Interesting, but I'm confused also. On OFAH each episode was a self contained story, like in a series, there was no need for 'previously on OFAH' that a serial would have...
My Sit-Com Book Page 2
Its a flawed argument because there is no final rule or definition of a sitcom. Just people's opinions and all this will be is the author's. When a comedy doesn't clearly categorise itself then I always respect the scriptwriter's classification rather than make my own one up instead.
John Sullivan has always said that OFAH was a sitcom, he wrote it as a sitcom and so in my opinion it is a sitcom. Sitcom has evolved over the years so if it has some different elements to others then it doesn't make it not a sitcom. Friends was one of the most serial-driven sitcoms ever for example.
This debate is interesting although tending towards the arcane. My own interest in it stems from watching a history of British Films programme a couple of nights back, mostly concerned with the horror genre, where they were talking about 'portmanteau' films. They're the ones where (say) four guys are in conversation on a train journey and they each tell some grizzly tale played out in 'flashback' for the audience ... but at the end of the film it turns out all of them are already dead (spooky, eh?). I never personally liked that sort of film, but I've been working on a comedy idea where several funny short stories with a common theme or setting are arbitrarily placed end to end to form a 30 minute 'episode'. Each story averages around 7 minutes, so 4 will fit together that way. The next episode contains another 4 stories and so on. Now one might just say this is sketch writing but I think each story is, in itself, too long to be called a 'sketch' while at the same time it would be too short to be called a sitcom episode. Any comments those reading this may have, on what such a 'series' would be called as a collective entity, would be much appreciated.
Wow - this is quite a high brow discussion for this website - I'm impressed!
There's some very good points made. Although OFAH does have a flavour of storyline to it, like others have said, you wouldn't feel displaced if you watched them out of order.
I think Simon has it bang on: if a "Previously..." is required at the start then that would indicate it is a serial rather than a sitcom.
But then, as ContainsNuts says, who knows. There is no 'official' definition of what does and does not make a sitcom so there maybe no answer. Going with the majority though I think it is safe to say OFAH must be a sitcom.
I tell you what though - its bleeding hard to classify somethings. I've agonised long and hard over whether to include certain shows like Darkplace, Green Wing, The Goodies etc on this site (actually, no I didn't; I just included them as that was easier than working out if they are really sitcoms or in some unique new genre!).
Here's the real conundrum though: what do you do if the writers tell you their new show is a sitcom but it isn't remotely funny. Not a single joke (I won't mention which sitcom I'm thinking of). Sitcoms are meant to be funny... if a sitcom is not funny does that still make it a sitcom 
Just Good Friends & Dear John both had a continuing story line. That surely doesn't make them NOT sitcoms.
Quote: Mark @ September 2, 2007, 8:26 PMWow - this is quite a high brow discussion for this website - I'm impressed!
There's some very good points made. Although OFAH does have a flavour of storyline to it, like others have said, you wouldn't feel displaced if you watched them out of order.
I think Simon has it bang on: if a "Previously..." is required at the start then that would indicate it is a serial rather than a sitcom.
But then, as ContainsNuts says, who knows. There is no 'official' definition of what does and does not make a sitcom so there maybe no answer. Going with the majority though I think it is safe to say OFAH must be a sitcom.
I tell you what though - its bleeding hard to classify somethings. I've agonised long and hard over whether to include certain shows like Darkplace, Green Wing, The Goodies etc on this site (actually, no I didn't; I just included them as that was easier than working out if they are really sitcoms or in some unique new genre!).
Here's the real conundrum though: what do you do if the writers tell you it is a sitcom but it doesn't make you laugh. Sitcoms are meant to be funny... if it is not funny does that still make it a sitcom
I don't think whether it makes an individual laugh or not is relevant as we all find different things funny. There will always be people that don't find things funny so nothing would be a sitcom on that basis.
The 'previously on...' bit shouldn't be used to define a genre as all genres can use that, its just a programming tool. Arrested Development uses that and that is a sitcom. Its the style of show (drama/humour/horror) we are looking at not whether they run in a series or not.
Quote: ContainsNuts @ September 2, 2007, 8:37 PMArrested Development uses that and that is a sitcom.
The ones I've seen don't (although I've only seen six so far) - they spoof the 'next week on', but that's about it. Friends used to do it when an episode was a two-parter. But point taken, there is no set definition either way.
you'll see a few that do as you watch more. Plus it also has the narration to fill you in on what's happened so you are always aware of past incidents.
Quote: David Chapman @ September 2, 2007, 8:36 PMJust Good Friends & Dear John both had a continuing story line. That surely doesn't make them NOT sitcoms.
I argue it does make them comedy serials as opposed to sitcoms - similarly the argument works the other way - Phoenix Nights started and began the same way - the opening of the club. That makes PN a sit-com as it circled itself back to the original narrative again.
I've had 3 weeks off writing so that I could do family and work things but back on it from now on!
Quote: LDLmedia @ September 21, 2007, 8:18 PMI argue it does make them comedy serials as opposed to sitcoms - similarly the argument works the other way - Phoenix Nights started and began the same way - the opening of the club. That makes PN a sit-com as it circled itself back to the original narrative again.
I've had 3 weeks off writing so that I could do family and work things but back on it from now on!
Again, where is this definition to back up any of the arguments? It looks like you are making up your own definition (unless you can point me to the definitive one) and then your own arguments, which might effect the book's credibility.
I'm all for sitcom/comedy books but I would find it hard to buy one from someone publishing it themselves, telling me that PN is a comedy serial after hearing Peter Kay say its a sitcom and Channel 4 say its a sitcom.
Like I said before serials are a part of all genres not a genre in itself. You can get serial dramas and one-offs. Cracker was individual episodes but every now and then it would have a three-parter. It didn't change genre, its just a tool to link episodes. There is still a start, middle, end in all these episodes.