was not funny. Against that, several commenters describe it as the only show in its producer's catalogue they can still watch, and praise the cultural gap between the two leads as a premise.
What readers reported: I do think one of his newer shows, Bob Hearts Abishola, is pretty cute. Not an all-timer or anything but it’s got a good cast and a nice premise. Basically a kinda goofy white guy falls in love with his Nigerian nurse, and the show is all about how they navigate their relationship with all the massive cultural differences between them. Simple, sweet, and nice to have on in the background.
Limit: Reported opinion only. Everything in this card is what commenters said about a show they watched; nothing in it is a verdict on the programme, its writers or its cast, and no production or ratings claim made in the thread has been checked.
Counterpoint: The sharpest line in the node comes from the Mike & Molly thread, where a commenter reads it as the same formula moved onto a new difference between the two leads.
What the replies added2
Bob ❤️ Abishola. I never watched either, both looked. . .not very good 😑
They had Zero chemistry together and the supporting characters were terrible actors and unfunny
Source-record spotlights
The only one I seem to be able to stomach is Bob ❤️ Abishola. I don't know why but its pretty cute, especially Bob's relationship with Abishola's family.
Mike took that same formula to another show. Hey did you know I'm white? And your black? The craziness!
They had Zero chemistry together and the supporting characters were terrible actors and unfunny
What the counts show
The exact phrase “abishola is pretty” recurs across 2 of the 8 source records in Bob Hearts Abishola; the complete archive stays available below.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments8 preserved records · 8 of 8 source records accounted for
Archive: 8 index entries preserve 8 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Chuck Lorre, as a body of workAnswers that name a producer rather than a programme, and the correction the thread kept issuing about which shows are his.
Answer card naming the show, what commenters said was wrong with it, and what the people defending it said back: Chuck Lorre, as a body of work
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Chuck Lorre, as a body of work
Claim context: Chuck Lorre, as a body of work
Why it matters: Records that answer with a producer rather than a programme. The recurring criticism is a pattern rather than an episode: commenters describe shows that start from a workable idea, hold up for about a season, and then repeat themselves until they end. The node also carries the correction the thread kept issuing — that one of the three shows being blamed on him was created by somebody else.
What readers reported: I always find with Chuck Lorre shows that they start off with a good concept and are solid for about a season, and then wildly deteriorate until you are begging for it to end. Viz: Dharma and Greg, Cybil, Grace Under Fire.
Limit: Reported opinion only. Everything in this card is what commenters said about a show they watched; nothing in it is a verdict on the programme, its writers or its cast, and no production or ratings claim made in the thread has been checked.
Counterpoint: The same commenters routinely exempt individual titles from their own blanket answer, naming the recovery sitcom, the prequel and one or two nineties shows as work they think is good, and one notes he was among the few people who could still get a multi-camera sitcom commissioned at all.
What the replies added3
I immediately started thinking of the CBS shows from the 2000-2010s (2 and a half men, Big Bang, Dharma and Greg, 2 Broke Girls...) but aren't they all Chuck Lorre shows? Damn, that guy made a hell of a living by catering to dumb as shit people.
2 Broke Girls is Whitney Cummings. The others are indeed Chuck Lorre shows.
I'm totally on board with what you're saying, but *2 Broke Girls* wasn't made by Chuck Lorre
Source-record spotlights
I immediately started thinking of the CBS shows from the 2000-2010s (2 and a half men, Big Bang, Dharma and Greg, 2 Broke Girls...) but aren't they all Chuck Lorre shows? Damn, that guy made a hell of a living by catering to dumb as shit people.
I'm totally on board with what you're saying, but *2 Broke Girls* wasn't made by Chuck Lorre
If you want to get rich, find a way to cater to dumb people.
What the counts show
The exact phrase “dharma and greg” recurs across 3 of the 32 source records in Chuck Lorre, as a body of work; the complete archive stays available below.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments32 preserved records · 32 of 32 source records accounted for
Archive: 32 index entries preserve 32 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Everything on CBSThe three records that answer with a network.
Answer card naming the show, what commenters said was wrong with it, and what the people defending it said back: Everything on CBS
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Everything on CBS
Claim context: Everything on CBS
Why it matters: Three records that answer with a network instead of a title, and one of them offers a mechanism: that this kind of sitcom does well because it is what is already on when nobody changes the channel.
What readers reported: I’m convinced CBS sitcoms do so well because people are too lazy to change the channel.
Limit: Reported opinion only. Everything in this card is what commenters said about a show they watched; nothing in it is a verdict on the programme, its writers or its cast, and no production or ratings claim made in the thread has been checked.
Counterpoint: Nothing in the thread argues back against these three directly, though the same explanation is disputed at length inside the individual show nodes.
Source-record spotlights
I’m convinced CBS sitcoms do so well because people are too lazy to change the channel.
Everything on CBS
Anything on CBS
What the counts show
This report keeps all 3 source records for Everything on CBS together and surfaces traceable examples without converting anecdotes into proof.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments3 preserved records · 3 of 3 source records accounted for
Archive: 3 index entries preserve 3 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
The 1990s megahitsThe shows nobody expected to see on a worst-of list, named more often than most of the shows people agree were bad. 404 records.
FriendsThe second-biggest answer in the corpus, argued almost entirely over whether it was ever funny or only ever ubiquitous.
Answer card naming the show, what commenters said was wrong with it, and what the people defending it said back: Friends
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Friends
Claim context: Friends
Why it matters: The second-largest answer in the corpus, and the one people most often preface by expecting to be shouted at. The criticisms cluster into three: that the jokes are shallow and were never funny rather than having aged badly, that the characters are selfish in ways the show does not acknowledge, and that specific running gags about sexuality and weight have not survived. A separate strand argues the show was a scheduling accident rather than a phenomenon. The apartments come up constantly and are answered every time with the rent-control explanation from the first season.
What readers reported: I doubt anyone agrees, but for me it was definitely Friends. Just lots of cheap, shallow jokes. My wife watched it, but I never liked it.
Limit: Reported opinion only. Everything in this card is what commenters said about a show they watched; nothing in it is a verdict on the programme, its writers or its cast, and no production or ratings claim made in the thread has been checked.
Counterpoint: The defence is mostly historical: commenters argue it was revolutionary for its slot, that it was filmed in front of a live audience rather than sweetened with canned laughter, and that editing the laughter out of any studio comedy destroys the timing and proves nothing about the writing.
What replies pushed back on5
I agree that at this point the sitcom formula is played out a dead. However, I disagree that Friends is the lowest of the low that shouldn’t have lasted as long as it did. Just looking at the quality of the other shows in this thread, Friends is clearly a step above. In the lens of the 2020’s, yeah, not exactly the cutting-edge of entertainment. But for a dumb mild chuckle, Friends will always be a safe choice.
Absolutely. It was awful from the get-go. It was "my generation" but it was a weird, fantasy, sanitized version: they had to live as roommates but they were all too perfect. Giant, clean apartment; no struggles paying rent, no eating ramen, nothing that resembled the reality most young people lived at the time. Watching years later, it comes off even worse.
This comment is way too far down. It is the most overrated sitcom in the history of television. I don't understand the collective infatuation with it.
There was also an episode where half of them were broke and the other half paid well. The broke ones were complaining about the richer ones always wanting to go out and spend lots of money. So it was established that some of them had money.
Yeah I had a friend who was seriously broke. Moved from LA to NYC in the mid 2000s and waited tables. Made a friend who liked him enough to let him be his roommate. Charged him something like 700 rent for a serious luxury apartment in lower Manhattan. His parents were loaded but insisted he have a roommate and my friend got the gig so to speak. Not sure what rent would normally be but I'm guessing now we're talking 30k or 40k a month. So basically it was just like the TV show.
Where commenters report limits
Friends is overrated for sure. The jokes don’t hold up as well as people think.
Lol, good thing she's an EX wife now. Nah I'm jk, unfortunately too many people do like friends especially because it's relatively easy to get into and you don't need to put your head into it to understand anything.
Source-record spotlights
I doubt anyone agrees, but for me it was definitely Friends. Just lots of cheap, shallow jokes. My wife watched it, but I never liked it.
Friends. Ross and Monica are two of the least likable tv characters of all time
I dislike most shows being added here, but Friends was an absolute cultural phenomenon. As far as the scale of “more popular than it should have been” on one axis and poor quality and the other, I don’t think anyone can beat Friends. It’s not as bad as the six episode Rob Schneider sitcom “Rob,” or as notorious as “My Mother the Car.” But those shows are known for being shit. Friends was an absolute cultural juggernaut and was, on its best episodes, mediocre enough you could stand it until something more interesting came on. It was absolute shit and did not deserve the love it got.
Related evidence elsewhere in the index
What the counts show
Across 245 source records, the most common observable tactic structure is “Swap instead of subtract” (4 records). This is a wording pattern, not a measured outcome.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Observable tactic structures
Counts show source records whose wording matches the tactic structure; biological explanations remain commenter claims unless separately checked below.
Browse the original comments245 preserved records · 245 of 245 source records accounted for
Archive: 245 index entries preserve 245 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
SeinfeldNamed far more often than its reputation suggests, and answered every time with the same defence about what the show was for.
Answer card naming the show, what commenters said was wrong with it, and what the people defending it said back: Seinfeld
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Seinfeld
Claim context: Seinfeld
Why it matters: Named far more often than its reputation would predict, and always with the same complaint: that every character is unpleasant, that nothing happens, and that the lead's delivery is the part people cannot get past. Several records single out the finale.
What readers reported: Seinfeld. An obnoxious group of people behaving in irrational ways under unlikely circumstances. Not one of them is employable (maybe Christine), as George is nuts and Jerry isn't funny in the stand-up portions, and not one of them is likable.
Limit: Reported opinion only. Everything in this card is what commenters said about a show they watched; nothing in it is a verdict on the programme, its writers or its cast, and no production or ratings claim made in the thread has been checked.
Counterpoint: Every one of those answers draws the identical reply, sometimes within minutes: the characters are supposed to be unpleasant, the show was built on a rule against growth or sentiment, and disliking them is disliking the premise rather than the execution.
What the replies added2
Typical "you just don't get it". No we understand, it's just not funny. Made even worse my the fact the Jerry Seinfeld himself is an insufferable, unfunny loser.
…Seinfeld.. Or 2 Broke Girls. Or fucking Letterkenney
Where commenters report limits
Honestly Seinfeld, wasn't nearly as clever or funny as it thought it was IMO, and boy howdy did that finale suck. You can't claim to make a "show about nothing" and then suddenly try and moralize and have people judge the main characters in the final episode, does not work that way.
Seinfeld- way overrated. Was just annoying most of the time
Source-record spotlights
Just throwing it out there, they're not supposed to be likable. They're all brash, selfish idiots. That's the whole point. Larry David's rule for the show was "No hugging, no learning." If you didn't like that part of it may I recommend never watching Always Sunny.
Seinfeld. Jerry Seinfeld is by far the worst thing about it, and since he’s the star i just can’t deal with it. Jerry Seinfeld has only ever made me laugh ONCE. And it was an episode of 30 Rock he didn’t write. I don’t care that it’s Larry David writing the best seasons. If i never saw Jerry Seinfeld’s face or heard his voice ever again, i’d still not be happy because i’ve seen him too many times already. I just really don’t like Jerry Seinfeld to an almost absurd degree.
Seinfeld. Maybe I’m in the minority but I hated that show.
Related evidence elsewhere in the index
What the counts show
Across 83 source records, the most common observable tactic structure is “Turn it into a game” (4 records). This is a wording pattern, not a measured outcome.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Observable tactic structures
Counts show source records whose wording matches the tactic structure; biological explanations remain commenter claims unless separately checked below.
Browse the original comments83 preserved records · 83 of 83 source records accounted for
Archive: 83 index entries preserve 83 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Frasier, Cheers and the rebootTwo disputes: whether the original was as clever as it is remembered, and what the revival did without Niles.
Answer card naming the show, what commenters said was wrong with it, and what the people defending it said back: Frasier, Cheers and the reboot
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Frasier, Cheers and the reboot
Claim context: Frasier, Cheers and the reboot
Why it matters: Two disputes share this node. The first is about the revival, and the complaint is structural: commenters say the original worked because the lead was surrounded by people who could match or outrank him, and that the revival kept the lead and removed all of them. The second is about the original itself — a small group argues its cleverness is a flattering costume rather than a real one, and one record objects to how women are written in it.
What readers reported: Frasier was the best ensemble comedy in history. So I know, let’s strip away all of the other characters that made the show amazing, and keep the one asshole that was the least interesting part of the show.
Limit: Reported opinion only. Everything in this card is what commenters said about a show they watched; nothing in it is a verdict on the programme, its writers or its cast, and no production or ratings claim made in the thread has been checked.
Counterpoint: The pushback on the original is immediate and heavy: commenters defend its writing and its farce episodes specifically, several name the brother as the reason to watch at all, and one fan agrees the title character is the weakest part of his own show while still calling it a comfort watch.
What the replies added2
Yep. Felt like the missed the point of the original show. Its not that Frasier was better than everyone because of his pompousness, he was the butt of the joke for it. Importantly, the support in the original the important characters had direct influence over Frasier in their own ways * Martin - Was literally his father * Daphne - Even though she was literally an employee, she was chosen by Frasier's father and was literally in his home daily * Roz - again, while Frasier may have been the star, the producer made things happen * Niles - Matched him intellectually, and frequently boasts that he remained pure to the science of psychology rather than selling out to pop-culture psychology. While he may not have authority over Frasier, he was considered Frasier's equal in the aspects he most prided himself on. Where the reboot, everyone is basically a fawning follower of Frasier. He is literally the landlord of two of the characters. (Which in fairness is at least a good narrative device to have a pretty apartment set for characters who are meant to be broke, but most people don't root for the landlord.) As well as at 70 the single bachelor storylines start to feel outlandish on their surface.
I almost stopped watching Cheers during season 2 bc every episode was Sam and Diane having some sort of fight or misunderstanding and it was just the two of them arguing the whole time. I was happy when they broke up
Where commenters report limits
I tried watching it because Nicholas Lyndhurst is in it, and i fucking love that guy. Only Fools and Horses and Goodnight Sweetheart are two of my favorite sitcoms of all time. The guy is a legend in the UK and it’s about time americans learned about him. Unfortunately the show sucks and it’s probably not gonna lead to more american gigs for Lyndhurst.
Source-record spotlights
I don't know how popular the new Frasier was but without Niles what's the point? Like when the powers that be tried to make Night Court a thing again but I digress Equal horrors from way back then Alf, Small Wonder and My Two Dads
I tried watching it because Nicholas Lyndhurst is in it, and i fucking love that guy. Only Fools and Horses and Goodnight Sweetheart are two of my favorite sitcoms of all time. The guy is a legend in the UK and it’s about time americans learned about him. Unfortunately the show sucks and it’s probably not gonna lead to more american gigs for Lyndhurst.
Frasier is for people who think they’re too sophisticated for The Big Bang Theory. It tricks its audience into believing they’re clever because they caught a reference to a book they were forced to read in high school
Related evidence elsewhere in the index
What the counts show
Across 30 source records, the most common observable tactic structure is “Turn it into a game” (3 records). This is a wording pattern, not a measured outcome.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Observable tactic structures
Counts show source records whose wording matches the tactic structure; biological explanations remain commenter claims unless separately checked below.
Browse the original comments30 preserved records · 30 of 30 source records accounted for
Archive: 30 index entries preserve 30 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Will & GraceRecords that hold the show's stereotypes and its historical effect against each other.
Answer card naming the show, what commenters said was wrong with it, and what the people defending it said back: Will & Grace
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Will & Grace
Claim context: Will & Grace
Why it matters: These records hold two things against each other. The complaint is that a character's sexuality was the punchline in the same way another show made weight the punchline. The answer, made at length and upvoted heavily, is that it was one of very few mainstream shows of its moment where gay characters were written as people rather than as a joke, and that this had an effect outside television.
What readers reported: This is what Will & Grace felt like to me if you replace “fat” with “gay.” Never saw the appeal.
Limit: Reported opinion only. Everything in this card is what commenters said about a show they watched; nothing in it is a verdict on the programme, its writers or its cast, and no production or ratings claim made in the thread has been checked.
Counterpoint: One commenter reports the show being a step in a relative coming to accept a friend, which is the most concrete claim made for it anywhere in the thread; another says the supporting pair were the only watchable part.
What the replies added2
What I'll give Will and Grace is that there were very few mainstream TV shows in the late 90's with gay characters. If they had them, they were exclusively a punchline (Friends, for example.) Will and Grace leaned heavily into gay stereotypes but at least it had multiple gay characters who were allowed to be real characters and not just one-dimensional jokes
There have been dissertations written on the impact Will & Grace had on improving mainstream acceptance of gay rights. And they cite this very point (I.e. it was one of the first mainstream shows where gay characters weren’t just used as a joke).
Source-record spotlights
This is what Will & Grace felt like to me if you replace “fat” with “gay.” Never saw the appeal.
Jack and Karen were the best thing about that show.
By far my favorite part of that show is Megan Mullally
What the counts show
The exact phrase “jack and karen” recurs across 2 of the 9 source records in Will & Grace; the complete archive stays available below.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments9 preserved records · 9 of 9 source records accounted for
Archive: 9 index entries preserve 9 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Three's CompanyOne structural complaint, repeated, plus the people who say farce is supposed to work like that.
Answer card naming the show, what commenters said was wrong with it, and what the people defending it said back: Three's Company
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Three's Company
Claim context: Three's Company
Why it matters: One structural complaint, made repeatedly: that roughly every episode turns on somebody mishearing somebody else, and that once you have seen the misunderstanding you have seen the series. It is the only show in the corpus whose formula is mocked inside another sitcom, and commenters quote that scene back.
What readers reported: I feel like 50% of the episodes of Three's Company involved someone mishearing what someone else said and that would become the plot.
Limit: Reported opinion only. Everything in this card is what commenters said about a show they watched; nothing in it is a verdict on the programme, its writers or its cast, and no production or ratings claim made in the thread has been checked.
Counterpoint: The defence is that this is what farce is: avoidable misunderstandings are the foundation of the form, not a failure of it. Several records also separate the lead performer from the material, and others note that the era's jokes about gay people are the part that has not survived, disputing whether the show was endorsing that attitude or lampooning it.
What the replies added1
I almost stopped watching Cheers during season 2 bc every episode was Sam and Diane having some sort of fight or misunderstanding and it was just the two of them arguing the whole time. I was happy when they broke up
Source-record spotlights
Reminds me of quick cut I saw once in Friends. Chandler's got the TV remote and notes "Ohhhh - this is the episode of "Three's Company" where there's a huge misunderstanding....." and Phoebe snatches the remote from his hand, saying "Then I've already seen it!!!"
I never really got the appeal of *Three’s Company*. There was only ever like, three plot lines. They were all based on one character wanting to deceive another, having things go wrong but it all works out in the end and nobody learns their lesson. Lather, rinse, repeat each week for umpteen seasons.
I watched a couple of episodes recently and they were SO AWFUL!! How was that show ever popular?!?!
What the counts show
The exact phrase “jack tripper as a” recurs across 2 of the 24 source records in Three's Company; the complete archive stays available below.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments24 preserved records · 24 of 24 source records accounted for
Archive: 24 index entries preserve 24 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
RoseanneA handful of answers that draw immediate pushback.
Answer card naming the show, what commenters said was wrong with it, and what the people defending it said back: Roseanne
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Roseanne
Claim context: Roseanne
Why it matters: A handful of answers that draw immediate pushback. The stated objections are the setting, the parenting and the children; one record adds that the lead is among the most annoying characters on television.
What readers reported: Roseanne. Hated the setting, the “jobs” (yeah, I’m making a Loose Meat Sandwich), the parents’ lack of any obvious parenting skills, and the kids were the WORST - ‘way too disrespectful and bratty. Ugly, horrible, not funny.
Limit: Reported opinion only. Everything in this card is what commenters said about a show they watched; nothing in it is a verdict on the programme, its writers or its cast, and no production or ratings claim made in the thread has been checked.
Counterpoint: Every answer in this node is contradicted in its own replies, including by commenters elsewhere in the thread who name it as the one show that let a working-class family look poor and the one that humanised a fat lead.
What the replies added2
Wrong. We are all going to assume you meant, “The Conners” and made an unspeakable error.
Because she is one of the most annoying characters in TV history. Fkn Urkel level annoying.
Source-record spotlights
Agreed but not Roseanne 😭 I loved that show
You're right. I forgot all about Roseanne.
You shut your whore mouth! /s
What the counts show
Within 10 source records, 1 ask a question and 0 explicitly say they intend to try the idea; neither signal is treated as an outcome.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments10 preserved records · 10 of 10 source records accounted for
Archive: 10 index entries preserve 10 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
The Cosby ShowThree records, and the argument about whether the question is about the show or the man.
Answer card naming the show, what commenters said was wrong with it, and what the people defending it said back: The Cosby Show
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
The Cosby Show
Claim context: The Cosby Show
Why it matters: Three records, and an argument about what the question is asking. Two name the show; the reply insists that the popularity was not undeserved on the evidence of the programme itself, and that what is being answered is a fact about the man rather than the writing.
What readers reported: Because of Cosby himself you mean then yes but because of quality which is what the question is about then absolutely not. The Cosby Show was such a great sitcom. It’s such a shame that the POS oxygen bandit of a human being who starred in it ruined it for everyone.
