Quote: Josh Dulaney @ June 7, 2007, 5:26 PM

It's subtle and truthful to every single character. Within ten minutes of the first episode i was sucked into the world the characters live in, i felt i knew them and i think that is a testimnent to the writing to feel like that after 10 minutes.

View original

Its a comedy drama so I agree with that. The writers are actors so you would hope they would have picked somthing up from their other projects.

Quote: Josh Dulaney @ June 7, 2007, 5:26 PM

The characters have heart and warmth and this i think is much harder than writing "dark" or "edgy" comedy.

View original

Why do they attempt 'edgy' jokes then like the Diana jokes?

Quote: Josh Dulaney @ June 7, 2007, 5:26 PM

The 2 families in the show are named the Shipmans and the Wests. Never flagged up in the series, just left for you to realise.

View original

Is that meant to be a joke? Jokes like that without context are cruel and lazy. Why is that funny? And why are you pointing it out?

Quote: Josh Dulaney @ June 7, 2007, 5:26 PM

The way the writers have fully formed seven main characters who you believe in is surely testiment to wonderful writing. The review in the Times said,"This show should be shortlisted for next years BAFTA already, character comedy like this has never been so good." I, as you know, agree with him. I can't see what's remotely lazy in the writing, i think it's precise, well crafted and most importantly funny!

View original

Writing is all about conflict yet the conflict in this show does not arise from the characters but situations forced into the plot. an example would be the scene in the church with the sandwhich and the telephone call where Gavin is talking to another person on the phone and Stacy gets annoyed.

Quote: Josh Dulaney @ June 7, 2007, 5:26 PM

It reaches out to you as a viewer and asks you to come on a journey with the characters

View original

So does a news report.

Quote: Godot Taxis @ June 7, 2007, 1:55 AM

...the cliché is in writing about these people in the first place.

View original

I say we need to turn Bill & Ben into a proper sitcom. A comedy about flowers? No clichés there!

Look, i was asked to explain why i thought the writing to be good. I did that. It's just my opinion.

Not all writing is about conflict, this simply isn't true. Are you honestly saying every piece of narrative writing is about conflict?

The news does not and never will reach out a hand and take you on a journey with it's characters!!! What news are you watching? This is an absurd statement. Oh, did you think the news readers were actors and that all the stories were made up? Ah, bless.

I am an angel you know. Sent from heaven to bring piss & Ah!mennie

Quote: Martin Holmes @ June 7, 2007, 6:02 PM

Surely your write for yourself and what you like, not what you think others will like. That's my thought on the matter anyway.

View original

You should write in your own style but if you want to be successful other people have to like it. All those thousands of writers like what they write but it doesn't lead to success unless the producers and public like it.

Quote: ajp29 @ June 7, 2007, 6:39 PM

Its a comedy drama so I agree with that. The writers are actors so you would hope they would have picked somthing up from their other projects.

View original

for the 8,000 time, its not a comedy drama its a sitcom. It is 30 mins long, its written as a sitcom and is publicised as a sitcom.

Quote: ajp29 @ June 7, 2007, 6:39 PM

Writing is all about conflict yet the conflict in this show does not arise from the characters but situations forced into the plot. an example would be the scene in the church with the sandwhich and the telephone call where Gavin is talking to another person on the phone and Stacy gets annoyed.

View original

Its the Wests that choose to take the non-religious Shipman's to church. CONFLICT
Its the vicar who chooses to use a metaphor that Gavin doesn't get. CONFLICT

That is characters making choices which conflict with others. Plus a conflict can be external or even inner.

I agree that those scenes you mentioned have conflict. My point is that ajp made a statement that ALL writing is about conflict. Not just Gavin and Stacey, ALL writing. I just don't think this is true.

Quote: Josh Dulaney @ June 8, 2007, 10:20 AM

I agree that those scenes you mentioned have conflict. My point is that ajp made a statement that ALL writing is about conflict. Not just Gavin and Stacey, ALL writing. I just don't think this is true.

View original

I wasn't posting that for you, i was just saying that for ajp as he said they weren't character conflicts. I think the best writing has conflict at some level.

There's a lot of replies in this thread. I almost wished I'd watched the show now, but I really can't warm to that oily English bloke in the lead role (he's very oily, and looks baguely like he fiddles with children).

Quote: Josh Dulaney @ June 7, 2007, 11:46 PM

Oh, did you think the news readers were actors and that all the stories were made up? Ah, bless.

View original

What? You mean they aren't?

Quote: Josh Dulaney @ June 7, 2007, 11:46 PM

Not all writing is about conflict, this simply isn't true. Are you honestly saying every piece of narrative writing is about conflict?

View original

Josh, you're right when you say that not all writing has conflict but that's usually held up as an example of bad writing.

AJP is right to assert that all the best drama and all the best comedy is about conflict at whatever level. The first lesson we learn as viewers and writers is if there isn't conflict it's boring. Example: There's conflict between Morse and his sidekick, conflict in The Parrot Sketch. Yes, it varies in intensity and in the target and reason but there is always (rather should always be) a conflict and a tension in good writing.

Contains Nuts is right in that all conflict need not be external, but giving one reason why the show has to be a sitcom is because it's 30 minutes long is not true. I'm not disagreeing whether the show is or isn't a sitcom, I'm only looking at the logic of the statement which is the old syllogism: "All sitcoms are 30 minutes long. This show is 30 minutes long therefore this show is a sitcom."

