Should the main character of a sitcom be "normal"? For example Leonard from Big Bang Theory and Viva from Some Girls are normal/realistic people who are next to more extreme characters. Is this so the viewer indentify more with the lead? Or are there the link to keep the other characters together?
The main character of I'm Alan Partridge isn't 'normal' and nor's the main character from, say, The Office or Fawlty Towers. Almost every one I can think of does have a 'straight' presence somewhere, though. Someone who is the audience's representative and can react on their behalf to whatever silly nonsense is happening on screen. An anchoring presence. So no, the main character doesn't have to be - but there probably needs to be one somewhere.
not at all, indeed do you even need a main character. Red Dwarf seems to have about 3 main characters.
Sitcoms can work perfectly well without a "wacky" character, or as sooty says a single main character at all.
It's more about how those characters work together.
I don't think there are any rules.
there are no rules but sometimes having a main (or main-ish) character surrounded by crazy people adds to the humour, or gives the audience someone to relate to.
Look at Martin Freeman's character in The Office (and the same sort of character who was played by Jim Krasinski I believe in the US version) he is always giving the camera knowing looks as if to say "are these people for real?" to me having a 'normal' character like him really adds to the humour.
I think most sitcoms have an anchor - a character with whom the audience can identify, a channel through which we can interact with the crazy sitcom world. Tim from The Office would be one example, Lister from Red Dwarf another. They still must be exaggerated and interesting though.
There are a few main characters with which I identify closely. Mostly, though, sitcoms work best for me where several characters represent aspects of people I know or have encountered. Actually, it goes beyond that so that the cultural environment has to feel believable. Mainly that is about dialogue. That is to say a distant planet can resonate while a living room can feel alien. It all depends on how the thing is done.
Like others, I doubt if there are many rules. The lead is often clearly a lead but not by a country mile. Delboy, Hancock, Mainwaring.....they are central to the narrative so that there is empathy. But the other characters act as counterweights, particularly to their foibles, as well as to each other. Even a Sam Malone in Cheers, a relatively serious anchor, has flaws which enables the others to be unexpectedly right.
Arguably, wackier leads are more likely to emanate from stand-ups for whom the sitcom is a vehicle - Gervais in The Office; Coogan in I'm Alan Partridge. In the latter case, the clue is in the title. Another thing to consider is how many classic sitcoms are centred on pairings. Steptoe and Son, The Likely Lads, The Liver Birds, Two's Company, A Fine Romance, Birds of a Feather, Gavin and Stacey and George and Mildred to name just a few. There are also several threes - Summer Wine, Man About The House, Yes Minister etc.
I think the 'wacky' leads are exaggerations of normal behaviour (such as Brent and Partridge) whereas some 'wacky' characters go so overboard as to be almost 2D (Father Jack) and could never be a main character.
There isn't necessarily a need for a straight character, or even a very wacky one. Father Ted's straight character is arguably Father Ted, but he's not exactly 'normal'. I think it's completely subjective, but I think I usually prefer sitcoms without the very wacky character or the very straight character, but rather a group of characters that are identifiably still 'real people' but are quite extreme - Community, Green Wing etc.
One thing I've noticed is that the most 'memorable' characters from shows are often not the leads. Some of these memorable supporting characters probably don't have the depth to stand on their own as a lead, but excel in their co-starring role.
Examples are Superhans from Peep Show, Barney Stinson from How I Met Your Mother and Tobias from Arrested Developments.
I get your point... But I wouldn't have said that Tobias was the most memorable character from Arrested Development.
Most sitcoms need to have a character the audience can identify with but it doesn't have to be the lead- it just is, in most cases.
Hyacinth Bucket was one such character whilst her husband was normal. Father Ted - like most of Lineham's stuff - was too although the other characters were even more extreme.
The classic example of the straight character surrounded by whackier characters was Barry Evans in the Doctor series. The writers breathed a collective sigh of relief when he left, and the more flawed Robin Nedwell was promoted to the lead. The straight character should never be too straight. The likes of Dave Lister, Sam Malone, Ted Creely or even Leonard from Big Bang are comic creations in their own right; and even true grotesques such as Gordon Brittas, Basil Fawlty or Frasier Crane are surrounded by still more extreme characters.
So the premise does not really hold. The rule is that lead character has to have comic value
in his or her own right, but that there must be still more extreme characters complicating his or her life to enable us to empathise.
All rules are there to be broken but I am struggling to think of any sitcom where the lead is not deeply flawed or one where they are not other characters who are at least as flawed.
Seinfeld?
Isn't Jerry's flaw his smug callousness and inability to commit? But yes it is an interesting example of a show with a lead who does not invite the audience to empathise, because nothing is ever at stake for Jerry.