Liked it, ShoePie you should enter it as a sketch for the unnamed sketch show project, i'd vote for it.
Coffee room sketch Page 2
i though it was good. It made me larf
Thanks everyone. Yeah I will definitely put it forward for the Unnamed sketch project even if I have to change the last line to Naff Off!
Quote: ShoePie @ February 3, 2007, 10:55 AM
I think changing it to naff off would lessen it's impact, which would be a shame. If there was a problem re watershed, he could just punch the guy in the face and walk off while the other guy writhes in agony. Just a thought. I'd vote for the original sketch too, by the way.
I'm ashamed to say I've only just read this sketch, prompted by something Shoepie and I were chatting about, and I have to say that I think the original is superb, including all the dialogue and 'f*** off'.
The stuff that some people describe as 'fluff' is necessary to build-up the tension/display the relationship between the people which might not be immediately obvious if you ruthlessly cut it down to the bare minimum.
Haven't commented on this before.
Re: Fluff V not fluff debate. Scott, you say:
"The stuff that people describe as 'fluff' is necessary to build-up the tension/display the relationship between the people which might not be immediately obvious if you ruthlessly cut it down to the bare minimum."
I'm making no point about the sketch itself, here. I'm making generalised points. And it is only my opinion.
I'd suggest that not a single writer would want to defend something that is clearly fluff. Fluff, by its definition, is disposable. As writers we should all be struggling to write as economically as possible, whether the project is a 90,000 word novel or a 10 second sketch. Ruthlessly cutting down to a bare minimum is what every writer should strive towards. Our biggest editor and critic should be ourselves.
The limit on the words available shouldn't mean that we can think "I'll cut some slack and add this line / word / paragraph just here" Every single word we write should convey meaning. If a word is redundant then it shouldn't be on the page. When you write a novel, you have to examine each section and decide whether it is needed. It's even more so important when words are at a premium, in a medium like sketch-writing.
What I think is at issue here is what constitutes fluff. Some people would see fluff, where another writer sees character development. Personally, I'd argue that a sketch is not about fantastic character development. It's the wrong medium. Sketches are imo the disposable razors of comedy. You deliver the goods (a laugh) then you throw it away. Yes, some characters can and have been developed from sketches through the years but this development occurs in progression rather than getting crammed into one sketch.
I suppose one test for fluff is, if I remove this word or phrase or sentence, or dialogue section will I lose a) a piece of information about the character or b) plot or c) a gag. If the answer is No to all three then it's likely fluff.
As writers we all seem to think that a page is there to be filled, when it's not. The blank page is the container in which we place our work. There should be no desire to write 'til we fill the allotted space.
The point you make about: "The stuff people describe as 'fluff' is necessary to build-up tension/relationship which might not be immediately obvious."
I'd argue that there are many ways you can pass info to the viewer, bypassing the need to state information in dialogue.
Setting the sketch in the right context is vital. A workplace tells the viewer much about the relationships already in place. A tent on a mountain, likewise will set limits on the personality types, the relationships, of the people in that tent. Familiar settings like a confessional box means that the writer can safely remove up to and including "Bless me, father for I have sinned." and just cut straight into the meat. The viewer has seen this scenario repeatedly and actually supplies the boring preamble (that must have occurred prior to the beginning of the sketch) in their imagination.
Clothes, and body language are also good ways of passing this on. In a workplace, a suited man who reaches out and vigorously pumps the hand of a man, wearing overalls, who has hunched shoulders and avoids eye contact tells you about the existing heirarchy.
Of all the ways to convey information, words are the most vague and open to misinterpretation by director / actor / viewer. Even a small phrase such as "I love you" can mean totally different things to the speaker, the hearer, and this is further tainted by the surroundings, the tone of the voice, the volume of the voice, and whether other characters are in the room.
Words should come with the warning "Handle with care."
Repeated ideas, repetitions of character names (if there are only two people in a room, do we even need to know their names when it's obvious who the target of speech is going to be?) should be first out. Followed by fluff words (just / quite / oh / well / etc). Lines that don't contain gags should be looked at to see if they convey plot or character. If not, get the scissors out or convert the piece into the sitcom / drama / novel it's crying to become.
The real issue should be not that we'd defend fluff while knowing that the segment under consideration is redundant. The issue is WHAT IS FLUFF? This will vary from writer to writer but every writer should discard fluff where they see it in their work.
Writing is the easy part, it's what you choose to leave off the page when it's complete is the tricky part.
My advice would be that it is a decent gag at the end but the initial dialogue needs to be, well, funny. IMO as it stands the characters are odd and unreasonable but I can't relate to them, nor am I amused by them. I suppose the endgame of posting our work on this forum is making our writing funnier - it is comedy an' all.
I'll have to go against the grain and say that the punchline doesn't round it off for me, unless it is intended to be a running gag. For example, Dan could turn the tables on John etc.
Now, I'd offer some more suggestions but I think that Mr Shoepie is already very good and making people laugh (me included)! That fair, fella?
The original sketch contains around 150 words. That's not too long.
I enjoyed it from the start through to the f**k off. So I don't think anything needs to be cut.
Thanks for your comments and thoughts, as always much apreciated. Both positive or otherwise!!
When I look at the sketch I see the initial weird set-up explained. About three or four throwaway lines and then a punchline. Throwaway lines because if they don't get a laugh it doesn't really matter, the action moves on. So for me there's very little fluff. However, if you don't find the lines funny then they would be considered fluff.
I don't know if these throwaway lines could be considered proper jokes, the thing that makes them funny IMO is the character delivering them is so un-reasonably offended.
I used the word character just then because I think they're important (even if they're only 1 dimensional). I will have to re-read your comments tommorrow Mr SlagA, I understand a lot of what you're saying but I'm a bit knackered tonight to get all my thoughts clear.
I've learnt quite a bit from this feedback (i.e those lines aren't as funny as I thought they were!!). So this will be an area I keep my eye on when/if I get the chance to have the sketch performed to test further if they work.
Thanks
The throwaway lines were meant to be:
-------------------------------------
DAN:
I don't want to hear your excuses now!
DAN:
You're doing it again!!
DAN:
Long-winded?! I only asked how you were!
Hi Shoepie
My comments weren't about your sketch, mate. I was only making a case for the Fluff v Not Fluff debate, I think I say that right at the beginning. Similarly with this post. I am not referencing your sketch at all.
Scott - as my previous post pointed out, the word count is totally irrelevant in the Fluff - No Fluff debate. You can write just 20 words and still have overwritten a gag. If a writer can say exactly the same thing with less words then the writer should always choose less over more.
IMO the sketch had no fluff and I liked it all, and the punchline.
I agree...especially as a colleague and I had a conversation about this not too long ago about the whole "how are you?" question and the right response to it.
Who *actually* means it when they say "how are you?" All that's required as a sufficient response is a simple 'fine' not a indepth story about back problems and the kids who are failing school. How are you is more of a greeting than a meaningful question....
I liked the whole sketch - funny, witty and i LOVED the punch line!
As I mentioned in each of my two posts above, my comments were not referencing this specific sketch.
Hi SlagA, I did read the bit regarding your post being a general point and not specific to my sketch. I just thought I should respond seeing as you took the time to share your thoughts.
Amd now I find myself about to rush out to work!! Aaargh! Maybe later.
One of my pet annoyences is when people are so used to saying 'how are you?' without actually meaning it that instead of saying the words, it omes out as one long continuous whine/word 'howaryoooo' which sounds exactly the same everytime.
Thanks Scott, EllieJP, SlagA