Sitcom Dialogue Vs Feature Film Dialogue
- Thread starter Kholi
- Start date
vcassel
Veteran
Sitcom, if filmed in front of a live studio audience, is typically written with more explicit parentheticals such as "(a beat)" or "(then)" to make room for laughter. You'll wants to aim for 3 to 4 jokes per page as standard, and comic characters in general are usually way more committed and over the top to the gag, behavior, or reaction, no matter how silly it may be. Also, you'll want to set up jokes with as many punches as possible for the most laughs. Writing new setups takes up space on the page when you could just have them laugh more at a joke you've already set up.
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
If you can follow the story, action, and individual characters while vacuuming in another room from where the TV is... you are watching illustrated radio, of which 'sit-coms' are a subset.
TV dialog is wordy, filled with expository content, and more often than not is 'on the nose' style, or at best slightly off the nose... These attributes are usually avoided in film dialog, and should they crop up... everyone finds such to be low hanging fruit for criticism.
One 'explanation', and one that I've held for years, is that since TV is sort of a development from Radio, where 'writers were king', TV has typically continued that talkie-talk style. Some time ago, I heard another explanation of at least the 'as you know Bob' type dialog. Because most TV shows are serialized, there is a need to bring new viewers up to speed on backstory quickly, as well as recall for long term viewers ancient events in the character's life.
The cable content I've been watching has been tending to less dialog (and fortunately the missing dialog is filled in with naked female bodies...) but still it is more dialog heavy than an equivalent theatrical offering.
vcassel
Veteran
There isn't much about the execution that can be explained, really. The concepts need to be understood for the execution to follow smoothly, and that means a thorough understanding of comedy in all forms [sight gags, physical comedy, joke structure (funny word last, etc.)] as well as an understanding of sitcom structure as it's a more definable form than feature scripts tend to be. Generally comedy in feature and TV forms is "talkier".
There are some definitions, however...
The "Squiggy" is when someone says something to the effect of:
PERSON
"What kind of creep would do something like this?"
And that person walks in.
The incongruous cut, so to speak when:
PERSON
I'm not doing that!
CUT TO:
That Person doing that. (best when used as a sight gag)
Really, it's just an understanding of comedy in general. Many sitcom writers start in stand-up and have a comprehensive understanding of how to make people laugh. And in stand up one most learn to pander to the audience discreetly so that everyone gets the joke.
Two really good books on the topic are The Eight Characters of Comedy and Crafty TV Writing.
Feature film comedy can rely less on one liners,sight gags or single joke setups, more on story structure, irony, satire, and character development. There is a much broader range of styles within reach.
Think of a romantic comedy like Mrs. Pettigru Lives for a Day, or something like O Brother Where Art Thou vs gag oriented comedy like the Harold and Kumar series which is more like a sitcom.
The social satire of Jacques Tati in movies like Playtime is more like pantomime, completely visual. Dialogue is just background and plays little role other than to add texture.
One of my favorite visual jokes in Playtime is a scene in a delicatessen where the sandwich case has a green fluorescent light that makes people look as if they are about to puke when they look into it.
Think of a romantic comedy like Mrs. Pettigru Lives for a Day, or something like O Brother Where Art Thou vs gag oriented comedy like the Harold and Kumar series which is more like a sitcom.
The social satire of Jacques Tati in movies like Playtime is more like pantomime, completely visual. Dialogue is just background and plays little role other than to add texture.
One of my favorite visual jokes in Playtime is a scene in a delicatessen where the sandwich case has a green fluorescent light that makes people look as if they are about to puke when they look into it.
Last edited:
THIS is what I was looking for. You're right, Harold and Kumar is more sitcom than say Wedding Crashers and/or especially The Hangover. Harold and Kumar doesn't rest like a sitcom though so I suppose that's down to execution and character arcs being stronger.
It's been difficult to figure out how to shift my comedy dialogue to a more feature-film "large scope" comedy.
