What if ITV had produced Red Dwarf instead of the BBC?

[Jawscvmcdia]

Also, how would the show have differed depending on which ITV company had produced the first few series (i.e. how would the Tyne Tees’ version have compared to it being produced by say Thames/Carlton)?

Discuss.

Topic

[Pete Part Three]

So what is it?

[Dave]

ISWYDT.

But it’s a sketch show really, isn’t it. An adaptation of a lot of the physical/silent comedy stuff Atkinson was already doing in his one-man shows, just doing it all with the same character.

There aren’t really plots, storylines, a regular supporting cast, or even a ‘situation’ of the kind that I’d expect from a sitcom.

[Bargain Bin Holly]

That movie where Mr Bean had a gun and went on some spy mission was really weird

I thought for a sec you were referring to that scene in Bean where he pretended to have a gun at an airport, but then I realized you were talking about Johnny English and I hit myself over the head.

Mr Bean isn’t a sitcom.

Checkmate, atheist

[Dave]

Defeated by the infallible source that is…

*squints*

…Wikipedia?

[Ben Saunders]

Wikipedia is actually a lot more credible than people give it credit for, due to the fact that almost every statement has to be backed up by at least one source. Universities will tell you to go get a book out of the library instead, but what’s to say the writer of the book wasn’t misinformed, making it up, got his information from a bad source or the information isn’t outdated? Wikipedia is kept fairly up to date and has a team of people working to ensure accuracy.

That said, any statement on Wikipedia not backed up by a source is questionable, but so is any and every other source you come across ever, or at least it should be.

“Mr. Bean is a sitcom” isn’t sourced, however, fwiw. Sick embed, though.

[Dave]

The truth is that there isn’t a universal objective definition for ‘sitcom’ so if you think Mr Bean is one then you can definitely make the argument.

It doesn’t feel like one to me, though. It feels more like a series of one-off sketch shows based around the same character.

[Ben Saunders]

I would say it’s a sketch show as well, it’s definitely not a traditional sitcom

[Flap Jack]

If you don’t count Mr. Bean as a sitcom, then I have no idea what definition of “sitcom” you’re using.

It’s not a sketch show for sure, because the defining feature of a sketch show is that its episodes are comprised of many short segments which are mostly unrelated to each other and feature different characters and settings. Every episode of Mr. Bean is, from beginning to end, about the same guy, bumbling his way through his everyday life, to humourous effect. It’s a sitcom.

There aren’t even really any other sub-genres of TV comedy you could fit it into. Who here dares to make the argument that Mr. Bean is really a mockumentary? A comedy drama? Panel game? Stand up? Political satire?

On another note, reading that Wikipedia article taught me that Mr. Bean was first broadcast over 6 years, but only had 15 episodes – and one of those was a Best Of compilation.

So, was Mr. Bean the ’90s equivalent of a prestige drama, or did they film it in stop-motion?

[Ian Symes]

I’d lump Mr Bean in with The League of Gentlemen as being the perfect hybrid of sketch show and sitcom. Best of both worlds, if you get it right, as both shows largely did.

[Dave]

It was made and shown as single episodes rather than series, in a non-regular timeslot.

Just like all the other sitcoms on TV.

But that didn’t matter because there weren’t really any through-lines that you had to follow, no ongoing storylines or even recurring situations, and virtually no regular supporting cast. In fact, even within each episode there often wasn’t any kind of story linking the different segments.

Just like all those other sitcoms that do that.

[Dave]

League of Gentlemen is a great comparison. I’d call that a sketch show too.

But like I said about Mr Bean earlier, I can see how you’d make the sitcom argument.

[Pete Part Three]

>no ongoing storylines or even recurring situations

I dunno, I was waiting to see whether Bean would get lucky with Irma.

[Ian Symes]

And whether he’d end up killing the Reliant Robin driver.

[Flap Jack]

The League of Gentlemen is a unique prospect for sure. I’d say Mr. Bean is less ambiguously a sitcom in how it focuses on just one character.

It seems odd to bring up Mr. Bean’s sporadic broadcast schedule as an argument against it being a sitcom. I’m pretty sure expectations about series orders apply to most of television – including sketch shows – not just sitcoms!

But, eh. Genre definitions are vague and subjective anyway. Mr. Bean certainly has some very sketchy (so to speak) elements. I just saw that it easily fit the common definition of a sitcom and didn’t fit the common definition of a sketch show.

[Dave]

I’m pretty sure expectations about series orders apply to most of television – including sketch shows – not just sitcoms!

Nah, one-offs are a lot more common in other genres. Dramas are an obvious one (not that I’m arguing Bean is a drama).

I think the sporadic scheduling is definitely part of what made Bean feel like something other than a standard sitcom. Although obviously people watching it today won’t be affected by that.

[Taiwan Tony]

Frank Skinner’s Shane.
Frank Skinner’s Shame.

[Pete Part Three]

>I think the sporadic scheduling is definitely part of what made Bean feel like something other than a standard sitcom.

