Opposites Creating Explosions Page 7

Quote: jacparov @ January 3, 2008, 12:01 AM

eh??

View original

Thats what I was thinking

Quote: James Williams @ January 2, 2008, 11:58 PM

I agree with much of what you say.

Perhaps one key distinction that we've failed to pin down is in the difference between writing for oneself, and writing for an audience: I would like to suggest that this difference equates to making art and making craft. Where the two meet is where (popularist) comedy genius lies.

View original

I'd disagree as all the great artist had patrons and therefore an audience. If you write stuff purely for your own enjoyment why would you share your work with anyone?

Quote: James Williams @ January 2, 2008, 11:23 PM

Are you suggesting there is something serendipitous about being cutting edge? I don't think this is the case.

View original

Not at all. It may indeed be the case with some people. But no. The only thing that's based on anything close to luck - and I wasn't making this point in the extract you quoted - is whether a show will be successful or not.

Quote: James Williams @ January 2, 2008, 11:23 PM

There isn't any dispute that a champagne dinner at Claridge's will be more special, and indeed more work will have gone into it (by expert craftsmen) than a bag of greasy chips from the local chippy.

But - ignoring the price factor - many more people will be buying chips tonight than gourmet meals. Why?

View original

'Cos chips aren't bathed in garlic by default!

Quote: Aaron @ January 3, 2008, 12:06 AM

'Cos chips aren't bathed in garlic by default!

View original

You joke, but this backs up my suggestion somewhat - i.e. they're blander.

Quote: ajp29 @ January 3, 2008, 12:06 AM

I'd disagree as all the great artist had patrons and therefore an audience. If you write stuff purely for your own enjoyment why would you share your work with anyone?

View original

Well, what you say seems to agree with what I've said, because I've said that the popularist genius is where the two meet...

You say all the great artists had an audience - what I'm saying is that in order for something to be great, it must have an audience. This is a reflexive argument, you see, because without an audience who is there to observe it and say it is great? Anyway, I don't want to focus on the philosophical guff.

For something to be creative genius, I think it has to be personal. It has to have 'art' to it. But it must also have 'craft' to it as well. It needs to be constructed and rules need to be observed (even if they are subsequently flaunted).

Art alone is often a formless stream of 'creativity'. It has a smaller audience, too. Sometimes an audience of one.

Craft alone can create a universally enjoyed end result. 'My Family' might be said to be a jobbing sitcom that follows the rules and is crafted well, but has little real artistry. It does the job but does not excite.

But the real genius, I am claiming, is when the two meet. Modern stuff like The Office and Extras are a lot closer to this because they have art and craft.

I pretty much agree with Niteowl.

Why don't you write what makes you laugh, and then either:

a) there isn't a market for it - more fool them, but you haven't sold out - thumbs up!

or

b) the market catches on to your style of funny and you are a great success. And you haven't sold out! Thumbs up!

Quote: Badge @ January 3, 2008, 1:07 AM

Why don't you write what makes you laugh, and then either:

a) there isn't a market for it - more fool them, but you haven't sold out - thumbs up!

or

b) the market catches on to your style of funny and you are a great success. And you haven't sold out! Thumbs up!

View original

Stated perfectly!

Well, no, because there is craft to it as well. You can't just splurge out what makes you laugh on the page. You have to learn technique and structure. There are mechanics that have to be grasped.

I'm sure this aspect is taken as read, but I think it needs to be said.

Quote: James Williams @ January 3, 2008, 12:21 AM

Well, what you say seems to agree with what I've said, because I've said that the popularist genius is where the two meet...

View original

You're original post sounded like you were saying that creating a work for yourself is art and for others is craft. You were'nt so ignore my post

Skibbs original point: find a writing partner who's your opposite and yet able to be totally blunt with is very very true. Writers make the mistake of choosing like-for-like but you don't need your ideas echoing back from a partner. You need them being transformed by a new angle.

That self-performance is the way to raise profile, again can't disagree. The Slaggs (and others here) have worked this out and made it a keystone to their overall 'strategy' (if such a thing exists?) These days serious writers need to get their work viewed by as wide a market as possible. Use technology.

