Argumentative Essay On Sitcoms
The SLACKERETTES is a proposed one half-hour sitcom. The premise about three slackers tying to work as little as possible and coming up with crazy and zany ideas to support their lifestyle has merit. One can see the fun that could be generated each week as they come up with a new scheme to pay the rent. The premise is well set up for a long-term series. The goal and the stakes are well defined.
The emotional premise about friendship also presents with merit. The pilot does a nice job of conveying the message that a home is being with the people one cares about.
A sitcom relies on several elements to be successful. The series’ premise should be solid and produce a long-term series. The characters also need to be engaging, comedic characters that the …show more content…
audience is willing to watch each week. The comedy needs to be strong and generate laughs.
First, the premise is likable and can produce a long-term series. Each week the girls will come up with wacky ideas to make money. There’s a lot of fun in that concept. Remember, that they should also learn a valuable lesson each week too. The key too is to spiral the situation out of control to generate comedic tension. For example, if one week they decide to be dog walkers, then they might lose a dog.
This spirals the situation out of control and then they come up with ideas to solve the problem (find the dog), which should lead to more comedy, until the problem is resolved.
Right now, the characters of the three women, unfortunately, are not strongly engaging. First, a nice job is done in the opening visual of the three women with their diploma. The visual nicely conveys their personalities with Tina being more serious, Drew trying to find “balance,” and Melissa being crude.
Tina definitely takes the lead as the central character and she definitely is the most serious, but she isn’t a character that fully engages the audience. She’s not a strong comedic character, which is fine, if she’s the straight guy to the other more comedic sidekicks.
However, it might benefit the script to make Tina more of an unwitting and reluctant slacker. Currently as structured, each of the women seems to have no ambition and they lie and cheat to get what they want. It may be challenging to present all three of the women like this. There’s little conflict in that. However, if Tina were more of a slacker, not by choice, but by life circumstances it might make her more likable and generate more conflict among the characters and give Tina more depth. It’s also more realistic. It seems as if there should be at least one character that actually wants to truly find a job, but just can’t become of the competition and the economy. It’s an artistic choice.
Currently, the idea of Tina hacking into the college computer and defrauding them doesn’t make her the responsible character that the series seems to intend. In addition, there are no real consequences for the fraud either. Tina does have a moral side, but her slacker side overpowers the goodness.
Melissa is the most immature. She represents the “animal” type character that is driven by basic life needs: food and sex. She’s highly sexualized, which is the point of her character and her voice reflects her sexual preoccupation, but it’s overdone and feels forced versus natural. She’s a difficult character to care about.
Drew is the least understood of the characters and is very overshadowed by both Tina and Melissa. She’s the stoner, but she doesn’t standout. However, the spiritual side of her is the most intriguing element.
Tina’s parents are uptight, but a bit too much like caricatures, rather than natural or real characters.
Wenling is the identified antagonist trying to get the girls evicted. It’s a good idea and story choice, but she’s a bit stereotyped as the crazed, Asian mother versus a smart lawyer type. In fact, it’s not clear that she’s a lawyer in the pilot. Perhaps making her sound more like a snobby attorney, would work more effectively.
Lily is cute as the girl who wants the three women to “ruin” her life. She feels the most natural.
One reason the women don’t fully engage is their voices. Melissa tries too hard to be funny, but unfortunately isn’t. Tina has the most mature voice, but her actions of hacking contradict her personality. Drew’s voice is consistent to her spiritual side, but as mentioned, she’s overshadowed.
The other element for a successful series is the comedy style and the ability to generate strong humor. Remember, humor is subjective. Unfortunately, in the current presentation the humor feels a bit immature and it really doesn’t create laugh-out-loud moments. For example, the “fart” jokes are overdone. The first fart joke occurs on page 29 when Melissa makes a farting noise. If properly done within context, a fart joke can work. However, she does this again on page 33. It feels redundant. Then on page 34 Lily farts and there’s the entire “farting Fran” gimmick. By this time, the farting jokes become tedious and too immature.
There are other off-colored jokes, but they feel too forced vs. natural. On page 17, there’s a joke about “work sets you free” and Tina makes a quip about concentration camps. It’s not funny. The scene with the toes and Otto isn’t organically funny.
