Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Formula for a Successful Sitcom

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the everything-is-just-math dept.

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."

11 of 291 comments (clear)

  1. The original Grauniad article: by alanw · · Score: 4, Informative

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

    1. Re:The original Grauniad article: by UncleGizmo · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

      --
      Who put this thing together? Me, that's who.
    2. Re:The original Grauniad article: by jimicus · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

    3. Re:The original Grauniad article: by zambuka · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

  2. Dad's Army by Skiron · · Score: 2, Informative

    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".

    1. Re:Dad's Army by FatRatBastard · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

  3. I dispute your theorem! by digitalamish · · Score: 5, Informative

    My evidence: The Pamela Anderson crapfest Stacked.

  4. Simpsons, the sitcom by 3770 · · Score: 2, Informative

    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".

    --
    The Internet is full. Go Away!!!
    1. Re:Simpsons, the sitcom by robertjw · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

      --
      Find coupons in Greeley
  5. Re:So... by justforaday · · Score: 3, Informative
    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."
    --
    I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
  6. Scooby Doo by dmaxwell · · Score: 2, Informative

    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."