I don't watch a lot of them, but I've taken notice of NBC's "My Name is Earl", "The Office", and now "Community", which seem to all be sitcoms without laugh tracks. Personally I think the shows are funnier this way. You're able to focus more on the jokes and not the laughter that you've heard a billion times before.

But maybe the lack of laugh track is a rare occurance, and sitcoms still generally use laugh tracks. I'll likely be avoiding them.

Incidentally, this is very much relevant: http://sandusky.comicgenesis.com/d/20070810.html

Well it is a new trend for sure and whether or not they all go this way remains to be seen but I doubt it.

Personally, I think there is some truth to what you say about being able to concentrate on the jokes more, and especially the subtly of the humor. But I am already annoyed by it because I am constantly thinking "Oh is this one of those 'genius' sublte jokes that I am supposed to laugh at or is this them simply pausing and doing nothing knowing that without a laugh track, I'll fill in the laughter so as not to be bored?"

The way I see it, if you think something's funny, laugh. You ever see sketch comedy shows or comedy talk shows? People don't wait to see if the joke is over before they laugh at those.

I dislike canned laughers. I don't like to be told when I should be laughing!

Personally I like it..

I always felt that the laugh track was used so that episodes could be shorter and writers could drag something out longer.

Something like the office (since I watch it a lot and not the others you mentioned) seems to capitalize on the look at the camera moments when it's almost a queue to laugh.. but at the same time.. it -is- funny because it's the personality and the awkward tension the character is representing.

That .. and it's generally pretty short and the show keeps moving.

There are some shows that do the live studio audience and the funny thing about that is that when people laugh.. you almost see the actors wanting to continue and are unable because it goes over a little.

The laugh tracks just seemed forced as all hell..

In the end.. I rather like live studio to laugh track.. but I also like neither The latter keeps the immersion and focus.

I've always wondered though about studio laughter what do they do when they have a joke that is so much more funnier the first time you see it because of its suprise value and then have to do retake after retake. Does that mean they use the laughter from the earlier takes (like a track) to get the most laughs or do they use the laughter actually recorded with the later takes if they are using the later takes for other production related reasons (like actor performance, camera angle, lighting, etc.)?

To paritally answer this, there have been times on Seinfeld that I notice now where they seem to be building up to a punchline (one that we all know by now) and yet along the way, some annoying person laughs at something that isn't funny in and of itself, but might be funny if you are expecting a particular punchline. So it seems like sometimes the final cut used is from a later take with the laughter recorded during the later takes, because the audience seems to already be expecting a given punchline (presumably from having heard it already in earlier takes).

But there are other times in many shows where the audience laughs so much in a way that sounds very genuine that you think it is fortunate they got everything production wise right on the first take otherwise they would have missed the best live audience laughter.

The other thing I was noticing tonight while watching.. SG-1 was, obviously.. it's not a comedy show.

But, you could imagine there are quite a lot of things said to keep the mood light. The one thing I noticed is.. would I laugh at something that's very funny to me while someone else would just tell me it wasn't funny.. and was the writers hoping it was a joke or not?

See, my point is.. in this instance SG-1 is more like a movie.. and I think The office is too.. and one thing that I noticed about this is that take friends.. everyone is always facing the camera.. because they're in a studio. So you know that they're doing something either a) in front of people or b) in an empty studio (laugh track?)

I guess the point throws back to what I said about immersion. I was watching an episode of Everybody Loves Raymond and they literally had 8 people sitting at one table.. and they -all- sat on one side of the table and it looked completely effing retarded.. but they had to because the camera's don't operate behind them. And that's the exact type of show that would be on a laugh track or live studio as opposed to the Office.. and more shows seem to be going the way of the Office.. filmed in an enclosed area where you couldn't have an audience. Parks and Recreation are like that as well as 30 Rock.. and they're still achieving good ratings with or without laughter on top of the skits.

I do agree with Bo, though.. and some shows use a laugh track that has it 'linger' to sound real.. I never liked those.. lol.

I'm fine with live audiences. Worked well for I Love Lucy and The Cosby Show, I think.

iunno.. i don't think they're sitcoms.. they have continuous storylines so they're series'. stuff like cheers or seinfeld is situation comedy cus each episode stands alone and you don't need to watch them in order to understand them unless there is like a multi parter or whatever.

which is slightly beside the point.. but yeah it's just a different style... but i think it's a style based on it's more a story and less a sitcom. maybe...

Well, I dunno about The Office, but aside from going season to season, you generally didn't miss out on anything if you missed an episode with My Name is Earl and Community. Earl was doing a new item on his list, and each Community episode so far seems to be fairly one-shot as well.

Then again, if they're not sitcoms, what are they?

series.

Series? Everything on TV that comes in episodes is a series.