Of course not!
BBC Comedy College Page 13
This thread is locked. No further replies can be posted.
Quote: zooo @ February 15, 2008, 1:05 PMDo you have any naked men please?
I attempted a painting of the Boosh men once (not naked) and I had to give up half way through, 'cos I'd made Julian look like Jeremy Beadle.
Zoo, this is for you.
You might have already seen of course, but if not, you can enjoy Mr Fielding's arse.
Booo @ Godot.
Aw, thanks Nick!
I have seen it before, but I think it's high time for a refresher watch. I do love the end scene...
Quote: zooo @ February 15, 2008, 1:05 PMDo you have any naked men please?
I attempted a painting of the Boosh men once (not naked) and I had to give up half way through, 'cos I'd made Julian look like Jeremy Beadle.
Did you "Frame it" as well?
I never really drew blokes, I can't really see beauty in men, 'cept when I look in the mirror 
I never really draw women either. I find mens faces much more interesting.
When I used to draw comic book stuff though, I did women. I was probably projecting myself on to them. (how many threads can I mention Tank Girl on this week?)
P.S. We've totally gone off piste.
Sorry.
Back to the BBC!
Tank girl? Worth a Sherman.
I'm mostly pist
Quote: Godot Taxis @ February 15, 2008, 1:39 PMTank girl? Worth a Sherman.
... is that cockney rhyming slang for Ethel Merman?
Proooobably Sherman tank - wank. 
a HA!
I just needed an expert in wanking to explain all.
Quote: Charley @ February 15, 2008, 2:23 AMSo if you adopt your not a mother/father?
Anyone can be a parent - not everyone is a natural mum or dad.
Anyone can put on a gorilla suit - not everyone thinks it's a gorilla
Anyone can be like Elton John- not everyone wants to be
Anyone can make up pseudo-deep proverbs - not everyone knows when to stop
Quote: zooo @ February 15, 2008, 2:46 PMI just needed an expert in wanking to explain all.
Well why else did you think I wore the glasses?
To pull birds.
I didn't know that glasses were "in" at the moment. 
Quote: Perry Nium @ February 14, 2008, 2:08 PMDo you really believe that? So you don't believe there's any such thing as "born leaders", "born dancers", "born artists" etc? Surely you can't be saying that creativity can be taught in a class? My mate's wife has been doing art night classes for months and months. She enjoys it and finds it relaxing and that's all that's important, but she still can't draw well, and never will be able to.
There's a natural, innate ability common among great comedy writers and that's timing. It's almost like a musical thing, like a composer writing a piece of music. You can tell that they instinctively FEEL when the time's right to crescendo or whatever. You can't teach that. You could take somebody off the street who's never touched a piano, and after time and effort you could teach that person to play Flight Of The Bumblebee note perfect. But you couldn't teach them to compose something as wonderful. Not if they're not naturally creative.
So your mate's wife has been taking classes for months and still isn't any good? Most people write for years before getting any good. But there's all the other factors like if she is new to adult learning or how good the tutor is or if she is deliberately rejecting what the tutor says or what you consider to be 'drawing well' and whether creativity can exist without advanced technique.
(And I'm still not entirely sure how a nice picture of a naked lady disproves my point. I couldn't paint that in a million years, not because I don't have the natural talent but because I couldn't be arsed to get that talent through hard work. Unless of course that was the first painting you have ever done and you have never drawn before or studied art or taken any lessons whatsoever, then that would be different)
The idea that some people are born artists and some born musicians and some born writers is just bizarre to me and I've been trying to work out why.
Maybe, it's just a way of forming an elite to exclude people: "God gave me a gift because I am the chosen one, god gave you NOTHING because you are worthless scum!".
Maybe it's a good excuse for the lazy or those lacking confidence not to bother trying: "the BBC rejected my first script, there's no point in me trying anymore, I'm just not a natural writer."
Or maybe it's an excuse for the lazy to whinge: "The BBC rejected my tenth script but it's perfect and I don't need to work any harder or learn my craft because I am a born natural. They'd produce it if I was black or disabled or gay, I wants my mummy, 'snot fair, boo hoo."
It probably comes down to whether you believe in nature versus nurture. I suppose, I am saying creativity can be taught in a class or rather how to be creative can be taught.
You can't teach someone to be Rimsky-Korsakov but you can teach them techniques so they can have their own unique creative voice. You can try and tear down the various blocks people have like the negative inner voice or negative outer voices and teach them to think freely and analytically.
Rather than natural innate ability isn't it that comedy writers have actually learnt from years of watching and listening to comedy and making their friends laugh? Is it really a co-incidence that people who work hard move through the Writersroom from getting 'no feedback' letters to feedback letters to encouragement letters to finally getting invited in? Did god just forget to give them talent when they were born?
God: How's Jo Bloggs doing with that career writing sitcoms?
St Peter: She's still trying, but she's rubbish.
God: Oh shit, I forgot to give her the writing talent.
St Peter: God, what are you like?
God: I know. I'll give her some now before it's too late
You might read a badly written script and conclude the person isn't talented and should give up. I may read it and conclude that if the person did some pre-writing in terms of characterisation and story and re-writing to make sure it was believable and funny, it would be worthy of being produced.
If they don't do that it's due to a lack of knowledge or lack of work ethic, it's not due to a lack of talent.