I found both sitcoms to follow the 3-act structure and using the commercial breaks as a skeleton. In both pieces, the characters knew what their goal of the episode would be by the 5 and 7 minute marks ("Rock" was a bit longer than "AD"). By the first commercial break, Liz Lemon knew she had to find a way to incorporate the GE ad into her show without sacrificing the integrity of it (Try new Diet Snapple! It tastes just like regular Snapple), and Michael Bluth realized that he needed to lighten up on George Michael and not teach him lessons like his father did.
"30 Rock" defined its setup with the 2.30 minute cold opening featuring self-contained jokes, but also hinting at the conflict of the episode.
In "AD," the complication of the plot arrives when Michael, wanting to let George Michael be free a bit, finds out he is trying to score pot and disapproves. Michael then plots to "teach him a lesson." In "30 Rock," the complication comes around the same time, the latter part of the second act, when Liz learns from Jonathan that Jack simply cannot act (he needed 142 takes and a 5-day shoot for a taped commercial).
The suspense and surprise of both episodes arrived in the mid-third acts, about the time of the climax. Liz is forced to get Jack to act somehow, yet we still doubt that he can pull it off with the last minute script changes. Michael plans an elaborate fake arrest involving stripper cops that goes very wrong. Both of these events directly confront the objectives of the protagonist. Liz must give Jack a "pump-up" speech or risk the integrity of her show, and Michael and struggles to grasp how much freedom to give George Michael and how much to still father him.
Lastly, one thing I noticed about both shows, but especially about "AD," was the series of conflicts involving other characters. In "30 Rock," Jenna and Tracy have minor conflicts and objectives that fill out the episode but don't directly play with the main goal of the episode. In "AD," nearly all the characters (at least 6 of them) have minor arcs in the episode, complete with goals and objectives. A very ensemble piece. These objectives, though, (especially of the main character's) reach relatively high stakes for comedy. Michael is sensitive about his parenting, as we know he has been since his wife died, and Liz struggles to maintain control of her show, while not being too controlling.
the following is NOT POSSIBLE. tell me why..
ReplyDeleteThe suspense and surprise of both episodes arrived in the mid-third acts, about the time of the climax.
But it contains more than a germ of truth...but LOOK AGAIN...this is where Miller's shallowness hurts students like you...dagnabit.
look again. also, read McKee: character (gap) etc....
ask me for exact pages.
yes yes yes: you get the main idea: now go to:
These objectives, though, (especially of the main character's) reach relatively high stakes for comedy. Michael is sensitive about his parenting, as we know he has been since his wife died, and Liz struggles to maintain control of her show, while not being too controlling.
Look again: what do you mean by "sensitive" "Parenting" (oh so NOT concrete, specific and definite)????? How has he expressed his sensitivity? and what does it have to do with his being sexually attracted to...etc. etc. etc. is this not part of the charm of the overall show?
what do you mean by"
"STRUGGLES" (good choice of V E R B by the way)...???? to maintain control ????????
specfically?
not too controlling? not unfeminine? not????? LOOK TO WHAT SHE DOES and says...and put it into an arc of revelation and pushing PLOT FORWARD. much like angels dancing on head of a pin...exactly how many will fit? heheh
good jobl TJ
gs