Quote: Lazzard @ 16th July 2014, 4:34 PM BSTWell, we're aiming at the Sunday night slot.
Somewhere between Blandings, Mapp & Lucia and Cranford.
Who knows...
It's ALL about story. If the lead character doesn't facilitate direct and impact on it then it's no good. You can't teach a pig to sing and she won't thank you for trying
Quote: Marc P @ 16th July 2014, 4:49 PM BSTIt's ALL about story. If the lead character doesn't facilitate direct and impact on it then it's no good. You can't teach a pig to sing and she won't thank you for trying
Didn't Lord Emsworth try doing that?
That wasn't singing!
Wow, I had to check twice to make sure this OP wasn't posed by me and I had forgotten I did it. Great question, in other words!
Michael Bluth and Jim from The Office US are the two examples that come to my mind. They are just normal guys wanting to get along in unusual circumstances. They elicit audience empathy and don't distract from the other, bigger characters.
However, there's always the worry that they're just not... interesting enough.
This blog post might help:
http://sitcomgeek.blogspot.com/2011/12/central-character-needs-work.html
I went through this myself recently. The two main characters were boyfriend and girlfriend working together at their restaurant. The boyfriend probably wasn't distinct enough. So I decided that they didn't have to work together. In Ep 1 they find out that's not going to work. They still live together and spend time together so really there's no actual need for them to work together. The boyfriend's constant search for a new career path gives him more distinct needs. Plus, I think the difference between the two characters central needs (girlfriend: be successful, make money. Boyfriend: have fun, make the most of youth) can become the central theme of my show. Don't know if that's useful to you. Probably not. But I think you'll agree that Michael's needs are always very opposed to those of his family (remember how quickly they all sold off company shares). And that whole thing with Jim's sporting goods company set him at odds with his job and his wife.
I think another key aspect is likability. To be a sympathetic lead you'll probably have to achieve that. So, they're good at something, but also vulnerable in other areas.
I do not think sitcom characters need to be likeable, just multi-faceted. The greatest sitcom creations are people you would sidle away from at a party, but they all reveal flashes of decency. Sitcom is a bear-pit where we are entertained by suffering, but the spectacle is more enthralling if the beast at bay shows a bit of fight, and occasionally gets to win.
Cheers for that Link Lawrence, that's really useful. Up to this point I have maintained that my character's drive... is his lack of drive/strength of character which allows him to be easily manipulated and acquiesce to the wishes of others. From that blog and from what others have said here, it would seem that it is possible to have such a character and some shows do, but they need to be excellent (shows) in order to pull it off. Also, these are not shows from complete newbies (like me) . My worry is that from a newbie it just looks like a lack of understanding of sitcom... which, to be fair may just be the case : )
Start simple. No need to be too hard on your concept.
I've been working on mine for over a year. A minor character has become a regular. A main character has been dropped altogether. The boyfriend is now a total job-hopper. etc etc. There's an awful lot going on beneath the surface in sitcoms. It takes time and you have to start somewhere.
I don't think an everyman lead screams of noobism. What does is several very similar characters. Like three young, male roommates who are friends and sit around drinking beer and talking about girls.
And it's a mockumentary!
I've read that sitcom geek blog before and it does have some useful points but the guy who writes it has been involved in some of the worst sitcoms ever made - Miranda, Bluestone 42 and My Hero - so think of that what you will
Quote: Mikey88 @ 18th September 2014, 1:29 PM BSTI've read that sitcom geek blog before and it does have some useful points but the guy who writes it has been involved in some of the worst sitcoms ever made - Miranda, Bluestone 42 and My Hero - so think of that what you will
OR
He's managed to get three sitcoms made.
Think of that what you will.
Quote: Lawrence Diamond @ 17th July 2014, 10:43 AM BSTThis blog post might help:
http://sitcomgeek.blogspot.com/2011/12/central-character-needs-work.html
From that blog:
" I shall be asking myself these questions about my central character, which you may like to ask yourself of your characters that aren't quite working: What does he want? Why? What does he think he wants? What does he actually want?"
How does "What does he want?" differ from "What does he actually want?" ?
Quote: Nogget @ 18th September 2014, 4:12 PM BSTFrom that blog:
" I shall be asking myself these questions about my central character, which you may like to ask yourself of your characters that aren't quite working: What does he want? Why? What does he think he wants? What does he actually want?"How does "What does he want?" differ from "What does he actually want?" ?
He mis-quoting and over-complicating a well-worn adage.
"What does he want? What does he need?" covers it.
And it doesn't really apply to Sit-Com because it's actually talking about constructing a character arc.
If he ever gets what he needs , that's the series over.
Quote: Lazzard @ 18th September 2014, 1:53 PM BSTOR
He's managed to get three sitcoms made.
Think of that what you will.
Totally agree - 3 more than I've had made (so far)