Quote: Declan @ September 22 2011, 9:17 PM BSTJust don't stick a load of stand-up into your sitcom. We hate that.
Oh excellent news, that's what I wanted to know. Ta.
The Sitcom Mission 2012 Page 7
This thread is locked. No further replies can be posted.
Another huge mistake that people are still making-and will go on making because it's so seductive.
Is...packing their script with jokes. Things that are funny out of context. Lines that would still be funny whoever said them. They almost never work.
Think of the hundreds of hours of sitcom that you've watched. Now think of all those bits that made you laugh that would still be funny as part of a stand up routine.
How many actual jokes can you remember? Is 'Don't tell him, Pike' funny unless said by that particular man in that specific situation?
Quote: simon wright @ September 24 2011, 10:14 AM BSTAnother huge mistake that people are still making-and will go on making because it's so seductive.
Is...packing their script with jokes. Things that are funny out of context. Lines that would still be funny whoever said them. They almost never work.
Think of the hundreds of hours of sitcom that you've watched. Now think of all those bits that made you laugh that would still be funny as part of a stand up routine.
How many actual jokes can you remember? Is 'Don't tell him, Pike' funny unless said by that particular man in that specific situation?
I have to say this is the one thing that makes me fight shy of this (and the 'other') competition. You quite rightly say that you don't want to spend 14 out of your 15 minutes building the backstory - but that's exactly how you get to a point where 'don't tell him' is funny. 15 mins, in front of a live audience is always going to be a gag-fest, wouldn't you say. By it's nature it has to favour that sort of thing. Not that that's a bad thing - I'm just not sure it's my thing.
Sill going to have a go though.
Mine will be the boring one that only gets going as the curtain comes down.
Lee Mack does a pretty good job of it in Not Going Out.
Quote: Marc P @ September 24 2011, 11:23 AM BSTLee Mack does a pretty good job of it in Not Going Out.
I always think that Lee and Tim in the pub swapping gags is the weakest bit of NGO.
I'll take character comedy like Partridge over gags that have been shoehorned in every day. I can't think of a single line from Partridge that you could use as an opener at an open mike spot, but I never tire of watching reruns of it.
On the other hand I do find the gag fest that is NGO increasingly wearing. I loved the first series, but by now the formula is a little transparent for me.
Quote: Lazzard @ September 24 2011, 10:52 AM BST15 mins, in front of a live audience is always going to be a gag-fest, wouldn't you say. By it's nature it has to favour that sort of thing. Not that that's a bad thing - I'm just not sure it's my thing.
Don't agree. Thunderer (a previous winner) was brilliantly funny from page one because the premise and characters were established so economically. It hit the ground running, but (crucially) I can't remember a single line that would be funny unless said by those particular people in that particular situation. Same with this year's winner What Next?
Maybe it's a personal thing. If you tell me one joke at a party I'll think 'this is a fun person to spend time with'. if you're still relentlessly churning out jokes 15 minutes later I'll think 'help!'.
There's something about being assaulted by gags that I find really exhausting. I'd rather be seduced by the unique world view of a never-before-seen character than be told a series of gags that belong in a stand up routine, not a sitcom.
I think cues to laugh are the main thing. A barrage of just people telling gags would not be funny after a while I agree, but NGO is a lot more than that. It is EXTREMELY character based, and Lee Mack pulls it off as does Tim Vine. I think the sitcom is a broad and multifacteted genre - if it is a genre, not sure it is - my favourite sitcom I have been watching recently is Curb, but I love Dad Army I love Miranda, I think if it works is the thing. And not everything is going to work for everybody I guess. Gags, or wit, not coming from character or context are wrong in the main, I agree with that.
[quote" I think if it works is the thing. And not everything is going to work for everybody I guess[/quote]
Exactly. I love Partridge (I may have mentioned this) but I know people who find it depressing. Same with Steptoe.
Here (in no particular order) are some others that do it for me:
Seinfeld
Curb
IT Crowd
Peep Show
Dad's Army
Men Behaving Badly
Ab Fab
Frasier
Cheers
Father Ted
30 Rock
Fawlty Towers
What?! No Fools and Horses? No Green Wing?
It's a personal thing.