Egg Born Son
Veteran
Don't forget consideration of ad breaks. I think it's roughly every 7-8 pages each finishing with some hook or cliffhanger to keep the audience from changing channel. Feature films flow, if film is a roast chicken (yum) tv shows are written in bite-sized mcnuggets.
Last edited:
BitMaestro
Well-known member
It's all about timing. Not just comedic timing, but also:
1) a sitcom ep is 22 minutes vs a 90 minute film.
2) that 90 minute film takes a year or more to produce vs 22 sitcom eps in a year/season (at 22 minutes each, that 5X more content).
1) a sitcom ep is 22 minutes vs a 90 minute film.
2) that 90 minute film takes a year or more to produce vs 22 sitcom eps in a year/season (at 22 minutes each, that 5X more content).
CallaghanFilms
Veteran
Sitcom bits/shtick greatly rely on the principals being 'known' by the home audience. They are treated as 'friends' of the viewer; and the visceral funny bone reaction often comes not from any great comedic writing, but from the idea of how said 'friend' reacts to an outlandish scenario. IE That is so _____ or Oh no _____ di'in! Sidenote: speaking of friends, the title choice of one of the longest running modern sitcoms was no accident.
Feature comedy bits/shtick, on the other hand, need proper set-ups each & every time. Even in franchises, audiences don't assume to 'know' returning characters they've seen before. Instead they take the 'hmmm-let's-see-where-you-are-in-the-world' approach. They have to ease in, get reacquainted with the character to see where they are coming from.
Television being intimate because it was 'invited into your house' never rings truer than with sitcoms. That is why successful ones are given beaucoup slack/forgiveness/leeway in the comedy gags themselves.
:beer:
Feature comedy bits/shtick, on the other hand, need proper set-ups each & every time. Even in franchises, audiences don't assume to 'know' returning characters they've seen before. Instead they take the 'hmmm-let's-see-where-you-are-in-the-world' approach. They have to ease in, get reacquainted with the character to see where they are coming from.
Television being intimate because it was 'invited into your house' never rings truer than with sitcoms. That is why successful ones are given beaucoup slack/forgiveness/leeway in the comedy gags themselves.
:beer:
Rolf Silber
Veteran
Feature comedy dialogue needs more often to be ruled by the overall "dramatic movement" of the story while in sitcom it is more often allowed to rotate around a quirky premise, bifurcating or pleating or transposing it until it's comedic "energy" is exhausted. Only tendencies though as a lot of feature comedy may have it's sitcom moments - almost too classic an example: "Why a duck?"-scene Marx Bros.
Ted Spencer
Veteran
As the old saying goes, "comedy is hard".
From where I sit, comedy is, for the reasons vcassel mentioned above (and others), easily the least advisable genre for an otherwise generally competent filmmaker to attempt. As an actor in numerous would-be comedies (ahem), as well as an auditioner for any number of them I wasn't cast in, and a script consultant on others, this comes up over and over: people who aren't *genuinely funny* should *not* attempt to write comedy.
To wit: Mistake numero uno: simply giving characters silly/goofy names, occupations, clothing, and behavior does *not* comedy make. While some great comedy writers/filmmakers indeed do that (Marx Brothers, Monty Python among a historically not very large number of highly successful ones), that's not what fundamentally makes it funny. It's the "understanding of comedy" vcassel refers to that does. Which means: writing *actually funny* visual gags and dialog/jokes. Which, even for the comedically gifted, is still hard work. For those who aren't (and that's way over 90% of us) it's basically impossible...
Thus, to undertalented comedy filmmakers, please: be afraid, be very afraid...
My $.02
Thanks for the input, guys. The question was born from watching some of the new FOX comedies, particularly NEW GIRL, and noticing that at some points the cinematography nearly turned the show into what looked like a feature film. But the dialogue was still "sitcom" dialogue. Trying to actually separate the two in my mind was hard, thought I would come here to ask.
Good answers. Also, Rolf, I REALLY like yours.
This should have been pretty obvious to me, thinking too hard may have kept it from registering but now it's clear.
Good answers. Also, Rolf, I REALLY like yours.
