Skip navigation

I felt it time to postulate a bit and post it here on Future Imperfect.

So, we’re going to talk. Rather, I’m going to talk and you’re going to read. And if you don’t I’ll find out about that too. That line is paraphrased from Seinfeld and the correct and much better line is given by J. Peterman to Elaine and it really is about twenty years ahead of it’s time:

“Oh, and if you are undead, I’ll find out about that too.” delivered flawlessly by John O’Hurley.

And of course that got me thinking about sitcoms and what works and what doesn’t.

First off what does work: settings in apartments or houses with multiple residents. 

Now I could ramble off unlimited pilots and successfully established television shows over the decades since radio performances morphed into television but let me just list a few:

Seinfeld

Golden Girls

Cosby

and the new and hilarious Raising Hope.

Why do they work?

Because they’re a microcosm of real life, shown in all its sanity and insanity. As in, truth is funnier than reality. And skewed truth is the funniest of all. There are so many great lines that stick with people and if they don’t they should. 

Simple lines are best: Rose Nyland of Golden Girls being prepped for meeting the President:

Presidential Aide: “Do you support the overthrow of the government by force or violence?”

Rose: “Violence!”

Plus there are the characters who are both constant and have developed personalities. You could rarely mistake Rose Nyland for Blanche Devereaux or Sophia Petrillo and I don’t mean height either.

Seinfeld has the same qualities.

Not one of the four characters could possibly be mistaken for the others. 

And yet that is not the main reason why sitcoms fly or fail.

Guess what it is.

SETTING.

Almost all successful, beloved sitcoms are set in homes and or apartments. Think about it:

Seinfeld

Friends

Golden Girls

Again, Cosby.

You have the continuity and relatability of the same characters that you can grow to love (or hate).

What doesn’t work?

HOTELS. 

With the exception of Fawlty Towers which succeeded by the sheer virtue of the talent and writing, nearly if not all, sitcoms set in a hotel have either failed dismally or fizzled out slowly. And for the reasons listed above.

No real sense of continuity, many of the funniest characters come and go as hotel guests, not residents. Those who are stable characters must deal with a constantly changing cast and plot lines. While it might not be boring, it’s not identifiable. People don’t live in hotels unless  they’re luxury suites in major cities. Most of the time hotel rooms are simply functional. You’re squeezed into a small room with one or two beds, a bathroom,  TV with nothing really watchable on it, desk, chest of drawers, and a table and chair by the window. That’s how I picture hotels where the lobby is more comfortable than my room. I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that’s your memory too.

Speaking of lobbies, most of the time, as gorgeous as they can be, they’re impersonal unlike a home or apartment. Home is where you live. Hotels are where you stay on occasion. Once more, impersonal and uncomfortable. Think Who’s The Boss. People live together in myriad ways either with family, friends, or live-in help. 

In a hotel setting, besides the main 4-6 characters, they have to deal with help: cooks, maids, generally unknown people unless there’s a romance or other subplot. Then again, those people have to become regulars or what’s the point? Where’s the resolution? What happens to that lesser character? They might have great lines but unless they become a regular, who cares really?

It’s like a huge unmanageable dirigible. And even then, I think that might have a regular cast of character too that regularly interact with each other as the blimp meanders over nations, oceans, mountains but that’s another sitcom plot and I think it’s a little Steampunkish as well not to mention a worn out sci-fi plot too. AND DON’T EVEN THINK OF STEALING THIS IDEA. Like J. Peterman said, “If you try, I’ll find out about that too.”


Advertisements

4 Comments

  1. Hi there,

    I just wanted to write and let you know that I really liked your post.

    I write a monthly article for a European poker magazine. It is a monthly tale taken from my local poker game and it is called The Ogmore Poker Tour. I like to call the writing style gonzo poker. When you read this article (each spans 1,500 words) you will see that it isn’t really a story about poker, but a story about people. 

    I want to extend this series of articles further but I a, a little inexperienced and am not sure what form it fits into. I preferred the idea of the English soap opera. A regular weekly show based around the lives of these people playing this poker game. Then I read your post and thought, “could is work for sitcom?”

    The setting is always the pub where we play cards. The characters set and identifiable with new ones slotted in when I feel it’s necessary. So could I turn the Ogmore Poker Tour not a sitcom with the setting as a pub instead of an apartment or home?

    I am interested in your thoughts?

    Like

    • Well Lee,
      A very similar (sans the poker game) sitcom set in a pub was very successful in the 1980’s. You might know it: Cheers? I’m just teasing you at this point though Cheers was outrageously successful. From what you describe however, the characters can’t just sit at the poker game or table–there has to be action and a plot line for that action. All the great dialogue in the world can’t work unless people are interacting or moving physically. Otherwise it’s a boring home movie. I mean even Cheers had people moving around the bar with some type of plot happening. This goes for both drama and comedy. MI5 has incredible action going on; classics like Fawlty Towers always had physical comedy going on and not just by Basil. Regardless you have other characters coming and going or coming and staying, your main characters have to move. Otherwise you’ll have a hell of a time trying to gain an audience–they’ll tune out–fast. Hopefully this applies to what you’re describing. Oh, and thank you so very much for checking out Future Imperfect too Lee!

      Like

  2. I really love this post. And we’ve got about the same taste too! 🙂 Very well understandably written!

    Like

    • Thanks Raani! I truly appreciate your taking time to check out Future Imperfect! It means a lot to me!

      Like


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: