Why even bother talking about my “TV predictions” over the past seven years?
For one, I can’t resist channeling my Nikki Finke, and screaming “TOLDJA!” over and over again.
More importantly though, looking back, I’m actually surprised at the amount of things I predicted in the first place.
And what better way to celebrate seven years than by tooting one’s horn?

Let’s start with hipsterdom: the cool things I thought were cool before everyone else.

Numero uno has got to be, hands down, Breaking Bad. Remember: that show was so underrated, I thought it would never win an Emmy. Thankfully, everyone came to their senses before the series finale. Praising Breaking Bad has since become a banality.

There’s another show, and tad more recent in the US TV-verse: Black Mirror. Or as I called it: the best UK show no one knows about.
Also worth noting on the list: The Shadow Line, Dancing on the Edge, Inside Men, Cuckoo, Mr. Selfridge, and The Hour.

Say it with me: TOLDJA (that these were great shows)!

I know. Those weren’t really TV industry predictions. (I did mention being a hipster though.)

How about this…

Six years before ClickHole happened, I did this amazing list of five games Hollywood should make into movies. If only I had also written for Buzzfeed, I would be able to call myself a journalist!
The aforementioned comedic clickbait list was in response to a previous post I did about Hollywood’s trivial pursuit of games. (Get it?) Thankfully, we didn’t get many of these adaptations on the screen. Although we are getting Pixels.

Moving on to actual TV industry predictions.

Let’s address the big elephanTOLDJA in the room with a post from early 2011—

Is Netflix’s original programming strategy a game-changer?

Spoiler alert (if you haven’t read the original post): yes.

The House of Cards two-season deal had just been announced, so I wrote this think-piece about the future of television. Over four years later, people are just starting to realize this apparently. Yet we’ve already seen it’s already the case: Netflix has changed the game. Good thing I bought some Netflix shares when they were under $85.

And speaking of the future of television—
On the cusp of the 24 and Lost series finales (over five years ago!), I published an extensive article entitled “Ding Dong, Appointment TV is Dead”.
As the name doesn’t imply but outright states, I dig deep into the rise and fall of so-called “appointment TV”—now extinct.
And I know what you’re going to say, which is why way back when I also mentioned the current advent of “Event TV”. Oh, and “social television”. Because Twitter.

Which brings us to two little articles from 2008…
Nine ideas to save television - Part One and Part Two.

As of June 2015, I’m 9 for 9 on applied and successful ideas. Why am I still not CEO of ViaDisneyBCVersal? Maybe I should have gotten an MBA in horribleness.

Several of my nine ideas have since become ubiquitous:
- (1) Shows all year long
– (2) VOD
– (3) Fewer ads
– (5) Cost efficiency
– (6) Webisodes
– (9) Taking chances

The other three are a bit more recent “trends” (for better or for worse):
- (4) Shorter seasons
Pretty self-explanatory now, but seven years ago, it was a head-scratching thought for a lot of people. I even called it, yes, a game-changer.
- (7) Re-develop ideas and pilots
Look at the sea of reboots/makes/quels we’re in. It’s all about IPs now. I also suggested networks should redevelop/tweak their DOA pilots. Almost a no-brainer strategy nowadays.
- (8) Big names for big shows
This one is now an entrenched problem, and controversial for a lot of up-and-coming writers. It’s now harder than ever to transition from the lower echelons to EP-level. All thanks to networks only wanting “seasoned showrunners” for their writing rooms. And that’s about 20 people in this town.

So. That’s that.
Yes, I just spent an entire post patting myself on the back. It’s just another way of celebrating the evolution of TV over the past seven years.

I’ll be sure to make a ton of other predictions. I seem to always be right. I also need an encyclopedia to keep track of every good TV show out there.

Too much content. The ultimate first-world problem.

Profiles of Television is an ongoing interview series showcasing the variety of professionals in the TV industry, from writers and producers, to those in development, representation, and post-production. These are the many talents involved in television, and the personal journeys behind them.

Our guest today is Matt Thilenius. A great fan of television and the agency life, Matt has quickly risen the ranks of CAA. Over the past year, he has gone from intern and mailroom floater to now being a TV Literary assistant.