Most definitions of sitcom use the term 'typically' or 'usually' when referring to episode time but this doesn't mean always. The fact that the word 'usually' is used indicates that there are examples contrary to this. That other types of show (journalism / news / drama / soaps) use the 30 minute format says more about traditional schedules than being an indication of genre.

Quote: Josh Dulaney @ June 7, 2007, 11:46 PM

The news does not and never will reach out a hand and take you on a journey with it's characters!!! What news are you watching?

View original

The real question is: What news are you watching, if you even have to ask that question.

1) Most news programmes have human interest stories, vlog items, etc.

2) The news reporters (e.g. kate Adie) become well known in their careers and we empathise with their on-screen personas.

Try this: A female reporter (a talking head) talks from Kabul - Boring.

Then try this: Character: a vulnerable female reporter in a hostile environment. Journey: How i slipped into Afghanistan, dressed as a man. Now add shots of RPGs, guns, toothless dodgy-looking old men and camels (not needed for the actual news content) and suddenly it's a different story. It's more adventure story than news report.

3) Some of the best ever journalism (The news report from the Sudan in 1984 that initiated LiveAid) was done in a style of introducing you to the story and its characters. I will never forget that report. Not for the facts and figures but for the plight of the little boy, gone too far, left crying and dying under a blanket in the red earth, all alone. Why is that? It's because people naturally empathise with people, not cold facts, that's why this style of journalism deals more and more with the impact of events on people.

News has shifted radically from the old reading of facts to getting in amongst the fighting, getting at the story means getting at the people behind the story. Even the budget deals not so much with percentages but through interviews how this affect a real pensioner or a real family man.

So AJP is totally right in asserting that even good journalism seeks to draw you into story and character

Of course you're right regarding news features and the like. You are, and i hadn't actually thought of it like that. This thread could go on and on and on. I just think it's a good show, a really good show and that's that really. Sit-com, not a sit-com, funny not funny, it's all opinion. I feel sure there is someone somewhere sat saying how partridge is shit, and that Peter Cook didn't have a funny bone in his body! It would be that persons point of view and nothing else. I truly expect to see Gavin and Stacey winning awards and going on to recieve higher praise than it already has, if that's possible. And i've enjoyed talking about it and am glad to have found this site. It feels like certain people on here will find negatives in everything until they find some success in their own comedy lives, i like to look for positives and i'm really positive for the 2nd series of Gavin and Stacey. x x x

please don't take what i said out of context, i was using the 30 mins bit as part of the description not as the sole reason. Plus, sitcom and not sitcom is not an opinion it is up to the person who wrote it. WHether its funny or not is a matter of opinion - greatly here. The writers say they wrote it to be in the sitcom genre, the BBC call it a sitcom, and it has every markings of a sitcom. Not being funny doesn't make it a comedy drama.

BTW, according to Marc Blake's book 'Sitcom is always half an hour. If a comedy stretches to an hour, then it is called comedy drama.' I believe a lot of people here regard Blake highly on this site.

Quote: ContainsNuts @ June 8, 2007, 7:55 PM

BTW, according to Marc Blake's book 'Sitcom is always half an hour. If a comedy stretches to an hour, then it is called comedy drama.' I believe a lot of people here regard Blake highly on this site.

View original

As Marc says in his book, sitcom is indeed pretty much always half an hour. The main reason being that sustaining the gag rate and the interest of the audience for an hour without any drama elements is a bit hard! The notable exceptions being extended [Christmas] special episodes (e.g. Vicar of Dibley) - they're still sitcoms despite being an hour.

Josh, cheers, you are a pleasure to debate with. And yes, a show's worth is all just opinion.

Quote: Josh Dulaney @ June 8, 2007, 5:45 PM

It feels like certain people on here will find negatives in everything until they find some success in their own comedy lives

View original

This isn't strictly true, my main gripe is with how the show got a commission not the show itself. I would have been aggrieved at the tale of how the show got commissioned whether I was a writer or not. And assuming that all negative feedback is from aggrieved writers purely because they haven't been commissioned isn't true either. It's an appreciation of detail and structure that may well aggrieve even professional writers when it comes to a series that they happen to dislike. And as you rightly point out, it may all boil down to that person would never have liked it despite being a / not being a writer as it is all down to personal tastes.

Re: Marc Blake's contention that it is all a 30 minute format, doesn't gel with many of the definitions that I googled, the three top ranks all used terms such as 'usually' and 'often'. Plus it's a very easy absolute to disprove. For example, a 'thirty minute' show in america when padded out by repetitive ad breaks is down to around 20 minutes, whereas BBC material is around 28-29 minutes. 50% variation is considerable. Even in the UK you have to write different length scripts for the BBC or commercial channels due to the effect of advertising.

The thirty minute restriction is set by the broadcaster rather than desired plot and structure. What use is a 35 minute ripper when it shunts all your programmes off the hour and half hour by an extra 5 minutes and confusing all the regular viewers? So I'd have to argue that it's a cultural (USA v UK) and a external (BBC v commercial channel) constraint rather than an 'ideal' that has been established over the years by industry pros as the perfect length for a sitcom. All other genres tend to fit into the 30 minute or 60 minute restriction too.

Josh if you truly believe what you just wrote, that everyone is entitled to their opinion, why did you have a go at the 'writers' who you thought were jealous because they weren't good enough to write for TV?

Quote: Josh Dulaney @ June 8, 2007, 5:45 PM

Sit-com, not a sit-com, funny not funny, it's all opinion.

View original

Why don't you apologise then.