Quote: Marc P @ December 4 2010, 12:07 AM GMTI've just deleted my reply to this. I am either drunker than usual or less. Damn hard to work out which.
Drinking! I should have guessed.... that explains so much!
The Definition of Well Written Page 5
Where did you do your MA JPM1 by the way?
Quote: JPM1 @ December 3 2010, 7:01 PM GMTOk I'm going to argue with your last point. Now I'm new to these forums and I'm finding that when I argue with people it often gets taken the wrong way. I'm really just having fun in the debate, not trying to be a prick.
So....
IS that all it takes for a sitcom to be well-written? Really? What if a show doesn't make you laugh, does that mean it cannot be well-written? What if a sitcom makes some laugh and others not - then is it well written for some people and not for others?
It seems like a lot is left to the intangible there. Is it impossible to quantify the components you refer to at all? Could we not say that Miranda's use of setting is "better" than The Trip's because in Miranda it is crucial to the understanding of the character and contributes to the complications that ensue? Where as in The Trip they could be having the same conversation in any number of other locations?
Your thoughts, as always, are appreciated!
IS that all it takes for a sitcom to be well-written?: I suppose not but it does mean it has been effective, the writer's intention has been successful.
What if a show doesn't make you laugh, does that mean it cannot be well-written?: No, it could be the fault of the directer or actors etc
What if a sitcom makes some laugh and others not - then is it well written for some people and not for others?: no, humour like many things is subjective, we all have different points of view, different frames of reference etc.
Is it impossible to quantify the components you refer to at all?: probably not impossible but again it ofthen comes down to subjective taste. For example some would prefer: "This is nonsense!" Alan said. While others: 'This is nonsense!' said Alan.
Quote: jacparov @ December 4 2010, 9:52 PM GMT"This is nonsense!" Alan said. While others: 'This is nonsense!' said Alan.
For the record, I prefer the second.
Nicer to end on two syllables.
Said Lazzard.
Are there any examples of well-written sitcoms ruined by poor acting or direction?
Quote: chipolata @ December 5 2010, 11:49 AM GMTAre there any examples of well-written sitcoms ruined by poor acting or direction?
Define well-written.
Quote: chipolata @ December 5 2010, 11:49 AM GMTAre there any examples of well-written sitcoms ruined by poor acting or direction?
It's a weird thing but the Fawlty Towers scripts read better. To me anyway. Odd I know.
Quote: chipolata @ December 5 2010, 11:49 AM GMTAre there any examples of well-written sitcoms ruined by poor acting or direction?
Good point - I can't think of any that have been "ruined" exactly. I happen to think Jerry Seinfeld is a terrible actor. But - he's a fine comedian in a very well-written show surrounded by very good actors - and so the show was still quite good.
But my point in asking that question was slightly different. It was not about the writing being ruined by something else about the writing being "good" despite not making you laugh.
Does that make sense?
Quote: JohnnyD @ December 5 2010, 12:16 PM GMTDefine well-written.
Yes, Johnny, that is what we're after here. A definition of well-written....
How would you define it?
Quote: JPM1 @ December 5 2010, 12:29 PM GMTso the show was still quite good.
'Still quite good'.... splutters in disbelief! 
It was a brilliant show!
Quote: JPM1 @ December 5 2010, 12:29 PM GMTGood point - I can't think of any that have been "ruined" exactly. I happen to think Jerry Seinfeld is a terrible actor. But - he's a fine comedian in a very well-written show surrounded by very good actors - and so the show was still quite good.
I've never had any problem with Seinfeld's performance myself; obviously he's no great actor, but everything he has to do he does well. And 'quite good'?! Seinfeld is 'quite good'?!
Quote: Marc P @ December 5 2010, 12:31 PM GMT'Still quite good'.... splutters in disbelief!
It was a brilliant show!
Yeh but, you haven't even defined what it means to be good, let alone brilliant!
I've never even thought about Jerry's acting skills while watching Seinfeld. He just is the character.
Quote: zooo @ December 5 2010, 1:48 PM GMTI've never even thought about Jerry's acting skills while watching Seinfeld. He just is the character.
Quite.
Quote: Matthew Stott @ December 5 2010, 12:54 PM GMTI've never had any problem with Seinfeld's performance myself; obviously he's no great actor, but everything he has to do he does well. And 'quite good'?! Seinfeld is 'quite good'?!
Ok, fine. Seinfeld is better than "quite good"
But next time you watch, look closely at Jerry's reactions to other people's lines. I think in those moments his weaknesses as a performer are very clear.
So as we pursue a definition of well-written, it occurs to me that sometimes it's easier to use a show we think is bad in order to say what is not "well-written"
We've chipped in our votes for Best-written - now how about votes for "worst-written"
I'm tempted to start with "the Trip" but I think I might get tarred and feathered so I'll put Him&Her on the table as my opening bid for it's lack of any compelling events, weak characterisations (saved by great performances) and overly-literary style of dialogue.
What say ye?
[quote name="JPM1" post="699804" date="December 5 2010, 5:31 PM GMT" my opening bid for it's lack of any compelling events
What say ye?[/quote]
I say you don't need any compelling events, necessarily, in comedy. Character yes, events no. Not always.