Talk:List of British sitcoms turned into films

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
List This article has been rated as List-Class on the quality scale. Unknown This article has not been rated on the importance assessment scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.

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)

[edit] 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)