System behind the dialogue... Page 2

Quote: Antrax @ April 15 2008, 12:36 PM BST

Off the top of my head I'd say Royle Family, Family Guy and Seinfeld. Possibly others. In all of them there'll be random bits of conversations and oddball jokes not directly related to the plot.

Family Guy's screwed then...

I can see where you're coming from, but I do think it's more important that every joke is derived from character, rather than plot. Not least because there has to be something funny going on before the plot arrives.

Of course, you've got the further problem of jokes as 'jokes' anyway. Because for my money, the humour is usually characters reacting to the situation rather than actual 'jokes' (which is I suspect what you're suggesting).

I think therefore that it's important that the humour comes from the characters interacting with the situation (which is distinct and different from 'the plot').

(Though I would add we're in a slightly confused area here - your initial post was about dialogue, not jokes. Now I remain convinced that dialogue doesn't have to further the plot).

View original

It is difficult for me to fully explain what I mean. I too think humour should come from the character. The Royle family is a good example you have said, but the whole idea of that sitcom is 'conversation' in a lounge, so a different subject could be raised at any point in their conversation.
I can't think of how I can give an example of what I mean. I prefer a sitcom where the humour is from character but the ones that are quick fire such as Two Pints isn't really coming from character as it's made up of smart a*se remarks, but still in keeping with the storyline. There's a script of that sitcom on the writersroom web and it's sort of one line a time with each character but although it's very funny [to me] each line is about their situation/problem and does not deviate from the story.
I think what I am trying to say is that, you can't mix styles...i.e. it's ok for Royle Family but you couldn't mix that style with Two Pints. So for two pints cast to suddenly start talking about other stuff than their storyline, it wouldn't work as it does in RF

Quote: bushbaby @ April 15 2008, 12:23 PM BST

I can't think of how I can give an example of what I mean. I prefer a sitcom where the humour is from character but the ones that are quick fire such as Two Pints isn't really coming from character as it's made up of smart a*se remarks, but still in keeping with the storyline. There's a script of that sitcom on the writersroom web and it's sort of one line a time with each character but although it's very funny (to me) each line is about their situation/problem and does not deviate from the story

View original

Again, sorry, but I'm slightly confused...

Are you saying that Two Pints is an example of want you mean, but that you don't like that style and prefer other ones that don't? Doesn't that mean that a) it's not a hard and fast rule and b) you're actually following a rule you don't like the end result of? If I'm honest, I think we're kind of in agreement, you just haven't expressed it terribly well...

As I say, I think the best jokes in a sitcom (certainly in the UK style) come from characters reacting to the situation (and to be specific there again, I mean that as distinct from 'plot'), rather than being about 'pushing the story forwards'.

I think we are in agreement somewhere I think humour coming from character is the best....Ena Sharples is a good example and she wasn't even in a sitcom I think this is what I mean [a bit of dialogue I've just made up]

MAN AND WIFE ARE ARGUING. THEIR NEIGHBOUR IS IN THE ROOM

WIFE
You leave your dirty socks all over the house-

HUSBAND
That's what wives are for to pick 'em up-

NEIGHBOUR
Did you see Shindlers List last night?

OTHER TWO LOOK BLANK AT HIM.

WIFE
You're just as bad with your underpants.

HUSBAND
No I'm not

NEIGHBOUR
It's a black and white film.

.................
etc. that dialogue is deviating from the storyline with the neighbours interuptions and is not funny and is pointless unless the character is always in every episode interupting. Otherwise what I am saying is that the dialogue should stick to the storyline, so in a sitcom, the neighbour wouldn't interrupt, if keeping to the rule that dialogue furthers a story or if he did interrupt, it'd be about socks/underpants.
Is that a bit clearer?

Quote: bushbaby @ April 15 2008, 1:02 PM BST

Otherwise what I am saying is that the dialogue should stick to the storyline, so in a sitcom, the neighbour wouldn't interrupt, if keeping to the rule that dialogue furthers a story
Is that a bit clearer?

View original

I think I get what you mean, but I do think there's a halfway house between avoiding just having random unrelated things turn up, and every line slavishly advancing the plot. I think what it comes down to is that every line should compliment the plot somehow, have a function in relation to it. I think every line needs a reason, but as I said above, sometimes no reason is a good reason.

Haha poor Andreas is going to be so confused.

Yea, I think that's right Antrax and what I was trying to say.
But for instance, the 'Shindler's List' shouldn't be in there unless there's a further reference to it later in the storyline and the two line up, otherwise it's not part of anything and is a deviation....or summat...teehee

This is from Robin kelly's web site and is exactly what I was trying to say

.................
A line of dialogue is related directly to a character's emotional make-up, which is related directly to the character's motivation, which is related directly to the momentum of the narrative, which is related directly to the whole script

Quote: bushbaby @ April 15 2008, 2:08 PM BST

This is from Robin kelly's web site and is exactly what I was trying to say

.................
A line of dialogue is related directly to a character's emotional make-up, which is related directly to the character's motivation, which is related directly to the momentum of the narrative, which is related directly to the whole script

View original

Yeah but what does Robin Kelly know?

Out of interest was that quote from the comedy section or the drama section of his site?

Quote: Marc P @ April 15 2008, 2:20 PM BST

Yeah but what does Robin Kelly know?

Out of interest was that quote from the comedy section or the drama section of his site?

View original

No, his sitcom section

Quote: Leevil @ April 15 2008, 1:12 PM BST

Haha poor Andreas is going to be so confused.

View original

I think I am going back to music...

LOL.

Quote: Antrax @ April 15 2008, 12:36 PM BST

Off the top of my head I'd say Royle Family, Family Guy and Seinfeld. Possibly others. In all of them there'll be random bits of conversations and oddball jokes not directly related to the plot.

View original

All three of those are character based though. They reveal something new, or reinforce something old, about the characters themselves. They may not add anything to the specific episodes story line, but they add the the bigger picture, and our knowledge of the individual relationships.

Although now you mention family guy... Isn't a regular criticism exactly that? That the jokes are just thrown in there for the sake of it? (I would agree with this. It's hardly the most intellectual form of joke telling).

Anyway, as someone mentioned above, even if a joke is just there for the sake of being funny, that's arguably still worthwhile, it still gives it a reason to be there. I think what everyone is talking about it irrelevant chit chat that brings nothing to the script.

Spot on Rebecca:

I think what everyone is talking about is irrelevant chit chat that brings nothing to the script.

I can't believe that nobody has brought up 'Waiting for Godot' one of the unfuniest sitcoms ever, and why, because there was no plot just inane whittering on. Even Terry Scott couldn't have got the audience laughing.

I can't even remember that one Marc so it must have been bad