Peep Show doesn't challenge the conventions of tradition British sitcom in any way. It is essentially the Likely Lads with cameras screwed to the actors' heads. Sitcom generally resists innovation because it cannot function without the instant recognition of types of people, behaviours and situations. And because in our current culture it isn't necessary to say anything new, only to say something old in a new way.
But write your own f**king essay.
Quote: Godot Taxis @ December 4 2008, 1:34 AM GMTPeep Show doesn't challenge the conventions of tradition British sitcom in any way. It is essentially the Likely Lads with cameras screwed to the actors' heads. Sitcom generally resists innovation because it cannot function without the instant recognition of types of people, behaviours and situations. And because in our current culture it isn't necessary to say anything new, only to say something old in a new way.
But write your own f**king essay.
Apert from the last sentence, that was "a load of old cobblers" (Galton and Simpson, 1962).
Edited by Aaron.
This is all very interesting, because I was a media studies student and I wrote my dissertation about traditional sitcoms, and whether they were still with us, totally gone or had mutated into some new form. I got around 55%, sadly.
Quote: Ian Wolf @ December 4 2008, 9:07 AM GMTThis is all very interesting, because I was a media studies student and I wrote my dissertation about traditional sitcoms, and whether they were still with us, totally gone or had mutated into some new form. I got around 55%, sadly.
What have you done with your media studies degree?
Quote: chipolata @ December 4 2008, 10:17 AM GMTWhat have you done with your media studies degree?
Quote: Timbo @ December 4 2008, 10:43 AM GMThttps://www.comedy.co.uk/forums/thread/7727 ?
Quote: chipolata @ December 4 2008, 10:17 AM GMTWhat have you done with your media studies degree?
I haven't been able to do anything, thank to this bloody economic crisis. Jobs in the media are falling, so there is less chance of getting work. I recently attempted to apply for a job as a broadcast assistant for BBC Tees, but I failed to get an interview.
I'm trying to get some work experience at one of my local papers, but the chances are I'm going to have to find a job somewhere else, probably in admin, until a media job comes along.
Quote: Godot Taxis @ December 4 2008, 1:34 AM GMTPeep Show doesn't challenge the conventions of tradition British sitcom in any way. It is essentially the Likely Lads with cameras screwed to the actors' heads. Sitcom generally resists innovation because it cannot function without the instant recognition of types of people, behaviours and situations. And because in our current culture it isn't necessary to say anything new, only to say something old in a new way.
But write your own f**king essay.
Woow look out! Think someone might have to go and change their tampon... Just for the record please quote me where I say "can someone write my essay?" Why are you even here with nothing constructive to say? Any need for the swear words as well? Or does that make you feel a bit more powerful? You little internet slut!
Edited by Aaron.
Taking your first question "What defines a traditional British sitcom?", then I would first compare British sitcoms with sitcoms from America and Australia. In comparision, British sitcoms mostly fit to some or all of the following characteristics:
- Losers, underachievers or lowly types as the main characters. (There are often characters in US shows that are supposed to be losers, but they differ from UK shows. It is often suggested that, for example, Chandler in Friends is a loser, but he is good looking, has loving friends, a high-paying job, a spacious Manhattan apartment, a quick wit and later in the series a beautiful wife. Compare that to Rodney, Rigsby or David Brent and you see the difference. When British shows do losers, we REALLY do losers.)
- Downbeat storylines. (US shows generally have uplifting, aspirational storylines, or at least end on high notes. The characters might face troubles but they do so with snappy one-liners.)
- Comic monsters. Captain Mainwaring, Rimmer, Basil Fawlty. Awful people who do awful things but we love them for their flaws. It's a very British thing to do. (The Americans are almost completely incapable of portraying genuinely flawed monsters in their sitcoms. They've tried to remake Fawlty Towers several times but can never get to grips with the character of Basil. Larry David is the only exception I can think of.)
There will be more, but these are the main ones I can think of.
And in answer to your second question, I believe that, in one respect, Peep Show is very much a traditional British sitcom. Two losers. Jeremy is a monsterous character who does awful things but we love him. Horrible things happen to both of them. It's all very downbeat.
On the other hand, it is filmed in a different way to other sitcoms, which gives the writers the added dimension of being able to vocalise the characters' thoughts. This distinguishes Peep Show from other British sitcoms.
Hope that was of some help and not just me blabbering.
Quote: glaikit @ December 4 2008, 12:42 PM GMT- Comic monsters. Captain Mainwaring, Rimmer, Basil Fawlty. Awful people who do awful things but we love them for their flaws. It's a very British thing to do. (The Americans are almost completely incapable of portraying genuinely flawed monsters in their sitcoms. They've tried to remake Fawlty Towers several times but can never get to grips with the character of Basil. Larry David is the only exception I can think of.)
Both of Raymond's parents in Everybody Loves Raymond. Carrie's father Arthur in The King Of Queens, and to an extent John Becker in Becker.
Quote: glaikit @ December 4 2008, 12:42 PM GMT- (The Americans are almost completely incapable of portraying genuinely flawed monsters in their sitcoms. They've tried to remake Fawlty Towers several times but can never get to grips with the character of Basil. Larry David is the only exception I can think of.)
Stan Smith in American Dad is pretty monstrous. And the entire Bluth family are also pretty horrendous, with the exception of Michael and his son.
Although I take your point. For flawed monsters on American TV you have to go to the likes of Tony Soprano.
Quote: jak ohara @ December 4 2008, 12:25 PM GMTWoow look out! Think someone might have to go and change their tampon... Just for the record please quote me where I say "can someone write my essay?" Why are you even here with nothing constructive to say? Any need for the swear words as well? Or does that make you feel a bit more powerful? You little internet slut!
Edited by Aaron.
Get f**ked. You have to take the rough with the smooth with me. I swear at everyone, it's nothing personal - except in your case. The fact that you think I have nothing constructive to say doesn't bode well for your 'academic' career: I made two useful points - that sitcom is a reactionary form that tends to resist innovation, in all but superficial ways and that formal innovation is the only real determinant of innovation nowadays, for some reason. The fact that you missed both of these points and misjudged the tone of my post completely, suggests that your essay will be something of a fool's errand.
Quote: Godot Taxis @ December 4 2008, 3:57 PM GMT. You have to take the rough with the smooth with me.
I can vouch for that! But when does the smooth start Godot? I'm owed me some smooth!
Quote: Matthew Stott @ December 4 2008, 4:02 PM GMTI can vouch for that!
To be fair to Godot, he is always there to tell us exactly why we're all wrong. And he does it so charmingly.