The Medium

First things first: why the television calling?
I love the storytelling of it. As a kid, I’ve always been fascinated with cartoons. I used to watch a lot of that kind of TV—I still do on occasion. I now find shows more interesting to watch. How you can tell a story through many episodes. In a movie you only have the span of two hours. In TV, you have a season, or multiple ones, where you can keep going at it, adding to it, developing characters and stories, building the plot and conflict. Television has always had a huge impact on our culture. Back in the day, it was mostly used to share news and important parts of our society. It’s also a fun source of entertainment. It’s evolved so much over the decades, there’s really a lot you can do with it. From the small screen to all the new platforms. I’ll be interested to see where it’s going to evolve. Whether it’s still television of something else. It’s a fun business to be in.

Three words to describe what your work is.
We represent writers. Our client will have an idea, a script, and we’ll make a TV show—or at least try to. We’ll talk to different studios, networks, to see who’s interested. We’ll strategize, brainstorm, see if it’s the type of material they’re looking for. Maybe it’s cable rather than broadcast. Which one are we bringing it to? Is it more premium, something along the lines of AMC/FX rather than Nickelodeon or WGN. Maybe it’s really out there, and we can try to work with the newer platforms. Then there’s the pitching part of it. We’ll call executives, saying: “we’ve got this new script we think you’ll like”. If they like it, they’ll take meetings with the writer and see where it goes. They can pass on it, or take it a step further. That’s the beginning stages of it. A production company may also want to option it for a specific period of time, see if they can bring it to a studio or network themselves.

Three words to describe how you work.
Obsession. There’s always a bit of craziness. Trying to watch all the shows, keeping up on the news, what’s happening in TV, and also MP. Taking it all in, absorbing it all. Literally a lifestyle.
Energetic. You definitely have to be good, working hard obviously. I think it’s also a lot of what you do outside of work. Yes, you have a day job, building relationships is important.
Networking. You have to constantly meet new people. When you’re on a desk, talking to other assistants, integrating with colleagues. It’s a good idea to get to know them outside the workplace. Whether that means lunch, dinner, or attending a networking event. You’re all in the same generation, moving up together. At some point, one will call you up, saying “I’ve got this person with a new spec, do you want to take a look at it?” Everyone is also taking different directions. Casting, producing, representing, directing, etc. That’s what’s cool about being in an agency. Not everyone there necessarily wants to be an agent.

—the television series that has influenced you the most:
Six Feet Under. It’s such a great show. I loved the characters. You feel like you’re on a journey with them. Each are very different, in their own ways. You can sort of relate to all of them. The ending was great, very satisfying.

—the one episode of television that defines you:
Probably the series finale of Six Feet Under. The show was so involved with life and death. Claire going to college—you could look back on those times. When you left your family, starting your own path in high-school or college. She leaves that part behind. I could relate that to my own experience in college, and moving out here. Starting a new journey.

—the television episode that impressed you the most:
I really liked Black Mirror. It was such a different show. There was this one episode, called “White Bear”, where the girl protagonist wakes up, not knowing where she is. There’s all these people outside, all after her or watching. It was intriguing. The ending was also kind of cool. In the end, they sort of brainwash her, and it’s revealed how everything is staged out. That show is so odd. It’s really something I hadn’t seen before.

—the show you wish was still on the air:
The Newsroom. I love the show. There was something about it that hooked me. It’s the characters, the relationships, the idea of running a newspaper. I have no clue how they do it, but being a part of that, seeing their lives—that was really cool, and, again, different. They covered so many things, events, such as wars or elections. They made it their own.

—the show you would never publicly admit to watching, except right now:
I’ll admit to anything I watch. [laughs] I do love Cops. I’ve watched that show for the past three or four years. It’s an amazing source of entertainment. Seeing people get arrested, hit by a Taser, the car chases-it’s all awesome.

—the show you wish you had worked on:
24. What made it so good was its storytelling aspect. You had the clock ticking, everything was condensed into 24 hours. It was trying to beat the clock in a new way. You knew that it would be resolved within those 24 episodes. Sometimes they would have in the first 16 episodes this event and then another twist would bring new stories for the next 8. It was very original.

The Journey

What has been, so far, your journey in the television industry?
I moved out here after graduation. I knew I wanted to work in TV in some kind of capacity, and also the agency route. I had done an internship at an agency in college, loved what I was doing there, the environment.
Luckily enough, I got an internship afterwards at CAA, in their TV lit department. Their internships are all project-based, so you’re actually working on different scripts, helping coordinators out. It’s not just getting coffee. It’s also a great company, great culture, the people there are really awesome. I knew that’s where I wanted to be. For a year after, I did the mailroom. You learn a lot about the operations. You’re constantly walking around, you learn about the different departments. Not just TV, but business, MP lit, MP talent. You get to really learn about CAA as a whole. It also allows you to meet so many people. Not just assistants, but building staff and so on.
I eventually floated for about six weeks. Essentially, that means you‘re covering a desk where the assistant is gone for a bit, filling in for the day. You’d get a different assignment every time. It’s great because you get a better understanding of what you want to do within the company. Maybe there’s a department you weren’t sure of, but now you really like because you covered it. It’s a great way to test things out.
After that, I interviewed for a desk in TV lit. I’ve been there for a few months now. You learn so much every day. Listening on the calls, learning how deals get negotiated, reading a lot of materials. It’s great.

