The Formula for a Successful Sitcom

indylaw writes "A team of scientists commissioned by British satellite channel UKTV Gold has developed a mathematical expression to predict the success of TV sitcoms. Using the formula [((R x D + V) x F) + S]/A, they determined that "Only Fools and Horses" and "The Office" are the best of British comedy, while "According to Bex" (which is being adapted for CBS in the fall and will star Jenna Elfman) scored in the bottom five."

Comments

The original Grauniad article:

[alanw]

Here is the original article, complete with scores for the top and bottom 5 shows.

Re:The original Grauniad article:

[Rei]

So, any guesses as to whether the relationships and always-1 weights of the components of this formula were literally, or merely figuratively, pulled out of a hat?

Re:The original Grauniad article:

[tehshen]

Do we know what the values used for R D F S V and A are - ie, are they values from 0-10, or a percentage? The best I can do would be "X was good, but it wasn't as good as Y", which is hard to put into numbers. Not to mention that things like verbal wit and the main character will change for each person..

Re:The original Grauniad article:

[MentalMooMan]

They are values from 1 to 10.

From The Article:
Each term in the formula is assigned a value up to a maximum of 10 to give an overall scientific score.

Re:The original Grauniad article:

[Coryoth]

Seems like an interesting pile of horseshit, as it usual for these "mathematical formula for ..." stories.

Can someone explain to me how exactly Blackadder and Fawlty Towers scored so relatively low compared to The Office and Only Fools and Horses? Are Edmund or Basil notably less "Recognisable" or "Deluded" about their grandeur than Del or David? Certainly there are about the same number of successful plans, and at least the same level of difference in social status (Edmund is to Baldrick as Del is to ... nope, I'm drawing a blank). The only things left are "Verbal wit in the script" and "Number of times someone falls over or is injured" ... is Only Fools and Horses really that much wittier than Blackadder? Does The Office really have that many more pratfalls and injuries than Fawlty Towers?

I think it's nice that they've come up with a half assed justification to prefer their favourite comedies, but it really isn't significantly less subjective than asking a random person whether they like the show or not.

Jedidiah.

Re:The original Grauniad article:

[Anonymous Coward]

The best I can do would be "X was good, but it wasn't as good as Y"

That's crap. X was way better than Y.

Re:The original Grauniad article:

[Pi_0's don't shower]

Can someone explain to me how exactly Blackadder and Fawlty Towers scored so relatively low compared to The Office and Only Fools and Horses?

Yes, they said the formula for a successful sitcom, not necessarily the formula for a quality sitcom. Apparently, having a huge nerd cult following doesn't mean success as much as having more people watch your show. Duh.

Re:The original Grauniad article:

[Golias]

Bah.

Let's apply this "formula" to the recent NBC sitcom, "Friends."

R: 3.

At the time of the show's start, Courney Cox was far and away the most recognizable celebrity on the show, due to her recent stint on the failed CBS drama "China Beach", and the fact that she was the girl who danced with Springsteen in that music video. Almost nobody remembered that Jenifer Aniston was in "Leprechan."

D: Zero. The characters all had rather low opinions of themselves, considering that they lived in the best two apartments in all of New York City.

3 x 0 = 0

V: 8.

It didn't suit everybody's tastes, but love it or hate it, the dialog on that show was its greatest strength. Otherwise dull scenes hinged entirely on the Chandler character just happening to think of the funniest thing you could possibly say at any given moment.

0 + 8 = 8

F: 1

There was an episode where Joey got a hernia from lifting weights, and I think Rachel bumped her head once or twice, but never badly enough to mess up Jenifer Aniston's perfect hair. I believe that was pretty much it.

8 x 1 = 8

S: 1

All six characters began the show as twentysomethings who were just starting out in life, and happened to luck into huge rent-controlled apartments. While wealth varied, class differences were pretty much non-existant. The poorest two character on the show in the first season, Joey, was the richest several years later. It seems that it was originally planned that the story of Rachel's fall and rise (Jewish American Princess - coffee shop girl - fashion-world executive) was to be one of the main story arcs, but it was almost never exploited beyond the first one or two episodes.

8 + 1 = 9

A: 10

The characters on Friends always came out on top. Even the worst disasters which came up were understood by the audience to be temporary setbacks. Just about every crazy scheme in the pursuit of either sex or money tended to pan out.

A good example is the "hernia" episode I mentioned earlier. Joey gets a hernia, but he had let his insurance lapse, and needed a paying acting job to get medical coverage for the surgery. After several failed auditions, he lands a part playing a dying man, because the pain of his injury made him so convincing as somebody who was suffering.

8 / 10 = 0.8

In other words, by this formula, Friends had no chance of ever catching on with TV audiences! What the hell was NBC thinking when they put that show in the slot once occupied by The Cosby Show and Cheers!?!?!?

Since the show ended it's miserable ratings failure of a run, NBC has been showing The Apprentice, starring Donald Trump, in that time slot. By this formula, The Apprentice has a much better chance of success as a sitcom.

Re:The original Grauniad article:

[Golias]

I think it's nice that they've come up with a half assed justification to prefer their favourite comedies, but it really isn't significantly less subjective than asking a random person whether they like the show or not.

Agreed.

As with all mathematical solutions, one should insist that they show their work.

Re:The original Grauniad article:

[Aeiri]

8 + 1 = 9
A: 10

Good job with the math so far...

8 / 10 = 0.8

Oh! Now 8 + 1 = 8...

I just can't see you bash Friends like that. It deserves much higher than a 0.8. Now, with my correction, it gets the 0.9 that it deserves!

Re:The original Grauniad article:

[Golias]

Mea Culpa. I originally gave them a 0 for S, but then remembered Rachel's riches-to-rags story in season 1, and upgraded it... but forgot to carry that through the rest of the formula.

This is why God created the computerized spreadsheet. To avoid these kinds of errors.

Okay... Actually, Dan Bricklin and Bob Frankston created the computerized spreadshee... but I gotta figure God must have had it in mind when He created Dan Bricklin and Bob Frankston.

Re:The original Grauniad article:

[Coryoth]

I don't care about success or quality, I'm asking what numbers they plugged into their formulas to get the very different results - I see no significant differences in the scores for the variables they used - but perhaps you can tell me which of R, D, V, S, F, and A where so startlingly different for Blackadder and The Office or Fawlty Towers and Only Fools and Horses.

For the record I am just as much a fan of The Office and Only Fools and Horses as Blackadder and Fawlty Towers - I just can't see why the scored so differently (beyond random "pull numbers out of your ass" subjectivity which, let's face it, is no diffferent than pulling a single "S = successfulness of sitcom" score out of your ass).

Jedidiah.

Re:The original Grauniad article:

[Pollardito]

At the time of the show's start, Courney Cox was far and away the most recognizable celebrity on the show, due to her recent stint on the failed CBS drama "China Beach", and the fact that she was the girl who danced with Springsteen in that music video. Almost nobody remembered that Jenifer Aniston was in "Leprechan."

China Beach was Dana Delany, Courtney Cox was famous because of Ace Ventura. the Springsteen thing was the sort of thing that people found out later i think

Re:The original Grauniad article:

[Golias]

Delany. Right you are. You obviously know your chick shows better than me.

Anyway, she wasn't quite a celebrity, but was still the most-well known of the bunch at the time. Her IMDB record shows that she did a heck of a lot of TV in the late 80s and early 90s, including a brief stint as Alex's girlfriend on Family Ties.

Re:The original Grauniad article:

[BraceletWinner]

F: 1 There was an episode where Joey got a hernia from lifting weights, and I think Rachel bumped her head once or twice, but never badly enough to mess up Jenifer Aniston's perfect hair. I believe that was pretty much it.

I think that you're forgetting Ross entirely. He was the character that was there mostly for physical and humiliating comedy. The tanning spray, the ultra-white teeth, etc... I think F needs to be 4 or 5 at least.

Re:The original Grauniad article:

[metlin]

It's for British comedy, not for American. There probably are different standards for the same.

Both have quite different cultures and perceptions of what's considered funny. Personally, I think Friends (and most American excuses for comedies) are a pile of horse-shit.

Re:The original Grauniad article:

[WPL510]

Another problem with creating such a formula: I would expect that the success of a sitcom depends on the culture in which it airs. British humor seems to be a little more self-deprecating, while Americans are... not. Hence including how deluded the characters are, and how often they fail, could make great humor in one country, but be a flop in another.

...Oh, sure, we could get into the question of how popular television shows serve as a way to transmit cultural values and norms, but... still.

What flies in one market wouldn't necessarily hold well with a different audience. So besides being almost impossible to scientifically quantify the variables, the formula itself contains certain inherent assumptions about the people who will be watching the show.

Re:The original Grauniad article:

[Golias]

The tanning spray, the ultra-white teeth, etc.

Bad fashion choices only count as injuries if you are a flaming homosexual, and even then you should manage to get over it without a lot of therapy.

If you think a bad spray-on tan counts as the same thing as Basil Faulty falling off a ladder, you've clearly been watching way too much "Will and Grace."

Re:The original Grauniad article:

[Golias]

Except that "Friends" was a big hit in England, as American sitcoms go.

The whole reason "Coupling" was made in the first place was to produce a more British (and slightly more naughty) version of "Friends."

Not surprizingly, the attempt by the same writers to Americanize "Coupling" and sell it back to us fell flat.

Re:The original Grauniad article:

[BraceletWinner]

I never compared those bits to the ones on Fawlty Towers. I just said the score should be higher.

Re:The original Grauniad article:

[Anonymous Coward]

I would expect that the success of a sitcom depends on the culture in which it airs. British humor seems to be a little more self-deprecating, while Americans are... not.

I hear that a lot, especially from British people telling me about how wonderful they are for being so much more humble.

It's far more accurate to say that Americans are more likely to be ashamed of their faults and shortcomings, desperatly seeking ways to improve themselves... while British folk regard their most detestable traits as Comedy gold!

"Ha-ha! Look at me, everybody! I'm a total prig who overeats, tramples on peoples feelings, can't handle his beer, and best of all... I'm a big fat hypocrite! Isn't that hillarious!?!?"

Re:The original Grauniad article:

[Redwin]

So in other words this formula is spot on, friends is shit. :-)

Re:The original Grauniad article:

[Golias]

By the way, what the hell is the matter with us?

I posted that breakdown of "Friends" partly to debunk this completely stupid story, but mostly to just be a general smart-ass. I was really only hoping to get a laugh or two out of people... Now look what happens. Somebody modded me up as "Informative", and most of the replies have been from people who want to either fact-check my post or argue with my (obviously completely subjective) rankings!

How sad is it that I've kicked off an entire thread discussing things like the early career of Courtney Cox Arquette and the physical-comedy value of trendy cosmetic treatments? Is everybody else also stuck running large jobs on slow computers today?

At least your math correction led to an amusing punch line. Thanks for that.

Re:The original Grauniad article:

[Redwin]

But it was very accurate! I think a 0.8 rating is about right for friends. :-)

Re:The original Grauniad article:

[wwwgregcom]

Rachel is not Jewish. Ross and Monica are.

Re:The original Grauniad article:

[UncleGizmo]

While I don't disagree entirely with your premise [that it might be a stretch to apply a mathematical formula to determine success of comedy], I think you may be off a bit in your definitions.

I think they're talking about recognizability as it relates to the character, not the actor. In other words, how well the audience can identify with the archetype on the show. In the ensemble, you had many different character types that I assume you could at least identify with [or as someone you could know] in any given situation.