Limit: Reported opinion only. Everything in this card is what commenters said about a show they watched; nothing in it is a verdict on the programme, its writers or its cast, and no production or ratings claim made in the thread has been checked.
Counterpoint: The thread does not resolve this. It is the clearest case in the corpus of commenters disagreeing about whether a show and the people who made it can be judged separately.
What the replies added1
Because of Cosby himself you mean then yes but because of quality which is what the question is about then absolutely not. The Cosby Show was such a great sitcom. It’s such a shame that the POS oxygen bandit of a human being who starred in it ruined it for everyone.
Source-record spotlights
Because of Cosby himself you mean then yes but because of quality which is what the question is about then absolutely not. The Cosby Show was such a great sitcom. It’s such a shame that the POS oxygen bandit of a human being who starred in it ruined it for everyone.
The Cosby show
In hindsight, the Cosby Show
What the counts show
This report keeps all 3 source records for The Cosby Show together and surfaces traceable examples without converting anecdotes into proof.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments3 preserved records · 3 of 3 source records accounted for
Archive: 3 index entries preserve 3 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
The 2000s and 2010sAnswers about writing and endings more than about format. 201 records.
How I Met Your MotherThe answer most often qualified by season, and the ending that commenters say rewrote how they remember the rest.
Answer card naming the show, what commenters said was wrong with it, and what the people defending it said back: How I Met Your Mother
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
How I Met Your Mother
Claim context: How I Met Your Mother
Why it matters: The most heavily qualified answer in the corpus. Almost nobody in this node dislikes all of it: the recurring shape is that the early seasons were good, the middle sagged, and the last episode retroactively spoiled the rest. The character-level complaints are consistent — the narrator is described as a self-styled nice guy, his friend as a character several commenters say would be written differently now — and a second group says the show has no rewatch value because the friendships read differently the second time.
What readers reported: How I Met Your Mother. Nine seasons and they threw away the character development of most of them to go with the original ending that no longer made sense.
Limit: Reported opinion only. Everything in this card is what commenters said about a show they watched; nothing in it is a verdict on the programme, its writers or its cast, and no production or ratings claim made in the thread has been checked.
Counterpoint: A long defence sits at the top of the largest thread here: that the long-term storytelling was better than its peers', that most people loved it while it aired, and that treating the whole series as bad because of its ending is revisionism.
What the replies added2
I've don't think I've ever been so irritated by _every_ character in a show before
How I Met Your Mother caused me to dislike nearly every actor in it. Scrubs made me dislike Zach Braff as well. Everybody Loves Raymond and King of Queens are both unwatchable for me. Big Bang Theory is a waste of time. 2 and a Half Men sucks. 2 Broke Girls is even worse. No substance, even in the lame-ass title. I think that is the point in time when producers stopped giving tv shows proper titles. Just plain lazy. Friends is ok, but its so safe that it becomes background noise, and I hate Ross.
Source-record spotlights
They’ll be someone answering every sitcom to ever exist here but I think How I Met Your Mother was really clever and had a lot better long term story telling than a lot of other shows, ignoring the last season. I remember genuinely laughing at a number of moments too.
Ted wasn’t exactly a great architect though. Obviously, he got his degree, but for all we know, he barely scraped by with passing grades And that would fit with all the stupid stuff he does. Marshall did seem to be a good lawyer, so he was smart in that. But he did so many stupid things outside of his career, that I think it’s close whether he was smart overall or not
I've watched the pilot twice but never got any further
Related evidence elsewhere in the index
What the counts show
The exact phrase “big bang theory” recurs across 4 of the 92 source records in How I Met Your Mother; the complete archive stays available below.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments92 preserved records · 92 of 92 source records accounted for
Archive: 92 index entries preserve 92 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
The OfficeNamed by people who dislike the format itself as much as the show.
Answer card naming the show, what commenters said was wrong with it, and what the people defending it said back: The Office
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
The Office
Claim context: The Office
Why it matters: The complaint in this node is more often about the form than the programme: several commenters say they cannot watch the mockumentary style at all, and name every show that uses it. The show-specific objections are the cruelty of the lead's treatment of one colleague and the pauses to camera.
What readers reported: The Office (US). It took a half decent and well-written premise and turned it into just this side of slop.
Limit: Reported opinion only. Everything in this card is what commenters said about a show they watched; nothing in it is a verdict on the programme, its writers or its cast, and no production or ratings claim made in the thread has been checked.
Counterpoint: The strongest opposing view inside the node is about the adaptation rather than the format: one commenter argues the American version lost the point of the British one by making it warm.
What replies pushed back on1
Both versions, I know a lot of people disagree with me on this but Ricky Gervais just isn't funny he's a arrogant prick who insults you an smiles while doing it and believes he's the smartest man in the room if not the planet for doing so.
Where commenters report limits
It's not the worst but idk just couldn't get into the office after multiple tries
Source-record spotlights
The Office, I hate everything about that show, boring and just stupid.
The Office. It's just not even funny at all.
The office. I’m not saying it should’ve been canned after one season, but it still has a huge following today and I can’t understand why. “Hey isn’t it funny when I do outrageously cruel stuff to my coworker? Isn’t it even funnier when that coworker is portrayed as being on the spectrum?” “Oh my gosh, something awkward just happened, let’s all mug to camera like a YouTube thumbnail for 15 unbroken seconds! So random lol!!”
What the counts show
Within 19 source records, 0 explicitly report a benefit and 1 explicitly report a limit or failure. These are attributed experiences, not effectiveness data.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments19 preserved records · 19 of 19 source records accounted for
Archive: 19 index entries preserve 19 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Modern FamilyShort answers about predictability, and one defence.
Answer card naming the show, what commenters said was wrong with it, and what the people defending it said back: Modern Family
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Modern Family
Claim context: Modern Family
Why it matters: Short answers with one shared complaint: that the family structure was treated as the joke, and that the situations underneath it are predictable. One commenter says the children are written and played badly.
What readers reported: Modern Family. Humorless scenarios do not suddenly become hilarious because the family featured are "unconventional".
Limit: Reported opinion only. Everything in this card is what commenters said about a show they watched; nothing in it is a verdict on the programme, its writers or its cast, and no production or ratings claim made in the thread has been checked.
Counterpoint: One reply in the node defends it on the grounds that the show is built to pay off slowly, and that the characters only work once you know them.
What the replies added2
Comedy is very subjective but I really loved that show, especially once you got to know the characters.
Obviously most don’t but I agree with you. Unlikeable characters, and the kids are all badly written and acted
Source-record spotlights
I just cannot get into Modern Family. I've tried. I hate everything about it. Also, how I met your mother. My man watches it and I just don't get it.
Modern Family. Humorless scenarios do not suddenly become hilarious because the family featured are "unconventional".
Modern Family, The Office, Parks and Rec, anything with that damn mockumetary style.
What the counts show
This report keeps all 11 source records for Modern Family together and surfaces traceable examples without converting anecdotes into proof.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments11 preserved records · 11 of 11 source records accounted for
Archive: 11 index entries preserve 11 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
The MiddleAlmost every record compares it to another show rather than judging it alone.
Answer card naming the show, what commenters said was wrong with it, and what the people defending it said back: The Middle
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
The Middle
Claim context: The Middle
Why it matters: Almost every record here judges it against another show rather than on its own: commenters call it a weaker version of a series with a similar name and describe the resemblance between two of its characters and that show's. The direct complaints are that the mother enables what she then explodes about and that the youngest child exists to move the plot.
What readers reported: The Middle I can't stand any of the characters. -Mom enables the family and then blows up on them for behaviour she is enabling. -Dad is so oblivious to the world around him it's a wonder how he gets dressed in the morning. -Axl sucks. He's just a whinny teenager. No other qualities. -Sue is weirdly obsessive and can't stick with anything long enough to get good at it -Brick is just there for plot convenience. If he isn't acting like rain man he's causing a problem for someone else
Limit: Reported opinion only. Everything in this card is what commenters said about a show they watched; nothing in it is a verdict on the programme, its writers or its cast, and no production or ratings claim made in the thread has been checked.
Counterpoint: It is also used elsewhere in the thread as the safe alternative to the shows people hate, and one commenter defends it precisely for not being a series of jokes about how much a family dislikes each other.
What the replies added2
I feel like it’s a bit of a knock-off to Malcolm in the Middle, but not good.
It also got unfairly compared to Malcolm in the Middle because it had middle in the name, and there were 3 kids (There is Francis, but he was off doing his own plots)
Source-record spotlights
The Middle I can't stand any of the characters. -Mom enables the family and then blows up on them for behaviour she is enabling. -Dad is so oblivious to the world around him it's a wonder how he gets dressed in the morning. -Axl sucks. He's just a whinny teenager. No other qualities. -Sue is weirdly obsessive and can't stick with anything long enough to get good at it -Brick is just there for plot convenience. If he isn't acting like rain man he's causing a problem for someone else
Never understood why "the Middle" got as much as it did. It wasn't that bad, but I never could get past the trying to ride off "Malcolm in the Middle" reputation. That kept me from giving it a chance.
Tbf, the middle is pretty bad too
What the counts show
The exact phrase “malcolm in the middle” recurs across 4 of the 16 source records in The Middle; the complete archive stays available below.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments16 preserved records · 16 of 16 source records accounted for
Archive: 16 index entries preserve 16 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
New GirlAnswers about how the performances read now.
Answer card naming the show, what commenters said was wrong with it, and what the people defending it said back: New Girl
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
New Girl
Claim context: New Girl
Why it matters: The complaint here is about performance and about how the writing reads now: commenters describe the two leads as uncomfortable to watch and the central performance as flat and mannered.
What readers reported: New Girl. It has some funny scenes but the acting is outdated and when you watch Nick and Jess it gets uncomfortable because of how millennial they’re written as and Zooey’s flat weird performance. The show simply aged kinda bad
Limit: Reported opinion only. Everything in this card is what commenters said about a show they watched; nothing in it is a verdict on the programme, its writers or its cast, and no production or ratings claim made in the thread has been checked.
Counterpoint: One record argues the show's strength was every character except the title one, which another commenter rejects on the grounds that all of them were vapid.
What replies pushed back on1
I respectfully disagree. I found them all incredibly vapid and unrelateable.
Source-record spotlights
The greatest strength of New Girl was everyone other than the titular character.
New Girl. It has some funny scenes but the acting is outdated and when you watch Nick and Jess it gets uncomfortable because of how millennial they’re written as and Zooey’s flat weird performance. The show simply aged kinda bad
I respectfully disagree. I found them all incredibly vapid and unrelateable.
