Idiotprogrammer Blog

Category: Pop Americana

  • Paris Hilton for Prez!

    Kay Hymowitz on the Paris Hilton phenomenon:

    Paris’s presumption comes off as especially obnoxious in this hard-nosed, meritocratic age. Who is she to flaunt her easy privilege, her mindless entitlement, her careless idleness? One reason her “celebutard” IQ grates on us so much—“Could anyone be this stupid?” Newsweek asked in its review of The Simple Life—is that it comes at a time when we believe brains, or at least Ivy League degrees, are a necessary precondition for legitimate success. The panic over fancy diplomas dominates domestic life for many Americans and seems to spare almost no one, even the sons and daughters of the very rich. Evidently Paris didn’t have the gray matter to do what so many of our country’s young heiresses do these days: that is, go to Brown. We might excuse her if she had.

    In fact, Paris violates all of the unspoken rules for the born-rich in our democratic republic. Grandes dames of yesterday, such as Brooke Astor, might be idle, but they had the virtue of reminding us of a lost world of tradition, breeding, high culture, and noblesse oblige philanthropy. Paris wouldn’t know Astor old-school manners if she tripped over them in her gold stilettos. She is a trash princess, as vulgar as Bart Simpson and dressed in T-shirts that say “Got Blow?,” tacky, Pepto-Bismol pink hoodies and matching shoes, and underwear that she notoriously neglects to wear under. Unlike reticent Park Avenue bluebloods, she is deeply exhibitionistic. Though she cried foul when The Tape was released, who could take her outrage seriously? After all, during “lovemaking,” to use another of the euphemisms Paris’s life seems to collect, she wrestled Rick Solomon to the side to make sure the camera was Paris-centered. At least in the past, the upper classes kept their unconventional predilections quiet, with whips and handcuffs stowed discreetly in the closet. Paris, by contrast, makes a career out of scaring the horses.

  • Youtube Factor in Politics: Good for advocates, bad for politicians

    Here’s a youtube commentary on the bigoted Ford RNC ad. Wow, the ad is loathsome (so much that it’s hilarious), but what a brilliantly obvious idea to interleave commentary within the RNC ad on youtube. Let’s hope this format of criticism will prevent political ads from being too outrageous. The tendency for outrageous political speech to be rebroadcast via youtube is turning out to be very important.

    In other news, turns out Rush Limbaugh didn’t insult Michael J. Fox . He didn’t apologize..and apparently doesn’t need to.

    Chuck Kuffner summarizes a Garnett Coleman report about how Republicans ruined the state’s CHIP program . (CHIP provided health care to indigent children in Texas). Turns out Perry wants to use the surplus to cut business taxes.

    Eric Boehlert discovers that an inside-the-beltway polblog is too inside-the-beltway. (Still, Boehlert is a great reporter).

    A spirited defense of Michael Moore. Have you ever noticed how political pundits are always referring to extremists on both sides such as Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh? Hello, does Michael Moore really belong among this group? Moore uses provocative rhetoric (and  caustic irony), but he’s too ironic of a thinker to be grouped with these other blowhards. I don’t consider Fahrenheit 9/11 a masterpiece, but it was damn good filmmaking, and Moore has a good sense of humor (and that film was so thoroughly fact-checked that I have to dismiss criticism from the right). Conservatives seem to think that Moore’s problem is with facts, when in fact Moore’s use of facts was fairly cautious. Instead, he uses juxtapositions and satire to make political opinions (note: facts and opinions are two different things!). One dismissive conservative acquaintance of mine mentioned the alleged “ambush” by Moore of a Republican congressmen in the movie about why his son didn’t volunteer for military duty. Actually, Moore presented that scene fairly accurately (he mentioned the fact the congressman had other cousins who had served), but the whole point of the scene was not to mislead the audience but simply to show the congressman’s baffled expression when Moore suggested his son enlist. That subtle point (which was a great comic moment in the film) is one of those points missed by people who never bother to see the film.

