Hi all,

Just curious as to how you guys start writing (sitcom).

Do you start with character(s) first, or setting first?

I ask because with myself, It seems to be a mashed up combination of "main character, goals, supporting characters, setting, and some scenarios". I then have to sort of extract the information from my brain onto paper. I suppose I am quite disorganised in the way I create...and I get the impression other writers are far more organised and methodical.

Sidenote:- I read an interview by Dan Clark, and he was talking about comedy characters. He said that all the great comedy characters are "monsters and tyrants:- Basil Fawlty, Larry David, David Brent" (and his character Don from HNTLYL)

I personally disagree with this. I can think of plenty of great comedy characters who aren't tyrants and monsters but who are in fact still hilarious...(infact I don't even think David Brent qualifies as a tyrant).

I think it is definitely important for characters to be flawed, and make mistakes, and sometimes definitely act like a monster. But I prefer characters who are driven to acting like a monster through their own insecurities, jealousy etc. rather than simply being a "monster" indefinitely.

Your thoughts?

Well, arguably those characters mentioned aren't just monsters. Fawlty is the way he is due to massive insecurity.

but yes, in general I'd agree that a lot of the best sitcom characters are monsterish in some way.

Delboy is pretty horrible to Rodney a lot of the time. Arkwright. Blackadder. Brittas. Rimmer. Mainwaring. Appleby.

Most of them act the way they do due to insecurity, greed, ambition etc. They're generallly not just evil monsters for the sake of it. Not even Malcolm Tucker.

I don't think there's any rules. Just do it the way you think best.

Dunno about the rest but the way I learned and am learning to "do it"
was and is by doing what you're doing. Starting to write without a
clue and by trial, error and lots of re-writing, gradually got, and
continue to get, my balls on a bearing. For this I owe a great deal
to my BCG piers and their unwavering support. Yes, piers is a deliberate
and not an error. Best of luck.

Jamesy - I think Stephen's point about trial and error is well made.

However, to answer your question, I personally start with character. The value of that was bestowed upon me by Jon Plowman and I have yet to think of a reason to call him wrong. he said that the thing that keeps people interested are the choices made by characters -the audience is always thinking - what's s/he going to do next?

That means that you have to create compelling (and flawed) characters who are prone to making unexpected choices which have unexpected consequences...

happy writing!

An neither would I deem to question the profound advice such as
that which was proffered to JPM1 by the legendary Joan Plowright.
Also, dyslexia is an enormous handicap if you are a righter.

When it comes to comedy, usually I just think of an amusing idea and work from there. Not the most original or fool-proof of ways but usually works out for me.

I think it's probably because unless you're invested in an idea, it's difficult to write it. A lot of my work comes from the beginning ideology of if I think it's funny and amusing enough not to alienate anybody, why not go for it? Most of my stuff I make is zero budget anyway so I don't feel I'm losing anything by doing it.

In the end, it's all about that spark and then getting into the zone (and other corporate buzz words! Synergy people, synergy!) and just enjoying it. In the end, if you don't enjoy it, then it's not really worth it...

It's interesting that it is generally accepted, not just here but in all the books I've read, that character is the most important element. Yet - surely it's next to impossible to just think of a character with no context.

The funny thing about David Brent was not just that he though he was a chilled out entertainer that wanted to be everyone's mate, but that he was also the boss of an office of workers facing the chop.

The funny thing about Fawlty was that he was miserable, angry, obnoxious AND ran a guesthouse.

So, although I'm not denying that character is most important, but I'm just asking if it is necessarily the germ of an idea - maybe instead a character in a particular place or situation, or a particular relationship between two characters (Steptoe?).

Although I think Chappers has already answered me!

Following on from Joebloggs, If you look at "The Office" or "Fawlty Towers", surely they started off with the setting? It's no good having a rude man or a born entertainer, they have to be rude or entertaining (or not so) somewhere. And the fact that one of them has the name "The Office" and the other has the name of a hotel. Even Miranda had the name on radio as "Miranda's Joke Shop".

Fawlty Towers started with character, not sure about The Office.

Basil was based on a hotel manager of a place the pythons were staying in. Cleese used the charcter as a minor roll in an episode of Doctor at Large he wrote, then developed the idea from there.

Thats true, but I was going to use that fact to support my argument!

Cleese based Fawlty Towers not just on a miserable git, but a miserable git who worked in the 'hospitality' industry - the worst place for the character to work, and the worst person to work in that place.

Quote: joebloggs69 @ December 7 2010, 5:42 PM GMT

It's interesting that it is generally accepted, not just here but in all the books I've read, that character is the most important element. Yet - surely it's next to impossible to just think of a character with no context.

View original

The character will most times suggest a context; somewhere where they would work best.

While I love Fawlty, Reggie Perrin (the original) and David Brent, if there was one TV show I wish I had written, it would have to be Police Squad. Not much in the way of character development there, but extremely funny.

"Cigarette?"
"I know."

Give me two people in a room and I could have them bouncing bad gags and double entendres off each other 'til the cows come home, looking to be milked. You might laugh (or not), but you wouldn't get much insight into the characters involved.

Is there a market for this type of slapstick or should I go and do something else? Like f**k off.

Character and setting or character and story are really just two sides of the same coin.