What the counts show
This report keeps all 7 source records for New Girl together and surfaces traceable examples without converting anecdotes into proof.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments7 preserved records · 7 of 7 source records accounted for
Archive: 7 index entries preserve 7 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
The RanchThe answer with the most consistent single reason attached to it anywhere in the corpus.
Answer card naming the show, what commenters said was wrong with it, and what the people defending it said back: The Ranch
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
The Ranch
Claim context: The Ranch
Why it matters: The most consistent single reason attached to any answer in the corpus. Record after record names the laughter over the top of it, and several say they assumed on first watching that the show was parodying the device. The other recurring points are that the writing is an old-fashioned sitcom with swearing added, and that it arrived twenty years after the format it was using.
What readers reported: No love for The Ranch? It's unwatchable. The laugh-track is so overbearing that it feels like a parody.
Limit: Reported opinion only. Everything in this card is what commenters said about a show they watched; nothing in it is a verdict on the programme, its writers or its cast, and no production or ratings claim made in the thread has been checked.
Counterpoint: A few commenters describe watching it happily as a guilty pleasure and stopping only because of what later emerged about one of its cast, which is a different reason from the one the rest of the node gives.
What the replies added2
I couldn't make it through one episode mainly because of that stupid laugh track. And I agree that it feels like a parody. I thought they were doing a bit until I realized that it was just an actual laugh track.
Unpopular opinion, but I like laugh tracks as an artifact of a different time, but somehow on a _new_ show on _Netflix_ it felt like it shouldn't exist. Laugh tracks and oldschool TV go together well, they make you feel like you're in the studio audience along with everyone else watching TV at that scheduled time. But on Netflix? Who knows who is watching at that time, it's all discombobulated. They could be watching, they might not be. There's no sense that anyone else is watching across the world, so there is no audience. And likely no studio audience either.
Where commenters report limits
This show is absolute garbage. I hated it before watching an episode so I gave it a chance and sat through 3 and now I hate it even more.
absolutely hated the ranch! I love Sam Elliott, so I gave it 3 episodes. Each one got worse and worse...
Source-record spotlights
No love for The Ranch? It's unwatchable. The laugh-track is so overbearing that it feels like a parody.
absolutely hated the ranch! I love Sam Elliott, so I gave it 3 episodes. Each one got worse and worse...
My dad starting watching the first episode once and it was so bad I was just watching him to see if he would turn it off himself and then had to leave the room when he didn’t.
Related evidence elsewhere in the index
What the counts show
The exact phrase “the first episode” recurs across 4 of the 29 source records in The Ranch; the complete archive stays available below.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments29 preserved records · 29 of 29 source records accounted for
Archive: 29 index entries preserve 29 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
The GoldbergsFour records that agree on where it stopped working.
Answer card naming the show, what commenters said was wrong with it, and what the people defending it said back: The Goldbergs
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
The Goldbergs
Claim context: The Goldbergs
Why it matters: Four records that agree on the shape of the decline: an enjoyable first couple of seasons, then a fixed formula, then characters hardening into caricatures of themselves and a cast change that removed what the commenters say was left.
What readers reported: The Goldbergs was fantastic for all of 2 seasons before dropping into an insanely formulaic, dull pattern with the same plot points every episode, characters becoming a cariacature of themselves. It’s a shame, I was a fan.
Limit: Reported opinion only. Everything in this card is what commenters said about a show they watched; nothing in it is a verdict on the programme, its writers or its cast, and no production or ratings claim made in the thread has been checked.
Counterpoint: Nobody in this node argues the show was always bad; the objection is to how long it continued after it stopped working.
Source-record spotlights
Goldbergs was funny at first, but after a couple seasons just turned into "everybody being loud and shouting all the time" and stopped being as funny. Then the actor who plays the dad got booted and it lost its last funny character.
I couldn’t stand the goldbergs
The Goldbergs was fantastic for all of 2 seasons before dropping into an insanely formulaic, dull pattern with the same plot points every episode, characters becoming a cariacature of themselves. It’s a shame, I was a fan.
What the counts show
Within 4 source records, 1 ask a question and 0 explicitly say they intend to try the idea; neither signal is treated as an outcome.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments4 preserved records · 4 of 4 source records accounted for
Archive: 4 index entries preserve 4 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Schitt's CreekRecords offered as deliberately unpopular opinions, each drawing a reply.
Answer card naming the show, what commenters said was wrong with it, and what the people defending it said back: Schitt's Creek
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Schitt's Creek
Claim context: Schitt's Creek
Why it matters: Offered three times as a deliberately unpopular opinion. The criticism is that the humour comes from the characters being insufferable and from a fish-out-of-water joke that never progresses, and that its reputation is out of proportion to the writing.
What readers reported: This is probably going to be the most unpopular opinion on this thread, but I'll say it anyway - Schitt's Creek. Now, it's definitely not the worst sitcom per se, and from what I've seen over the years it's perceived as universally loved and that is the part that I don't get. It's just so... Mediocre? The writing is lazy and most of the humor derives from the characters being insufferable and "oh boy we sure don't know how to be poor and we'll never learn hyuk hyuk hyuk". And yeah, first and foremost it's a comfort show for a lot of people, I get it. No one is homophobic, everyone is so accepting, it's all rainbows and sunshine and it's all really great for escapism (which is probably even more relevant now than when the show first aired). But as far as I'm concerned, the biggest legacy that Schitt's creek left behind is a bunch of generic reaction gifs.
Limit: Reported opinion only. Everything in this card is what commenters said about a show they watched; nothing in it is a verdict on the programme, its writers or its cast, and no production or ratings claim made in the thread has been checked.
Counterpoint: Each of those records is answered in place. The standing reply is that the characters change substantially over the run and that anyone judging it on the first few episodes has not seen the show the rest of the audience is describing.
What the replies added2
I’d agree with that if you only watched the first few episodes but the characters grew significantly during the show’s run.
its universally loved bc objectively its a great show
Source-record spotlights
This is probably going to be the most unpopular opinion on this thread, but I'll say it anyway - Schitt's Creek. Now, it's definitely not the worst sitcom per se, and from what I've seen over the years it's perceived as universally loved and that is the part that I don't get. It's just so... Mediocre? The writing is lazy and most of the humor derives from the characters being insufferable and "oh boy we sure don't know how to be poor and we'll never learn hyuk hyuk hyuk". And yeah, first and foremost it's a comfort show for a lot of people, I get it. No one is homophobic, everyone is so accepting, it's all rainbows and sunshine and it's all really great for escapism (which is probably even more relevant now than when the show first aired). But as far as I'm concerned, the biggest legacy that Schitt's creek left behind is a bunch of generic reaction gifs.
its universally loved bc objectively its a great show
Schitt's Creek. Watched five episodes and barely laughed. Catherine O'Hara is funny in it granted.
What the counts show
The exact phrase “watched the first” recurs across 2 of the 7 source records in Schitt's Creek; the complete archive stays available below.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments7 preserved records · 7 of 7 source records accounted for
Archive: 7 index entries preserve 7 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Ted LassoNamed by four commenters, one of whom takes it back in the same sentence.
Answer card naming the show, what commenters said was wrong with it, and what the people defending it said back: Ted Lasso
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Ted Lasso
Claim context: Ted Lasso
Why it matters: Four commenters name it, and the objection is to its sincerity: one describes it as relentless niceness turned into a series and cannot account for the affection it attracts.
What readers reported: I will never understand the love for this show. It's just Ned Flanders the tv show.
Limit: Reported opinion only. Everything in this card is what commenters said about a show they watched; nothing in it is a verdict on the programme, its writers or its cast, and no production or ratings claim made in the thread has been checked.
Counterpoint: One of the four records takes it back in the same sentence, and another reply treats the whole answer as heresy, which is roughly the reception these answers get.
What the replies added1
I will never understand the love for this show. It's just Ned Flanders the tv show.
Source-record spotlights
I will never understand the love for this show. It's just Ned Flanders the tv show.
Ted Lasso. Probably an unpopular opinion, but true.
Ted Lasso easily and it's not even really close
What the counts show
This report keeps all 5 source records for Ted Lasso together and surfaces traceable examples without converting anecdotes into proof.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments5 preserved records · 5 of 5 source records accounted for
Archive: 5 index entries preserve 5 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
The comedies Reddit usually defends, named anywayCommunity, Arrested Development, It's Always Sunny, Scrubs, The Good Place and Abbott Elementary, named by people who know the answer is unpopular.
Answer card naming the show, what commenters said was wrong with it, and what the people defending it said back: The comedies Reddit usually defends, named anyway
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
The comedies Reddit usually defends, named anyway
Claim context: The comedies Reddit usually defends, named anyway
Why it matters: Community, Arrested Development, It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Scrubs, The Good Place, Futurama and Abbott Elementary, named by commenters who know the answer will be unpopular where they are posting it. The reasons given are specific rather than blanket: one record objects to a pursuit storyline in an early season, another to a lead performer, another to the show's fanbase rather than the show.
What readers reported: Arrested Development. Unfunny trash catering to terminally online hipsters who think they're too edgy and cool for those "normie" sitcoms that are actually funny.
Limit: Reported opinion only. Everything in this card is what commenters said about a show they watched; nothing in it is a verdict on the programme, its writers or its cast, and no production or ratings claim made in the thread has been checked.
Counterpoint: The replies push back with the same move each time — that the objection is to an early season the show grows out of — and one commenter says they may try it again on that basis.
What the replies added1
Futurama. Did nothing for me.
Where commenters report limits
Futurama. Did nothing for me.
Source-record spotlights
i can’t do scrubs. my parents love it (and the reboot) but i just can’t do it. i also just really dislike zach braff.
Futurama. Did nothing for me.
Arrested Development. Unfunny trash catering to terminally online hipsters who think they're too edgy and cool for those "normie" sitcoms that are actually funny.
What the counts show
The exact phrase “the good place” recurs across 2 of the 11 source records in The comedies Reddit usually defends, named anyway; the complete archive stays available below.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments11 preserved records · 11 of 11 source records accounted for
Archive: 11 index entries preserve 11 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
The sitcoms people grew up onWhere the complaint is almost always the same one: it did not survive a rewatch. 104 records.
Full HouseThe clearest rewatch answer in the thread, and the people who say children were never a demanding audience.
Answer card naming the show, what commenters said was wrong with it, and what the people defending it said back: Full House
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Full House
Claim context: Full House
Why it matters: The clearest rewatch answer in the thread. Commenters who liked it as children describe going back to it and finding the sentiment, the music and the resolution of every problem inside twenty minutes unbearable. Several place it inside the Friday-night children's block it belonged to and say the whole slot was built to be saccharine rather than funny.
What readers reported: This is going to piss a lot of you off, especially elder Millennials, but *Full House* was just straight garbage. Painful to watch. It’s nostalgia for most people, I imagine, but as someone who was a young adult when it aired, it was excruciating to watch.
