Wheel of Morality, Turn Turn Turn...
Mar. 12th, 2005 09:27 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
the_gneechI read in somebody or other's LJ not too long ago about a writer for a TV sitcom (I seem to think it was "Everybody Loves Raymond" maybe?), who said they had a concept called the "Stupidity Ball."
How it works, is that every episode hinges on some character doing something stupid (overhearing the word "ring" and jumping to the conclusion that two other characters are getting married, for instance, or accidentally burning up somebody's season tickets in the toaster), and then doing stupider and stupider things in reaction to the problems their first stupid thing caused -- because they're carrying the Stupidity Ball -- until it ends with them learning the Life Lesson of the Week and everything resets.
And then, in the next episode, somebody else gets the Stupidity Ball, and off they go. Apparently, at scripting meetings, it wasn't unusual to hear somebody say, "Who's carrying the Stupidity Ball this week?" Whoever had the Stupidity Ball was the one making the plot happen.
It's an interesting idea, in its own "TV is a vast wasteland" kind of way -- because when you churn out a lot of content over a long period of time, you have GOT to come up with ways to work quickly. You can't spend a week agonizing over the story, when you've got a week total to shoot the whole episode. And it's the same way with comic strips. Drawing the strip may take forever, but it's sitting around and thinking up what happens next that's often the most difficult part.
So thinking about this concept, I wondered if I ever used the Stupidity Ball in SJ or NN, and it turns out that a few times I have. But the problem is, on some gut level, I don't believe in the Stupidity Ball, and so whenever I try to use it, it comes out fake. I know on an intellectual level that there really are some Frighteningly Moronic people out there -- I've been forced by job or rooming to spend unpleasantly large amounts of time with some of them -- but I just can't understand them, so I can't convincingly get into the mindset.
So instead, my strips (and SJ in particular) have used other things to better effect. Some you may have spotted are the Angst Ball, the Obsessed Over Tiffany Ball, the Off In Their Own World Ball (also known as the Two Different Conversations Ball), and the Life Turnaround Ball. In my mind, I can almost hear the play-by-play...
I have a strange mind. =)
-The Gneech
PS: No jokes about my comic strips having a lot of balls, please!
How it works, is that every episode hinges on some character doing something stupid (overhearing the word "ring" and jumping to the conclusion that two other characters are getting married, for instance, or accidentally burning up somebody's season tickets in the toaster), and then doing stupider and stupider things in reaction to the problems their first stupid thing caused -- because they're carrying the Stupidity Ball -- until it ends with them learning the Life Lesson of the Week and everything resets.
And then, in the next episode, somebody else gets the Stupidity Ball, and off they go. Apparently, at scripting meetings, it wasn't unusual to hear somebody say, "Who's carrying the Stupidity Ball this week?" Whoever had the Stupidity Ball was the one making the plot happen.
It's an interesting idea, in its own "TV is a vast wasteland" kind of way -- because when you churn out a lot of content over a long period of time, you have GOT to come up with ways to work quickly. You can't spend a week agonizing over the story, when you've got a week total to shoot the whole episode. And it's the same way with comic strips. Drawing the strip may take forever, but it's sitting around and thinking up what happens next that's often the most difficult part.
So thinking about this concept, I wondered if I ever used the Stupidity Ball in SJ or NN, and it turns out that a few times I have. But the problem is, on some gut level, I don't believe in the Stupidity Ball, and so whenever I try to use it, it comes out fake. I know on an intellectual level that there really are some Frighteningly Moronic people out there -- I've been forced by job or rooming to spend unpleasantly large amounts of time with some of them -- but I just can't understand them, so I can't convincingly get into the mindset.
So instead, my strips (and SJ in particular) have used other things to better effect. Some you may have spotted are the Angst Ball, the Obsessed Over Tiffany Ball, the Off In Their Own World Ball (also known as the Two Different Conversations Ball), and the Life Turnaround Ball. In my mind, I can almost hear the play-by-play...
"Well, it's a lovely day here in The Suburban Jungle, there's not a cloud in the panel. Coming out onto the field is Leona, who picks up the Obsessed Over Tiffany Ball and runs with it! Tiffany puts up a block with the Life Turnaround Ball -- but Leona passes the Obsessed Over Tiffany ball to Leonard, who quickly drops the Angst Ball and runs it in for a score! Now here comes Yin, a very adept handler of the Off In Their Own World Ball, who performs a great changeup and hands the Two Different Conversations Ball to Tiffany. But -- oh, no! Tiffany is standing there blinking, so Drezzer snatches the Two Different Conversations Ball and chases after Conrad, leaving Tiffany to pick up the Angst Ball, the only one she can play here..."
