From script to screen
It's notable than on websites frequented by aspiring writers, the vast majority of broadcast comedy gets a resounding thumbs down. This is hardly surprising - if people trying to break into a profession felt they couldn't do better, then they would never have a go. But there's a certain meanness of spirit on these boards, which is rarely found among more established writers, who know just how hard it is to get anything commissioned, never mind create a show which is universally liked or respected.
In my time at the BBC, I have been associated with the two longest-running and highest rating comedies on their respective channels - Two Pints of Lager and a Packet of Crisps on BBC3, and My Family on BBC1. Both are execrated not only by aspiring writers, but also by critics, although they are embraced by audiences, suggesting a certain snobbery is at work. I often wonder if writers who want to break into television feel that popularity is to be avoided, and a puff in the Guardian Guide for one series with no viewers is worth more than eight series of success.
Oddly, nostalgia seems to kick in after a while. When I worked on Birds of a Feather (more than 100 episodes were made), no one really had a good word to say for it, apart from its audience. Now I see people anxiously awaiting DVDs.
So how, speaking from the perspective of an executive who works in the BBC comedy department, does a show get made?
To state the bleeding obvious, it begins with an idea and, preferably, some writing to flesh out the idea. Some ideas are immediately rejected, either because it feels as if they don't work, because they are areas of life which commissioners and channels shy away from, or because a similar idea is already in an advanced state of development.
But let's assume the idea seems promising, the supporting treatment or sample scenes are persuasive, and I or someone like me feels excited about trying to get a show commissioned.
The next step is meet the writer and talk about the project in more detail, followed by a script commission. I and the writer will work through probably two or three drafts before I take the script to our quarterly departmental discussion, where all the projects we want to offer for commission are assessed. At this stage there will be a script, a brief description of what a series would contain, casting suggestions and an idea of how best to promote the piece, either by reading it with an ideal cast, or by shooting an extract. There may well have been an 'internal' read along the way, by which I mean hearing the script read by actors in a closed session for the writer, me and selected colleagues.
If the response is positive at this stage (where projects can be rejected, or sent back for more work), the package is sent to our colleagues in commissioning, and discussed at a meeting where the commissioner outlines her response. Again, a project can be endorsed, rejected or sent back to be worked on and re-pitched. But if the commissioner likes it, then it will go forward with her endorsement to a meeting with the relevant channel controllers and their teams - generally the channel executive and scheduler.
There is no set timetable for demonstrating a project. Sometimes we will organise a cast read for the commissioner and channel before the channel meeting, sometimes afterwards in the light of their comments. Sometimes we will shoot something to pitch, or shoot something after the meeting to reinforce a pitch.
Ideally, one wants a series to be ordered straight away, but sometimes we are asked to make - or we pitch to make - a pilot. Pilots can be either transmittable, with all the bells and whistles, or non-transmittable, a cheaper method.
A pilot enables an assessment by the producer, the commissioner and the controller of what works and what doesn't, often guided by research which can lead to recasting, rethinking, or a feeling that it seemed like a good idea but is an idea which doesn't really work.
So by the time a new comedy series arrives on television, it has gone through several stages of approval, and been subject to notes and thoughts at every point in its upward ascent.
Despite all of the stages, and the different kinds of expertise involved, some shows work very well, some work moderately well, and some become car crash television. The audience decides, and the only way really to judge whether or not your show works is to sit at home and watch it go out. And if it doesn't work, it's too late by then.
The excitement of comedy is its imprecision. No one can guarantee a hit, and an identical writer and production team can follow a massive success with a complete turkey.
That's why we keep trying. And that's why aspiring writers might be a little more generous in their responses - next time, it could be them.
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~30~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
I do think the problem in the main [and I've argued this so many times on forums] is that the written word is not as the read out one.
I have had the luxury of workshopping a couple of my sitcoms with actor friends before I have sent them out.
They are very funny acted out and the audience have been in stitches. But I can vouch for it, that when I give a friend one to read, they don't find them very funny at all.
The same with other stuff I have written, I try these at the writers' circle [about 24 attending] Again there are loads of belly-laughs.
You have the luxury of professionally workshopping a script Michael. Also humour as we all know is subjective.
I wish there were more sitcoms like 'Packet of Crisps' but there aren't and this leads to frustration that one can write funnier /better stuff than other sitcoms that are televised.
Gimme Gimme Gimme and the Royle Family come up to Packet of Crisps but what else?
Complain about this comment
@Micheal,
Many thanks for your detailed posting re what is involved in the sitcom commissioning process from conception to birth. I would imagine this is the same for the comedy drama/drama script writing process too.
I agree totally with your comments about the mean spirited nature of many of the postings on comedy writers' message boards. Some of the things I've read have had me cringing re their barbed and negative nature, infinitely worse than some of Mr M's past comments directed at Mr Wenger in fact. Positive criticism is one thing, bile is another.
And without wishing to stoke up the next gender war, it seems to me that it's an almost exclusively 'male' thing to be so critical of TV sitcoms. In my experience much of the carping on message boards appears to come from youngish males who go down to the Slug and Lettuce of an evening, sink a few pints, crack a few jokes, set the world to rights then foolishly convince themselves they can create the next Only Fools, The Office, Father Ted, IT Crowd, whatever.
They go home, write something, send it in and....watch in horror as it comes thudding back through the letterbox. Cue severe bout of mega cursing and self delusional comments of the 'Bl*ody BBC. Wouldn't recognise talent if it bit them on the ar*e' kind of nature.
Admittedly certain sitcoms are not to everyone's taste, but there is a huge difference between not liking something personally yet being grown up enough to respect and acknowledge the work that's gone into creating, writing and bringing it to our screens.
Mrs M
Complain about this comment
I certainly agree with your comments regarding certain comedy websites. I'm particularly amazed when I read would-be comedy writers slagging off a TV show *using their own names*. You'd think they'd never heard of blacklisting...!
