Double act was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 28, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed January 30, 2007 Peer review Reviewed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Comedy Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

i think a good clear exemplary modern instance is Jon Stewart vis-a-vis the satirist correspondents on The Daily Show. it's very formulaic and usually very funny. jon stewart, as the straight reasonable man, sets up the correspondents to make their arrogant and half-baked opinionations and reports. (usually half-baked and arrogant, rather than "dumb" or the other forms listed in the wiki)

the fact that steve colbert became an expert straight man during at least one of jon stewart's absences from the show emphasized the formal nature of it. in other words, his persona/"character" wasn't static or consistent, but took on whatever role the scripted Double Acts required.

if anybody decides to stick in something about these, obviously feel free to use any of my wording. i'm not doing it myself because some JERK will probably delete the contributions immediately. that's the way it goes. 128.119.236.46 00:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can't add about double ats I don't know. Btw, I've seen entries in the list that I don't think they fit. Specially of the animated ones, Bugs Bunny ad elmer Fud? They are an example of antagonism between two characters but they certailny don't fit into the Abot & Costello formula, I need to obtain consensus about this issue before starting deleting them. So is it me or Bugs Bunny doesn't belong to the list about double acts? Funny thing, Daffy & Porky fill in the stereotype more fittingly. This concept is not getting clearly understanded enough... --Requiem the 18^th_(email)

Wasn't Laurel and Hardy a knockoff of the danish double act Fyr & Bi?

I'm not too sure mork and Mindy could be described as a double act.--Crestville 00:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're better off than me, I have no idea who the heck they are, thu I know who Robin Williams is. If you have seen the movie/series/whatever it is. You should know better. I'd said, talk with the original contributor and discuss it, if sie(I mean the original contributor) doesn't respond delete it. If the it was an IP address delete it and wait for sie to come back and discuss. I'll try to locate the revision number, if you give me time. Requiem the 18^th_(email) 03:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

UPDATE Got it. the user is User:Kchishol1970, post in sier talk page or wikimail siem, I can't talk about a movie I have not seen so I'm counting on you. Requiem the 18^th_(email) 03:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why not? I'd say M&M were a classic double act, with Mindy as the "comic foil" and Mork as the comic. Darguz Parsilvan 11:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shouldn't they be some kind of Double Act? Emily ^{(Funtrivia Freak)} 02:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They are no more a double act than Frasier and Niles or Joey and Chandler. They are simply two characters in a sitcom, there has been no attempt to recreate the dynamic of a double act, unlike, say, Steptoe and Son.--Crestville 13:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I disagree. Dharma is the wacky, free-spirited one, while Greg is the uptight, straight-laced one. Seems to be almost a classic example of the concept. Also, the show itself revolves primarily around those two characters (hence the name of the show). Conversely, Frasier and Niles are very similar in personality and temperament -- and the show isn't called "Frasier and Niles". Likewise, Joey and Chandler are merely two characters out of a roster of six. They're not intended to be a comedy duo.

There's no critera that one member be wacky and one be straight laced, nor is there a criteria that they have equal billing, be the main focus or interact soley with each other. They do not fit the general dynamic as the "comedy" (what there is of it in D&G depends on situation, rather than interaction, routines or any other dynamic of a double act. Conversely, Godber and Fletcher in "Porridge" (for example) spent entire episodes without any real sitiuation, just talking to each other, playing off of each others reactions, character trates and jokes. This happend more often in Fraiser or Friends than D&G--Crestville 20:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why shouldn't they be included? Everybody else anyone could think of is on this list (Tim Allen and Al??). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.199.21.97 (talk) 12:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Straight man disambiguates to double act, and comic foil is apparently about to be merged into this article. However, I would say that the terms "straight man" and "comic foil" are not restricted to comedy duos as they would equally well apply to comedy troupes (e.g. Zeppo Marx as a straight man for the other Marx Brothers etc.). What do other wikipedians think? --Tobias Bergemann 08:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That as may be, this article is not about comedy troupes. The three weaker articles need to be strengthend rather than leech off of this one.--Crestville 19:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My point exactly. --Tobias Bergemann 06:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure about a comedy troupe, but I can have a crack at "straight man". It's distinct from a "comic foil", so should they both go under one broad umbrella article or do you think they are distinct enough to warrent their own articles?--Crestville 22:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not even sure about the difference between "straight man" and "comic foil" (other than that a comic foil need not be male...). I have been changing my mind five times in about as many minutes about this. Right now, my preferred solution would be to merge straight man, comic foil and double act into a single appropriately named article about the mechanics of comedian performances. However, that would probably make a mess out of "double act". On the third hand, "double act" reads (to me) more like an elaborate list/comparison of comedy duos and could be renamed as such. — Tobias Bergemann 22:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oooh, ahhh, eeeh - I wouldn't like to change that. Maybe do a page for straight man (and maybe one for "funny man" or whatever) and comic foil can re-direct. Do you reckon we can do a history of double acts?--Crestville 22:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(I am beginning to regret that I even asked.) I like "double act" as it is right now. I think I like your proposal about "straight man". A history of double acts would be really nice, but I am way outside my realm of expertise with this. — Tobias Bergemann 07:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Surely this type of humour (i.e. straight man/comic) did not originate with Laurel and Hardy as this article claims. My memory is vague about this (so I'm unable to pick out specific examples) but is there no example in pre-twentieth century comedic drama? Nothing in Plautus or Shakespeare (with all those bumbling fools) or Restoration comedy that fits this paradigm?--Ibis3 21:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Never fear, I have the information for a history section and intend to write it up soon. The dynamic with which this article deals originated in vaudaville (USA) and music halls (UK).--Crestville 21:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm afraid a number of the 'acts' mentioned in this article don't meet my definition of a double act by a country mile. Some of them are merely dramatic characters who sometimes interact: Marge & Homer? Kermit and any of the other Muppets? Come off it! Both the (Two) Ronnies always denied they were a double act and Steptoe and Son were characters played by actors. By this criteria, why not include Vladimir and Estragon or even Rhoda and Carlton the doorman? So, some suggested guidelines: (1) Characters in a drama don't count (so not Steptoe & Son nor, for instance, Felix & Oscar (The Odd Couple). After all, they could (and have) been played by different actors. (2) Unless the pairing in some way transcends the characters. So Lucille Ball & Desi Arnaz, maybe. (3) The double act should be what the pair is mostly known for - at least while the act is in force (but not necessarily for their entire career). (4) Er, there is no 4.217.154.66.11 13:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(1) Laurel and Hardy and Abbot and Costello were just characters played by actors - they just happened to have the same name as their characters. (2) Just because the Two Ronnies deny they were a double act doesn't make it so - Harlod Shipman deined he was a mass murdering bastard and Jeffrey Archer, to this day, maintains he is not a liar. (3) I feel Steptoe and Son and the Odd Couple (the Lemon/Matthau incarnation at least) are a classic example of a "double act" trancending their characters in the same was the chacters in I Love Lucy or bottom do. (4) The Muppets, I agree, are not a double act, they - like Monty Python, The Marx Brothers and The Three Stooges - are more of a troupe who possess the potential to pair off characters woith interplay similar but distinct to that of a double act. (5) Marge and Homer, like Dahma and Greg, and Mork and Mindy, are beyond me. They're just 2 characters in a programme. (6) There is a number 6 but I'm not going to tell you what it is. I like your thinking on this topic and, if you would sign up as a user, I would be very happy to discuss this topic with you. I feel it would very much benefit the article.--Crestville 16:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would they fit under the list? Generally Jon Stewart does seems to fall into the role of the Straight man/Comic foil when in the company of any one of the Daily Show "Correspondents". In fact, maybe something like this Would work.

