May 10, 2022·edited May 10, 2022Liked by Mike Trapp
Hi. How do you feel about proposing rewrites to someone else's sketch ? You haven't talked about it at all in your articles if I remember correctly. I feel like some people have trouble finding the motivation / time to go over their sketches again when they get criticism even though the envisionned new version could be great, though require some work. But it also feels like maybe it's inappropriate to write someone else's script for them.
I would say it's inappropriate to take someone else's script and rewrite it the way you want, but it's totally okay to suggest that someone do a major rewrite on their script. They probably won't LIKE the note, but sometimes it is the right move. And then it's just like giving any other note. You explain why you think a rewrite would make sense and offer specific suggestions to help them execute it.
But at the end of the day, it's still their sketch. They don't have to make any changes you suggest (unless, you're like a studio exec or something and will shutter the whole project if they don't take the note). This, of course, means that you may come across terrible sketches that the writer refuses to improve, or sketches that are merely good, but could be incredible with a bit more work. This is a bummer to watch, but that's the writer's choice to make. It's also important to stay humble in these situations. You may be certain you have the solution to making the sketch sing, but you could be wrong too. The best way to resolve these sorts of disagreements is to perform the sketch in front of a live audience -- a silent crowd can say more than your most eloquent argument.
Happens to the best of us. People are protective of their writing, so it's a good idea to get permission before you make changes to someone else's work.
Man, as soon as I read "top of your intelligence", I couldn't stop myself from hearing the UCB audiobook voices for the rest of the mail. Much of what you write has a corresponding element in there !
Thank you for these revision/writing suggestions! A couple times in these posts, you've brought up approaching sensitive topics through comedy in terms of processing serious situations, making sure you're not punching down, and in laughing with people, not at them. I once wrote a sketch that referenced QAnon and got feedback that came out to 'this [situation, group, etc.] is too serious to joke about.' I didn't mind changing it, but is there any way to tell when you're going too far or what is off limits? Or is this one of those finnicky 'depends on the audience and the time' things?
I think it's always going to be a bit of a judgement call about what topics, when, and how. I think a lot of it also has to do with what you're trying to say. I always go back to that idea of surprising truth. Are you saying something new and interesting with the sketch? An interesting point of view will feel less mean than a sketch that's purely attacking a group, even if that group is deserving of mockery.
I actually have a question. We're starting a sketch comedy group with friends. One guy comes from improv and he suggested doing improv and then using "what worked" to write sketches. I'm not sure about this. I feel like employing your method is easier for amateurs. What do you think ?
More generally, for such an undertaking, how much improv (that doesn't have anything to do with our sketches) should we do ? I was thinking none ^^"
You can totally do this! The idea here is that improv can get you out of your head and lead you to interesting games, then you can refine those moments on the page -- retaining ideas that worked and replacing things that fell flat. This is, I think, how Second City historically worked (but I'm not 100% sure on that). Just a matter of preference. I personally like the control of working on a scene by myself, but there's an undeniable energy you can get from improv, and more opportunity for surprises when there's another brain working on cracking a scene.
Hi. How do you feel about proposing rewrites to someone else's sketch ? You haven't talked about it at all in your articles if I remember correctly. I feel like some people have trouble finding the motivation / time to go over their sketches again when they get criticism even though the envisionned new version could be great, though require some work. But it also feels like maybe it's inappropriate to write someone else's script for them.
I would say it's inappropriate to take someone else's script and rewrite it the way you want, but it's totally okay to suggest that someone do a major rewrite on their script. They probably won't LIKE the note, but sometimes it is the right move. And then it's just like giving any other note. You explain why you think a rewrite would make sense and offer specific suggestions to help them execute it.
But at the end of the day, it's still their sketch. They don't have to make any changes you suggest (unless, you're like a studio exec or something and will shutter the whole project if they don't take the note). This, of course, means that you may come across terrible sketches that the writer refuses to improve, or sketches that are merely good, but could be incredible with a bit more work. This is a bummer to watch, but that's the writer's choice to make. It's also important to stay humble in these situations. You may be certain you have the solution to making the sketch sing, but you could be wrong too. The best way to resolve these sorts of disagreements is to perform the sketch in front of a live audience -- a silent crowd can say more than your most eloquent argument.
Damn. I made a blunder then
Happens to the best of us. People are protective of their writing, so it's a good idea to get permission before you make changes to someone else's work.
Man, as soon as I read "top of your intelligence", I couldn't stop myself from hearing the UCB audiobook voices for the rest of the mail. Much of what you write has a corresponding element in there !
I mean, I came up through the UCB system so a lot of this terminology is hammered into my brain. It's not a coincidence that we're in sync!
Thank you for these revision/writing suggestions! A couple times in these posts, you've brought up approaching sensitive topics through comedy in terms of processing serious situations, making sure you're not punching down, and in laughing with people, not at them. I once wrote a sketch that referenced QAnon and got feedback that came out to 'this [situation, group, etc.] is too serious to joke about.' I didn't mind changing it, but is there any way to tell when you're going too far or what is off limits? Or is this one of those finnicky 'depends on the audience and the time' things?
I think it's always going to be a bit of a judgement call about what topics, when, and how. I think a lot of it also has to do with what you're trying to say. I always go back to that idea of surprising truth. Are you saying something new and interesting with the sketch? An interesting point of view will feel less mean than a sketch that's purely attacking a group, even if that group is deserving of mockery.
I actually have a question. We're starting a sketch comedy group with friends. One guy comes from improv and he suggested doing improv and then using "what worked" to write sketches. I'm not sure about this. I feel like employing your method is easier for amateurs. What do you think ?
More generally, for such an undertaking, how much improv (that doesn't have anything to do with our sketches) should we do ? I was thinking none ^^"
You can totally do this! The idea here is that improv can get you out of your head and lead you to interesting games, then you can refine those moments on the page -- retaining ideas that worked and replacing things that fell flat. This is, I think, how Second City historically worked (but I'm not 100% sure on that). Just a matter of preference. I personally like the control of working on a scene by myself, but there's an undeniable energy you can get from improv, and more opportunity for surprises when there's another brain working on cracking a scene.