I'm not quite sure I follow your argument that it's impossible to tell whether a show works or not until it is broadcast. Surely the whole process you have outlined - including the expertise of your good self - exists to make sure shows DO work? If shows which you consider to be 'car crash television' continue to get made, isn't it possible that the process may be at fault?
The problem is, you see, that the position you have taken is that when a show is a success, the comedy department deserves the credit, but when a show is a failure, it's not the comedy department's fault. In other words - having your cake and eating it!
I would suggest that there have been many comedy executives and producers in the past whose track record suggests they *did* possess an uncanny ability to know whether shows 'worked' before they were broadcast. You only have to compare the BBC's comedy output under Geoffrey Perkins (who commissioned the two illustrious shows you mention), to that of his successor, for that to be clear. I'm not saying he was perfect, but he did have a pretty good hit rate. But then, that was probably because he'd had a long and successful career in writing and producing comedy... unlike his successor.
Complain about this comment
Apparently the beeb initially rejected Faulty Towers!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Complain about this comment
@Juggles
Geoffrey Perkins had the original BBC report on Fawlty Towers, which was extremely negative.
I agree about hearing scripts. We often sit round in the office and read them aloud.
@onlyjealous
To be clear, heads of comedy can commission scripts, but not shows. And, as he would have admitted, Geoffrey's time at the BBC included misses as well as hits, which is true of every head of comedy.
If I gave the impression that we take credit for success and don't take responsibility for failure, then I apologise. I was trying to say that a group of people with a lot of expertise can collaborate on a flop as easily as on a hit.
There is no science of success. If there were, every new show would work (and thus not leave room for anyone or anything new, by the way). If you look at the US, they research shows to a high degree, but most sitcoms there fail. It's the nature of the form, I think, and its reliance on audience connection.
Also, there's no 'black list'. If someone is critical and turns up with a brilliant script, then it isn't going to be turned down.
@MrsM
Jose is a lucky man.
Complain about this comment
@Michael
I think it's sad that you dismiss so much criticism as "mean spirited". We all just want to see great comedies, and when the comedies we are given fall short, as so many often do, we are fully entitled to criticise them. After all, we pay a license fee.
And, if I may be so bold, criticising people who critise comedy because they don't understand "how difficult it is to make a sitcom" is patronising and insular. No wonder people get so cynical about the television industry.
Complain about this comment
Micheal,
I applaud your comments at mean-spirited aspiring writers. As an 'established' theatre writer, I come across this attitude all the time, but never from working playwrights. For example, after a recent play, I received a letter from a new writer saying, 'normally, I go to a show thinking 'I could do better than this ****, but I was surprised your play was good.''
That extraordinary level of disrespect and lack of self-awareness cuts across every medium in the arts. Of course, it is subjective, but if I don't enjoy a programme, I try to work out why it didn't connect with me. Maybe I'm the wrong audience, maybe I'm interested in different tones of writing, maybe I don't like the subject matter. I would never think I could write that particular show better, because I didn't come up with that particular idea, so it wasn't my passion, it was clearly someone else's.
I dip into these message boards, but, oh my goodness, I feel sad for the anonymously brave and bitter contributors.
I hope Michael's blog makes potential writers develop their critical responses.
Complain about this comment
@notStoppard
Thank you for that.
@Aspie
I'm not sure where you've found the phrase in quotes about it being difficult to make a sitcom.
Of course everyone is entitled to criticise. My point is that much of the criticism one reads on writers' forums tends towards denigration rather than critique.
And given that people in television want audiences to like their shows, being patronising or insular won't get you very far. We make shows for audiences, not one another.
I tried in the blog to illustrate the steps and the number of people involved in getting a show made to illuminate the process, which can produce great comedy, average comedy, or comedy which fails to connect.
Complain about this comment
But shouldn't the next generation of comedy writers slag off the current generation. In the same way that the "alternative comedians" slagged off the Terry and June/On the Buses/Dad's Army generation.
I enjoy Two Pints, but I can sympathise with people who feel it's repeated far too often on BBC3 at the expense of shows like Pulling.
Complain about this comment
@now_and_then
It would be wrong if up and coming writers didn't feel they could do better than the established lot, and write the scripts to try and prove it, but I think the alternative comedians had more to say than: this is baaaaad, or this is sh**e.
Complain about this comment
@now....
'But shouldn't the next generation of comedy writers slag off the current generation. In the same way that the "alternative comedians" slagged off the Terry and June/On the Buses/Dad's Army generation.'
Do you have anecdotal evidence of this? Ben Elton references Dads Army as his favourite sitcom as far as I know and certainly claimed it a major influence on his 'A Thin Blue Line'.
It's a small industry, slagging off others is as useful as it is in any other. That is to say... not a lot.
Nothing's new anyway apart from the technology available to us now that wasn't available to Aristophanes. And Vodka and Red Bull of course.
@Micheal
Sounds like too many Chiefs there at TVC, time for the comedy version of the 7th US cavalry I fancy.
Complain about this comment
@ Micheal
Great post, Micheal. You're right that the forums I suspect you're talking about sometimes have frustrated contributors who cross the line between criticism and vitriol.
There's sometimes an 'us and them' environment created on such threads, particularly by new or unsuccessful writers who think of producers and commissioners as faceless bureacrats whose only feedback comes in the form of silence or a rejection letter. They whip up some kind of (insert name of a middle England 'quality' tabloid here)-style hate frenzy sometimes. That's why the writersroom blogs and the occasional producers that take a deep breath and dive into online communities themselves are so cool; they break down those walls.
Complain about this comment
@Michael
Fair point. Although I always like to misquote people to help win an argument. :)
Complain about this comment
@Aspie
You're passionate about it, and that's great.
@MisterP
There have always been three steps to getting comedy commissioned - very occasionally three steps to heaven, generally not.
