Sitcom (Com)Mission Page 14

I nominate the Dads Army pilot, it was the script that was most worked on and probably their best. Which is a bit of a shame come to think of it. I really reccomend people read it. It is a setting up kind of pilot but really really well handled.

Some sitcoms need this kind of first episode - As Time Goes By, May To December, as they have a long narrative serial arc to the series and some don't. I wouldn't discount all sitcoms that establish the premise in the first episode, personally, as long as it is within a strong narrative and doesn't per se provide the framework for that narrative - which should come from the ongoing conflicts of character and sit. I would hope that you wouldnt have passed on the pilot of Porridge for another example.

Great first episodes of sitcoms:

Well I nominated Fawlty Towers earlier on, and I stand by it. The first page is genius. Lots of hotel stuff happening - room bookings, breakfast being served. All the characters established with just a few lines. Basil is being snobby. Sybil is bickering with him. There is a great Spanish joke: "Manuel there is too much butter on - those - trays", "No Mr. Fawlty, is uno - dos - tres" and by the end of the first scene we've met Polly and the Major as well.

There is no sense of this being a first episode at all, in that we aren't shown any part of the premise being set up. The first episodes of Father Ted and Peep Show are like this too.

Some sitcom first eps which are all about the setup (some more than others) would be

Frasier - the first ep is all about persuading Frasier to move in with his Dad

Friends - the first ep shows Rachel arriving at the coffee shop having run away from her wedding, meeting the gang for the first time

Phoenix Nights - where it's all about Brian Potter setting up the Phoenix Club

The Black Adder - where the 'alternative history' is established by which Blackadder becomes an heir to the throne.

The Thick Of It - in which we see Hugh Abbott's predecessor getting fired by Malcolm and Hugh Abbott starting at the department

Yes Minister - again the first ep is all about Jim Hacker's first day on the job

Futurama - the first episode is all about Fry ending up in the future.

Rising Damp - we see Rigsby meeting Philip for the first time.

Spaced - we see Tim and Daisy move in together

The IT Crowd - Jen's first day as manager of Moss and Roy

Not that there's anything wrong with any of the above, they are all great sitcoms obviously. But they don't start in medias res in the way that Declan and Simon would like our scripts to.

NB The more I think about this, the more I'm becoming convinced that sitcoms with no setup in the first episode are very much in the minority.

The problem with so many scripts that we get sent that feature a new arrival character, is that the older character describes to him (and us) a situation that pre-exists, which drains the story of all momentum. It's necessarily static because they're talking about something that has already happened. Instead of being told what A, B and C have behaved like in the past I'd rather see them showing those character traits now. In the moment. Amusingly.

So instead of being told dreadful stories about how badly Malcolm Tucker had behaved in the past, I'd rather see him tear someone to pieces in front of my eyes.

Of course there's setup in the first episode, but the boring writers seem to feel they need to tell us absolutely everything before we'll be able to laugh. I'll forgive being slightly mystified about the sit provided there is plenty of com.

I'd rather be pitched into a situation that has conflict, energy, and original characters even though I don't know exactly what's going on than be presented with something pedestrian that methodically lays out precisely where we are and who's who and forgets that the primary purpose of a sitcom is to make us laugh. Now, I'm not suggesting for one second that those great sitcoms mentioned above that feature a new arrival character failed to make us laugh (obviously they didn't) but I've ploughed through hundreds of scripts and one consistent reason they fail is that the writers give us either too much exposition, badly concealed exposition or (worst of all) nothing but exposition.

Obviously it wasn't a sitcom, but Lost didn't do too bad, did it? I found it gripping even when I had no idea what was going on.

Quote: simon wright @ November 8 2009, 10:50 AM GMT

The problem with so many scripts that we get sent that feature a new arrival character, is that the older character describes to him (and us) a situation that pre-exists, which drains the story of all momentum. It's necessarily static because they're talking about something that has already happened. Instead of being told what A, B and C have behaved like in the past I'd rather see them showing those character traits now. In the moment. Amusingly.

So instead of being told dreadful stories about how badly Malcolm Tucker had behaved in the past, I'd rather see him tear someone to pieces in front of my eyes.

View original

Absolutely right Simon, my post wasn't meant as a rebuttal of your requirement, apologies if it came across that way. I was just mulling over some sitcom first eps and was surprised to see how many of them are about setting up the premise as opposed to the Fawlty Towers / Peep Show / Father Ted model.

To change the subject slightly; can anybody think of a brilliant pilot that led to a crap series, or a crap pilot that led to a much-loved series?

Quote: simon wright @ November 8 2009, 10:50 AM GMT

Obviously it wasn't a sitcom, but Lost didn't do too bad, did it? I found it gripping even when I had no idea what was going on.

View original

I'm much the same with Question Time.

Quote: simon wright @ November 8 2009, 11:15 AM GMT

To change the subject slightly; can anybody think of a brilliant pilot that led to a crap series, or a crap pilot that led to a much-loved series?

View original

I suppose Blackadder is always held up as a sitcom that had a very ropey start. And the first series of Seinfeld is pretty uninspiring, ditto Men Behaving Badly. But that's "early series", not pilots. I'll think and get back to you!

Problem is, if I don't like a pilot, I don't watch the rest of the series to see if it gets better. I gave up after one episode of Plus One, Free Agents and How Not To Live Your Life (which everyone says has turned into a good series - maybe that's your bad-pilot-gets-good example?).

Maybe this'll help: How To Tell A Bad Sitcom

Quote: Declan @ November 8 2009, 9:27 AM GMT

Hi Tim

Don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger!

