Every decade of television brings something different to the table, and what was allowed to be shown and said on TV has changed a lot since the 1970s. A heyday for the classic family sitcom and an interesting period of history, the 1970s boast some of the most influential plots and formulas that shows have been in conversation with for years. While in the contemporary era, more explicit depictions of violence and sex can be shown on television,in the 1970s, it was what the characters said and the types of jokes they were making that wouldn’t fly today.
Of course, the context of these issues matters, as there are times when TV shows discuss the harm of stereotypes and discrimination. However, many of these series from the ’70s, likeAll In The Family, weren’t concerned with subverting these problematic archetypes and intentionally reinforced them instead.There are aspects of these series that are still beloved,and just because something hasn’t aged well doesn’t mean it should necessarily be forgotten forever. While there are plenty of modernTV shows that perfectly encompass the 1970s aesthetic, these series embody them effortlessly.
The Love Boatquickly rose to prominence for featuring a new set of supporting characters in each episodeas the ship went to different ports. The central cast, which was primarily made up of the ship’s crew, were the mainstays of the series and anchored the project as the guest stars came and went. While there were some topical episodes ofThe Love Boat, the show is very of its time in terms of the racial, gender-based, and political stereotypes that are particularly prevalent in how the characters interact with each other.
In some ways, it’s remarkable thatThe Love Boatwas able to discuss sex and romance with so much candor, but it did so with off-hand jokes that wouldn’t land on contemporary audiences.
While the premise ofThe Love Boathas aged decently well, it’s the casual sexism and tokenization of characters of color that are the most difficult aspects of the show to sit through today. In some ways, it’s remarkable thatThe Love Boatwas able to discuss sex and romance with so much candor, but it did so with off-hand jokes that wouldn’t land on contemporary audiences. Outside of this,The Love Boathas received criticism for repetitive storylines, especially in the later seasons.
6.3/10
Featuring a young John Travolta in his breakout role,Welcome Back, Kottersees its central characters gather together in a remedial high school class and explore the humor and pitfalls of this situation. By touching upon race, class, and other contemporaneous social issues,Welcome Back, Kotterwas clearly trying to include a wide array of characters from diverse backgrounds.Certain episodes touched upon how this can lead to a lack of support in the education system.
Welcome Back, Kotter might have had genuine intentions in trying to promote racial diversity on TV, but it ended up mining racial stereotypes for laughs. This doesn’t encourage diversity but makes it all the more difficult to incorporate it positively onscreen. As well-meaning as it might have been, it doesn’t absolveWelcome Back, Kotterfrom the insensitive remarks that are treated as comedy.Greg Kaplan leads the cast as the titular teacher, Gabe Kotter,who anchors the series and lends some heart to the story.
7.1/10
The Jeffersonswas immediately hailed for its representation of an upper-middle-class Black family, which broke away from racial stereotypes that Black characters were pigeonholed into.A spinoff ofAll In The Family,The Jeffersonscentered on the titular familyand the ups and downs of their personal lives and the dry-cleaning business George Jefferson (Sherman Hemsley), the patriarch, ran. In many ways,The Jeffersonsfollowed the same formula and story structure as other sitcoms on television, but the series' problems can’t be ignored.
This complex legacy and layered reality of the show’s history is a definitive element of television during this decade, as so much social change was taking place.
A large part of Norman Lear’s legacy was cemented by his work onThe Jeffersons, which directly grappled with race and other social issues of the time. As much asThe Jeffersonsdid in terms of breaking away from harmful depictions of Black Americans, the series also freely used the clichéd depictions of the characters, often making fun of their intelligence. This complex legacy and layered reality of the show’s history is a definitive element of television during this decade, as so much social change was taking place.
7.5/10
John Ritter, Joyce DeWitt, and Suzanne Somers make up the central three inThree’s Company, as a trio of roommates living together in California. However, since their landlord is old-fashioned and doesn’t approve of unmarried men and women cohabitating, Jack (Ritter) spends the series pretending to be gay. While the issues and existence of the LGBTQ+ community were still considered fairly taboo on television,Three’s Companydidn’t work hard to combat the regressive ideas surrounding LGBTQ+ identitiesthat were prevalent in the ’70s.
There are many reasons why this concept would never work today,as men and women living together platonically is a common occurrence today. Additionally, having Jack masquerade as a gay man without centering any LGBTQ+ characters while consistently making fun of these identities and making offensive comments is dated and problematic. Today, having LGBTQ+ characters is a benchmark for all TV shows, as is treating them with respect and fully developing their arcs.
Based on the beloved children’s book series by Laura Ingalls Wilder,Little House on the Prairie, the series of the same name follows the Ingalls family and their experience on their farm in the late 1800s. Running for nine seasons,Little House on the Prairieconnected with audiences because of its source material and the way audiences could see themselves in the young children the program centered. The series is different from a traditional Western since it looks directly at settled family life.
