Ronnie Anderson's MA sitcom extract Page 2

The ideas are funny enough, but I felt the execution could be sharper throughout. It is mostly little things, like in the paperwork line, the references, as requiring most forethought, should come last, so there is comic escalation.

On the divorce line, I would draw out the exchange, with Jessica making increasingly inappropriate comments, and then when Pam is seething, come in with the offer to sell her the pen.

To me the whole script feels a little lacking in conviction, with ideas not being properly worked up or polished.

Thanks everyone for the feedback. Much appreciated.

I must admit I love sitcoms with subtle nuances. I think can belong in sitcoms and can help give them their identity but I guess to be successful they also have to be very funny like the Office and the Royle Family.

I am not doing an MA in sitcom it is an MA in writing. Sitcom is the only writing I wish to pursue hence I have decded to write three, it is just the shortage of time which is making it difficult to spend too much time on strengthening lines and coming up with new gags, however if I have enough time I will try and pump up the gag count.

Quote: Roodeye @ October 24 2009, 11:00 AM BST

Can it reasonably be said that Butterflies was (and I quote Marc verbatim) 'about broad strokes'?

View original

Carla Lane to my recollection is not Alan Bennett - so probably yes.

Yes, very reasonably - but many would say Butterflies is a half hour comedy-drama and not a true sitcom - there were a few anomaly sitcoms like that tho, not many but one or two slipped through the net. I like Butterflies and it does actually have jokes in (not screamingly funny) to fit in with Mr P's definition of what a sitcom should have - so maybe it IS a genuine sitcom after all.

Quote: Roodeye @ October 24 2009, 11:00 AM BST

Can it reasonably be said that Butterflies was (and I quote Marc verbatim) 'about broad strokes'?

View original

The subtlety was more in themes underpinning the humour than in the actual execution. The actual gags could be quite clunky.

There have been purported sitcoms where the humour was very subtle, such as Sensitive Skin or Empty, but I am afraid for me the lack of genuine laugh out loud moments was an issue.

But I think this is going off at bit of a tangent, as Ronnie is not really trying to write a subtle sitcom. The issue really was about how best to craft the gag. And that is about getting the biggest laugh. If the set up is too clunky it won't work, if it is insufficiently signposted people will miss it. So you signpost it without making it clunky. It is not about different approaches, it is about having the craft to make it work.

Butterflies did have the really broad stokes of Ria's bad cooking, Nick Lyndhurst being dozy so it could add the sutbler bits.

I guess it could be said Alan Bennet's humour is too subtle for sitcom. He has admitted himself that he'd loved to write a sitcom but has not been able to.

Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ October 24 2009, 11:12 AM BST

Yes, very reasonably - but many would say Butterflies is a half hour comedy-drama and not a true sitcom - there were a few anomaly sitcoms like that tho, not many but one or two slipped through the net. I like Butterflies and it does actually have jokes in (not screamingly funny) to fit in with Mr P's definition of what a sitcom should have - so maybe it IS a genuine sitcom after all.

View original

Have a look at the cues for the audience to laugh. Broad strokes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdEIWu4gT5g

Quote: Roodeye @ October 24 2009, 11:14 AM BST

Note to self: more custard pie fights.

View original

Just jokes is fine for sitcom.

Quote: Roodeye @ October 24 2009, 11:14 AM BST

Note to self: more custard pie fights.

View original

You joke about that but I think it would be pretty cool to have subtle gags that you'd have to watch about five times to work out the humour mixed with custards pie fights and people falling over for no apparent reason.

No more so than Friends or Fraser or Bewitched or Seinfeld

Most sitcoms come down to the human condition and the relationships people have with each other.

Sitcom is about broad strokes in it's execution. In the traditional format there is an audience and you have to cue the audience to laugh is all. There is room for sublety along the way but you must have gags and plenty of them.

I agree it is important to have plenty of gags espcecially for a new writer who wants to interest people in there script but I do think some sitcoms have managed to survive without being funny like The Good Life.

I know that there were technically a quite lot of gags in it but I honestly think they needn't have bothered as non of them are funny, but despite this, it is still one of my favourite sitcoms for the charm factor.

Quote: Roodeye @ October 24 2009, 11:29 AM BST

I couldn't disagree more.

Comedy should come from character.

View original

By gags Roodeye, as I explained earlier, I mean cues for the audience to laugh. They can be verbal physical/whatever. And of course everything comes from character. That is why by removing the gag from the line as you did earlier, you removed the character with it.

In danger of getting into a semantic argument about what constitutes a gag, but I think we would all agree that lines should be in character.

Quote: Timbo @ October 24 2009, 11:33 AM BST

In danger of getting into a semantic argument about what constitutes a gag, but I think we would all agree that lines should be in character.

View original

Look at the expression on my face, you will have to explain what semantics means?

That Butterflies clip is excellent proof that you can successfully combine 'broad strokes' - jokes and visual gags with a narrative arc that brings a very reflective, very unsitcom like element to the sitcom. Carla Lane had a real gift for doing it, like or loathe her stuff, (Butterflies is by far her best IMO) so it really can be done - a sitcom which is also a bit of a drama.

Quote: Marc P @ October 24 2009, 11:34 AM BST

Look at the expression on my face, you will have to explain what semantics means?

View original

That could turn into quite a semantic discussion.

And I thought the expression on your face was the result of constipation.