Is it right to... Page 2

I agree that there are only a certain number of "joke" or "gags" in the world, but it annoy's me when someone doesn't even bother to try and change it that much, and just hopes that no one has noticed. Even when asked why did they choose a certain group of the community, in this case Jewish people, they come up with some kind of history saying "Jews...Why not. Have always had an affinity since my days at school in Kenton, Middlesex [ Anyone who knew Kenton, NW London in the early 80's, will know what I mean ]"

Just be honest and say "because they were already jewish in the joke to begin with "

LOL re: Griff

IMHO:

To paste an old joke in sketch format into a script is wrong and lazy, whether they are established broadcast pros or just-starting-out amateurs. I once saw a TV re-enactment of the classic dead neighbour's rabbit joke played out by Martin Clunes. Why didn't anyone in the crew shout "Stop"? Why didn't Clunes?

To produce a similar joke by accident is more than possible and is easily-identified from a direct steal, however, the self-respecting writer then bins his version on discovering the similarity.

To take an existing joke and produce something new and funny is done all the time. Recycling occurs in all the arts ... even, God forbid, Cooking. But the key is that the end product has the writer's undeniable stamp and twist on the subject. That's what writing partnerships do all the time. Take the other partner's gag and revamp it into something neither of them could have produced on their own.

Where does this leave the end bit of the Vicar of Dibley? That was the bit I always liked (read: could stand) but I guess it was more about the play between the two characters, Geraldine patiently explaining the joke and the other one just not getting it.

So it's more of a question of if it becomes a character study - there's some hoary old chestnuts in the Royle Family, but then Jim Royle is more of a man to hear a gag in the pub and repeat it ad nauseum, than write his own superior gag. Speaking of 'old chestnuts' - that Not the Nine O Clock News sketch about the swedish chemists ("ball or aeresol?" "Neither, it's for my armpits")is a killer precisely because of the disclaimer at the beginning. So if it's acknowledged it's an old gag, it's probably okay.

In the VicofDib case, the point I suppose is more that the other person has trouble understanding the joke. It isn't simply a case of the writers passing off a public domain pub joke as their own creation, as far as I can remember from the snippets I've seen.

Of course, Barry Cryer may say that, but if it happened to him
it might different ...

Barry took so Barry cryer'd

Ouch! Sorry ... Couldn't resist. Would have been better if
his surname had been Holler tho'. lol

I think it's all fair game once something has been performed/broadcast
but pinching wholesale from a submission which hasn't been is very galling for the submitter, not least when the performed/broadcast version has a fee attached. But that's showbiz and the media in general and if you're gonna tear yourself apart everytime it's done, it's time to try another trade.

If it's pinching from something that's been performed/broadcast then it's a homage

Quote: Goldnutmeg @ April 13 2008, 8:59 PM BST

Of course, Barry Cryer may say that, but if it happened to him
it might different ...

Barry took so Barry cryer'd

Ouch! Sorry ... Couldn't resist tho'. Would have been better if
his surname had been Holler. lol

I think it's all fair game once something has been performed/broadcast
but pinching wholesale from a submission which hasn't been is very galling for the submitter, not least when the performed/broadcast version has a fee attached. But that's showbiz and the media in general and if you're gonna tear yourself apart everytime it's done, it's time to try another trade.

If it's pinching from something that's been performed/broadcast then it's a homage

View original

But it has happened to him, and he's rightly mad about it (in the same interview, he mentioned Jeffrey Archer nicked one of his after dinner speeches, and told it with Cryer in the audience). His point was that using a gag is fair game, but half-inching bits of someone's routine or sketch material is definitely not on. Not ever.

I think homage is quite different to what kicked off the thread.

Loads of the old comedians nick each others material, they just put in from of it, "X comedian used to tell this joke..." and then THEY get a big laugh, cheeky bastards.

Quote: Badge @ April 13 2008, 9:03 PM BST

But it has happened to him, and he's rightly mad about it (in the same interview, he mentioned Jeffrey Archer nicked one of his after dinner speeches, and told it with Cryer in the audience). His point was that using a gag is fair game, but half-inching bits of someone's routine or sketch material is definitely not on. Not ever.

I think homage is quite different to what kicked off the thread.

View original

Hi Badge,

I haven't listened to the interview or read the whole thread in depth, so you'll pardon me (please? clasps hands pleading for forgiveness ) for sacrificing the truth for a joke. But I did say that pinching something wholesale is a really rubbish thing to do. Using something you've seen or heard and putting your own stamp on it is something else. I've done that (I hope!) myself. There is a line in the old Powell Pressburger movie "Red Shoes" when an a young musician has his stuff nicked wholesale by a veteran musician. Someone tells the younger man something to the effect "comfort yourself that you have to be pretty talentless to have to nick material", but as I've said that's no compensation when the other person gets paid for it.

Maybe Barry Cryer should have offered to write Jeffrey Archer's speeches and charged him at least the double the normal rate and threatened to shop him to the press, if he didn't accept?

I don't think Cryer was surprised. It's unusual for Archer to write anything of his own, including novels.

No pardoning required btw, I didn't think we were disagreeing.

Quote: Badge @ April 13 2008, 9:20 PM BST

I don't think Cryer was surprised. It's unusual for Archer to write anything of his own, including novels.

View original

Ahh, maybe the book editor should have linked up with Jordan instead. Then he would have been really quids in lol

No pardoning required btw, I didn't think we were disagreeing.

Gr8! I'll never ask for your pardon again

Pardon?

That's ok. Don't worry

Rightly or wrongly it does happen, remember what's always said about songwriting; songs are rarely written but rewritten.

If it really went against the grain that much, the remaining Beatles could nail the Gallagher brothers to the wall (and I always wished someone fu***g well would!)

Quote: SlagA @ April 13 2008, 11:57 AM BST

To take an existing joke and produce something new and funny is done all the time. Recycling occurs in all the arts ... even, God forbid, Cooking. But the key is that the end product has the writer's undeniable stamp and twist on the subject.

View original

For a masterclass in taking a conventional joke, subverting it and making it much doubly funny just sit down and watch The Simpsons. You'll see it at least once an episode.

My take on this is that if the joke is an obvious steal with little or no work having gone into its construction then, IMO, it's wrong and in most circles it's called plagiarism.

If it's a coincidence that leads me to come up with a similar theme or style, and this is pointed out to me, then it is normally my instinct to bow out gracefully cursing my bad luck.

A while ago I came up with a character called Bill Gravy and some said that he reminded them of John Thompson's Bernard right-on. He has now been mothballed because although a lot of people said it wasn't a steal, or indeed there were several differences between the two, in my own mind I wasn't happy.

I'd much prefer to write something new under those circumstances.