That 'pushing the boundaries' has to be sick or involve molestation wasn't helped when Skibb gave that impression with the molesting copper. but saying that, it is often confused in people's perceptions, and though sometimes true, it doesn't have to be. League of Gentlemen definitely pushed boundaries. Series 1 and 2 in a good way. Series 3 in a crap way. Brass Eye too.

I like Skibbs anger and angst, it gives his writing a frustrated sense of urgency. Would love to collaborate with him sometime, if he'd have us (as we also want to / are in the process of / or will collaborate with others here when we eventually get the time and platform) But I wouldn't go with the 99% figure of slush on here.

And I don't think any writer has to 'prove' themselves to anyone else but themselves, whether hobbyist or not.

Quote: James Williams @ January 3, 2008, 2:25 AM

Well, no, because there is craft to it as well. You can't just splurge out what makes you laugh on the page. You have to learn technique and structure. There are mechanics that have to be grasped.

I'm sure this aspect is taken as read, but I think it needs to be said.

View original

Its great for those people that have time to just write what they want and not really care if it makes it or not. I certainly don't have that incredible luxury, I have a full-time job and write around it so I want to try and make my stuff count.

But I don't see myself compromising my work that much. You do need the structure in place as Boosh and My Family do, but how similar are they? There is plenty of freedom for your humour. Plus Channel 4 & BBC3 do a lot more risqué comedy so you should find an audience if you want to be cutting edge. But if you want to be non-PC then you won't stand a chance as the channels know Ofcom's rules.

For me it comes down to the simple fact that I would rather write something that makes me laugh and makes me proud and have that show gain 'cult' status....rather than churn out some half-arseed mediocre garbage and gain a mainstream audience.

And if you're telling me that people would rather watch sitcoms like My Family for the rest of their lives rather than sitcoms like Fawlty Towers then there's no point going on debating. If they would like that then I stand by my opinion that most people like shit comedy, shit films and shit music, I'm not sneering at those people I just feel they need to broaden their horizons.

Also just because lots of people watch something doesn't make it good or funny, it makes it successful yes but that doesn't equate quality. Take an extreme example if you will, lots of people agreed with Hitler but that certainly didn't make his opinions and actions good or right.

Would I rather have a show like Two Pints where it has mainstream success, repeated every day but could easily be written by a 10 year old...or would I rather have a show like Arrested Development that had three series of top quality writing, acting and comedy and is respected amongst comedy fans and critics and hailed "the greatest sitcom of the last 10 years", yet got cancelled due to poor ratings...I'd go for the latter everytime. And I don't mean to turn this into a self-aggrandizing post, but the comedy I've written has had positive feedback from other comedians and production companies..so that shows me that 'alternative comedy' does have a market (by the way my comedy isn't really what this thread is about, it's not 'cutting edge'...it's just ideas that have had a lot of thought put into them and structured well with lots of gags)

So yeah I don't disagree with those that need the money and success so make easy mainstream stuff but that doesn't mean just because their show appeals to more people that it's any better than a show that has cult status. But I also still stand by the fact that mainstream doesn't have to mean crap...Not Going Out is mainstream but you can tell lots of work goes into it.

Quote: SlagA @ January 3, 2008, 10:23 AM

Skibbs original point: find a writing partner who's your opposite and yet able to be totally blunt with is very very true. Writers make the mistake of choosing like-for-like but you don't need your ideas echoing back from a partner. You need them being transformed by a new angle.

That self-performance is the way to raise profile, again can't disagree. The Slaggs (and others here) have worked this out and made it a keystone to their overall 'strategy' (if such a thing exists?) These days serious writers need to get their work viewed by as wide a market as possible. Use technology.

That 'pushing the boundaries' has to be sick or involve molestation wasn't helped when Skibb gave that impression with the molesting copper. but saying that, it is often confused in people's perceptions, and though sometimes true, it doesn't have to be. League of Gentlemen definitely pushed boundaries. Series 1 and 2 in a good way. Series 3 in a crap way. Brass Eye too.