Limit: Reported opinion only. Everything in this card is what commenters said about a show they watched; nothing in it is a verdict on the programme, its writers or its cast, and no production or ratings claim made in the thread has been checked.
Counterpoint: The nearest thing to a defence is an explanation rather than an argument: that children are not discerning about comedy, and that the audience it was made for got exactly what it wanted.
What the replies added2
As a kid I enjoyed it but im not sure I'd like it now
It was a Disney sitcom before Disney sitcoms existed. My dad hated it, and my 9-year-old self couldn't figure out why. My 46-year-old self COMPLETELY understands.
Where commenters report limits
I hated it even as a child, lol. It just wasn't funny and the characters annoyed me.
It was at its peak popularity when I was elementary school age, and even THEN I hated it. I thought the characters were annoying and the storylines were uninteresting. I remember one episode where Michelle has a meltdown because one of her little cousins doesn't know how to use a swing set, and even at that age, I was like, "The fuck is this shit?"
Source-record spotlights
This is going to piss a lot of you off, especially elder Millennials, but *Full House* was just straight garbage. Painful to watch. It’s nostalgia for most people, I imagine, but as someone who was a young adult when it aired, it was excruciating to watch.
Full House; Two and a Half Men
Full House was a rip-off of "Three Men and a Baby" but ... with more kids. It had some good stuff, but overall, if you really think about it... a single dad has is brother and friend move in with his pre-teen daughters... Yeah. That script would not fly these days.
What the counts show
The exact phrase “one episode where” recurs across 2 of the 22 source records in Full House; the complete archive stays available below.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments22 preserved records · 22 of 22 source records accounted for
Archive: 22 index entries preserve 22 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Family MattersOne character, and what commenters say happened to the show around him.
Answer card naming the show, what commenters said was wrong with it, and what the people defending it said back: Family Matters
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Family Matters
Claim context: Family Matters
Why it matters: One character, and what commenters say happened to the show around him. The recurring account is that a one-off part took the series over and that everything else in it was mediocre enough to be forgotten if he had not.
What readers reported: 100%. It was a mediocre sitcom that would have gotten a season or two and been forgotten if it hadn’t become the Steve Urkel Show.
Limit: Reported opinion only. Everything in this card is what commenters said about a show they watched; nothing in it is a verdict on the programme, its writers or its cast, and no production or ratings claim made in the thread has been checked.
Counterpoint: One commenter in the node says they liked the father's later storyline, which is the only part of the show anybody here defends on its own terms.
What replies pushed back on1
Family Matters. Yeah that sitcom was definitely overrated.
Where commenters report limits
Family Matters. Yeah that sitcom was definitely overrated.
Source-record spotlights
Family Matters. A one off character was able to completely take over the show.
As much as I want submit Family Matters, I simply can't disagree with this
Family Matters. It was utterly mediocre until Urkel stole the show and they hung rheir hat on him. It was The Urkel Show after that and was astonishingly annoying
What the counts show
Within 11 source records, 0 explicitly report a benefit and 1 explicitly report a limit or failure. These are attributed experiences, not effectiveness data.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments11 preserved records · 11 of 11 source records accounted for
Archive: 11 index entries preserve 11 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Happy DaysAnswers that put the show's success down to when it aired rather than what was in it.
Answer card naming the show, what commenters said was wrong with it, and what the people defending it said back: Happy Days
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Happy Days
Claim context: Happy Days
Why it matters: Answers that explain the show by when it aired rather than by what was in it. Commenters describe it riding a wave of nostalgia for the decade before it, and one who was the right age for it says he never understood the draw at the time either. The other complaint is length: that it continued long past the point where its characters made sense.
What readers reported: Happy Days rode the wave of 1950’s nostalgia that was popular in the 1970’s. Same with Grease and Sha Na Na. All the War babies/early boomers that grew up in the 50’s loved those shows and the “simpler times”
Limit: Reported opinion only. Everything in this card is what commenters said about a show they watched; nothing in it is a verdict on the programme, its writers or its cast, and no production or ratings claim made in the thread has been checked.
Counterpoint: Nobody in this node defends it, though one commenter is fond of the first couple of seasons before the drop-off they describe.
What the replies added2
I liked the first couple of seasons, but lost interest very quickly. And it just went on and on and on for way too long. You know the show got weird when the motorcycle riding rebel character who was introduced wearing a windbreaker because the network was nervous about the guy wearing a black leather jacket ends the series as a happily married family man with a wife and kid.
I graduated from high school in 1977, so Happy Days was huge for my cohort of kids. I never understood the draw.
Source-record spotlights
Happy Days. I loved it as a kid so I watched a few episodes this year and found nothing funny about it.
Happy Days. What was wrong with us back then?
Happy Days rode the wave of 1950’s nostalgia that was popular in the 1970’s. Same with Grease and Sha Na Na. All the War babies/early boomers that grew up in the 50’s loved those shows and the “simpler times”
What the counts show
Within 5 source records, 1 explicitly report a benefit and 0 explicitly report a limit or failure. These are attributed experiences, not effectiveness data.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments5 preserved records · 5 of 5 source records accounted for
Archive: 5 index entries preserve 5 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Sitcoms from before 1980The oldest answers in the corpus, several of them offered as corrections to a thread the commenter thinks is too young.
Answer card naming the show, what commenters said was wrong with it, and what the people defending it said back: Sitcoms from before 1980
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Sitcoms from before 1980
Claim context: Sitcoms from before 1980
Why it matters: The oldest answers in the corpus, several of them offered as corrections to a thread the commenter thinks is too young to be having this argument. Gilligan's Island, Hogan's Heroes, Welcome Back Kotter, I Dream of Jeannie, The Beverly Hillbillies, Alice and My Mother the Car all appear. The recurring complaints are catchphrase-driven writing, padding, and attitudes to women that commenters say are startling even allowing for the period.
What readers reported: You people are too young. Try to sit through episodes of Father Knows Best or I Dream of Jeannie or The Danny Thomas Show TV comedy mostly sucked back then. Even nostalgia can't save it.
Limit: Reported opinion only. Everything in this card is what commenters said about a show they watched; nothing in it is a verdict on the programme, its writers or its cast, and no production or ratings claim made in the thread has been checked.
Counterpoint: The counter-argument inside the node is that there was nothing else on: two commenters say they knew the show was stupid as children and watched it because the household had three channels.
What the replies added2
That was some bizarre shit. Consider that was in the Sigmund & the Sea Monster era and you have to wonder what Hollywood was smoking.
I loved I dream of jeannie as a kid,, now I watch it and am blown away with his sexist it really was, even for back then. As well as Bewitched.
Source-record spotlights
I don't think the show itself was particularly terrible, but man was Hogan's Heroes ever a wild idea for a sitcom.
Welcome Back Kotter. As an adult seeing it I can’t believe how stupid it was
*The Beverly Hillbillies.*
What the counts show
The exact phrase “welcome back kotter” recurs across 2 of the 22 source records in Sitcoms from before 1980; the complete archive stays available below.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments22 preserved records · 22 of 22 source records accounted for
Archive: 22 index entries preserve 22 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
The kids' channel sitcomsDisney and Nickelodeon live action, named by people who watched it second-hand.
Answer card naming the show, what commenters said was wrong with it, and what the people defending it said back: The kids' channel sitcoms
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
The kids' channel sitcoms
Claim context: The kids' channel sitcoms
Why it matters: Disney and Nickelodeon live action, named mostly by adults who encountered it second-hand. The complaint is the performance style — pitched loud and broad — and one record calls the whole later Nickelodeon output unsettling to watch now.
What readers reported: Any of those over the top kid sitcoms that aired on the Disney channel. I know they are for kids and I know a lot of people have nostalgia for them but have you ever babysat with one of those playing in the background? They are rough. People of my age knew our sitcoms were bad and never revisit them. Looking at you Small Wonder.
Limit: Reported opinion only. Everything in this card is what commenters said about a show they watched; nothing in it is a verdict on the programme, its writers or its cast, and no production or ratings claim made in the thread has been checked.
Counterpoint: The same commenter who names them concedes the nostalgia is real and that the shows were not made for the person complaining about them.
Source-record spotlights
Any of those over the top kid sitcoms that aired on the Disney channel. I know they are for kids and I know a lot of people have nostalgia for them but have you ever babysat with one of those playing in the background? They are rough. People of my age knew our sitcoms were bad and never revisit them. Looking at you Small Wonder.
Eww, and all the Nickelodeon after 1999.
Boy meets world. Show sucked. Really fucking sucked.
What the counts show
Within 7 source records, 1 ask a question and 0 explicitly say they intend to try the idea; neither signal is treated as an outcome.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments7 preserved records · 7 of 7 source records accounted for
Archive: 7 index entries preserve 7 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
British and Irish televisionOne British answer dominates the whole thread; the rest of these records are the company it keeps. 137 records.
Mrs Brown's BoysThe largest single-show answer outside the CBS block and the most one-sided, with the defence coming almost entirely second-hand.
Answer card naming the show, what commenters said was wrong with it, and what the people defending it said back: Mrs Brown's Boys
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Mrs Brown's Boys
Claim context: Mrs Brown's Boys
Why it matters: The most one-sided answer in the corpus and the largest outside the American network shows. The complaint is remarkably uniform: that the central joke is a man in a dress, that it would have been current about fifty years earlier, and that the show is performed rather than written. A second strand is sociological rather than critical — commenters describe older relatives loving it, in-laws putting it on at Christmas, and the gap between the audience it has and the audience arguing about it. Its poll win as the century's best British sitcom is quoted several times as evidence for the prosecution.
What readers reported: Man dressed up as a woman in an Irish accent cracks jokes that may have been funny in the 1970s. Somehow its been going in one way or another for fifteen years.
Limit: Reported opinion only. Everything in this card is what commenters said about a show they watched; nothing in it is a verdict on the programme, its writers or its cast, and no production or ratings claim made in the thread has been checked.
Counterpoint: Almost every defence in this node is reported second-hand: parents, grandparents and fathers-in-law who love it. Two commenters defend it directly — one saying it fills a gap left by the disappearance of multi-camera studio comedy, and one saying that if a comedy is not aimed at you, not finding it funny proves nothing.
What the replies added4
I was stunned at how overrated it was
I kid you not, I broke up with a guy because he told me he went to see the live show with his ex. We'd not been dating long, and it just immediately gave me the ick.
Think you'll be happy to hear the 2026 Christmas/2027 NY MBB specials have been cancelled. Not under the best circumstances though; Brendan O'Carroll broke his jaw in 2 places and needs surgery and a few months of recovery (not fun for anyone) so they had to suspend filming
It gets used as cruel and unusual punishment against our will here in the UK every Christmas (except for this year bc the main character broke his jaw or something)
Where commenters report limits
I was stunned at how overrated it was
Source-record spotlights
My mum once rang me and thanked me for recommending it to her. I told her I hadn't. She was insistent that I had told her it was really funny, and she and my dad agreed. To this day I wonder if she'd been replaced with a changeling, or if she'd met mine?...
