Talk:British sitcom

This page badly needs a rewrite out of a US-POV. -- Tarquin 23:41 Mar 19, 2003 (UTC)

Father Ted was removed (because it was Irish). But it was a British Channel 4 production (by Geoffrey Perkins amongst otheres), so I'm reinstating it RTE thought it was too controversial. Mintguy (T)

I don't see why something can't be Irish and British at the same time - Ireland (more properly Ulster) is part of the British Isles after all. sheridan 11:21, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

"British" Isles? Don't you mean the Irish Isles? --Eamonnca1 23:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing you're being slightly tongue-in-cheek here. I also guess that you might be an Irish patriot.

"Britain" is commonly used (mainly in America) to refer to the UK. However, it is an informal term which more properly refers to the entire archipelago, which includes Ireland (Ulster being an older term which means vaguely the same thing as Northern Ireland). The islands in this archipelago are collectively the British Isles. The other term that can cause confusion is Great Britain, which refers only to the largest island. Shetland, Orkney, the Isle of Wight and many other islands are UK, but not Great Britain, and Northern Ireland is both UK and Irish.

Just thought I'd clear that up to prevent any future confusion. RobbieG 17:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the word "Britain" isn't really confined to the US, its commonly used as shorthand for GB or the UK. But I don't think it would ever be used to apply to Ireland as well, that would be "the British Isles".

And I think the outlying islands you mentioned would be considered part of GB, even if they are not connected to the mainland. The Isle of Wight, for eg, is considered to be part of England, therefore its also part of GB. JW 10:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All true, although I am British and I seldom hear anyone refer to the country as "Britain". It's usually "England" or "UK", or more often than not, just "this country"! But anyway, in everyday speech, everything you've said above is true. However, I was giving the strict technical terms, and I think they're all correct. Not 100% sure, but I'm pretty confident. RobbieG 20:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, the point is redundant, because although Father Ted is set in Ireland, it was made by a British company (Channel 4), thus making it a British sitcom. After all, 'Allo 'Allo isn't a French comedy just because it's set in France. (As someone who lives in Northern Ireland though, and also a terrible pedant, I always give my nationality as UK national rather than British citizen. But that's beside the point.)

I have a theory about British sitcoms. I think that all the best British sitcoms are about inadequate men who consistently fail to acheive their intended goal , e.g. Harold in Steptoe and Son (goal: Escape from his father's working class roots, (and his father)); Basil in Fawlty Towers (goal: improve the quality of his clientelle); David Brent in The Office (goal:Make everybody laugh at his jokes and think he's a "fun" boss); Del Boy in Only Fools and Horses (goal: become a millionaire); etc.. add to the list, The Britas Empire; Til Death Us Do Part; Ever Decreasing Circles; Hancock's Half Hour; One Foot in the Grave; Some Mothers Do 'Ave 'Em; Rising Damp; Father Ted; Citizen Smith and Blackadder. Mintguy (T) 01:10, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

that's great man. (ricjl 23:56, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC))

Okay actual reply: what about To the Manour Born, The Good Life, rah rah. British sitcoms have always been about failure because that's what makes them great - you can relate to them! US sitcoms are all about dreams that real people can't achieve. That's a different kind of comedy. (ricjl 23:56, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC))

The discussion of the article British_comedy wonders whether that page and this page should be merged. While that's a good question, in the meantime, I'm wondering about a different issue. There are numerous references to "Britcom" scattered throughout Wikipedia, but the term isn't defined, nor are the terms linked to the Brit-com page. That page itself currently redirects to British_comedy, which contains no mention of the term "Britcom" (or "Brit-com"). Should uses of the term "Britcom" link to a descriptive page of its own, or should they redirect to this page? It doesn't seem to make sense to leave things as they are, since this page at least gives a minimal definition of the term, whereas that page doesn't even mention it. (User:0dimensional 08:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC))

History

The overview history only mentions one of the top 10 British sitcoms (as voted last year). That needs to be sorted! (ricjl 23:52, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC))

NPOV

Would it be possible to rewrite this so it didn't come off sounding so superior and brainy? We're not talking facts here, it sounds like a bulletin board bigot explaining why he thinks Americans are stupid. I'm talking about stuff like this:

Unlike American sitcoms, which employ teams of writers and attempt to cram as many jokes into half an hour as possible, the traditional British situation comedy is produced by just one or two writers. Although it may be argued that a sitcom's raison d'être is to pack as many gags as possible into a half hour, the more measured approach engendered by a single writer or a close writing partnership permits greater control over the programme's direction and a more structured approach to character and plot development. A need for rapid-fire jokes can make the establishment of multi-dimensional characters much harder. The British approach therefore gives greater freedom to individual writers and more opportunities for character development.

Let's be a little less gushing, eh? SavMan 08:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that sounds fine, a need for rapid fire jokes DOSE make detailed charachters harder and having one or two people DOSE give them more control. Tortanick

It is the tradition of British sitcoms that the comedy arises out of the drama, it is an adjunct to Shakespeare and that crowd. There is an American tradition of cramming in as many gags as possible, the Dick van Dyke show, which was actually set in a scriptwriters' office, is a good example of that. Sweetalkinguy

I accept what's being said, but this article actually does make it sound as though British sitcoms are better than American ones. I think something probably should be done to rectify that. Wikipedia shouldn't contain bias. The problem is, I also think I shouldn't be the one to make the changes. I wouldn't know how to go about it, because, well, in my experience, I've enjoyed all the British sitcoms I've seen much more than the American ones. RobbieG 20:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not better, just different. Actually, I have a theory about where this difference comes from: the BBC. As a non-commercial station, the beeb doesn't have to chase ratings. That's probably less the case now than in the past but it's still somewhat true. I have heard that neither Dads Army nor Only Fools and Horses found their audience until the third series but both are now among the best-loved of programs. This means that the producers had the freedom to back their gut feeling and keep plugging away. It's inconceivable that a US network would produce a third series after two unsuccessful ones, or even a second series after one poor season. US shows have to hit the ground running hence lots of gags. Character-based comedy doesn't tend to work until the audience knows the characters. Also, the fact that the script isn't expected to pack in as many gags means there is more space to develop the characters. I think the 'best' Britcoms to tend to go deeper than US sitcoms. But, it has to be said, there have been plenty of Britcoms that were neither deep nor funny and a US sitcom is at least likely to be funny.217.154.66.11 12:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]