• SmoothLiquidation@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      8 days ago

      A lot of shows were “filmed in front of a live studio audience”. I don’t think that makes it better than canned laughs. It affects the pacing of the jokes, where the characters will tell a joke, wait for laughs, tell the next joke, etc. Any time I see that now, it makes the show feel dated, but that doesn’t mean it was a bad show.

      • Isoprenoid@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        8 days ago

        I understand where you’re coming from: If natural dialogue is preferred for a creative work, then having laughter audio is inappropriate.

        I disagree that canned laughter and live audience laughter are equivalent.

        With live audience reactions it’s like watching a theatre presentation, you get to be part of the crowd. We get a chance to laugh at the jokes at a natural pace (allowing for pauses so we don’t miss the next joke) that the audience would set, and their reactions are modulated organically.

        Canned laughter doesn’t do this, it doesn’t set a natural pace. It is calculated by an audio engineer, and the laughter will be an unnatural reaction to the joke presented.

        It’s the difference between a genuine and forced smile. We can naturally sense something is off. A live audience reaction is superior to canned laughter in most cases.

        That being said, some shows don’t need laughter audio to be enjoyable.