An interesting point was raised today. Basically, is "sitcom" limited to a particular medium, or mediums? We traditionally think of sitcoms as being on TV or radio, but could comic stage productions, or even a series of comedy films - the Doctor series, perhaps - be counted as sitcom? They're all based on situations, and comedy ones at that, so as far as the word itself goes they'd probably qualify.

As Griff points out though, it's hard enough to get people to go to the theatre at all, let alone on a recurring basis in order to follow a story. But does that have any bearing on whether a show is a sitcom or not? It's increasingly hard for TV channels to grab and sustain an audience throughout even the shortest of series', so does that make them not sitcom anymore?

Thoughts anyone?

In theory, though the term 'sitcom' - I wonder who coined that - really means TV and radio. Of course yes 'situation comedy' could well be a stage show, but a stage comedy is always called either a comedy or a farce.

An Alan Aykborn could be a sitcom but it's just a 'comedy' due it being on stage.

A sitcom will never be anything other than on the telly (maybe net) or the radio.

Quote: Seefacts @ April 1 2008, 5:19 PM BST

In theory, though the term 'sitcom' - I wonder who coined that - really means TV and radio. Of course yes 'situation comedy' could well be a stage show, but a stage comedy is always called either a comedy or a farce.

An Alan Aykborn could be a sitcom but it's just a 'comedy' due it being on stage.

A sitcom will never be anything other than on the telly (maybe net) or the radio.

View original

Why though? I mean, how is something defined as a sitcom? What's the criteria? A situation with comedy is the only requisite, surely? Pretty much anything by Ayckbourn or Cooney is based on one or more comic situations. Do we think of sitcom as just being TV or radio because that's what we're used to, and how we've always thought of it?

Talking of Alan Aykborn, has anyone seen his play Confusions. I just acted out as part of my Amateur Dramatic club at the local church hall. A great play. John Alderton was originally in it. Incidently, I would describe Confusions as a sitcom.

To make it simple you could go by the first time the term Sitcom was used. That was in by TV Guide in 1953 when referring to "I Love Lucy". Everything else prior (while still important situational comedies) would be considered a serial.
For example when you are referring to Punk music a genre of music you go from the date the term was coined and the bands during that time period. Everything else is Pre".

Quote: Griff @ April 1 2008, 5:27 PM BST

No I don't think so, I think sitcom has become a well-defined form, with recurring characters placed in lots of different situations, with the situation returning to the status quo at the end of each episode, A-plots and B-plots etc.

The further you move away from this formula, the more you veer into other formats, for example League Of Gentlemen is half sitcom, half sketch-show.

Thinking about it, it's the "situation returning to normal" at the end which is the killer. Read any book about writing for theatre, and whether you are working in drama or comedy, there should be some change in circumstances, often referred to as the "event" of the play, which resolves the dramatic/comic tension, tells the audience whether the protagonist has achieved/not achieved their goal etc. Obviously plays like Waiting for Godot deliberately subvert this, but disregarding Beckett and Brecht etc., nearly all stage comedies follow this rule, making them the exact opposite of sitcom format.

View original

HmMMmm. Best point yet. Intriguing indeed. Probably why I feel so uncomfortably labelling Gavin and Stacey as a sitcom, because it's so clearly linear and continuous. Definitely a 'serial', I think.

Quote: Aaron @ April 1 2008, 5:24 PM BST

Why though? I mean, how is something defined as a sitcom? What's the criteria? A situation with comedy is the only requisite, surely? Pretty much anything by Ayckbourn or Cooney is based on one or more comic situations. Do we think of sitcom as just being TV or radio because that's what we're used to, and how we've always thought of it?

View original

Yeah, tradition.

It's like the word 'explicit' makes you think of porn. And so does 'girth'. They don't exclusively have porno meanings, but culture has ingrained that in our minds. Same with sitcom.

Quote: Jack Massey @ April 1 2008, 5:24 PM BST

Talking of Alan Aykborn, has anyone seen his play Confusions. I just acted out as part of my Amateur Dramatic club at the local church hall. A great play. John Alderton was originally in it. Incidently, I would describe Confusions as a sitcom.

View original

I saw Relatively Speaking last year, it was funny and farcical - no different to Frasier at it's best. But not a sitcom . . .

Quote: Griff @ April 1 2008, 5:27 PM BST

No I don't think so, I think sitcom has become a well-defined form, with recurring characters placed in lots of different situations, with the situation returning to the status quo at the end of each episode, A-plots and B-plots etc.

The further you move away from this formula, the more you veer into other formats, for example League Of Gentlemen is half sitcom, half sketch-show.

Thinking about it, it's the "situation returning to normal" at the end which is the killer. Read any book about writing for theatre, and whether you are working in drama or comedy, there should be some change in circumstances, often referred to as the "event" of the play, which resolves the dramatic/comic tension, tells the audience whether the protagonist has achieved/not achieved their goal etc. Obviously plays like Waiting for Godot deliberately subvert this, but disregarding Beckett and Brecht etc., nearly all stage comedies follow this rule, making them the exact opposite of sitcom format.

View original

Ah, he's solved, it.

Well done Griff.

So what about a 6 week run at the theatre - a sitcom on stage? Would that be a sitcom?

Quote: Seefacts @ April 1 2008, 6:08 PM BST

Yeah, tradition.

I saw Relatively Speaking last year, it was funny and farcical - no different to Frasier at it's best. But not a sitcom . . .

View original

Why not, it is a situation that is very funny.

Quote: Jack Massey @ April 1 2008, 7:25 PM BST

Why not, it is a situation that is very funny.

View original

Well, why not indeed?

I just think the word sitcom is something very different than just a comedy in a situation. It's grown above and beyond.

Oh God - not this topic again! You would not believe how long I've agonised over what is and what isn't a sitcom!

This is the definition I've always worked to...

A humorous radio or television series featuring the reactions of a regular cast of characters to unusual situations, such as misunderstandings or embarrassing coincidences; a sitcom.

Trouble is, like all definitions, it has holes.

The Sitcom Trials are on the stage... yet I think it'd be hard to argue they weren't sitcoms!

Also the above definition uses the word "regular"... yet there's thousands of one-off pilot sitcoms which need to be defined somehow!

And lets not even move onto the word "humourous"!

Because no one ever setup an official definition for 'sitcom', and it is now too late to impose one, there's always going to be questions over what a sitcom must indeed consist of I think.

Quote: Mark @ April 2 2008, 1:04 AM BST

Because no one ever setup an official definition for 'sitcom', and it is now too late to impose one

View original

Maybe, maybe - I think we should give it a bloody good try though!

Quote: Griff @ April 1 2008, 5:27 PM BST

Thinking about it, it's the "situation returning to normal" at the end which is the killer. Read any book about writing for theatre, and whether you are working in drama or comedy, there should be some change in circumstances, often referred to as the "event" of the play, which resolves the dramatic/comic tension, tells the audience whether the protagonist has achieved/not achieved their goal etc. Obviously plays like Waiting for Godot deliberately subvert this, but disregarding Beckett and Brecht etc., nearly all stage comedies follow this rule, making them the exact opposite of sitcom format.

View original

I'd agree with this. One of the defining characteristics of the sitcom is that the characters never change and are pretty much always in exactly the same position at the end of thirty minutes as they were at the start. Plays, books and films usually have central characters going on a dramatic journey and finishing in a different place to where they started.