@drvole
I think it's important to demystify and explain as much as possible, because a big broadcaster can seem scary, and some of its decisions incomprehensible.
One thing I didn't say above is that all of us have had brilliant projects which would have been true classics if only the commissioner or channel controller hadn't been so blind.
Writers talk about 'development hell', and experience it, but the hell for those of us who try to have shows commissioned is when something we love, by a writer to whom we've drawn close, is turned down. Not that I'm seeking sympathy, Aspie!
Complain about this comment
@Micheal
What was that bit in a biopic I saw recently where the head of BBC Comedy a few decades ago just asks Galton and Simpson (?) for a series of sitcom showcase type things. And didn't Carla Lane say it was easier in the old days, just a phone call etc. Not saying it is or was, if it ever was, a better system - just that they should let the comedy guys and gals, who know a bit about what they are doing, get on and make comedy.
Complain about this comment
@MisterP
Well, that's what we think, obviously!
But ... a commissioning system had to be introduced when the indie quota was introduced in the 1990 Broadcasting Act by the Thatcher Government. Before that, in-house ruled. After that, someone had to filter proposals from inside and out. So much as we would like to get on with it, our colleagues in the independent sector might not warm to the idea.
Complain about this comment
I never really warmed to that woman. Don't know why.
And don't get me started on JB
:)
Complain about this comment
I have to admire you Michael because let's all face it, you're the only producer that we can have contact with, albeit a message board....thanks, it's very brave of you... I'll drink to you for that.
Complain about this comment
The Special One is in a mighty sulk this evening as the ES has chosen not to include him in their 1000 most influential folk of 2008. Worse, in his eyes, is the inclusion of Mr Scolari - looking rather fetching, in a Gene Hackmanesque kind of way, in the new Blues kit. My designer glasses further spotlight an apparition by the name of P Kenyon Esq lurking behind Luiz Felipe's shoulder. I can hear Mr M choking on his gazpacho as I type....
But I digress. The ES has also listed Gavin and Stacey co-writer James Corden (but not Ruth Jones - harrumph!) as one of the most influential bods in TV and radio this year. His star is rising and apparently he can now 'virtually dictate his terms' to Auntie Beeb, according to the ES.
I thought G and S was brilliant - a simple idea, great characters, laugh out loud stuff and recognisable scenarios re life, love, relationships that affect all of us. All the classic sitcoms in the past share the same ingredients. What makes a new sitcom successful is the ability of the writer to present those universal themes in a different way.
A tough call - maybe that's why a genuine new comedic success like G and S only comes along once in while?
Mrs M
Complain about this comment
Michael, I think the difference between comedy today and say thirty years ago is that the majority are 'niche'. i.e. Two Pints only appeals to a certain audience, My Family likewise. Go back to classics like Fawlty, Porridge, Only Fools etc. and their appeal was far broader and they were also of the day when tv audiences far exceeded anything that even the best of shows could expect to achieve today.
Also, it seemed, to me anyway, having read a lot of biogs of comedy writers, back then if you were flavour of the month at the beeb you simply had to turn up with your next idea to get commissioned (think Carla Lane as an example)
Nowadays, it all seems to be done by more by committee (maybe not all sitting at the same time, but passing the script around to each other for comment). Show one person an idea and they will like it, let another read it and they will find fault or have a different take on how it should be written. Show two more and all of a sudden the person who was originally enthusiastic has doubts - that to me is why we sometimes end up with wishy washy finished products. it;s the same in my game - advertising. Show a concept to one person, great, show half a dozen and you'll get at least three conflicting views.
For example, let's face it, for every person that loves, for instance, League of Gentlemen, there will be a couple of people who absolutely hate it. Similarly with Two Pints (too juvenile for my taste) and My family (which personally I have always felt was too theatrical in its delivery and thus became irritating to watch after a few minutes - I know lots love it, but much as I admire Robert Lindsay, it has never done anything for me).
In short, comedy these days, by and large, doesn't appeal to the masses. certainly not in sitcom form anyway. Sketch shows do moreso, although my 80 year old mum isn't too keen on the vomiting and peeing that crept into latter series of Little Britain.
I myself had an idea which DID appeal to the masses, with the Beeb back in 2004, but it was dropped. I still believe it is a goer, because the subject matter is something that has mass appeal, but I doubt it will ever see the light of day despite the initial thumbs up it received at the time of its conception. Makes me sound bitter - I am not, more baffled as to why something that received such enthusiasm initially, suddenly led to months of silence and then a 'dear john' email. Maybe it was passed around and a few people put the dampeners on it. After all, when you do comedy by committee the life and soul can sometimes be crushed out of a project, in my humble opinion.
Complain about this comment
Aldeem, yes you are so right, it's rather like that old story of a commitee designing a horse and at the end of the project they proudly showed everyone the camel that had resulted from their pooled efforts
Complain about this comment
I can only talk from my own experience in advertising, but I have witnessed many times what at first seemed like great ideas, shot down in flames - but very slowly as more and more people were asked to comment. It got to the stage where, as long as the writer, designer and 'suit' who gave the brief were happy with the end product then no one else got to see it before it was presented to the client. Only occasionally did they then have a trail of people come through the boardroom to give their opinion, and when that happened, again, the enthusiasm started to wain for the original idea. My rule would be, if it seems funny to the two people reading it out loud at the time then it probably is funny.
Complain about this comment
@Aldeem
I'm sorry you had a bad experience in 2004. It sounds rather mysterious, and not the way things should be done. The least you should expect is an explanation of why something has been turned down.
I'm not sure that it's helpful to go back 30 years, though. The broadcasting environment is very different now.
I'm not sure I agree that My Family is niche - it is watched by a very broad audience. Two Pints has always been expected to appeal to younger viewers, which it largely does. It began transmission on BBC2, then moved to BBC Choice which became BBC3 - the 'young' channel. And, of course, a niche. The proliferation of channels and an emphasis on demographics has led to more niche programming, though also to more choice.