Mrs Brown’s Boys. Never seen something so painfully unfunny. I’m confused as to how it’s still on TV.
It’s comedy for ASDA and Iceland shoppers
Related evidence elsewhere in the index
What the counts show
Across 118 source records, the most common observable tactic structure is “Attach it to an existing routine” (2 records). This is a wording pattern, not a measured outcome.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Observable tactic structures
Counts show source records whose wording matches the tactic structure; biological explanations remain commenter claims unless separately checked below.
Browse the original comments118 preserved records · 118 of 118 source records accounted for
Archive: 118 index entries preserve 118 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Gavin & StaceyThree records about a finale that drew twelve million viewers.
Answer card naming the show, what commenters said was wrong with it, and what the people defending it said back: Gavin & Stacey
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Gavin & Stacey
Claim context: Gavin & Stacey
Why it matters: Three records about a show whose finale drew a live audience of millions. The complaint is that it is neither funny nor eventful enough to explain that, and two of the three commenters could not finish more than a couple of episodes.
What readers reported: I really did not find Gavin and Stacey funny (couldn't get past like 1, maybe 2 episodes) yet over 12m people tuned in liveto watch the 2024 finale. I appreciate people have different tastes; my brother and SIL really enjoy it, my BIL is of the same opinion as me.
Limit: Reported opinion only. Everything in this card is what commenters said about a show they watched; nothing in it is a verdict on the programme, its writers or its cast, and no production or ratings claim made in the thread has been checked.
Counterpoint: One of the three says the story had real potential and that they wanted to like it, and another notes that people close to them enjoy it, which is as far as the defence goes here.
What the replies added1
I wanted to like it but couldn’t finish it. The story had great potential.
Source-record spotlights
I really did not find Gavin and Stacey funny (couldn't get past like 1, maybe 2 episodes) yet over 12m people tuned in liveto watch the 2024 finale. I appreciate people have different tastes; my brother and SIL really enjoy it, my BIL is of the same opinion as me.
I wanted to like it but couldn’t finish it. The story had great potential.
Gavin and Stacy. Unfunny. Boring. Complete waste of my time watching two episodes. How it gets all the hype, I'll never know.
What the counts show
This report keeps all 3 source records for Gavin & Stacey together and surfaces traceable examples without converting anecdotes into proof.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments3 preserved records · 3 of 3 source records accounted for
Archive: 3 index entries preserve 3 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Little BritainTwo records making the same repetition complaint.
Answer card naming the show, what commenters said was wrong with it, and what the people defending it said back: Little Britain
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Little Britain
Claim context: Little Britain
Why it matters: Two records making the same complaint: that the show is built entirely from recurring catchphrase characters, so that one episode is functionally every episode.
What readers reported: Little Britain. If you’ve seen one episode, you’ve literally seen EVERY episode.
Limit: Reported opinion only. Everything in this card is what commenters said about a show they watched; nothing in it is a verdict on the programme, its writers or its cast, and no production or ratings claim made in the thread has been checked.
Counterpoint: Nobody in the corpus argues back against this one.
Source-record spotlights
Little Britain. If you’ve seen one episode, you’ve literally seen EVERY episode.
Little Britain
What the counts show
This report keeps all 2 source records for Little Britain together and surfaces traceable examples without converting anecdotes into proof.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments2 preserved records · 2 of 2 source records accounted for
Archive: 2 index entries preserve 2 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Other British sitcomsThe rest of the British answers, most of them named once.
Answer card naming the show, what commenters said was wrong with it, and what the people defending it said back: Other British sitcoms
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Other British sitcoms
Claim context: Other British sitcoms
Why it matters: The rest of the British and Irish answers, most named once: Are You Being Served?, On The Buses, My Family, My Hero, Not Going Out, Two Pints of Lager, Two Doors Down, Big Top, Citizen Khan and Count Arthur Strong. The recurring complaint is repetition and length — several of these records are surprised by how many series the show got rather than by any one episode.
What readers reported: My Hero-Starring Ardal O Hanlon. I can't believe it went on for six seasons! Unfunny tripe.
Limit: Reported opinion only. Everything in this card is what commenters said about a show they watched; nothing in it is a verdict on the programme, its writers or its cast, and no production or ratings claim made in the thread has been checked.
Counterpoint: The IT Crowd appears here too, named by a single commenter, which is the closest this group comes to a contested answer.
What the replies added2
Because it was written by hit maker Graham Linehan (Father Ted, Blackbooks), he could get anything greenlit until he decided to become an authority on gender and online politeness.
Count Arthur Strong was insufferable on the radio too. I don't know how it got commissioned for TV.
Source-record spotlights
There was also the "retro sitcoms" Citizen Khan and Count Arthur Strong.
My Family… I loved that show when I was younger.
Are You Being Served? What the hell is wrong with British people?
What the counts show
The exact phrase “count arthur strong” recurs across 2 of the 14 source records in Other British sitcoms; the complete archive stays available below.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments14 preserved records · 14 of 14 source records accounted for
Archive: 14 index entries preserve 14 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Cartoons and puppets counted as sitcomsAnimated and puppet shows commenters counted as sitcoms anyway. 16 records.
Family GuyAnswers that rank it against the rest of its own studio's output.
Answer card naming the show, what commenters said was wrong with it, and what the people defending it said back: Family Guy
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Family Guy
Claim context: Family Guy
Why it matters: Four records that rank it against the rest of its own studio's output rather than against sitcoms generally, and conclude it is the weakest of them while having outlasted several of the shows they prefer.
What readers reported: Family guy. It isn't even close to the best animated sitcom. Even in the world of Seth MacFarlane. American dad is way better. As is Bob's burgers, the great North, Rick and Morty, and solar opposites. Yet it has survived half those shows....why?????
Limit: Reported opinion only. Everything in this card is what commenters said about a show they watched; nothing in it is a verdict on the programme, its writers or its cast, and no production or ratings claim made in the thread has been checked.
Counterpoint: One commenter reports having loved it when they were younger, which is the only warmth in the group.
Source-record spotlights
Family guy. It isn't even close to the best animated sitcom. Even in the world of Seth MacFarlane. American dad is way better. As is Bob's burgers, the great North, Rick and Morty, and solar opposites. Yet it has survived half those shows....why?????
Family guy was always garbage. American Dad was a bit better.
I really loved it when I was younger, but Family Guy.
What the counts show
Within 4 source records, 1 ask a question and 0 explicitly say they intend to try the idea; neither signal is treated as an outcome.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments4 preserved records · 4 of 4 source records accounted for
Archive: 4 index entries preserve 4 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
The SimpsonsAlmost all of these records are about longevity rather than the early seasons.
Answer card naming the show, what commenters said was wrong with it, and what the people defending it said back: The Simpsons
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
The Simpsons
Claim context: The Simpsons
Why it matters: Almost all of these records are about longevity rather than the early seasons. Commenters describe a show that reshaped television around itself, declined for a long time, and continues because the brand still sells; one dates the drop to a specific season and another names the point at which it should have stopped.
What readers reported: It was such a juggernaut in its early years that it totally reshaped the television landscape around itself. Despite its long decline and having left the spotlight, it remains an incredibly recognizable brand that can move merch and sell ad spots. And they figured out how to make it on the cheap, which is why it now looks like that.
Limit: Reported opinion only. Everything in this card is what commenters said about a show they watched; nothing in it is a verdict on the programme, its writers or its cast, and no production or ratings claim made in the thread has been checked.
Counterpoint: Two records go further and say they have never liked it at all, which the rest of the node does not engage with.
What replies pushed back on1
If you ask me, a good point for Simpsons to bow out would've been after Simpsons Movie was finished producing. But nope of course Fox had to run Simpsons into the ground. The decline was starting to become evident around season 11. This all said, the older seasons for the most part are really great to watch. I'd say after about Trilogy of Error in season 12(one of the last interesting episodes I recall watching), it doesn't stand out and it turns into crap. The show even started to turn away from how the characters made the show fun to watch. I.e. changing how Homer Simpsons character was like for the worse, list goes on. There's a good reason the later seasons(after about season 11-13, it starts to become not as watchable around then) were all once nicknamed by a poster on the No Homers Simpsons message board years ago as 'zombie Simpsons'. Totally agree with the Zombie Simpsons term for the later seasons. Yes that is the hill I've long stood on whenever I've unsuccessfully attempted to watch later and newer Simpsons episodes.
Source-record spotlights
I don’t know how The Simpsons has made it so long.
Yep you're indeed right that cheapening the cost of new episodes, dumbing down the quality of new episodes, and only continuing the show to sell new merchandise have to be the biggest reasons Simpsons continues on.
The Simpsons. I can’t stand that show and have always hated it despite how many episodes I’ve watched.
What the counts show
This report keeps all 7 source records for The Simpsons together and surfaces traceable examples without converting anecdotes into proof.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments7 preserved records · 7 of 7 source records accounted for
Archive: 7 index entries preserve 7 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
DinosaursOne rewatch answer and the replies working out why it did not hold up.
Answer card naming the show, what commenters said was wrong with it, and what the people defending it said back: Dinosaurs
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Dinosaurs
Claim context: Dinosaurs
Why it matters: One rewatch answer and the replies working out why it did not hold up. The commenter remembers it as hilarious and found the pacing and the jokes stale on return; the replies agree the writing was the weak part while praising the puppetry and design, and one suggests the datedness of the humour was the intention.
What readers reported: Dinosaurs. A lot of people might be too young to remember that sitcom. I myself was just a little kid and I ended up re-watching it when I got to my twenties because I remember it being hilarious as a little kid..... And it was the hardest thing to watch. Everything in the show is absolutely awful. The pacing is terrible, the jokes are incredibly stale, nothing about it aged well and to be honest, I don't even think it was that good when it aired. It was just novel, because it was about dinosaurs.
Limit: Reported opinion only. Everything in this card is what commenters said about a show they watched; nothing in it is a verdict on the programme, its writers or its cast, and no production or ratings claim made in the thread has been checked.
Counterpoint: The group's own qualification is that the show was novel rather than good, and that the ending is the part everybody remembers.
What the replies added1
I felt like the humor was intentionally anachronistic because they were dinosaurs. Vaudeville-esq jokes, and played out sitcom tropes were supposed to make you roll your eyes and chuckle at how corny and out of date they were, just like dinosaurs. Which didn't work for me either. I concur, bad show.
Where commenters report limits
I felt like the humor was intentionally anachronistic because they were dinosaurs. Vaudeville-esq jokes, and played out sitcom tropes were supposed to make you roll your eyes and chuckle at how corny and out of date they were, just like dinosaurs. Which didn't work for me either. I concur, bad show.
