Gags in scripts

Some seasoned writers warn against putting too many gags in a script. However, often a show will have a character in it who tells lots of gags, perhaps meant ironically, but nonetheless there are gags there which the audience can laugh at unironically. I've heard this device used a couple of times today, on a 'listen again' of the radio version of Klang, and 'A Series of Psychotic Episodes'.

So is this practise still potentially a bit dodgy? Or is it the best of both worlds, getting extra laughs in while 'explaining' their presence by making them be in context?

When ever I've heard it's been pretty awful.

If by gag you mean saying someone saying self-consciously humourous, then I am struggling to think of a sitcom that does not have at least one character who does this to a lesser or greater extent. Which is fair enough, as I know few people in life who do not do this. The important thing is that the remark is in character, arises unforced from the dialogue and forms an integral part of that dialogue. And that it is funny. If a gag is obviously teed-up, feels shoe-horned in to up the laugh count, or is just lame, then you have a problem.

Quote: Timbo @ August 12 2009, 10:19 PM BST

If by gag you mean saying someone saying self-consciously humourous, .../

View original

I'll explain the specific examples I mentioned. In Klang, it was a spoof documentary about a comedian who tells really 'bad' jokes. So the humour should come from us laughing at the character of the comedian, not with him. But of course, we are still being presented with 'bad' jokes, and it feels like a sneaky way to slip in 'bad' material; if we don't laugh, then that's Ok because it fits with the story, but if we do laugh, then is it a good thing (laughs are good) or is it not?

More difficult was 'A Series of Psychotic Episodes'. The sketch involved a group of friends finding a tiny creature, and wanting to keep it. But this creature wasn't a kitten, it was a comedian. The friends were enthralled to observe this creature's natural behaviour, as it started to do a 'routine', but came to the decision that they couldn't keep it because it was effectively 'diseased', in that it started to perform racist jokes. So now we are expected to laugh at the bizarre situation, but what if we start to find the racist material funny?

To be fair, they only really hinted at racism in this case.

Quote: Timbo @ August 12 2009, 10:19 PM BST

The important thing is that the remark is in character, arises unforced from the dialogue and forms an integral part of that dialogue. And that it is funny. If a gag is obviously teed-up, feels shoe-horned in to up the laugh count, or is just lame, then you have a problem.

View original

Yes. It also depends on what sort of comedy you're writing. A studio audience comedy needs a lot more obviously-funny lines than a single-cam, non-studio comedy for instance. But yes, the trick to learn (and it can be hard lesson actually) is to absolutely ensure the gags always sit well with your character and situation, and your character hasn't just said the line to get a cheap laugh. Micheal Jacob once said that he often spends more time with new writers getting them to take jokes out of a script than putting them in. Of course, by that he meant superfluous jokes that're there in the script for no other reason than to raise a cheap giggle, rather than advancing the story or contributing to character.

It's all very boring and counter-intuitive - after all as comedy writers we often want to cram as many jokes into our work as poss - but I think it's actually a very important skill to master if you're going to write really good comedy scripts.

Wierdly enough I think you can get away more with bad jokes if it is single cam non studio. If it is audience gags are expected and they have to be funny where as in lots of show they do what Nogget was saying and can put in any joke. Early Doors has some awful awful jokes but they can get away with it because it is the type of jokes those people would be making.

Most people suffer from not enough gags I would think.

If in doubt put in more I would say - they can always come out later.

Quote: NoggetFred @ August 13 2009, 6:39 AM BST

I'll explain the specific examples I mentioned. In Klang, it was a spoof documentary about a comedian who tells really 'bad' jokes. So the humour should come from us laughing at the character of the comedian, not with him. But of course, we are still being presented with 'bad' jokes, and it feels like a sneaky way to slip in 'bad' material; if we don't laugh, then that's Ok because it fits with the story, but if we do laugh, then is it a good thing (laughs are good) or is it not?

View original

This kind of goes back at least as far as Archie Rice inThe Entertainer, where larry famously nailed the part of the third-rate stand-up by telling jokes as well as we was able. I seem to recall Shakespeare has his cake and eats it at times by having other characters criticise the quality of his clowns' wit.

Quote: Timbo @ August 13 2009, 10:53 AM BST

I seem to recall Shakespeare has his cake and eats it at times by having other characters criticise the quality of his clowns' wit.

View original

A tradition that Mitchell and Webb continue to this day, often critiquing their own work during sketches.

Chandler's character seems to get away with it in Friends - but again, it's a key part of his character, using humour to deal with his insecurities etc.

Quote: Griff @ August 13 2009, 10:28 AM BST

Lee's right. The only thing that matters is that gags are in character. Frasier often makes pompous, high-brow "jokes" - usually when showing off in front of Niles - which his character thinks are witty, but just show him to be a snob. But in other situations, i.e. banter with Roz, he is genuinely witty and makes some hilarious remarks. All of which is great writing and creates a layered character, who shows different aspects of himself when interacting with different people, like real people do.

View original

i know I am in the minority but I think that Frasier is one of the shows that has too many gags in it. I don't get the impression a lot of the crap gags are meant to be intentionally bad- mianly I guess because the audience laughs unctrollably at every single joke. Also they use a lot of puns.

Quote: Sebastian Orange-News @ August 13 2009, 5:02 PM BST

I don't get the impression a lot of the crap gags are meant to be intentionally bad.

View original

No you're probably right. The multi emmy award winning writers probably didn't have that intention either.

Quote: Sebastian Orange-News @ August 13 2009, 5:02 PM BST

I don't get the impression.../

View original

I thought exactly the same thing, whilst watching Kevin Bishop.

Quote: Marc P @ August 13 2009, 5:21 PM BST

No you're probably right. The multi emmy award winning writers probably didn't have that intention either.

View original

i admit it was more personal taste in believing some of the gags to be crap. I do think it is a brilliant show and there are millions of amazing funny scenes, however a lot of the lines are more amusing than funny.