On the 'committee' front, more people now assess scripts than was the case in the past, but if the system was a pyramid of waning enthusiasm, surely nothing would ever be made? Indeed, one could argue that if something gets through the three steps of assessment with everyone finding it funny, then it must be funny. Though of course, it often isn't to the audience (which is where we came in).
@Mrs M
I completely agree about the ability to present the universal in a fresh light. And it's absolutely true that projects like that come along rarely.
Perhaps the Evening Standard singled out James because he lives local, rather than Ruth, who is Welsh? London-centricity again!
And given that Big Phil appears to be attracting affection, as well as admiration for his footballing style, I fear there may be stormy times ahead for you.
Complain about this comment
I see that Michael Grade isn't too happy with the indie quota situation either.
Complain about this comment
>And, as he would have admitted,
>Geoffrey's time at the BBC included
>misses as well as hits, which is true of
>every head of comedy.
Absolutely. But you must admit he had a better hit rate than the present incumbent. Not in terms of whether I personally like the shows, or whether they get good reviews, but in terms of whether shows are successful enough to get a second or third series. After all, that's why the BBC keeps on cutting the comedy department's budget - because of the exceptionally low hit rate.
>If I gave the impression that we take
>credit for success and don't take
>responsibility for failure, then I apologise.
But in what sense do you take responsibility? I mean, I think it would be dreadfully wrong for someone to lose their job because of one bad show (though that's often how it works for writers) but how many failures do you need to have before your job is on the line? I don't mean 'you' in a Micheal Jacob sense, BTW, but in a general sense.
>If you look at the US, they research
>shows to a high degree, but most
>sitcoms there fail. It's the nature of the
>form, I think, and its reliance on
>audience connection.
If you look to the US, though, executives who produce flops tend to get replaced. I don't disagree that its 'the nature of the form' for there to be hits as well as misses - but it's also a question of having comedy executives who can tell which projects stand a better chance of success than others. That's what they get paid for, after all!
>Also, there's no 'black list'. If someone is
>critical and turns up with a brilliant script,
>then it isn't going to be turned down.
Yes, but given the choice between two equally good scripts - which would you choose? And besides, you thought 'Coming of Age' was a brilliant script!
Because I'm guessing your original blog post was about the scathing criticism that show received on sitcom.co.uk (and everywhere else on the internet)? I agree that it's horribly unfair on the writer and the cast to be hauled over the coals when they were simply doing their best in difficult circumstances. It's the executives who chose to green-light that show - over all the hundreds of other scripts developed in-house and from independents - who should be held to account for it.
I'm sorry if this feels like I'm having a go at you personally. I know - and as you've mentioned above - you have developed many funnier and more accomplished scripts than 'Coming of Age' which got turned down. I'm still waiting for another series from Brian Dooley, for instance!
But I think you're being very unfair on the posters on that forum, when they're only expressing their honest opinions. Whether or not they are jealous wannabe-writers, they are also comedy fans - who are as equally unstinting in their praise whenever a good show comes along.
I don't think their frustration is with the show itself - it's not so much as a case of 'I could do better than that!' as a case of 'if *that's* what the people who run the BBC comedy department think is a good script then why on Earth should I bother trying?'
Which is, perhaps, a pertinent question for the BBC writers' room.
Complain about this comment
@onlyjealous
How impressive that you can quote... I must explore that.
The reason for my post was not to have a go at people on a particular forum - though I did extract two quotes from posts on it which I could easily have made up - and it was nothing to do with Coming of Age, which was destined for a kicking from the start. I was involved in the pilot but not the series, though I'm pleased that it has increased its viewing figures and hope that, like Two Pints, it goes on to be warmly appreciated by a sizeable audience. We make shows for an audience, after all, an audience including people on writers' forums who, as you say, can be generous in their praise.
The point of the post was to discuss and perhaps illuminate a bit how sitcoms are developed and commissioned, which is a collective thing, and relies on a head of comedy picking projects to endorse, a commissioner endorsing the endorsement, and controllers wanting them on their channels.
In terms of responsibility, what I mean is that every failure produces a great deal of analysis and soul-searching, rather than an 'aw shucks' response, at every level in the chain, which is as true of drama or factual programmes as it is of comedy.
I'm also waiting for another series from Brian dooley, and hope there will be one soon.
Complain about this comment
Hi Michael,
I agree with your comments. There can be a tendancy to slate shows but as you state the road to which a show is made as often been a long one. I think that comedy particulary situation comedy is a very hard genre to get right. What can seem good on the page doesn't always work. As regard to 'Two Pints and My family, I think if you actually watch them the writers have been quite witty and the humour stems from the characters and each character bounces humour at each other. I myself have been guilty of being critical of shows but if you try writing a sitcom you realise just how hard it is to get it right. In alot of ways I admire Susan Nickson because she stuck at it.
Ps In the first ten pages of a script what is the main reason a script is rejected? Mat Carless used to say do character biographies...can you tell from dialogue that writer has poor characters?
Cheers
Nick
Complain about this comment
Hello Michael,
As a poster on one of the websites you mentioned, my opinion is that when something genuinely has quality, members are - rightly - full of praise. 'Pulling', for example, gained many, many positive reviews on there. Obviously there will be some people who will be vicious for the sake of being vicious ('youtube comment' syndrome), but the majority give their honest opinion of each show.
Perhaps us aspiring writers are generally more critical because we see the mechanics of each joke, and tend to over-analyse everything to death, instead of taking each show on it's own terms (intended demographic etc). We would watch a magic show and think 'how is that trick done?' instead of just enjoying the magic!
On another note, would you say you are more likely to get a radio pilot commissioned than a TV pilot? Do production companies see radio as a medium where the returns are not so great, and hence are not worth a punt?