I like Skibbs anger and angst, it gives his writing a frustrated sense of urgency. Would love to collaborate with him sometime, if he'd have us (as we also want to / are in the process of / or will collaborate with others here when we eventually get the time and platform) But I wouldn't go with the 99% figure of slush on here.

And I don't think any writer has to 'prove' themselves to anyone else but themselves, whether hobbyist or not.

View original

Thank you, Slag, for pointing this thread back to its origins.

I am a passionate person who, when he does something he likes doing, does it with gusto & colour & enthusiasm, and so, when it comes to writing or even posting threads here at BSG, I can sometimes over-generalize or knock something down a little too hard---hence the "99%" comment and the one about "hobbyists".

Three people have responded to this ad via PM but have yet to show any signs of willingness to commit to this project. It is now a podcast project. 30 minute show of sketches, rude songs, and miscellanea. If we create anything that can be performed on stage then we might do so, but for now it's just a studio project.

We write material and perform it.

Looking for an engineer/editor/recordist.
2 or 3 writers.

We will only meet once or twice in person to perform/record.

There's more to say but I have to go to workhell right now (day job). Will update this post or start a new one later.

Quote: Martin Holmes @ January 3, 2008, 11:40 AM

For me it comes down to the simple fact that I would rather write something that makes me laugh and makes me proud and have that show gain 'cult' status....rather than churn out some half-arseed mediocre garbage and gain a mainstream audience.

View original

Use that to pitch your sitcom to a production company you want to pay you and staff to make your show and you'll be booted out the door. If you are writing for tv you are writing for the public.

Quote: Martin Holmes @ January 3, 2008, 11:40 AM

And if you're telling me that people would rather watch sitcoms like My Family for the rest of their lives rather than sitcoms like Fawlty Towers then there's no point going on debating. If they would like that then I stand by my opinion that most people like shit comedy, shit films and shit music, I'm not sneering at those people I just feel they need to broaden their horizons.

View original

That is incredibly ignorant. Not everyone is a student of comedy, films, music, who are you to tell them what's good or not or what they should broaden their horizons. Maybe they have more important things to do!

Quote: Martin Holmes @ January 3, 2008, 11:40 AM

Also just because lots of people watch something doesn't make it good or funny, it makes it successful yes but that doesn't equate quality. Take an extreme example if you will, lots of people agreed with Hitler but that certainly didn't make his opinions and actions good or right.

View original

What are you talking about? Again, you are being judge and jury on everything. You don't define things as good or funny or quality, no one person does but if a comedy has lots of people watching it then to those people it is funny, good and meets the quality they set. You seem to be setting a standard that is your own, but obviously not necessary to others. Plenty of prime time comedies have flopped before, this notion that people will watch anything is rubbish.

Quote: Martin Holmes @ January 3, 2008, 11:40 AM

Would I rather have a show like Two Pints where it has mainstream success, repeated every day but could easily be written by a 10 year old...

View original

Sorry but that is where you have lost all creditability with me, and I stopped watch it ages ago.

Quote: Martin Holmes @ January 3, 2008, 11:40 AM

And I don't mean to turn this into a self-aggrandizing post, but the comedy I've written has had positive feedback from other comedians and production companies..so that shows me that 'alternative comedy' does have a market (by the way my comedy isn't really what this thread is about, it's not 'cutting edge'...it's just ideas that have had a lot of thought put into them and structured well with lots of gags)

View original

You are not alone in having good feedback but assuming that people that have actually made it don't put a lot of thought into their work is amazing. At the end of the day a comedy has to be funny first, not clever or well structured or well characterised. Maybe to you but not to everyone.

I don't see any point in me arguing this point anymore because it takes a while and i'm trying to write my own sitcom, which is alternative and a original concept, with thought out characters and stories. I only did so as I know Martin is a student of comedy like I am and I don't want him to fall into the trap of a lot subject experts and forget that the general public aren't so passionate about it. I'm trying to help.

Its like buying toothpaste. Some really go for the best ultra sensitive total care whitening one, while others go for the buy one, get one free ones. If it works for them who gives a peppermint shit?

Mint's horrible stuff.

Just thought I'd throw that in there.

