Shayne-Michael.COMedy

The Sictom Writers Checklist - by Shayne Michael

Great sitcoms have come and gone. Mostly they have gone. Lost in the memories of NBC's one-time Thursday night line up that people would watch week after week. Some quality programming has come in its wake. But not much. Why did these quality shows vanish? What did they have that today's shows lack? How can we bring those qualities back? And, how can a writer recognize their presence and their absence in his own work?

Production Expense:

Common Mistakes: Is there a major star committed to the project?

Networks overestimate the power of a major star. A major star might bring an immediate audience to a new show. However, this is only benefits you if you already have a good story line. Sitcoms written around big celebrities alone don't automatically sell. How much money did the network pour into Bette Middler's sitcom just because she would star in the show? Having a major star on board will only sell a sitcom idea in it's youth. Bringing a ton of people to a poorly written script will bring a faster turn around. Don't over estimate the importance of having a major star. It helps, but hit sitcoms make major stars 90% more often than major stars make hit sitcoms.

Is there someone worthy of major stardom committed to the project?

If you have no major star does someone within the cast have that potential? Who heard of Jennifer Aniston before Friends? Cheers made Ted Danson a star. Drew Carey, Ray Romano and Tim Allen fall into the same category. What makes a character a star is illusive. I'd say, make the character relatable but then most of the characters on Fraiser are pretentious snobs. Yet, they get nominated for emmies every year. Sometimes it's the character you love to hate. Trust your own judgement and go from there.

Is there a catchy theme song?

Cheers was the spot where everybody knows your name. The theme song to Friends is stuck in my head and I don't even watch Friends. Whenever I hear that song by the Ramons it becomes a subtle advertisement for the show I never watch. How many shows get advertised even when they're not officially being advertised? Smart producers integrate other media in this way. It brings a third dimension to the product and gives you the ability to continue marketing it after the cast goes home.

Developing Characters:

Is there a central character?

A central character is the person whom the sitcom revolves around. In Cheers it was Sam Malone, the washed up baseball player. In All In The Family it was Archie Bunker, the loveable bigot. In I Love Lucy it was Lucille Ball, the crazy scheming red-head. You get into trouble when you clearly have a central character who isn't really the center of the sitcom. Whoopie, NBC's new arrival, was a good example. The main character was suppose to be Whoopie Goldberg, but by the end of the pilot I had learned nothing about her. If you want to sell me on a series about this character you needed to show me exactly who Whoopie was before the first commercial break.

Is that central character well defined?

When the major star isn't well communicated it's usually because the major star isn't well defined. In The Mullets I got the basic back story: Here's a partier that married a straight arrow. If that's all you know about the major characters your show is going nowhere. I know how Drew Carey felt about his parents, his best friends, his boss, his career, his lunch, his dinner, his desk, Mimi's troll dolls, his brother and his relationship with his refrigerator itself. Who in their right mind would ever enter a corporate contest to win a new refrigerator? How much does that tell you about Drew Carey when he does?

Are you willing to show me who the main character is?

When Night Court premiered I knew it was a hit. I didn't know anything except how weird Harry Anderson would handle the cases that came before him when he started flipping coins to decide the verdict. I was sold on the series when the defense attorney shouted, "The Defense wants heads." If I really like the person the sitcom is about, it's a safe bet I will tune in the following week.

The problem is telling me exactly who the central character is, is also a big risk. A lot of comedians avoid taking this very chance on stage. Sitcom writers do it when they begin writing so much about minor characters you amongst forget who the major character is. Would you watch I Love Lucy reruns if every single episode was about Fred, Ethel, or Ricky? Of course not. The show was called I Love Lucy. The only people who were tuning in, were the people who loved the main character. The only way they can know they feel that way, is to be exposed to that central character, both the good and the bad.

Do the characters interact or coexist?

If you write well the characters within a sitcom will need each other to further the script. Night Court is an easy example because within the legal process you need a judge, a defense attorney and a prosecutor. The process (or plot) doesn't move on without each one. Sitcoms get sloppy when characters' roles start to overlap. Ask yourself why is this character needed within the series each week? If you can't answer either turn it into a minor character or learn more about the character until you can.

Is at least one character already worthy of a sin-off series?

It helps the sitcom grow when you have more than one minor character that viewers will tune in to watch. In Fraiser that character is Niles. Networks are more likely to buy a product that will spawn more products down the line. I wouldn't say this is paramount to success. However, having a "Niles" as an award winning character in your sitcom will do a lot to sell the show.

Writing:

Are there too many cheap and easy jokes?