Netflix’s Reboot Of Beloved Western Show And How It Compares To The Books Explained By Original Star
Netflix’s plans to reboot a classic Western show, and how the reboot will compare to the original books is explained by the series' original star.
However, there are some unfortunate aspects thatLittle House on the Prairieshares with some older movies in the genre. Most notably,Little House on the Prairie’s depictions of Indigenous Americans were stereotypical at best and offensive at worst.The white settlers were portrayed as heroes, while the Indigenous people were written one-dimensionally and often as villains. While the show tackled some serious topics with nuance, like grappling with death, the rumored upcoming reboot must fix the 1970s series' mistakes.
Little House on the Prairie (1974–1983)
Thanks tothe enormous popularity of the hit TV showAll In The Family,there were manyAll In The Familyspinoffs, likeThe JeffersonsandMaude. The longevity and enduring name recognition thatAll In The Familystill holds demonstrates how well the series connected with audiences of its time. Looking back at the pitfalls of the show today reveals the issues and dated elements that wouldn’t be a part of a television series in the 2020s.
All In The Familyrepresents the cognitive dissonance of the time, as it could talk about huge controversies and was open about class disparity in the U.S. However, at the same time, Archie Bunker (Carroll O’Connor) remains one of the most controversial TV characters in history.All In TheFamilycharacterized Archie as a regressive man who didn’t shy away from expressing extremely offensive groups while verbally berating his family. Though this was softened with his hard work and hidden loving nature, he’s an easy character to dislike.
8.4/10
Soap operas have long been the butt of the jokes when it comes to comedyand satirical parodies of the melodrama seen in these daytime TV shows. This is whatSoap, the 1977 series, is all about, and the series was never afraid to use the unexpected and often controversial storylines that were featured prominently in soap operas. However, in going further than other TV series and depicting characters who were typically overlooked onscreen,Soapwasn’t always perfect.
Of all the shows from the 1970s that lean into politically incorrect territory,Soapdoes so in the most tongue-in-cheek ways.
In general, the show worked hard to be ahead of its time and lean into comedy rather than malice in its writing. However,Soapdidn’t always handle its somewhat controversial subjects delicately since the comedic nature of the show made it difficult to take some storylines seriously. Of all the shows from the 1970s that lean into politically incorrect territory,Soapdoes so in the most tongue-in-cheek ways. A young Billy Crystal can be seen in the series, making bawdy jokes that are sometimes in poor taste with the rest of the cast.
8.3/10
From its earliest conception,Sanford and Sonhad some issues as it’s based on the British TV seriesSteptoe and Son, which was about a white father and son duo. It would have been more exciting to see a unique and dedicated storyline given to a show likeSanford and Son.Redd Foxx and Demond Wilson starred inSanford and Sonas Fred and Lamont Sanford,who loved and supported each other even when they were at odds. The characters were the heart and soul of the show, and their dynamic was a key piece of its success.
However, there are many reasons whySanford and Sonwas so popular, asthere should be representation of working-class families of all backgrounds on television.However, the depictions of these characters start to become an issue when they feed into harmful ideologies. While it touched upon the racial issues the men faced in their lives and in the larger world, the characters faced backlash from some audiences and critics for their adherence to these stereotypes.
Sanford and Son (1972–1978)
7.9/10
There’s a good reason whyCharlie’s Angelseventually became a beloved franchise. The more recent movies are fun, and the actors from the original show quickly became icons, like Farrah Fawcett. On one hand, it was exciting to see such an early example of an action show that features female leads. However,Charlie’s Angelsfalls flat in the way the central characters are portrayedand objectified for their bodies. There was rarely an episode in which the young women who played the Angels weren’t put in revealing clothing for the sake of attracting audiences.
While the series poked fun at itself and retained a certain level of self-awareness, it’s difficult to overlook some of the more obvious sexual exploitation and the lack of women behind the camera.
Though the2019Charlie’s Angelsremake was poorly received, the franchise itself has evolved a great deal since the initial TV show. A large part of this is thanks to the way the early 2000s pokes fun at the sexism of the first show and gives the power back to the Angels. While the series poked fun at itself and retained a certain level of self-awareness, it’s difficult to overlook some of the more obvious sexual exploitation and the lack of women behind the camera.
6.6/10
Known for coining the term “Daisy Dukes” and inspiring the 2005 movie of the same name,The Dukes of Hazzardis a TV show that has a decent number of problematic elements.The characters inThe Dukes of Hazzardare ultimately portrayed with empathyand as good people at the end of the day. However, this doesn’t change the fact that much of their characterization reinforces stereotypes about people living in the American South.
The biggest wayThe Dukes of Hazzardhas aged poorly is through the prominent display of the Confederate flag throughout the episodes. The Confederate flag is overwhelmingly considered a symbol of hate, violence, and explicit racism today, and having two characters who the audiences are supposed to be rooting for drive around with the flag on their truck wouldn’t inspire a devoted fanbase.There’s little question that no TV show would use the flag in this context,and this part of the series makes it tough to revisitThe Dukes of Hazzard.
