Wit ???
Never heard of it!
Maybe something that sounds like it though.
Thinking Aloud Page 3
Found myself agreeing with a lot (welcome btw) but the following points, I can't see where you're coming from.
Quote: Skibbington von Skubber @ June 12, 2007, 4:15 PMThe worst comedy is usually made by those who act like they THINK they are being wonderfully funny.
I can't honsetly imagine a single comedy writer who didn't think they were funny or else it's a pretty daft career move on their behalf. Can you imagine saying to a group of pilots that in your opinion the best pilots are the ones who think they can't fly or aren't 'trying' to fly? Give me a pilot who thinks he can, anyday.
The difference is in your perception. When the comedians you don't like, try to be funny and fail, you label them as 'trying'. When a comedian that makes you laugh is funny then you 'imagine' he's trying not to make you laugh. You put yourself in the impossible position of thinking you can read a comedian's mind. They're all trying to make us laugh. some of them are better at hiding it. Some of them have a more laid-back style but they're still trying.
Quote: Skibbington von Skubber @ June 12, 2007, 4:15 PMThe best comedy is performed by those who act DEADLY serious. Look at Monty Python: Every part played seriously. They're not up there grinning or mugging or acting as though they can barely contain their laughter.
So I take it you're ignoring their live shows? I've seen them break down many times on stage, when they haven't got the ability to shout 'cut' and reshoot. The point is that you're seeing a finished TV product. After 20-30 run-throughs and reshoots, it isn't going to be funny. It's going to be tedious to the actor. But if they go through a first read-through and don't find themselves laughing then it's time for a rewrite because the stuff clearly isn't working.
Every actor must have faith in their work. If they don't find it funny then no one else will.
Quote: Skibbington von Skubber @ June 12, 2007, 4:15 PMThe characters have to be interesting with distinct mannerisms or ticks or manias or phobias or attitudes.
To give everyone tics etc to make them different only makes them the same. Giving Basil Fawlty a tic isn't going to transform him from a good character into a great character, or else TV would be full of limping, thigh-slapping, nervous ticked, hunchbacks shouting 'oo-ar boyo'. The difference is internal, what makes them 'tick' rather than a facial tic.
Quote: Skibbington von Skubber @ June 12, 2007, 4:15 PMA lot of these can come through the dialogue, but as far as scripts go, you need to let us (and the production company agent/director/actor) know who the characters are FIRST. Then you tell us how & why the characters know each other and why they have to interact. Then you tell us the gist of the episode.
No, disagree totally. Everything you know (as a viewer) comes through a character's words and actions. These are the only two ways character can be revealed to a viewer. A viewer is not sat with a script and a beautifully laid out series synopsis and character sheet with interactions and relationships. Poor writing relies on exposition. "Timmy is a meek man" is exposition. Showing Timmy cowering is a way to show the reader not tell them.
Yes, a good writer must tell us who the characters are but by words and actions, not direction and comments in the script that only the production staff ever see.
Quote: Skibbington von Skubber @ June 12, 2007, 4:15 PMIt is then equally imperative you develop an outline. I personally admire the Larry David approach. He starts with the simplest situation and then adds details upon details until he has a story-structure, a blueprint, and then, rather than write out the dialogue, he makes notes & suggestions for how the actors/characters might react to the given situation.
I'm being dim here but I can't think of any professional writers who would disagree with that but it isn't Larry King's approach at all. It is the fundamental way to develop plot from a one-sentence plot idea. Take a basic idea that is organically grown BEFORE any writng of dialogue or scenes ever occur. It's an ancient idea, not someone's radical and novel approach.
Quote: Skibbington von Skubber @ June 12, 2007, 4:15 PMThe production companies need original shows. It's easy to imagine a lot of those who work in the industry (or those failing to break in) are stymied by thought towards trends & formulas (like 3 laughs per minute), and I think it would be to our advantage to be ignorant of those concerns.
Agreed that they need originality but ignore 'formulae' at your peril. It's sad that it has to be said but it is still true. If the customer (production company / viewer) wants a formula, then successful writers find the formula and deliver. Most radical shows were developed by people on the inside rather than unknowns presenting notoriously panicky commissioners with something radical and scary.
Quote: Skibbington von Skubber @ June 12, 2007, 4:15 PMOur main concern is to create entertaining sitcoms. Entertaining and amusing.
Your original point was that the best writers don't actively try to be entertaining and amusing.