Put simply, is there clever writing? I know some people like comedy that's "in your face." Well name one sitcom that made it on old jokes? Green Acres? Okay, do you think Green Acres would work today? The only way to remake the Beverly Hillbillies was to do the show as a reality show.

Ask, does the sitcom simply attempt to verify a generally accepted cliche in comedy: blondes are dumb, lawyers are dishonest, jews are cheap? Sitcoms are not written through stereo types. Good sitcoms, like good comedy challenges stereotypes. Watch Legally Blonde. It's a smart blonde, who sometimes fits the stereo type and the rest of the time destroys it that makes the movie work.

Are the jokes tied to a passing fad or a historical event that isn't history yet?

That 70s show was a good idea. Nostalgia takes at least 30 years to become nostalgia. That 80s show was a bad idea. 1980 was twenty years ago when it was 1980 began, 1989 is only ten years old. How can you be nostalgic for something barely ten years old?

Also be very careful about passing fads. Whoopie's new sitcom is tied into our fears about going to war with Iraq. Once those fears pass, one of the sitcoms major selling points is recent history. Right now, they'll put up with the middle Eastern humor because mocking terrorism while it's a problem is a small improvement over living with the fear of terrorism itself. Should that fear ever pass, who would want to remember it?

Does some of the humor come from personality as opposed to clever writing?

Cheers could get laughs just by characters yelling Norm as he walked into the bar. That inside joke was built on Norm's personalty. He was a living fixture within the bar. These are the type of jokes that don't come in the form set-up punch, set-up punch. It's more like you're listening to a story about a long lost relative, that story hits a nerve and you say.... "That's just like that Norm Peterson. I don't know why we say 'Hey Norm', he never leaves the bar stool."

Theme:

Is there a controversial theme that might limit the audience?

The Cosby Show and All In The Family were both excellent shows. One was simply family humor. The other dealt with a lot of topics society wouldn't. One was a political vehicle; the other was simply a good show. Obviously, All In The Family will make more history books than the Cosby show. It involved more firsts. If you want to be in the history books, concentrate on firsts. Be the first to tackle homosexuality. Be the first to tackle divorce. That means you're trying to be more than a sitcom writer; you're trying to be a pioneer. Just remember pioneers are taking more risks and they always work harder to sell their journeys.

Plot:

Does each episode have a well defined problem, that you can identify before the first commercial break?

Sitcom episodes are usually written around a major story, like will Sam ever win over Dianne? To have a well written episode I need to know what the episode will be about in the first three minutes. Sitcoms are thirty minutes minus commercial breaks. If this is a spin off episode of All In The Family where George is moving out of Archie's neighborhood to set up a spin off, start with that. Don't lead up to it.

Sometimes books are written without plots. The reason books can do this is plots repeat themselves. Sitcoms must repeat themselves. How many episodes do you remember were Drew Carey tried to get a raise? How many episodes were there where Sam tried to win back Diane? Remember, sitcoms are built around characters who usually have one over-riding goal that often they will get repetitive. If you feel like this is just another episode where Sam tries to win over Diane, simply put, Sam's plan isn't clever enough. Don't rewrite the goal, rewrite Sam's path to get there.

Be careful about completely solving the sitcom's central issue.

In Louis and Clarke, when did Superman finally loose it's audience? When Superman and Louis Lane got married. In many ways that's why Cheers survived after the departure of Shelley Long. Had Sam gotten what he wanted Cheers would have died too. There will always be some element of, "Could Sam and Diane ever have made it work?" When Kristie Alley replaced her, the sitcom's central problem was replaced by another. Kritsie Alley's desire to climb the corporate ladder. It was keeping that first problem unsolved and introducing new problem all together that kept Cheers going.

Are the minor characters instrumental in solving the problem?

Minor characters need to play a part in what's happening. Fraiser needed to give Sam bad advice. What else would you expect from a trusted Psychiatrist who happens to be in love with Diane too? The fact that Carla hates Dianne and Norm and Cliff live through Sam's sexual conquests all play a tug of war with Sam's and Diane's goals. Should they accept Sam's love for Dianne or should they keep trying to recapture their youth through the sexual exploits of a washed up ball player through one sexual conquest after another? That depends who they listens too and how many beers they've drunk.

Are there too many back stories?

I can only name one sitcom that defied this rule and still won. That sitcom was called Soap. The only reason Soap was a hit with the numerous back stories was it was a spoof on soap operas, notorious for the overwhelming and unneeded number of back stories. If you have three more stories happening in the background that are distracting enough to make the audience forget what the sitcom is really about something is wrong. Focus on one problem, bring one other story into the background and axe the others. Either that or ask the network for an hour show.