Source-record spotlights
I felt like the humor was intentionally anachronistic because they were dinosaurs. Vaudeville-esq jokes, and played out sitcom tropes were supposed to make you roll your eyes and chuckle at how corny and out of date they were, just like dinosaurs. Which didn't work for me either. I concur, bad show.
I fully agree with that assessment. It could have been a gem but the writing just wasn't there.
I think the show has redeeming qualities. It’s wonderful to look at. Jim Henson’s team did a wonderful job with the costuming and set design. It also borrows from the Flintstones, but doesn’t feel entirely derivative. It was very unique and had a great aesthetic, but in the same breath felt totally unsustainable. Still, there isn’t anything quite like it. Maybe the sea-monkeys show? But the writing really let this show down. It was just unfunny, uncreative and really bland. Felt like they had a really great idea but had no idea how to make it interesting beyond the pilot. The ending was pretty funny though.
What the counts show
Within 5 source records, 0 explicitly report a benefit and 1 explicitly report a limit or failure. These are attributed experiences, not effectiveness data.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments5 preserved records · 5 of 5 source records accounted for
Archive: 5 index entries preserve 5 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Answers that were not sitcoms at allRecords that answer the question with a drama, a reality show or a sketch series, several of them saying so themselves. 37 records.
SuitsThe longest not-a-sitcom answer in the corpus, and the only one with professionals in the replies.
Answer card naming the show, what commenters said was wrong with it, and what the people defending it said back: Suits
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Suits
Claim context: Suits
Why it matters: The longest not-a-sitcom answer in the corpus, and the commenter says so themselves halfway through. The complaint is that every season repeats the same secret, that the premise could have been dissolved by the character going to law school, and that the dialogue is people entering rooms to say something dramatic and leaving. It is the only answer with professionals in the replies: several lawyers call it unwatchable.
What readers reported: Suits - was recommended by multiple people who said they've watched through it MULTIPLE times, but every season is just a rehash of "how do we not get in trouble for having this non-lawyer do lawyer things" to the point of absurdity. It would have just been easier to have him paralegal and go to night school? And then the non-lawyer ends ups leaving before the last 2 seasons and you get stuck with Katherine Heigl. \*Edit - I just realized this post says sitcom, so I guess Suits doesn't technically qualify, but I'm going to stand by it.
Limit: Reported opinion only. Everything in this card is what commenters said about a show they watched; nothing in it is a verdict on the programme, its writers or its cast, and no production or ratings claim made in the thread has been checked.
Counterpoint: The defenders do not argue it is accurate. They say it is enjoyable precisely as nonsense, that the cast is charismatic, and one legal worker watches it as a comedy.
What the replies added2
As a lawyer it’s genuinely completely unwatchable. Oddly enough (and every lawyer that’s seen it will tell you the same), the only fictitious legal show/movie with any semblance of realism is My Cousin Vinny.
Suits was good because mostly everyone was insanely hot and charismatic lol. Thats about it 😂
Where commenters report limits
First season was pretty good, but it genuinely got worse and worse and worse, especially once it became clear they had exactly one idea.
Source-record spotlights
Suits - was recommended by multiple people who said they've watched through it MULTIPLE times, but every season is just a rehash of "how do we not get in trouble for having this non-lawyer do lawyer things" to the point of absurdity. It would have just been easier to have him paralegal and go to night school? And then the non-lawyer ends ups leaving before the last 2 seasons and you get stuck with Katherine Heigl. \*Edit - I just realized this post says sitcom, so I guess Suits doesn't technically qualify, but I'm going to stand by it.
Thank you for an actual original answer. I do enjoy Suits only because I watch it as a comedy since I was a legal aid for years. My favorite thing ever was a spoof of Oprah’s Megan Markle interview asking her how she believably played a paralegal who got a legal patent in a day and “Meghan” said “I think about this every day”. It’s absolutely ridiculous but as other commenters have said the cast is so pretty and charismatic that it’s an enjoyable watch
I'm reaching that point with this show, and I've only watched season 1. The actual cases and solves are pretty interesting, but the lengths they go to keep the tension of Mike's situation is already getting annoying. Donna is the only part of the show I still enjoy.
Related evidence elsewhere in the index
What the counts show
Across 19 source records, the most common observable tactic structure is “Turn it into a game” (3 records). This is a wording pattern, not a measured outcome.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Observable tactic structures
Counts show source records whose wording matches the tactic structure; biological explanations remain commenter claims unless separately checked below.
Browse the original comments19 preserved records · 19 of 19 source records accounted for
Archive: 19 index entries preserve 19 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Yellowstone and the Taylor Sheridan showsFour records, each of them told they are in the wrong thread.
Answer card naming the show, what commenters said was wrong with it, and what the people defending it said back: Yellowstone and the Taylor Sheridan shows
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Yellowstone and the Taylor Sheridan shows
Claim context: Yellowstone and the Taylor Sheridan shows
Why it matters: Four records, each told they are in the wrong thread. The objection is that the shows are violence and posturing without the storytelling to carry them, and one commenter describes a year of second-hand exposure to one of the spin-offs.
What readers reported: Yellowstone Its just testosterone. Violence and guns without the quality of storytelling.
Limit: Reported opinion only. Everything in this card is what commenters said about a show they watched; nothing in it is a verdict on the programme, its writers or its cast, and no production or ratings claim made in the thread has been checked.
Counterpoint: The only reply these get is a correction that they are not sitcoms, which the commenters mostly accept.
What the replies added2
They are the absolute worst, but they are not Sitcoms.
I stayed with someone who watched Lioness, for like a year while I got back on my feet and it may be the worst shitty show i have ever seen.
Source-record spotlights
Every Taylor Sheridan show
I stayed with someone who watched Lioness, for like a year while I got back on my feet and it may be the worst shitty show i have ever seen.
Yellowstone Its just testosterone. Violence and guns without the quality of storytelling.
What the counts show
This report keeps all 4 source records for Yellowstone and the Taylor Sheridan shows together and surfaces traceable examples without converting anecdotes into proof.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments4 preserved records · 4 of 4 source records accounted for
Archive: 4 index entries preserve 4 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
The rest of the not-a-sitcom answersDramas, reality shows and a sketch series offered as answers anyway.
Answer card naming the show, what commenters said was wrong with it, and what the people defending it said back: The rest of the not-a-sitcom answers
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
The rest of the not-a-sitcom answers
Claim context: The rest of the not-a-sitcom answers
Why it matters: Dramas, reality shows and a sketch series offered as answers anyway: Lost, Glee, Gilmore Girls, Grey's Anatomy, Girls, This Is Us, Keeping Up with the Kardashians, The Apprentice, Ally McBeal and Saturday Night Live. Several are prefaced by the commenter admitting it does not qualify. The recurring complaint is the ratio: that the show's reception is out of proportion to what is in it, which is the thread's actual question even where the genre is wrong.
What readers reported: Keeping up with the kardashians The IMDb ratings are abysmal, yet they renewed it. Meanwhile Firefly only had 1 season.
Limit: Reported opinion only. Everything in this card is what commenters said about a show they watched; nothing in it is a verdict on the programme, its writers or its cast, and no production or ratings claim made in the thread has been checked.
Counterpoint: The pushback is procedural rather than about quality — commenters point out that the answer is not a sitcom — except on the sketch show, where one reply dates the decline to a specific era rather than dismissing the whole run.
What the replies added1
The Will Farrel years were the start of the downfall. It’s was great before then.
Source-record spotlights
Keeping up with the kardashians The IMDb ratings are abysmal, yet they renewed it. Meanwhile Firefly only had 1 season.
Gilmore girls. I despise that show. Lorelai & Rori. Absolutely trash.
Not a sitcom but....SNL is, and always has been, unfunny dogshit.
What the counts show
The exact phrase “a couple episodes” recurs across 2 of the 14 source records in The rest of the not-a-sitcom answers; the complete archive stays available below.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments14 preserved records · 14 of 14 source records accounted for
Archive: 14 index entries preserve 14 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Answers that named a rule instead of a showThe commenters who refused to pick a title and named a property instead. 25 records.
Anything with a laugh trackThe thread's most-repeated property complaint, and the records arguing about whether it is a laugh track at all.
Answer card naming the show, what commenters said was wrong with it, and what the people defending it said back: Anything with a laugh track
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Anything with a laugh track
Claim context: Anything with a laugh track
Why it matters: The thread's most-repeated property complaint: commenters who refuse to name a title and answer with the device instead. The argument they make is that recorded laughter substitutes for writing, tells the viewer when to respond, and that removing it from a clip exposes what was underneath.
What readers reported: For me it's anything with a laugh track added in. In the 1960s this was understandable. Today? Unforgivable. Nothing with a laugh track added should have lasted more than 1 season in my opinin, and yes I will die on that hill. Downvote away, I do not care.
Limit: Reported opinion only. Everything in this card is what commenters said about a show they watched; nothing in it is a verdict on the programme, its writers or its cast, and no production or ratings claim made in the thread has been checked.
Counterpoint: The rebuttal appears in this node and in every large show node: that most of the programmes being accused were filmed in front of live audiences, that the pauses are timing rather than padding, and that stripping the laughter out of any studio comedy would produce the same effect regardless of quality. That in turn is answered by commenters who say a live audience told when to laugh is not meaningfully different.
What the replies added2
Always Sunny is another "watch shitty people be shitty" show in the vein of Seinfeld, just without a laugh track.
IASIP is a direct parody of all the sitcoms. Dialed up to 11.
Source-record spotlights
Wouldn't that be true of any show with a laugh track, though?
Anything with a laugh track.
Is there a good show with a laugh track from the last 20 years? Ever?
What the counts show
Within 14 source records, 3 ask a question and 0 explicitly say they intend to try the idea; neither signal is treated as an outcome.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments14 preserved records · 14 of 14 source records accounted for
Archive: 14 index entries preserve 14 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
All of themRecords that refuse to name a title and condemn the form.
Answer card naming the show, what commenters said was wrong with it, and what the people defending it said back: All of them
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
All of them
Claim context: All of them
Why it matters: Records that refuse to name a title and condemn the form. The reasons given vary widely — shouting as a substitute for jokes, the shows as social conditioning, or simply that the genre is tolerated rather than enjoyed.
What readers reported: There aren’t any good sitcoms. Sitcoms are tolerated.
Limit: Reported opinion only. Everything in this card is what commenters said about a show they watched; nothing in it is a verdict on the programme, its writers or its cast, and no production or ratings claim made in the thread has been checked.
Counterpoint: The thread's own answer to these is that the question asked which one, and that a blanket verdict on the form does not distinguish between the shows people are actually arguing about.
Source-record spotlights
At least halve of them.
