No, it's fine as it is.
The irony/joke comes from imagining that humans would behave the same as birds. The boy is young, this is his moment of being taught about the abandonment situation.
No, it's fine as it is.
The irony/joke comes from imagining that humans would behave the same as birds. The boy is young, this is his moment of being taught about the abandonment situation.
Don't want to argue but you were the one who said you have to know that chicks latch onto the first thing they see when they are born. If you know that then the sketch doesn't work. If you don't know that then the sketch doesn't work.
I saw this joke being done on an episode of Family Guy last night. Not saying its plagiarised etc as this one is a completely different take but the kernel of the sketch has been done.
Quote: roscoff @ March 23, 2008, 1:22 AMI think David was abandoned as a child by his real father the punmaster Ken Dodd and is in denial and so has blocked from his psyche any reference to abandonment.
Don't you mean 'adandodd'?
Quote: ajp29 @ March 23, 2008, 2:52 AMWell I got it but it seemed a bit too far fetched to me and I didn't find it funny. One thing I was wondering is how the boy didn't know about this if he was raised by his parents who seem to know. For surreal comedy to work it does have to have a tiny foot in reality. Also its the first thing that the chick sees that is its mother so the woman couldn't have had the baby then walked off to get a pram then came back without the baby noticing. Seems picky but it nagged me.
Changes would make it better, something like have Darren help deliver the baby to the baby's mum's and Darren's mum and dads' protests and then having it latch onto Darren.
I agree surreal comedy needs some basis in fact to work. Take something like The Mighty Boosh, which seems willfully absurd, and even they ground their humour in some form of reality. Mod wolves for example. Of course if wolves were bipedal and fashion conscious they would dress in tailored clothes. It just follows.
As to your nags about the sketch... well, I could defend myself I guess.
1. Parents don't automatically pass the sum of their knowledge on to their children, and even if they did, things are forgotten. Besides, in the sketch they're trying to educate him - he just chooses to ignore them.
2. It's not a sketch about who sees the chick first, it's a sketch about the old chestnut of mother birds abandoning the nest if their young are handled by humans.
3. The pram. Now there I think you may be onto something. It's meant as a visual indication that the mother is who she is. I was worried that without it you'd just have a woman. I can see how it might be an extra confusion though. Thinking about it, a better solution would be to have the mother fly away at the end.
There, now I think we can all agree that the sketch is hilarious.
Quote: Pilot @ March 23, 2008, 3:40 AMI saw this joke being done on an episode of Family Guy last night. Not saying its plagiarised etc as this one is a completely different take but the kernel of the sketch has been done.
I assume you're talking about the episode with the birds taking nest in Peter's beard? I don't see that as the same gag. That's about baby birds and their nesting habits. It's nothing to do with abandonment, which is the kernel of my sketch.
There's no such thing as a 100% joke that every one gets. Good comedians hope to spark recognition in the audience. Therefore you throw out lines, that you hope others pick up and identify with. Whilst still being slightly obscure, to give you that sudden moment of recognition.
Save the deep discussions on surreal comedy for the writers rooms guys...
On another notes: Cheese castle.
Hi David, no that's not the one. It's the one where Chris goes on a diet and Peter has liposuction. Stewie makes Chris jealous by eating loads of cake etc and he ends up in the front garden and those two weightlifters come by and one says to leave it or the mother rejects it.
Okay, I remember that one now. You're right, it does play on the same theme. Theirs is a throwaway line rather than a full blown sketch though. Obviously I'd prefer if the idea was utterly unique and wholly mine but how often can one expect to achieve that? For me, it's different enough to play.
Thanks for replying to my comments David. I can see your points it just that, for me, its a sketch I can't buy into for the reasons I gave above but thats just my personal opinion. Maybe seeing it filmed or animated may change my mind. What i'm trying to say is its a good sketch its just I can't get into it if you see what I mean (If you don't see what I mean then join the club )
There's nothing truly original in the world. It's a great skit, and I doubt many script readers will say.
"Hmm it's a bit similar to an obscure, one off gag in family guy, that was in it 4 years ago. Burn his script, and punch his nose!"
Now I have an idea for a scifi show. About a gay guy, who travels through time, in a phone box, with a fag hag. I think he might be a medical person of some description. He probably fights wheeled robots, with sink plungers. Reckon the BBC will buy it?
Love this! Only comment would be to have the woman sniff the baby then put it back in the hedge. Just reinforces the rejection sequence.
You're absolutely right, Antony. Thank you.
Quote: Antony Wheeler @ March 24, 2008, 11:44 PMLove this! Only comment would be to have the woman sniff the baby then put it back in the hedge. Just reinforces the rejection sequence.
No you would need to drop the baby not put it back in the nest.
Quote: billwill @ March 25, 2008, 6:38 PMNo you would need to drop the baby not put it back in the nest.
Better. But there'd be some angry letters ...