Could you talk about the transition and differences from mailroom to TV Lit assistant?
Being an assistant is definitely different. That’s when the real work begins. [laughs] When you’re working for someone as an assistant, it’s now a different set of responsibilities. The mailroom is sort of your introduction to everything. Now you’ve defined a department. You’re working for an agent. You’re expected to know all the clients, read all the scripts, materials, watch all the shows. Your client is essentially your boss. It’s about doing whatever it is to support, whatever he or she may need.

What is your day-to-day like?
It’s essentially phones and emails. A lot of it is setting up meeting with clients, producers, whoever the buyers are. It’s also a lot of submissions, sending material to a producer. Let’s say your boss is on the phone with someone they want to send a script to, you’ll create a letter of submission, with a certain kind of format, then send it out.
Keeping track of information and money is also very important. My job is to make sure our checks are coming in, and our clients are getting paid. You may have a file on each client. What kind of projects they have active, where have they submitted, what dates are they travelling, etc. Depending on the desk you’re on, it may vary. You could be involved with department-level projects, such as preparing the upfront party, sending out the invites.
During staffing season, it’s really about submissions to networks. Development season is coming too, so we’ll see which of our clients have, or don’t have jobs. And get them all meetings.

What are your thoughts on the writer/agent relationship?
The writer should always be developing new material, things to sell in case other things don’t pan through. The client will then let us know what it is, what we think of it. The agent will read it. Eventually, the team will get together. Maybe there’s already too much of that material on the market. Maybe we can push it back on the back-burner for now, come back to it later. It’s a bunch of conversations between the agent and client. If the writer is already working, then it’s more about how they’re doing. The agent is always for feedback. Is the show going all right? Are there any issues with the writers’ room? Are you getting your money? [laughs] When they’re booked, they’re usually so busy they don’t call. Discussions are about things in development, not necessarily what they’re on.

What do you look for in scripts you read?
Personally, what I like in a script is something that’s easy to read. A story where I can follow easily what’s going on. High-concept science-fiction is great, but sometimes there are a lot of different elements you have to read again and again to figure all out. I enjoy good plot and a lot of conflict. When each scene has some conflict that contributes to the next scene. I like good characters, and dialogue when it feels natural. You should be able to paint a picture in your mind, and it makes sense.

What is the hardest thing about doing what you do?
The high volume. There’s nothing intrinsically hard about what I do. It’s emails and phones. The hard part of being on top of everything. Having an answer for anything that may come up. Being in the know, constantly up to date. That’s the tricky part.

What is the easiest thing about doing what you do?
The phone sheet? [laughs] What’s nice is that it’s a day job. You know what you’re getting into. Granted, each day is a bit different, but there is stability. You know what to expect. What the next day will be like.

Who do you look up to in the television industry?
I would say every studio head (Les Moonves, Richard Plepler, Alan Horn), anyone who’s basically running a business. I respect what they do. Professionally, I’m not sure I’d want to do that, but I’d love to end up at least on that level.

What is the ideal job you would like to ultimately have?
I’d like to be an agent at CAA and be involved with company-wide work. Be a part of the foundation. Explore different avenues for clients and business opportunities. TV is cool, but ultimately I’d also love to work with MP, talent, digital. It’s all interesting.

When people from outside the industry ask what you do, what do you tell them?
I tell them exactly what I do. They may not understand it though. [laughs] I tell them that I work as an assistant in TV at an agency. We represent creative people, and our job is to get them jobs. Our company is also involved in putting together different elements to creating a TV show.

What is your best professional advice to someone who wants to do what you do?
Watch a lot. Read a lot. Be curious. Be open-minded. You never stop learning. Know what is in the marketplace. What shows are on the air, who has them, what types they are. You may not be aware of what networks are specifically looking for, but knowing what they put out is important. You may not be expected to know everything, but you’re expected to have at the very least an interest in the industry. Have an understand of what a writer, a producer, or a network does. It’s really not rocket-science. There’s no craft you need to develop like a writer. It’s a corporate environment. Being interested is important.

