Sitcom, sit-com, who decides?
FIIIGHT!
Gavin & Stacey Page 17
Quote: SlagA @ June 8, 2007, 11:01 PMRe: Marc Blake's contention that it is all a 30 minute format, doesn't gel with many of the definitions that I googled, the three top ranks all used terms such as 'usually' and 'often'. Plus it's a very easy absolute to disprove. For example, a 'thirty minute' show in america when padded out by repetitive ad breaks is down to around 20 minutes, whereas BBC material is around 28-29 minutes. 50% variation is considerable. Even in the UK you have to write different length scripts for the BBC or commercial channels due to the effect of advertising.
The thirty minute restriction is set by the broadcaster rather than desired plot and structure. What use is a 35 minute ripper when it shunts all your programmes off the hour and half hour by an extra 5 minutes and confusing all the regular viewers? So I'd have to argue that it's a cultural (USA v UK) and a external (BBC v commercial channel) constraint rather than an 'ideal' that has been established over the years by industry pros as the perfect length for a sitcom. All other genres tend to fit into the 30 minute or 60 minute restriction too.
I think we are getting a bit pedantic here, myself included. Usual and often are still relevant words for my argument, but my main one is what the writers intended and what its presented as which is a sitcom.
BTW BBC is usually 26 mins and commercial is 22 mins so the difference isn't that big and can easily be managed without much rewriting as credits and scene cuts can be shortened or lengthened.
Quote: Aaron @ June 9, 2007, 12:26 AMSitcom, sit-com, who decides?
FIIIGHT!
SitCom
Si-Co
Sico
SiCo
I saw the last episode and liked it as usual. How about that for a peace offering Josh. But I genuinely liked it, it is/was a very good comedy drama. Although I hate it when, when they get another series, programmes don't tie up storylines. Don't get me started on lost. It really bugs me. Oh well Hohum.
Quote: Godot Taxis @ May 21, 2007, 3:49 PMNo, 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.
Apololgies for quoting my own post from page six or something of this thread but it seems people ain't read it. Gavin & Lazy IS a sitcom. As writers, we must take this on board or we ain't gonna sell to the BBC. It's a sitcom. In the same way that Damien Hirst is a painter and Rachel Whiteread is a sculptor, even though someone else does his paintings and she casts everything in a jelly mould.
Quote: Godot Taxis @ June 10, 2007, 10:45 AMApololgies for quoting my own post from page six or something of this thread but it seems people ain't read it. Gavin & Lazy IS a sitcom. As writers, we must take this on board or we ain't gonna sell to the BBC. It's a sitcom. In the same way that Damien Hirst is a painter and Rachel Whiteread is a sculptor, even though someone else does his paintings and she casts everything in a jelly mould.
LOL @ 'people ain't read it'.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you say '... or we ain't gonna sell to the BBC.' Do you mean we need to recognise that G&S is a sitcom (and not a comedy-drama, or just plain 'comedy')... and that's how it was sold to the BBC? And if we don't name our comedy-dramas as sitcoms, we won't sell anything either?
I guess I don't really understand what the difference is. I mean, I know that 'Sit-Com' (or however you like to spell it) means 'situation-comedy'. But what's wrong with another label... and why won't it sell if re-badged?
Or am I missing the point? Sorry... bad headache, feeling a little hung-over.
Darren, what I mean is, people get perfectly decent stuff rejected because it's 'old fashioned'. What most BBC readers and producers would call old fashioned is what people on these forums call classic sitcoms.
Sitcom doesn't really exist any more as you or I know it. It is 'narrative comedy'. Now, I know about My Family and Not Going Out - yes they are traditional, but believe me, they are exceptions now. Old style shows had themed epiosdes and no narrative arc. That's changed. There is a serial element to comedy these days – the influence of 25 years of Emmerdale and Eastenders being thrust down our throats, perhaps.
TV is very trend-driven and the trend at the moment is cinema verité, or realism or wobbly camera to you squire. As many writers know there ain't nothing real about realism, so I for one find this limiting. G & S is the best example of this. Even fans of the show admit that the humour is 'subtle'. The dialogue leans more towards naturalism than to old style 'sitcom dialogue'.
If I can quote myself from earlier in this thread again. Here's my version of a line from G & S:
COACH DRIVER:
Fags and weed, glue and speed. But I draw the line at freebasin' as I 'aven't got a fire extinguisher.
STACEY:
Aw, fair play.
The original exchange is this:
COACH DRIVER:
Fags and weed, glue and speed. But I draw the line at crack – that way everyone knows where they stand.
STACEY:
Aw, fair play.
No joke and very naturalistic.
I'm arriving a bit late on this and I'm not going to read a 17 page argument about what constitutes a sitcom these days.
I watched Series 1 on Saturday night, BBC3 showed all 6 episodes back to back.
I thought it was very good. It was funny, which is always a good start. Pretty strong characters. A nice divide between Gavin & Stacey, who were lovely people and Nessa and Smithy, who weren't. Lots of strength in the background, Uncle Bryn and Gavin's Mum in particular.
It was really well written, quite American style really, with the cliff hanger endings. I'd be very interested in finding out if the writers have the ability to write a second series and also to diversify and produce other stuff. Never the less, a very strong effort.
I'm afraid i can't agree with you, although it seems there will be another series of Gavin & Lazy whether the writers can manage it or not.
I predict that series two will be toilet with only one joke to share between all six episodes, but magazines and newspaper reviews will say that is 'charming' and 'the funniest thing on TV since the first series' and 'brilliant' etc.
I did ask the question elsewhere “how important is the writer” and judging by this tread not as much as some would have you believe.
I did watch them all back to back and for me it just worked, I found it both entertaining and funny, I’m not prepared to study it any deeper than that as it tends to suck all the enjoyment out of it.
I would compare it to an architect, a child could drew a house which if built would give you somewhere to sleep and keep the rain off, so if it’s raining and your tired then job done.
It doesn’t have to be clever.
I don’t think there a definitive different between a Sitcom and comedy drama, but for me this leant towards the later mainly I feel due to location and the fact it didn’t have one, but many.
Anyway I enjoyed so that all that matters………………to me.
Well said Barry. 
*pulls up a chair*
*chants*
Man fight Man fight. Whoopie doopie doo!
Anyone notice that since the show ended we haven't had any more posts from 'Josh Dealaney'?
I am I the only one to think that someone who only posts about one show and has read all of the reviews is possibly the writer?
The obvious conclusion would be that 'Josh' - which after all means to tease - is the fat boy - James Whatsisname, but Josh said he lives in Wales, so he could be Ruth Jones.
Think about it. Only posts about Gavin & Stacey. Has read All of the reviews.
I like 'Ideal', but I've never bother to find a review of it.
EDIT
Quote: Leevil @ May 12, 2007, 10:17 AMI'm not too keen, I heard it's not too far from Two Pints.
By what I have seen it's in a different league to Two Pints...Look at the cast for a start..Alison Steadman, Rob Brydon..You don't often find them in sh1te.