Also, all of them had delusions of grandeur at one time or another [Ross' PhD, Joey's soap stardom, Monica's catering, etc.] Given the ensemble cast, it changed, which expanded the possibilities of the script without it getting stale.

I think the verbal wit was fairly high, and the physical comedy was fairly low. But [in my observation], physical comedy seems to be more in tradition with British shows than U.S. ones that I'm familiar with, so this may be a cultural thing.

Social status - I'd agree with you, but again, that may have more to do with British culture and the humor/historical sensitivity to status vs. U.S. shows. Also don't forget, in homogenized U.S. TV-land, a slow-witted out of work actor and a driven PhD could be considered a fairly significant gap.

In terms of strategy success, many of the episodes have to do with the characters caught up in classic misunderstandings or working 'behind the scenes' to orchestrate some plot point against the others - even though the stratagems themselves were not grand, there was always someone scheming something on the show.

At any rate, an interesting idea to reduce abstract concepts to mathematical equation.

Apropos of nothing, I was reading a review of "Freakonomics" today as well - an interesting book that takes economic principals to a whole different area.

Re:The original Grauniad article:

[jimicus]

R: 3.

At the time of the show's start, Courney Cox was far and away the most recognizable celebrity

Whoa. Stop there. First misunderstanding : it's recognizability of the CHARACTERS. Not the actors. Practically everyone in the UK knows a Derrick Trotter or a David Brent.

Re:The original Grauniad article:

[Anonymous Coward]

Edmund is to Baldrick as Del is to ... nope, I'm drawing a blank

Rodney. You plonker!

Re:The original Grauniad article:

[robertjw]

In other words, by this formula, Friends had no chance of ever catching on with TV audiences! What the hell was NBC thinking when they put that show in the slot once occupied by The Cosby Show and Cheers!?!?!?

The problem is they didn't factor sexual innuendo or sexual tension into the formula ANYWHERE (which seems odd for Brits). The primary factor that made Friends so good was the constant sexuality/romance. Joey's promiscuity, Phoebe's weird boyfriends, Chandler and Monica sneaking around forever and of course Ross and Rachel. The season would have died 3 years earlier if they hadn't bled that whole 'will Rachel and Ross end up together' thing totally dry as long as possible.

Almost every friends episode revolves around a sexual theme of some sort, either dating or just tension between the boys and the girls. Shows like Coupling have the same thing going on. I think their formula might work, they just need to modify it for sexiness.

Re:The original Grauniad article:

[Anonymous Coward]

A nerd cult following? In my University days, Blackadder was the only show on TV that would fill the hostel's rec room to overflowing. The rest of the time there were maybe 5 people in there watching TV and 4 playing pool. I think the next most popular show was LA Law, which attracted all the law students, but Blackadder definitely had universal appeal.

Re:The original Grauniad article:

[Anonymous Coward]

It was successful,at least in part, because it was so simplistic and american that it was accessible to the likes of teenage girls, not the kind of audience that most quality british comedy targets, so when the competition(not comic) is as bad as hollyoaks and dawsons creek, it's kind of unsuprising.

Re:The original Grauniad article:

[SSSSSmokey]

Quality British Comedy. Quite the oxymoron you have there.

Re:The original Grauniad article:

[zambuka]

I think you miss-understood the first part of the equation R. The recognisability of the main character.

I don't think they mean the recognisability of the actor playing the main character.

Now apply the equation to The Apprentice.
R=8 :Most of us want the kind of job offered but not all of us will go through reality TV to do it.
D=10:Mr Trump takes the cake and the contestants are pretty up themselves too.
V=2 :Not really that witty, at least on purpose.
F=5 : Some of those contestants are gonna get hurt but not physically.
S=10:Yup, no need for explainations here.
A=3 :Someone is gonna win, the rest are gonna lose, they are the ones people watch this crap for.
(((8x10+2)x5)+10)/3
for a score of 140.
Yup. Toss poison spiders at the contestants every now and then and we have comedy gold.

Re:The original Grauniad article:

[secolactico]

Courtney Cox was famous because of Ace Ventura

You are kidding, right? Or have you forgotten that timeless classic: "Masters of the Universe"

Re:The original Grauniad article:

[cyberformer]

Fawlty Towers is hardly a nerd cult. It was one of the BBC's all-time most popular shows, and even today still scores large audiences in reruns. UK viewers consistently rate it the best thing that's ever been on TV.

Blackadder was also hugely successful in its day, probably moreso than The Office, though it isn't as universally loved as Fawlty Towers. And as a fan, I have to admit that the final episode (made for the Millennium Dome) was crap.

Re:The original Grauniad article:

[Bitsy Boffin]

At the time of the show's start, Courney Cox was far and away the most recognizable celebrity on the show, due to her recent stint on the failed CBS drama "China Beach"

China Beach? I don't remember C.Cox in China Beach (presuming we are talking about the same China Beach, the one with Dana Delany, Marg Helgenberger and Robert Picardo).

IMDB doesn't seem to know about C.Cox in China Beach either... http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001073/

Re:The original Grauniad article:

[TheoGB]

Hah hah!

If I could, I'd mod up funny for that. Nice.

!!Mod up the parent!!

Re:The original Grauniad article:

[chuckT]

Absolutely.

That's why Johhny Vegas is so funny.

Chuck

Re:The original Grauniad article:

[bWareiWare.co.uk]

Actually I think 'R' stands for the reconcilability of the characters not the Actors. This gives Friends a strait 10 as they were all everyday Joes.

Seen as the ENTIRE point of Joey's character was he was a want-to-be actor. I think they score more then 0 for aspiration. Monica and Rachel both wanted better jobs (OK they got them, see below) so I think a 5 would be fair.

Add at least 2 for the turkey incident to the slapstick and you have:

(10 x 5 + 8) x 3 + 1 / 10 = 17.5

Then if you factor in the "Beautiful People" syndrome that is uniquely American (so justifiably left out of the UKGold study) you would get a fairly accurate ranking of Friends.

Re:The original Grauniad article:

[Anonymous Coward]

Right... just like the four main characters on Seinfeld were not Jewish.

Rachel Green was never named as a member of The Tribe in the script, but come on. The only way they possibly could have made her conform any more closely to every spoiled-rich-Jewish-daughter stereotype is if they had cast an actress with a big-ish nose to play her. ... oh wait.

Re:The original Grauniad article:

[Golias]

Also, all of them had delusions of grandeur at one time or another [Ross' PhD, Joey's soap stardom, Monica's catering, etc.]

Those aren't delusions of grandeur.

Earning a PhD, landing a starring TV role, owning your own business... that would be actual grandeur.

A delusion of grandeur would be if Rachel thought she was the best waitress in all of New York.

Re:The original Grauniad article:

[Pollardito]

well, Ace Ventura was a really, really successful movie (the first Jim Carrey vehicle), she was the second biggest character, and it came out in the same year as Friends started. Masters and Family Ties had a gap of about 7 years and featured her in bit parts. at the time, i'm sure more people knew/remembered her for Ace Ventura than for those other roles.

Re:The original Grauniad article:

[wealthychef]

The reason they chose "informative" instead of funny has to do with Slashdot's methods of awarding points. I think "funny" has a disadvantage, like somehow you don't get a point for it. As if being funny isn't important? Tell that to George Bush! :-)

Now...

[Anonymous Coward]

Now make a formula that can tell if a Slashdot-article is a dupe.

Re:Now...

[Leroy_Brown242]

No need for math, just a really good regexp!

Re:Now...

[Anonymous Coward]

Now make a formula that can tell if a Slashdot-article is a dupe.

1

Re:Now...

[Anonymous Coward]

What a waste, posting this AC. You should've been modded "Insightful".

Re:Now...

[Cornflake917]

One of the funniest replies on slashdot EVER!!

And it only involved one character!

impressive...most impressive

Well ... DUH!

[Anonymous Coward]

Cue the formulaic sitcom jokes ...

Re:Well ... DUH!

[islandrain]

[DT+MT]/3=DT+ST+MT-DST=Michelle Tanner... "You've got it, dude!"

So...

[Bean9000]

What's the formula for coming up with the values for the variables that fill in this formula?

Re:So...

[justforaday]

According to the Guardian article someone posted:

Comedic value is determined by multiplying the recognisability of the main character (R) by their delusions of grandeur (D). This is added to the verbal wit of the script (V) and the total is multiplied by the amount someone falls over or suffers a physical injury (F).

"The difference in social status between the highest- and lowest-ranking characters (S) is added and finally the total is divided by the success of any scheme or stratagem in the show (A). Each term in the formula is assigned a value up to a maximum of 10 to give an overall scientific score."

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the formula for coming up with the values for the variables that fill in this formula?

Why bother? Frank Drake never bothered to do that for his famous equation on the probability of contacting alien worlds and he's working in science. If we don't require him to fill in the blanks, what right do we have to require someone doing sit-com analysis to do that?

Re:So...

[Humorously_Inept]

You come up with them in the same way that you come up with a technical analysis of a stock's charts: historical performance. Unfortunately, the results only serve to predict history.

Surely this formula is a joke.

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

Bad analogy.

Drake was just arguing that there *might* be life on other planets. Not that it would be funny. It could be all alien-like and want to suck your brains out your eye sockets (which is generally believed to be unfunny).

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not if you're a fan of red dwarf, sucking of brains, with a straw, can be the basis for an entire episode in that case.

Elfman?

[Anonymous Coward]

They needed an equation to determine she'd flop? Man, that's a waste of time.

Re:Elfman?

[funwithBSD]

So long as her boobies jiggle when she does it, I could care less....

Re:Elfman?

[Leroy_Brown242]

Hooray for Boobies!

h4b!

h4b!!

Re:Elfman?

[Anonymous Coward]

She's a member of the CoS Crime Syndicate. That alone ought to ensure her demise. People shouldn't support that crap (and no, it's not a religion, it's a crime syndicate)

Re:Elfman?

[Reverend528]

By this formula, she can salvage her show by falling over a few hundred times each episode.

Re:Elfman?

[BabyDave]

They're talking about the flop of the British version, which starred Jessica Stevenson (who was fantastic in Spaced, and as good as she could be in the shitfest that was AtB).

Re:Elfman?

[zephc]

L. Ron Hubbard won't save you now, Jenna!

Oh, I get it.

[yotto]

It's a joke.

And I usually like British humor. Strange, that.

Re:Oh, I get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

*queue Benny Hill theme*
*people running around chasing each other in fast motion*

Oh yeah, that's British comedy allright

Re:Oh, I get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yeah, that's British comedy allright

And that's American spelling.

Re:Oh, I get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

On behalf of the British people, I sincerely apologise for Benny Hill.

I hope Monty Python, The Office and Trigger Happy TV act as some kind of consolation

Re:Oh, I get it.

[japa]

It's a joke.

The Brits take their humour seriously, one shouldn't joke about it...

QUESTION:

[MutantHamster]

Do they really have to put the little 'x's in the formula? Why not just write it as: [(F(RD + V)) + S]/A?

Re:QUESTION:

[davidmcw]

This is for marketing business lackeys, assume nothing

Re:QUESTION:

[mike260]

This is for marketing business lackeys, assume nothing

I hope none of these lackeys realise that if they make a show where "the success of any scheme or stratagem in the show" is zero, they'll an infinite funny-index.

Get ready for a slew of shows featuring actors completely failing to function as human-beings.

Re:QUESTION:

[poopdeville]

Yes! In spite of the obvious issues regarding scoring shows, there is something to this formula. A show where people comletely fail to function as human beings would be hilarious.

