Quote: Agnes Guano @ November 25 2010, 12:12 PM GMT

Agree with Mitchell and Webb, and Harry and Paul. Armstrong and Miller are still pretty good. I personally would like to see more ensemble comedy sketch shows in the sort of Absolutely/Monty Python mould. I just feel it gives a greater potential pool of talent and abilities and styles to draw from.

View original

I do agree with what you said about ensemble casts. In fact, I was hoping that when I get to write a sketch show, that it would have an ensemble team of performers, including myself.

And also, I think that most modern sketch shows seem to depend to much on catchphrases and recurring characters, rather than being witty and clever. Though I don't mind if it was just one or two characters who just popped up from time to time, like in Naked Video, but not if the whole programe centers entirely around them, like in Little Britan or Cathrine Tate.

Recurring characters, situations and catchphrases are a springboard from which to launch comedy.

'Familiarity' is a very powerful tool in the comedian's armoury.

Brand new comedy shows with widely-unknown actors playing totally-unknown characters rarely take off with a bang as it takes an audience time to warm to them.

An all-new sketch show that killed every character off at the end of every sketch would be climbing a huge mountain on its way to success.

OK, maybe that is the case. I'm not totaly against recurring characters, but depend what the point of the character is. For instance, I'm not interested in the recurring characters in Little Britan, or Armstrong and Miller, because I feel that they are to repetative, and everything about them is nothing more than a cheap joke. Whereas the recurring characters in Naked Video are OK because they don't dominated the whole programe, and I don't belive that either Rab or Shadwell used the same chatchphrases. Also, Smith and Jones as I recall only had one recurring element, which was just simply the two of them just talking to eachother, and even then they didn't use any catchphrases, or even a background for matter. You see what I mean?

Comedians have always relied on catchphrases. A sort of brand awareness thing, in the days of music hall it was a great way to make your act familiar with audience who might only be able to see you two or three times a year as you toured the country. That ethos carried on into the TV and radio era and virtually every big name comedian of the 50s and 60s had a recognizable catchphrase or two. Often they were ludicrous when taken out of context but they all helped build and maintain the brand. Catchphrases are used a lot less than they were, at one stage it was really only Harry Enfield that used them a lot. What I dislike about modern recurring characters and catchphrases is that they seem a lazy device that fills up screen time and saves the writer from actually having to invent a new joke. When a character comes on in Little Britain I know that they're going to throw up or jump out of a wheelchair and run around. It just seems so lazy. Where the characters are better written and don't rely so much on bland repetition like Armstrong & Miller or Mitchell & Webb it works better for me and the appeal lasts longer. Can you imagine all Monty Python was waiting each week for Mr Nudge Nudge to come on and, well, grin and nudge and wink at people. How quickly would that joke have become dull and tiresome?

I think a lot of the problem with the runners in a lot of sketch shows, Armstrong & Miller in particular, is that rather than the sketches being based on rounded characters, they are based on an amusing premise which, for me, becomes less amusing with every repetition.

Quote: Timbo @ November 25 2010, 3:59 PM GMT

I think a lot of the problem with the runners in a lot of sketch shows, Armstrong & Miller in particular, is that rather than the sketches being based on rounded characters, they are based on an amusing premise which, for me, becomes less amusing with every repetition.

View original

Good point Timbo.

Kill him!

When the principle actors become popular with audiences, the need for recurring characters reduces as their popularity increases.

In the early days of 'Forward Slash Comedy', however, it might pay to make the most of any characters that attract rave reviews from viewers.

Yes Timbo, that is just about what I was thinking. I mean, wouldn't anyone here agree tht the RAF men talking like teenagers is nothing more than an over-strecthed cheap joke?

Quote: His Own Devices @ November 25 2010, 4:13 PM GMT

wouldn't anyone here agree tht the RAF men talking like teenagers is nothing more than an over-stretched cheap joke?

View original

Countless people have willingly watched a film more than once or listened to a record more than once or made love with their partner more than once.

Pleasure doesn't always have to be new and original.

Wasn't saying it had to be original. In my opinion, I think a good sketch show should be funny, clever and fast moving. Most people say Armsrtong and Miller is funny, I don't know how you would describe the pace of it, but I certainly wouldn't describe the RAF men sketches as clever of witty. Sorry if this has gone off topic.

I don't think speed has anything to do with a 'good' sketch show. If a sketch deserves and can sustain a longer running time than your average Fast Show skit, then go for it.

Quote: His Own Devices @ November 25 2010, 6:34 PM GMT

I certainly wouldn't describe the RAF men sketches as clever

View original

I think the idea of it, and the execution, is quite clever myself. To me, it's a clever, funny idea, which is why so many people have responded to them and they are the shows breakout characters. Of course, that doesn't mean that everyone will like them, or find them funny.

OK, maybe fast pace isn't compulsery in a sketch show, though I feel that if you have the sketches go on for to long, the viewer might loose interest.

Quote: His Own Devices @ November 25 2010, 8:36 PM GMT

OK, if you have the sketches go on for to long, the viewer might loose interest.

View original

Wise words, HOD.

In comedy, a slow delivery can be very pleasing as long as what's being delivered is good but, if a TV or Internet audience loses interest, they might flick over to one of many competing channels or web pages.

In a live performance, you get feedback moment by moment but when you're recording for TV, radio or Internet, you can only hope they'll like every single moment.

If you're confident your material will have them glued to their seats, that's fine. You can take all the time in the world. However, if you're unsure how firmly they'll be gripped, it's probably wise to do short jokes and/or sketches rather than long ones.

The two sketches I've seen on Forward Slash Comedy seem about the right length to me.