    I think the reason people toss in Moore’s name with right-wing dingbats is that a)Moore is fat and wears a baseball cap and b)there really ain’t too many extremist left-wing dingbats these days. Al Franken comes to mind (he is purely a buffoon), Jesse Jackson (sort of a media attention whore) and maybe Amy Goodman (she has a thousand axes to grind, but at least she’s intelligent). But look at  other left-wingers who are considered extremist dingbats these days: Howard Dean (many of his opinions about Iraq are now today’s conventional wisdom), Ted Kennedy (despite the public perception, he has proven to be a moderate deal-maker), Arriana Huffington (her Internet publishing venture has definitely provided gravitas), Nancy Pelosi (her rhetoric seems restrained to me). The sad fact is that are a dwindling number of leftwing-nutjobs to lampoon these days.

    The real “extremists” nowadays are the newspaper columnists: Molly Ivins, Frank Rich, Paul Krugman, Kos, Tom Tomorrow, Eric Altermann, Katrina vanden Heuvel, Jim Hightower. These are people who who use extremist tools (i.e., caustic satire) to make subtle political points. When you write, you can do this and still maintain control over your facts. Your opinions can still be nutty, but at least you can make precise statements and allude to facts accurately. But when you broadcast on radio or TV, you lose control of your rhetoric. All you end up with is talking points. Truly, if Hitler were around today, he would not be writing a blog or newspaper column; he would be some loudmouth on radio or TV.

    On the other hand, Youtube and media watchdog sites like Mediamatters have tools to “replay” loony statements by rightwing nutjobs. This “replayability” places an important check on heated political rhetoric by holding up these tactics to ridicule. Nowadays, it’s no longer possible to get away with mouthing off.

    That is probably good for pundits and activists, not so good for politicians. For politicians it means more scripting at political events, fewer off-the-cuff remarks and admissions about what a politician really thinks. George Allen’s Macaca speech was roundly rebuked, but few realized the political context; he was poking fun at a campaign staffer of his opponent who was recording every single second of Allen’s public political appearances. Holy cow! Anyone would say something stupid eventually. As opposed as I am to George W. Bush (for example), even I don’t hold him accountable for many of his outrageous political remarks (although he does tend to fall in rhetorical quicksand an awful lot). People always trip up when they speak; they always want to adlib and give appearances an air of spontaneity. Even George W. must tire of the teleprompter speeches after a while. His solecisms are proof that he’s off the teleprompter, something that makes his admirers eternally grateful.

  • Why Don’t Americans like Sitcoms Anymore?

    I’ve disheartened to hear that NBC is substantially cutting back its primetime programming :

    The opening hour of prime time has been a tough time slot for NBC. Friday Night Lights has so far proved a costly failure on Tuesday, 30 Rock and Twenty Good Years have struggled on Wednesday in two outings and My Name is Earl on Thursday has hit season lows.

    “Tuesdays and Wednesdays, we’re running the best-scripted programming on television, but the audience just isn’t there for it,” Wright says.

    Sitcom is my favorite genre, and NBC has always been committed to it. It also has a long tradition behind it.  The deeper question seems to be: why don’t Americans like sitcoms anymore? It’s not the quality of writing; it’s as good as it ever has been. It’s not the formulaic nature of the show; the formula is part of the show. When Norm walks into the Cheers bar and everybody calls his name, we enjoy the repetition.

    I think the problem goes deeper–quite apart from the simple problem of numbers.  Sitcoms are about extended families and friends, and that seems less relevant these days. Instead we have Sex and the City, shows about Hollywood (Entourage) and downright crudity (South Park, Two and a Half Men). Ironically, though, sales of TV series DVDs have been doing well; we can still be sentimental about how it used to be. But maybe the decline has simply to do with the variety of entertainment options now available to us.

    In other news, one of my fave sitcoms King of Queens will be resuming next spring. (it’s been on a break).

    On wikipedia here’s  a good history of Cheers TV show and a profile of Cheers’ creator Glen and Les Charles. They just stumbled into TV writing:

    Neither brother was content in his job and both dreamed of something more. So on a Saturday night in 1974, they were watching their favorite night of television and they became inspired–instead of just watching CBS’s Saturday line-up of All in the Family, M*A*S*H, The Bob Newhart Show, and The Mary Tyler Moore Show, they would write episodes for these television comedies.

    They started by writing an episode of their favorite, The Mary Tyler Moore Show, and sending it to MTM Productions. After receiving no response, they persisted, writing a sample episode of every television comedy they enjoyed and sending it to the producers on spec. Confident in their talents, they both quit their jobs to dedicate more time to their writing; Les Charles and his wife were living out of their van when the Charles brothers received notification of their first sold script. They lived off the money and excitement generated from seeing their episode of M*A*S*H on the air, but no jobs followed immediately. Finally after two years and dozens of unsolicited scripts, they received the phone call they’d been waiting for–the producers at MTM had read their first script at last and offered Glen and Les jobs as staff writers on the spin-off Phyllis.

    Here’s how they started Cheers:

    All three partners were fans of the British comedy Fawlty Towers and thought that setting the series in a hotel would be a good choice. Like the British series, theirs would feature odd guests passing through and associating with the series regulars. But after sketching out their ideas, they realized that most scenes took place in the hotel bar and they could streamline the show by eliminating the hotel altogether. Unlike the seedy atmosphere commonly associated with bars, they envisioned a classy neighborhood tavern based on a Boston pub. To avoid any implication that they were glorifying drinking they made the owner of the bar a recovering alcoholic. After casting a group of unknowns, many of whom had been guest stars on Taxi, Cheers was born.

    With Cheers gave the “long term story arc”:

    Unlike most MTM shows, there were no well-known actors on the show, which relyied solely on the comedic talent of the cast and writing to draw in audiences. While Taxi had moved away from the middle-class and optimistic settings of MTM programs and toward a grittier and more pessimistic view of the world, Cheers found a middle-ground–while no characters were truly happy with their jobs or circumstances, there was a contentedness in the bar where “everybody knew your name” that was never present in Taxi. The major adjustment the Charles brothers brought to Cheers was the presence of a long-term narrative arc concerning the tempestuous romance between Sam Malone and Diane Chambers; Glen and Les wrote this aspect of the series in direct reaction to the static relationship between Mary Richards and Lou Grant, which never changed through the course of the Mary Tyler Moore Show.

    All this excellent background was provided by Jason Mittell, a TV critic/prof. Apparently he feels that Lost is the best show on TV.  All this comes from the excellent TV/media weblog Flow. If I were not going to the Plone conference in Seattle, I would definitely have gone to the Flow conference in Austin next week.  I’ve salivating over their roundtables/agenda.

    I’ll look more closely through the Flow site later. Two initial observations. First, they don’t have RSS feeds. Second, I like the fact that the essays by columnists give a nice bibliography at the end to fansites.

  • Snake Roundup & Superego Orders Me Around (Again!)

    Video: Snakes on Clair Danes

    Snakes on a Train: Profile of a BonaFide Blockbuster Knockoff

    Snakes on a Babe. Worksafe although make sure your speakers are turned low!

    For the latest on Snakes, see snakesonablog

    In the meantime, despite my curiosity and enthusiasm, I have decided not to make tonight’s sneak preview at the Alamo Drafthouse. My superego is saying: finish that story! Make that ebook! Clean that room! Work on that video!  Exercise on that Ball!

  • Run for the Hills—Talent Competitions are Everywhere!

    Here’s the TV lineup for 7 PM in Houston. Notice a pattern?

    3 · WB Blue Collar TV CC TV14
    4 · FOX So You Think You Can Dance CC TVPG
    8 · PBS Jean-Michel Cousteau: Ocean … CC
    9 · UPN America’s Next Top Model
    10 · CBS Rock Star: Supernova CC
    12 · NBC America’s Got Talent CC TVPG
    13 · ABC The One: Making a Music Star Repeat CC TVPG

    The networks have finally given up, haven’t they (and gosh, even worse than a talent show is a REPEAT of a talent show!) On a positive note, the dance competition on Fox (which is really classy, by the way), looks incredible on high-definition.

  • Morality and Sitcoms

    Michel Houellebecq on Morality and the Novel:

    In the framework of a novel, it’s harder because you start finding excuses. Describing a character as a complete bastard is not feasible for more than a few pages. The novel is really not a moral genre. Everyone ends up more or less becoming moderately nice and moderately nasty.

