A Report from the Head Writers (Long!)

[Pak-Man]

MOST gay jokes, steroids jokes, and "wow, that was stupid!" jokes get cut during this stage.

And my "Oh no!" "I'm gay now!" joke still made the final cut. This fills me with pride. At least when I pander, I do it well. :^)

[bratpop]

See, I assumed wrongly that you just used this spreadsheet/calculator format to put all the scripts together, and then started deleting the crap, and choosing between multiple riffs. I don't know if you're doing this in the future, but it seems like a better idea. If you just choose your favorites, you get fantastic jokes. And that's the B&R script. But if you delete your LEAST favorite jokes, you're left with your favorites AND stuff that's still funny. In my opinion, riffs should only be removed if they're absolutely UNfunny, they conflict with funnier jokes, or there's just too many in too short a time. Not because they're not the funniest thing of all time. And let's face it, not all the jokes in Rifftrax or MST3k are the funniest jokes of all time.

Now that I know how it went down, I can see why (at least for some percentage of the Fantrax), the process failed. I agree that most of my funniest riffs were there, even in the second half. But then the "funny but not THE funniest" riffs left holes because I'm one of the few who survived the whole movie with all of my brain intact.

To analyze the "favorites" phase (not an accusation): there's no way to quantify what's the "funniest" or "favorite" riffs, because there won't be an exact number. For instance, say you took AFI's top 100 comedies and picked your favorites. Well, are you picking your top 5 favorites? Your top 10 favorites? Your top 20? This is why the process is inconsistent from script to script. Maybe a script with 50 jokes had one that made your stitches tear. But maybe 30 of those jokes are also really funny. Or that guy who wrote 10 and got 7 in. Totally different percentage than everyone else, due to "funniest" rather than "funny." This might be why phase 1 is unreliable when it gets filtered down into the complete script. I don't know if I'm using this word correctly, but it seems a whimsical way of choosing. In other words, it's your whim how many you pick. Maybe you only want your absolute favorite and not your top five. There's nothing to prevent this from varying drastically from script to script. If you picked your favorite joke from each script, you'd have, what, 10-50 jokes? You're whittling down too much in the first stage because "favorite" is almost always the minority. Not to mention, without a readthrough while the movie is playing, you don't quite know if the jokes will work yet.

On a personal note, the reason I took the second-half gaps so personally is I wrote the fullest script I could specifically because I didn't know who would write what where, and that there should at least be one script to fall back on as a failsafe. I did this to prevent exactly what happened, as I had no idea the compilation process would cut out so much material in the initial phase. So of course you were left with nothing, you cut it out already. My bad. That's what I get for trying to be a hero. I don't blame you.

I don't know if I agree on a two phase submission process. It's bad enough having to watch two or three times, but then we have to watch at least certain parts of the movie yet again. If I write another full script, then what am I going to do in the second script? Presumably I've already written myself dry and would still be hospitalized at that point. I don't know if I can turn in a half-assed script on assumption I'll be called in on filler duty. I like to do things perfect the first time. It's called Macgregor's Syndrome.

Also, just to let you guys off the hook, I'm gonna put some of the blame on Rifftrax. And mainly Mike, just because he stands out so much due to the size of his head (I mean physically, his head is gigantic). You'd only done one riffrafftrax (?) before they asked you to do this, and while Harry Potter was brilliant, the time difference between the two is astounding when you know it. I'm not sure why they had to rush this, but it wasn't right to ask for you to do more (riff editing) with less (time). And so I'm afraid I must shun Mike Nelson. *shun* Okay. *unshun* I hope I don't have to do that again.

Thanks for the explanization. Sorry for my explanizamination though.

[GregMcduck]

Yeah, what he said.

[Matt B]

I have to basically agree with Brat on this. The way that you did the submissions seems...a tad inefficient.

Let me make sure that I understand.  You get 40 scripts in spreadsheet form. (Or 37 and a couple of oddballs in text form.) Instead of simply cut and pasting them all into one big spreadsheet, and editing from that you instead edited them individually? And then compiled the edits into another version of the script which then then started editing again? That seems like you're repeating a lot of work. Plus, if you're editing each one it becomes a lot easier to miss things. Let's say that every joke receieved for a particular scene suck. If you delete all of them at once, you'll probably notice that there are no longer any jokes for that scene. But if you delete them one at a time,  you delete that joke, then edit another 100 riffs or so before you get back to that scene. It becomes a lot harder to notice trends in the editing.

