Yeah I know what you mean
My Daffodils are suffering with the frost.
But I think you want the Gardening thread.
The Persuasionists Page 8
Interesting article.
I did notice laughter that sounded canned & it did put me off a bit.
Not to mention the unneccesary, ill advised or detrimental cuts that they seem to have had.
Quote: Matthew Stott @ January 15 2010, 8:42 PM GMTNoticed this on Chortle:
I think that is probably the most interesting article I have read about the Beeb's recent comedy output, not so much the laughter enhancement, I was aware of (and intensely irritated by) that, but the editing out of pauses and reactions.
I keep watching BBC shows with my writer's hat on, thinking, that's a good gag, that's a good gag, that's a good gag - why aren't I laughing?
I really wonder if there is not a basic failure to understand studio comedy at the BBC. Edington and Hawthorne famously insisted on recording Yes Minister in front of a live audience to enable them to pace their performances and play off the audience reaction. (You often see Hawthorne in particular trying not laugh himself as the he waits for the laughter to die down.) If you are going to edit out any pauses and paste laughter all over every line anyway, then really what is the point?
Quote: Griff @ January 15 2010, 10:18 PM GMTFascinating article. If a bit depressing.
When was the last time you read an article positive about modern comedy and the industry?
Quote: Griff @ January 15 2010, 10:33 PM GMTI read Micheal Jacob's blog avidly.
He's certainly a glass half full kind of chap. Except when it comes to the cancerous BCG.
Quote: Matthew Stott @ January 15 2010, 8:42 PM GMTNoticed this on Chortle:
An excellent article, which makes some very valid points. Part of the problem with reviving live studio audience sitcom is that people such as the Beeb have got rid of/sidelined most of the directors and producers who really know how it should be done.
It's not just on the post-production side, the directing of many studio sitcoms is just not very good. If you listen to the director's commentaries of someone such as (the late) Bob Spiers on Fawlty Towers, you realise just how complicated they were to shoot and how much thought and preparation went into rehearsals. I suspect that very few comedy directors/producers of the modern generation really understand how much of a different discipline studio sitcom is versus single camera/non-audience.
Perhaps the BBC et al should think about recruiting directors/producers from the theatre to make their audience sitcoms? Because ultimately theatre and stage nous is very important to making these shows work. The studio sitcom should feel and sound like the piece was a piece of interactive theatre with the audience playing a honest role in the performance. If the studio show is edited to shit, with the pace/laughs determined by the editing rather than the writing and performances, then what is the point of doing live audience studio sitcom in the first place? You may as well spend the extra money and only make single camera, laughter track-free shows.
Oh, and the trend for heavy post-production laughter track editing isn't just a problem in sitcom. Certain panel shows are now sticking recycled snippets of huge audience laughs over the end of every gag, no matter how weak the joke, nor how unconvincing the laugh is. (8 Out of 10 Cats is a prime example of this.)
Quote: Nil Putters @ January 14 2010, 8:08 PM GMTIt amazes me that something like this can premiere of BBC Two when something tried and tested like Ideal can't escape from the clutches of BBC Three to be viewed by a bigger audience. Shame.
Quote: Aaron @ January 15 2010, 5:30 PM GMTI'm not sure that any other BBC channel would be interested in the murky world of druggies. You're quite lucky that Three is still going with it really.
That's a good point, after all nobody involved with BBC Three or TV in general would ever smoke weed. And certainly not the viewers. Graham Duff, along with Linehan is probably the most accomplished sitcom writer working today.
Quote: Griff @ January 15 2010, 10:18 PM GMTFascinating article. If a bit depressing.
This article more-or-less claims that the BBC doesn't know how to assemble an edit. I think it's naive and mistaken. The BBCs mistakes are always artistic, not technical.
Quote: Godot Taxis @ January 16 2010, 12:16 AM GMTThis article more-or-less claims that the BBC doesn't know how to assemble an edit. I think it's naive and mistaken. The BBCs mistakes are always artistic, not technical.
I think it is the artistic aspect of the editing that is in question, not their ability to splice film.
Quote: Timbo @ January 16 2010, 12:20 AM GMTI think it is the artistic aspect of the editing that is in question, not their ability to splice film.
Yeah, well that's the point. I can understand how someone might think that the editing process is akin to painting the laughing cavalier or the raft of the medusa but it really isn't. I'm telling you, production on these shows is shit hot. they really do have the best people.
On the subject of druggy sitcoms, Orrible was about a drug dealer and that was BBC2.
I think Richard Sandling will have to start backpeddling soon.....
(selected bits from above article)
Apparently the personal opinion of a low level comedian (me) about some aspect of something he doesn't like and thought he would bring up on what is basically an online forum is seemingly a news story requiring the production company to have to make a statement in defence of my accusations.
I should just point out that no one has taken any offence as such or moaned to me personally but I thought it best to offer this pre-emptive strike in explaining my actions as I am not some whistle blower trying to f**k shit up, I just thought I would share my opinion of comedy post production as I had experience of both the shoot and the broadcast.
And the defence of The Persuasionists from the producer:
Iain Morris at Bwark, who produced the show, said that no artificial laughs were added, and that the pacing of the scenes were exactly as recorded.
'The episodes needed to be 28 minutes long, and we recorded them at 34, so we did cut some scenes, but we didn't alter the timing at all. Our editor worked on The Office and the director worked on Alan Partridge and Pulling, so we've all been doing this a very long time, and we know that shaving seconds of scenes is a false economy.
'Every laugh was genuine. In fact, we did redo the audio because there were too many laughs, so we thought we'd better take some out.
'Some of the laughs may have been high in the mix, but they were all genuine. It doesn't do anyone any good to add false laughs, especially when audiences are so sophisticated these days.'
http://www.chortle.co.uk/news/2010/01/15/10345/editing_ruined_bbcs_new_comedy
Quote: Godot Taxis @ January 16 2010, 12:27 AM GMTYeah, well that's the point. I can understand how someone might think that the editing process is akin to painting the laughing cavalier or the raft of the medusa but it really isn't. I'm telling you, production on these shows is shit hot. they really do have the best people.
I still think you are missing the point. Comedy has a rhythm which can be disrupted by unsympathetic editing. If an editor thinks the idea of comedy is edit it as slickly as possible to cram in the maximum number of laughs, that is not necessarily going to work. Being technically good and having a sympathetic understanding of the material you are editing is not the same thing.
Quote: Godot Taxis @ January 16 2010, 12:27 AM GMTI can understand how someone might think that the editing process is akin to painting the laughing cavalier or the raft of the medusa but it really isn't.
Editing well is a great skill and an important one; the way things are cut has a large affect on the finished piece. It is possible to ruin jokes, or whole shows, in the edit; just as it's possible to improve a piece through great editing. I remember watching a piece on Arrested Development where the edit people basically said that very often they would cut scenes in five or six different ways, all the different edits made the scene play in a different way. Though that is obviously in a non-audience show, it's very likely that there is less you can do with the more heavilly blocked live audience show.
Quote: Matthew Stott @ January 16 2010, 11:52 AM GMTThough that is obviously in a non-audience show, it's very likely that there is less you can do with the more heavilly blocked live audience show.
Possibly that is the problem - the editors are trying to do too much.