Re:QUESTION:

[Anonymous Coward]

Excel doesn't like it that way. Of course, it doesn't like the 'x's either. Use * instead.

Re:QUESTION:

[Anonymous Coward]

A show where people comletely fail to function as human beings would be hilarious.

Oviously you've never listened to The Archers, Britain's (possibly the world's, I haven't kept track) longest running radio soap. The Grundy family are notable for their endless moneymaking schemes, all of which fail miserably due to their utter cluelessness and incompetence. And the rest of this fictitious inbred rural community aren't much better. Do you hear me laughing? No. Except at the utter predictability of the storylines. Dashing stranger appears in the show? He'll screw (around with) naive local females, then disappear again leaving them with shattered hopes and/or a baby... Best to stick with those they know. A second cousin, perhaps, (these "confirm you're human" scripts are getting out of hand. Two attempts so far to decipher the shitty image and try to work out what the text might be...)

What's the cost of a formula?

[pieterh]

Here's mine:

S = intelligence and wit of the script
C = degree of variety and contrast of the characters
W = wise reflection on real life ironies
N = names that you remember
B = budget of producers

And the formula is:

(S + C + W + N) / B

That'll be 5c, please.

Re:What's the cost of a formula?

[MutantHamster]

Wait, I haven an even better forumalr. Where "R" stands for ratings, it goes like this:

R.

Re:What's the cost of a formula?

[Anonymous Coward]

Haha that's rediculous! Do you really think that the society would adopt such a simplistic scheme where the rating is reduced down to a single variable?

Re:What's the cost of a formula?

[Trollstoi]

Me too!

Re:What's the cost of a formula?

[joepeg]

Here's mine:

[(B*U)/L*L-(S+H-I)]+T

Deduce for yourself.

Re:What's the cost of a formula?

[tijnbraun]

(S + C + W + N) / B<br>
Ooohh that is way to simple...
*Real* formulas have at least one sinus function,
pi should be involved somewhere and to give it that real scientific look, sigma and unknown variables

So i gave you function a bit of pepper:

e-1 x
-- S + sin(C) + w N
\ ______________________
/
-- pi * B

Now.. it really works!

Re:What's the cost of a formula?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Do you really think that the society would adopt such a simplistic scheme where the rating is reduced down to a single variable?

No, of course not. That would require the studio execs to be idiots.

If a scheme like that was ever adopted, then studios like Fox, for example, would end up cancelling every intelligent show in its first season, because intelligent shows take longer to build up an audience.

You're right. It would never happen. Nobody can be that short-sighted and stupid.

Re:What's the cost of a formula?

[Anonymous Coward]

> S = intelligence and wit of the script
> C = degree of variety and contrast of the characters
> W = wise reflection on real life ironies
> N = names that you remember
> B = budget of producers

> And the formula is: (S + C + W + N) / B

That looks good. If I were to suggest one change, it would be to replace "B" with "I", where "I" stands for the degree of Involvement or Interference by the studio. Or we could replace the division with its inverse, and multiply by "F", which is the degree of Freedom given to the show's creators. As you suggest, those are both related to "B", since a big budget increases the studio's motivation to interfere.

Anyway, let's see how your formula would rate my favorite and least favorite TV comedies (only some are sitcoms):

Favorites:
- Simpsons --> high
- Family Guy --> high
- Futurama --> high
- Gilmore Girls --> high
- Dead Like Me --> high
- Buffy the Vampire Slayer --> high
- Firefly --> high
- Just Shoot Me --> high
- Taxi --> high
- WKRP in Cincinnati --> high
- Barney Miller --> high
- Night Court --> high
- Yes Minister --> high

Least Favorites:
- I Love Lucy --> low
- The Brady Bunch --> low
- That Girl --> low
- Dharma and Greg --> low

I also don't like any of the top five shows listed by the article, and I believe your formula would rate them much lower that the formula in the article.

So, for me at least, your formula looks like a winner.

I am looking forward to the day when most "television" consists of shows being downloaded individually from the Internet. Then, the only way to get my business (as a purchaser, or advertising recipient) will be to provide me with programs that I like.

Under today's studio-controlled broadcasting approach, whether a show survives is determined by the question, "Is there another show that can appeal to a wider audience?" Under this approach, minority groups of viewers are always sacrificed for the lowest common denominator.

But, once viewers can indivually choose to download the programs they want, the question becomes, "Does this program have a large enough audience to make a profit?" I am fairly certain that, for shows as good as Firefly, the answer would be yes.

It's rather like the difference between a free market, which has a variety of products to suit your taste, and a centrally-controlled economy, which might have only one brand of ketchup, only one model of car, and so on.

Re:What's the cost of a formula?

[X1011]

So when the budget is 0, the show is infinitely great!

Even better: Success = T#ts + As#

[Vile Slime]

Need I say more

I hate these news-grabbing formulae

[P-Nuts]

How on earth do you go about measuring any of the variables in their formula. For example, D, deluesions of grandeur. Do they just order a delusionometer from a scientific supplies catalogue?

I've come up with my own formula: L=(nP+sqrt(C)/i). It calulates lameness of formulae (L) according to number of terms in arbitrary units (n), popularity of subject matter (P), column inches devoted to the formula in mainstream news (C), and intelligence of the researchers who came up with it (i). My formula has a lameness of only 4.7, but their is much lamer at 205.3.

So there.

Re:I hate these news-grabbing formulae

[Rorschach1]

"Do they just order a delusionometer from a scientific supplies catalogue?"

I designed and built my own. It's the best ever built, and I'm undoubtedly the greatest delusionometer designer there is.

Re:I hate these news-grabbing formulae

[yotto]

*I designed and built my own. It's the best ever built, and I'm undoubtedly the greatest delusionometer designer there is.*

Does it run Linux?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Re:I hate these news-grabbing formulae

[rilister]

My favorite was "V - verbal wit of the script".
You mean "Is it funny or not"?

Wow! There we have it! The secret of writing a good sitcom is writing a funny script. How insightful.

Re:I hate these news-grabbing formulae

[uberdave]

Let me guess: You also tried making a stud finder, but it kept pointing at you.

For American audiences

[LoraxLorax]

They forgot the following bit of the equation: ^T+A

Re:For American audiences

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't get it. Can someone explain? (I'm not an American, nor a native English speaker)

The most formulaic

[ndansmith]

In my opinion, the most formulaic sitcom in the United States in recent years was Home Improvement.

1. Tim wants to make some sort of souped-up home improvement.
2. Tim makes fun of Al.
3. Tim has a hillarious accident on Tool Time.
4. Tim offends someone close to him.
5. Tim seeks advice from Wilson.
6. Tim misquotes Wilson when making ammends.
7. Everyone is happy!

It was totally mindless yet entertaining.

Re:The most formulaic

[Leroy_Brown242]

This show is a major reason I don't watch TV any more.

I was embarassed to be watching it, even alone.

Re:The most formulaic

[Se7enLC]

I dunno, can it beat Inspector Gadget?

1). Some kind of crime occurs
2). Penny and Brain try to solve it
3). Gadget gets himself in trouble and nearly dies
4). Penny uses her computer book to "Find The Right Frequency" which inevitably gets her into Dr. Claws secret lair
5). Penny and Brain foil the crooks, but somehow it looks like Gadget accidently caught the criminals
6). Bad guys get taken away by the inspector, but claw escapes, saying "next time, Gadget. Next Time"
7). His cat meows.

Re:The most formulaic

[pmazer]

Or even better... Power Rangers:

1. Evil dude makes a new bad ass
2. Bad ass attacks Earth
3. Power Rangers try to fight it hand to hand
4. Power Rangers call their vehicles
5. Vehicles can't stop the bad ass
6. Vehicles morph into super vehicle
7. Super vehicle destroys bad ass in one hit

Why didn't you make the super vehicle the first time, before the bad ass destroyed half the city!

Re:The most formulaic

[pizen]

s/Power Rangers/Voltron

Re:The most formulaic

[HD Webdev]

For an old sit-com, 'I Love Lucy' had an even less complicated formula and was still a major success:

1. Lucy get's an Idea
2. Lucy screws up whatever it is she was going to do
3. Lucy tries to hide the screw-up
4. Hilarity ensues when she gets found out

Re:The most formulaic

[Fiver-]

That's similar to Voltron's formula, though I can't remember the specifics. A Robeast would attack, the team would get in their Lions, the Robeast would grow huge, the team would form Voltron and STILL have trouble. Then FORM! BLAZING! SWORD! and they cut the Robeast in half. And they all lived happily ever after (except for Sven).

Re:The most formulaic

[Anonymous Coward]

Aqua Teen Hunger Force:

1) Dr. Weird comes up with something stupid.
2) Stupid thing finds its way into the Force's basement.
3) Shake gets a new gadget or finds the weirdness from (2) and uses it to torment Meatwad.
4) Shake's obsession with object from (3) turns near-lethal
5) Frylock figures out how to save Shake.
6) Object is thrown out, destroyed, or goes home.
7) Roll credits.

Re:The most formulaic

[IANAAC]

I love Lucy had a LOT to do with today's TV formulae:

Live studio audience,
three cameras, just to name a couple. They both live on to this day.

Re:The most formulaic

[archen]

Funny that you meantion emberrassing... I watched TV for quite some time, and a LOT of it while I was in high school. But somewhere along the line I became aware of the "laugh tracks". Suddenly I couldn't stand sitcoms. I always found myself wondering why they were trying to give the impressions that something was funny, when clearly it was not. I feel self concious about watching any sitcom now (not that I've watched any for years), but I refuse to watch TV even at someone else's house. Even when walking by a house with the TV on loud I cringe when hearing the laugh tracks.

Re:The most formulaic

[ip_vjl]

The A*Team wasn't a sitcom, but by no stretch of the imagination was it drama so here goes:

1) Bad guys do something to good guys
2) Good guys look for A*Team but meet weird guy
3) Weird guy is Hannibal in disguise - accepts job
4) Break Murdoch out of mental institution
5) Drug BA so they can fly
6) Go in with a big show of force to scare bad guys
7) Have celebration with good guys over victory
8) Bad guys strike back (surprise surprise)
9) Build some monster truck out of old garbage cans and a lawnmower
10) Bust up the bad guys with lots of explosions and flying people (yet nobody dies)
11) "I love it when a plan comes together."/smoke cigar
12) Get away just as the military police arrive on scene

Re:The most formulaic

[RCanine]

I disagree. It's Everyone Loves Raymond, and I can write it in one line of code:

while (lengthOfShow<30) echo somethingNotFunny();

Re:The most formulaic

[Leroy_Brown242]

Yes, laugh tracks are pretty bad. It's like they are trying to tell you what is funny.

I don't like being told what I find funny, or sad, or whatever.

It's also a cop out. Instead of making something funny, they make their own laughter.

The only solution, is for people to stop watching. I hope people grown tired of the crap soon.

Re:The most formulaic

[westlake]

'I Love Lucy' had an even less complicated formula

But the formula is the least significant part of the show's success:

1 Lucy was the rarest of the rare, a female clown. We have seen nothing the like of her since.

2 Desi added a much needed sharpness, an ethnic, urban flavor to the comedy.

3 The series followed the postwar arc of its audience.

The desire to travel. The beginnings of a family. The move to the suburbs. The inescapable tensions within a marriage as the husband's career matures and the wife remains house bound.

Re:The most formulaic

[freshman_a]

I'd like to add to #10. You forgot the thousands of rounds of ammo that are fired off, yet hit nothing but the ground.