View original

Sorry, Declan/Simon, I wasn't trying to suggest that this was necessarily your personal view, of course.

The first episode of Black Books was very good, the way it incorporated Manny into the show by having a "proper" (though very silly) story in the plot to get him there.

The first episode of I'm Alan Partridge was set up the show brilliantly. Though of course it was a bit different because we knew the character of Alan pretty well already.

The 'Comedy Playhouse' pilot for 'Steptoe' was a great stand alone mini-drama.

I loved the way in the first episode of '15 Storeys High' (one of Marc's skitch-coms!) they deliberately got rid of Vince's sofa in order to signal that this was a traditional sitcom. Clever.

The first episode of Peep Show was not the best episode ever written, but it helped the show hit the ground running.

Agree with Griff that no first episode really touches Fawlty... in terms of getting on with the plot combined with a very deft setting-up process.

Oh, I could go on... Anyway, best of luck with this very welcome initiative.

Quote: simon wright @ November 8 2009, 10:50 AM GMT

Of course there's setup in the first episode, but the boring writers seem to feel they need to tell us absolutely everything before we'll be able to laugh. I'll forgive being slightly mystified about the sit provided there is plenty of com.

View original

Well, precisely, a badly written pilot will spend half its time on exposition. A well written pilot will tell us what the show is about in the most efficient possible way, whilst primarily telling us a story and giving us some laughs. Exposition via osmosis.

Just to add my 1p's worth: In this multi-channel age, any sitcom that needs a long setup episode to explain things probably won't get made... especially if it is intended for BBC Three or a commerical station. Why? Because many people now channel hop like crazy, and thus discover things mid-series (i.e. they miss the 'setup episode'). The channel wants to hook these people in still, so need sitcoms with instantly obvious setups!

This is no doubt partly why the commissions have been saying to Declan and Simon they want to see second episodes, not the openers.

The Inbetweeners is probably a good example - lots of people didn't discover it until Episodes 1.3 and 1.4... but if you watch those episodes first you can still instantly grasp what it's all about and who is who (e.g. Will is a geek; Jay is a loud-mouth)

So, why bother wasting valuable space in your Sitcom Mission entry explaining the situation? Fill this time with gags instead!

Anyway, frankly if the audience can't pick up on what's going on themselves, your characters are probably not well defined or your plot too complicated.

So, yeah, take the long term view on your sitcoms and work out whether people would understand the situation if they came in on the second episode. If they would, do you even need to waste time in the first episode explaining things?

Also, it hasn't really been mentioned yet I don't think - but I really do suggest people try and make sure their sitcom is a good audience sitcom (rather than a moody, subtle thing that would probably end up on TV as a single-camera sitcom). The scripts that seem to have done the best in The Sitcom Trials I've been to are the light-hearted ones with heavy-gag counts that really play up to the audience. e.g. Think Not Going Out a bit more than Spaced!

Quote: Mark @ November 8 2009, 4:52 PM GMT

The Inbetweeners is probably a good example - lots of people didn't discover it until Episodes 1.3 and 1.4... but if you watch those episodes first you can still instantly grasp what it's all about and who is who (e.g. Will is a geek; Jay is a loud-mouth)

View original

Good points there, Mark. But doesn't Will introduce each episode by telling us who he is and what's happened so far?

Quote: Leevil @ November 8 2009, 5:04 PM GMT

Good points there, Mark. But doesn't Will introduce each episode by telling us who he is and what's happened so far?

View original

Does he tell you what's happened so far? Or does he say a few lines relevant to today's episode? I can't remember.

I'm not sure, but I do remember "Briefcase Wanker" featuring in the start of most episodes.

Quote: Leevil @ November 8 2009, 5:04 PM GMT

Good points there, Mark. But doesn't Will introduce each episode by telling us who he is and what's happened so far?

View original

Oh, yes, bother! There is a re-cap! good point.

I just fired up Episode 1.4 on 4oD to check. Still, if we pretend that re-cap doesn't exist and watch between 1:00 - 2:00, I think my point still stands...

Within 60 seconds we get to know...

- The four lads are at school (hence uniforms) and clearly going through the awkward teenage-to-adult phase (e.g. for example, learning to drive) and still having to answer to their parents so not that grown up yet.

- They're friends, who take the mick out of each other

- Jay (although we don't get to hear his name) is gobby

- Simon is a bit unlukcky

- Will is clearly the sensible one (backed up by his neat blazer)

- Neil is gormless (given by his expression)

- And they're a bit sex obsessed, and sex deprived.

That's about the show in a nutshell I think? Introduced in one minute whilst the story is moving forward, and despite the fact this isn't the first episode. Whether it was an intentional introduction by the writers, or just the fact the characters and situation are so well-defined that they introduce themselves anyway, I don't know... but either way I think it works?

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-inbetweeners/4od#2918645

Ha! Mark, I didn't mean to be a pain. But I appreciate the reply

It IS a very good example, if you forget the recap bit. Nice simple setup, let's us enjoy the characters, without worrying about much else.

OK, here's a challenge: if you were writing the guidelines for writers who had never seen live sitcom before and you wanted to help them write next year's winning entry what would you put?

The given circumstances are:

15 mins length maximum
Simple staging-nothing that can't be done live, obviously.
Actors won't play roles unless they're worth playing. No extras, corpses etc.
No sketches. The premise has to have at least 6 episodes implicit in it.

That's pretty much it. How you steer them towards writing an exciting, original, stageable sitcom that will make the final a bidding war between commissioners is up to you.

No prize for writing the best guidelines, just a warm glow of satisfaction and the envy of your peers.

*throws Dead Extras in the bin*