Fireman? Page 2

Quote: Fred Peters @ July 7, 2007, 9:03 PM

I disagree, Slag A. IMO this could be economically funny but it's the missing ingredient that makes it not funny at all. I echo Shoepie's idea that there is no reason for the fireman not to want to help. Give it that and you give the sketch its raison d'etre. If it's carried off convincingly then it will have 'masterful economy'.

View original

IMO the reason it's funny is because USUALLY a fireman has no reason not to help put a fire out... but this one has, that's what makes it funny... he is a fireman but he's pretending not to be one... which is ludicrous in itself!!! It doesn't matter what his reason is!

Shakespeare said: "comedy is a mill wheel out of true"

IMO this little sketch fits that description perfectly well... it needs no more...

Gee, I guess comedy must be 'subjective' then...

I agree with Mr Rage and whoever else has given a similar argument (just incase you want to use solid empirical statistics to decide the fate of this sketch)

Quote: Nick Rivers @ July 6, 2007, 3:31 PM

at least i can spell

View original

i before e except after c and w if you are spelling weird. damn my dys...dfs...dis... stupidness.

Then I just don't get it

If the setup is that firemen usually help people ....but this one doesn't. There's still no explanation given for why this one doesn't. If you don't explain to an audience why something happens, then to them it's just a random event. To me, having random events happen is not funny, otherwise we could just replace comedy writers with dice.

Jokes are usually a setup and then a punchline. Where the punchline relates back to the setup. You don't see the punchline coming because it's been cleverly disguised....not because it's random.

Anyway off track there, I can't even remember what my point was....er, oh yes I can. I disagree, short sketches IMHO do need motivation for the characters. It doesn't have to be long and complex, it can be simple like "I'm hungry" or "I need to get this piano up the stairs". But they need to be there. And I didn't see any here.

So to repeat my advice (whether it's right or wrong), to me this sketch would be funnier if the fireman had a reason for coming up with such a bizarre excuse to avoid helping.

Best wishes

Mr Pie

I agree with ShoePie. If there is no reason for the fireman to refuse to help then the audience could just take the sketch to be just someone being rude. This reminds me of the Big Train sketch where a woman asks Simon Pegg if he speaks english. He says no and responds negatively in english several times. Its funny because of its absurdity.

The setup is similar to yours but the payoff is that he can speak english but justs pretends he can't. The difference between that sketch and your one Paul is that there is no absurdity to a fireman refusing to help unless he has a valid reason not to. Put another way there are every day examples of people refusing to help out those in need, the Big Train sketch focuses on an absurd, non-sensical unlikely scenario hence the comedy. Its funny because it is unusual, your sketch just highlights a negative trait of human nature which, unfortunately, happens quite often. Thats why I thought the fireman needed a reason to not help

If I think this sketch is funny as it is and you guys don't then we must all be right because I'm laughing at the sketch and you're not!

I think we are going around in circles.

All this proves is that comedy is subjective, which we all already knew.

Maybe what these guys are getting at, Paul is that MORE people will find it funny if you explain why the fireman won't help. I'm not sure about that. Certainly it doesn't need that for me to laugh at it but I can't speak for the vast majority of the viewing/listening public...

Also, to complicate matters, if you 'explain' it, maybe then I won't be laughing, ...but the others will... ???

Ah, we're back to subjective again...

>_<

I think that it's just fine as it is. To explain everything to the N'th degree is not necessary. It works fine and I laughed

Quote: ajp29 @ July 8, 2007, 2:36 AM

I agree with ShoePie. If there is no reason for the fireman to refuse to help then the audience could just take the sketch to be just someone being rude. This reminds me of the Big Train sketch where a woman asks Simon Pegg if he speaks english. He says no and responds negatively in english several times. Its funny because of its absurdity.

The setup is similar to yours but the payoff is that he can speak english but justs pretends he can't. The difference between that sketch and your one Paul is that there is no absurdity to a fireman refusing to help unless he has a valid reason not to. Put another way there are every day examples of people refusing to help out those in need, the Big Train sketch focuses on an absurd, non-sensical unlikely scenario hence the comedy. Its funny because it is unusual, your sketch just highlights a negative trait of human nature which, unfortunately, happens quite often. Thats why I thought the fireman needed a reason to not help

View original

Your point may be too subtle for me...

To me the 'real' fireman pretending that he is going to a fancy dress party IS an absurd, non-sensical and unlikely scenario so I think the fireman sketch does follow your Big Train scenario above? To a 'T' in fact... Also the fireman CAN put out fires but is simply pretending that he can't... Is this not the same as the guy pretending that he can't speak English when he can?

Perhaps the fireman is a bit of a skiver and fancies a fag instead of helping the woman, perhaps he's hurt his leg and doesn't want to exert himself helping. Perhaps he's had a heavy night on the piss and has a monster hangover. Perhaps.........

The list is endless but we don't need to know really.

I just think a fireman in uniform asked to put a fire out and then refusing by pretending that he is going to a fancy dress party is f*****g hilarious!

Isn't it?

What reason could he possibly have!!!???

And why does he need one for this to be 'funny'...???

The mystery of laughter, eh?

Now I'll force my favourite fireman joke on you...

-------------------------

LADY:
Oh Mr Fireman, please help... my little Johnny has got his head stuck in some railings...

FIREMAN:
Is he on fire?

-------------------------

Chortle!

Frankie xxx

Quote: Frankie Rage @ July 8, 2007, 8:55 AM

If I think this sketch is funny as it is and you guys don't then we must all be right because I'm laughing at the sketch and you're not!

View original

As an aside: Frankie, that is totally brilliant! It proves that comedy is a 100% success rate medium. I wish I'd thought of that.

What about the Parrot sketch. Is it funny or is the audience confused and wondering what the backstory is as to why the shopkeeper is refusing to give a refund?

I thought it was funny. I'm not entirely sure why... but when the fireman said 'phew' I just laughed. I'm guessing it's because:

1) It would be slightly odd to see a fireman in full fire-fighting uniform, without his crew etc., walking down the street.

2) The fireman, a figure who would usually be the epitome of responsibility, avoids getting involved.

But I wouldn't want to pick it apart or anything... sometimes comedy can be written without all the exposition. I laughed... so that, in my book, makes it funny. Disagree all you want from there... it makes no difference.

I am almost amazed that people are not agreeing with my point. Maybe I'm wrong, that's entirely possible, but I honestly don't see how I am. To me the jokes incomplete.

If the Big Train sketch was

Woman:
"Do you speak english?"

Simon
"no, sorry"

Then it would match up with the fireman sketch. I agree with Ajp that the absurdity makes the sketch work. Because he's demonstrating that he blatantly can speak English.

And the shopkeeper doesn't want to give a refund because he'd rather have the money than a dead parrot.

So we'll have to agree to disagree

Quote: ShoePie @ July 8, 2007, 10:50 AM

Maybe I'm wrong, that's entirely possible, but I honestly don't see how I am. To me the jokes incomplete.

View original

And yet...

I really think we're just coming at the sketch from different approaches so I don't think there's a wrong or a right, just opinion.

And holding the majority view still doesn't mean a person's any less right or wrong (c.f. Copernicus and the modern Flat-Earthers).

Comedy is subjective but it's still good to see the differences in 'opinion'