I'm sure an idea will 'pop' into your head. Oh dear i've turned into David Chapman, yikes.
Characterisation Page 3
Dear Old Dave. He does come in for a pasting. Or is it a pasty?
Nice guy.
I love you David. If neither of us were married and you were richer I would be up for a little pasting of our own.
Everyone Loves David. I've got an idea for a sitcom.
Is there a David Chapman here?
A comedy about a man who acts on messages he recieves 'from beyond'.
A cross between Spaced, Only When I Laugh and Most Haunted.
With Derek Accorah as Aunty Bessie.
Quote: Alan Alexander @ June 14, 2007, 8:55 PMAll I suggest you do is this:
First, think of a character. What are that person's hopes and fears? What are their circumstances?
Once you understand the character, use that understanding to dictate how the character speaks, acts and reacts.
It's as simple as that.
I thought I'd come back on this one ... as I indeed wanted to earlier before this thread kinda died. The biggest problem with the most 'interesting' (and therefore usually 'funniest' ... for a variety of reasons) characters, is that what goes on inside their heads is not 'logical' or ('normal' in a psychological or socially acceptable sense) ... or in any other terms one might wish to ascribe to those we see in the rather mundane world around us. I think script writers need to drift off into the realms of the totally bizarre in order to come up with winning characterisations for any new sitcom idea. The successful ones do just that I think. I bet nobody actually knows any other one person (in real life) that is totally like any major sitcom character they can think of. Bits and pieces might match up ... but never a 'total' individual. Even the real-life person that John Cleese, via an earlier Python experience, based his Basil Fawlty character on, could never have been quite that bad! To get inside the head of a 'true' sitcom character I think it's necessary to sometimes transcend into a bit of madness (but it can be fun in there!). Characterisation is my favourite subject ... dammit ... I love my characters as much as my own family (well, almost!) ... although many of them are complete nutcases!
Quote: ajp29 @ June 16, 2007, 5:23 PMOh dear i've turned into David Chapman, yikes.
Oooh! I thought I felt something!
Actually I know a couple who remind me visually of Basil & Sybil and her voice is similar. They're old family friends (or were now) and I'mconvinced they must have seen them at some time.
Quote: losaavedra @ June 16, 2007, 6:28 PMI thought I'd come back on this one ... as I indeed wanted to earlier before this thread kinda died. The biggest problem with the most 'interesting' (and therefore usually 'funniest' ... for a variety of reasons) characters, is that what goes on inside their heads is not 'logical' or ('normal' in a psychological or socially acceptable sense) ... or in any other terms one might wish to ascribe to those we see in the rather mundane world around us. I think script writers need to drift off into the realms of the totally bizarre in order to come up with winning characterisations for any new sitcom idea. The successful ones do just that I think. I bet nobody actually knows any other one person (in real life) that is totally like any major sitcom character they can think of. Bits and pieces might match up ... but never a 'total' individual. Even the real-life person that John Cleese, via an earlier Python experience, based his Basil Fawlty character on, could never have been quite that bad! To get inside the head of a 'true' sitcom character I think it's necessary to sometimes transcend into a bit of madness (but it can be fun in there!). Characterisation is my favourite subject ... dammit ... I love my characters as much as my own family (well, almost!) ... although many of them are complete nutcases!
I'm not really sure how the above post relates to the one you're responding to.
I mean in a discussion kind of a way, and all that.
I think you have to empathise with your characters though. It gives you something to aim for on their behalf.
I think David you enjoy getting into your female characters, even the male ones too. 
Response deleted ... not worth the effort.
Quote: losaavedra @ June 16, 2007, 7:33 PMResponse deleted ... not worth the effort.
I'll bet it was.
Go on go on go on......
Alright ... I'll put it back you 'ol smoothie!!!
Quote: Alan Alexander @ June 16, 2007, 6:45 PMI'm not really sure how the above post relates to the one you're responding to.
I mean in a discussion kind of a way, and all that.
Well, if you give me a clue as to what it is you have a notion to discuss ... then please tell me what it is and I'll try to respond in a way that may even move things on a bit. You tend to make bald statements ... and I too can make bald statements ... but this is not 'discussion' ... it's rhetoric! On your part you do not have to disclose your identity in order to actually contribute something to all this ... I am beginning to think you see this is some kind of game (and that's a very negative thought on my part and I'm not happy with it). I'll repeat ... I think characterisation (in any 'staged' work) is fundamental. I think there is more to 'characterisation' than some of the platitudes that have already appeared here, in this forum, in various guises, or, to be fair, in any additional thoughts I have so far had myself on the subject. Maybe you have similar views, maybe not ... but neither is particularly coming across. Where's the passion for Heaven's sake? You must have some opinions beyond all the one-stop stuff you've exhibited so far!?! And before you get too excited, that last statement is only supposed to be mildly provocative ... I will not enter into any further discussion into the various ways as to how that might be interpreted as I don't want to waste the time of anybody else here.
ooh, get her.
Or him!
Quote: David Chapman @ June 16, 2007, 6:56 PMI think you have to empathise with your characters though. It gives you something to aim for on their behalf.
Harold Pinter says he cares for all his characters, and loves some of them.
This goes to explain his great writing and the pages of his manuscript being stuck together.