I have a strange mind. =)
-The Gneech
PS: No jokes about my comic strips having a lot of balls, please!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
*fox takes s deep breath*
Date: 2005-03-12 02:45 pm (UTC)Re: *fox takes s deep breath*
Date: 2005-03-12 04:14 pm (UTC)Re: *fox takes s deep breath*
Date: 2005-03-12 04:16 pm (UTC)-The Gneech
Re: *fox takes s deep breath*
Gilligan: "SKIPPEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEER!"
Re: *fox takes s deep breath*
Date: 2005-03-12 06:06 pm (UTC)FWIW, there is also a connection to Bugs Bunny! But it's a very specific one.
-The Gneech, quizmaster
Re: *fox takes s deep breath*
Date: 2005-03-12 06:28 pm (UTC)For 19 years of my life, I developed an immediate murderous reaction every time I heard that godawful sound.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-12 02:50 pm (UTC)And I hate it. Hate it, hate it, hate it. I agree with you in not understanding the people who would think like that, and so I can't use such a device, either. It's an insult to the intelligence of the viewers, but that's never been a worry of television producers. As H. L. Mencken said, "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."
More's the pity.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-12 03:20 pm (UTC)The only *good* thing I can say about that approach to writing is that it helps you encapsulate a character so they're very easy to understand in a nutshell.
The characters of Gilligan's Island are all extremely simple. They each have their own stupidity balls that make them instantly graspable by all. Without simple easy to understand characters, you have to actually pay attention to know who they are and what they're about.
Frankly, I usually prefer plot situations where the action comes from without. An external influence or threat to the cast, rather than an internal squabble. A visitor, a set of circumstances, an event, a storm or what have you. Something that the characters have to react to. Squabbles just get boring to me.
As an example of well known, classic comedy that I just don't enjoy "I Love Lucy" seems to be "What did Lucy lie to Ricky about this week, and what zanieness will she go through to avoid telling the truth?"
Yawn.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-12 03:54 pm (UTC)I would disagree with you about external vs internal conflict, in that while a group constantly riven and paralyzed by internal divisions may grow tiresome pretty quickly, a group that seamlessly works together to defeat every external challenge can become just as formulaic and boring. But, then, I find failure a much more interesting subject to write about than success.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-12 04:16 pm (UTC)There are people who never tire of the stuff and I just can't swallow it. Different tastes.
But, it gets utterly rediculous when internal and external threats are not blended realistically.
"Captain! The shields are down and the Klingons are attacking!"
"Quick! Let's go to the briefing room and have 45 minutes of heartwrenching internal debate on exactly how that makes each of us feel. Mr. Worf, you're a Klingon. You start us off. How does being attacked by your own people make you feel...?"
no subject
Date: 2005-03-12 04:31 pm (UTC)One sitcom I do rather enjoy (though it's quite ancient) is "The Dick Van Dyke Show". The characters rarely carry the stupidity ball, and the plot only occasionally revolves around internal conflict.
But that's the way my taste personally runs. I'm certain everyone else's milage is different.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-12 09:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-03-12 10:16 pm (UTC)I did see Mary Tyler Moore a couple years ago, and found that they played the Unlucky Ball a bit much. No matter what Mary did, it almost always turned out to be a disaster.
However, one thing I do recall that I liked about many of the above was that they rarely relied on internal conflict. It was usually an external problem that they were dealing with.
I also have to say that my favorite episodes of The Odd Couple were the ones where Oscar and Felix got along and tried to help each other. (My favorite of all time was where Felix introduced Oscar to a Princess, and then ended up trying to help Oscar romance her.)
no subject
Date: 2005-03-12 04:06 pm (UTC)I was going to ask, "Was this pioneered by the
Lucille Ball?" but it probably originated earlier than
TV. Radio or vaudeville or even earlier would be
my guess. I suspect that the "half hour" weekly TV
show is the place where the concept thrives as it's
a perfect environment for such a formula to be used
as a crutch.
This does explain why I don't like some "classics"
of TV. I Love Lucy, The Honeymooners,
and such seem to rely on it. I find I can't stand to watch
things like People's Court either, for about the
same reason. It's too easy to see someone being
determinedly stupid or figuring that everyone else is
so stupid as to believe them. That much stupidity is
painful to watch.
Whereas non-sitcom shows such as crime
investigation shows, for example, are more appealing
(or at least less unappealing) as the plot is mainly
propelled by people not being stupid - the investigators
have to think and not of silly schemes to cover their
last silly scheme.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-12 04:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-03-12 06:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-03-12 04:06 pm (UTC)Frasier used the Stupidity Ball a lot -- with the classic "Do Something Stupid Because You Think You're So Smart" flourish that's been around since the earliest Trickster tales. Far too many of Frasier's attempts at Meeting The Right Woman went awry because he carried the Ball. Generally, I liked the show, but sometimes, the constant cycle of self-sabotage got to be too much for me. Some seasons used the Stupidity Ball more than others, and the ones that used it the least were the ones that were most watchable.
Three's Company relied a lot on the Pathological Liar Ball, almost always carried by Jack, who would never tell anyone the truth about any situation if a lie could complicate matters needlessly. That's the one I really hate, simply because nine out of ten episodes of a single show used it, and almost always in the hands of the same character.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-12 06:34 pm (UTC)Fawlty Towers made that formula kind of a success, though. Somehow Cleese was clever with this stuff.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-13 01:28 pm (UTC)I think the key to pulling off the Stupidity Ball is realistic presentation of the threat of failure. If all that's going to happen to someone if the scheme fails is that their cuban husband will come home and say "Luuuuuucy, you've got some 'splainin' to do!" then it strains credibility to have the character embark on some zany quest which fails progressively more and more direly. If you've established that there's someone like Mrs. Fawlty running around, then the need for wacky schemes is easy to understand.
This is probably why it works for Jeeves and Wooster to carry the Stupidity Ball, because the alternative is that Bertie has to marry whichever terrifying english rich girl is hovering over him this episode.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-12 05:53 pm (UTC)A year or two ago, the Wall Street Journal wrote an article about credit card companies and "zero interest teaser rates". These are extended to people with good credit: the credit card company will offer a 0% interest rate for some period of time (3-12 months, usually), no annual fee, and no transfer fee on balance transfers and sometimes on new purchases.
These offers look too good to be true. The credit card company charges no up-front fees and there are no penalties for early payoff. In fact, the only way the company makes money is if you keep your balance with them after the "teaser" rate expires. In other words, they are counting on you being stupid.
The focus of the WSJ article was the number of people who were accepting these cards and flipping them: switching from one company's zero-interest card to the next. These became interest-free loans indefinitely.
The credit card companies were losing pots of money on these offers. But the mythical "customer with good credit who carries a balance" is still the the holy grail of credit card companies, so they're still doing this schtick and still hurting themselves with it.
I love this story, because it just goes to show that even Mr. Mencken isn't always right. :D
no subject
Date: 2005-03-12 10:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-03-12 03:44 pm (UTC)Sure, there are times when stupic humor can be funny, but not if the entire premise of the show is "Hey! Look what a F#*$ing moron this guy is! Isn't that funny?"
I guess that's one of the reasons I never could get into the Seinfeld type shows. They revolved around someone being a complete and total, unappologettic moron. If I had friends who'd done some of the amazingly stupid stuff that had ruined my life in so many ways, I'd pack up and move to another state... (You can visit, but only if you stay in a neighboring town).
Unfortunately, the trend in todays entertainment seems to be oriented around aiming for the lowest denominator, no matter the cost. Even good shows like CSI are starting to whip out shows that are nothing more than sexual-deviancy parades masquerading as a homicide mystery so that they can get the droolers attention. Again, lowest common denominator. I like that show, but the appeal is rapidly waining.
Anyway, that's my take on it.
Cheers
no subject
Date: 2005-03-12 05:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-03-12 06:06 pm (UTC)-TG
no subject
Date: 2005-03-12 06:06 pm (UTC)But Maus carried a different sort of ball, though: The Unlucky Ball, so I guess that makes me guilty, doesn't it?
Maia -Hiii!
Maia -Haaaa!
;)
no subject
Date: 2005-03-12 06:07 pm (UTC)-TG
no subject
Date: 2005-03-12 06:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-03-12 07:06 pm (UTC)I've always, ALWAYS, known that I hated Seinfeld, with a passion. But I have never quite been able to put a finger on why.
The Stupidity Ball is exactly it.
Wow.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-12 07:38 pm (UTC)Same theory about Mr Bean, whom I also dislike intensely
no subject
Date: 2005-03-12 10:10 pm (UTC)He was playing with a Nativity set, making the animals make noises and then he rolled a toy Dalek into the scene, until finally a policeman showed up and chased him away.
He sent Christmas cards to himself, and gave his teddybear a present of a new button for his eye. It was really kind of cute and sweet in a mischievous, silly sort of way.
I was horribly disappointed to find out that the rest of Mr. Bean seemed to consist of him being nasty to other people.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-13 06:28 pm (UTC)That, and an analogy of why the working classes' value systems are fundamentally flawed (http://216.239.63.104/search?q=cache:WJ__D0d-KowJ:www.suburbia.com.au/~tism/englit.html+the+tism+guide+to+grammar&hl=en&lr=&strip=1). (Warning: Link contains Adult Language, Cynical Viewpoints).
no subject
Perhaps it requires one cast member per week to sing:
"Brain Brain Go Away!
Come again another day!"
no subject
Date: 2005-03-12 07:37 pm (UTC)Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww ... pleassssssssssssssssse? JUST ONE? I promise!
I knew there was a reason I despise American Sitcoms. I never have been able to enjoy em. Every once in a while there will be an odd gem, or at least an episode or two of something worthwhile. (I seem to recall a couple really stellar performances from Michael J. Fox in Family Ties). But for the most part they're unwatchable.