Quote: simon wright @ September 24 2011, 12:51 PM BSTDon't agree. Thunderer (a previous winner) was brilliantly funny from page one because the premise and characters were established so economically. It hit the ground running, but (crucially) I can't remember a single line that would be funny unless said by those particular people in that particular situation. Same with this year's winner What Next?
Maybe it's a personal thing. If you tell me one joke at a party I'll think 'this is a fun person to spend time with'. if you're still relentlessly churning out jokes 15 minutes later I'll think 'help!'.
There's something about being assaulted by gags that I find really exhausting. I'd rather be seduced by the unique world view of a never-before-seen character than be told a series of gags that belong in a stand up routine, not a sitcom.
Is 'Thunderer' available anywhere to watch/read?
I 100% agree with your take on comedy - and it's encouraging to know that this sort of style can hold it's own in the competition format.
Thanks.
Quote: Lazzard @ September 24 2011, 2:41 PM BSTIs 'Thunderer' available anywhere to watch/read?
It will be very soon. Watch this space.
S
Quote: simon wright @ September 24 2011, 4:40 PM BST
I'm watching.
Nothing yet.
Is this thing on?
On the NGO issue, without trying to offend fans of it, I have to say what it's done is almost rewrite the rules for sitcom. I can see why it's enjoyable and why it has a loyal fanbase, but technically, Mack uses his popularity to get away with what are essentially, sitcom crimes. THAT'S IF you want to be niggly and pedantic about it, which I am.
I personally, in all my smallness, would not encourage any unaired sitcom writer to follow the NGO formula. It's a one off. It would not succeed with unknown and unloved writer/performers. imto. For contests it is best to be conventional, I'd still say. That means characters rule, not their gags.
Vine and Mack's 'jokes' are pretty similar, and more importantly, there is a huge difference between a joke and a funny line in context with the narrative. NGO seems to shoehorn the narrative in around the gags. Also, NGO's characters are weak, by trad. sitcom standards. My opinion. Wasn't looking to bash it but please, NGO is not a classic sitcom model to follow. At all.
Quote: simon wright @ September 24 2011, 12:51 PM BSTDon't agree. Thunderer (a previous winner) was brilliantly funny from page one because the premise and characters were established so economically. It hit the ground running, but (crucially) I can't remember a single line that would be funny unless said by those particular people in that particular situation.
Simon, I think I rather disagree about Thunderer (apart from the funny bit, it was very funny). I think the characters (which were broad in the extreme) were the least of it. The sit was dominant and the humour came from the juxtaposition of Victorian language and mores with modern sensibilities. Very much in the mould of Bleak Expectations and The Penny Dreadfuls.
Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ September 24 2011, 6:12 PM BSTOn the NGO issue, without trying to offend fans of it, I have to say what it's done is almost rewrite the rules for sitcom. I can see why it's enjoyable and why it has a loyal fanbase, but technically, Mack uses his popularity to get away with what are essentially, sitcom crimes. THAT'S IF you want to be niggly and pedantic about it, which I am.
I personally, in all my smallness, would not encourage any unaired sitcom writer to follow the NGO formula. It's a one off. It would not succeed with unknown and unloved writer/performers. imto. For contests it is best to be conventional, I'd still say. That means characters rule, not their gags.
Vine and Mack's 'jokes' are pretty similar, and more importantly, there is a huge difference between a joke and a funny line in context with the narrative. NGO seems to shoehorn the narrative in around the gags. Also, NGO's characters are weak, by trad. sitcom standards. My opinion. Wasn't looking to bash it but please, NGO is not a classic sitcom model to follow. At all.
Quote: simon wright @ September 24 2011, 12:33 PM BSTI'll take character comedy like Partridge over gags that have been shoehorned in every day. I can't think of a single line from Partridge that you could use as an opener at an open mike spot, but I never tire of watching reruns of it.
Not sure how far off-topic we'll be allowed to go with this, but - though I agree with you about never tiring of Partridge - I certainly wouldn't/couldn't write something like that for the Sitcommission. For something like that you'd need a writing/performing team that were in perfect harmony. Regardless of who wrote most of Partridge, only Steve Coogan could actually be him.
I tend to write broader, gag-based stuff usually because beautifully-wrought character-comedy relies on the skill of the actor as much as, or more than the writer.