What is your best personal advice to someone who wants to do what you do?
Budget your money well. You don’t make a lot of it. It’s easy to spend it all. In the first few months, you may not know what you’re doing.
Try to get out there as much as possible, especially if you’re just starting out. You can find a lot of meetup groups, networking things happening around. Explore. Things like JHRTS are great. You get to meet a ton of people there in many different companies. Going to those events is really important, and so is staying in touch-following up. You have to be a little proactive with it.
Get to know people, be curious—passionately so. Keep an open mind. Assume you don’t know everything. Someone is always going to know more than you, and that’s okay.

What is your next step?
I’m going to be doing this for a least another few years. Even if I were to leave, I’d still want to work in representation. At this point, my interest still lies with CAA. I may try to go to a different department, but as of right now, I love where I’m at. I’ll just keep grinding, see where things are a year from now.

Any last words?
Have fun with it. Everyone here is in the industry because they want to be in it. You like entertainment, you like storytelling. If an opportunity opens up, don’t pass on it because you don’t know what it is. It could lead to something you might have never thought of before. Meet everyone. Even if that person is a financier of some random company. You never know. The first step is getting your foot in the door, but once you’re past it, it’s a lot easier to move around.

Many thanks to Matt Thilenius for this insightful interview!
You can connect with him on LinkedIn.

Some shows get years of success, while others barely get a few episodes to prove their worth.
Time to take a look at these oft-forgotten series and their single season. This is One and Gone.

On today’s program: FOX’s Reunion.

Presenting Reunion


What was it about?

Breakfast Club meets 24, or The Big Chill meets Lost.
Each episode of Reunion follows one year in the lives of six BFFs, starting with their high-school graduation in 1986 and ending in 2006 1998 (following the cancellation of the show after only 13 out of 22 potential episodes).
The show also features the running (main) plotline in the present (2006) of a detective investigating the brutal murder of one of the six friends the night of their 20-year reunion.
It’s high-concept, it’s very soapy, and it’s fun to watch the same actors play the same characters in their 20s, 30s and 40s–all within the same season. Should have been on The WB instead of FOX.

When was this even on the air?

Fall of 2005 on FOX. On Thursday nights at 9 (versus The Apprentice and CSI). Ouch. Talk about a competitive timeslot.

How many episodes?

13 episodes produced (out of a planned 22). 9 made it to air with the last 4 available online.

Stars & Stripes

Created by Jon Harmon Feldman and Sara Goodman, with the former serving as showrunner.

Regular cast:

  • Dave Annable (Aaron Lewis) as the lovesick puppy turned Internet entrepreneur
  • Alexa Davalos (Samantha Carlton) as the triangle love interest turned corpse
  • Will Estes (Will Malloy) as the BFF turned priest
  • Sean Faris (Craig Brewster) as the privileged asshole turned paraplegic
  • Chyler Leigh (Carla Noll) as the innocent girl turned femme fatale
  • Amanda Righetti (Jenna Moretti) as the wannabe actress turned
  • Mathew St. Patrick (Kenneth Marjorino) as the cop with a vengeance

Notable guest-stars:

  • Gregory Harrison as the privileged asshole’s asshole dad
  • George Newbern as the obligatory clichéd abusive husband
  • Geoff Stults as the handsome stranger struck with cancer
[/list] ReunionCast01


I’m a big fan of dramas that play with storytelling structures, especially when it involves time (see 24 or Lost), so Reunion theoretically fits right into my playground.
But was any of it actually good? Let’s take a look.

The Ugly

This shot.
Reunion 1x05 1990_SingleShot

Present day
Before we get to the real novelty of the series, let’s take a look at the continuing narrative/arc of the season, which is entirely set in the present. To emphasize with the sunny past (I guess), we end up with some weird hyper-stylized present where everybody is a dead-eyed zombie living in a grey film-noir-esque world. Or something. (See the screenshots coming up)
This is a whodunit-style mystery about one of the six having been killed. Yet, halfway through the season, the present storyline starts to focus entirely on two characters’ involvement with the murder. In other words, the show stops featuring (and caring) about three of the five remaining friends still alive in the present.
Have I lost you already?
Now, what I’m describing already sounds like a terrible story, but the biggest disappointment isn’t that we’re seeing too much of the present; it’s that we’re actually seeing too little of it. The ratio of a given episode is about 80/20 in favor of the flashbacks, with the flashbacks completely overtaking the present in latter episodes. Why? My guess is that the last 2–3 episode of a theoretical full season would have prominently featured the events leading up to the murder (i.e. present-adjacent stories). Therefore, no need to talk about it before then.
Either that, or they realized how shitty the makeup looked.

