The Difference
Posted on Jul 16 2006 | Tagged as: TV, Comedy
British sitcoms tend to come in short series (6 episodes, on the BBC) and, in terms of a pre-planned overarching storyline, light on plot.
American sitcoms tend to run for much longer (20+ weeks) and get almost soap-like in the intricacies of plot and interaction between characters.
Why?
on 17 Jul 2006 at 1:31 pm 1 Cat said …
Have you only just noticed?
My guess at an answer would be the very typical American way of quantity over quality.
on 17 Jul 2006 at 5:22 pm 2 Christopher White said …
I haven’t only just noticed, but seeing that Scrubs is back on TV reminded me: despite its frequency dives into the surreal, they actual do what I said in the post with soap-esque storylining and that. Some episodes are actually quite poignant in places. Just it’s done in a really cheesy ‘final thought’ kind of way, mostly.
I was going to write an actual intro to this post that said as much, but couldn’t be arsed; you’ve made me now, though, you and your impertinent questions.
The explanation ‘quantity over quality’ would suggest that american sitcoms are neccessarily inferior to ours, which on the whole I don’t think they are.
on 17 Jul 2006 at 6:05 pm 3 Sam said …
Correct me if I’m wrong, but does American TV not run in ’seasons’? (E.g The ‘Fall’ TV Schedule, etc). Homer Simpson and his little ‘Mid-Season’ flag and scorecard (Laminated at that Laminating place) could be wrong, I dunno.
Could well explain why most American series’ run in 24 episode blocks (for the more popular shows - Friends for example) or in similar multiples of four (I think Family Guy and American Dad noramlly produce about 12?)
As a result, the number of shows in each series most probably reflect the way in which American schedules pan out. Save for Christmas, New Year and sometimes at Easter, I can’t think of a time that British television is designated as ’seasonal viewing’, in the way American shcedules are advertised. We, for instance, don’t have a ‘Fall’ or Autumn schedule.
Right, back to the shorthand learning….
on 18 Jul 2006 at 3:27 pm 4 Christopher White said …
Perhaps.
Still doesn’t explain why the stories are done in the way they are. Friends, for example, is more like a soap with jokes, in a lot of way, than British sitcoms.
Maybe it’s just an inevitable consequence of running for longer.
on 18 Jul 2006 at 4:20 pm 5 Sam said …
“Maybe it’s just an inevitable consequence of running for longer.”
Think you’ve just answered your own question there
on 21 Jul 2006 at 10:40 am 6 Matt said …
I had to endure a moment or nine of Friends last night, and thought of this post.
I can’t help but wonder if I’d sooner just have ONE series and leave it at that - tightened and tightened and polished to perfection; a flawless, self-contained text that doesn’t scream for second-series funding; scripts written to deadlines and not for fun. Or perhaps even a series that becomes so popular that you’re coerced into writing more by Fox and then canned when you lose viewing figures.
Look at the new Dr. Who - it really isn’t so spectacularly written, buoyed mostly by its heritage. If they released that now as a new idea it’d be shot down as Babylon-5-bad sci-fi and wouldn’t have had anything like the coverage. If you’re constantly told to watch something you usually end up succumbing - and if you don’t, someone else will talk to you about it anyway.
It’s a law that the more you do of something the worse it gets. Well with some things, anyway. Other things are consistently brilliant. Like pooing.
on 21 Jul 2006 at 4:04 pm 7 Christopher White said …
Ah, but then you don’t get the evolution according to what [the writers think] the audience want.
Anyway, the Hitchikers sequels are all pretty ace. (Or do things work different in print.
And why didn’t you comment on this sooner?
on 24 Jul 2006 at 10:09 am 8 Matt said …
I don’t know. I lost my face for a while there. Sorry.
on 24 Jul 2006 at 3:41 pm 9 Christopher White said …
And I lost a closing bracket.
)