I pity da foo who don't like A-Team!

Dad's Army

[Skiron]

In all these so called 'best of's', Dad's Army never gets a look in.

To me, that was, and still is the funniest comedy series ever made, and it is timeless - still funny as hell after all this time.

"You stupid boy".

Re:Dad's Army

[FatRatBastard]

Dad's Army rules. Brilliant show. In terms of older BBC/ITV shows I also loved Open all Hours (which by some miracle our local PBS station actually showed for a few weeks) and Porridge.

Must say, other than Father Ted (which was ok) I can't disagree with their top 5.

Re:Dad's Army

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be stupid. Dad's army is even less entertaining than Benny Hill

Re:Dad's Army

[Malc]

I've never understood why Americans find Open All Hours so funny. When I moved there in 1996, everybody who'd seen any British programmes would talk about it like it was the best thing since sliced bread. It's long been dead in the UK (and I personally think for good reason!).

Missing from the list IMO was Men Behaving Badly (not that crap NBC remake), Young Ones and the New Statesman. But I guess we all have our favourites from certain points in our lives.

Re:Dad's Army

[zippthorne]

Did you see "Andy Richter Controls the Universe?" It was what Ally McBeal was supposed to be (well according to the promos) a kind of herman's head homage.

Anyway, Richter had a 'Suit of Puppies' How can you not like a show with that many puppies?

Re:Dad's Army

[FatRatBastard]

For me (at least, raised in Blighty) it was Barker and Jenson. Both are great comedic actors. I also thought the series was well written. Not the most laugh-out-loud show I've ever seen, but I dug it. (as my mom would say a "gentle comedy." Then again, this is from a woman who loves "Last of the Summer Wine." YUCK!)

Other shows to add to the list: Chef! (well, every season of Chef! except the last one, that one was just blah) and Yes, [Prime] Minister.

Re:Dad's Army

[CmdrGravy]

I think I agree with the Americans here, Open All Hours was a great series. It had good scripts and the David Jason/Ronnie Barker combination was brilliant, both of them are both great comic actors and they work together really well in this series.

The Likely Lads & Whatever Happened To The Likely Lads is another series which doesn't get shown half as often as it should.

The Young Ones was and still is brilliant.

Re:Dad's Army

[alanw]

recognisability of the main character

Every character in Dad's army was recognisable.

delusions of grandeur

Captain Mainwaring, without a doubt.

the amount someone falls over or suffers a physical injury

The series was full of slapstick, often done by the characters themselves, without the use of stuntmen.

The difference in social status between the highest- and lowest-ranking characters

Wilson: the quietly spoken toff, Mainwaring: the banker with delusions of grandeur, the spiv and all the rest.

As the OP said:

"You stupid boy"

"Put that light out!"
"We're doomed!"
"Do you think that's wise?"
"Don't panic, don't panic!"

Re:Dad's Army

[Malc]

Sorry I got confused. I wasn't thinking of Open All Hours, but Are You Being Served?

I wouldn't mind a current version of Drop the Dead Donkey, and I wonder how well Hale and Pace have weathered the years since they were on. I catch Red Dwarf occasionally, but that's just nostalgia.

Re:Dad's Army

[Bitsy Boffin]

Sorry I got confused. I wasn't thinking of Open All Hours, but Are You Being Served?

The first couple of seasons of AYBS are humorous, but afer that things start getting repetitive, and unfunny. ...Mensweaaaaar...

Re:Dad's Army

[CmdrGravy]

DTDD was an excellent series, for a long while I was in love with 'Joy'.

If post hoc analysis is so great...

[winkydink]

we'd all know what mutual funds to put our money into

Hmm..

[Sheepdot]

"Good Neighbors" (aka "The Good Life") is arguably the best and most successful British to American sitcom of all time. I based this on my parents love of the show and the forced watching I had to do as a child. If my parents made me watch it, it must have been good for me.

Re:Hmm..

[bonehead]

Given that I've never heard of the show, I tend to doubt that it's the most successful of all time, although I don't have any ratings figures at my fingertips to back up my assertion.

I'd be willing to get that on a list of successful British to American comedies, Sanford and Son would rank pretty high.

Re:Hmm..

[taniwha]

yeah but the American version is sooo different from the US one. Just like Archie Bunker was a sad refelection of the so much more nasty Alf Garnet old man Sanford was a much milder version of old man Steptoe (it was a radio show before it was a TV one so the characters probably had to be drawn pretty starkly)

Besides 'three's company' was sadly probably the most successfull one ... (despite using the exact same script for the first episode and ruining a whole bunch of jokes by renaming the lead male character [there was a whole bunch of farcical confusion about the new housemate called 'Robin' that everyone thought was a girl ... in the US version they renamed him 'Jack' but left in the same jokes]).

Re:Hmm..

[frank_adrian314159]

OK, let's face it. Your father wanted Felicity Kendall. That's the only reason anyone could be corralled into watching that show.

Re:Hmm..

[ghjm]

The all-time most successful British-to-American crossover is almost certainly "Three's Company," which was the American version of the British "Man About The House." Both were extremely successful.

Incidentally, why is it that successful British shows always have to be dumbed-down and cheesed-up before studio execs deem them fit for American audiences?

-Graham

Re:Hmm..

[CmdrGravy]

I'm surprised that never found it's way to the US, I am willing bet that everyone over the age of say 16 in the UK has watched The Good Life and enjoyed it !

Is Sanford & Son a remake of Steptoe & Son ?

Re:Hmm..

[bonehead]

That's right, I forgot that Three's Company bad British roots.

I dispute your theorem!

[digitalamish]

My evidence: The Pamela Anderson crapfest Stacked.

Re:I dispute your theorem!

[ChaosCube]

A valid point. Perhaps the theorem needs to be modified to account for a certain level of class, or a maximum amount of make-up. Just a thought.

Re:I dispute your theorem!

[TheFlyingGoat]

I have mod points, but I'd prefer to counter that statement. A few months ago, I probably would have agreed. However, my wife, who normally abhors anything with too much T&A, started watching Stacked. She absolutely loves it. The humor is actually witty at times and the acting is acceptable. It's far better than most of the reality shows (Dancing With The Stars?) and better than a good deal of other sitcoms. I was pretty surprised.

The fact that there's a lot of T&A is an added bonus. :)

Re:I dispute your theorem!

[smittyoneeach]

I dispute your disputation, on the sandy grounds of that be-atch made of silicon.

Re:I dispute your theorem!

[thebatlab]

I agree. I'm not a huge fan of Pamela Anderson but this show is actually entertaining. It's not ideal but it makes me laugh and want to watch it (for obvious reasons)

Re:I dispute your theorem!

[gmaestro]

The therom still may be valid. I understand the variables for that show are...er...inflated.

Re:I dispute your theorem!

[MrRoarkeLovesTattoo]

Doesn't Pamela Anderson suck (and bob) in every show she does?

Re:I dispute your theorem!

[rsadelle]

I second that. I'd been avoiding it because it looked stupid, but I watched it for the first time last night (it was on between other things I was watching, which is how such shows get watched), and it was surprisingly funny. I actually laughed out loud more than once.

And the answer is ...

[Anonymous Coward]

r^3d or rdrr

Simpsons, the sitcom

[3770]

I saw a Simpsons episode once where they switched from their normal format to the format of the Sitcom. They had typical one liners with the obligatory recorded audience laughter sounds.

Seeing it that way made me realise how shallow and weak sitcoms really were.

I was of course watching friends as usual 2 weeks later. But regardless of that, it was an interesting "experiment".

Re:Simpsons, the sitcom

[rokzy]

sure you didn't mean Scrubs? they had an episode like that, including different cameras, makeup, costumes and a celebrity guest.

Re:Simpsons, the sitcom

[Hogwash McFly]

While I don't particularly mind a studio audience or laughter track, it can be annoying when there's a distinct and isolated laugh coming from one person. Come on guys, you know what I mean, that really grating laugh that sounds like it's coming from some fat woman who can't shut her mouth and who shrieks and whoops like a banshee at the dentist. You just hope that Joey or Monica will pick up a Zulu spear from behind the sofa and hurl it into the crowd but it never happens.

Re:Simpsons, the sitcom

[JFMulder]

Seeing it that way made me realise how shallow and weak sitcoms really were

I hope you are not saying that the Simpsons is a deep show.

Seinfeld was a sitcom, even had the recorded audience track. That show was clever, yet it was a sitcom. And way better than the Simpsons.

Re:Simpsons, the sitcom

[robertjw]

I hope you are not saying that the Simpsons is a deep show.

Are you kidding? The Simpsons is probably one of the 'deepest' shows that has ever been on TV. The humor is all over the spectrum from Juvenille to sophisticated. It's rare that I watch an episode that I don't catch a new joke or see something in the background that I've never seen before.

I can respect that you don't like the Simpsons, and Seinfeld was a great show too, but don't call the Simpsons shallow or weak.

Re:Simpsons, the sitcom

[henni16]

The most annoying thing about laughter tracks(to me):

If the setting doesn't look cheap/like a stage.
That's other words for: if you can imagine that there really is an audience - ok.
But watching MASH in the US(?) "laughter-track-version" for the first time - knowing only a dubbed version without laughter track: *shudder**barf*
Thank SOMEONE, that there also is a non-laughter english audio track on the RC2-DVDs.

[Also: MASH had a really decent German dubbing compared to most more or less recent series (*):
occasionally a thing didn't make sense due to a pun in the original, but also sometimes things were even funnier than in the original;
And having it followed by Hogan's Heroes (with laughter track), using the same voices: disturbing ,but funny]

(*) Futurama: unbearable; one of endless examples?:
Bender: "If anyone asks: say you are my debugger" was translated like "If anyone asks; say your are my insects remover"
this :-) would have been an improvement.

Putting your money where your mouth is

[ewg]

Would you invest your own money in a new sitcom project if it scored high on this scale?

Are any of the folks behind the formula doing so?

Re:Putting your money where your mouth is

[Leroy_Brown242]

Execs have been applying formulas to shows and movies for years. Ballance of races, genders. Have to have the right ammount of homosexuality. Blah blah blah

Applied to American sitcoms?

[ArielMT]

... "According to Bex" (which is being adapted for CBS in the fall and will star Jenna Elfman) scored in the bottom five.

If the formula were applied to American sitcoms, what percentage of airing sitcoms would have been spared production and airing, tormenting viewers, only to be cancelled halfway through the first season?

Re:Applied to American sitcoms?

[southpolesammy]

Wouldn't work for American sitcoms -- missing a few variables. First off is "PP", which is product placement by advertisers. Second is the sub-formula, ((DIR|ACTR)xPR)->NTWK, which attempts to explain who among the directors and actors are sleeping with the show's producers in order to get on the good graces of the networks.

But most important is that you have to take all of this and raise it to the power of DRL, which is the average amount of drool coming from the target audience. The highest DRL factor will undoubtedly be a bellwether of success for the show. BTW, this need not be confined to sitcoms, as it explains Pro Wrestling and nearly all reality shows fairly well.

Formula for getting high-mod points:

[pegr]

(F x (R x D + V)) + S) / A

Where:

F = Likelihood of remaining on the first page of comments
R = Recognizability rating (editors=9, Taco=10, ACs=0)
D = User ID numerical ranking, 3 or fewer digits=10
V = Actual intelligence score of post
S = Number of "Me too" replies generated
A = General interest of story commenting on

Re:Formula for getting high-mod points:

[Dix_sw]

> (F x (R x D + V)) + S) / A
> V = Actual intelligence score of post

shouldn't that go dividing, too?

