Quote: Lee Henman @ June 29 2009, 5:15 PM BSTNot sure where the status quo is there.
Everybody has to sometimes break the rules.
Break the rules? Page 4
Not sure what these "rules" are? Beyond "Can I tell a coherent story in half an hour?". I think discussion of The Simpsons and other cartoon comedies is a little bit irrelevant, because cartoons by their very nature (unreality) lend themselves to going off on tangents, dead ends, riffs etc. In a live action sitcom - either studio or single camera - scenes which don't fit the structure of the story or the style of the piece, tend to stick out like a sore thumb.
I think you can write in stuff which is original and/or unconventional without being accused of breaking any rules. If what you have written seems consistent with the world you have created then it won't strike people as unacceptably outlandish.
I think sometimes the desire to "break the rules" actually means that one doesn't really know one's characters or the story one is trying to tell. Form is necessary for sitcom. That doesn't mean a script has to be formulaic, however. Structure is important and something to really think hard about before submitting a draft. Lack of a strong structure rarely leads to huge laughs.
Quote: Lee Henman @ June 29 2009, 5:15 PM BSTDid it? I seem to remember an episode that started off with the plot of Rik waking up next to a lady (Jennifer Saunders I think), and thinking he's lost his virginity. The episode ends with the cast travelling back in time to medievel England where the house is besieged by marauding peasants. Someone asks "What're we going to do?" to which Vyvian shrugs and says something like "Who gives a shit?" just as the credits roll. Not sure where the status quo is there.
It does in the way that no character has changed because of the experience and you know the next episode will start in the usual same place. Thus bending and not breaking.
IMHO the advice to follow the rules is perfectly valid - otherwise they wouldn't tro it out so much. Presumably they see lots of writing where people have just ignored the rules and churned out unfunny shit.
Obviously breaking the rules if you're a good writer is acceptable, but as was said earlier, you need to understand them. For example, it's perfectly ok fo an architect to design a funky new building which looks unlike anything seen before but he'd be an idiot to do so if he didn't know the maths and engineering behind what he was doing.
Another example - Heston Blumenthal. He's a very talented chef. Knowing what he is doing so well allows him to break the rules and turn out some amazing stuff. If he had no cooking knowledge, he'd just be a twat making inedible, possibly toxic rubbish.
As for bending and breaking I guess I see that as how far you can push a plot, character. situation etc. before it breaks - i.e. becomes unbelievable in their reactions etc. Victor Meldrew stuck in a traffic jam was funny. Push him too far and it wouldn't be believeable without turning into 'Falling Down'.
Quote: Afinkawan @ June 30 2009, 1:57 PM BSTAs for bending and breaking I guess I see that as how far you can push a plot, character. situation etc. before it breaks - i.e. becomes unbelievable in their reactions etc. Victor Meldrew stuck in a traffic jam was funny. Push him too far and it wouldn't be believeable without turning into 'Falling Down'.
Likewise, Basil thrashing his car I'd consider 'bending' (it's not entirely usual for a person to unleash on an inanimate object to quite that extent) but were he to pull a minigun from his trousers and reduce the the car to scrap, well, that would be a case of 'breaking' in my book.
Quote: Tim Walker @ June 30 2009, 1:32 AM BSTI think discussion of The Simpsons and other cartoon comedies is a little bit irrelevant, because cartoons by their very nature (unreality) lend themselves to going off on tangents, dead ends, riffs etc. In a live action sitcom - either studio or single camera - scenes which don't fit the structure of the story or the style of the piece, tend to stick out like a sore thumb.
Sure, but sitcoms aren't restricted to live action or single camera (especially not in radio). We've already had the anarchy of The Young Ones mentioned, and Red Dwarf did all sorts of things with 'unreality', to great acclaim.
Perhaps there's an increasing acceptance and ability to portray 'unreality' where it wouldn't once have been? For instance, recently in That Mitchell and Webb Look, they stretched to a CGI robot scorpion just for one sketch. I don't know how much that cost, but I remember a Dr Who confidential telling us how pricey it was, and how sparingly it had to be used.
Quote: Lee Henman @ June 29 2009, 5:15 PM BSTDid it? I seem to remember an episode that started off with the plot of Rik waking up next to a lady (Jennifer Saunders I think), and thinking he's lost his virginity. The episode ends with the cast travelling back in time to medievel England where the house is besieged by marauding peasants. Someone asks "What're we going to do?" to which Vyvian shrugs and says something like "Who gives a shit?" just as the credits roll. Not sure where the status quo is there.
The best version of this I saw was in the Grimm Advenutres of Billy and Mandy.
Where Mandy's smiling destroys the space time continuim and turns them into the Powerpuff Girls.
Grimms final words.
"We keep going and we never look back"
There's an episode of Wondershowzen where, halfway through, it goes into rewind, replaying the last half of the show in reverse. If that's not breaking the rules I don't know what is.
Quote: Griff @ July 1 2009, 11:01 AM BSTI love Wonder Showzen.
Do sketch shows have rules? Probably.
I don't know exactly but I was certainly taken by surprise by that little stunt.
Quote: David Bussell @ July 1 2009, 10:59 AM BSTThere's an episode of Wondershowzen where, halfway through, it goes into rewind, replaying the last half of the show in reverse.
That does sound kind of awful though, why would you want to watch half the show going in reverse?
Quote: Matthew Stott @ July 1 2009, 11:36 AM BSTThat does sound kind of awful though, why would you want to watch half the show going in reverse?
You don't. Think of it more in terms of fine art than comedy and you'll be okay. Or just pissed off.
Quote: Matthew Stott @ July 1 2009, 11:36 AM BSTThat does sound kind of awful though, why would you want to watch half the show going in reverse?
I've not seen that particular episode, but there's certainly an opportunity to convey different ideas by such techniques. Take Red Drawf (again), and the comedy derived from their horror at pooing when events got reversed.
Quote: David Bussell @ June 30 2009, 2:13 PM BSTLikewise, Basil thrashing his car I'd consider 'bending' (it's not entirely usual for a person to unleash on an inanimate object to quite that extent) but were he to pull a minigun from his trousers and reduce the the car to scrap, well, that would be a case of 'breaking' in my book.
Is it possible that that's where the "bend/break" saying comes from? I remember John Cleese talking about how much time they spent trying to find the ideal bit of tree for Basil to beat the car with.
EDIT - Branch! That was the word I wanted. Not "bit of tree".
Quote: Mike Greybloke @ July 1 2009, 4:20 PM BSTIs it possible that that's where the "bend/break" saying comes from? I remember John Cleese talking about how much time they spent trying to find the ideal bit of tree for Basil to beat the car with.
Branch! That was the word I wanted.
I think the 'bend/break' analogy was originated by American comedian Steve Allen? It's a trite and pretty groundless opinion, in my view. (Pretty much any analytical statements about comedy tend to be. One (unintentionally) hilarious example of how pointless it generally is to analyse comedy is to be found in a programme Dr Jonathan Miller did some years ago. The high/low point was when he analysed the BTF 'One Leg Too Few' sketch, line for line.) Certainly don't think it's something that should keep a writer awake nights.
Another line I hate (may well also be Steve Allen) is that "comedy is tragedy plus time".
My advice is to always try and write something good.