Soap clichés
I know Reunion is a soap, but there were too many crappy twists for my liking.
And you get a pregnancy! And you get a wedding! And you get a surprise bastard!

The Bad

Enough shown.

Meta jokes
Examples include:

To quote the EW review of the time:

Even the ‘80s scenes are weak because the writers are so taken with the setting, they can’t stop reminding us. Sloppily. One character calls Wham! ”the next Beatles”; another dances to ”Material Girl.” The gang dons double-layered polos, Frankie Goes to Hollywood-style T-shirts, and menswear-for-girls. In short, we’re never looking at ’86, or ’87, but an ‘80s-world amalgam — and apparently anything that happened in that decade is game, even if it’s off by nearly 10 years.

Fortunately, self-referential humor isn’t the main point of the show. And past the 80s (i.e. the first couple of episodes), we don’t have to suffer through a lot of those inane references.

Some dialogue
Especially early on in the show, there’s quite a lot of bad lines (expositionary or other).
Here’s a frightful example from the pilot, said to the triangle love interest by her secret lover:

If Halley’s Comet’s coming back early for anyone, I think it’d be for you. <3


The characters
Less archetypes and more stereotypes.
They get fleshed out over the course of the half-season, but we don’t have the real satisfaction of seeing their complete evolution from walking clichés in the pilot (80s), to their more devilish counterpart in the present. Had the show gone on for a full season, I would assume this frustrating contrast would have been less jarring.

The Good

The music
Say what you will about the meta “time winks”, but I really enjoyed the music choices (at least past the pilot). Maybe it’s because I already enjoy the songs picked, but they ended up actually being relevant to the episodes’ content and featured scenes.

The actors
Again, despite the crappy makeup, you can’t fault the actors for doing their best and making some barf-worthy scenes just be cringe-worthy.
Special kudos to Will Estes, Dave Annable and Chyler Leigh for committing to some of these crazy storylines.

Time management
Apart from the present, the way Reunion handled the majority of each episode (i.e. flashbacks) was, in my opinion, a good use of storytelling.
Most episodes concentrated on a very particular moment within the year, and showcased through that lens the various events in the friends’ lives. Only in a couple of instances did they actually go through an entire year.
Either way, the “moments” they showed were the most relevant and illustrative of where the story was (as opposed to historical events). The writers chose to focus on the important events in the lives of their characters, regardless of when during the year they were taking place. This is in opposition to what they could have done: showcase historical moments within these years to cheaply entice nostalgia or emotions out of us. A pitfall that was avoided.

The Great

This double popped-up collar
Reunion 1x01 1986.avi_snapshot_17.18_[2013.09.07_13.25.39]

Bottom Line

Pilot to finale: Evolution of a single season

Reunion started bad. Really. The pilot of the show probably has the most hackneyed soapy storylines you’ll ever see. But the cool concept made me stay past it.
The show was at its height of ridiculousness when, within the same episode, the 30-something actors were playing both teenagers, and grayed-out 40-year-old equivalents. As I said, the makeup is really distracting. The more egregious issues however, were the constant callbacks and “look at me” nostalgic moments of the pilot.
Cut to thirteen episodes later, where the majority of these issues are mostly fixed. Once you get into the 90s, there are only a few minor nostalgic references, and the wardrobe doesn’t look that bad. You’ve gotten used to the soap storylines, most of them having actually become relevant to the ongoing plot. The present, however, is still a major issue (see above). Still, an overall positive evolution for only 13 episodes.

Watch or let it die?

Eh. It’s hard to give it a thumbs up when there are a lot of loose ends by the end of the show. You definitely won’t get enough of a complete picture to be satisfied.
The concept is executed well enough for a night-time soap (past the first two episodes), but the murder mystery is dragged on far too long. Worst part is the lack of any conclusion or real payoff of any kind.
The showrunner himself has confirmed that the murderer’s identity and motive (which you can find online, since they weren’t revealed in the show itself) can barely make sense for “us”, given the lack of information from years 1999 to 2006. Key events are completely unknown to the viewers, which makes the entire present storyline irrelevant.
A complete 22-episode season would have been worth the time investment, but as it stands now, the unfinished Reunion will live on as a haphazard foggy memory of what could have been.
Kind of like high-school.
Get it?

