Where's the Action (in your scripts)?

Forgive me if I'm wrong, and this isn't a criticism of anyone in particular.

Is it just me, or is there a lack of Action in the sketches/sitcoms posted in critique? By Action, I don't mean Action film, action. I mean the use of visual gags. I feel there is sometimes a lack of imagination on here/with any amateur writers regarding what can be achieved through not only clever dialogue, but a whole new layer/dimension of clever action too. Truly bringing the piece to life.

Is it just down to personal taste? Or is there a lack of confidence to write something that may stretch the production budget? Is anyone brave enough to rely purely on the visual and write a Mr. Bean?

I really enjoy reading scripts that exploit the visual side. Not only with smart direction and CGI effects. But to truly test their ability and complete the clever piece of dialogue and compliment it with a nice visual.

Arrested Development is a good example of what I'm on about.

Who on here is guilty of relying purely on their beautiful dialogue and thinking that's enough, the actors will do the rest?

I'm not saying it's always necessary, but it would be nice to able to a be fully immersed in what I'm reading. Which I'd just like to clarify, that doesn't mean I think your all shit a writing any Action.

When I was younger, I was inspired by the visual gags (mostly in the background) in the Airplane and Naked Gun movies...

...but I can't really say I've utilised those types of visuals in my scripts.
However, I DO try to paint a picture in the reader's imaginations in the stage directions, so it's describing the world around the characters and not just telling actors what they should be doing.

I do have a spoof "The Bill" style script that I'd like to employ a lot of visuals and sight gags in.

Quote: Leevil @ July 5 2009, 6:39 PM BST

Forgive me if I'm wrong, and this isn't a criticism of anyone in particular.

Is it just me, or is there a lack of Action in the sketches/sitcoms posted in critique? By Action, I don't mean Action film, action. I mean the use of visual gags. I feel there is sometimes a lack of imagination on here/with any amateur writers regarding what can be achieved through not only clever dialogue, but a whole new layer/dimension of clever action too. Truly bringing the piece to life.

Is it just down to personal taste? Or is there a lack of confidence to write something that may stretch the production budget? Is anyone brave enough to rely purely on the visual and write a Mr. Bean?

I really enjoy reading scripts that exploit the visual side. Not only with smart direction and CGI effects. But to truly test their ability and complete the clever piece of dialogue and compliment it with a nice visual.

Arrested Development is a good example of what I'm on about.

Who on here is guilty of relying purely on their beautiful dialogue and thinking that's enough, the actors will do the rest?

I'm not saying it's always necessary, but it would be nice to able to a be fully immersed in what I'm reading. Which I'd just like to clarify, that doesn't mean I think your all shit a writing any Action.

View original

I think you make a good point there! True in my case at least. I'm mainly attempting to write for radio at the moment so I need to improve there.

There are so many things to get right that I do tend to focus a lot on dialogue, getting it sharp and what are they saying but not saying etc but now you've got me thinking, I realise that the vox pops I wrote and worked best were visual (by luck more than judgement in my case). For example the Jackson glove one (not mine) seemed to stick in people's minds and proably for the same reason (as well as being funny of course!)

Thanks for the nudge on that!

Jx

I've been told a lot of new writers shy away from visual gags. I think one of the reasons being that they're scared of being perceived as going for the obvious joke. But sometimes a good piece of physical comedy is worth a thousand witty bon mots.

Ask anyone their favourite parts of Fools and Horses and they'll generally recall the chandelier or falling through bar sketch. Sight gag.
Similarly, a One Foot In The Grave favourite is the puppy phone. Another sight gag.
Father Ted favourite moments? Ted's Hitler moustache is always up there, which again is a sight gag.
So yeah - I'd say don't ever be scared to include physical comedy in your stuff - it's often the material that gets the biggest laughs.

I agree with Lee (both of them). I've had a few people in the industry single out the fact that my scripts often feature physical and visual comedy as a great plus, apparently it's quite rare for some reason. I do find that odd, I mean, TV is a visual medium, why wouldn't you utilise that fact?

Oops we're talking about visual for TV (although still important to evoke images in radio I'm sure!).

David Renwick is one of writing heroes - I always think of One Foot in the Grave as the standard I'm aiming for. I loved how he had everything in there including great visual gags.

