Sitcom excerpt Page 2

Hmm. I quite like the idea of using Kim as a plot engine. There could be some mileage in that.

I take Marc's point. The plot is dramatic rather than comedic, which is a difficult trick to pull off in a sitcom. There is a lot of exposition, and this actually becomes more of a problem in the later scenes that I have not posted.

Looking back through this, I can see, in the first scene posted especially, places where more work is needed.

Seances have cropped up in a lot of sitcoms, Rising Damp and In Sickness and In Health spring to mind. But they are fertile territory, but yes the spin on them needs to be distinctive. And they are probably easier to get away with in an established sitcom.

The two mates bantering thing is my big concern with this. Yes, to stand any chance of success there is a need to make them distinctive, and I think that does not come across strongly enough in these scenes. I need to be more ruthless about ensuring that lines are in character, rather than just allocated to advance the plot.

To be honest though I am thinking the whole two mates think is just too much of a cliche to go anywhere. In fact I think the most successful and distinctive characters in this excerpt are Angela and Cissy. Which are both broader characterisations, which is maybe what you need in sitcom, at least when getting started.

The Brentford TRILOGY is excellent. But the quality of writing falls of in later books.

Anyway lots to think about. Thanks to everyone for reading.

The thing about exposition is to make it organic and believeable. In your first scene for example people are talking about things they already know for the benefit of explaining it to the audience. Asking what happens at a seance isn't believeable - Everybody knows already ... from watching Rising Damp most probably.

Probably. But in the realm of a sitcom I suppose I'd want the questions and/or the answers to be funny and unexpected.

Either way, seance or not, I think there's some potential showing in what has been posted.

I have updated my above post to take account of later comments.

This had been a very useful exercise.

I wouldn't ask what happens at a seance, no. I might ask about the people doing it.

Quote: Timbo @ June 27 2008, 1:39 PM BST

The two mates bantering thing is my big concern with this. Yes, to stand any chance of success there is a need to make them distinctive, and I think that does not come across strongly enough in these scenes. I need to be more ruthless about ensuring that lines are in character, rather than just allocated to advance the plot.

To be honest though I am thinking the whole two mates think is just too much of a cliche to go anywhere. In fact I think the most successful and distinctive characters in this excerpt are Angela and Cissy. Which are both broader characterisations, which is maybe what you need in sitcom, at least when getting started.

View original

I think, though, if you were going down the supernatural road, the ordinariness of the two leads could be a necessary counterpoint to the assorted loons, weirdos and nutters they would encounter. As long as the banter sparkles.

To be honest I never cease to be surprised at how ignorant people are about all sorts of shit. If it goes out on ITV it is probably best not to assume anything. I did spend too long on the explantion of the seance, using it an opportunity for Sean and Simon to riff, which was a mistake as banter is the curse of sitcoms, but I am not sure most people understand about spirit guides, so I think some explanation was necessary.

On point I did not pick up (on because my feelings wer hurt!) was Seefacts point about the dialogue being stilted. Did anyone else have any opinions about this? On reflection I can see this on the opening scene, where I am trying too hard to make exposition amusing.

Yes, I think he's right. It might flow better if you get the description of what happens at a seance out of the way really quickly and get the gags in with Sean asking Simon more about it.

e.g. instead of:

"SIMES: Well, we sit round in a circle and hold hands...

SEAN: Holding hands with Kim, eh? You going to be playing footsie an' all?

SIMON: ...we sit round in a circle, and then Kim's Auntie Cissy, who's the medium - though meself I'd say she was the best part of a size 20 - asks if there (SPOOKY VOICE) is anybody out there? At which point some joker usually tries to get everyone going by rapping on the table. I should think tonight that's going to be you.

SEAN: (MOCK OFFENDED) What me?"

which is a bit clunky and Sean's interruptions break the flow, you could have something like:

SIMON: Well, we sit round in a circle and hold hands while Kim's Auntie Cissy, who's the medium, asks (SPOOKY VOICE) is there anybody there?