Why not make a master script and then, say, have three editors each edit their own copy, and then compile those 3 into one doc? That probably speed up the late rounds of the editing process, plus it would allow some safety factors for the humor of the riff. If two people think that a similar riff would be funny, that's a pretty good indicator that a particular riff would appeal to the audience, even if the third editor thinks it sucks.

[Raven]

I didn't think that they meant that they only took there favorites from each script, but looked at every joke and said yes or no.  Hence why the guy had 7/10 riffs made it and others got 16/600.  The guy with 10 didn't right down the other 590 that weren't that funny.  And MontyServo got 2/40 but still got the seemingly concensous funniest riff.  If you set the standard to very funny then on a yes or no basis then I understand how the gaps happened.  I think that a second step that could have been, was to look for the gaps and go back to the originals and see what the best line from what was left was.   And if there still wasn't something that could pass for funny (not hilarious) then leave the gap there.  I understand with the time constraints this probably wasn't possible, but I don't have a problem with the whole process that they used.   It's like the perfect process for a script got cut off 2 steps before it could be finished.  

Can I also make a suggestion for future riffs.  Perhaps a seperate section to submitt running jokes, or 2 part jokes.  Given the yes or not process for each joke then these should be looked at as a whole.  

[bettertomorrowamy]

Thanks guys for the opportunity to be attached in a small but very public way to my heroes.

[Chaos]

First of all, guys, thank you for your continued feedback. I'm very pleased that Chris and I are able to remain open about our procedures - that is a very important thing to both of us personally, and it's gratifying to know that even if people are unhappy about something, we can still all discuss it openly and without rancor. For me, it really validates my faith in YOU GUYS as contributors, and proves that working together we are a lot stronger than just Chris, Victor and I would be on our own.

To respond to some of the recent comments in particular...

I understand what you are suggesting about putting every single script all into one big pile and reading it all together, but think about the ramifications of that for a second. First off, running gags are immediately lost in the shuffle. Second, a joke that is 5 lines long over the course of 30 seconds becomes nonsensical, because 8 other people said something in between a couple of the lines. There's another missed opportunity. Third, you now have SO much material to look at for each section of the movie at a time, it becomes nearly impossible to get a sense of purpose from the lines, or to go through the movie while reading the script if you are so inclined. It's just simply too much information, plain and simple.

No, the first step in this process MUST be to read each script on its own, as the script writer intended, so we can absorb everything that that individual writer was going for. To do anything less is truly a disservice to the author who spent hours or even days slaving over the script, and I assure you would result in a weaker script overall. Think of it in terms of diminishing returns. The more you try to do all at once, the less final product you end up with, either in terms of quantity or quality.

We all know that gaps were a bit of a problem with this one. Well, Chris and I have taken steps to deal with that in the future. As I said previously in another thread, if we had had a little more time, 1) Chris wouldn't have been editing the script at 3am the day before it was due, and a few bits here and there would have been a little more solid, and 2) we both would have had a chance to go through it one more time to see if the jokes were "dense" or "thick" enough in all of the areas. But the gang had deadlines of their own to deal with just lke we did (they returned from Sketchfest and were literally handed the final script that evening, and recorded it the next afternoon, and had to get it done that day so Kevin and Bill could catch their flights home), and so all of this converged to mean that, while we were very happy with the script we had, it would have been even better if we had had that little bit of extra time. Lesson learned.

Also, there is another matter to consider in addition to the whole "gap" thing. It's not enough to just have a joke every 20 seconds if there are ALWAYS 20 seconds between every single joke... that's going to feel very sparse as well even if you don't have any actual "gaps." You need to have plenty of material to spread around the scene, too. Both this and the original gap problem has been addressed by Chris and I, and we've put procedures in place to deal with it once and for all. Nobody ever said nerds were perfect, but one thing we DO get right is not repeating mistakes. And so, Riff Raff Theater evolves and grows. We'll continue to update our processes and hone our skills at each stage. I'm confident that the scripts will get better and better as we go... especially if you guys keep bringing the funny like you did for this one.

[bratpop]

First off, running gags are immediately lost in the shuffle.

Chris already said there would be a special case in the future for running jokes. I'm not suggesting getting rid of that. By your new rules, running gags wouldn't be in the scripts, they'd be submitted separately. I don't see how a "master script" affects that.

Second, a joke that is 5 lines long over the course of 30 seconds becomes nonsensical, because 8 other people said something in between a couple of the lines.

Then that person is writing their script wrong as per your guidelines. Anything with "Riffer 1, Riffer 2, Riffer 3" is supposed to be in the same block, not on different lines with different timecodes (we'd have no idea how long it takes to say a line anyway). If it's not in one block, how did you avoid the confusion before? I imagine if it said "Riffer 1" then it would be a dead giveaway, that's a multi part joke. I don't see how a "master script" affects this either.