Thanks for the tip, Nuts, I just won two grand at Chepstow on Peppermint Shit!

Quote: ContainsNuts @ January 3, 2008, 1:58 PM

Use that to pitch your sitcom to a production company you want to pay you and staff to make your show and you'll be booted out the door. If you are writing for tv you are writing for the public.

View original

Hey it worked for Larry David...kind of. But of course I wouldn't go into a pitch all guns blazing like that, but a lot of my favourite comedies are constructed in that way, "write what makes you laugh" and sometimes, not always, but sometimes you find a producer who is willing to take a risk and let you have freedom over the content of your show, sometimes it can really pay off for them, other times it may flop...but either way you've made something that you wanted to make.

Quote: ContainsNuts @ January 3, 2008, 1:58 PM

That is incredibly ignorant. Not everyone is a student of comedy, films, music, who are you to tell them what's good or not or what they should broaden their horizons. Maybe they have more important things to do!

View original

Yeah it is quite ignorant, but not the real point I was trying to make. The point was that people aren't like that because people wouldn't rather watch sitcoms like My Family for the rest of their lives, they'd rather watch more sitcoms like Fawlty Towers.

Quote: ContainsNuts @ January 3, 2008, 1:58 PM

What are you talking about? Again, you are being judge and jury on everything. You don't define things as good or funny or quality, no one person does but if a comedy has lots of people watching it then to those people it is funny, good and meets the quality they set. You seem to be setting a standard that is your own, but obviously not necessary to others. Plenty of prime time comedies have flopped before, this notion that people will watch anything is rubbish.

View original

Fair point, but it's just something I can't really get my head around. Because you could say that for everything that nobody can judge whether something is good or bad because it's subjective...I may think it's more efficient to use a hammer to nail up a piece of wood, but someone may prefer to use a carrot...no matter how ridiculous and non-sensical that is, if they keep insisting that they think a carrot is better than a hammer to nail up a piece of wood..then who is to say they are wrong? Me. Humour is subjective but I think some shows/jokes can clearly be better than others.

Quote: ContainsNuts @ January 3, 2008, 1:58 PM

You are not alone in having good feedback but assuming that people that have actually made it don't put a lot of thought into their work is amazing. At the end of the day a comedy has to be funny first, not clever or well structured or well characterised. Maybe to you but not to everyone.

View original

I never said that people who have made it don't put effort in to their work, that would be ludicrous. There are tons of sitcoms and other comedy shows that are mainstream that the writers and performers put tremendous amounts of effort and passion into. But they are lots of mainstream shows as well as those were there isn't as much effort put into, I don't think that is a wrong thing to say, you can clearly see when watching certain programmes how much thought and effort has gone into it.

Quote: ContainsNuts @ January 3, 2008, 1:58 PM

I don't see any point in me arguing this point anymore because it takes a while and i'm trying to write my own sitcom, which is alternative and a original concept, with thought out characters and stories. I only did so as I know Martin is a student of comedy like I am and I don't want him to fall into the trap of a lot subject experts and forget that the general public aren't so passionate about it. I'm trying to help.

View original

I don't know if this is meant to be taking the piss, if not then I apologise. But I'm not stupid or blind to the fact that the majority of the public aren't as passionate about comedy as myself or other aspiring comedy writers, but that doesn't stop you making a show that you have put lots of effort into to make really funny on many levels, with a strong story and strong characters does it? I think people may be getting the wrong end of the stick with my argument because it's in this thread which seems to be about 'cutting edge' comedy, but that really isn't my style of comedy...I'd probably describe my comedy as mainstream, but as I've said mainstream can still be smart and cleverly constructed...look at Seinfeld, it doesn't really get more mainstream than that (America-wise) yet it was still incredibly smart, well-constructed with brilliantly performed characters and still been really really funny.

Quote: ContainsNuts @ January 3, 2008, 1:58 PM

Its like buying toothpaste. Some really go for the best ultra sensitive total care whitening one, while others go for the buy one, get one free ones. If it works for them who gives a peppermint shit?

View original

As long as it's not strawberry toothpaste it's fine with me (who would want to brush their teeth with a strawbery?).