I don't know if it's called "The Apartment" or not, but it sounds like an ok title for it. Anyways, it was the one that was just on. It is it just me or does this episode seem to lack the rhythm of other ones? For one thing, Kramer isn't nearly as funny or eccentric as he usually is, also, Jerry's standup schtick didn't seem that funny. I'm beginning to think they forgot the load up the laugh track of forgot to do SOMETHING, because the whole show seemed to lack rhythm to it. Anyone else have any comments about it?
Somebody mentioned a Seinfeld episode having been on this past Thursday (6/3). I thought the show was pre-empted on NBC by the basketball game! Was the show only on on the west coast? Or did I miss it here in the Boston area??
I dunno about other people, but I find a laugh-track possibly the single most annoying feature of sitcoms. It's like the TV execudroids think "gee, they might not know when there's a joke if we don't add canned laughter as a cue".
Does Seinfeld have a live audience? At least then, you don't get the stoopid automatic belly-laugh every time someone cracks a joke.
I wish TV would give laugh tracks up. You go see a movie that's a comedy, and you don't get a laugh track. Why do you need one for TV?
It may be that on television, the 'live audience' is used to simulate a movie theater atmosphere. When you watch television, you are either alone or with just a few people. The laughtrack may be intended to make you feel as if you are part of a larger group. In a theater, you don't have a laughtrack because you _are_ in a large group. I don't know if this thought has any validity, just trying to find some reason, any reason, why the dreaded laugh track persists. I've grown to not mind them so much, especially if they are a truly live audience and not just canned laughter (you can usually tell the difference.)
That's a good point, and it's probably the reason why laugh tracks started back in the days when TV was just starting out and had to compete in a very real way with theaters. The counter to that argument, though, is that people now rent movies (which don't have laugh tracks) to watch at home on their TV and they watch them under the same conditions that they watch TV shows, so, apparently, the laugh track is no longer necessary.
They once made an "experimental" episode of "The Odd Couple" without a laugh track. The experiment was apparently deemed a failure since the next season they started filming OC in front of a live audience. I had the opposite reaction. I thought the jokes seemed funnier without the laugh track. The humor seemed more ironic, more true to life.
In fact, the "audience reaction" is one of the reasons I don't go to theaters anymore. People just don't know how to behave in theaters. They always laugh the loudest at the dumbest jokes. And when they're not laughing they're talking, while their little rug rats are kicking the back of your seat.
I'd like to second the statement that "The Simpsons" is the funniest show on TV and doesn't need a laugh track. The problem is that the people who like laugh tracks don't find "The Simpsons" funny. It's over their heads.
Robert Perlberg Dean Witter Reynolds Inc., New York dwrsun4![email] -or- [address]
"We don't believe the software industry is ripping off the customer." -- Ken Wasch, executive director of the Software Publishers Association
:Does Seinfeld have a live audience? At least then, you don't get the :stoopid automatic belly-laugh every time someone cracks a joke.
:I wish TV would give laugh tracks up. You go see a movie that's a comedy, :and you don't get a laugh track. Why do you need one for TV?
:-Dave
Precisely because when you go see a movie, there is (presumably) an audience full of people laughing. At home, watching TV, the laugh track "simulates" that environment.
Of course, I would prefer the live audience's laughter. But I wonder if a sitcom w/o a laugh track would be like the experimental football game NBC (I think) broadcast w/o commentary & play-by-play. I see them as *sort of* similar -- EVERYONE claims to hate them, but we've lived so long with them, if they were missing it would be even more awkward/bizarre. Any thoughts?
Although laugh tracks are supposed to simulate the experience of being in a live audience, what I particularly dislike is the fact that even not-so-funny jokes get barrels of laughs. This is true even with a live studio audience, as they are prompted (I know this is often, if not always true.) I think that in the _The Pilot_ (within the simulated pilot episode itself) this aspect of a laughtrack was exaggerated to show how really stupid it can sound. Bravo!
In fact, as far as TV goes, I laugh the hardest during _The Simpsons_, which has no laughtrack at all (Thank God!) I also didn't miss the canned laughs in M*A*S*H - they were never used during scenes in the operating room.