No, the first step in this process MUST be to read each script on its own, as the script writer intended, so we can absorb everything that that individual writer was going for.

I believe that all the writers assume the context in which their jokes will be read is in comparison to all other submissions. We riff with the hope that each of our lines has an equal chance at getting chosen for a particular cue. By editing each script one at a time, you're forcing yourself to feel the pressure of presenting a smaller compilation, because that's the agenda for the first phase. I understand a "master script" seems daunting, but it allows you the clarity of comparing absolutely everything, without running the risk of forgetting how funny something was because you regrettably threw it out two days ago. It must be much easier to edit the scripts separately, because while it's hard to choose the funniest if everything's funny, there are no rules. You could choose the entire script, one joke, or none at all. There's no competition. The whole point of riffing is that we know full well we'll be competing with all the other riffers for "best Arnold Schwarzenegger credit joke." Except you've eliminated that possibility by rejecting several Arnold Schwarzenegger credit jokes for not being "best of script."

I know "best of each script" competing seems like a sound principle, but it denies the possibility of each joke having the chance to compete against others as "best of cue." And if there isn't one, there isn't one. That's fair. But all we ask is the chance to compete. You can't be truly objective if you're throwing things out before seeing how they compare. You said yourself the "I thought I had a pithy comment there" and "come finish my sentence for me" complimenting each other was a mere coincidence. Without seeing how everything works together, you leave things like this to chance and we could be missing a lot of great interplay as chosen carefully by the editors.

And if none of that was convincing, I've wasted several hours trying to word it carefully and present a strong case.

[Raven]

I disagree with your "Best of Script" analysis.   If the whole script is good it stays, if the whole script sucks it goes.  I didn't see anywhere in the process description saying they would intentionally pick lesser jokes from Contributer A over a better joke from Contributer B simply because that particular joke was the "best of script" that A had to offer.  Looking at the scripts on an individual basis lets you get used to the writing style of each contributer.  I don't see a problem with it. 

[Ortega]

um....Bratpop......i think this is an accurate description of what you're doing




We

get

it.

Point taken. drop it.

[GregMcduck]

No, let's not drop it.

[Chaos]

The "all related jokes on one line" thing is being changed, because we then have to rewrite the whole joke into individual lines and figure out the timecodes, which is time consuming. With the next release, we're going to be asking people to break them out and at least estimate how long it would take to say each line on its own (it's not hard, just say it outloud and have a guess at it ... usually somewhere between 2-4 seconds for a standard length line). This will also help us identify gaps better, because in the old format, we might have 40 seconds of dialogue all in one line and not know it.

There is not going to be a separate submission process for running gags. I have no idea what gave you that impression. Chris never said anything about making a separate form or submission tool just for running gags... that was a suggestion by somebody else. There is a difference between us "giving consideration" and us "making a second form and expecting people to decide which of the two forms they should use for any given joke." Sorry, that isn't going to happen, it's not practical.

With the next release, we'll be releasing an updated template with a few changes, mostly in terms of the instructions and guidelines, hopefully to make it easier for people to write in the format that we need to work with the material, and to cut down on some of the flotsam and repeat jokes.

Seriously, don't put "Wow, that was dumb!" as a joke in your script... 1) it's not funny, and 2) we could have thought of it ourselves. All putting material like that in your script does is decrease the likelihood that your good jokes will get in, because I have a limited amount of time to read submissions... if you've sent me a 600 line script and I haven't cracked a smile in two pages, chances are I'm going to start skimming. The point is for people to send their best material, not cram every single second of the film with the first thing that pops into their head regardless of quality. Please note, this is not directed at anyone in particular, I'm just saying that this is how I feel about script writing. Personally, I usually only write 50-100 lines for a script on the first pass (I add more in when we are in the later editing stages based on what else is in there), but those lines are solid. Chris does the same.

[ChrisHanel]

I would also like to throw in that when jokes are being considered during both phases, the amount of jokes you send in are immaterial, and we have no promise to anyone to use at least one of their lines. If someone sends in ten jokes and they are all bad, I don't just say, "Well, which one is the best?" and try and find a place for it. If all ten lines aren't funny, then none of them are going in.

Meanwhile, if someone sends in 200 lines and all 200 are funny, all 200 go in. Our job is not to make anyone feel good by giving them a 'charity placement'. Our job is to make everyone feel good by making the best script possible.

[Chaos]

Yeah. What he said.

[Cosmic Muse]

Whoa, I couldn't get past the first paragraph before my eyes stared glazing over.