Not sure the scheduling is a defining factor on how you define genre. Only Fools and Horses after Series 7 was sporadic and irregular, for example.

[Plastic Percy]

I remember as part of my degree we studied comedy, and we actually had it put to us by a lecturer if the character of Mr. Bean was a comedy character or if he was a clown in the traditional sense of Commedia Dell’Arte.

[Dave]

I don’t think of any of these elements as ‘defining factors’. It’s a combination of things that make Bean not feel like a sitcom to me.

He’s definitely more of a clown character. I think in sitcoms a lot of the humour comes from the characters’ personalities, whereas Bean doesn’t really have one beyond being naive and lacking empathy, and any attempts to develop him beyond that fairly blank slate tend to fall flat.

[International Debris]

I never really thought of Mr. Bean as a sitcom. It certainly doesn’t feel like one. It’s just a comedy.

Someone I used to live with had a very strict definition of sitcom, and classed a lot of stuff – Spaced, Peep Show and others – as not being sitcom, because they don’t reset at the end of each episode, but instead having a plot arc more akin to a drama. I should probably have asked her what that made ‘Allo ‘Allo.

[Toxteth O-Grady]

Maybe not *TV* per se, but Mr Bean is very much in the same vein as the film comedy shorts of Chaplin, Lloyd, Laurel & Hardy, Three Stooges, etc.

You wouldn’t call Laurel & Hardy’s short films a “sitcom” (but then they weren’t made for television), they’re defined as ‘short films’. Mr Bean is the same thing, just made specifically for television and not cinema (excluding the two movies, of course).

I’d therefore class Mr Bean as “a series of comedy shorts made for television”. Not a catchy term, I’ll admit, but much more accurate than calling it a sitcom.

[Toxteth O-Grady]

*Sigh*
For clarity, I was trying to quote Flap Jack’s comment “There aren’t even really any other sub-genres of TV comedy you could fit it into”.

[Flap Jack]

HTML, you smeghead!

*shakes fist*

I genuinely think that if one of those Laurel and Hardy films had been a TV series instead, it would be regarded as a sitcom. “Sitcom” is an incredibly broad church. That’s all I’m saying really.

[bloodteller]

This reminds me of those people who call stage plays “films”. They’re not films

[Pete Part Three]

>“Sitcom” is an incredibly broad church.

Broadchurch isn’t a sitcom.

[Dave]

It is because there are funny bits.

[Ben Saunders]

>This reminds me of those people who call stage plays “films”.
Who the fuck

[Flap Jack]

Broadchurch isn’t a sitcom.

Not really relevant to the discussion, but nonetheless a fun fact to know. Use it to break the ice at parties!

[bloodteller]

>Who the fuck

I’ve heard people say that because sometimes on stage plays they have the cameras on and record the stage play, which you can later buy on DVD, that means they have been filmed and therefore makes them films. They also called individual episodes of televison shows “films”. Utterly bizarre logic

[flanl3]

It’s like people calling any good film “pornography”.

[Flap Jack]

If you ever meet one of these “anything that’s filmed is a film” wankers out in the wild, just say “would you like a bag of crisps?”, and then hand them a bag of burnt paper.

[flanl3]

Ah, yes, the bags of burnt paper I regularly keep on my person.

[Flap Jack]

Look, flanl3, if you’re not willing to wear a utility belt full of various sarcastic props at all times, then you’re not truly committed to the cause of pedantry.

[Plastic Percy]

I knew some prick who said she would never say she’s “been to London” as she’s not been to every part of it. I’d said in a conversation that I’d been “all over the UK” and she was trying to pick that apart for some reason by trying to find a place I’d not been to in the UK (which was never my point). I said “well hang on, you’ve never been to Brixton but you’d still say you’ve been to London”. And she came back with saying “I would never say I’ve been to London, I would say I’ve been to parts of/a part of London”.

A complete thief of oxygen.

[International Debris]

You can boil that right down, too. “You can’t say you’ve been to Leeds if you haven’t been to the whole city. Have you been to Headingley?”
“You can’t say you’ve been to Headingley unless you’ve visited every street. Have you been to Canterbury Road?”
“You can’t say you’ve been to Canterbury Road unless you’ve visited every house. Have you visited number 17?”
etc.

[Hamish]

Well, have you?

[Quinn: Clochebusters World Champion]

<block quote> You can boil that right down, too. “You can’t say you’ve been to Leeds if you haven’t been to the whole city. Have you been to Headingley?”
“You can’t say you’ve been to Headingley unless you’ve visited every street. Have you been to Canterbury Road?”
“You can’t say you’ve been to Canterbury Road unless you’ve visited every house. Have you visited number 17?”
etc. </block quote>

So really the only person to have been to London then would be Charles Booth. And that was 130 years ago.

[Quinn: Clochebusters World Champion]

Can we all just pretend I did that quote properly and move on please

[Bargain Bin Holly]

No

[Author]

Replies