SEAN: So this is just a plan to hold hands with Kim, eh? You going to be playing footsie an' all?

SIMON GIVES HIM WHAT HE IS PLEASED TO THINK IS A WITHERING LOOK.

SEAN: So the medium asks if there's anyone there? Come on, does anybody really answer?

SIMON: Well she's more of a size 20 than a medium and some joker usually tries to get everyone going by rapping on the table. I should think that's going to be you.

Etc.

Basically just shuffling it round to get everything in but a less broken flow. If that makes sense.

Yes, I see what you mean. I suspect the trick with these buddy situations, is to have one who is self-consciously witty, and one who acts as a foil and whose character failings the other can comment on; a sort of Hancock and Sid relationship.

I have just had another read through of this. On reflection I am still quite happy with the seance scene, which I think has enough originality and enough laughs to ride above the cliche. There are issues with the dialogue between Sean and Simon, but I think the individual characters do come across and I have a clearer idea now how to ensure they remain distinct. The basic problem with the script, and it comes out more strongly in the scenes I have not posted, is that rather than writing a funny plot, I began with a dramatic plot and tried to make it funny, so I have lots of exposition dressed up with banter to make it palatable. (The problem is actually the reverse of the banter being aimless.) If I want to progress, it is plotting I need to work on most.

Thanks to everyone for their feedback, good and bad.

I tend to agree with a lot of comments made before about the characters and dialogue. An awful lot of the critique stuff on here is about two or more (usually) guys chatting aimlessly. And the dialogue reads flat.

You look at a script from Friends or Seinfeld and instead of the script going in one long line, which even the most basic writer can do, it bounces back and forth and looks like it's been reworked many times (which it has) to get it right.

Agree that the intro is a no-no. It would put me off immediately. If the characters are indeed characters I will find out in the script.

100% aggree - READ a Friends script, what looks like banter over a coffee will set up mulitiple plot lines, develope charcter and be full of gags.

I am just a little curious as to whether the comments in the last couple of posts are generic or specific to the excerpt posted?

Only what Pete said is pretty much what I was attempting to do in the first scene, show character (Sean's earthy scepticism, Simon's pleased-with-himself wordiness), set up the next scene and trail gags that would be carried over into it (Sean knocking, Percy's pigeons, Angela's spooked prudery), while wringing some laughs out in the process. Whether I was successful is another matter, and one on which comments are welcome.

I am puzzled by what this line means:

Quote: David H @ June 29 2008, 10:04 AM BST

You look at a script from Friends or Seinfeld and instead of the script going in one long line, which even the most basic writer can do, it bounces back and forth

View original

I think in Critique it is helpful if people comment on the text posted, or if airing general issues explain how they relate to the text. Otherwise it becomes confusing for the writer who is trying to make sense of the feedback.

I thought I did comment on the script.

The line you quoted, I was refering to how linear the script is and how it needs more punch like those two classy US sitcoms. I mean, I notice that it says Scene 4 and 5. What's happened before then?

It was the comment about chatting aimlessly that confused me, as I honestly struggle to see this in the excerpt I posted. But perhaps this is me being in denial. Which lines of dialogue did you see as not being related to the plot? Serious question, as this is something I want to avoid in my writing.

Okay, I am clearer now by what you meant by your comment, and I agree that linear is a fair commnet on the script. Not all classic sitcoms bounce around a great deal, in fact most of my favourites don't, but I take the point that comic plotting does involve an element of multiple strands which is lacking in my writing. So thank you for pointing this out, it is helpful.

More punch is always good.

To be honest the previous scenes were clunky and poorly written and did contain quite a lot of aimless banter and weak gags, which is why I did not bother posting them. Basically they just got us to the point in the script where we entered, which I guess confirms your point about linear.

Anyway this is near enough an abandoned project. I was just looking to see if I could salvage anything and what I could learn from it. Cheers.