I think I've already made this point or maybe somebody else has but what the hell,
Do you think it's been wrongly cast as a sitcom? Maybe it's a comedy drama? I've only watched the first episode, but from what I saw, not particularly funny, but maybe a err "nice" little story?
Agreed. IMO funnier than most so-called comedy dramas, but not a true sitcom for my money.
Moved accordingly...
Quote: Aaron @ May 21, 2007, 11:37 AMAgreed. IMO funnier than most so-called comedy dramas, but not a true sitcom for my money.
Moved accordingly...
No, this IS meant to be a sitcom, Aaron, in the sense that we here on BSG understand it, it's just that sitcom has now become 'narrative comedy'. That's what it's called on the BBC writersroom site. They offer guidelines for writing 'narrative comedy' and encourage you to submit a page or two explaining where your comedy is going, ie. 'Brent eventually gets made redundant and Dawn shags Tim'.
Obviously most of the sitcoms we love from the past didn't really go anywhere – that was the point. The characters encountered a different situation every week but stayed in their fixed roles (for the most part). I for one prefer this.
An example. If the Good Life had been commissioned today, the writers would have been encouraged to plot a narrative whereby Tom and Barbara eventually bought Gerry and Margo's house and got planning permission to turn it into a city farm and Margo became a Tory MP – for example.
Aaron, you don't have to move G & S back, but nearly everything from now on is going to be like this.
Can't believe I missed this thread. brilliant entertainment guys.
Not seen the show though.
Would like to say though, that if Godot is actually a Taxi as his name would suggest then he would know the costs etc...
Rubs chin "Oooohhhh, it's gonna cost ya!"
I think the main difference between a sitcom and comedy drama is its length(Ooh er).
Sitcoms are usually about half an hour but comedy dramas are more likely to be twice that - more of a story but with the gags further apart.
Got to back up Godot here. Far from being a nasty thread, I find this interesting to read.
RE: realism in sitcoms - it depends on the premise of the show. Weird things happen in the Young Ones and Mighty Boosh but not as weird as Black Adder or Fawlty Towers and again not as weird as more 'real' world comedy. It's all to do with suspension of belief but this suspension has to obey the rules of the premise. If a sitcom is set in the 'real' world it has to obey real world rules. An A-bomb in the kitchen is normal for the Young Ones but it wouldn't happen in less surreal shows as the audience would think 'bloody hell, what's going on here.' Breaking the rules of real world can be done in very clever ways such as Spaced's use of false futures but it has to be clearly shown that the rules were broken in a specific context (such as rewind or a double-take).
I make no contention with the show. When the BBC and Baby Cow put their weight and excellent production abilities behind a show it is going to look good, it's going to have great acting. Fact. Those institutions are brilliant and those qualities are not at issue.
My point has always been that the show idea which was submitted (and recieved such a glowing BBC response) was a half-page half-baked idea containing the phrase 'a wedding in which nothing much happens' Just that one phrase shouts lazy lazy lazy and demonstrates an inability to write.
Can any writer here be proud of submitting that line? Be honest. I'd smash my printer before allowing that line to be read by anyone else.
Is our mistake that we should forget writing pilots and submit half-page ideas to producers, totally bypassing the writers' room? However, the fact that the submitter clearly needs to be a rising star actor may rule this route out for most of us.
Any real script editor reading a line like that would put it to the side as vague and poorly written. However this piece of paper is leapt on by a producer and the submitter is told to write a project focusing on the backstory not the idea.
Another question is how much backstory on four main characters can you include in a 200 - 400 word synopsis of a different idea? Clearly not a lot. Yet the backstory is what was picked up. You don't have to be a writer to see that this screams desperation to get these actors involved in a show somehow?
That a producer read this half-page immediately tells you that this never went through the Writers' Room. No half-page submission would pass through that hive of inactivity, especially when the original idea is so heavily modified by the commissioner, yet another indication that the actual submission wasn't that interesting (else thay'd have produced that original submission surely?)
Can any writer honestly say that they'd expect a response like that from a producer IF they didn't have an 'in' or the ear of the producer? Any self respecting producer would say, show me an episode. But they were told to write the series on the basis of a few hundred words of vague description.
I put a smiley here to try and show everyone my gripe is with the process of how this show ever got made and not with its admirable forum defenders, the writers, or the production departments.
Thanks to the Slag A for weighing in. Fellas, I don't know if you've read this link:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/proginfo/tv/wk20/feature_gavinandstacey.shtml
The interview confirms that the script didn't go anywhere near the writers room but was submitted to directly to Stuart Murphy. It also reveals that the first episode only took 24 hours to write! That long, some of the less kind amongst you might be thinking, but this is still an astonishing fact to publish, and shows the confidence that the people involved have in this show.
