Hell I'll jump in on the fun...
Gary's first reply(all the way back on page 1) was imho positive for the most part and Skreamings response to it was a bit childish. Let's be honest and call it how it is...
Then Gary came out of left field with some dumb remarks about "kids", "true geniuses" and how to properlly do a comedy - when in reality a comedy, like any other form of entertainement/art, is completely different from one person to the other.
Di I like "The Dumpster"? Yes. I thought it was a simple, funny and somewhat believable idea.
Did I like 'Nazy Baby Mamas from Harlem"? I read the script until the girls made it to the sperm bank and I stopped... To ME, it wasn't funny and just felt like a bad Tyler Perry immitation. Oh and btw I absolutely hate Tyler Perry's "comedies". They are not funny at all...
Just my honest two cents. I'm not really picking sides. I could care less who "wins" this argument. I just thought the whole thing was way too funny to not be a part of.
Go on now!
Let me help you sort this out, pal.
Start with Sheridan's "School for Scandal," which was written in George Washington's time. Study Wilde's "The Importance of Being Ernest." Listen to all tapes from the Golden Age of Radio with especial attention to Amos 'n' Andy. Then the Golden Age of Television -- I love Lucy, Love That Bob, etc.
This gets you to our era where your course in comedy writing ends.
I studied these works, Tyler Perry didn't so your suggestion that my play reads like a bad Tyler Perry play was stereotyping, not a fact-based observation. It involves black women, so it must be a Perry rip-off. That's your mindset in a nutshell, I fear.
But I digress ...
My point is, certain things happen in a well-wrought comedy you seem blissfully unaware of.
First, the dialog has to be funny throughout. It must be sprinkled with snappy come-backs, asides, witticisms, cleverness.
Second, the actors must have individual characters each funny, although some obliquely so.
Third, the premise must be funny, often, the funnier the better.
A comedy is short -- no more than 90 pages and within this context it must also do most of the things other forms of drama do -- character development, turning points, dramatic arc, three-act structure, climax, resolution, etc.
The comedy critic who doesn't grasp all these things is a layman -- that is, someone who doesn't quite know what he's talking about.
You read 20 pages of an 85 page or 24% screenplay and decided it wasn't funny.
One of the funniest comedies of all time is Dr. Strangelove, but 24% of this story takes you right about the point where the president and generals assemble in the War Room; that is, right where the humor starts kicking in.
Another thing you're unaware of is the rule that says you don't publicly critique a screenplay unless you read the whole thing. Go to any screenplay site on the net, and in order to publicly critique a play, you'll have to answer questions demonstrating you read the whole thing.
It's only fair and you'd expect the same thing.
These are the rules and these rules exist for good reason. You'll note I was painstakenly circumspect in my critique of "The Dumpster." I was specific and detailed. I even gave a lengthily analysis of how it could be fixed.
Did you read these comments of mine and if you did, why didn't you afford me the same courtesy?
You're ridiculous...