NJ: Disqualified Wildlife Photo Sketch

Hello!

This is the First Critique Sketch I'm Posting on here. NewsJack didn't fancy it

JUDGE1:
Thank you for coming everybody. There are rumours that this winning wildlife photo of this "Canis Lupus", or wolf to the average person, could be an actor. Now, we have to consider if it is legitimate or not and unfortunately it's not as clear cut as Mrs Sweeny's entry of a tiger where it was just her pet cat Tiddles with orange stripes painted all over it.

JUDGE2:
I'll be honest, I have never seen a wolf juggling pine cones like that. Certainly not on David Attenborough's programmes. And I swear if you look closely at the photo, you can see 3 little pigs running in the background.

JUDGE3:
And I'm pretty sure wolves don't wear Ugg boots in the wild? Do they? Mind you I've never seen one.

JUDGE4:
Yes and this one seems to be....on the back of a tricycle.

JUDGE1:
So we are all agreed...this can't be a genuine photo

ALL:
Agreed.

JUDGE1:
Now how about this photo of Gordon Brown posing naked with a well toned muscular body and nine inch, uh, rod?

All:
FAKE!

Not really sure about this one. Has there been a recent story about wildlife photos being faked?

It's OK as a stand alone sketch (i.e. non-topical) but doesn't really go anywhere and the switch to Gordon Brown is a bit jarring.

The basic idea of faking wildlife photography is a sound one for a silly, escalating sketch though. quick - rewrite it and bung it in this week's skit comp.

[quote name="Afinkawan" post="583373" date="February 5 2010, 10:58 AM GMT"]Not really sure about this one. Has there been a recent story about wildlife photos being faked?

Yeah, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8470962.stm

I guess I thought it was more popular than it is, as it was 3 different stories in the metro. Firstly, when it the photo won the competition a few months ago. Then, later there was a 2nd story that it could be a fake, and lastly, it came out 2 weeks ago that it had been disqualified.

Damn, the 2nd last line originally (which I forgot to change back here) was:

JUDGE 1:
Now how about this photo of a broad smiling, charismatic Gordon Brown??

ALL:
FAKE!

But I changed it to link up with the gordon brown posing naked sketch on last week's newsjack. Thought that might improve the chance of it getting in. Alas, I was sadly mistaken...hehe.

But thanks for the feedback Will see if I can take it somewhere else

Yeah, I heard about the story (originally and when it was brought up again last week).

Your first line has lots of jokes in, but if they were done in exchanges between the two judges, it would scan better -- bit of quick verbal exchange.

As Mr A says, it's a bit generic for a topical news show the way you've done it; maybe you should have tried to connect it to some other story doing the rounds.

The Gordon Brown bit doesn't really work. I'm a bit sick of Gordon appearing in practically every NJ sketch tbh -- I'll be glad when he's gone!

It's a good attempt though. Nice one.

Dan

Cheers Dan. Thats a good idea about breaking up the first paragraph into some exchanges.

Ric

it's not as clear cut as Mrs Sweeny's entry of a tiger where it was just her pet cat Tiddles with orange stripes painted all over it.

ha ha ha hilarious.

I actually think (in my 'umble) you could end it on the bit were they're all agreed and loaw the Gordon Brown bit.

I didn't know the story but it ends in an identifiable punch and doesn't outstay its welcome - though I think the others are right about the shift to Brown being a bit jarring.