Elf starts us off:
Given everything you said about discarding jokes if they're too obvious or common, have you ever had a joke or even just a punchline you liked so much you kept it in your back pocket then tried to reverse engineer a scene around it? I think of the Aristocrats joke or Norm MacDonald's moth joke where there are very simple punchlines but they only work with the proper setup.
I can honestly say no. At ALL times I serve the story and the characters, not a joke (no matter how great I think it is).
To create or twist a scene to shoehorn in a joke is a sign of a bad writer.
And similarly, if a joke, even a great joke, gets in the way of a scene, you must take it out.
It’s not that good jokes are so easy to come by, but you have to preserve the integrity of your show (or script) above all, and to compromise that for the sake of a laugh is, to me, a cardinal sin.
cd1515 queries:
You mentioned you’re looking for the sitcom that makes you laugh. Is it possible because of what you do and have done, and the thousands of jokes I’m guessing you have pitched and heard pitched, that you would always see it coming and nothing would make you truly laugh at this point, just because of your history?
That’s a fair question and the answer is no. Nothing pleases me more than to see a form of entertainment that makes me genuinely laugh. In terms of sitcoms, it may be harder because I have seen so many but fresh ones stand out.
I’ll occasionally laugh at something from Weekend Update. I participate in those one-day play festivals at the Ruskin Theatre and a number of fellow playwrights produce work that makes me laugh out loud. John Mullaney always makes me laugh, so do a few other stand-ups. CURB YOUR ENTHUSIASM occasionally makes me laugh (I find it inconsistent but when they hit it — bullseye!). Certain cartoonists in the New Yorker totally delight me.
But rarely does a current sitcom make me laugh. Sorry, they just don’t.
From Todd Long:
My son is taking an "America in the 1970s" class in college, and this question was on the midterm: "What can a viewer expect to take away from an episode of MASH?" I was curious as to how you would answer that.
A reader responded in the comments section and answered it as well or better than I could. So I’m posting that, with thanks to reader JessyS.
Here is how I would answer the M*A*S*H question.
Though MASH is an anti-war series at its heart, it captures the heroics of a group of medical soldiers as they save lives on a daily basis. Like many sitcoms of that era, this show captures the era of life perfectly. Both the movie and series are based on real life experiences of the Korean War but also reflect the realities of Vietnam and the pictures shown on American TV screens as people were injured or died in battle.
Thanks, JessyS.
And finally, from DBenson:
What dictates how a character is written out or replaced, once an actor wants out or a suit decrees it? Do you try to keep (or make) a departing character sympathetic out of regard for the actor? Were you ever tempted to give an unpleasant actor a parting kick by making his/her character a jerk, or even by including physically uncomfortable action ("And then we dump the simulated bat guano ..."). Is there a case for or against making a character's departure a big event?
Just speaking for myself, the nature of the story dictates the reason for killing off a character.
I’m sure some producers are vindictive, but we’re not. We also haven’t killed too many. (How many regulars on 24 got offed? A dozen? 24?)
David Isaacs and I had to kill off the Eddie LeBec character in CHEERS. In that case, we had to make him unsympathetic so the audience would be glad Carla was rid of him. That’s why we made him a bigamist. But that was a tricky dance — making a previously lovable character unsympathetic while finding a funny way to do that. I think we pulled it off and it’s one of my proudest episodes. Sorry Eddie.
What’s your Friday Question?
41 comments :
FRIDAY QUESTION: Usually, when programs went into syndication, they were edited to make them shorter. Movies were edited for content issues. In the case of "Blazing Saddles", there are whole sequences in the broadcast TV version that are not in the movie (Mayor Le Petomaine doing impressions, Sheriff Bart tries to drown Mongo).
Have you ever seen any of your work where parts have been put in as opposed to cut after initial airing?
My Friday Question is: Why have you been censoring my comments?
An exam question - for College - is
"What can a viewer expect to take away from an episode of MASH?"
Seriously???
It's irrelevant whether it be MASH, The Merchant Of Venice or Moby Dick -
that question is entirely subjective.
The only person who would believe that question to be worthy of assessing one's brain power is either a narcissistic author or a speech writer for the Academy Awards.
No wonder that Marjorie Taylor Greene and her Space Lasered views is being greeted by fellow Americans as credible proof to validate political ascendancy.
ScarlettNumber:
Because I felt they were inappropriate and nasty, bordering on trolling.
Ken, I'm glad to hear that you respect the intentions of writers and actors, without undermining them. I'm a musician and tech person, but I think the same values translate everywhere in industry. Basically, let people do what they are there to do.
My Friday question: What is your favorite song from the 1970s? I was a DJ at one point, and an avid radio listener, just curious.
You might remember Mulaney's SNL monologue where he mentions "captcha":
The questions are passed
You've correctly guessed
But now it's time for the robot test!
Which of these pictures does not contain a stop sign?
Update: When I tried to post my previous comment I was confronted with a captcha, which is usually rare for me. "Select all the squares that contain motorcycles".
I second the appreciation for John Mullaney.
Some thoughts on recently-returned sitcoms:
* I watched "Mr. Mayor" on Tuesday and liked it, but didn't love it (single-cam series do little for me -- sorry). A good cast, and Ted Danson is always engaging, but the supporting characters do little for me.
* "Call Me Kat" was a bit better than anticipated, perhaps because several "Mom" alumni have moved to that show (including writer Britte Anchor and director James Widdoes). I like Mayim Bialik, Leslie Jordan and cats; alas, the rest of the human cast, aside from the sparsely-used Swoosie Kurtz, does little for me. And I still don't like its "break the fourth wall" close to each episode, with the cast waving to the viewers -- not exactly George Burns in the '50s.
Not a Friday question, just a quick post regarding the fact that a "Play-Doh" movie is being made. Good effin' grief ! Can the "Giant Barrel of Monkeys" movie be far behind ?
Lemuel, coincidentally, the episode of Upload that we saw last night had a passing joke showing the AI valet puzzling over a captcha to get into a building. The question was "click everything that is not a cat". One picture is obviously the face of a cat, and the rest are obvious dog faces, and maybe a goat. Nothing like the tricky ones that we get.
If you're a Law and Order fan, go to YouTube and search for the show, plus "John Mullaney." His commentaries are hysterical.
Changing the subject, are you sure Diana Muldaur didn't do something to deserve falling down an elevator shaft?
But rarely does a current sitcom make me laugh. Sorry, they just don’t.
To me, most modern sitcoms rely heavily on either cringe humor, making all the characters unlikeable, or trying too hard to be edgy and spelling out everything. I'm not saying they have to be squeaky-clean like Ozzie and Harriet, but if I wanna see a bunch of snarky people try to one-up each other for 22 minutes, I'll go on Facebook or Twitter
I also hate the use of laugh tracks. Not because I know when to laugh, but because whoever adds the canned laughter makes it seem like every single punchline deserves the biggest gut-busting laugh possible. If I (God forbid) went blind and listened to a modern laugh track, you would think it was Seinfeld or Fresh Prince in its prime the way the audience loses its shit. Nope. Just Two Broke Girls.
Laugh Tracks. There is no word in the English language that adequately describes my antipathy towards them. If Emperor, I would ban them forever on penalty of execution.
Any show with a laugh track is immediately and permanently avoided, but unfortunately the wife only watches show’s WITH laugh tracks. This makes for the modern version of a Jack Sprat Marriage.
The solution has served us well for many decades - well-separated TV rooms. Highly recommended.
I don’t recall an adult-oriented animated program with that nightmare. Kudos to the entire genre if so.
I totally get what you're saying about reverse engineering a joke in a sitcom where it wouldn't serve the characters. In the Norm example, though, do you think that idea of starting with the punchline works better in freeform stand-up or talk show appearances?
I know this is off-topic, but I was thinking back on our recent discussion of Lifetime movies, and I had just remembered an old one that was, actually, really good, even in spite of how predictable, typical, and formulaic it was. ON THE 2ND DAY OF CHRISTMAS starred Mary Stuart Masterson as a career pick-pocket trying to raise her orphaned niece, and ends up having to spend Christmas in the custody of a grumpy and curmudgeonly security guard played by Mark Ruffalo, until the store owner she and her niece attempted to pick-pocket will press charges against them. And, yes, as you can imagine, Mary and Mark's characters warm up to and eventually fall in love with each other, both characters soften up and realize not everybody in the world have their own selfish agendas, and Mark decides he doesn't want to be miserable in a dead-end job and pursue his dream to be a musician and a songwriter . . . but, even in spite of all of that, the movie as a whole is rather enjoyable because 1) The story is charming in its own way, 2) It's well-acted (again, Mary Stuart Masterson and Mark Ruffalo in the leads), and 3) It's humorous to the point that it's even meta at time (Mark's character even remarks on how predictable these romance movies on cable TV are).
Call Me Kat is turning me against laugh tracks. I may like that show, but as Brandon said, just about every line uttered therein prompts the laugh track. I know they don't have a choice since studio audiences aren't allowed right now, but it still gets on my nerves. At least they don't have those two canned laughs used on many mid-'90s sitcoms. I feel like I brought this up before, but it's worth repeating. Both laughs were by a male tenor. One was a guttural "HA!" and the other was "[ha-ha-]ha-ha-ha-ha-HAAA!" It was either five or seven ha's with the last emphasized. I had to quit watching The Nanny and Full House on HBO Max because that damn laugh was used too often in later seasons of the latter and from the second season on of the former (and several times per episode!). Here is the laugh, via a Nanny episode. Sadly, the laughs even showed up in the last season of Wings, but it didn't get on my nerves at the time.
I'll take genuine audience laughter any day, even if it includes hacking coughs. Incidentally, to my delight, James L. Brooks seemed to find a lot of Mary Tyler Moore Show lines funny. Every time I hear his braying laugh as I watch on Hulu, I say to myself, "oh, you like that, Jim?"
I may have asked this before, but now I'm making it an official FRIDAY QUESTION.
Can a producer and/or production company wield enough power or clout with a network that they can muscle a mediocre or derivative show onto the schedule?
For example, Dick Wolf and the rehash of "Law & Order" on NBC and any of the recent sitcoms by Chuck Lorre on CBS.
Or could it be that so many "quality" shows are streaming now that broadcast networks have to settle for what they can get?
M.B.
P.S. Regarding my comments on Tuesday's blog. Yakov Smirnoff was born in the Ukraine. So, he's O.K. No one has to boycott him. However, I'm still not going to Branson, MO.
M.B.
I am staggered that there would be an entire college course devoted to America in the 70's. I have this mental image of an instructor dressed in a bad polyester suit ala Captain Kangaroo giving lectures on subjects like "Nixon, Ford, and Carter- know the difference!" I went to college in the Seventies, and I remember the history prof devoted one hour to discussing America in the 1920's. One hour would be more than enough for the Seventies-just have the class listen to Led Zeppelin IV.
Friday question
Best concert you've ever attended?
Worst concert you've ever attended?
Sorry, but to this day I cringe whenever I hear Brooks's godawful guffaw on "Mary Tyler Moore" or "Taxi." He nearly ruined the scenes in which he was heard. Supposedly, he was genuinely amused by the performances, but his laughs seemed to come when the studio audience wasn't responding sufficiently.
Mom was the last sitcom that made me laugh. A gifted cast, stories that were about something, and good writing. I miss it.
Re: Curb, the actress who played Maria Sofia this season was tremendous. She took her role to places I never expected, and I was howling.
We all know the line from TAXI when Jim says, "what does a yellow light mean?"
Before that scene, I laughed when just after completing the driver test application, Elaine says, "ok Jim, you're ready to take the test and exasperated Jim says, " I thought that was the test..."
Last week I'm just wrapping up a grueling job interview, and the woman says, OK here's the real test.
I was so close to channeling Jim Ignatowski in that moment.
I did get the job; it was probably my looks...
@Jeff Boice - Side two of Zeppelin IV, right ?
@Jeff Boice, I too went to college in the 70s, but I also took an entire course on literature in the 20s and 30s (mainly because my girlfriend was taking it, but since we'll celebrate our 42nd anniversary this spring, it was the right choice). Its interesting that they only covered the 20s so sparsely in your course. I think its impossible to cover American history in a single year anymore. But if you don't understand Vietnam and Watergate,I don't know how can actually understand contemporary politics or foreign policy.
Jeff Boice:
Just keep in mind that a college course on the 1920s in the '70s and a course on the 1970s in 2020 both cover the same thing: A history from 50 years ago. Feel old now? I sure do!
Friday Question: A writer/producer I'm sure you've heard of by the name of Mickey Ross wrote/produced All in the Family and then later on Three's Company. When asked once which show was the hardest to write for, Ross said “All in the Family was a cinch to write compared to Three’s Company" and that the latter show...“had nothing to do with . . . what’s happening in the news. It’s pure farce...Farce is the most difficult form of comedy to write, and . . . least appreciated.”
Ken, I know you didn't write for either All in the Family or Three's Company, but I wonder if in general you agree with that statement. Do you find farce a more difficult form to write for than something where the humor's less exaggerated (MASH, for instance), and do you think it's the least appreciated?
If I hear, "This is as long as a CVS receipt," ONE MORE TIME this viewing season, I will scream "FUCK OFF" so loudly, the entire neighborhood will notice.
Yes, Kevin, I also HATE the Brooks laugh. Annoying as hell. There is also a woman with a loud screech - must have been a crew member...
Ken, I mentioned the CVS thing, because it has to be THE laziest joke of the current cycle. I have heard it no less than ten times in 2022. I realize that the scripts were all written at the same time, and filmed at the same time, but HOW has this happened? I am trying to remember the last time, I have heard a "joke" used so relentlessly. It was funny the first time, because yes, we all HATE those GD receipts. But...but...but...maybe this is a form of a Friday Question. How common is this?
@Kirk, farce is harder to write because it has nothing to do with real characters or real situations. RIP Mickey Ross.
I'm finding that, in general, I laugh less than nod appreciatively. I felt that about Modern Family from the very beginning. Maybe it's me.
Sammy Davis kissing Archie Bunker. Chuckles the Clown's funeral. The Pips (sans Gladys) singing Midnight Train To Georgia on Richard Pryor. The blind man in Young Frankenstein.
But Jon Stewart or Trevor Noah on The Daily Show? Not really. More the "he's right, this IS absurd."
I was surprised to watch a Jim Gaffigan standup routine and laugh. He's been a semi-regular on CBS Sunday Morning during the height of the pandemic, and not funny. In the standup, I thought he was doing too many "I'm fat" jokes, but he made many of them work by storytelling.
Storytelling is funny. Carlin was funny. Pryor was funny. Cosby [curse him!] was funny.
This might possibly be a subject for a Friday question:
I understand that you would not shoehorn in even a good joke if it didn't fit the character or situation. But are show runners as conscientious about not using stories that have obvious flaws, even if they provide opportunities for great lines and scenes?
I thought about this last week when I saw a rerun of "Frasier" about him buying a painting that turned out to be a forgery. It allowed for some very funny scenes of him being blown off by the gallery and thinking the police had a "fine arts forgery" department. The writers tried to explain why he was stuck by claiming the attorney's fees would cost more than he would win in a lawsuit and that talking about it on his show would be slander.
But in reality, it wouldn't be slander if it were true. He could've sued for damages plus attorney's fees. And of course the police would bring felony fraud charges against anyone who was selling art forgeries for thousands of dollars. I often see similar logical inconsistences in the stories of otherwise well-written sitcoms.
I assume someone must point out these problems during the development of the episode, but if the story is too good to pass up, are they chalked up to (ironically) artistic license?
The ablity to think about a subjective question and come up with an insightful, well-reasoned response-- not nescesarily the " right answer" but something that demonstrates you know how to think deeper than the surface-- is a big part of the goal of a liberal arts education. Maybe the biggest part.
The first actual laugh from a sitcom in a long time came with the "getting the crumbs out of the keyboard" scene of the season 2 opener of Mr Mayor. Maybe because there's so much verbal material that physical comedy is less expected.
No one will see this now, but I have to say that this episode has always made me upset. Frasier was a victim of fraud and the police - especially Frasier's own father, a retired police officer - would know this is highly illegal and the criminals would be in prison for years. So this ep certainly didn't ring true for me. I think the writers should have come up with a much better outcome and I think ot could have been much funnier if they had tried. Just my op.
My Friday question - I've been watching mini-series lately - "The Dropout" and "Super-Pumped". Both are really good. Ny question, money aside, would you rather write for a mini-series or a tv show? If I were a writer, I would like a mini-series because there is a beginning and an end and it's up to me to tell the story inside those parameters. On a tv show, it is open-ended and it seems much harder but you can be more creative? Especially if it's not based on a true story.
Friday question about laughing: When you watch a show alone, do you laugh at loud?
I like Weekend update too. I usually record it and just watch that part. Also, I was just watching Curb. It does seem to miss the mark more than it did early in its run, but for the most part, it is pretty laugh out loud funny
Good day Ken! Here's my Friday Question:
I recently stumbled upon an old 2012 TED Talk video entitled “The clues to a great story” featuring Andrew Stanton (of Pixar, writer and director of Toy Story, WALL E, and Finding Nemo).
In the 19 minute video, he explains that “stories are inevitable, if they’re good, but they’re not predictable.”
A separate article I found on the same topic, says: “The ending should be setup by the story that proceeds it, and the story should contain all of the different information necessary to make sense of the ending, but the ending should still surprise the audience.”
Here’s my question: What are some of your favorite TV Shows, Movies and Books that are examples of “inevitable but not predictable storytelling” ?
Here’s a link to the TED TALK video:
https://youtu.be/KxDwieKpawg
Thanks Ken!
Post a Comment