    Julian Evans interviews Ismail Kadare

    In Albania there was no formal dissent. There was, for example, no samizdat publishing. “That was not possible. You risked being shot. Not condemned, but shot for a word against the regime. A single word.” (During Hoxha’s time it is believed at least 100,000 were imprisoned in this small country for political reasons or for a word uttered; 5,000 were executed.) Instead he revived old forms – parable, myth, fable, folk-tale, legend – packed them with allusion and metaphor, plundered the past. He is not a “contemporary” novelist. To read him is not to follow, as in English fiction, lives spotlit by lifestyle and current affairs, but lives snagged on the greater pendulum of history, of Balkan past and future.What he retained from his 11-year-old’s obsession with Macbeth was not just a love of mystery but a sense of the Shakespearean enigma, of the text’s own mystery and the impossibility of ever fully penetrating it.

    In 1981, as Hoxha declined into paranoia – he ordered the execution of several party and government officials in a purge – Kadare published The Palace of Dreams, his vision of an authoritarian dystopia devoted to the collection of every dream in the empire. It sold 20,000 copies before the Writers’ Union met members of the Politburo in emergency session and declared it “against the regime”.

    Personal note: I visited Gjirokaster, Kadare’s (and Hoxha’s) hometown. It is crazy, eerie, somber place. The rruga kryesor (main road) is a one long straight narrow road that goes uphill for miles.I took a turn on it, and felt absolutely isolated from everybody, everything, everyplace. (I also ran into a pig or two). It is hauntingly beautiful. (Photos are here).

    Sam and Jim Go to Hollywood, a great podcast about TV writers who are trying to produce a sitcom. This duo are fun to listen to, have lots of experience and advice to share and have good personal stories. Apparently in their most recent episode, they reveal they have sold a TV show concept, but I’m only on episode 7.

    I have to admit not liking the cable TV/major network method of producing shows, although to be honest, I don’t have a better idea (not yet at least). A few of their insights:

    • in Hollywood, your idea pitch is your big secret. Once it’s out of the bag, you’ve lost control over it. (My response: Is viral marketing that bad?)
    • Characters matter more than plot. Even if the plot is good and if the characters are not especially attractive, they need to be memorable and create some emotional investment (if only to see the nasty way Louie De Palma will treat the taxi drivers).
    • For HBO/Showtime, the main question they ask themselves is: can we make 100 episodes with these characters? The greater potential to extend the show, the greater its chances of making money. Everybody has great ideas, but for many the timing is all wrong (say it’s similar to another show), or you can’t extend the show very much. (MY question: even with a mediocre show concept, can’t decent writing make the characters rounder and more involving?).
    • Cable-produced sitcoms are under substantially different pressures (financially speaking) from network shows.
    • Getting a big lead actor can make up for script deficiencies in terms of selling the show. Sitcoms today are driven by brand and personality.
    • Many irons in the fire. With these writers, everything is about throwing out a lot of pitches, and then hoping that one of them will sell. One brilliant idea of theirs had a Christmas theme to it; even though it was a tough sell, they actually made headway showing people a children’s book they wrote for the series/feature. A few lessons: reuse your portfolio and look for tie-ins, with other mediums/contexts. Narrowcasting (the holiday angle) can doom a project, no matter how great it is.
    • These are great guys with outstanding insights into the creative process. But they don’t seem to be writing scripts. They seem to be writing pitches or treatments and rarely scripts. This may be an efficient method of working. But I wonder if the value/brilliance of some concepts can’t be apparent until you have a full script or two already written. These guys are focused more on the selling and becoming part of the script factory. I have no doubt they are good–even great–at this. But that creates a dependency on outside forces and ultimately market forces. If you have a good script, write it and produce it yourself. Maybe my problem is simply that I’m an incompetent salesman. On the other hand, TVland is an exclusive club and limited geography; if I can produce fascinating video dramas/comedies in Houston, that could be enough. The key thing is finding a way to make things without encumbrances. Obviously, dayjobs and the practicalities of living might offer more encumbrances than the dreary necessities of having to sell your stuff all the time.

    Here’s an essay by Jim Dunn (one of the two screenwriters) on getting noticed in a city where everyone works hard to get noticed:

    The reality is that Los Angeles is a city that feeds on an endless influx of dreams. Blame it on Horace Greeley and all that –Go west, young man!– nonsense. A century-and-a-half later, every idiot with a heartfelt delusion still hustles off to clog the L.A. streets with his never-quite-impressive-enough car. If your personal delusion revolves around writing, you can even cherish the irony that Horace Greeley’s famous phrase was actually written by John Soule, another poor bastard who did the real work but didn’t get the screen credit. Why? Because he wasn’t noticed–and Greeley was.