Quote: Ginger Jesus @ May 21, 2007, 4:33 PMCan't believe I missed this thread. brilliant entertainment guys.
Not seen the show though.
Would like to say though, that if Godot is actually a Taxi as his name would suggest then he would the costs etc...
Rubs chin "Oooohhhh, it's gonna cost ya!"
Ginge, I should have written he'd have had more chance getting a London cab to take him to Monkey Hell than Billericay. 
Its definitely a sitcom as its introduced as one, and is obviously 30 minutes long. It is full of jokes but maybe not that obvious/funny. The story and characters are very engaging and there are enough laughs for me to really enjoy it and forget the gaping holes in the story line (why are they in such a rush, oh yeah cos they need get married in THIS series)
The only slightly disappointing thing is its going down the old wedding road that seems to be the obvious story line these days. Green Wing, Worst Week, Peep Show and now this.
They all do it differently and well but it is becoming a bit tired and totally ruining one of my sitcom storylines.
IT WASN'T A HALF PAGE!!! Whoever said it was? Oh that's right you did. From what i gather it was a detailed treatment with defined characters and a long back story. From what i can see your anger is not at the show but the fact that no one will make your show? Is this right?
I agree contains nuts, the rush of the wedding is a bit much. Something do with it happening on her dads 50th? I'm with you though, i completely believe in the show. I think it's amazing. It has 3 facebook fan sites already!
Quote: Josh Dulaney @ May 22, 2007, 10:04 AMIT WASN'T A HALF PAGE!!!
The writer said in an interview that it was half-page treatment, so I can only go on what he tells me (and the rest of the UK). You seem to know an awful lot about this show but you do reveal that you have some stake in this (you say you know someone involved in the show) after your dogged defence of it, why does it comes as no surprise?
If you are actually involved in the show don't get so upset. All shows attract criticism and I'm not even criticising the show. I've said that quite plainly. I'm referring to a submission process that seems to place weight on 'names' rather than content.
You conveniently ignore the writers' own descriptive phrase for the project as 'a wedding in which nothing much happens' Be honest. Does that sound like seminal genius or vague unformed ideas? Who of the writers here would post that phrase in our Critique forum and not expect some criticism for wooliness?
Quote: Josh Dulaney @ May 22, 2007, 10:04 AMFrom what i can see your anger is not at the show but the fact that no one will make your show? Is this right?
Going by the logic of that statement I should be angry at EVERY show, but I'm not. I have no stake in this but you do. Josh, there is no real anger in my criticism. I was at pains to end my last post with a smiley to show I'm not mad at the show, its forum defenders, or the production companies, or talented actors. But you ignored this. So just for you ...
I love the Beeb and BabyCow are fab.
What's this 'Writers' Room'? And why must scripts go there first?
Quote: Godot Taxis @ May 22, 2007, 1:39 AMThe interview confirms that the script didn't go anywhere near the writers room
I don't think some people here have any idea what BBC Writersroom is for. A comedy submission to Writersroom has NEVER been commissioned. It is for 'promoting' talented writers - giving feedback, placing in workshops, ...
Perhaps a lurking BBC employee could elaborate (and maybe correct me).
I love you too. I do. I don't have anything to do with the show, i just know someone who worked on it and took an interest. I also just think it's brilliant. I no what you mean about saying a wedding where nothing happens but i just don't believe the bbc would make this show just because of the people in it. Maybe they would but i think the fact that the show is getting good viewing figures and amazing reviews means they were justified in whatever decision they made. This is for you 
Quote: Josh Dulaney @ May 22, 2007, 10:04 AMI agree contains nuts, the rush of the wedding is a bit much. Something do with it happening on her dads 50th? I'm with you though, i completely believe in the show. I think it's amazing. It has 3 facebook fan sites already!
Bloody hell, well the argument ends here I guess, you know you've made it when you've got 3 facebook fansites!! (double exclamation mark to add more emphasis)
Anyway, everyone knows my views on this show, I don't like it, it's lazy and is poorly written.
However I can't really agree on the point that the line 'its a show about a wedding where nothing much happens' is bad, because then I would be a hypocrit because one of the best sitcoms ever and possibly my favourite sitcom ever Seinfeld was first introduced to the network executives by Larry David as "It's about these four friends, living their lives where nothing happens".
However let me make this clear G&S is no Seinfeld, not in the slightest. G&S has no smartly, intricate plot writing, it certainly isn't as funny as Seinfeld and can't write dialogue like on Seinfeld.
Not finding something funny, or not liking a show, I dont believe makes the writing automatically 'lazy'. Its a good show, not amazing, but very good, and I think that its detractors on here who keep saying that the writing is lazy as one of the reasons for not liking it is lazy in itself. It doesnt flick your switch, which is fair enough, but that doesnt make a show lazy, just not your cup of tea.