Cheers,
Fil
Complain about this comment
@Stargazer7
Thanks for that. The first ten pages of a script should make the reader laugh, be interested in the characters, and aware of the story that is being told. If the characters aren't clear, there is no obvious story and the pages aren't funny, thena full script is never going to appeal.
It's worth thinking about characters' lives for your own purposes, but I want to see them living in a script.
@flaner
Radio has many more hours than TV, and although it pays less well it has its own rewards, not least in the affection people feel for good radio comedy. There are some radio indies, and an excellent in-house department. I always recommend it as an excellent medium to work in.
Complain about this comment
Micheal, the TV sitcoms that you mention in your original post are definitely not my cup of tea but I respect the time and effort that goes into making them.
I shouldn't worry too much about the ugly comments coming from a certain comedy site - the vast majority are written by idiots who are extremely bitter. Some of them have even bitched about Curb! There's no hope for some people.
Thanks for the detailed piece on how the commissioning works - very interesting and informative. Keep up the good blogging.
cheers
Mike
PS.The Smoking Room was excellent - can you please reveal the premise of the new BD project?
Complain about this comment
@LDCURB
What, having a go at Curb? The very idea!
Over the years I've become inured to adverse comments, particularly since two of the shows I've worked on led the Daily Mail to ask - is this the worst sitcom ever made?
I'm glad you liked The Smoking Room. I'm afraid I can't say what Brian's ideas are, but he's having them.
Complain about this comment
@Michael
In your opinion, what is the greatest ever sitcom? And the worst?
Complain about this comment
@Aspie
'Best' is very subjective. I'd rather say favourite, least favourite.
My favourites are The Garry Shandling Show, The Larry Sanders Show (bit of a pattern there), The Likely Lads, Porridge (another pattern), Fawlty Towers and the first series of Goodnight Sweetheart.
My least favourites are are all the pointless, witless, insubstantial and unfunny shows which have thankfully been forgotten.
Complain about this comment
@Aspie
You'll have noticed I'm omitting invidious selections from more recent comedy or shows I've worked on. Although I had a credit on the first series of Sweetheart, it was essentially Marks and Gran, with not much contribution from me.
Complain about this comment
@Michael
Shandling is great. Not least because of that fantastic interview in which he took Ricky Gervais down a peg (I love Gervais, but it was fun watching Shandling maul him).
Complain about this comment
@Aspie
That was remarkable television indeed.
Complain about this comment
Michael, what about Seinfeld? I think I'm the only guy who caught that little show when it was on TV in this country at stupid o'clock in 1998.
'The Contest' and 'The Outing' make for a particularly sublime watching experience.
Complain about this comment
@Flaner
Bad times, weren't they, when BBC2 ran Sanders and Seinfeld as a double bill at whimsical times, sometimes dropped them for a couple of weeks, and generally messed around. I think they got tired of me complaining, because they stopped answering. Most of the final series of Sanders disappeared.
Complain about this comment
Thank the good lord for DVD! How is it decided what times a certain show will be on the schedule? Would those shows have intially started being shown at a decent time, but then be pushed further down as the weeks progress?
Seinfeld didn't really have a chance of getting an audience over here, seeing as though the first series we actually saw would have been the 8th or 9th.
Complain about this comment
To be fair, viewers must share some of the blame. Unfortunately, they just didn't watch these shows in any great numbers. If I remember correctly, Seinfeld, Larry Sanders and Arrested Development all started at relatively decent times, but I assume poor viewing figures lead to them getting kicked around the schedules. Channel 5 have had a similar problem with the mighty 30 Rock.
Complain about this comment
I guess at the time they were cheap shows to buy, and the scheduler at the time thought a late night hour of smart Americana was a good idea. As I recall, and it was a while ago, they hovered around the million mark, which was disappointing then but would be respectable now.
With some obvious exceptions, American shows don't do great business here. Though Family Guy is doing well on BBC3.
Complain about this comment
I have a very interesting tome called Guide to TV Comedy by Mark Lewison, which lists every sitcom (over 3000 of them) ever screened both in the UK and the US, since the year dot. I was amazed, when reading some of the entries and thinking they sounded quite interesting (but I wasn't even aware of them being on tv here), to find that a lot of them were ideally scheduled for insomniacs and nightshift workers only. Why would a tv station buy in a show, however cheaply, and then shove it out at 3 in the morning? I seem to recall that 'Curb' started out in a scheduling backwater. I kind of stumbled across it by accident one day, or was it night?
Complain about this comment
I didn't seriously believe I was going to get a Brian Dooley 'exclusive'. But it was worth a punt.
Regarding your favourite sitcoms, I'm with you on Fawlty Towers and The Larry Sanders Show. I'm currently in the middle of TLSS 23-episode 'best of' boxset. It's great stuff. I'm also about to order the complete collection. That's obviously not an official release! It's a shame 90% of the British public are not aware of this sublime sitcom.
Complain about this comment
@Aldeem
The ways of schedulers are indeed mysterious. Though from memory I thought Curb got a big push when it was on BBC4? While the early hours are obviously silly places to put shows, comedies on BBC3 seem to do well at 11.15 - ie, post-pub.
@LDCurb
It's a shame that one is forced towards the unofficial. But kudos to the people who preserve these gems.
Complain about this comment
As an example of weird scheduling, a show called Pearl, which was Rhea Perlman's first post Cheers outing and also starred Malcolm McDowell, so may have got an audience say at a Cheers type time slot - It's entire 22 show run was shown by C4 at 3am on Saturday night/Sunday mornings! As the entry points out "it passed virtually unnoticed due to C4's odd decision to schedule it deep into the night. It wasn't brilliant but it deserved better than this". Scheduling like that is surely money down the drain, however cheap the show was brought in for. Most bizarre.
