I know there are a lot of "Arrested Development" fans here, but for my part the use of voice over narrative is too intrusive - smacks of lazy writing to me - that and I can't help but see Ron Howard's freckly face.
Interested in people's opinion on when voiceover works, when it doesn't and why (or why not)?
One of the thing that makes Watchmen so ace as a comic, is that there is no voice over.
Haven't seen it Griff.... is it on You Tube do you know?
Thanks... will report back 
I think a lot of the problems associated with 'the voiceover', particularly with shows like Arrested Development, are that it allows you to put a lot more 'plot' in the show. The voiceover itself can be, and regularly is, used to expose plot points or set up punchlines. This is great when an audience appreciates it, but not when they are used to a simple formulaic structure. Hence AD's eventual failure in the US.
Personally, I like it, and have used it in two scripts, but I'm trying to get away from it as you can become over reliant on it in a, "How can I get this across, oh I'll just let the VO say it..." kind of way.
Yes, that's how I feel Smithy. It's a great tool when used sparingly. The first time I was really aware of it in a TV show, was "The Wonder Years" - a fine series in its time. I seem to remember it was used to add a little poignancy and a little serious weight to balance the humour - that's where A.D. is different, where it just seems like an easy way to shove a lot of plot information down your throat to set up the next gags - still pretty good, don't get me wrong, but tiresome sometimes.
Lot of AD knockers on this thread. I personally liked the voiceover and thought it added to the show. I also don't think AD's eventual failure in the States had anything to do with it, more poor scheduling, marketing and a show that just didn't "gel" with wider audiences. No shame in that, considering some of the dross that does gel with wider audiences.
Quote: Blobster @ December 15 2008, 10:53 PM GMTI know there are a lot of "Arrested Development" fans here, but for my part the use of voice over narrative is too intrusive - smacks of lazy writing to me - that and I can't help but see Ron Howard's freckly face.
Interested in people's opinion on when voiceover works, when it doesn't and why (or why not)???
Works perfectly in Arrested and Peep Show. Lazy writing? If you think there's anything lazy about Arrested then you're insane!
Quote: chipolata @ December 16 2008, 9:27 AM GMTLot of AD knockers on this thread. I personally liked the voiceover and thought it added to the show. I also don't think AD's eventual failure in the States had anything to do with it, more poor scheduling, marketing and a show that just didn't "gel" with wider audiences. No shame in that, considering some of the dross that does gel with wider audiences.
Correct. Full marks.
Quote: Griff @ December 16 2008, 9:33 AM GMTI've got S1 of Arrested Development on DVD but I stopped watching after the first couple of episodes because it didn't make me laugh once. Maybe I should try again.
Yes Griff, maybe you should. Only because it's one of THE great sitcoms mind, and if you don't like it, then you're probably going to Hell.
My Name is Earl uses it too.
I think it can work well if it adds to the laughs, rather than merely expositional.
Quote: Matthew Stott @ December 16 2008, 9:32 AM GMTWorks perfectly in Arrested and Peep Show. Lazy writing? If you think there's anything lazy about Arrested then you're insane!
Well said Stotty. I don't understand how having another layer to the show, creating extra room for even more(!) gags is considered lazy.
Quote: Griff @ December 16 2008, 9:33 AM GMTI've got S1 of Arrested Development on DVD but I stopped watching after the first couple of episodes because it didn't make me laugh once. Maybe I should try again.
Yes, do! I didn't get it at first. But now it's one of my favourites.
It works perfectly in Scrubs to. I do love voiceover.
Quote: hotzappa11 @ December 16 2008, 12:53 PM GMTIt works perfectly in Scrubs to. I do love voiceover.
Does seem to be used more on American shows for some reason.
Big fan of Earl where the VO is used mainly for time shifts to introduce back story - and the premise means that backstory is a major part of the show; not so big a fan of AD where it is used more to link together segments of plot involving different characters.
I think the point about a VO is that he has to be integral to the comedy of the show, rather than just a way of linking scenes.
And Dexter. Dexter wouldn't work at all without his inner monologue.