  • In Praise of Maynard G. Krebs

    Meghan Daum on Bob Denver’s earlier role as Dobie Gillis and how groundbreaking it was:

    Denver played Dobie’s lackadaisical, free-spirited, bohemian pal, Maynard G. Krebs. The primordial hip nonconformist, (the “G,” he insisted, stood for Walter), Maynard was thought by many at the time to be the nation’s most famous beatnik, better known and perhaps more lovable than the likes of Kerouac, Ginsberg and Burroughs.

    In what even today would be an unlikely set of traits in a sitcom character, Maynard was a jazz fan who talked frequently about Thelonious Monk and Dizzy Gillespie, played the bongos and ocarina and even sang scat. He wore a goatee, baggy clothes and invoked a kind of hipster parlance that was so ahead of its time that it was actually outmoded before other television shows had a chance to catch up. Whereas “The Brady Bunch” and “The Partridge Family” were enmeshed in the flowered pants and painted school buses of the hippie era, “The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis” rode the subtler currents of be-bop and Salinger-esque angst. If Bob Denver could have copyrighted Maynard’s signature use of “like” to preface his sentences, generations of teenagers would owe him a fortune….

    Being into jazz is fairly radical stuff for a television teenager, and we pretty much never saw it again after “The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis” went off the air. Adolescence became as commodified as the rock ‘n’ roll that defined it, and the interests and hobbies associated with teenagers became increasingly about shopping. With all that purchasing power on the line, networks couldn’t take risks on characters with underground tastes.

    Imagine if the Bradford kids on “Eight Is Enough” had holed up in their rooms listening to the Ramones. What if someone from “The O.C.” became hellbent on publishing a story in the alternative literary magazine McSweeney’s? It wouldn’t happen. Such interests require visits to used record stores or independent bookstores or even (gasp) the library, not the mall.

    But as Dobie’s sidekick, Maynard G. Krebs was exempt from the role-model duties that have always made lead characters less interesting than their quirky cohorts. Whereas Dobie had to learn a lesson in every episode, Maynard generally took himself out of the moral equation all together, eschewing work and good deeds for a more aesthetic form of righteousness.

    But the difference between Maynard’s brand of slacker and with his famous aversion to work, he was certainly among the first of the slackers and today’s acne-ridden layabout is that Maynard, for all his silliness, was inherently wise. His sense of justice arose directly out of his cultural interests, not in spite of them. His character was the result of what he dug rather than what he didn’t dig. His love of Thelonious Monk didn’t preclude his friendship with the straight-laced Dobie. A hippie, with all of his circumscribed cultural baggage, would probably have dismissed Dobie as an incorrigible square. Maynard was nuanced enough to have friends on both sides of the radio dial.

    My thoughts: Gilligan wasn’t THAT bad, although my first thought after Denver’s death was to download old Dobie Gillis episodes. Holy Cow! Amazon.com is selling DVDs with 2 episodes for $19 each! Horray for price-gouging!

    Mickey Kaus on new revenue possibilities for the New York Times:

    It seems to me, though, that the NYT is missing an obvious, lucrative marketing angle. It would be a variant of the idea my college friend Mark had for a Reverse Record Store–you’d go and pay them $11.99 and they’d take your money and use it (along with the $11.99 payments of others) to bribe Paul McCartney to not make an album that year. Similarly, imagine TimesDelete: for $19.95 a month, say, TimesDelete’s premium subscribers could vote on one op-ed columnist to take an extended vacation. If more people picked Krugman rather than Brooks, Krugman would get his salary plus a bonus on the condition that he maintain a meaningful silence for several weeks. The race would be tight every month, I should imagine, with Republicans and Democrats trying to outvote each other. But you can’t play if you don’t pay! I’d say this is surefire, supplemental revenue stream would bring in way more than the puny $20 or $30 million dollars a year the Times might hope to make from TimesSelect, especially if the business model were extended to the news pages. Adam Nagourney–your ship has come in! ..

    A marriage proposal as a cartoon.

