British Comedy Guide

Any advice on the sitcom writing process? Page 3

Quote: Kev F @ July 7 2011, 10:22 AM BST

Ask yourself, first, why the hell do you want to write a sitcom? It never ceases to amaze me that thousands of people want to write situation comedies when writing almost anything else would be a much more likely way of making money and entertaining people.

Look at TV. How many sitcoms are there? How many people write them? How long have they been in the business? Now, having answered those questions, how likely do you think it is that you are ever going to get your situation comedy on the telly?

If you want to be a professional writer, why not look at TV writing, beginning with shows like Doctors. Or even better radio writing, the BBC uses the work of a lot of new writers all the time and has lots of opportunities for those willing to turn their hand to radio plays, short stories or indeed comedy.

If you want to entertain people, have you thought of stand up comedy? Or if that's too daunting, how about play writing for the stage. Every year the Edinburgh Fringe is full of teams of actors crying out for plays to perform.

Or why not write a screenplay or a novel? You could publish your novel yourself and find an audience instantly. And a completed screenplay has a chance, however remote, of getting optioned. Because there a lot of movies made every day. There are hardly any sitcoms made, especially in the UK. Ever.

Why sitcom? Do people think it's easier than other forms of writing? Cos it's not. You have to learn the skills and techniques of storytelling and scriptwriting, as in other forms, THEN you have be funny. Which most people simply aren't.

I speak as someone who has himself tried writing sitcom frequently over the last 20 years, with some limited success (two radio pilots and a TV series of The Sitcom Trials) and can't explain why he thought it was a good idea. But now I am happily writing other things and, delightfully, getting paid to do it. I'd love to write my own sitcom, but it's dropped way down my list of priorities. I'd be interested to learn why it's so high on many other peoples.

Kev F http://sitcomtrials.co.uk

Brilliant list, and a very good example of futility. The title is about the least important part of any sitcom.

It reminds me of the time our band tried to find a new name. There were 5 of us in the band. Each of us went away and wrote down a few names. I say a "few" names. Each of us came back with around 200 names. That left us sat in a pub staring at one thousand names for bands. Trust me, after the first dozen you start to glaze over. The novelty is well and truly gone by the time you've read a hundred.

We ended up giving ourselves the worst name anyone ever gave a band: Private Party. We thought it sounded cool and sophisticated. What we didn't realise was that, if you're playing in a room above a pub and you put a sign outside reading "Private Party", no bugger comes up to watch you!

Kev F

You don't choose your muse, it chooses you.

I've got stories to tell, but they're all humerous (at least I hope so).

I can't write romance, police procedurals because they're not an itch I need to scratch.

And if they never get picked up, so what? I had fun writing them.

Quote: Marc P @ July 11 2011, 11:19 AM BST

In what way Nogget?

Take the whole 'comic throughline' chapter, for example. In this, Vorhaus offers us a template for story writing, by simplifying stories down to just a few steps, and then stating that we should check our story against these steps, to make sure it is 'tracking correctly'. The comic throughline is a formula, and it is a very useful tool if you want to start producing that sort of story (of which there are many); but the result will inevitably be formulaic.

Quote: Vader @ July 11 2011, 3:36 PM BST

Cheers Bill, is that the end of the gift ones?

I just renewed the Lives left of the BCG complimentary Scriptwriter Toolkit, so it should be accessible again over the next 9 days at least.

It's so popular Cool that non-BCG members seem to be finding the free number
here on BCG forums via Google & 'stealing' all the valid days.

If the valid days run out, just let me know and I will raise the count.

Quote: Nogget @ July 12 2011, 12:25 PM BST

Take the whole 'comic throughline' chapter, for example. In this, Vorhaus offers us a template for story writing, by simplifying stories down to just a few steps, and then stating that we should check our story against these steps, to make sure it is 'tracking correctly'. The comic throughline is a formula, and it is a very useful tool if you want to start producing that sort of story (of which there are many); but the result will inevitably be formulaic.

I don't have the book here. But if you say that a story will be formulaic if it follows a formula is both right and wrong. And I was asking how the book's advice would not produce a Monty Python type sketch show if I remember correctly from a few days ago?

Quote: Marc P @ July 12 2011, 10:05 PM BST

But if you say that a story will be formulaic if it follows a formula is both right and wrong.

The formula he describes is pretty...formulaic.

Quote: Marc P @ July 12 2011, 10:05 PM BST

I was asking how the book's advice would not produce a Monty Python type sketch show if I remember correctly from a few days ago?

OK, well there's the general tone, which is pretty conventional, drawing on dated examples like Gillighan's Island; and there are is specific advice, like the absolute insistence on happy endings, and the statement that every comic moment has a beginning, a middle and an end, which unless he means in a completely mundane way (like string has all these qualities), I think implies that sketches have a satisfying ending, something which Python didn't care about.

Maybe you interpreted his advice in a different way? I look forward to being disabused of any misconceptions.

Quote: Nogget @ July 13 2011, 9:00 AM BST

The formula he describes is pretty...formulaic.

OK, well there's the general tone, which is pretty conventional, drawing on dated examples like Gillighan's Island; and there are is specific advice, like the absolute insistence on happy endings, and the statement that every comic moment has a beginning, a middle and an end, which unless he means in a completely mundane way (like string has all these qualities), I think implies that sketches have a satisfying ending, something which Python didn't care about.

Maybe you interpreted his advice in a different way? I look forward to being disabused of any misconceptions.

Like I say I don't have his book to hand. Formula equals structure in my book mind you - and that is a good thing.

Python sketches play on the expectations of the form. So without the form there would be nothing to play on. Think of structure like the skeleton within the human form and then imagine your comedy babies without it. Sure it can work for a while and people play with notions of structure and expectation - but in the main this kind of book is addressing the general principals and approaches. As with any 'How To' book, the trick is to take what you like and ignore the rest.

The trick is, as soon as you're able, locate the alpha male and give him the beat down - that way the rest will know not to mess with you.

Actually, I might be thinking of prison...

No that was your honeymoon David!

Quote: Marc P @ July 13 2011, 10:16 AM BST

No that was your honeymoon David!

A lifetime imprisoned? I think you mean my marriage!

And as for my mother-in-law...

You take my mother in law... no I mean really.

Quote: Marc P @ July 13 2011, 9:20 AM BST

Like I say I don't have his book to hand. Formula equals structure in my book mind you - and that is a good thing.

He doesn't just tell us to use structure, he tells us to use a particular structure, one which ignores all other possible structures.

Quote: Marc P @ July 13 2011, 9:20 AM BST

Like I say I don't have his book to hand. Formula equals structure in my book mind you - and that is a good thing.

Python sketches play on the expectations of the form. So without the form there would be nothing to play on.

Absolutely, although I don't think they were strictly playing with form when they dispensed with punchlines. I remember an interview with (I think) Terry Jones, where he said they would routinely spend far less time writing the bulk of the sketch than they would spend writing the punchline, so they just decided to dispense with the punch, as it was easier that way. So they were ignoring form, rather than playing with it.

My point is that Vorhaus' book (unlike others) doesn't encourage learning the rules and then breaking them. He tells you to follow his advice closely to become funny. And while it might well work, you'll only be funny in that particular style.

Share this page