Next week, Yuri Baranovsky (writer/director/actor, "Break a Leg") will be visiting us, possibly with more writers, cast and crew, to talk about the realities of making online media.
Please continue to watch more episodes of the show; Yuri suggested Episode 3 and Episodes 4-10 as best eps and also good examples of how they transitioned from longer to shorter installments.
I'd also like everyone to take a thorough tour of the show's home site and its YouTube page to see how the creators have built an environment to deliver and promote the show. Notice what interactive features are included in each site, how aesthetics and writing style are used, and how the show "presents itself" to the world.
SPECIAL NOTE: Extras (and other forms of help) needed on a shoot this Saturday at 1:00 in Sebastopol. If you're interested, contact Yuri at Yuri@breakaleg.tv.
HOMEWORK:
- Finish, proofread and polish your scripts. Next week, you'll turn in the first version, the final version, and a piece of reader feedback (with both names!).
- Watch a lot of TV! But not just any TV. Watch "Break a Leg" and watch a lot of it!
- Post a comment to today's Class Blog in which you discuss writing elements of two different episodes. (Writing elements can be story structure, character development, dialogue — don't get too distracted by production/camera/acting stuff. You can talk with Yuri about those things, but for this assignment I want you to think about writing.)
- Come in next week with good questions for Yuri and his comrades.
16 comments:
In the first episode I really liked the story structure and dialogue. The writers have really great timing. The flashbacks were funny and moved the story along. In the second episode they delved more into the characters which I really liked. We got to see more of the characters quirks. Even in this series you can graph the story and it fits the formula.
I really like the flow of the storyline. The acting seems very natural, and barely scripted. It's almost like everything was improv, but I'm sure there must have been some type of script or organization of the scenes. Overall, it was very enjoyable to watch, and I really enjoyed how most of the sets were located in San Francisco!
-Andrew Wong
the staggered character development works well. Especially in the first couple of episodes. I like the use of audio cues to make really important character developments. Like, when the right hand lady plays the tape which goes into a Hitler speech, it gives you such a clear message of how evil this man and his organization are. I think they really did need the first couple episodes to strongly establish all of the characters and the majority of their quirks. Jennifer is awesome. Gary Coleman isn't human.
I jumped to episode 4 and 5, which might have been a bad idea. For some reason, the episode seemed a bit rushed (maybe because I am looking for a longer show due to its Arrested Development format). However, i really enjoyed the ?k? news segment at the beginning that transitioned to the show. Five turned out to be the same for me, due to the AD format I'm looking for longer, more developed interaction with the characters and also longer plot lines.
For episode #6, I was curious as to how you promoted your contest. I would assume via the Internet, but I'm not certain.
Also, pertaining to all the episodes, seeing as how Yuri wrote and directed the series, I wander how much of himself comes through the character, David.
Was that really Patrice O' Neal, from random VH-1 fame?
Particularly in Episode 6, I detected some odd themes of chickens, child stars and the need to get laid. Was that an intentionally desired effect? Or coincidental?
Very captivating show that really works well in seven-ish minute installments.
So far I was amazed that each bit could almost be watched by its self. You don't need to know alot before showing up so to speak. I would get tired though, of the, this is happening to me syndrome. Where in it seems like david is contantly amazed that he is in these wiered situations.
I also really liked "break a leg". It is just about the only tv show online that plays out much more like a movie. It seems to me that it is more of a dark sitcom, because 1). a lot of the shots are dark and 2). the sense of humor is more subtle than sitcoms ususally are. The writing is still very good, but I thought the pilot episode was just too long, I started losing interest by the third installment.
I watched episodes 4 and 5 and thought the writing was great. I appreciate the quick format, and I think that timing is the strongest part of this show. The actors pull of the writing in a great way. I found that a lot of the writing had a rhythm and rhyme that was great. The actors tend to pause during their lines, and I think that really adds something. The writing is funny and witty. I laughed a lot! The parody of E! news was fantastic. I also really like the breakup of narration during the episodes.
In a writing stand point, it was obvious that one person wrote the dialog for everyone. What I mean is, that every character had the same quick tone. Each of them had their own death joke of some sort as well. At least most of them did. I would have enjoyed a wider variety of characters.
Overall I did enjoy the series. Or at least the snip its that I watched. The broom sitcom was funny. It was the random moments like that, that I found most interesting.
I felt it was clever how often the writers intentionally broke the fourth wall. We see this happen in the first two parts of the pilot. First, when Jennifer questions the audio grip by asking "What are you doing? We're not even filming this."
Secondly, when Yuri notes that the "set" the will be shooting on has four walls to which Jennifer responds "Yeah. try not to break any of them."
I love when Tahko and Mint do a vlog together. Tahko tries to be very controlling of the video and Mint gets drunker and messier because he is insecure. This was a good example to me of how a character's nature creates his problems and how to get energy by writing situations designed to conflict with that nature. I also really enjoyed the pilot, especially the self-reflexive use of Foley to comment on the unnaturalness of sound effects. I laughed out loud when Jennifer said his name is Scandinavian. This to me was a good example of a character in a sitcom reinforcing our perception of his character. It was like, "that Jennifer is so pretentious!"
In the first episode I enjoyed the writing. It felt comfortable, like other television shows that I enjoyed. I didn't really feel a need to go deep into character development to create an attatchment to the character. Much of the time, I feel like diving into character development feels unorganic. This is primarily why I liked the first episode. They just jumped into it, and I found myself immediately in this storyline. I think that audiences are smarter when it comes to television. You don't need to beat them over the head. Much can be left unsaid with regards to dialog and storyline and can still grab an audience.
This is contrary to how I felt in the second episode. I felt like it was too much. Telling me too much, telegraphing me information that I didn't need in order to enjoy the episode. Overall though, the writing is very good. I just wish it flowed as nicely as the first episode.
The show definitely got better and more intricate as it went along. It kept me wondering how it was all going to end up with him dying. I think it got funnier as it went along, which means the writing and acting improved. It also got a little crazier.
On a side note, their visit reminded me of "The Guild." A show I meant to watch a long time ago because Nathan Fillion and Joss Whedon have been promoting it via the interwebs. Felicia Day is awesome.
I watched the second act of the pilot and the first act of the second episode. I really like how this show flows and how the humor is very subtle; it's not quite laugh out loud, like a normal sitcom, which I like. It's more of a dry sense of humor like "The Office" or "Arrested Development," which is the kind of humor I like. What I liked about the first part of episode two, was how they used flashes of what the writer was thinking, to tell their story for the episode. It kind of reminded me of "Family Guy" how they would discuss something and then show an exaggerated clip of what the writer and the audience is picturing, if that makes sense! Anyway, I really liked it, but I also like that they don't do it in every episode, like "Family Guy" so that their show is still unique and every episode is not repetitive. So far I really like this show and will continue to watch all of the episodes.
The show has a really nice flow to it - the pacing of the scenes and even the pacing of dialogue is all very natural. It seems, however, that occasionally they aren't writing a new show so much as they are attempting to write Arrested Development (the whole Swamblers thing is a specific example).
That said, compared to the vast majority of online entertainment, Break a Leg is excellent.
Post a Comment