Radio sitcom jokes opinions/advice

Hello

I am writing a radio sitcom and am delighted with the setting, characters and voices, episode plots(more themes than plots) etc, but I am umming and aahing over jokes, and gags. I'll explain what I mean.

My characters are funny, likeable, believable and work well together, but I am wondering whether I need to have gags, jokes, howlers etc for it to be funny. The constant setup-knockdown of rapid fire gags (like in Friends)seems crass and a bit tedious, but are a collection of 'funny' characters enough?

Here's a joke I wrote to see how it would sound, it's kind of paraphrased here, but this is the joke.

Earlier
JANICE: We're painting our spare room white, like the lady on the telly said, to give it "the illusion of space".

Later
CUSTOMER: Nightmare parking, tiny car park this

JANICE: Oh I know

KEN: Let's paint it white to "give it the illusion of space"

DARREN: Or paint it black with little white spots everywhere.

Any thoughts?

Quote: Py5ir5 @ November 12 2008, 1:19 PM GMT

Hello

I am writing a radio sitcom and am delighted with the setting, characters and voices, episode plots(more themes than plots) etc, but I am umming and aahing over jokes, and gags. I'll explain what I mean.

My characters are funny, likeable, believable and work well together, but I am wondering whether I need to have gags, jokes, howlers etc for it to be funny. The constant setup-knockdown of rapid fire gags (like in Friends)seems crass and a bit tedious, but are a collection of 'funny' characters enough?

Here's a joke I wrote to see how it would sound, it's kind of paraphrased here, but this is the joke.

Earlier
JANICE: We're painting our spare room white, like the lady on the telly said, to give it "the illusion of space".

Later
CUSTOMER: Nightmare parking, tiny car park this

JANICE: Oh I know

KEN: Let's paint it white to "give it the illusion of space"

DARREN: Or paint it black with little white spots everywhere.

Any thoughts?

View original

Gags don't have to be contrived though. People just assume a funny sitcom is too much like Friends, and that's not always the case.

Also, me being a dunce, I didn't quite get the joke.

Quote: Seefacts @ November 12 2008, 1:48 PM GMT

Also, me being a dunce, I didn't quite get the joke.

View original

I'm assumming the intention is for a small car park to be painted white to give it the 'illusion of space'.

Hard to tell if this is funny or not without knowing more about the characters and the joke within the context of the story as a whole.

Quote: Py5ir5 @ November 12 2008, 1:19 PM GMT

Hello

I am writing a radio sitcom and am delighted with the setting, characters and voices, episode plots(more themes than plots) etc, but I am umming and aahing over jokes, and gags. I'll explain what I mean.

My characters are funny, likeable, believable and work well together, but I am wondering whether I need to have gags, jokes, howlers etc for it to be funny. The constant setup-knockdown of rapid fire gags (like in Friends)seems crass and a bit tedious, but are a collection of 'funny' characters enough?

View original

Depends what it is and what slot it's aimed at. If it's a non-studio audience sitcom aimed at the 11:30 slot or the nightime slot, then funny characters might be enough. If you're aiming to get it recorded in front of an audience then you need a high gag count. And since more people pitch non-audience shows, IMO you stand a better chance with the gag-heavy audience show.

I like it but I think you're soft peddling it.

Ooh this car space is to small?

Want me to paint it white? Give you the illusion of space/

I didn't find the joke funny when just reading it above, but that might change when you factor in the characters and the plot. As things stand we do not yet know anything about either so can't judge the context of the lines. It just goes to show that jokes by themselves do not make a sitcom.

Def.

My advice is to listen to the radio sitcoms already playing which you should be doing if you are writing for the medium. That will answer all your questions.

The example you gave seems like something that would probably feel natural in a script. I guess it depends whether the gag about paitning it black with white dots to give the illusion of space is forced in just to get the joke count up, seems part of the conversation anyway or is just because the character is a bit thick.

I do not really understand the question. How can you have a radio comedy that does not depend on people saying funny things? If a character says something that gets a laugh, that's a gag. But if by a gag you mean someone saying something self-consciously funny, in real life almost everyone does this, some more than others. You can actually say a lot about a character by the type of joke they make and how many they make.

In the example you give Ken's line is fine, provided it has been set up by showing his irritation with the "paint it white" concept previously, and this has some relevance to the plot. Darren's line is more problematical. On face value it is over-egging the pudding, but does it say something about the characters, their dynamics and the story arc? Is Darren the sort of irritating prick that has to top everyone elses' gag? Are Ken and Darren ganging up on Janice? Is the building tension going to lead to a pay off? etc etc.

JANICE: We're painting our spare room white, like the lady on the telly said, to give it "the illusion of space".

Later
CUSTOMER: Nightmare parking, tiny car park this

JANICE: Oh I know

KEN: Let's paint it white to "give it the illusion of space"

DARREN: Or buy a Mini

I think that as long as you get enough laughter points in the episode (I think you need at least 2 per minute although most good sitcoms have many more than that) then that's all that really matters. Whether the laughter comes from a character trait or a joke that could work out of the context of the sitcom then that's really up to you. It also depends on the type of show you are writing. With sitcoms like 'Peep Show' and 'flight of the conchords' most of the laughter comes from the characters reacting to events/situations whereas traditional style sitcoms sometimes have jokes that a stand-up might tell although they still rely heavily on the characters and situations to create laughs. I listened to 'the party line' for the first time on radio 4 this week and although that is a sitcom it includes jokes that you might get on 'mock the week' or HIGNFY

Scripts taken out of context usually look rubbish, so nothing we say can really help.

The example of The Sitcom Trials (about which, I realise, I talk little else on this group) showed us this regularly. We would read scripts online, vote on them, and come up with a shortlist of what read the best, then would bring these to a round table reading. Round the table, with the words brought to life by actual actors, suddenly the entire nature of scripts would change. Gags, puns and wordplay would suddenly seem naff and pointless, whereas the more important layers of narrative and dramatic interaction would come to the fore.

It is possible to read scripts with more of an awareness of these elements, and not be deluded by the superficilaity of gags, but that really requires seeing the entire script.

Then there are the subtleties of an individual's performance, which is where writer-performers' scripts hit home. If you were to read David Brent's lines in The Office without ever having seen Ricky Gervais's delivery, would half of his monologues had the impact they ended up having?

Thanks everyone

Quote: Kev F @ November 13 2008, 2:46 PM GMT

Scripts taken out of context usually look rubbish, so nothing we say can really help.

The example of The Sitcom Trials (about which, I realise, I talk little else on this group) showed us this regularly. We would read scripts online, vote on them, and come up with a shortlist of what read the best, then would bring these to a round table reading. Round the table, with the words brought to life by actual actors, suddenly the entire nature of scripts would change. Gags, puns and wordplay would suddenly seem naff and pointless, whereas the more important layers of narrative and dramatic interaction would come to the fore.

It is possible to read scripts with more of an awareness of these elements, and not be deluded by the superficilaity of gags, but that really requires seeing the entire script.

Then there are the subtleties of an individual's performance, which is where writer-performers' scripts hit home. If you were to read David Brent's lines in The Office without ever having seen Ricky Gervais's delivery, would half of his monologues had the impact they ended up having?

View original

Spot on I think it's too easy to depend on just joke after joke to make something work. For me there is more comedy in delivery, characterisation and plot development than just the jokes. The jokes are needed but it has to be all of the above.

I talk it good but my own scribblings likely fall for this trap too.