Quote: Skibbington von Skubber @ June 12, 2007, 4:15 PMI realize I am inexperienced and perhaps shamelessly naive ... What is missing from this post (besides opinions based on experience).
You can't be inexperienced and naive and then state that your opinion based on experience.
As I said totally agree with many of your points but you will find it hard to attract co-writers with the attitude that your absolute version of comedy is the right one and the only one.
If comedy was purely objective (such as a science dealing in fact) then we could argue who is or isn't funny but the truth is it's all down to taste. Which is why comedy is such a wide and patchy field.
Quote: SlagA @ June 17, 2007, 10:38 PMFound myself agreeing with a lot...
Ahoy Mr SlagA,
We are skibbing the emerald seas tonight and sparking the owl.
What you responded to was written in a moment of passion and pent-up frustration. I thank you for taking the time to read and challenge its declarations.
It's true I have zero experience with writing for television; only my own private fits & starts.
You said, "Yes, a good writer must tell us who the characters are but by words and actions, not direction and comments in the script that only the production staff ever see."
But we here at this sitcom group ARE writing for the production staff, potentially anyhow. We should be showing each other, when posting a sitcom idea or show or just a sketch, exactly what we intend to show the production companies, not just something that begins with INT. or EXT. and is immediately followed by dialogue. Who do we think we're posting to here? It's other writers, not a television audience. (My post "Drug Test" was not written for television.)
We are not only behind the scenes, we are their creators.
This thing about not trying to be funny when writing comedy but letting the funniness arise from the situations you create for your well-defined characters, is obviously something I have failed to reach you with. And that's alright.
As for stand-up comedians: The ones who are funny are not TRYING to be funny, they are in their funny zone. The one's who are not funny are either not in their funny zone that night or don't have one to begin with.
I've not seen any of your work yet but have noted your presence on Youtube, here, and Channel 4. You're definitely determined to succeed. Sock it to 'em.
It's time for me milk & cookies and a random episode of Larry Sanders from Youtube.
It's been a pleasure making your acquaintence.
Best of luck.
Hi Skibb
Cheers, it's good we can discuss without it getting aeriated.
Only two points.
Quote: Skibbington von Skubber @ June 18, 2007, 12:23 AMBut we ARE writing for production staff, potentially. We should be showing each other, when posting a sitcom idea or show or just a sketch, exactly what we intend to show the production companies.
But the script IS what you show the production companies. If they can't work out the characters and relationships through the script alone then it really needs a major rewrite. I notice that your Drugs Test piece didn't actually contain character portraits or relationship notes, which seems to be the opposite to what you're espousing here.
The script should have no extraneous information. It should be a description of what the viewer sees and hears. The director converts this into a TV experience. Ask yourself how can a director directs the following.
JIM (30) enters. Jim is the kind of man who smoked weed but never inhaled. He stayed up late but always in the kitchen at parties. He once went out with a tall girl who made fun of his hieght and this is now a phobia.
That tells the reader a bit about the character but how can a director indicate that in the character's intro? He can't. He can only deal in image and sound not in implied past experience or implied character traits. If these traits are necessary to the character then the writer must indicate this through action and dialogue in the script, not through comments to the production team. If the character traits are unnecessary to the story or character then they needn't be mentioned at all.
If you must include character detail, I'd use a seperate sheet and keep it short. I fear most readers skim this before the script and use it as a first opportunity to reject your work before picking it up. So if you want to force them to actually break sweat and read the work, get the character explicitly and implicitly clear in your script.
That a character outline is needed for a sketch is IMO not true. What is a comedy sketch? A sketch is primarily a delivery system for a laugh. True, different writers use different styles to get there but if a comedy sketch fails to make you laugh, it failed in its job.
I can't honestly believe that professional sketch writers toss and turn through the night wondering what school and upbringing the character for their next sketch will have undergone. The Parrot sketch isn't so much concerned about wonderfully drawn characters and social interplay and commentary, it's just a joke about the conflict of how hard it is to get money back. It would have been equally funny with a high court judge or a miner asking for their money back.
If you want beautifully crafted characters, skillfully interlayed with social commentary, then sketches are the wrong medium. Read a Stoppard / Pinter / Mamet play, but don't look for it in a sketch.
Nobody will ever say, "Did you see Blah sketch show, last night. Didn't laugh once but what brilliant characters." No producer will read fantastic character descriptions and then commission it, if he didn't find the sketch funny.