  • Thoughts on How to Write a Sitcom

    TV critics hooted at ”Gilligan’s Island” as gag-ridden corn. Audiences adored its far-out comedy. Writer-creator Sherwood Schwartz insisted that the show had social meaning along with the laughs: ”I knew that by assembling seven different people and forcing them to live together, the show would have great philosophical implications.’ From a NYT Obituary of Bob Denver (who played Gilligan). ‘

    I’ve been thinking long and hard about sitcoms recently (getting ready to write a series of scripts myself). I’m going to write 10-15 scripts myself and then try to encourage other people to contribute to the pool (a sort of open submission project). Unfortunately I couldn’t dig up a link to a website cataloguing all of TV sitcom’s cliches; I could only find wikipedia article of common sitcom plots. November 8 Update: The site is tvtropes

    Update: I could probably add a few things here. Check Sam and Jim Go to Hollywood, a great introduction to TV writing by working writers. They have more insights than I ever could.

    Here’s a list of “requirements” for a sitcom as evident from the history of previous sitcoms.

    1. Every sitcom must have one full-fledged asshole. Totally negative, totally outrageous. He/she can be humanized eventually, but take your time. Enjoy it a little.
    2. Two, maybe three settings. Sitcoms must not have unlimited budgets or ability to move around. Visually, sitcoms are static. All in the Family and Honeymooners are perfect examples of using small settings to your advantage.
    3. Segue Scenes. Drew Carey Show has many examples of segue scenes which really make the show more interesting visually. The carpool scene and (later) the bus scenes are great changes in scenery. I just loved every minute of being in that cramped carpool! Similarly, I just love the chitchat in Arnold’s bathroom in Happy Days and the taxi rides in Taxi.
    4. Collisions of workspace/family space/recreational space. Drew Carey is the perfect example. Warsaw Tavern, department store, Drew’s house.
    5. Start with 5 or so primary characters, with the option to branch out into each of their stories. That’s the main advantage of sitcoms at work or bars; they can always introduce family members or work buddies. One genius to the original Bob Newhart Show was the therapy sessions, which allowed 6-8 patients to become part of the story.
    6. In and Out, then Goodbye. There needs to be a place where new characters (usually strangers) can be rotated in and out of the main story thread.
    7. Families exist in pairs. Dick Van Dyke, Joey, Yes Dear, King of Queens, Honeymooners, I love Lucy.
    8. As an aside, doesn’t it seem as though all these sitcoms could practically write themselves? It’s not simply good writing, but good narrative structure. This is not a show I love, but Gilligan’s Island had some creative albeit brain-dead ideas to work with.
    9. Sitcoms involve extended social networks above and beyond what ordinary people have. Yes, it’s artificial, but it’s a kind of foreshortening for the sake of TV.
    10. In residential sitcoms, don’t assume that all neighbors have to know one another. In Three’s Company, the only neighbors who know each other are Jack, Janet & Chrissy and their landlord. That’s all. That’s more than enough to sustain several seasons of sitcoms. The same principle applies for work environments. In Bob Newhart, the dentist down the hallway and the common receptionist just made the show what it was. Number of people doesn’t matter as much as a plausible premise for two unlike people having a reason to interact on a regular basis.
    11. Routines. Sitcoms need repetitions of plot patterns, though it works better if they are the exception rather than the rule. Esther’s entrance in Sanford & Son was never so frequent that one expected it; yet it happened often enough to make one joyful when she did arrive upon the scene. Same for the Big Giant Head’s messages on 3rd Rock, George Jefferson’s arrival in the Bunker household or “We were on a break!” On the other hand, Gilligan and even Three’s Company overdid the routine. Once every three or four episodes is sufficient.
    12. “Catchphrases” are overdone in the American sitcom. If a phrase happens to captivate an audience, let it ride, but don’t force it. Actually though, everybody uses catchphrases. It’s part of character. But we don’t keep repeating ourselves, even the most brain dead. Avoid creating situations just to use the catchphrase. Just write normally and let the opportunities fall into place. “I asked you not to tell me that.”
    13. Don’t become obsessed with making people laugh. People laugh some (not all) of the time. A good sitcom is more than slapstick.
