Although the GP smacks of snobbery, I think it's mistaken to credit the enduring reputation of Shakespeare to his smutty innuendos alone. Surely the reason that Much ado about nothing is still being read today is the sophisticated battle of wits between the protagonists who are lovers, helped along by Shakespeare's uncanny ability to characterise. It is true that some of his early plays such as Titus, Henry VI and Comedy of errors rely on simpler means of entertainment, but hardly anyone consider those to be his best works. (Incidentally the also early Love's Labour's lost ranks among the most complex utilisation of the English language before Joyce, a play that cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered 'popular'.) The hermeneutical problems of Hamlet, Lear and Macbeth are legendary, that's not to mention the even more mysterious late plays. Even Shakespeare's contemporaries recognised his difficulty and extorted people to "Reade him, therefore; and againe, and againe" in the preface to the First Folio. I think it's an error to over emphasise the more mundane aspects of his art when the more extraordinary aspects are what attracted people in the first place.
Oh, absolutely it's not due to his smutty innuendos alone - indeed, it is rather despite them. My entire point, though, is that (at least some of) today's classic literature is the smut-ridden pop culture of past generations, and it is a mistake to sneer at present day works merely because they are pop culture and contain boobs. If OP has a stronger case to make for some particular work's artistic merit or lack thereof, they should take the trouble to actually do so (I do note others have in fact responded to defend the show's merits, despite OP not even trying to make a case for it lacking any, so certainly there is debate to be had), as that is what separates an opening for debate from a sneer. As it stands, however, the original question boils down to "why do talented people devote effort to smutty pop culture?", which, well, my post.