A sophisticated type of humor would help, as well as physical and visual comedy. Elevate wittier one-liners. Sitcoms also rely on visual reactions. It’s not clear if the audience will understand that Melissa is pretending to spray “cum.” It’s a bit crude, but that’s her. The men in the bar are described as “accosting” them, but this can be more visual.
The funniest moment actually comes at the very end, after they have paid their rent, and then the lights go out. This is organic humor, it’s not a forced joke, and it’s a terrific payoff. It’s visual. It could even work without the ending dialogue in the scene.
The overall comedic tension is to get the rent paid before they are evicted. The idea has merit. It’s an actionable, relatable goal, but because the women don’t fully emotionally engage with the audience, there’s very little rooting interest in them.
Having a solid rooting interest is pivotal. One just doesn’t root for these women, unlike the former series, HOT IN CLEVELAND, in which the audience easily bonded and identified with the three main women, or with the series NEW GIRL, who presents with a very adorable and likable character, or like in the I LOVE LUCY series, in which Lucy and Ethel embark on zany adventures, but the audience always roots for them.
In each of these examples, the women relate better to the mainstream audience, and although they are flawed, they are more lovable and vulnerable. Try to find ways to make Tina, Drew, and Melissa flawed, but relatable.
Future characters that feel potentially fun include Dexter. One easily envisions him and the antics that follow.
The episodes that feel enjoyable include: “Those Who Can’t Do, Teach,” and the “Serial Killer” episode also feels as if it could generate strong laughs.
The “Sex Hotline” also sounds fun, given the potential love interest between Tina and Peter. Trying to hide their business can generate the threat of discovery and good comedy.
126 Hours doesn’t feel as funny regarding being trapped. Sugardaddy will depend on the chemistry between the characters and the level of comedy. The “It” Breed could be funny, but it should send a moral message about the consequences of breeding for profit.
The Foster Teen show could be an entire series about raising a foster child for selfish reasons (money), only to discover the hard work and true commitment it requires.
The “Hands on a Flatscreen TV,” isn’t well understood or envisioned. The Shabbos Guy doesn’t feel organically very funny.
In summary, the idea of testing friendships and seeing their bond evolve over time certainly has merit. The idea of a constant threat of being evicted also nicely works to create tension.
However, the success of the series will rely on how much the audience emotionally identifies with the characters and the strength of the comedic
situations.
The emotional premise about friendship also presents with merit. The pilot does a nice job of conveying the message that a home is being with the people one cares about.
A sitcom relies on several elements to be successful. The series’ premise should be solid and produce a long-term series. The characters also need to be engaging, comedic characters that the …show more content…
audience is willing to watch each week. The comedy needs to be strong and generate laughs.
First, the premise is likable and can produce a long-term series. Each week the girls will come up with wacky ideas to make money. There’s a lot of fun in that concept. Remember, that they should also learn a valuable lesson each week too. The key too is to spiral the situation out of control to generate comedic tension. For example, if one week they decide to be dog walkers, then they might lose a dog.
This spirals the situation out of control and then they come up with ideas to solve the problem (find the dog), which should lead to more comedy, until the problem is resolved.
Right now, the characters of the three women, unfortunately, are not strongly engaging. First, a nice job is done in the opening visual of the three women with their diploma. The visual nicely conveys their personalities with Tina being more serious, Drew trying to find “balance,” and Melissa being crude.
Tina definitely takes the lead as the central character and she definitely is the most serious, but she isn’t a character that fully engages the audience. She’s not a strong comedic character, which is fine, if she’s the straight guy to the other more comedic sidekicks.
However, it might benefit the script to make Tina more of an unwitting and reluctant slacker. Currently as structured, each of the women seems to have no ambition and they lie and cheat to get what they want. It may be challenging to present all three of the women like this. There’s little conflict in that. However, if Tina were more of a slacker, not by choice, but by life circumstances it might make her more likable and generate more conflict among the characters and give Tina more depth. It’s also more realistic. It seems as if there should be at least one character that actually wants to truly find a job, but just can’t become of the competition and the economy. It’s an artistic choice.
Currently, the idea of Tina hacking into the college computer and defrauding them doesn’t make her the responsible character that the series seems to intend. In addition, there are no real consequences for the fraud either. Tina does have a moral side, but her slacker side overpowers the goodness.