Final rating

On a scale of 1986 to 2014., I’ll give Reunion a solid 1989 B.C. with an unexpected pregnancy.

A key part of writing for television is watching television. And learning from it.
Screenwriting lessons from tackles series past and present, analyzing them through the prism of screenwriting.

Today, we take a look at one of the greatest British sitcom, Coupling.
You might know the series from its infamously aborted American adaptation, but just like pretty much anything, the original by Steven Moffat is vastly superior to its remake.
Though similar to Friends, the show ends up being quite different from it, both in its length (four seasons of six 30-minute episodes), and subject matter (sex is omnipresent for one).

Lesson 1: Context is key

Coupling is built around the relationship of six friends, but more than that, the peripeteia stem from their adventures outside the group.
Some jokes on the show might seem easy, or downright idiotic, but the truth is there are “no jokes per se” as Steven Moffat puts it. The humour comes from the context.
This ties back to the true essence of sitcom, or rather situation comedy.
Most of the memorable scenes of Coupling are exactly what makes the genre so appealing: comedy through situation, double-entendres, and other qui pro quo (not to be confused with quid pro quo). There are no punchlines or zingers on the show, it’s all about what the audience knows vs. the characters. This allows you, the writer, to play with two key aspects of TV series: character points of view and audience expectations.
Qui pro quo are classic and traditional, but they works extremely well when done right.

Lesson 2: “Traditional” format doesn’t necessarily mean “traditional” content

Bold and ballsy are not incompatible with the classic multi-camera format. Sometimes, you shouldn’t be afraid of avoiding the cookie-cutter and go where no show has gone before.
Multi-camera might seem at first constrictive but it might actually end up being the complete opposite. Moffat understood perfectly that the format was going to have to evolve, and he used this as an advantage.
Coupling thrived with its innovative use of storytelling. Rarely (if ever) has a sitcom so successfully utilized such a wide variety of non-linear techniques.
The main episodes that spring to mind are The Girl with Two Breasts, Split , The End of the Line, and Nine and a Half Minutes.
Don’t get fooled by the titles.
The Girl with Two Breasts played with the qui pro quo to a new extreme by introducing a foreign language. Almost half of the episode was in Hebrew, with most notably a crucial exchange between an Israeli woman and one of the main characters. The tour de force employed in the series was to show the same exact scene once more, only this time with the Israeli woman speaking in English and the other character in gibberish (ergo from her point of view).
Though the idea of showing back-to-back the same scene may seem almost ridiculous, the gutsy (and well executed) move actually paid off and proved extremely popular.
From that moment on, each season had at least one “epic” episode, as Moffat called them.
The second in the list is Split. As the name implies, it used throughout the entire episode a continuous split-screen (to showcase the split between the two main characters).
As always, the episode was filmed in front of a live audience, which means that, thanks to the multi-camera format, they had to shoot the two sides simultaneously on two different sets. Hilarity ensues.
Once again, this is a truly awesome use of what has since become more of a gimmick (I’m looking at you 24).
The End of the Line and Nine and a Half Minutes use the perspectives of different characters by showing different angles and POVs. What is great is how the various scenes intersect with one another, providing each time additional information regarding what came before (or will come after).

Lesson 3: Don’t forget continuity

Sitcom and serialized storytelling might seem antinomic, but in truth, even the most rudimentary comedy will have some form of continuity: relationships.
If anything, television is the land of characters, and especially in sitcoms you need to embrace that.
Somewhat like Arrested Development (though less pronounced), Coupling had numerous references to past episodes and small details. Beyond that though, the relationships between the characters evolved organically and clues regarding what was to come were disseminated throughout the show.
It wasn’t a surprise then when a Season Two episode “flashbacked” all the way to the Pilot to provide additional perspective on a certain relationship.
Don’t be afraid in your script to leave some questions/relationships open, even if it’s a comedy. After all, a pilot needs to set up the world. You don’t necessarily have to enter a super-serialized form of storytelling (especially for a sitcom), but don’t necessarily presume your audience is made out of amnesiacs. Even Friends had arcs.

What to take from the show

The audience has expectations that need to be managed, characters have points of view that must be thought out, and situations have perspectives that can (and should) be manipulated.

Profiles of Television

Screenwriting Lessons From Farscape

What’s Alex Watching?

Bojack Horseman Fortitude Mr. Robot UnREAL
A TV Calling

A TV Calling