    14. Minor characters can play pivotal roles. Carlton the doorman. Third Rock’s Secretary. Newman, Joey’s agent (I love that dame!). We don’t want to learn anything more about these characters. Good that the writers resisted the urge to plumb into their depths or even to put them in many scenes. In Friends, the “Oh……my…..god” girl with the nasal laugh just made the show. But luckily the writers put her in the show rarely. (Her romantic mix tape for Chandler was one of the funniest things I heard; if you don’t know, Chandler “regifts” the mix tape to Monica only to find out during a cuddling scene that the “Oh my god” girl records a lovey-dovey message between each song especially for Chandler.
    15. House or apartment? With a house, you’re dealing with family comedy. With apartment, you’re dealing with dates/wierd strangers/roommates.
    16. Sitcoms need to be serious sometimes. With friends, the Ross-Rachel thing was a farce, then a drama, and then farce. Part of the comic effect derives from these mood changes. Ultimately, a few seasons of shows are going to make you want to vary the moods anyway.
    17. The Larry Sanders show and King of the Hill demonstrated that laugh tracks and live audiences are totally unnecessary. Instead they should be afterthoughts for those shows that are already popular.
    18. All in the Family is the ideal sitcom, followed by the Honeymooners. All in the Family had 4 regulars, and one or two guest stars. Interestingly, the guest star to “All in the Family” was the topical event of the day…Nixon, the Vietnam War, affirmative action, homosexuality. Both sitcoms had minimal sets, with minimal special effects. Contrast that with Drew Carey who threw in a lot of special effects, dance numbers, magical realism and farcical events.
    19. Expect the show’s center to shift over time. Fonzie became the show after a year. So did Earkle of Family Matters or Kramer of Seinfeld.
    20. If a character succeeds, he stays. If he succeeds only moderately, get him out of there!
    21. Sitcom Romance. Don’t try unless you can live with the prospect of one of them permanently leaving the show.
    22. I like two story houses. Consider three shows where you know the house intimately well. Brady Bunch, King of Queens, That Seventies Show. The genius of That Seventies Show is using the family basement as a hangout for the teenagers. We know that all the scenes there (especially the dope scenes) involve teenager stuff. Stuff at ground level involve parent-child stuff. Backyard/driveway is for traveling/arrivals. King of Queens, look at that. Bedroom banter. Garage for guy stuff. Living Room for parties, kitchen for getting ready to leave, and finally the basement for Arthur’s tunnel vision. Whoever designed that set is a genius.
    23. This wasn’t always true, but contemporary audiences enjoy sitcoms that reference previous episodes. Mention, but don’t dwell.
    24. Nothing is wrong with jumping the shark. But you have to design your plots in a way so that you can extricate yourself from a bad plotline if necessary. Shark jumping was only a two part episode, and then it was over for good. Burning down Arnold’s (on the other hand) or burning down Cheers was a major plot device with major consequences down the road. Do if it you really need a different direction. But have a few backup directions to go if you totally mess up the overall thrust of the show.
    25. Audiences are tolerant about little outbursts of sentimentality, as long as they’re balanced by some sort of smirky postscript.
    26. Don’t worry about curtain lines. Just end when time runs out. All in the Family was famous for just ending after the 23 mark without any real reason. With Friends and Seinfeld, commercial interruptions made plotlines so disconnected that it no longer mattered where you ended anymore.
    27. Don’t watch only American sitcoms. Watch Mexican and British sitcoms and anything else you can get your hand on. They have different conventions, different tricks which you can steal shamelessly. The Office is a perfect example. It would never occur to Americans to make a character so boorish. Oh yes, that Internet thing, it’s supposed to get pretty big someday. Maybe somebody is producing new web-only sitcoms as we speak.
    28. Don Quixote. Police Squad and Get Smart being the best example. Pop culture has genres that take themselves too seriously. Find some sancrosanct cultural institution, and then transform it into something silly. For example, grab a popular TV drama or video, remake it into something silly. Reality shows. CSI. West Wing. Talk Shows. Law and Order.
    29. Fish out of Water. Good if one character is totally out of place or doesn’t belong. Like the policeman brother in Everyone Loves Raymond. Why is he still living with Mom and Dad?
    30. Comedies don’t need continuities of action. Look at Twilight Zone. Self-contained stories, but the series content stayed consistent. (Hitchcock show was another). In Get a Life! Chris Eliot dies at the end of almost every show. But I digress.

    (See also: My Fave Sitcoms ).