Worst 10 British sitcoms ever??

[James]

I’m sorry I just had to post this link

http://board.sitcom.co.uk/thread/11773

NO WAY!!

Topic

[Tanya Jones]

Oh, FFS. You really don’t have to watch much of Brittas (or many classic sitcoms) to figure out that there’s something more interesting going on than you originally suggested. The trouble is that an awful lot of people watch comedy in a very shallow way, because they THINK it’s shallow. One of the reasons why The Office was so popular with journos was because it’s comedy drama; and it’s the drama element which had the neon sign saying ‘SUBTEXT’, which got the sort of twats who look down on sitcom excited. It’s really rather easy to see good character development in sitcoms, but you need to have your mind open to it in the first place. I don’t really care if people don’t want to do that, but I object to them then slagging off a sitcom just because they didn’t bother engaging their brain whilst watching.

[Carlito]

I don’t look down on sitcoms, I love them, my cupboards are full of tapes of sitcoms recorded from TV ever since I was about 10 yrs old… if a sitcom aired, no matter how obscure, from around 1994 through to about 2002 (when I moved from home and no longer had a VHS recorder at my immediate disposal) the chances are I’ve got them on tape. When I was 14yrs old and should have been doing my homework, I was feverishly filling unused school books with (probably lame) sitcom scripts so I hope that wasn’t a dig at me, TJ, because if it was you have got me very wrong.

I don’t believe sitcoms to be shallow, I believe them to be an art form. The majority of all television shows that pass through my eyes are sitcoms or comedy of some other description. I watch with no prejudice or agenda. Sometimes I watch analytically, sometimes I watch for the sheer entertainment of it. Brittas, I watched for the entertainment of it. It never challenged me in any way, just turn it on and watch.

So why everybody is running to the shows defence when, from what I can see, it fulfilled its objectives neatly is beyond me. It was an amusing show, it certainly isn’t an all-time classic, and there were several one dimensional characters and contrivances on display most weeks, which doesn’t even bloody matter because it was a funny, usually well-constructed farce. Why do people seem so intent that it should be recognised as some kind of British Frasier, of such depth and intellectual superiority that I must have simply not ‘gotten it’?

[Carlito]

Also, hope I don’t seem like I’m getting arsey in my responses. Just enjoying the debate. A good debate can be eye-opening, educating and entertaining… I don’t get offended or intend to offend, I don’t automatically assume I’m always right, everybody’s opinion is valid, it’s not a battle and to be honest there is no real correct answer either… just to state my position. Just find it interesting.

[Prue]

I also love British ‘sitcoms’ – although we don’t always get them here in Australia. I have masses of comedies on dvd – even those I hadn’t seen previously (but sounded good or had heard about). I would love to write a comedy sitcom, but know I couldn’t. I’m more used to writing historical articles and works!

I don’t like American sitcoms (just can’t get into them – Scrubs is about the only one I can watch), and Australia doesn’t have much to offer either – although we do have a few funny people/shows (Kath & Kim comes to mind, although I don’t really watch it either).

Although ‘sitcoms’ does not necessarily mean comedies, I don’t watch much else!

Just my five cents worth (the saying should be two cents worth, but we don’t have two cent coins anymore and haven’t for a long time!!).

Prue

[Andrew]

> I don?t believe sitcoms to be shallow

> there?s not much more to most of them than their sitcom character

Compare and contrast. The firm implication of the latter is that a ‘sitcom character’ lacks depth.

[ChrisM]

>Although ?sitcoms? does not necessarily mean comedies, I don?t watch much else!

Sitcoms are comedies (SITuation COMedies) although not all comedy dramas are necessarily sitcoms. (In my mind there isn’t a strict line though.) Is that what you meant?

I used to dislike American sitcoms. Even now, I’m not that keen for the most part, but there are some major exceptions. Friends (although it’s way over-shown now.) Scrubs certainly. I like ‘My Name is Earl’ too, (although I suspect that’s more in the comedy drama than sitcom category.) Last series wasn’t quite as good. They were trying to do something fresh and different, but it felt a bit forced to me and didn’t altogether work. (I like alternative episodes, but here and there on occasion.)