Re:Formula for getting high-mod points:

[dkleinsc]

S = Number of "Me too" replies generated

Let me give you a hand increasing your Karma then: Me Too!

Re:Formula for getting high-mod points:

[leakingmemory]

> (F x (R x D + V)) + S) / A

Syntax error: (F x (R x D + V)) + S) <-- Here

Re:Formula for getting high-mod points:

[Anonymous Coward]

thanks for noticing. I was wagering no one would.

Re:Formula for getting high-mod points:

[Citizen of Earth]

(F x (R x D + V)) + S) / A

You need "P", score of parent posting. (Oh goody, you have a +5.)

Re:Formula for getting high-mod points:

[qbwiz]

I believe that that's factored into "F."

Too subjective

[darth_borehd]

The values seem to rely on the subjective opinion of the the one calculating it. This is worse than the Drake Equation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation). At best this seems to predict which sitcom the individual chooses the values will like the most.

Re:Too subjective

[phlegmofdiscontent]

While the Drake Equation has unknown values at the time, it IS scientific in that it uses laws of statistics and the unknown values can be constrained and measured at some point in the future. This Sitcom Equation, on the other hand, uses an arbitrary equation with variables that cannot be measured objectively at all. I noticed that the people who dreamed up this equation only apply it to a handful of shows that fit their pre-determined idea of success. A real scientific experiment would first test this equation against all shows and then make predictions for future shows. I just don't see this happening.

Re:Too subjective

[aurelian]

No, the Drake equation really is pretty suspect. It assumes all the processes concerned (e.g. probability of forming an earthlike planet, probability of he planet evolving life, etc) are independent events, which is highly unlikely.

Moreover it also suffers from problems of subjectivity (what is life? intelligence?). It's only really used as a rhetorical tool for people who believe intelligent aliens must exist somewhere in the Galaxy.

By that metric

[ajs]

Using their calculations, a sitcom that starred an elvis impersonator who thinks he's God, and features absolutely nothing him trying to stand up on a moving ship for 1/2 hour every episode would be the world's most successful sitcom...

Yeah, I don't think you meant to factor in Wit as an additive feature....

This is usually the problem with such a formula. It isn't the discovery of any kind of fundamental feature of the sitcom, it's just an attempt at an explanation of why the CURRENT set of sitcoms are good or bad.

My formula looks like this:

Originality * Quality * Acting

The real problem is that humor is FAR harder to write than drama (ask anyone who has written both successfully), and so getting good writers is far more important for a sitcom than it is for a drama. Not that it's not hugely important for a drama, just moreso for a sitcom.

Re:By that metric

[mybecq]

Using their calculations, a sitcom that starred an elvis impersonator who thinks he's God, and features absolutely nothing him trying to stand up on a moving ship for 1/2 hour every episode would be the world's most successful sitcom...

Maybe it's time to turn on the TV again, things are looking up.

Re:By that metric

[Anonymous Coward]

Using their calculations, the cartoon Roadrunner exceeds every other television show, ever.

R: Recognizability of main character(s): 10
D: Delusions of grandeur of coyote: 10 (he occasionally talks about his super-genius-level intellect)
V: Verbal wit of script: 0
F: Physical injury count: 10000000
S: Social status difference (predator vs. prey), scale of 1 to 10: 10
A: Success of any scheme or strategem in the show: 0

[((10*10+0)*10000000)+10]/0 = infinity.

QED.

Re:By that metric

[zolaar]

Your ideas intrigue us. Please forward us a copy of your resume as soon as possible so we may discuss your possible hiring as our Vice President in charge of New Programming. We look forward to hearing from you. Regards, UPN Networks

Re:By that metric

[Malc]

"Originality * Quality * Acting"

With a formula like that you clearly don't watch any of the major US networks during primetime!

Re:By that metric

[ajs]

"Originality * Quality * Acting"

With a formula like that you clearly don't watch any of the major US networks during primetime!

I do watch one major network show: Lost.

I *used to* watch The West Wing, when Sorkin was writing it, but have stopped since he left and it stopped being able to present politics as a phenomennon rather than a point of view (not to mention the fact that the writing just can't hold a candle to Sorkin).

Other than that, I watch Good Eats (which falls down on point 3, but makes up for it in spades on point 2); Full Metal Alchemist (which is right up there with Cowboy Beebop for quality Anime); Veronica Mars (probably the weakest of the lot, but still a great show); and The Daily Show.

If someone who is as generally fussy as me can find 5 shows on at any given time that measure up, I'd say that's pretty good. Originality and quality are rare in any field, and TV has never been an exception to that rule.

Re:By that metric

[ajs]

quoth zolaar, "Your ideas intrigue us. Please forward us a copy of your resume as soon as possible so we may discuss your possible hiring as our Vice President in charge of New Programming."

Eh, being in charge of programming sadly has little to do with being creative. Of course, it does involve recognizing creativity when it falls in your lap, but it also involves recognizing dependability, which is a quality sorely lacking in many show-runners.

But in case some TV exec is listening, here's my idea for how to pick a lineup:

Go around to your writers and ask them all who they admire most as a teleplay writer and who they admire most as a show-runner. Go to the top three guys on the show-runner list and the top-10 guys on the writer list. Ask them to get together and come up with a pitch that they would all be happy working on together. Make it happen, and shield them from notes. Let them hire whoever they like and no matter how crazy they sound, just keep telling yourself that these guys have the confidence of the people who know enough to know they deserve it.

Once that show gets off the ground, the next season, you ask one of the show-runners and 3 of the writers to help form the next group, and you repeat the whole process, choosing 2 and 7 of the most respected people out there to fill out the group. Just keep letting them do whatever they want, and advertising the holy crap out of it. Keep that ball rolling until you're president of the studio.

Re:By that metric

[Gleng]

Using their calculations, a sitcom that starred an elvis impersonator who thinks he's God, and features absolutely nothing him trying to stand up on a moving ship for 1/2 hour every episode would be the world's most successful sitcom...

I know the point you're trying to make, but I'm actually giggling thinking about that. I think I'd probably watch that show.

All you'd need is someone like Tommy Cooper playing the Elvis impersonator.

Re:By that metric

[Flunitrazepam]

dude, i lol'd thinking of your show...

The best sitcom EVER

[Edmund Blackadder]

Naturally i have not read TFA because it is an obvious plug, but I thought I would give my unsolicited opinion about the best sitcom ever made.

No, it is not MASH, nor Cheers, nor Faulty Towers nor Sienfeld although they are all good shows.

It is News Radio. A brilliant show with the best comic talent assembled in one show since the good days of SNL. It is also very well written, the characters all compliment the actors abilities. Also, it has the only woman character ever to appear on American TV that is both sexy and intelligent.

It is too bad the show was beset by bad management on the part of the network (i think it was Fox or NBC) and then tragedy as one of its leading actors was murdered.

Re:The best sitcom EVER

[nearlygod]

As you can tell from my sig, I agree 100%.

Re:The best sitcom EVER

[smooth wombat]

Also, it has the only woman character ever to appear on American TV that is both sexy and intelligent.

Holy shit, YES! Khandi Alexander was and still is hot even though she now wears scrubs on CSI: Miami. Talk about a pair of legs.

Unfortunately the link above does not do justice to her.

Re:The best sitcom EVER

[Anonymous Coward]

I miss Phil. :(

Re:The best sitcom EVER

[Kiryat Malachi]

Actually, Sports Night (which was also a hell of a good show) had Felicity Huffman, who was also both sexy and intelligent.

Re:The best sitcom EVER

[ip_vjl]

I really liked NewsRadio early on. I think the show could have survived the demise of Bill (Phil Hartman) if they had just continued on and NOT brought in John Lovitz. Is there ANYTHING that Lovitz is in where he plays anything mildly amusing?

'Lovitz' combined with the storyline just running out between Dave and Lisa made this unwatchable in the final seasons.

Re:The best sitcom EVER

[bartle]

It is News Radio. A brilliant show with the best comic talent assembled in one show since the good days of SNL. It is also very well written, the characters all compliment the actors abilities. Also, it has the only woman character ever to appear on American TV that is both sexy and intelligent.

What I loved about the show was that with the exception of Beth and Matthew, all of the characters were very intelligent. It was a continuous struggle between Dave, Jimmy, Lisa, and Bill as each person tried to increase their influence in the office and hold onto their own territory. It was such a welcome change from the traditional sitcom where characters get in a jam simply because their too stupid to figure out a simple solution.

Re:The best sitcom EVER

[Edmund Blackadder]

Actually, I was talking about the Lisa (Maura Tierney) character. Although I have to agree Khandi is definately sexier, but unfortunately her character was not used as much and was mostly a straight woman for the other character's.

Re:The best sitcom EVER

[BraceletWinner]

Also, it has the only woman character ever to appear on American TV that is both sexy and intelligent.

I can think of two others immediately: Lauren Graham of Gilmore Girls and Reiko Aylesworth of 24. You can argue about both shows' quality, but both women are inarguably sexy and wriiten to be intelligent women.

My own formula

[yotto]

This is fun, let's make up our own formulas.

C=Male comedian of moderate fame.
W=Wife that is far skinnier/prettier/smarter than he is.
T=Title that is a takeoff on a famous phrase.
K=number of kids.
N=Wacky neighbor.
E=Shown in a 'weekend' time slot.

CW+(TKN)^-E

I was wondering the same thing

[mark-t]

It would seem to me that "delusions of grandeur" is inherently a subjective concept... how do you put a value on it? Would be nice if they gave examples of numbers for actual tv shows they measured with this formula (all the variables, I mean... not just the final answer).

bottom 5

[rpillala]

"According to Bex" (which is being adapted for CBS in the fall and will star Jenna Elfman) scored in the bottom five."

I think I've discovered a simplification they could do.

liars and numbers

[frovingslosh]

while "According to Bex" (which is being adapted for CBS in the fall and will star Jenna Elfman) scored in the bottom five."

Hardly matters. Coupling, at least the first three seasons, was an outstanding British comedy. The American adaptation was so painfully bad that NBC didn't even bother to show all that they had filemd (and they even aired all the filmed episodes of the awful and short lived LAX, so what do that say about their own opnion of the highly promoted US version of Coupling). There is proof we can ruin a good show. We might even be able to improve a poor one.

You can "create" a formula about anything. It would not be too hard to look at the American presidents and presidental election loosers and come up with a formula that includes letters in their name, numbers of brothers and sisters, pets, and other factors and have it fit well with who won and lost the elections (you could even tweek it to show that without voter fraud a few of the elections in the last 50 years would have gone the other way). That that does not mean the formula has any real value or can be used for any valid predictions.

Re:liars and numbers

[Edmund Blackadder]

It is actually pretty amazing, because the US version was just a complete word for word copy of the British show with different actors. But you are right it was not that funny.

Re:liars and numbers

[ghjm]

What I really wonder about this sort of situation is: Why not just show the British version? Seriously, why do they pay all the production costs, risks, etc to make a "word for word" copy? Is it just to avoid the British accents?

-Graham

Re:liars and numbers

[Varkias]

You can "create" a formula about anything. It would not be too hard to look at the American presidents and presidental election loosers.

Yep it's already been done and proven wrong. :) My rule for entertainment is that formulas get stale and old really quickly. They may work for a short while but in the long term they don't hold people's attention. People aren't like computers, plugging in a formula won't work everytime. The law of diminishing returns says so. ;)

Re:liars and numbers

[Steve525]

Continuing going off-topic...

