The reason I asked the question was because I read the following in a book about writing.
"Through the use of images and dialogue, a great scene advances the story, reveals character, explores an idea, and builds an image. A great scene will do all of these. A good scene will do more than one."
Which implies you can do the last three without advancing the story.
By the same logic then, you can write a whole episode of good scenes without any story whatsoever, yeah?
Erm, no.
Dan
I'm not talking about people bantering away for three minutes that has nothing to do with the plot. What I'm really getting at is if you can mention early on in a scene that somebody has to go somewhere (for a job interview for instance), but then the rest of the scene could be a person finding out something about another person (that could pay off later or simply change their view on them). So you have advanced the plot somewhat with the fact they're going for a job interview, but you've revealed more about their character.
One of the things people always say on writing courses,
show don't tell,
David you are talking in abstract terms. Show us the scene and we'll tell you if it works.
Quote: David H @ June 27 2008, 9:21 AM BSTthe rest of the scene could be a person finding out something about another person (that could pay off later or simply change their view on them).
If it 'pays off later' then you *are* advancing the plot.
Dan
Surely it depends on WHAT information the character is giving in the interview?
If they start revealing back story it wouldn't work. If they are revealing personality traits, foibles, etc. by the answers they are giving in the interview, then it's OK so long as it is relevent to the plot.
I wrote the first scene of a sitcom where an elderly person went to live with their daughter, but because I revealed the reason's why they went to live with them and made it ridiculously obvious that they didn't get on in the first scene, I was told the exposition was wrong. It's easy to get totally carried away and reveal too much in a first scene. Really, the first scene of a pilot should be just like any other scene, with the character 'slowly' revealing their personality, and setting up the scene before the plot kicks in.
There was an episode of Frasier called 'Seat Of Power'. I don't know if anyone remembers it. It's where Frasier and Niles decide they're going to fix the toilet between them, fail, and then call in some plumbers who happen to be their respective bullies at school.
Anyway, the first scene starts at the radio station where Frasier receives a prank call from a kid. He then goes into the booth where Roz is concerned she's not been asked out by a guy at a football game. Roz's story was never followed up, neither was the prank call and there was no mention that Frasier would have to fix a toilet. This is my point and maybe I've answered my own question. It's okay to do a scene that has no relevance to the rest of the plot as a soft opening, but not when the plot kicks into gear.
US shows are more gag heavy. The phone-in calls on Frasier almost never contributed to the plot, but that was an understood quirk of the show. Also Ros had to have some screen time, which also did not always contribute to the show. But this was part of the formula rather than revealing character.
Quote: Griff @ June 27 2008, 10:09 AM BSTI went to a talk by Charlie Hanson once (producer of Extras) and his view was he wants to see a strong story in a script. Any script can be "gagged up" later with funny lines added, visual gags etc. But you can't "plot up" a storyless script full of gags. I'm not saying you would, or have, come up with something storyless. But hopefully you get the overall point.
This is why I think Sitcom is so tough, lots of people can do gags and do character, but coming up with storylines that are funny in themselves is a real talent.
Also, companies nick your storylines and pass them on to their 'known' writers to rewrite and change the names of characters.
Quote: Timbo @ June 27 2008, 11:10 PM BSTUS shows are more gag heavy. The phone-in calls on Frasier almost never contributed to the plot, but that was an understood quirk of the show. Also Ros had to have some screen time, which also did not always contribute to the show. But this was part of the formula rather than revealing character.
This is why I think Sitcom is so tough, lots of people can do gags and do character, but coming up with storylines that are funny in themselves is a real talent.
I'd be interested to know what other peoples' experiences are? I know I seem to have the same problem. With my last sitcom script I was told the dialogue was funny and my characters (particularly in the character breakdown) were very strong, but the story 'arcs' were all wrong and that weakened the potential of the characters. Anyone ever had different feedback, where they have been told the story is great but there is some other problem?
David, as you said, you may have answered your own question, although, as a first time writer (don't know whether you are), I don't know how easy it would be to get away with anything other than the basic format. On the other hand, if the overall writing is fantastic, you can probably get away with anything!
It always depends on what the person reading your script is looking for. If it's anything outside the genearl parameters, steer clear of the Beeb!
I was trying to think of any British shows that did it and 'The Office' actually did it at the start of series two where they're humming the 'Muppet Show' tune. Nothing to do with the rest of the plot but something that worked well, I thought.
it was just 50 secs before the credits though...bit like Friends that cold opened with an little sketch unrelated to the rest (sometimes)& the US Office always cold opens that way. (actually, the US cold opens are some of the best bits!)
something to be used lightly i'd have thought and not slapped in the middle of an episode where it interrupts the plot
What about in the Young Ones where they have random scenes in the middle of an episode?
I don't think the Young Ones could be looked upon as a conventional 'sit-com'.
It was very 'choosy', shall we say about the 'rules'.
It was very dis-jointed at times which contributed to it being extremely hit or miss.