New, and already asking for help/advice. Hi.

Hello.
Despite happily enjoying many aspects of internet life for many years, it was around an hour ago that I first considered the possibility of forums for writers, writer's forums if you will, lurking behind the same bloody laptop keyboard I've been writing with. Does not bode well

Anyway, my appeal;

Been working on a project for a while, containing a fair few, fairly short two person conversational skits. Some bits I'm ok with, but a lot reads as if both parties are using the one brain between them. mine. they didn't even ask.

Does anyone have some hints or exercises, (even from drama school) that may help me tear my brain into two?

But not by much. it's integral that both parties use perfect logic and reason to further their adventure. Happy enough forming such discourse, mostly draped around Socrates/Plato - reshaping the clay. And as this also follows an ancient people, seems apt. Considering some epistemic errors, GE Moore good for that.

Or, if anyone would like to bounce some around, I would be more than happy It's good to share

I do think the idea is strong enough, but need to crack on, before someone else finishes theirs first; I see a meme approaching.

Many thanks, like the look of this site, so pleased. Be well, regards, neill.

You lost me at Socrates mate.
If it's knob gags you're after, however....

Seriously, I think you're going to have to post something in Critique, otherwise no-one's going to have a f**king clue.

Quote: neill forrest @ 24th June 2015, 12:25 PM BST

writer's forums if you will

View original

I won't.

It should be " writers' "

This thread might be helpful:

https://www.comedy.co.uk/forums/thread/22417/

As Terry Thomas might have said (dare I say, would have said..) you'd be better off calling the Samaritans for help than this shower!

It's often said that a character in a script should be readily identifiable by his dialogue.

Now, while there's some truth in that, it's not necessary for writers to take it too seriously.

It's often sufficient for a writer just to write the words and let the actors and/or readers bring character to the speakers.

When someone tells you your characters aren't sufficiently distinguishable one from another on the written page, that someone is usually someone who's about to reject your script and is looking for what sounds like a good reason to do so.

Quote: Rood Eye @ 25th June 2015, 8:57 PM BST

It's often said that a character in a script should be readily identifiable by his dialogue.

Now, while there's some truth in that, it's not necessary for writers to take it too seriously.

View original

Have you any work performed, Rood? This sounds like slight baloney here.

Hi dropfoot, it's probably not that funny if they're both perfectly logical all the time . I assume you're doing a philosophy based thing which is fine but if you want them both logical, philosophical, wise, intelligent etc then they're obviously going to sound the same.

But that aside, what I do is imagine each character and you can cheat a bit, you can imagine it's a take on one or more of your favourite comedy characters. For example, if it was connie from brickleberry talking to basil fawlty (obviously change the characters and their traits etc so they become unique) but I'm sure if you had them two discussing socrates and all that you would have much more scope for comedy.

You probably want your two talking heads to be contrasting personalities, to disagree, to bicca (no idea how to spell that) and if you lose a bit of the them being logical and they have their own issues, you can bring this in too. So maybe one of them needs a shit and the socrates expert is taiking about moving oneself before one moves the world or whatever he says - there's a shit joke in there somewhere

Or maybe it's an idiot and someone who thinks they're clever or a teenage girl constantly texting and a 'too into socrates' grown up - but just two clever and logical people discussing clever and logical things isn't that funny

Unless you're just going for highbrow 'witticisms' in which case you can still give them their own foibles and speech patterns and also still their own 'issues' (said or implied)

Also, once I've done a few rewrites, and what they're saying is pretty much there, I'll go through by character - so just rewrite Fred's bit then rewrite John's bit so it's all congruent to the character