I know exactly what you mean. I've enjoyed the first 3 seasons of Coupling, and was not impressed by the American version. I think it was the nearly word for word copying of the British version that was the problem. The American actors had a look and delivery that just didn't fit with the British scripts. I am pretty sure there was one American episode shown that was original, and I thought that episode was actually pretty funny.

Someone paid for this?

[roboneal]

Could there be anyone less funny than a molecular neurobiologist?

Re:Someone paid for this?

[doofusclam]

I was thinking the same. These two bits:

Thanks to a team of British scientists headed by a molecular neurobiologist/stand-up comic

Dr. Helen Pilcher, who led the research,

... makes me wonder just how funny Dr Helen Pilcher is. There's loads about her research on the net, but none of her standup. Tell us a joke, Helen, dammit!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3787129.stm

Improve

[sugarmotor]

Next step: determine the formulas for different countries, then compare.

rdrr?

[Anonymous Coward]

Har di har har!

Pi

[spoonyfork]

Somewhere in there.
Somewhere. I know it's right
in front of me. The pattern.
They say it's chaos, it can't
be understood, too much
complexity.

History it's there.
Lurking, shaping.
structuring, hiding, right
beneath the surface.

The cycling of disease epidemics,
the wax and wane of Caribou populations
in the Arctic, sunspot cycles,
the rise and fall of the
Nile and yes! the New York Stock
Exchange, they are all the
same.

I'll find this structure,
this order, this perfection.

Turn lead into gold.
The first. Right here. Right
here. With math. The numbers
of the stock market are my
lead. When I find the
pattern, then I will find
gold.

Re:Pi

[hunterx11]

Somehow I doubt Darren Aronofsky would write a very successful sitcom.

Re:Pi

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure he could- heroin addiction and migraine headaches are friggin' comedy gold!

I cannot predict sucess, but I can predict...

[wowbagger]

I cannot predict sucess, but I can predict the stupidity of the sitcom by a very simple formula:

S = a * Lv*Pl^1.5

Where:
S Stupidity of the show
a Scaling constant
L Volume of laugh track normalized to the volume of the rest of the show
Pl Probability of the laugh track being used in any 5 minute segment of the show


The more stupid the sit-com, the louder the laughtrack and the more often it will be used.

Just look at "Everybody hates^WLoves Raymond" - a typical show segment might go:

Raymond: "Oh, I am opening a jar of pickles."

Laughtrack: <font size="+30"> BWAHHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH </font>

Raymond: "The jar is open."

Laughtrack:<font size="+30"> BWAHHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH </font>

(of course, since /. does not allow for <font size=""> tags, I cannot really do this justice).

Re:I cannot predict sucess, but I can predict...

[Anonymous Coward]

That should be +20 for opening line and then +30 when he says it is open.

Damn, I should be a writer.

Seinfeld anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget the most formulaic of all sitcoms; The Dumb & shallow Dad/Husband & Smart and Witty Mom/Wife..

Eg.

1. Everybody Loves Raymond
2. According to Jim
3. Kig of Queens (Queen of Kings?)
4. My wife & Kids
5. that sitcom with Sienfeld's George Castanza.

I think the last best American TV sitcom was Seinfeld. Original writing & genuine comedy. Nothing comes close

Re:Seinfeld anyone?

[hunterx11]

You can't overlook The Honeymooners. It's the Metropolis of sitcoms.

Re:Seinfeld anyone?

[jskiff]

The best one in the past few years has to be Scrubs. Maybe it's the fact that it's a geniunely funny show that doesn't use a laugh track, but it's the one show that consistently makes me laugh.

Re:Seinfeld anyone?

[Spy der Mann]

And don't forget The Frogger episode. Made me laugh my arse off at the final "frogging" scene with the videogame in the middle of the street :)

Re:Seinfeld anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think my favorite Seinfeld episode would be the one where Kramer goes to work for free & the one about Festivus! Brilliant writing!

Where's Coupling?

[MrRoarkeLovesTattoo]

The Office is indeed funny, but I think Coupling is even funnier. They have absolutely no boundaries in that show and the characters are so disfunctional it's hilarious. Also, why is this on /.?

Bzzzt! Wrong. Do it again...

[TheRealStyro]

Compared to Monty Pythons Flying Circus and Fawlty Towers, The Office is about as funny as watching paint dry (on a rainy day in South Florida). The more I think about it, the more I think that Are You Being Served and Keeping Up Appearances are better than The Office.

Some of the problems with The Office is that the timing is off. Instead of the pattern of setup->payoff, setup->payoff, simple-setup-involving-previous-setups-and-charact er-personalities->payoff, The Office relied on setup->nothing, setup->nothing, obscure-complicated-reference-to-something-only-a- UK/EU-citizen-might-realize-as-a-setup->payoff->ex planation-for-non-UK/EU-citizens(maybe).

Come to think of it, the Dilbert cartoon was/is funnier than The Office.

formulaic

[OglinTatas]

Without bothering to look up any reviews on imdb or netflix, rotten tomatoes etc. Many movies and television shows are panned as derivative and formulaic. I'm not sure relying on any formula will guarantee success, or even acceptance. I would hope that there are still creative people out there who are being taken seriously by producers and studios. Oh, wait, that's what indie is for.

OTOH, perhaps bad shows are merely based on the _wrong_ formula. I leave it as an excercise for the reader to find a review praising a show for being derivative and formulaic. Sarcasm doesn't count as praise.

IDNRTFA

where is black books

[jb.hl.com]

Black Books

Quite possibly the funniest British sitcom of the past 5 years and it's not on the fucking list. :(

You can't get much better than a drunken Irish misanthrope, a hairy assistant and a dizzy cow.

Re:where is black books

[Anonymous Coward]

Funniest show of the last decade.

Re:where is black books

[smharr4]

Black Books is one of the funniest shows I've seen in a while. I showed one episode to one of my britcom-loving friends (series 2, episode 1) and he laughed all the way through almost non-stop

Another of my current favourites is 'Green Wing', I can't wait to see how the literal cliff-hanger at the end of series 1 resolves itself.

It's a shame that none of the US TV mega-corporations don't have the guts to air shows like this, pandering to advertisers demands rather than airing a decent TV show once in a while (although there are the occasional gem, Scrubs and Newsradio are two of my US favourites).

I believe that the new Doctor Who series has yet to find a US distributer, as the BBC won't let PBS air the new episodes. To get my Doctor Who fix, I either have to grab a torrent of the UK broadcast, or watch it 10 days later on CBC.

If a long-established show like Doctor Who can't get air time, what chance do comedy shows like Green Wing or Black Books have?

I don't know about that

[eno2001]

Frankly I think one of the funniest brticoms I've seen lately is Black Books. A close second is My Family (reminds me of the 80s family based sitcoms but with a British edge).

now all we need...

[zxnos]

soooo, what is the formula for a *bad* sitcom?

Re:now all we need...

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

-[((R x D + V) x F) + S]/A

Re:now all we need...

[JadeNB]

As mentioned in the article summary, the formula for a bad sitcom is

1. Notice that a certain British show is successful.

2. Make an American show with the same name and a desperate and flawed attempt to capture the feel of the original.

I guess the obligatory next step is

3. PROFIT!!!

but it doesn't seem to have worked that way.

By the way, is it just me, or is the text we're supposed to read getting much harder to read? (Maybe I'm a script after all.)

Re:now all we need...

[Anonymous Coward]

soooo, what is the formula for a *bad* sitcom?

U+P+N

Re:now all we need...

[Anonymous Coward]

"soooo, what is the formula for a *bad* sitcom?"

Start with a formula that is vapidly following current trends (oooh, a group of friends living in New York) and focus so much on one element as to make it unexpandable.

Then hire B-list actors from other failed TV shows. Let them decide how the character should be best portrayed.

Overwrite it, and put in all manner of blatant moralizations and heaps of passive-aggressive behavior.

Finally, be sure to add situations where characters are guaranteed to make complete asses of themselves, and try to make that the punchline of the jokes.

I put in...

[FinchWorld]

Euler's identity but my calculator gave me the Er2 "number too high" :(

molecular neurobiologists?

[jeffblevins]

I hope they were doing this in between filling out job applications and no actual research funding paid for it.

Re:Bzzzt! Wrong. Do it again...

[yotto]

Um, the "nothing" in your little pattern there /is/ the payoff. The boss says something that would get you fired in any office in the civilized world, and the guy/gal he says it to just stares at him. That's the joke. The lack of a laugh track may be making it hard for you to decide when to laugh.

Does this only apply to England?

[Illserve]

I'm not sure how this would account for the success of Friends and Seinfeld, which I think would score pretty badly on this formula.

Re:Does this only apply to England?

[tomstdenis]

In any market the successful way to get a bad idea to be popular is to *repeatedly* *bash* *the* *idea* *into* *their* *minds*...

Like in a given hour on TBS you may see a commercial for "friends" or family guy at every break [repeatedly during the same break]. Then you see the little pop ups during ths show at the bottom, etc...

I imagine shows like Friends or Joey wouldn't get half the audience they do if they had to rely on people ACTUALLY LIKING IT for what it's worth...

Tom

Xenu loves Elfman

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting anonymously out of fear that the Sea Org will soon be here,

http://www.scientology-kills.org/celebrities/elfma n.htm

There are ... factors ... behind her success, or lack thereof.

Sitcoms themselve are the problem

[spaceyhackerlady]

My main beef is that the sitcoms themselves are the problem. Whether they are formulaic and derivative or not, the genre itself is getting stale.

Some of the tv shows that make me laugh include cynical mockumentaries, a breezy comedy of manners, and an utterly weird sketch comedy series. Not to mention a couple of the home grown entries.

Not a sitcom in sight.

...laura

My Formula

[MechaShiva]

My formula is somewhat subjective, but maybe it'll work for you folks too. My high water mark doesn't exist, but it doesn't really need to for the idea to work. My idea for the best show that could ever be created is a reality show where you make William Shattner and Adam West be roommates. Maybe you get Christopher Walken to be the wacky neighbor, maybe hang out every now and again. The potential for awesome is off the charts as far as I'm concerned. Those three guys are crazy as fuck with egos to match. It'll have everything: comedy, drama, relatively cheap to produce and be highly watchable in reruns. On the other end of the spectrum is any old steamy pile of shit, like Dharma and Greg, or Veronica's Closet. Bearing these two extremes in mind, I usually get a fairly good guage on how a show will be. It's not a perfect system, but it's damn close...

Yeah but, No but, Yeah but, No but, Yeah but...

[ayjay29]

Yeah but, No but, Yeah but, No but, Yeah but...

They're just gonna take like only fools and horses right and then make it in the US with the Trotters living in like Venace Beach or something and driving a ford pinto and then they take out all the swear words like plonker and bollocks and stuff cause the yanks don't know shit about stuff like that and then they put in all this cheasy yank stuff like chearleaders and baseball and try to make it funny again but it ends up getting well crap cause thay cant insult old people or young people or deaf people and then it only ends up on some crap cable tv channel and nobody watches it cause there's like 20 old episodes of friends and the simpsons on all the same time and half the time it's just adverts and stuff.

Re:Yeah but, No but, Yeah but, No but, Yeah but...

[ultramk]

cause there's like 20 old episodes of friends and the simpsons on all the same time and half the time it's just adverts and stuff.

Add in a channel solely devoted to people playing darts, and you've just described UK television. (at least, during my last visit.) Oh, and commercials for ringtones.

