The wannabe double act (part 3)

I wrote the first two parts quite a while back so here are the links if you're interested in reading them, but I've only just got round to finishing off the little mini-series of sketches. I'd be interested in hearing what you think:

The wannabe double act https://www.comedy.co.uk/forums/thread/4304

The wannabe double act (part 2) https://www.comedy.co.uk/forums/thread/4329

The wannabe double act (part 3)

INT. PET SHOP

ANDY IS BEHIND THE COUNTER IN A PET SHOP, HE LOOKS AROUND AND HANGS HIS HEAD IN HIS HANDS. HARRY ENTERS.

HARRY
Alright mate.

ANDY
What are we doing in a pet shop?

HARRY
My new idea.

ANDY
Please, please tell me this is nothing to do with-

HARRY PULLS OUT A DEAD PARROT FROM HIS BAG.

ANDY
Oh no!

HARRY
This is a dead parrot!

ANDY
No. We are not being Monty Python.

HARRY
Tomato why aubergine aren’t potato you turnip open carrots minded?

ANDY
We’re not Ted and Ralph either!

HARRY
Oh, for god’s sake, this is so unfair! I try and come up with ideas-

ANDY
And you can forget about Harry Enfield. Look, why do you think we have to rip off other people’s ideas? Can’t we be ourselves? Like that sketch we did the other day about the fat girl?

HARRY
That wasn’t us being ourselves - that was a rip off of French and Saunders.

ANDY
Are you mad? Other than the fat girl, how was that like French and Saunders?

HARRY
It was shit! Listen mate, our ideas are terrible! We want the audience to be laughing with us, not at us. But the audience aren’t even laughing at us, they’re falling asleep. Nothing is new in comedy, everything has been done before in some form. We might as well steal from the best.

ANDY SIGHS, THEN LOOKS AT THE CAMERA.

ANDY
(SINGS) Bring me sunshine, in your smile...

I reckon this needs sitting on and redrafting. And maybe being given more of a "story" other than that they're hanging around in the pet shop.

I had some unnecessary exposition/explanation:
"We are not being Monty Python."
"We’re not Ted and Ralph either!"

If you must name-drop the artists, which might be a problem intrinsic to the idea, then you can do it more artfully by turning the reference into a gag: something along the lines of "So who's Ted and who's Ralph", etc.

I think it needed somewhere to go anyway, and the punchline was a bit of a damp squib. I'd go back to the drawing board with this.

OK, cheers James. Like all other sketches I've done, I haven't put any thought or effort in, just let it flow and written it down and posted it. I re-read it and didn't think it was very good at all, so yeah I agree. The "unnecessary explanation" as you mention though, maybe people who'd watch that wouldn't have the same knowledge of comedy as you, so I think it is needed (just in a clever way than I've done). But yeah, I'll re-write, but I do think theres potential for these two as a trilogy of mini-sketches. Thanks