It's also a question of the actors finding the characters as we discover how to write them - one of them “symbiotic” type situations. Mike Schur: It's a constant evolution, but I certainly think we'd found each character's sweet spot by the middle of the year. Do you feel you're at that point with all your regulars? Who was the quickest to figure out? Who took the longest? Why? When I talked with you and Dan last summer, one of the big discussion topics was reaching the point in making an ensemble comedy where you (and the audience) inherently understand what's funny about a character and can just come up with a lot of jokes in that vein. So Schur tackled the rest solo (also via email), coming up just as soon as I slip in a Miley Cyrus “Toldja so” face… With the season over, I wanted to revisit that discussion with Schur and Goor, but Goor's on vacation and only had time to answer one emailed question. By tonight's finale – and you can read my review of that here – it had become one of the very best comedies on television, and one I'm happy I'll get to watch again next year. There were some promising elements early on – Andre Braugher's deadpan, Terry Crews' innate Terry Crews-iness – but various balances had to be struck, so that Andy Samberg's Jake Peralta could be immature without seeming like a 12-year-old with a badge, or so that Melissa Fumero's Amy Santiago could disapprove of Jake without being a buzzkill. It was a very good discussion, and one that played out over the course of the first “Brooklyn” season. In particular, we discussed – based on their experience on “Parks and Recreation,” and Schur's on “The Office” – the process of fine-tuning characters from the broad sketches they are in a pilot to ones who best match the actors who play them, and best fit into the larger world. Back in the summer, I sat down with “Brooklyn Nine-Nine” creators Dan Goor and Mike Schur to talk about the creative challenges that come with the launch of any new comedy.
0 kommentar(er)