Oh, I kid, I kid. I love bbc sitcoms, but they never seemed to be on while i was watching. It was always either Friends or the Jerry Springer Opera... ...or darts.

m-

Re:Yeah but, No but, Yeah but, No but, Yeah but...

[Toby_Tyke]

That is not a troll. He's referencing Little Britain, a british sketch show. One of the characters is a teenage girl who starts every sentence "yeah but no but...".

Re:Yeah but, No but, Yeah but, No but, Yeah but...

[legojenn]

I love Vicki Pollard! I wonder what a North American version of her would be like. Little Britain just slays me, especially the "Only Gay in the Village". It's one of those shows that you kind of cringe at but can't help laughing at.

I thought they already had a formula...

[jzarling]

I thought they already had a formula.

Can't unseat the king!

[gosand]

In my opinion, the most formulaic sitcom in the United States in recent years was Home Improvement.

No way it can touch Three's Company. That was crap TV at its finest.

Ob. Family Guy

[pizen]

Peter: Boy, I'll be glad when that studio audience moves out of the neighborhood.

also...

Brian: Where did you get that thing?
Stewie: From Dharma and Greg.
Brian: Hmm, I'm surprised there's anything left in it.

So the ideal show is...

[relaxrelax]

So coyote is trying to catch road runner - failing in most painful ways - to catch the road runner because of its godlike speed and the total failure to use high-tech deathtraps correctly.

Just add some some witty replies, make road runner wear a crown, and it would be the ideal show!

Unfortunately when it reaches 900 they censor it for being awfully cruel to the megalomanic schemers underclass who can't use their high-tech arsenal correctly.

It's very important to censor that. We don't want to piss off viewers who have delusions of grandeur, have a deadly high-tech arsenal, and are angry at the insinuation they don't know how to use it properly!!!

Network self-defense at its best. Whimps!!

How on earth?

[LNO]

Son, I say, that's what they call "British humour", son.

So that's why the Goons were so funny

[Anonymous Coward]

((R x D + V) x F) + S... the total is divided by the success of any scheme or stratagem in the show (A)

Aha, divide by zero error!

Re:Even better: Success = T#ts + As#

[Ranger]

---- Go ahead, mod me down, I'll just post it again and you lose your mod points

Doh! <slaps forehead> Why didn't I think of that before? Thanks.

Yeah, bring on the T&A. After all it made Baywatch one of the most popular shows in the world. Of course, T&A alone can't save every bad show. Charmed is unwatchable even with three hot babes. Alias is barely watchable with Garner. ST: V'ger was watchable with Six of Nine.

Scooby Doo

[dmaxwell]

1. Mysterious Creature is terrorizing the town/amusement park/mansion residents/......
2. Mystery Machine rolls into town.
3. Creature encounters Mystery Machine Crew.
4. Shaggy and Scooby run away and hide in the kitchen/walk in freezer/....
5. Thelma notices something strange.
6. Daphne and Fred say inane things and Fred tries to play Strong Leader.
7. Shaggy and Scooby happily raid fridge until rousted by Creature.

8. Thelma notices more clues. Fred plays Captain Obvious.
9. Creature terrorizes Shaggy and Scooby some more.

10. Thelma figures the whole thing out. Fred or Daphnie unmask Creature who turns out to be a minor character we met at the beginning of the episode. It was all a plot to scare everyone away from the town/amusement park/mansion residents/......
so he/she could have it for his/her own greedy scheme.

11. "And I would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for you meddling kids."

Re:Scooby Doo

[Cecil]

Her name is actually Velma, not Thelma.

Re:Scooby Doo

[Knew Hear]

Thats Ms. Dinkley to you!

Re:Scooby Doo

[Minna Kirai]

Fred or Daphnie unmask Creature who turns out to be a minor character we met at the beginning of the episode.

You must be thinking of the old Scooby-Doo from around 1970. In the 2000s revival, the "unmasking" elements were removed... now the creatures are real ghosts/dinosaurs/aliens.

This change displeased prominent skeptics in the mold of "Amazing Randi", because it elminated what they saw as a minor educational value... training children not to believe in monsters or superstition.

Bad news for the /. crowd

[Anonymous Coward]

So is Nancy Cartwright, the voice of Bart Simpson.

Brilliant UK shows

[Anonymous Coward]

Some shows that are equally as brilliant:

Black Books
Father Ted
I'm Alan Partridge
Spaced

I especially like that Spaced isn't filmed before a live TV audience or feature a laugh track.

"will star Jenna Elfman"

[Master of Transhuman]

All I needed to know it would be in the bottom five.

Who needs a math formula?

but does it have a "babe" factor?

[ryusen]

nuff said...

Re:Bzzzt! Wrong. Do it again...

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't compare the US version of the Office with the original UK one. It's not even in the same league - as painful to watch as the UK version, but for all the wrong reasons.

For good UK comedy watch Peep Show, Brass Eye, League of Gentleman, Little Britain (first series), Father Ted, Black Books etc etc

P.S. Keeping up appearances? Are you for real?

Formulaic

[Ranger]

Using the formula [((R x D + V) x F) + S]/A, they determined that "Only Fools and Horses" and "The Office" are the best of British comedy,

So this puts the formula back in formulaic?

What kind of head trauma do you have to suffer from to enjoy "The Office"? I really want to know. I forced myself to watch the first 2/3 of the first episode. I'm surprised I even lasted that long. Now if you really want the best of recent British comedy watch "Coupling".

The BBC has this nice section called Get Writing: Tools of the Trade about writing comedy. Far more useful than some retarded formula.

Real Formula

[pbaer]

Funniness (F), Offensiveness (O), Chance of Success (C): F/0=C but if offensive to all then F*O=C.

It's simple.

[Kiryat Malachi]

if(show == sitcom)
{
show_quality = bad;
}

a challenge

[tinkerton]

Someone should use the formula to try and make as sitcom that scores as low as possible. And just maybe, still try to make it funny.

The factor F is for falling over and injury? Okay, you've never seen so many near accidents in such a small period ..

Re:Bzzzt! Wrong. Do it again...

[Colin Smith]

It's the nothing which makes The Office so squirmingly excruciating. Some people find it funny but I find it almost painful to watch.

Coupling is much better than The Office.

Star Wars and Matrix Formula

[justinpfister]

George Lucas and The Wachowski brothers followed a formula to write Star Wars and The Matrix. They read the book "Hero with 1000 faces" by Joseph Campbell and mapped out the hero's journey that is simular across all cultures and individual experiences.

In the writing of anthropologist Joseph Campbell, Lucas had learned about the myths that pervade many disparate cultures, and it is this mythology that gives Lucas's space age epic its timeless resonance. Both of the sequels and the one prequel continued in the same vein and with equally successful. Read On

Re:Star Wars and Matrix Formula

[Anonymous Coward]

Slight off topic, but .... ----

I think it would be great if Campbell's description of the heroic arch would be referenced more often by writers attempting to create a character that is intended to be a "hero". the Mythic hero is not around as much these days, which is unfortunate. I do not mean to say that Campbell is the final word on what's heroic, but he does a pretty good job at dissecting myth and culture.
Other great texts on the mythic hero include one by Bernard M.W. Knox, "The Heroic Temper: Studies in Sophoclean Tragedy." The text is specifically written for plays by Sophocles, but Knox does an adequate job at detailing the traits of the Hero and the hero's social context.

Re:Star Wars and Matrix Formula

[Minna Kirai]

I wish there were a checkbox to mod that Off-Topic with double or triple points. Although "Dead Horse" or "Insipidly Swallowing Inevitable Pretension" would be helpful too.

Re:Star Wars and Matrix Formula

[justinpfister]

Since we were talking about The Formula for a Successful Sitcom, I thought that my comment about the details of the successful "formula" for Star Wars and Matrix was simply an addition to the "Formula" Theme.

I think your comment is overly critical and sensitive and neither a "Dead Horse" or "Insipidly Swallowing Inevitable Pretension".

Re:Star Wars and Matrix Formula

[Minna Kirai]

I thought that my comment about the details of the successful "formula" for Star Wars and Matrix was simply an addition to the "Formula" Theme.

I generously doubt you are stupid enough to believe that. But I do, however, think you hoped there were enough stupid moderators out that you could cut & paste a blurb from an unrelated overanalysis of a nerd issue, change a few words to create an illusion of relevance, and score 2-3 easy "Insightful" points. Maybe trying to follow an "Excellent Karma in 21 Days" booklet? Lucky for us, only 1 AC seems to have swallowed the bait.

Star Wars no more has a "formula" than Godzilla or Rocky. If the definition of "formula" was stretched far enough to apply for your "Hero's Journey" example, then every other piece of fiction could be classified as formulaic too. When a word's definition is abused so it can apply anywhere, it has lost so much focus it's no longer interesting to discuss.

Furthermore, it is quite incorrect to claim (as Lucas and PBS story does) that SW and Matrix were based on Campbell. Rather, all 3 were based on the same nearly-universal ideas. (Note that Lucas ret-conned his Campbell basis after the screenplay was written)

I think your comment is overly critical

I think your comment is overly plagiarist. If you want to advocate or even commit copyright infringement here, fine... but at least use honest labelling when pasting words that aren't yours.

Re:Star Wars and Matrix Formula

[justinpfister]

You think I care about my karma rating?? Cause I don't. I enjoy slashdot and I was just interested in providing interesting details like the other users on Slashdot provide me.

As far as accusing me of copyright infringement, you have no grounds. Mythology and psychology are particularly favorite topics for me and I happen to know very certainly that Joseph Campbell and George Lucus had a very good relationship. George Lucas states (and you can find it for yourself all over the web) that if it wasn't for the book he wrote, he probably wouldn't have finished his movie. George Lucas is actually on the board of the Joseph Campbell Foundation. A picture of Luke Skywalker is actually on the cover of recent editions of "The Hero with 1000 Faces"

I'm glad you realize that neither the theme of SW, Matrix or Campbell's book are owned (as if any of us actually own anything) by any of the individuals are nearly-universal ideas. The creators of these works are like painters painting the same picture. What's more important is that together they have helped us understand the journey in our own lives.

So on that note, why don't you get off your high horse and stop being so righteous, because it's a nearly-universal idea that your convictions are temporary delusions anyway :)

Re:Star Wars and Matrix Formula

[Minna Kirai]

was just interested in providing interesting details

It's interesting if it's slightly relevant. Formulas and sitcoms have no relation to mythology and Star Wars. There are plenty of Star Wars related topics being posted... your link would've had a chance of interesting somebody in one of them. But this isn't a Star Wars post, so nobody wants to see Star Wars.

As far as accusing me of copyright infringement, you have no grounds.

You went to pbs.org, copied a paragraph of text, and pasted it onto slashdot without attribution or an indication that you were not the original author.

Successful Sitcom?

[Attrition_cp]

Is that supposed to be a joke? The last sitcom that was worth watching was.... I don't even remember!

Why do they bother to "adapt" them?

[Colin Smith]

Every American adaptation of a British sitcom has been truly dreadful.

It'd be like the BBC "adapting" Star Trek or Stargate, complete with spray painted washing up bottles and bits of string showing on the spacecraft.

Just show them.

British formula

[pdxdada]

Ok, I understand that this is probably a joke (and if not Bob help us all) but has no one noticed that this is a very british centric formula? I doubt Americans think people falling down and highlighting class differences (both in the formula) are nearly as funny as Britons. Anyone who's traveled a lot can tell you not all comedy translates. Actually I'm surprised they didn't add a variable for the number of times male characters dress up as women.