Yes, character relationships and conflict are paramount in comedy but the details are the WRITER'S tool not the production team's tool. The writer uses it to keep the character consistent and true to itself. But what do the production team use? Your script. If your character doesn't live on the page then NO amount of detailed character biography will make it live on screen.
Quote: Skibbington von Skubber @ June 18, 2007, 12:23 AMThis thing about not trying to be funny when writing comedy but letting the funniness arise from the situations you create for your well-defined characters, is obviously something I have failed to reach you with. It's been a pleasure making your acquaintence. Best of luck.
No Skibb, I already believe it. Totally agree with you, funniness arises from characters placed within situations. But in many instances you don't see the setup and gag because the writer has skillfully hidden it. Even your drugs test piece has setups and gag lines in it.
An example from Red Dwarf - Reverse, the episode where time goes backward.
Setup: Where's the cat? - not funny and only included by the writers to lead up to the next section, which is a gag.
Gag: He went behind that bush for a dump (paraphrased) Viewers laugh at the implicit idea of what's happened to the cat.
Punchline: Cat emerges from bushes looking horrified after experiencing an unseen poo in reverse, making the implicit joke explicit, and creating the visual laugh that the writers deliberately set out to set up.
Yes, agree again, funniness arises from everday situations but the writer's job is to skillfully exploit that opportunity and squeeze laughs from it. For example, a man undoes the wrong bolt in a stately mansion causing thousands of pounds of damage, in real life - no one laughs and he gets the sack. In Only Fools and Horse, it becomes one of the best scenes ever, through clever exploitation of situation and the impact on the characters. Funny situations alone aren't going to make a comedy but how we, as writers, choose to utilise them does.
Many thanks for being aware of us btw.
Quote: SlagA @ June 18, 2007, 11:37 AMBut the script IS what you show the production companies. If they can't work out the characters and relationships through the script alone then it really needs a major rewrite. I notice that your Drugs Test piece didn't actually contain character portraits or relationship notes, which seems to be the opposite to what you're espousing here.
Cheers for another well-written reply, Mr SlagA.
Your posts are educational.
Can you show us any sketch scripts or sitcom proposals you have sent to a production company? It would be most helpful if we could see an example of something of yours that was accepted, but even if it hasn't been, it would still be helpful to see an actual example of what you or anyone here at BSG actually sends to the production companies.
I've ordered that Marc Blake book in the hopes it has actual examples of sketches and sitcom shows/proposals. I want to see the formatting, and what is NOT needed to be included.
The Drug Test sketch was written for radio. I intentionally excluded details about the characters and back story and location (and etc.) because I figured it is the wont of most directors to wanna modify those details to suit their interpretations. I also knew I could convey any necessary details through the dialogue.
When it comes to audio sketches, it's the attitudes of the characters that stand out and help the audience to differentiate between them.
Question: Sitcoms seems to be made in rehearsals, while shooting, and in editing. It seems to be a necessary part of the process to fiddle with the lines to help get the laughs. Is it a given that the company will need you to write for the show? Or do they buy the idea/premise and give it to their own team of writers? Are you expected to help develop it? Or are you handed a cheque and told to bugger off?
Cheers mate.
Hi Skibb
Send me an email and I'll send you some bits. What you have to remember is that I'm only a grunt on the bottom rung too but certain practices are more acceptable or standard than others. Eventually, it's the script that gets judged, not us, our presentation, or our individual value. Just words on paper that either attracts or doesn't.
What I think you tend to find in comedy, is that even if you had access to the top people, they can only offer opinion because it's not an exact science. What's funny today is lame tomorrow and vice versa. But listening to the general consensus and deciding for yourself is the best path.
I'll have a look at that question at the end of your post later, this evening.
Cheers
Check out Ronald Wolfe's book 'writing comedy' where he explains the huge laughs the weakest material garners on telly:
1. It's like a party - you WANNA enjoy yourself.
2. The audience have just seen the warm-up so 
they're in the mood, (b) the laughs it got can be mixed in so no one notices the difference.
3. Shows are recorded before TWO audiences and mixed together - effectively doubling the laughs.
4. Additional material is recorded and dubbed in.
5. Most audiences are morons.
Surely canned laughter is easier?
I loved the Woody Allen character in Crimes and Misdemeanours when he rebels against the canned laughter ethos.
Skibb still not forgotten you, tomorrow for sure.
Yeah. "HAve you got booing on that?"