Actually, I find laugh tracks have some value: as a general rule of thumb, the volume and frequency of laugh-track laughs is inversely proportional to the quality of the show. This can be a quick way to determine quality, if you don't want to watch the entire show (or a few episodes, to be thorough). That is, the louder and more obnoxious the laugh track, the worse the show. Some of you university students might want to take this on as a research project--how strong is the correlation?
I remember one of Woody's Allen's characters in one of his New York Jewish Nebbish movies felt that laugh tracks were deceptive and morally wrong (don't remember which film, there were so many, but I suspect it was "Annie Hall"). One bit of trivia I remember is that much of the canned laughter being used now was actually recorded in the 1950s (why bother to rerecord--has laughter changed in the last 40 years?). So many of those people you hear laughing now have been dead for years. What price immortality?
Another valuable feature of laugh tracks is to designate which lines were intended to be jokes. This was alluded to earlier. It may be the case that Hollywood produces think their audiences really are too stupid to know when to laugh, but on the other hand: (1) Hollywood producers are clueless laugh-wise, having no discernable sense of humor; and (2) apparently I *AM* that stupid, because frequently when I hear the laugh track I go off looking for a joke and I can't find one anywhere within sight, earshot, or memory. Obviously I'm missing something important.
I may have been unfair to the producers: they may have a sense of humor, but one appropriate to sharks. If they bite your leg off, now THAT'S FUNNY.
Actually, I believe Harlan Ellison wrote a story in his book _Angry Candy_ about a guy who's aunt had a really distinctive laugh that got recorded during one of those sessions in the '50s when they were setting up the laugh tracks. The guy had to deal with hearing his favorite aunt laugh almost every time he turned the TV on. I think I'm remembering this correctly, it's been about five years since I read the story.
Whether the laughter is from a "live studio audience" or from a laugh-track, the realism of the laughter is about the same. I went to the taping of an NBC TV show last summer, (not Seinfeld, but I think it was on the same lot) and was part of a live studio audience. Many of my fellow laughers were just so happy to be taking part in the miracle of television they laughed at everything, even the lamest jokes, almost obediently. Several were obviously laughing extra hard so they could hear themselves when the show aired.
Almost every scene was taped in full two times, so the second time around the jokes are anticipated and the laughs are forced. Sometimes the second take gave the audience some time to figure out what was intended to be funny and they could adjust their laughs accordingly. The whole taping of the half-hour show took three hours, and toward the end even less of the laughter was genuine.
The show I saw was taped in sequence, but apparently many are not. In out-of-sequence cases the audience has to be briefed on the basic plot and on which situations are supposed to be funny. I have also heard that often there are professional laughers placed in the studio audience to help "seed" the regular folks into laughing, although I can't say if this was the case for the show I saw.
Of course, the show I saw was not nearly as funny as Seinfeld (what show is?) and I would bet that many more of Sein's laughs are for real. But still, be aware that the output of a live studio audience is not necessarily much more genuine than that of a laugh track.
I second that- IMHO the laugh track makes an otherwise funny joke seem way too contrived and articifical. We know what's funny- we don't need to keep being hit over the head with it.
I would assume that it would be filmed in front of an audience. The way I can tell (and it is far from scientific!) is to simply listen to the way the laughter so track sounds like every little funny comment had the entire audience floored with laughter.
Some sitcom scenes are hilarious, but not THAT funny for every single moment of the show.
If you think today's laugh tracks are bad, take a look (or listen in this case) the next time you see a rerun of an old 70's sitcom.
I agree that TV could do without laugh tracks- like I said, we know what's funny and we don't need to be told when to laugh.
On the soubject of funny movies, go see Hot Shots- Part Duex. No laugh track required, although the audience in the theatre might drown out some of the dialouge from the film. :-)
For some reason, I've never found laugh-tracks annoying... as a matter of fact, I've never noticed them!
Don't get me wrong - I know that the 'noise' is a laugh track, but I have never paid any attention to it. It doesn't bother me. I laugh when something is funny.
On the other hand, some of the funniest things I've seen (notably a lot of the British comedies) don't have laugh tracks. Maybe North America should give it a try (i.e. Opt for genuine, well-designed humour rather than peer-pressure humour).