This series they seem to have gone back to the original format and so far so good. Slightly contradicting what I said earlier, the same format is feeling a bit repetitive now though. This might be sign they should wind it down this series. There are still some excellent funny moments though.

[si]

My Name Is Earl is my favourite US Comedy at the moment. My sister watches the endless looping reruns of Friends on E4 (despite having all the bloody DVDs – which I’ve never seen her watch!!) and I love Scrubs, but I’ve missed so many – I didn’t know Laverne had died for example until a few weeks ago. (Ironically, I watched a lot of episodes of Scrubs while I was in *whispers so as not to annoy ian et al* hospital)

[Carlito]

> I don?t believe sitcoms to be shallow

> there?s not much more to most of them than their sitcom character

> Compare and contrast. The firm implication of the latter is that a ?sitcom character? lacks depth.

Not at all. By ‘sitcom character’ – and I used the wrong terminology because cleary I didn’t convey my intentions – I meant that a lot of times in sitcoms (more so than any other kind of television) some characters have a specific and underdeveloped role to contribute to the ongoing narrative (ie. ‘the thick one’, ‘the hostile one’) rather than actually being a fully rounded and multi-dimensional character. These ‘token’ characters are rarely the focus of the show, rather floating around in the background, cropping up when their specific and slanted perspective is required for the purposes of a gag or a quick piece of exposition. That isn’t a criticism – these characters can be hilarious (Trigger) – but they aren’t vital to the show by any means. They are there to just make you laugh and provide what is oftentimes a stereotypical function.

To use my example again, Trigger isn’t a well rounded character. He just floats around; you know he’s thick and you know he’s dodgy, so his contributions rarely exceed gags based around how dim witted he is, or revelations that he was responsible for a petty crime. You get occasional glimpses at another side to him, his friendship and loyalty to Del since he was a child, but you couldn’t really say you know much more about him than ‘he’s the thick-as-pig-shit, loyal smalltime crook with a good heart’. Yet he is a beloved character, because he is so funny. But he is mainly just fluff. A non-vital element with no deep importance, but he exists to add a bit of humour.

He is the archetypal ‘sitcom character’ that I mentioned… erroneous description on my part then, I suppose, if you want to pick it to pieces… but what I actually meant to infer was ‘underdeveloped supporting character with a more-or-less specific function’, but that takes a lot longer to type. Nearly as long as my posts have been recently. Yikes.

All I’m saying is that, with its large cast and often a great number of one-off characters, Brittas had quite a lot of these type characters on a regular basis, including some of the staff. What role did Colin fill, if not to be the dirty, not-very-bright mess that provided ‘gross out’ laughs, or the mad scientist type figure to help create problems to accentuate the farce of the episode – not an unimportant role, but nothing deep about it.

[Andrew]

And what role does Xander in Buffy fill if not the amusing sidekick?

Which is to say – you can reduce any character to their purpose in the fiction. That’s how solid writing works. Having a specific function doesn’t make you merely the product of that function.

[Carlito]

Shouldn’t you be busy? :)

I don’t know, I’ve never watched Buffy.

[Carlito]

> Which is to say – you can reduce any character to their purpose in the fiction. That?s how solid writing works. Having a specific function doesn?t make you merely the product of that function.

No, it doesn’t HAVE to. Depends how fleshed out they are. They could be JUST there to fulfill the objective, and therefore rely on a stereotypical image for easy audience recognition, or they could be built up as an interesting, multi-faceted integral element of the dynamic of the show. Depends on the writing, and the needs of the writer.

[Carlito]

Obviously they could start as the former and develop into the latter over time as required, a la Kochanski.

Started out as a one dimensional icon, ‘the ex girlfriend/love interest’ (in the confines of the TV version) and when later needed to fulfill a bigger role, was fleshed out into something deeper (rightly or wrongly).

[JamesTC]

>I don?t know, I?ve never watched Buffy.

Why not?!?

[Carlito]

Don’t know. You can’t miss what you’ve never had.

[JamesTC]

Unless it is Buffy.

[si]

I preferred Willow anyway.

[Ridley]

[si]

Sorry, I MEANT Alyson Hannigan.

[Author]

Replies