Complain about this comment
For any aspiring writer I would recommend Mark Lewison's book if you can still get hold of it. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Radio-Times-Guide-TV-Comedy/dp/0563487550
It's a bit like a Halliwell's for sitcoms. I got it by chance as a 'bin end' for £2 in Smiths. I am lucky like that sometimes, got the hardback book of the entire Fawlty Towers scripts for £2.50 in a charity shop one day. A delightful read, even though you know what's coming!
Complain about this comment
Or you could find some of the content on
http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/shows/.
Complain about this comment
BBC4 were pretty good with Curb - they used to show 2 episodes at 11pm. It was disappointing BBC2 never picked it up - they missed a big trick.
I'd like to buy 'official' but they're only on Season 1 of The Larry Sanders show in the US! I'm not prepared to wait 2 to 4 years for the DVD bods to get their act together.
Complain about this comment
@I am Mister
7th Cavalry? Wasn't there a black and white sitcom from the 1960's called F troop starring Ken Berry and Forrest Tucker set in a US cavarly Fort? God, showing my age perhaps, but perhaps an interesting reminder that a lot of the things we think are original - have already been thought of before and done.
Well, blow me down - there's a wikepdeia entry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F_Troop
Complain about this comment
My favourite ever sitcoms have to be as follows - Dad's Army, Steptoe and Son, Porridge, Ever Decreasing Circles, Fawlty Towers and Father Ted.
From across the Pond nothing beats the bitchiness and one-upmanship of the Crane Brothers in Frasier although Eddie the Dog is, of course, the real star of the show.
And being married to The Special One is the greatest sitcom of all.
Mrs M
Complain about this comment
It’s all in the casting. Well, apart from the bit about writing consistently brilliant and funny scripts, oh, and also getting commissioned, but apart from that, and the roads, it’s all in the casting. The funniest script in the world will fall flat on its paper face if the actor isn’t right for the role. And I think a lot of broadcast comedy fails, not just because of the standard of writing or production values, but because the cast just aren’t funny enough. If a joke doesn’t work, you can rewrite it until it does work or simply cut it and move on. If the story doesn’t work, you can mess around with the plotting until you get it right or simply drop it and move on. You can’t do that with your cast. They either work or they don’t, which is why casting is the most important aspect of sitcom. And that’s where the problem lies with so much new commissioned comedy. The actors aren’t funny actors.
It’s not about being a comedian, it’s about being a brilliant actor who both understands comedy AND is perfect for the role, and the difficulty there is that you’ve got to really put the effort in to find them.
And it seems that a lot of the people involved in the commissioning chain of command fail to recognize this as they play stick the tail on the donkey using the same pot of tired, familiar faces that have all been in numerous shows with varying degrees of success. More important to these commissioning editors is familiarity over freshness, which is the last thing I want to see when I tune into a new sitcom; that girl who was in that other show that was kind of alright but a bit annoying. I want to see new funny characters with new faces without the baggage of the last two shows that he or she was in that didn’t do that well. I want to see funny actors. Actors who know funny down to their bones. There are writers who have a much more natural understanding of comedy writing, and there are writers whose forte is 60 minute episodic drama; so what kind of writer do you employ to write on a comedy show? The actors need to be able to not just “act” funny, but “be” funny. Their attitude, their look, the way they speak, timing, body language, their whole being; there’re not that difficult to spot, just check out casting photos of various sitcoms and compare. Here, I’ll do it for you:
http://happyhomemaker88.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/my-name-is-earl.jpg
http://www.empireonline.com/images/features/50greatesttv/main/42.jpg
http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,244434,00.jpg
They ooze funny. They are funny. Just by looking at those assortments of actors you know you’re already halfway there to having funny characters. As long as the writing is good there’s enough funny bones between them to make it work. Read the Fawlty Towers scripts and you can understand why the moneymen may have been a tad negative about them. They’re okay, but just okay, yet it’s the sheer brilliance of the casting that brings the comedy out of the writing.
How about the US version of Coupling?
http://weblogs.variety.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/07/16/coupling.jpg
Inspired casting there. How truly bizarre that didn’t work out.
And what’s this little gem?
http://www.jaspercarrott.com/images/allaboutme_1.jpg
Wow, that looks hilarious!
Okay, I’d best stop there before anyone gets the utterly bonkers idea that my own sitcom is presently the tennis ball to a casting rally of joy. The secret to successful sitcom? Hire funny people. Imagine if Mike Reid had been cast as Del Boy? He was a respected contemporary comedian who could act, sort of, and would have fit the role (on paper) perfectly. But they chose the funny ACTOR and the rest is history.
Complain about this comment
@davebluez
Indeed, casting is crucial, and the best result in the world is marrying the right actors to a brilliant script.
But while good actors can raise a good script to a higher level, bad scripts are unsalvageable, even with the funniest cast in the world.
Complain about this comment
@Michael
Do DVD sales have any impact upon whether a show is recomissioned or not? I ask because increasingly I tend to ignore shows on TV and just wait for them to be released on DVD. By doing this am I damaging the chances of shows I love coming back?
Complain about this comment
@ Kroggy - The 7th Cavalry were Custer's troops. Largely involved in the Indian wars. I was suggesting that if there were too many chiefs in commissioning comedy at the BBC that it's a shame no one is whistling Gary Owen.
@davebluez
'Read the Fawlty Towers scripts and you can understand why the moneymen may have been a tad negative about them. They?re okay, but just okay,'
And the fatuous comment of the week award goes to....
:)
Complain about this comment
@Aspie
I've never been in a meeting about re-commissionng a show when DVD sales have been mentioned. But if it's a show you love, how do you know you love it if you don't watch it?!
@Davebluez/MrP
It was an editorial comment on Fawlty Towers, not a financial one.
Complain about this comment
I absolutely love Fawlty Towers and think the scripts read better.