Re:British formula

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, when they added in the (O * Fm) factor (old man running in fast motion) Benny Hill just went off the charts.

Re:British formula

[CmdrGravy]

C'mon, surely everyone loves watching people fall over right ? Surely.

I'm not sure about the class differences thing, I think what they mean is just rich people and poor people rather than lords and peasants which is surely a feature of American life as well as British.

Re:British formula

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt Americans think people falling down and highlighting class differences

Those were the basis for Drew Carey's sitcom... class tensions with his elitist boss, and physical pranks on the obese man and woman working at the desks.

In the U.K.

[JJ]

Maybe it works in England with the class differential thing, but the two markets I know something about, NZ and the US, it doesn't quite have the same effect (i.e. a different equation should work.)

Class act

[nagora]

I notice from watching the news and talking to Americans that America is a much more class-ridden society than modern Britain, yet there is almost no representation of this in the shows we see over here.

Is class a taboo subject in America? Many of the comment here make it seem so.

TWW

Re:Class act

[Minna Kirai]

I use "class" to mean "economic class", which is the normal interpretation today, although countries older than the USA sometimes consider economic and social class to be partly distinct.

more class-ridden society than modern Britain,

Britain still has strong vestiges in the House of Lords and of course the Queen, but those are more like strong cultural memories than facts of daily life. In practical terms, their policies have slowed the creation of mega-rich, and the oceanic barrier has prevented the influx of unauthorized immigrants which make up the USA's poorest class.

there is almost no representation of this in the shows we see over here.

In the USA, race correlates highly with class, and it is more visually obvious, so it is often what gets discussed first (if the author desires to make social commentary). Easier to simply hire a dark-skinned actor than to write & direct a script providing subtle non-vocal cues of economic background.

For example, many UK shows include as characters both an upper-class family and the servants of the household. The USA stereotype is that the servants must always, always be Mexican immigrants. So you have race and class in one.

Additionally, Britain is a denser country, so multiple classes are more frequently squeezed together (especially if you factor in the tradition of butler service).

Is class a taboo subject in America?

If you're really interested in reading some class anecdotes from the USA, nytimes.com has a series of twelve articles on the subject under the title "Class Matters".

What about the Office?

[Gardenhead]

I appreciate even the more excrutiating British humour (get it?) unlike most Americans it seems. If this equation is true, then what the hell happened to the American version of the Office? I found it funny, but not as much as the original.

Formula for measuring value of other formulae

[roman_mir]

B = U + (L + L * S ) * H + I + T.

Where every term is self-descriptive enough.

The best predictor of a TV show's sucess

[314m678]

Historically The best predictor of a TV show's sucess is the popularity of the show it debuts after. It really does not matter how good it is. We just start watching "what ever is on next" and get hooked that way.

dr/rr

[Yim]

or RDRR...hardee har har

Re:dr/rr

[Anonymous Coward]

dr/rr = d/r, not dr^3.
You screwed up the joke.

British

[Spez]

Fortunatly, this "magical formula" only applies to British sitcoms. I think only them think that the "total is multiplied by the amount someone falls over or suffers a physical injury " is the most important factor in rating good sitcoms

Ranking of sitcoms:

[wolenczak]

702 That 70's show
512 Friends
412 The simpsons
294 Smallville
273 Lost
240 24
113 The OC
100 Two and a half men
53 Myth Busters
36 Scrubs
31 Will and Grace
13 Charmed
12 Without a trace
10 Third Watch
10 ER
9 The King of Queens
8 Six Feet Under
5 Everybody Lvs Raymond
4 Startrek Enterprise
3 CSI Las Vegas
2 The Apprentice

Re:Ranking of sitcoms:

[pboulang]

24 is a much funnier show than that!!! It was a laugh a minute! BEST SITCOM IN *YEARS*. errr. . .

Re:Ranking of sitcoms:

[BiggyP]

That 70's show scoring anything above about 0.02 is very wrong indeed.

Re:Ranking of sitcoms:

[secolactico]

I believe sitcom stands for "situation comedy" (or situational...). By that definition, a lot of the shows you list don't belong to that group (Myth Busters?!).

And "Two and a half men" is not even remotely funny.

Don't tell him Pike

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sitcom/winner.shtml

Dad's Army was voted 4th best British sitcom

Excellent.

[drwiii]

It's about time we had a mathematical way to represent the curse of Ted McGinley.

Simplified version of the formula: 0 (zero)

[Anonymous Coward]

I already solved it:

0

That's the number of sitcoms that have been funny since the 80s ended. I want my action shows back, like the A-Team (even if they are just a tad cheesy.) Just say NO to lousy sitcoms and fake reality shows!

UK-centric

[Anonymous Coward]

The formula would seem to only work for British television, which has a decidedly different brand of humor than typical American TV. For example, the value S, "the difference in social status between the highest- and lowest-ranking characters", is a staple in British humor, while it is almost nonexistent in mainstream American humor.

Re:Bzzzt! Wrong. Do it again...

[CmdrGravy]

Have you seen the original ( English ) version of The Office ?

Both Are You Being Served and Keeping Up Appearances are godawful excuses for comedy !

The whole amusement of The Office was the utter painfullness of David Brents behaviour rather than any regional jokes.

Then how do you explain...?

[BraceletWinner]

Historically The best predictor of a TV show's sucess is the popularity of the show it debuts after. It really does not matter how good it is. We just start watching "what ever is on next" and get hooked that way.

Then how do you explain shows that debuted in the first prime time slot (8:00PM Eastern) like "Lost"? Fact is, people will seek out a show if they like it, no matter the time slot. And time slots mean less and less as more PVRs are sold.

Re:Then how do you explain...?

[314m678]

'Best predictor' does not mean 'explains every case'.
For Example:
General Statement: Smoking is a good predictor of lung cancer
Specific example:Then how do you explain my uncle xyz who smokes all his life and doesnt have cancer?
Wrong conclusion derived from specific example: Smoking is not a good predictor of lung cancer

Wow.

[Headcase88]

What a worthless formula. "Uh, the funniness of a sitcom, uh multiplied by the hilarity, uh add how funny the most memorable quote is, and uh divide by amount of unnessesary canned laughter, and uh, that the equation for how good a sitcom is".

Or how about: "The quality of a news site is the number of worthwhile articles multiplied by how enjoyable they are to read minus 1,000,000,000 if the news site posts any articles about bogus formulas that are completely subjective and put way too much weight on minor aspects of a show, and use multiplying and adding in abritrary ways that lead to totally made up numbers".

Ok, now I feel better.

The Ted McGinley Constant

[Average_Joe_Sixpack]

Adding Ted McGinley constant to this formula is the same as dividing by zero

Re:Bzzzt! Wrong. Do it again...

[TheRealStyro]

The lack of a laugh track may be making it hard for you to decide when to laugh.

You may have a point. However, the other three sitcoms I watch, Family Guy, American Dad & South Park, all do not have a laugh track and I have no problems finding the humour. I can't remember if Scrubs and/or Malcolm in the Middle have laugh tracks. The only other humourous show is The Daily Show and that either has an audience and/or laugh track.

LAX (Re:liars and numbers)

[NaDrew]

and they even aired all the filmed episodes of the awful and short lived LAX

<pedant> The final filmed episode, supposed to air in the dead period after sweeps month as NBC burned them off to fill space, was pre-empted by the Dead Pope show. </pedant>

My wife and I liked LAX, saw the flaws but thought it had potential to be better.

Father Ted Third!

[meehawl]

Father Ted is third, beating out Fawlty Towers. All is well with the world of algorithmic sitcom ratings.

Explain the success of...

[Krater76]

Hypno-Toad!

Seriously though, British comedy is not subtle. Americans tend to not really be interested in slap-stick comedy whereas British comedy is a lot of that. Also, British comedy is all about narcissism - Rimmer/Lister/Cat from Red Dwarf, Black Adder, Fawlty Towers, the boss from the Office. American comedy is about the lovable loser - Seinfeld, Friends, Cheers, Everybody Loves Raymond, The Simpsons.

I think subconciously the British like to hate themselves. I like British comedy so am I really saying I hate myself?

3 Words

[albundyhere]

Married With Children Best Show EVER!

The Best Sitcom Ever!

[Quantum Jim]

According to that formula on the site, RD+V)F+S)/A:

Comedic value is determined by multiplying the recognizability of the main character (R) by their delusions of grandeur (D). This is added to the verbal wit of the script (V), and the total is multiplied by the amount someone falls over or suffers a physical injury (F).

The difference in social status between the highest- and lowest-ranking characters (S) is added, and finally the total is divided by the success of any scheme or stratagem in the show (A). Each term in the formula is assigned a value up to a maximum of 10 to give an overall scientific score."

Therefore, The Dick Van Dyke Show must be the best sitcom ever (with real actors). Unsuccessful schemes: check. Differetial in social status: (barely) check. Verbal wit: check. Delusions of grandeur: check. Recognizability of Dick: check. Excessive falling over: check! Q.E.D. The only other contender, I think, would be I Love Lucy.

Trailer Park Boys

[Anonymous Coward]

Best sitcom on TV.. Trailer Park Boys..

Forumla for BRITISH humor

[skintigh2]

[((R x D + V) x F) + S]/A

Ok, lets say everything about th show is miserable, make everything a 1, but have people fall 1000 times an episode.

[((1 x 1 + 1) x 1000) + 1]/1 = 2001

I have just created the greatest show Britain has ever seen.

Three stooges reruns must KILL in the UK.

Only on /.

[Anonymous Coward]

Does a comment with the phrase "boobies jiggle" in it get modded +5 Insightful...

Prompted Guffaws

[pipingguy]

Don't forget the laugh track!

Some viewers regard the laugh track as an insult to their intelligence and sense of humor.

After the fact...

[SoulMaster]

Once this formula works and generates a hit show, the added code to to keep the sitcom from ever jumping the shark is:

IF @SuggestionsFromTheNetWork > 0
IGNORE
GOTO WRITERS

Post this somewhere more permanent

[Anonymous Coward]

It's funny. I want to be able to link to it when I insult people with practises in the soft sciences.

The Exception that Proves the Rule

[Saltation]

Hmm. Looking at the formula's definition, that would imply "The Brittas Empire" would be the most successful sitcom on earth.

Maybe not.

(incidentally, "proves" in "the exception that proves the rule" is used in the old sense of "tests" -- not in the modern sense of "demonstrates the truth of")

Re:Bzzzt! Wrong. Do it again...

[Minna Kirai]

However, the other three sitcoms I watch, Family Guy, American Dad & South Park,

Those are cartoons, not sitcoms. What "situational comedy" means is that for cost reasons, they must use the same handful of sets and acting team for all shows. The situation is always the same. Those cartoons are comedy, but not sitcoms, as the animators are free to bring in new settings and characters for every show.

Malcom is also not quite in the sitcom tradition, because it uses 4-walled sets (giving a higher production cost)

Not all comedies are sitcoms.

Re:Bzzzt! Wrong. Do it again...

[Minna Kirai]

squirmingly excruciating.

That's where humor comes from. Primoridally, laughter is a means to defuse a tense situation and signal that things are really still alright.

Fall off a ladder- maybe break his neck? Nope, laughing signals it was OK.
Viciously insult someone you didn't know was listening? Laughter shows it wasn't meant to be deadly serious.

Humor is about observing bad situations, and then being relieved that they're either not really bad, or at least not about us. Some people can't laugh at a truck rolling off a bridge... maybe you can't laugh at a worker painfully unable to acknowledge the real meaning of what his boss just said.