Talk:List of films based on British sitcoms

Untitled

I have included Hitchhikers and League of Gentlemen as both these shows are classified as sitcoms by the BBC, and they meet the definition for Sitcom on Wiki.--RMHED 16:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The definition of Sitcom you link to includes: "Sitcoms usually consist of recurring characters in a common environment such as a home or workplace." Is this the definition that Hitchhikers is meeting?

Duggy 1138 22:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

But surely Hitchhikers isn't a sitcom turned into a film, it's a book / radio show turned into both a sitcom and a film? Mrjeff 11:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

True enough, but it is still a British sitcom no matter it's original format--RMHED 16:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but it's not a sitcom turned into a film - the film was inspired by the novel, not the TV series. It's a book/radio show turned into a sitcom, and a book/radio show turned into a film, but not a sitcom turned into a film. 87.102.38.149 15:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

That's true, although it's still worthy of having a place here, as it recognises the fact that there was a sitcom and a later film adaptation. Certainly, the film makes a number of references to the television series in places - it could be argued that the film adaptation was aware of the TV adaptation. Bob talk 21:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

So now it's not "List of British sitcoms turned into films" but rather "List of British sitcoms with films made afterward" better change the page title then. No, wait "List of British films 'aware' of previous sitcoms".

Duggy 1138 16:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The original radio series was a sitcom, a sitcom doesn't have to be on television. And the book was based on the radio series meaning the book was based on a sitcom.81.153.116.17 16:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Then you'd better change the introductionary line: "This is a list of British television sitcoms that have been turned into films."

Duggy 1138 19:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Undefined nature

I'm not sure I agree about "undefined nature" - basically, this page is a list of every British situation comedy that has also been adapted as a film, either during its run or afterwards. I have reverted your edits, partly because the formatting was incorrect, and partly because they are somewhat confusing. For example, Dad's Army can also be seen as a remake of the first few series as well. It would be better to note these in an individual column, rather than create a separate section for one programme. I'd also be interested to know what you mean by "This page is a disaster waiting to happen." Bob talk 10:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It's undefined because "television sitcom" has been used to mean "comedy radio series which isn't a sitcom" and because "turned into a film" has been used to mean "comes from a source also made into a film", "had a film version released" and "was later remade." With that level of ignoring the definition, you'll end up with any old thing being added to the page. Look at Mr Bean. A series of sketches is being called a sitcom on this page.

Confusing Formatting? Separating different types of series-to-film conversions makes it quick and easy to group types of film. Also makes it easy if this page gets too big in the future to separate off into "List of British Sitcoms remade as films" and "List of British Sitcoms that also became films." As for Dad's Army, I'm unfamiliar with the film, so left it in the work category. I knew that that would happen with at least one series/film, but knew that with Wiki that could be easily corrected by other users - that's the point. If part of something is a remake, than the whole thing is a remake, not part of the original series. It is just common sense. The extra column is just annoying and unhelpful.

By disaster waiting to happen, I mean a page that becomes an uncontrolled dumping ground for things similar to the topic, but do not actually belong there. I've run into these pages before, even nominating one for deletion after it bacame clear it was never going to be possible to clean up. I'm sure you've seen them, too. The way to stop these things happening is to jump on things that don't fit the definition exactly or to peel off all the similar things (As I did and you keep reverting) so the things added to the page are precise and specially placed. Without these things happening the page will be better off as a category rather than a defined page.

Duggy 1138 16:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, removing the separate column is fair enough - I wasn't very happy with it either. The problem is that most films are based on the television series, and then have lots of additions, which are difficult to classify. For example Dad's Army is a remake of some of the plot lines of episode one, and then goes off in a different direction. Personally, I prefer the article just as an alphabetical list, as it is now, to avoid the potential of original research that classifying it in sections creates. I don't agree that it should be a category, though, as this page is useful in comparing the two products, which is helpful when the film is given a different title. Perhaps the page should be renamed to something like "List of films based on British television sitcoms". We've already been careful not to include sketch shows, i.e. And Now For Something Completely Different was removed because it is a sketch show rather than a sitcom. I guess the ideal source for definitions is the BBC Guide to Comedy, which classes Mr. Bean as a sitcom, which it indeed is in quite a few episodes (i.e in Room 472, etc). Bob talk 18:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

A movie that remakes an episode and goes of off in a different direction is a remake, not a continuation. Original research only comes into play when there is some debate. Which is already a danger - Bottom & Guesthouse Paradiso. While there is ample evidence that GP continues Bottom, it isn't official, if you know what I mean. So it's a trap that already exists.

I feel the separation allows the reader to better compare the two types of show to film conversions, making the page more than just a list. Now, a list is useful, but we really want to do better than a list, don't we?

I don't think that a company's marketing division should be considered "ideal source for definitions". There are definitions of Sitcom, including the wiki link on this page. An irregularly programmed show, 3 out of 13 of which are single stories and not a set of sketches is not a sitcom. The three single story episodes aren't really sitcoms, either, rather sketches linked in a common setting. A sitcom is a situation: a group who are together for some reason in a stable environment in a continuing situation. Then episodic stories are placed into this set up. This doesn't apply to Mr Bean. This doesn't apply to Hitchhikers, either, which is a serial not a sitcom.

Duggy 1138 12:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Sitcoms can have serial formats! Whhops Apocalype is also a serial. Duggy is being too pedantic here.Daisyabigael 08:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to 9 months ago! Serialisation exists within the sitcom, certainly, especially the modern sitcom. Friends is the best example, but even early sitcoms did sometimes have some plot progression.

However, you know as well as I do that you are being the pedant here.

I said: "a stable environment in a continuing situation. Then episodic stories are placed into this set up. .... This doesn't apply to Hitchhikers, either, which is a serial not a sitcom." The situation changes from episode to episode of HHGTTG, following on from the previous ep. Arthur and Ford are found on the Vorlon spaceship, Arthur and Ford meet Zaphod & Trillion, Everyone is on Mag, the computer explodes, the ship is about to sun-dive. There is no ongoing situation and no resolution to an idvidual story until the resolution to the series.

And honestly, why is trying to stick to a strict definition a bad thing anyway. If you use the term sit-com to mean almost any half hour comedy the term loses all meaning. Then why have the term in the first place? BBC marketing may use the term to describe Mr Bean, but anyone who has seen the first couple of episodes knows that it is a sketch comedy.

Duggy 1138 06:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Definition of Sitcom.

Are we going to use the actual definition of a sitcom or just use "anything on TV that is funny" Duggy 1138 22:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies on external references rather than your own interpretation, and if sources such as the BBC Guide to Comedy [1] class it as a sitcom, then it's a sitcom. If you're that bothered about the exact label of this article, why don't you rename the article to "List of films based on British television comedies"? Bob talk 07:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Because the BBC is an all knowing God that never gets anything wrong? How can Mr Bean be a sitcom when it isn't even a series, but rather group of specials?

Duggy 1138 23:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Mr.Bean is classed as a sitcom pretty much everywhere, a sitcom does not have to be a series. --RMHED 22:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

So, we're defining it as anything funny on TV? OK. Let's put in Monty Python, etc.

Duggy 1138 00:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Come on now, Monty Python was definitely a sketch show, and anyway none of the Monty Python films were based on the TV series, except in the loosest possible sense.--RMHED 23:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Early Mr Bean is definitely a sketch show. And Now For Something Completely Different was based on the series. And I'm still yet to find a definition of Sitcom that doesn't explicitly state that they are a series, or implicitly indicating by only talking about them in terms of being a series (such as wikipedia's own page.) Duggy 1138 03:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Daisyabigael 08:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hancock

Sorry, yourself Duggy. Hancock's Half Hour (and Hancock) ran on TV for 5 years. It did start as a radio-com but then so did many other classic TV sitcoms. The TV series continued and extended the radio series rather than just being a remake like HGTTG.

I thought the main objection to incliusion her would be a lack of proper continuity between the series and the film. However, unlike almost all other sitcoms, the biographical details of the character - his work, his hobbies, his basic situation - seemed to change on a weekly basis. One weekm he was unemployed the next a radio actor. There is no doubt the Hancock in The Rebel is the same character as created by Galton, Simpson and Tony himself in both the radio and TV series —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daisyabigael (talk • contribs) 15:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I am well aware that HHH was on TV as well, but it started on radio and the film is an adaptation of a radio series episode. As such, and much like HHGTTG (see above discussion) is not included here.

Duggy 1138 05:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Nonsence. The character of Hancock developed during the TV series - the Hancock of the Rebel is quite clearly the Hancock of the later TV series. Whether the material is based on a radio episode or not - it would not have been the way it is without the development of those final BBC episodes. Would the film ever have been made if it had not become a very popular TV show first?

Daisyabigael 08:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The movie is a remake of an episode of the series, just like the HHGTTG movie is a remake of that radio series.

Thus they appear on the "List of films based on radio series" and shouldn't appear on this one.

And there's no need to make this personal by accusing me of "ordaining" things.

Duggy 1138 21:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Which episode is it a remake of? The situation here is entirely different with Hithikers - I agree with you on that one BTW. Hancock's HH on TV and Hancock progresses beyond the radio series - original episodes and an entirely different flavour towards the end. The Rebel is informed by this. The TV Hancock is NOT a "remake" of the radio show - as Hitchhikers is- it is a progression. If Rebel is based on a radio episode then it is a significant reworking in line with the character development seen in the final series on TV.

As for being personal; sorry if I seemed a bit brusque - I have edited out the comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daisyabigael (talk • contribs) 23:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The movie is based on and builds on the TV series. The TV series is based on and builds on the radio series. Hense, the root of the movie is the radio series, especially the episode of the radio series the movie id based on.

Hitchhikers is started as a radio series and became a book and a TV series. Each of those versions informed the movie. However, since the root was the radio play, HHGTTG does not appear here, but rather appears on the List of films based on radio series page. Otherwise it would appear there, here, and on a books-to-movie list.

Similar things happen in the movie-from-comics pages. Some things may have been more popular in comic books, but first appeared on radio or in books or even comic strips. Covering all the steps in between becomes original research. Casino Royale was a novel that became an episode of a TV show that became two movies. The latest Casino Royale is a movie based on the novel nothing else.

Hancock's Half Hour started on radio. It grew and changed over time. The TV series grew and changed. The movie itself made changes from the series. The most workable solution is to say that Rebel was based on the series. Unless you can site a source that says otherwise.

Duggy 1138 06:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hancock's Half Hour was a popular TV sitcom and the film was made during its run - not during the run of the radio series. It reflects the style of the TV show. The show is listed everywhere as a TV sitcom and that it was an extension of - not a remake - of a radio programme is not relevant.

Your parallel with Casino Royale is spurious. Yes it is another version of the book. Here we have a film version of a radio/tv sitcom - currently at the time of making only being produced on TV. You are splitting hairs.

You previously asserted that it was based on a specific radio episode. I guess you need to reference that claim - here and on the "List of films based on radio series" or else remove it. If it were based on a specific radio episode that would only strengthen your argument - not prove it.

Can we leave this for some other people to decide now? What do other heads think?

I will revert you change and put Hancock back - leave it to see if anyone else wants it changed. Bottom line: it was a TV sitcom - it was made into a film. QED.Daisyabigael 08:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You keep saying things over and over that I've acknowledged and ignoring my points.

Since radio series is the original source for the TV series it is also the original source for the film. To say otherwise is Original Research unless you have a reliable source saying otherwise.

And Casino Royale is a great example. It is a Bond film based on a specific book, but adapted to make the character and the film more like the movies that proceeded it. But it was based on the book.

Duggy 1138 22:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This is getting boring now. If anybody else cares then let them get on with it. One last time - the film is as much a continuation of the TV show as the radio show - I offered a compromise but that seems to be unaccepatble. So be it.Daisyabigael 23:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure that the film does all you say... however, I only have your word for it. That's why I keep asking you to provide a reference for all this. That's how wikipedia works.

Duggy 1138 02:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

notes

I have added a note appending to Hancock's Half Hour to explain that the film has its origins in both the TV and Radio sitcoms...

I'm hoping that using notes on the page might be a way of avoiding edit wars and clearing up potential areas of confusion and disagreement.

I suggest a note for Whoops Apocalypse to show that it had an unusual serial format. Hitchhikers might be reinstated with a note to show that it was a remake of the radio series and LOG with a note to show that it may or may not be a recognised sitcom at all.

I offer this in a spirit of compromise - not least to Duggy! - and hope it might work. Obviously we don't want the page bogged down in footnotes - and I'm not entirely surew the way I've done it is technically the best - but it might be a way forward?Daisyabigael 14:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Duggy has seen fit to ignore my compromise and revert again - so I'll leave to others to decide. I think most people would associate The Rebel with the TV version of Hancock's Half Hour. I happen to think a list of films based on British sitcoms is completely pointless if it misses this one out because one person has a bee-in-their bonnet about the origins of the show on radio.Daisyabigael 23:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't invent the rules. I hate many of them. But rules are rules. WP:OR is a rule.

This isn't a personal thing. I've suggested compromises. Just because you don't like them and prefer your own, doesn't make yours right. I've been in the position you have before... to the point where the entire section we were diagreeing over was removed from the article in question.

Frankly, if you find this list pointless, it's better to call for it to be deleted rather than vandalise it.

As for the "one person with a bee in their bonnet", well, that's just how you see it. I see you as one person with a bee in their bonnett about changing the nature of the page to fit your idea of what it should be. The fact that no one else has participated does mean that there isn't others who agree with one or both of us, they just aren't participating... which makes consensus difficult.

Duggy 1138 02:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Mr Bean, Sitcom?

One of the pages that was referenced defines it as: "a genre of comedy performance in which recurring characters take part in humorous story lines centred on a common environment, such as a family home or workplace." There is basically one recurring character (not characters) and no common environment. It also says "The definition of a sitcom leaves quite a lot to open to individual interpretation... We've had to use our own judgement in some cases to decide whether a programme which displays only some of the attributes of a sitcom should appear on this website or not. In most cases we've given the programme the benefit of the doubt." Which means its use as a reference is dodgy as best. Wikipedia says "Sitcoms usually consist of recurring characters in a common environment such as a home or workplace, and usually include laughtrack." OK, it has a laugh track, but that's hardly a defining feature. "has a storyline plot and is more or less comedic drama" for the most part Mr Bean doesn't. The later ones had a little more storyline (which is when I stopped enjoying them) and I'm sure the movies do (But I've avoided them). The early ones especially, don't have a storyline, but are rather a series of sketches. "The essence of the current, modern situation comedy on television is that the characters remain in the same situation from episode to episode." Nope. "The term was adopted to distinguish the sitcom from other comedy formats: sketch comedy, which generally featured new characters and situations each outing, or the humorous monologue or dialogue, which did not feature characters." Although Bean himself does reoccur in the sketches, that's pretty common these days. That he is the only character is a little out of the ordinary, but hardly prohibitive. Anyway, it's one element missing from it being a sketch comedy, whereas many are missing from it being a sitcom. Marketing Dictionary: sitcom [2] "television program focusing on the humorous side of real-life situations. Sitcoms are often centered on a family or pseudo-family situation. ... Typically, the sitcom is a 30-minute program, where the situation is presented in the first 10 minutes, developed in the next 10 minutes, and then resolved in the last 10 minutes." Once again, Bean doesn't fit. Britannica Concise Encyclopedia: situation comedy (above link) "television comedy series that involves a continuing cast of characters in a succession of episodes. Often the characters are markedly different types thrown together by circumstance and occupying a shared environment such as an apartment building or workplace. Typically half an hour in length ... they are marked by verbal sparring and rapidly resolved conflicts." No continuing cast (except Bean, basically), no shared environment, no verbal sparing or conflict resolution. Even the Mr Bean article on Wikipedia classifies it as "physical comedy/sketch comedy" not "situation comedy" Why, exactly is Mr Bean called a Sitcom here? Duggy 1138 (talk) 04:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I also have problems with Mr Bean as a classic sitcom - but maybe that's because the definition is too narrow or we need to have more catagories of TV comedy - Bean doesn't exactly fit into any of them. In some people's opinions it is more of a sitcom than anything else - it is certainly a weird sitcom. But so, in my opinion, is League of Gentlemen.

Early episodes of L of G are also entirely sketch shows - but it sort of developed into a sitcom (sort of). I guess if later Bean episodes were more sitcom-like then that is progress towards being a sitcom.

Drawing absolutes from the above definitions is a little hard - they use words like typically and generally. So Bean isn't typical or a general example - that doesn't exclude it.

The Marketing Dictionary's "real-life situations" would exclude any SF or fantasy based show as being a sitcom. Mr Bean's world is more the real one than Hitchiker's Guide - and nobody would say HGTTG wasn't a sitcom.

The situation seems to be Mr Bean's inability to adapt to real life and causing mayhem in general. The fact that he is rarely seen in one recurring place is unusual for sitcoms but not unknown - see A Sharp Intake of Breath for example (which also only had one recurring character although there were a few recurring cast members in similar roles).

Hancock's Half Hour is also a curious definition busting example - situations, settings and even relationships shifted and changed accoring to that week's script. Although there were central more-often-than-not constants that everybody remembers, it was not as concrete-universed and real-world / relationship-based as say Steptoe and Son.

What does everybody think/feel on this issue?Daisyabigael (talk) 12:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)