Maybe I am like a genius composer who prefers the purity of the score.
My mother says not, however.
:)
Complain about this comment
@MisterP
I, too, love the Fawlty Towers scripts, but I think we're reading them with the voices in our heads. So like conducting Mahler with Abbado buzzing in the background.
Complain about this comment
Ah, but the Third or the Fifth?
That is the question.
My jury wavers.
Complain about this comment
@MisterP
The Third at last year's Proms with the Lucerne band.
Complain about this comment
Didn't catch that, but I love the Third have been listening to the Fifth more often recently. I guess I am just a romantic at heart, however, - I quite often listen to Debussy - so I think it the third for me too!
As to reading the scripts and hearing the voices, you are right, it is hard not to. But I find Polly's delivery is sometimes a lot better in my head. :)
But the sheer mechanics, craft, characterization are still all in there. In spades.
On a similar not I recommend anyone to read the pilot episode of Dads Army too. The voices are all there in your head again, of course, but it is a masterclass in setting up those characters, their attitudes, and the whole engine of the show.
Complain about this comment
@i_amMisterP
Is it really fair to judge personal preference as being fatuous?
I own the Fawlty Towers scripts and have read them plenty of times, but it is simply impossible to read them without hearing the actors voices and even seeing events as they unfold, making reading them a very funny experience, but not necessarily reflective of the quality of the comedy writing. My point being that is was the superb casting of such brilliant comedy actors, in all the roles, combined with good writing, that elevated good writing above and beyond the page and resulted in a brilliant work of comedy.
And with regards to Mahler, this years Proms performance of Das Lied was the winner. Hands down.
Complain about this comment
@davebluez
Well it was perhaps a tad harsh of me. But it's a great word. Sorry. And I prefer your re-evaluation of the work above, the scripts are certainly better than ok. I am not sure Connie Booth is a brilliant comedy actor as I hinted at above, and what is interesting is that none of the actors brought anything to the role that wasn't in the script originally. They did it brilliantly but it was in Cleese's mind first... oh and Connies.
And I am not one to name drop but I did say hello to Nicky Henson in my local pub the other day.
Which was nice.
:)
Complain about this comment
Ps. Presumably there is a live recording of that Prom's performance?
Complain about this comment
@Dave & Mr P
Hey, let's have a Mahler group. Armando Iannucci is a big Mahlerian too.
I'm afraid I didn't catch Das Lied, but I'm a fan of Runnicles, who seems rather under-appreciated here. The Abbado/Lucerne hasn't been issued officially.
As for scripts, I just enjoy reading them, which is never understood at home. I'm as happy reading Eternal Sunshine or Adaptation as seeing them, although of course they're written to be acted and seen.
Complain about this comment
@i_amMisterP
Appreciated, plus fully agree that fatuous is a tremendous word.
I assume there must be a live recording of Das Lied. The cameras were there, so it was definitely recorded. The warm up act was Beethoven's first. Let me know if you locate a DVD recording as I fell in love with the female trumpet player...
@Micheal
I’m definitely a Mahlerian where Das Lied is concerned. It's a piece of music that got hold of me from a very early age and still does peculiar things to me. It's truly magical. Although with regards to the symphonies, I have to admit to swinging more towards Bruckner.
As for scripts, I also thoroughly enjoy reading them, quite often more than watching the finished product. I know they are written to be seen, but that doesn't detract from the artistry of a wonderfully crafted script. It's what I do. And no matter what promises a screenwriting course or guru makes, I thoroughly believe that reading endless scripts, as well as writing them, is an invaluable route to understanding drama.
Complain about this comment
And a resounding, yes. Runnicles was superb. Now, if I was casting for a conductor and that bloke's photo fell onto my desk...
Complain about this comment
@Davebluez
Oddly, I've had two orchestral sitcoms pitched to me over the past couple of years. Neither worked, sadly.
Complain about this comment
Was one of the called 'The Pits' ?
Complain about this comment
Does the panel think...
Thatcherism falters, capitalism gets regulated. In light of the fact that the banks have been bailed out by the government in a part nationalisation deal, can the BBC learn anything from this.
The blue tied man in the expensive suits put radical changes in the way the BBC operates as mentioned earlier by MJ. Making long term contracts effectively a thing of the past and introducing competition from the independents - many of whom didn't exist until that happened. What this means at the top of the commissioning process is business types and the ilk rather than practicioners. The Chiefs from the banking sector who have just been binned were none of them credit experts - marketing men, businessmen etc but not experts in credit which is why their heads have rolled.
Should the Govt step in again, and ensure, therefore, that programme makers be at the head of the commissioning process once more at the Beeb?
Complain about this comment
@MisterP
The govt should step in and privatise the BBC. I'm not sure it really appeals to everyone nowadays, certainly not enough to warrant everybody paying the license fee.
Complain about this comment
@MisterP
It's not business types who make the decisions, Marc.
@Aspie
I don't agree.
Complain about this comment
@ Micheal
That's good to hear. I always like to think of the Alan Yentobs and the Frank Muirs being in that kind of position. And the Michea J's of course.
I've phoned Gordon and he's diverted the team that were on their way to White City and sent them over to nationalise the estate agents instead.
:)
Complain about this comment
@Micheal
On a general note. Is it policy now for the BBC to nursery slope a new writer on 3 or 2. Just trying to remember when was the last time I saw a new writer have a sitcom straight on BBC1. ( I can think of one about a Cafe - by I think SImon Block - but that was a long time ago.) Is it worth thinking in terms of that when writing a spec script? That is to say are you making problems for yourself as a new writer by writing something ensemble, studio based that is purely aimed at a family audience slot on BBC1?
Complain about this comment
@MisterP
The last new writer with a BBC1 show was Angela Clarke with Eyes Down, I believe.