Same in real life isn't it? Someone can tell a joke at work and its OK but then they misjudge where their chair is and fall on their arse and it's hilarious!

Quote: Matthew Stott @ July 5 2009, 7:33 PM BST

I agree with Lee (both of them). I've had a few people in the industry single out the fact that my scripts often feature physical and visual comedy as a great plus, apparently it's quite rare for some reason.

View original

Me too. There's a lot of snobbery about visual comedy too, as if it's somehow "beneath" writers (and some producers too). These people really don't know what they're talking about.

Also another reason for writers not doing as much physical comedy in their scripts is because they're basically copying off what's been on telly in recent years. If you look at contemporary comedy a lot of it has been very smart, realistic, low-key stuff, and so new writers tend to follow suit. Although ask anyone to recount their favourite part of The Office and you'll still find the Brent Dance high on the agenda.

Faced with a sight gag in my scripts I've had producers say to me "Yes but can't we find something cleverer?" And you sometimes feel like going "F**k clever! The audience will piss themselves at this!" But of course you don't. You smile. And you nod. And you rewrite.

I think one of the problems is a lack of confidence on the part of the writers, new writers in particular, because visual jokes ofthen don't 'read' funny. As Lee Henman pointed out sight gags are usually well remembered. The prison officer's nervous twitch in Porridge always used to crack me up. Joey(friends) with a big turkey on his head or wearing Chandler's clothes, Basil(fawlty) thrashing the mini or manuel, del and rodney running into a wake as batman and robin, Baldrick dressed as a woman - you could go on and on.

I'm glad I'm not the only one, whose thought about this.

Quote: Jane P @ July 5 2009, 7:45 PM BST

Oops we're talking about visual for TV (although still important to evoke images in radio I'm sure!).

View original

Yes, I suppose it is.

Thanks for all the examples too, I didn't even think about that expect and really helps me prove my threads point.

I recently wrote a short film with very little dialogue. It was interesting to do after writing so much for radio.

Quote: Lee Henman @ July 5 2009, 8:13 PM BST

But of course you don't. You smile. And you nod. And you rewrite.

View original

And if you did push your gut feeling what do you think their reaction would be?

I love sight gags. There are so many in The Simpsons. Graham Linehan seems to the master at it. I'd also like to say I have a great Rick James sight gag in my latest script.

Quote: random @ July 5 2009, 10:44 PM BST

And if you did push your gut feeling what do you think their reaction would be?

View original

Wouldn't like to say. My instinct is to always listen to what others suggest and just try it. Sometimes the piece has been better for it, and other times worse. But when it turns out worse I find tact and very gentle coercion is the way forward. Sometimes though you just have to accept that everyone hates your idea and bite the bullet. What's that saying about comedy involving "killing your babies?" King Herod's got nothing on me.

The problem is, everyone has a different view on comedy and what's funny. I wish there was more black and white but there really isn't. It's just the way it is.

Quote: Lee Henman @ July 5 2009, 11:24 PM BST

Wouldn't like to say. My instinct is to always listen to what others suggest and just try it. Sometimes the piece has been better for it, and other times worse. But when it turns out worse I find tact and very gentle coercion is the way forward. Sometimes though you just have to accept that everyone hates your idea and bite the bullet. What's that saying about comedy involving "killing your babies?" King Herod's got nothing on me.

The problem is, everyone has a different view on comedy and what's funny. I wish there was more black and white but there really isn't. It's just the way it is.

View original

But do you not sometimes feel that you are always trying to please others in your work rather than following your own 'gut feeling/take on comedy'?

Quote: random @ July 5 2009, 11:31 PM BST

But do you not sometimes feel that you are always trying to please others in your work rather than following your own 'gut feeling/take on comedy'?

View original

It's a collaborative thing. It's always a collaborative thing. I'm working on a BBC sketch show now and it's been very much the case where some stuff sails through with hardly a comment from those on high, whereas other stuff hits a stumbling block with somebody and if you want to still see it on TV, you have to make the decision to either park it and save it for another show that might never come along, or try the new way the producer or whoever has suggested and hope it still works. (It did work by the way.)

In this climate you're very lucky as a writer to be working on anything at all, so it's really not a good idea to be too obstinate when it comes to taking producers advice onboard.