Let’s dive into some Friday Questions, shall we?
Donald Benson gets us started.
Were there ever jokes that had to go because they were TOO funny? Not because of actors' egos or anything like that, but because they broke the pace of a scene or diminished a climax?
I’ve told this story before, but it’s worth repeating.
One of the biggest laughs we ever got on CHEERS was taken out when the show aired. Not that big laughs are so easy to get that it’s no big whoop to just toss one, but in this case we felt it ruined the show. Here’s the backstory.
First season. The episode was called “The Coach’s Daughter” (written by Ken Estin and directed by James Burrows). The Coach’s somewhat plain daughter introduces her fiancé Roy to her dad and the gang at Cheers and he’s a real boorish lout. (He sold flame retarded reversible suits and yet he wasn’t reputable.)
Late in the episode there’s a lovely scene where the Coach has a heart-to-heart with his daughter, Lisa in Sam’s office. It’s clear to everyone (but the Coach of course) that she’s marrying this clown out of insecurity not love. Lisa tells her dad that Roy thinks she’s beautiful. The Coach says, “You are beautiful. You look just like your mother.” It was meant to touch Lisa’s heart.
We were holding our breaths hoping it didn’t get a big gooey “Awwwwwwww!” Instead it got this thunderous laugh. Applause even. Everyone on the stage was stunned. We shot the scene again, thinking this time they’ll see it differently. Nope. Huge laugh the SECOND time.
Still, when we assembled the show we all felt it hurt the scene and ultimately the story. Kudos to the Charles Brothers for being willing to lift the episode’s biggest laugh to preserve the emotional core of the show.
Sometimes jokes can also sacrifice the integrity of your characters -- make them too stupid, too insensitive, etc. When that even becomes a borderline call my vote is to dump the joke. Same with jokes of questionable taste. Take the high road. Even today.
As hard as it is to write big jokes, it's always much harder to discard them. But the rewards are greater and you'll like yourself in the morning.
Joe asks a question about Frank Burns:
Do you think, in a way, you and David were lucky that Larry Linville left MASH before you took over as great writers?
Larry Linville was a great actor, but it seemed like the character became more creepy and even disturbing in some Season 5 episodes. The Frank of the first four seasons were great, but I felt the character jumped the shark in Season 5.
And it opened the door for Charles Emerson Winchester, who might have been the best -- and certainly most complex -- character in the show.
I had very mixed feelings. No one made me laugh harder than Larry Linville as Frank Burns in those early “Gelbart” years. We came aboard season five and got to write three episodes with Frank. And it was great fun.
But a fair criticism of the character was that he was too broad and it strained the credibility of the series that someone that dim could be a doctor. So when Larry chose to leave after season five we made a conscious effort to replace him with a character that was the opposite. Charles Winchester was smarter than Hawkeye and BJ, not just a punching bag.
That character was also fun to write and I think it energized the show and created a different chemistry. And 90% of the credit goes to David Ogden Stiers for playing the character so brilliantly.
And finally, from Gary:
When watching NBC's big hit THIS IS US (and enjoying it as much as anyone), I've noticed the show's writers break one of your cardinal rules: they often have the characters delivering long, long speeches during their conversations. The speeches are beautifully written, and the acting is excellent, but once you're aware of it, it seems unrealistic -- these people never say "um...", they never stumble over their words, they never lose their train of thought, etc. It's just total eloquence. Exactly like real life, right? I'm wondering if you've also noticed this, and whether it affects your enjoyment of the show.
This to me is where you can justifiably claim creative license. Paddy Chayefsky’s characters had long speeches, so do Aaron Sorkin’s. Playwrights have employed them for years. They key, as you said, is that they’re beautifully written.
Similarly, in comedies when characters have just the right comeback. Yeah, it’s stylized but I think the audience will overlook that if they appreciate the line.
Actors will sometimes throw in “uh’s” and stumbles and they think that makes them sound more natural. It actually makes them seem like they don’t really know the line.
What’s your Friday Question?
from By Ken Levine http://ift.tt/2yLY9Vu
Breaking News: Friday Questions - News Paper
Donald Benson gets us started.
Were there ever jokes that had to go because they were TOO funny? Not because of actors' egos or anything like that, but because they broke the pace of a scene or diminished a climax?
I’ve told this story before, but it’s worth repeating.
One of the biggest laughs we ever got on CHEERS was taken out when the show aired. Not that big laughs are so easy to get that it’s no big whoop to just toss one, but in this case we felt it ruined the show. Here’s the backstory.
First season. The episode was called “The Coach’s Daughter” (written by Ken Estin and directed by James Burrows). The Coach’s somewhat plain daughter introduces her fiancé Roy to her dad and the gang at Cheers and he’s a real boorish lout. (He sold flame retarded reversible suits and yet he wasn’t reputable.)
Late in the episode there’s a lovely scene where the Coach has a heart-to-heart with his daughter, Lisa in Sam’s office. It’s clear to everyone (but the Coach of course) that she’s marrying this clown out of insecurity not love. Lisa tells her dad that Roy thinks she’s beautiful. The Coach says, “You are beautiful. You look just like your mother.” It was meant to touch Lisa’s heart.
We were holding our breaths hoping it didn’t get a big gooey “Awwwwwwww!” Instead it got this thunderous laugh. Applause even. Everyone on the stage was stunned. We shot the scene again, thinking this time they’ll see it differently. Nope. Huge laugh the SECOND time.
Still, when we assembled the show we all felt it hurt the scene and ultimately the story. Kudos to the Charles Brothers for being willing to lift the episode’s biggest laugh to preserve the emotional core of the show.
Sometimes jokes can also sacrifice the integrity of your characters -- make them too stupid, too insensitive, etc. When that even becomes a borderline call my vote is to dump the joke. Same with jokes of questionable taste. Take the high road. Even today.
As hard as it is to write big jokes, it's always much harder to discard them. But the rewards are greater and you'll like yourself in the morning.
Joe asks a question about Frank Burns:
Do you think, in a way, you and David were lucky that Larry Linville left MASH before you took over as great writers?
Larry Linville was a great actor, but it seemed like the character became more creepy and even disturbing in some Season 5 episodes. The Frank of the first four seasons were great, but I felt the character jumped the shark in Season 5.
And it opened the door for Charles Emerson Winchester, who might have been the best -- and certainly most complex -- character in the show.
I had very mixed feelings. No one made me laugh harder than Larry Linville as Frank Burns in those early “Gelbart” years. We came aboard season five and got to write three episodes with Frank. And it was great fun.
But a fair criticism of the character was that he was too broad and it strained the credibility of the series that someone that dim could be a doctor. So when Larry chose to leave after season five we made a conscious effort to replace him with a character that was the opposite. Charles Winchester was smarter than Hawkeye and BJ, not just a punching bag.
That character was also fun to write and I think it energized the show and created a different chemistry. And 90% of the credit goes to David Ogden Stiers for playing the character so brilliantly.
And finally, from Gary:
When watching NBC's big hit THIS IS US (and enjoying it as much as anyone), I've noticed the show's writers break one of your cardinal rules: they often have the characters delivering long, long speeches during their conversations. The speeches are beautifully written, and the acting is excellent, but once you're aware of it, it seems unrealistic -- these people never say "um...", they never stumble over their words, they never lose their train of thought, etc. It's just total eloquence. Exactly like real life, right? I'm wondering if you've also noticed this, and whether it affects your enjoyment of the show.
This to me is where you can justifiably claim creative license. Paddy Chayefsky’s characters had long speeches, so do Aaron Sorkin’s. Playwrights have employed them for years. They key, as you said, is that they’re beautifully written.
Similarly, in comedies when characters have just the right comeback. Yeah, it’s stylized but I think the audience will overlook that if they appreciate the line.
Actors will sometimes throw in “uh’s” and stumbles and they think that makes them sound more natural. It actually makes them seem like they don’t really know the line.
What’s your Friday Question?
from By Ken Levine http://ift.tt/2yLY9Vu
Breaking News: Friday Questions - News Paper
0 komentar:
Post a Comment