I think it's unlikely - though not impossible - that a new writer would get a sitcom on BBC1. It would more likely start on BBC2. BBC3 has a particular demographic, but if someone gets a series on Three and learns from it, then a show to appeal to a broader audience on BBC1 would be feasible.
It's quite rare anyway for people to come out of nowhere. 'New' writers have generally done other stuff, or had work developed before getting a broadcast commission.
Although one can never say never, I don't think there is a recorded instance of a writer known to nobody in TV or radio sending in a script and getting a series.
Complain about this comment
@Mister P
I think 'twas you on the long defunct writersroom website messageboard who recommended a read of the script that became the pilot of Dad's Army. But I think you also drew attention to the fact that it could have been even better if Croft and Perry had spent a little more time on re-writes, something that the two of them apparently hated doing. How many new sitcom writers bother to re-write, re-write and polish their work to the highest of standards before they send it in? There might be a much bigger potential sitcom pool to choose from if they did.
@Aspie
I think the govt should leave the BBC well alone. There has always been a tendency for people to hark back, dewy-eyed, to a golden age of TV when there were only three channels, Channel 4 was but a glint in Michael Grade's eye and the airwaves were ruled by the likes of Bill Cotton Junior and his ilk, 'proper' commissioners commissioning 'proper' comedy and drama, whatever that means.
But there were good and bad shows then - there are good and bad shows now. I don't see how anything has changed that much.
@Micheal
Orchestral sitcoms, eh? Sounds like you'd need to pull some strings to get one of those off the ground.
I end my post with the sound of Mr M blowing his own trumpet, as ever, and memories of Morecambe, Wise, Andre Previn and Greig's Piano Concerto in A minor...
Mrs M
Complain about this comment
@Micheal.... cheers that's useful info.
@Mrs M
That would be me. What I probably said though was that the Pilot had clearly been worked on and rewritten a number of times - but both Croft and Perry were happy to admit that didn't do any re-writing on subsequent eps, which I think is a bit of a shame. It's my favourite sitcom mind so what do I know.
:)
Complain about this comment
I think the age-old advice about finishing a script, then putting it away for a week or two and re-reading it is still wise. I've never written anything that I haven't revisited without feeling it could be a lot better.
Complain about this comment
'I've never written anything that I haven't revisited without feeling it could be a lot better.'
I just wished you did that with the rejection letters :)
Complain about this comment
Hi, What's the best way to approach writing a sitcom? If you look at the best sictoms ever made I suppose they have strong characters that have many avenues for comedy. Say that I have an idea for a sitcom set in a supermarket or a supermarket canteen, is the setting irrelevant. Is it best to devise characters rather than dwell too much on the setting?
If alot of sitcoms are rejected through bad characterisation - when should you write the script. How long did John Sullivan work on Fools & Horses characters before he wrote pilot?
nick
Complain about this comment
@stargazer7
I can't answer the Sullivan question, I'm afraid, but different writers have their own approaches to these things.
Some think of a setting and then work out the sort of characters one might find there; some think of a character and work out where they might belong. Some write themselves into a new idea and learn about the characters as they write; some do a lot of thinking and make notes before they write anything significant.
I'm sure it didn't happen this way - though maybe it did - but if Richard Curtis had an idea about a woman vicar, the next thought would be - in what sort of parish would a woman vicar make a stir? So in that example it's character first, situation second.
With The Smoking Room, it was setting first and characters second.
Scripts are often turned down not because the characters are necessarily wrong, but because they don't come to life, so that's more to do with writing than conception.
Complain about this comment
@Mrs_M
You miss my point. I just think you could slim down the BBC and sell off some bits (like Radio 1 or 6 Music). It doesn't need to be as big as it is.
However, this blog isn't the place for that argument since it's primarily for talking about comedy (or Coming of Age).
Complain about this comment
@Aspie
Gratifyingly, Coming of Age is doing very well so far.
Complain about this comment
I knew I could get a response out of you, Michael. You're like a big passive-aggressive bear I like to prod with a stick ocassionally. :)
Complain about this comment
@Aspie
I know! But it's amazing what I can ignore.
Given that you inspired this blog and discussion, any ideas for the next one? I reckon I can do one more before the next College workshop in Manchester in the week of 10 November. Not about privatisation, though.
Complain about this comment
Why don't you do something about dialogue Micheal? That seems to pop up a bit on other comedy forums. Link it to your take on organic comedy rather than the selfconsciously trying to be funny that doesn't work so well.
Complain about this comment
@MisterP
I'll have a think. I can't think at present since I've got McFly outside my window Blue Petering.
Complain about this comment
I just really hope Micheal that that is not some kind of modern slang.
:)
Complain about this comment
I'm with Mister_P, I'd be interested to hear about dialogue. And also, on the subject of shows being recommissioned, is it purely a numbers game? If a show gets X ammount of viewers and Y audience share it gets another series?
Complain about this comment
@MisterP
No, mere fact. But has potential...
@Aspie
Shows can be recommissioned if they draw large audiences; if they draw smaller audiences but are greatly appreciated; if they didn't fulfil original expectations but there's a decision to keep faith with the idea that appealed in the first place.
So it's not just numbers.
Complain about this comment
Oh dear I've just fallen into the same trap - I called My Family 'pap' in another of your blogs! I had no idea you were involved with that show!
However I don't retract my comments. Two Pints of Lager is also particularly awful.
Just because something is popular does not mean it is good.
Popular things can be good, but good things are not always popular. Erm...
Fundamentally My Family and Two Pints may be popular but they ain't that good.
Writing is very difficult. I doubt I could write an episode of Two Pints of Lager. But that doesn't mean I have to bow down to the writers who wrote it, because there are writers out there who write even better sitcoms.
I think as well that the problem with My Family and Two Pints is that they are so long running. Fans of other sitcoms (say, Partridge) may wonder why such progs like Two Pints are made week in week out when we only get 6 or whatever episodes of really good stuff.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS