Quote: JPM1 @ December 6 2010, 6:38 PM GMTLazzard, I beg you, just consider for a short while that there might possibly be a way of looking at writing that is something other subjective. Please....
What do you want to do with this "well-written sitcom formula" when you've got it?
Quote: jacparov @ December 6 2010, 5:55 PM GMTHi, You asked:
I don't think the vast majority of an audience would want or need to do this, most people watch TV to relax and have fun. A critic or student may well do though, and that I guess is the realm of literary criticism.
1. WE don't have the right to hold a writer to any of our standards, what ever they may be. It is that writers right to write what they like, is it not?
2. Some writers would say that after they have sold the script, it has little to do with them from then on, as it becomes a much more collaborative process. Plus we (the viewers, as in a visual piece of work) are judging their script ( which is more of a narrative set of instructions for directors and actors) by the wrong critera.
I guess I would use what I wrote previously about the expert construction and composition of a script.
Hi Jacparov,
A very interesting set of points. Let me try to take them in turn:
I agree, most audiences don't want or need to. But those few who do - critics, students, vested interests, stakeholders, people who like to think, et cetera - if we are to gauge the level of success of their text, which you suggested earlier is relative to their intentions, how can we see their intentions? Should they be inherent in the script or should we look for them elsewhere? Id' argue they should be inherent in the script. It should be clear we get to the end of a piece that the writer was leading us there all along, no?
We don't have the right to hold a writer to any standards? Really? Can we hold the BBC, who spends our license fee on shows, to any standards? If the BBC put out crap that no one watched would we be able to say that was unacceptable?
I think The term writer, when referring to a broadcast sitcom, should be thought to encompass all the involved parties - producers, commissioners, directors.... anyone who had a hand in "wrighting" the work.
And back to the expert construction idea - one I've always liked....
How do you differentiate between a manuscript composed expertly and one composed amateurishly?
Quote: chipolata @ December 6 2010, 6:45 PM GMTWhat do you want to do with this "well-written sitcom formula" when you've got it?
Chipolata,
This is somethign I wrote to Wisty which I think applies here:
" I'm talking about understanding something that's already been written - not writing a new thing. I'm looking back at work and asking how do we describe it's qualities. Not saying that a writer must use a formula to create new work."
When one assesses a house, one doesn't prescribe what future houses "should" be. Does that make sense?
Quote: JPM1 @ December 6 2010, 6:50 PM GMTI think The term writer, when referring to a broadcast sitcom, should be thought to encompass all the involved parties - producers, commissioners, directors.... anyone who had a hand in "wrighting" the work.
No to that, that's quite a slap in the face to the person who did actually write the thing! But if you do want to apply that, then it should refer to all forms of TV shows, not just sitcom.
Quote: Matthew Stott @ December 6 2010, 7:04 PM GMTNo to that, that's quite a slap in the face to the person who did actually write the thing! But if you do want to apply that, then it should refer to all forms of TV shows, not just sitcom.
Agreed, it should refer to all forms. I stand corrected.
However, I don't think it's fair to ignore the contributions of the rest of the collaborative team. While the credited writer has certainly done the lion's share of the "wrighting" what is finally "wrought" is the work of many people, each one partly responsible for the outcome.
Quote: JPM1 @ December 6 2010, 7:09 PM GMTAgreed, it should refer to all forms. I stand corrected.
However, I don't think it's fair to ignore the contributions of the rest of the collaborative team. While the credited writer has certainly done the lion's share of the "wrighting" what is finally "wrought" is the work of many people, each one partly responsible for the outcome.
Yes, everyone who played a part in the final thing should recieve the credit they deserve, but let's not forget that it's the writer who did the writing.
Quote: JPM1 @ December 6 2010, 5:11 PM GMTSo how does an audience determine the writer's intentions? How do we avoid a writer simply saying "well I never intended the characters to be "x" so you can't hold me to that standard"
?
As a writer I can answer this one. They don't give a shit. They just want what they paid for.. to be entertained and amused.
Quote: JPM1 @ December 6 2010, 6:50 PM GMTWe don't have the right to hold a writer to any standards? Really? Can we hold the BBC, who spends our license fee on shows, to any standards? I
Quote: JPM1 @ December 6 2010, 6:50 PM GMTI think The term writer, when referring to a broadcast sitcom, should be thought to encompass all the involved parties - producers, commissioners, directors.... anyone who had a hand in "wrighting" the work.
You can think that it is complete bollocks mind you.
Sorry you stood corrected. I'll take half of it back.
Quote: Matthew Stott @ December 6 2010, 7:17 PM GMTYes, everyone who played a part in the final thing should recieve the credit they deserve, but let's not forget that it's the writer who did the writing.
I think you might be missing the distinction I'm making between writing and "wrighting"
As we pursue a definition of "well-written" I think we should include those components that go beyond the text.
Hello Griff, I hope life's treating you well. 
I agree, most audiences don't want or need to. But those few who do - critics, students, vested interests, stakeholders, people who like to think, et cetera - if we are to gauge the level of success of their text, which you suggested earlier is relative to their intentions, how can we see their intentions? Should they be inherent in the script or should we look for them elsewhere? Id' argue they should be inherent in the script. It should be clear we get to the end of a piece that the writer was leading us there all along, no?
:- Ok lets take the writer of a sitcom, why do they write it? Obviously to sell it or to produce it themselves. That is their intention. What I think you mean is the effect(laughter or some other emotional response for example), obviously the writer wants the reader to be 'moved' or to have a positive reaction to the script in order to sell it. What I think you are looking for (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is something along the lines of:
CHARACTER: Must be XYZ. PLOT: Must be ABC etc if that then we get this reaction ...123. etc etc which by and large is impossible because there would be a great deal of shows that don't follow a prescribed formula.
We don't have the right to hold a writer to any standards? Really? Can we hold the BBC, who spends our license fee on shows, to any standards? If the BBC put out crap that no one watched would we be able to say that was unacceptable?
:- The BBC and writers are two different things, of course we can and should hold the BBC to certain standards but they are broadcasters not writers. But we the viewers can't hold the writers themselves to any blame shall we say,that's up to the people who hired them.
I think The term writer, when referring to a broadcast sitcom, should be thought to encompass all the involved parties - producers, commissioners, directors.... anyone who had a hand in "wrighting" the work.
:- I disagree with this completely, they all do very different jobs.
And back to the expert construction idea - one I've always liked....
How do you differentiate between a manuscript composed expertly and one composed amateurishly?
from the points I made earlier, if I enjoyed reading them and if I had that emotional reaction to them.
Quote: Griff @ December 6 2010, 7:58 PM GMT"wright" is not a verb, in Britain or America. The term "wrighting" is utterly repulsive.
I can't believe Marc P, Lazzard and others are giving this thread the time of day. It must be an economic indicator of hard times in the screenwriting world.
why do you think I put it in quotes?
Ever heard of a playwright?
Quote: jacparov @ December 6 2010, 8:09 PM GMTI agree, most audiences don't want or need to. But those few who do - critics, students, vested interests, stakeholders, people who like to think, et cetera - if we are to gauge the level of success of their text, which you suggested earlier is relative to their intentions, how can we see their intentions? Should they be inherent in the script or should we look for them elsewhere? Id' argue they should be inherent in the script. It should be clear we get to the end of a piece that the writer was leading us there all along, no?
:- Ok lets take the writer of a sitcom, why do they write it? Obviously to sell it or to produce it themselves. That is their intention. What I think you mean is the effect(laughter or some other emotional response for example), obviously the writer wants the reader to be 'moved' or to have a positive reaction to the script in order to sell it. What I think you are looking for (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is something along the lines of:
CHARACTER: Must be XYZ. PLOT: Must be ABC etc if that then we get this reaction ...123. etc etc which by and large is impossible because there would be a great deal of shows that don't follow a prescribed formula.We don't have the right to hold a writer to any standards? Really? Can we hold the BBC, who spends our license fee on shows, to any standards? If the BBC put out crap that no one watched would we be able to say that was unacceptable?
:- The BBC and writers are two different things, of course we can and should hold the BBC to certain standards but they are broadcasters not writers. But we the viewers can't hold the writers themselves to any blame shall we say,that's up to the people who hired them.
I think The term writer, when referring to a broadcast sitcom, should be thought to encompass all the involved parties - producers, commissioners, directors.... anyone who had a hand in "wrighting" the work.
:- I disagree with this completely, they all do very different jobs.
And back to the expert construction idea - one I've always liked....
How do you differentiate between a manuscript composed expertly and one composed amateurishly?
from the points I made earlier, if I enjoyed reading them and if I had that emotional reaction to them.
jacparov I fear I have offended you and this is why I'm getting these very curt responses from you. I hope this isn't the case. I've very much appreciated your contribution to the discussion.
I am in no way in pursuit of any formula whatsoever - see responses to wisty and Matthew. I'm trying to assess work which is already written, not determine how future work should be made.
so sorry, have to run but I'll get back to this later....
Quote: JPM1 @ December 6 2010, 8:24 PM GMTjacparov I fear I have offended you and this is why I'm getting these very curt responses from you. I hope this isn't the case. I've very much appreciated your contribution to the discussion.
I am in no way in pursuit of any formula whatsoever - see responses to wisty and Matthew. I'm trying to assess work which is already written, not determine how future work should be made.
so sorry, have to run but I'll get back to this later....
No no offence taken, I quite enjoy the debate actually. Sorry if you feel my reply was curt, it wasn't intended to be. Perhaps it is frustration as we don't seem to be getting anywhere, which isn't your fault of course.
Quote: jacparov @ December 6 2010, 8:39 PM GMTNo no offence taken, I quite enjoy the debate actually. Sorry if you feel my reply was curt, it wasn't intended to be. Perhaps it is frustration as we don't seem to be getting anywhere, which isn't your fault of course.
Ok, back now... sorry.
Yes, I feel your frustration. It does seem like we're going around in circles a bit. It's been difficult getting folks over the "it's subjective" obstacle but I think we're close!
On the subject of producers and the involvement of other non-writers.
I feel strongly that, though they do a different job, they are part of the work of forming the piece and are therefore "wrighters," if not writers.
I am beginning to see why this is a contentious issue on a forum full of writers... 
The truth is though, that while a writer does most of the work there are other cooks in the kitchen.
But - we digress! On to the expert construction of a manuscript.... You suggest that if you enjoy reading them and have an emotional reaction you would distinguish them from Amateur. I'd challenge you, in the nicest way possible, to be more specific about what makes it "enjoyable" to read.
What about things like well-woven A,B, and C stories, characters making unexpected choices, or smart use of setting and time.... sure these make it enjoyable but can one script's expertise be greater than another's? How do we measure it?
Could we say that the more threads a show weaves together the better? (I'm sarcastic, of course, but - for a rhetorical reason.)
Quote: JPM1 @ December 6 2010, 9:05 PM GMTThe truth is though, that while a writer does most of the work there are other cooks in the kitchen.
Well the writer does the writing work, yes; and other people do their jobs. And they're all important in their own way to the final piece.