Melissa is the most immature. She represents the “animal” type character that is driven by basic life needs: food and sex. She’s highly sexualized, which is the point of her character and her voice reflects her sexual preoccupation, but it’s overdone and feels forced versus natural. She’s a difficult character to care about.
Drew is the least understood of the characters and is very overshadowed by both Tina and Melissa. She’s the stoner, but she doesn’t standout. However, the spiritual side of her is the most intriguing element.
Tina’s parents are uptight, but a bit too much like caricatures, rather than natural or real characters.
Wenling is the identified antagonist trying to get the girls evicted. It’s a good idea and story choice, but she’s a bit stereotyped as the crazed, Asian mother versus a smart lawyer type. In fact, it’s not clear that she’s a lawyer in the pilot. Perhaps making her sound more like a snobby attorney, would work more effectively.
Lily is cute as the girl who wants the three women to “ruin” her life. She feels the most natural.
One reason the women don’t fully engage is their voices. Melissa tries too hard to be funny, but unfortunately isn’t. Tina has the most mature voice, but her actions of hacking contradict her personality. Drew’s voice is consistent to her spiritual side, but as mentioned, she’s overshadowed.
The other element for a successful series is the comedy style and the ability to generate strong humor. Remember, humor is subjective. Unfortunately, in the current presentation the humor feels a bit immature and it really doesn’t create laugh-out-loud moments. For example, the “fart” jokes are overdone. The first fart joke occurs on page 29 when Melissa makes a farting noise. If properly done within context, a fart joke can work. However, she does this again on page 33. It feels redundant. Then on page 34 Lily farts and there’s the entire “farting Fran” gimmick. By this time, the farting jokes become tedious and too immature.
There are other off-colored jokes, but they feel too forced vs. natural. On page 17, there’s a joke about “work sets you free” and Tina makes a quip about concentration camps. It’s not funny. The scene with the toes and Otto isn’t organically funny.
A sophisticated type of humor would help, as well as physical and visual comedy. Elevate wittier one-liners. Sitcoms also rely on visual reactions. It’s not clear if the audience will understand that Melissa is pretending to spray “cum.” It’s a bit crude, but that’s her. The men in the bar are described as “accosting” them, but this can be more visual.
The funniest moment actually comes at the very end, after they have paid their rent, and then the lights go out. This is organic humor, it’s not a forced joke, and it’s a terrific payoff. It’s visual. It could even work without the ending dialogue in the scene.
The overall comedic tension is to get the rent paid before they are evicted. The idea has merit. It’s an actionable, relatable goal, but because the women don’t fully emotionally engage with the audience, there’s very little rooting interest in them.
Having a solid rooting interest is pivotal. One just doesn’t root for these women, unlike the former series, HOT IN CLEVELAND, in which the audience easily bonded and identified with the three main women, or with the series NEW GIRL, who presents with a very adorable and likable character, or like in the I LOVE LUCY series, in which Lucy and Ethel embark on zany adventures, but the audience always roots for them.
In each of these examples, the women relate better to the mainstream audience, and although they are flawed, they are more lovable and vulnerable. Try to find ways to make Tina, Drew, and Melissa flawed, but relatable.
Future characters that feel potentially fun include Dexter. One easily envisions him and the antics that follow.
The episodes that feel enjoyable include: “Those Who Can’t Do, Teach,” and the “Serial Killer” episode also feels as if it could generate strong laughs.
The “Sex Hotline” also sounds fun, given the potential love interest between Tina and Peter. Trying to hide their business can generate the threat of discovery and good comedy.
126 Hours doesn’t feel as funny regarding being trapped. Sugardaddy will depend on the chemistry between the characters and the level of comedy. The “It” Breed could be funny, but it should send a moral message about the consequences of breeding for profit.
The Foster Teen show could be an entire series about raising a foster child for selfish reasons (money), only to discover the hard work and true commitment it requires.
The “Hands on a Flatscreen TV,” isn’t well understood or envisioned. The Shabbos Guy doesn’t feel organically very funny.
In summary, the idea of testing friendships and seeing their bond evolve over time certainly has merit. The idea of a constant threat of being evicted also nicely works to create tension.
However, the success of the series will rely on how much the audience emotionally identifies with the characters and the strength of the comedic
situations.