This should have been pretty obvious to me, thinking too hard may have kept it from registering but now it's clear.
Drew Ott
Wish I were banned.
A sitcom by definition is comedy that is situational. Not trying to be an ass, but had that been mentioned? So comedy comes from characters we like going through humorous situations. In a lot of sitcoms, we see a few characters individually pursuing goals, which then conflict with the other characters' goals. So maybe one roommate needs to get dressed up for a date, but the other roommate needs to cook spaghetti and spills spaghetti sauce on all the clothes (this is a stupid setup!). If the setup works, the audience feels a tension in their chests, because they want the conflict to go away. Every laughing moment is a release of that tension, as the conflict slowly gets dealt with.
There's a lot of overlap in cinema, but I think the best humor comes from tragedy. This is what I happen to prefer. I heard Vonnegut say that laughing and crying come from the same physiological need. Tension builds in the chest, and air needs to be expelled to get rid of the tension. So jokes set up, then release. Tension builds, then is released.
There's also the humor to recognizing truth, usually painful truth. There's a hilarious line from 30 Rock that comes to mind, which has nothing to do with situational comedy. Liz offhandedly mentions, "My cooking-for-one class got cancelled tonight because the teacher killed herself." This is incredibly dark, but absolutely hilarious. Why? I think there's pleasure in trying to figure the joke out, which happens almost instantly. There are two pieces introduced, which you have to assemble, and when you do and it's darker than you imagined, there's both surprise and truth.
I'm sure there are more 'types' I can't think of at present.
There's a lot of overlap in cinema, but I think the best humor comes from tragedy. This is what I happen to prefer. I heard Vonnegut say that laughing and crying come from the same physiological need. Tension builds in the chest, and air needs to be expelled to get rid of the tension. So jokes set up, then release. Tension builds, then is released.
There's also the humor to recognizing truth, usually painful truth. There's a hilarious line from 30 Rock that comes to mind, which has nothing to do with situational comedy. Liz offhandedly mentions, "My cooking-for-one class got cancelled tonight because the teacher killed herself." This is incredibly dark, but absolutely hilarious. Why? I think there's pleasure in trying to figure the joke out, which happens almost instantly. There are two pieces introduced, which you have to assemble, and when you do and it's darker than you imagined, there's both surprise and truth.
I'm sure there are more 'types' I can't think of at present.
Rolf Silber
Veteran
Btw - the rules of comedy (if they exist) are the hardest ones to discuss and/or to describe. They are situational, socially, culturally and nationally extremely diverse. This is why comedy is such an interesting subject. And .... At every point it can explode into your face ..... hopefully in a funny way.
And yes: The really great comedies are the ones that are tragedies in camouflage. Ariane Mnouchkine in her 1978 movie "Moliere" about the french god of comedic playwrighting (its not a comedy, btw) made some interesting observations about the subject. The movie is from our perspective today a bit too slow and has clay feet. But this is the scene after the cruel death of Molieres mother when the grandfather takes the kids out on a fair to come to terms with their grief and watch ... Well ... a commedia del arte about the death.....
http://m.youtube.com/?piggyback=2#/watch?v=Rz9om3zaCpk&desktop_uri=/watch?v=Rz9om3zaCpk
One could say: A non-verbal sitcom-situation in a healing function for a tragic loss..... And this observation changes the child into the young playwright whose writing would be about just this: Tragedies in camouflage = great and nearly indestructable comedies.
And yes: The really great comedies are the ones that are tragedies in camouflage. Ariane Mnouchkine in her 1978 movie "Moliere" about the french god of comedic playwrighting (its not a comedy, btw) made some interesting observations about the subject. The movie is from our perspective today a bit too slow and has clay feet. But this is the scene after the cruel death of Molieres mother when the grandfather takes the kids out on a fair to come to terms with their grief and watch ... Well ... a commedia del arte about the death.....
http://m.youtube.com/?piggyback=2#/watch?v=Rz9om3zaCpk&desktop_uri=/watch?v=Rz9om3zaCpk
One could say: A non-verbal sitcom-situation in a healing function for a tragic loss..... And this observation changes the child into the young playwright whose writing would be about just this: Tragedies in camouflage = great and nearly indestructable comedies.