Every american sitcom
All of them. It’s just propaganda and conditioning for the patriarchy.
What the counts show
This report keeps all 7 source records for All of them together and surfaces traceable examples without converting anecdotes into proof.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments7 preserved records · 7 of 7 source records accounted for
Archive: 7 index entries preserve 7 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
The shows that simply ran too longThe diagnosis a few commenters offer instead of an answer.
Answer card naming the show, what commenters said was wrong with it, and what the people defending it said back: The shows that simply ran too long
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
The shows that simply ran too long
Claim context: The shows that simply ran too long
Why it matters: The diagnosis a few commenters offer instead of an answer: that most of the shows being named had one or two decent seasons and that the fault is a network that could not tell when to stop. One record points out how many of the titles in the thread ran for a decade and made money doing it.
What readers reported: I agree these shows are terrible, but a majority of them had 1 or 2 good seasons in the beginning. The problem seems to be, network TV is clueless as too: a: when to end a show! b: really out of touch with the majority of viewers, clueless as to what to replace shows with. They need to find a way , to found out what viewers want that’s not AI. Because otherwise we just get another spinoff of NCIS to take the time slot.
Limit: Reported opinion only. Everything in this card is what commenters said about a show they watched; nothing in it is a verdict on the programme, its writers or its cast, and no production or ratings claim made in the thread has been checked.
Counterpoint: The related claim in this group — that the shows which last are carried by good actors or by attractive ones rather than by writing — is asserted rather than argued, and nothing in the thread tests it.
Source-record spotlights
I agree these shows are terrible, but a majority of them had 1 or 2 good seasons in the beginning. The problem seems to be, network TV is clueless as too: a: when to end a show! b: really out of touch with the majority of viewers, clueless as to what to replace shows with. They need to find a way , to found out what viewers want that’s not AI. Because otherwise we just get another spinoff of NCIS to take the time slot.
The sitcoms that actually do well despite bad story lines are the ones with actually good actors who give their character character. Or they have some eye candy. Or both.
Is there one that didn’t go on too long?
What the counts show
Within 4 source records, 1 ask a question and 0 explicitly say they intend to try the idea; neither signal is treated as an outcome.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments4 preserved records · 4 of 4 source records accounted for
Archive: 4 index entries preserve 4 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
The long tailEvery show named by one or two records, kept whole rather than summarised away. 46 records.
The one-vote answersEvery show named by one or two records: Becker, Wings, Titus, Reba, The Nanny, Mid-Century Modern and the rest of the long tail.
Answer card naming the show, what commenters said was wrong with it, and what the people defending it said back: The one-vote answers
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
The one-vote answers
Claim context: The one-vote answers
Why it matters: Every show named by one or two records, kept whole rather than summarised away: Becker, Wings, Titus, Reba, The Nanny, My Name Is Earl, Letterkenny, Grounded for Life, Just Shoot Me, The Drew Carey Show, Mad About You, One Day at a Time, Yes Dear, The Neighborhood, Mid-Century Modern, Call Me Kat, Shifting Gears, Whitney, Mulaney, House of Payne, The Mindy Project, The Wonder Years, Happy Endings and That 70s Show among them. The complaints are as varied as the list, but two recur: a show that lasted far longer than anyone around the commenter watched it, and a lead whose unkindness the show framed as charm.
What readers reported: Becker. I don’t think it was ever POPULAR, but it lasted longer than it should have. The premise: Ted Danson is mean to everyone. The people in his life (including a blind man) don’t deserve to be punchlines, but he treats them like they are. I hated Ted Danson for a LONG time because of that show. It took me ages to separate the actor from the material.
Limit: Reported opinion only. Everything in this card is what commenters said about a show they watched; nothing in it is a verdict on the programme, its writers or its cast, and no production or ratings claim made in the thread has been checked.
Counterpoint: Several of these records argue against their own answer as they make it, conceding the show was never popular enough for the question or that they liked the performer everywhere else.
What the replies added1
Aww I kinda liked Herman's Head. But I gotta agree with you on The Nanny. But my vote for absolute WORST sitcom of all time: Two Broke Girls
Where commenters report limits
The Wonder Years. My first husband loved the show, I just couldn’t get into it.
I agree, I re-watched the entire run and really wanted to like it, but couldn’t get into it.
Source-record spotlights
God Mulaney was terrible, which sucks because he's hysterical. They were forcing terrible writing on a great writer, and changing his persona.
Not the absolute worst, but Drew Carey Show was never as good as the sum of its parts and is the poster child for a show that stuck around forever for no good reason. The earlier seasons are built on sitcom tropes and fat/gay jokes. It never reached the heights of Seinfeld or Cheers but it was enough of a known commodity to perpetually be renewed even long after the height of its popularity. And that’s when things really got weird. They pulled every gimmick: live episode, spot the error, special musical episode, you name it. It was pretty much always the “best thing on at the moment” option, and now hazy nostalgia is elevating it to classic status.
Herman's Head. The Nanny.
Related evidence elsewhere in the index
What the counts show
The exact phrase “that 70s show” recurs across 3 of the 46 source records in The one-vote answers; the complete archive stays available below.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments46 preserved records · 46 of 46 source records accounted for
Archive: 46 index entries preserve 46 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
How this catalog was built
Source: Reddit comments — 1 thread, 2813 comments (863 top-level, 1950 replies)
Selected comments from the discussion
This export carries real like counts and timestamps. The first 18 are the most resonant on-topic top-level comment from each stage of the discussion, ranked by resonance within their arrival-time cohort so later arrivals are not penalised for having had less time to accumulate likes. The last 6 received no likes at all and were chosen for the specificity of what they describe.
How the discussion breaks down
Relative volume of distinct source-backed records across every reviewed category in this corpus.
The CBS block, and the producer the thread kept blaming
696 distinct coded comment records9 normalized answers
The 1990s megahits
404 distinct coded comment records7 normalized answers
The schlubby husband, the hot wife, and the shows built on them
327 distinct coded comment records11 normalized answers
The 2000s and 2010s
201 distinct coded comment records10 normalized answers
British and Irish television
137 distinct coded comment records4 normalized answers
The sitcoms people grew up on
104 distinct coded comment records6 normalized answers
The long tail
46 distinct coded comment records1 normalized answer
Answers that were not sitcoms at all
37 distinct coded comment records3 normalized answers
Answers that named a rule instead of a show
25 distinct coded comment records3 normalized answers
Cartoons and puppets counted as sitcoms
16 distinct coded comment records3 normalized answers
The two answers at the top, and the argument nobody won
Two answers sit at the top of this thread and neither of them is a title. The most-liked comment in the whole corpus is a verdict and a theory at once: “Bing bang theory. It's the dumb people's idea of what smart people are like. Without laughtracks it's just a string of unfunny cringe weird stuff” The second is a format rather than a programme: “That show where some schlubby wisecracking guy has a hot wife and they hate each other.” The replies underneath it spend the next hundred comments deciding which shows it meant, and one of them stacks the titles into a single sentence: “Everybody Loves the King of Queens According to Jim.”
423 of the 1993 classified records are about The Big Bang Theory — more than any other show by a factor of nearly two, with Friends second on 245 and Mrs Brown's Boys third on 118. But the same node holds the loudest disagreement in the corpus. A commenter who dislikes it still objects to how it is being disliked: “I don’t even like the show but “nerd blackface” is one of the worst things I have ever read. People need to log off their computers every once in a while” Another puts the defence plainly: “its mid, but perfectly fine for it's purpose. Certainly not the worst” And one record argues the show qualifies precisely because of its size rather than its badness: “Pretty sure it's because it was the #1 rated show for many years. Yes, plenty of worse shows, but how about worst sitcoms that pulled 20M viewers a week? The question is worst sitcom "that got way more popular than it should have." TBBT fits that to a tee.”
The argument the thread never settles is the laugh track. 14 records answer with the device itself rather than a show, and inside the two largest nodes the same correction keeps being made: “That show didn't use a laugh track.. despite Reddits popular belief. This is easily learned with a 5 second Google.” It does not end there. “I don’t understand why people think that makes it better. If the show didn’t use a laugh track, the audience was filled with people who laughed at literally anything, up to and including actors just walking into a room.” And a reply in the Friends thread makes the counter-case that the edit itself is the problem: “Such a tired and bad example. A. There was no laugh track it was a studio audience. B. Editing out the laughs makes the timing for all the jokes wrong which will make anything not funny. Not claiming the humor holds up for everyone as it was very much of it's time and the cultural touchstones of the day, but the "if you edit out the laugh track then it's not funny" can be applied nearly every show ever recorded with one or with a live studio audience. You are in essence saying "If you mess up the timing of a joke then the joke won't be funny" which is a given.”
Defenders are kept beside detractors throughout. The 404 records in the 1990s category include people naming Seinfeld as unwatchable and, directly beneath them, the same reply every time: “Just throwing it out there, they're not supposed to be likable. They're all brash, selfish idiots. That's the whole point. Larry David's rule for the show was "No hugging, no learning." If you didn't like that part of it may I recommend never watching Always Sunny.” Mrs Brown's Boys draws the most one-sided criticism in the corpus and still collects a defence: “Goes to show that if you don't find a comedy funny, odds are it isn't aimed at you. The show is pure trash but it's had my mother howling with laughter so it's alright in my book.”
Browse the original comments2,813 audited comments and replies
Dataset, coverage, and methodology
How this was counted
The working unit is a comment record, not a person and not a distinct show. All 2813 canonical comments from this one thread (863 top-level, 1950 replies) were read in thread order, so that every reply was judged against the comment it answers, and each was assigned to exactly one of the 57 answers or one exclusion bucket.
1993 records name a show or judge the show their own thread is about, and all 1993 appear in the complete index below. The other 820 break down as catchphrases, quoted lines and joke riffs (204), off-topic tangents (181), comments about the thread, Reddit or the arguing itself (160), records about a show raised as the good version instead (119), bare agreements and one-line reactions (67), fragments, corrections and removed comments (47), and questions and admissions of never having seen it (42).
A record that names several shows is counted once, under the first show it names. A record that names a show and gives no reason still counts, because the name is the answer; a record that names no show and judges none is excluded with a specific reason.
1993 counts classified comment records, not distinct shows. Repeats were deliberately kept: 423 records are about The Big Bang Theory and 245 about Friends, and each stays its own row rather than being merged into one.
Heart counts are the raw numbers as captured. The first hour of this thread holds 21.0% of all its hearts, so a ranking by raw hearts would mostly rank arrival time; the categories below are ordered by how many records they hold, not by popularity.
Records defending a show sit inside that show's own answer rather than in a separate section, because the disagreement is the most interesting thing in this thread and separating it would flatten it.
Nothing here is verified beyond what people typed. These are reported opinions about publicly released television, not assessments by this publication, and the thread contradicts itself constantly.
Member discussion