Last edited:
Okay let's get into it. TV is more like a stage play and is dialogue driven. Films don't need dialogue at all and were perfectly acceptable when they were silent. Chaplin and Keaton could enthrall audiences without saying a thing. Yes that was a long time ago, but film is always more cinematic than a TV stage. The camera,the background sounds, the framing and the flow from location to location are categorically different and make up for a lot of the content that would otherwise be two talking heads cracking wise for five minutes.
"It's been difficult to figure out how to shift my comedy dialogue to a more feature-film "large scope" comedy."
That assumes you have a "large scope" story in the first place.
My favorite comedy is the 1976 In Laws with Alan Arkin and Peter Falk. Second is Tropic Thunder, Stiller, Downey, Jack Black. I really can't see comparing them in any way to any sitcom.
Additionally, Stiller just gave a talk that included how Tropic Thunder developed over 8 years, but once the cast got onboard nearly everything changed. The story evolved a lot with the people contributing and getting it to work on different levels. Good talk, also Darren Aronofsky interviews Clint Eastwood on directing, all on the same page, linked through here.
I would call that must-see viewing.
"It's been difficult to figure out how to shift my comedy dialogue to a more feature-film "large scope" comedy."
That assumes you have a "large scope" story in the first place.
My favorite comedy is the 1976 In Laws with Alan Arkin and Peter Falk. Second is Tropic Thunder, Stiller, Downey, Jack Black. I really can't see comparing them in any way to any sitcom.
Additionally, Stiller just gave a talk that included how Tropic Thunder developed over 8 years, but once the cast got onboard nearly everything changed. The story evolved a lot with the people contributing and getting it to work on different levels. Good talk, also Darren Aronofsky interviews Clint Eastwood on directing, all on the same page, linked through here.
I would call that must-see viewing.
Rolf Silber
Veteran
The Woody Allen quote is very good - I have the slight reservation though that I am not too big a fan of Allen's films in general - while I do love some - but that is just me.
Character comedies and comedies of manners are a vexing problem because they are usually harder to write than anything else and you can not just "shock and awe" the audience with a torrent of jokes. A rather good example for a working mix of character & manners comedy on one and sitcom & slapstick on the other side still are "What's up, doc?!" or "A Fish called Wanda" (Not to forget: "Bringing up Baby"). Such classical screwball comedy often use sitcom elements while being equally character and plot driven at the same time. Once the character part is in danger to take over or the sitcom part becomes silly and just rotates around itself and starts getting boring, mighty plot steps in and pushes the thing farther and further.
Complicated little beasts, can fall apart easily like a Swiss clockwork - but what a charm when they work.
Character comedies and comedies of manners are a vexing problem because they are usually harder to write than anything else and you can not just "shock and awe" the audience with a torrent of jokes. A rather good example for a working mix of character & manners comedy on one and sitcom & slapstick on the other side still are "What's up, doc?!" or "A Fish called Wanda" (Not to forget: "Bringing up Baby"). Such classical screwball comedy often use sitcom elements while being equally character and plot driven at the same time. Once the character part is in danger to take over or the sitcom part becomes silly and just rotates around itself and starts getting boring, mighty plot steps in and pushes the thing farther and further.
Complicated little beasts, can fall apart easily like a Swiss clockwork - but what a charm when they work.
Ted Spencer
Veteran
One of the challenges with comedy is that when it's bad, it's much worse than almost any other kind of bad. Just like telling a joke - if it's a stinker, or even if you just tell it badly, people will make it pretty clear that they wish you hadn't even attempted it. For this reason, many people have learned, the hard way, not to tell jokes at all. Ever. IMHO, would-be comedy filmmakers should take very careful note of this dynamic. And then some...
SarahMilro
Active member
It's a great domain to learn lots.
But I'd argue that it prepares you for a stand-up domain rather than a sitcom domain. The two can be quite different.