they're more a troupe that a duo. It's like the muppets or the marx brothers or the three stooges - the interplay is funny, but I think the main elements of a doule act are a) it's an act of some sort (satisfied by the daily show) and b) only two characters are party to the act, that is to say, in on the joke (d'oh).--Crestville 13:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Indeed, after the amicable dissolution of the partnership, it was Lee who went on to greater critical and commercial success with his stand up comedy and comic musical Jerry Springer: The Opera."

Is this really neccessary? It seems a bit superflous and doesn't seem to be relevant to the topic. Plus Lee lost money on Jerry Springer the Opera because of the protests, so I don't even think the term "commerical success" is that accurate anyway. Plus, although it claims in this paragraph that Lee is the straight man, futher down, Lee & Herring are listed as a non straight-man/comic act.

Well, they are quite interchangeable, but I'll have a look.--Crestville 16:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suggest that the nominator remove this early unless somebody has a large amount of references lying around they can use on this article, as the only reference appears to be a Television show by the British Broadcasting network. Where's the American perspective on the topic when the only reference given is British? :) But seriously, I don't think any reviewer would consider this well-referenced, and if someone actually reviews it, I think it would be failed very quickly. Homestarmy 04:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh no, I don't think it's well referenced, what I'm looking for is some constructive critisim - I think I mentioned that in the nomination. I'd go for Peer review, but no one ever responds to those. The reference I have used looked at both British and American double acts, so it should be ok, but I do need to work on the references. Aside from references what do you think of it? How can I improve it?--Crestville 16:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since the article is clearly inadequately referenced for GA status, I've failed it. I'm also submitting it for peer review, since the purpose of the GA nomination was to get comments. EALacey 20:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

cheers--Crestville 13:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Looks like a very good start, but needs more than one reference before I personally would be comfortale even starting a GA review. I suggest sending it to peer review. People do respond to those. Sometimes it takes a little nudging. For instance, try a relevant WikiProject and see if they have their own peer review. Or find someone trying to peer review a similar article and offer to trade reviews. Johntex\^talk 15:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

why is the double act defined as the straight man and the comic pairing, and as a pairing where the the two roles are interchanegable. I think the superordinate definition is the only one that should be considered. On that note I think the interchangeable pairings should be removed. A straight man is a specific archetype. When u have two characters just reacting to each other, it loses the formal categorial aspect of what a double act really is. That or sperate articles for straight man and comedic duos. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.243.28.228 (talk) 06:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Disagree--Crestville 13:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article says that they ended up hating each other, but I don't see that substantiated in this article or the one on the duo. Is it true? 131.91.207.211 14:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I imagine I put it in there, I must have gotten it from their wikipedia articles becasue I don't know much about them personally. I admit now I can't find quite where I got it from - perhaps the article has been changed - but I did find this on Abbot and Costello:

Relations between the two partners had been strained for years. In their early burlesque days, their salaries were split sixty-forty, favoring Abbott, because the straight man was always viewed as the more valuable member of the team. That was changed to fifty-fifty after they became burlesque stars.

The sixty-forty split had long irked Costello. Later, after Buck Privates made them movie stars, Costello insisted that the split reversed in his favor, and it remained sixty-forty for the remainder of their careers. Costello's other demand, that the team be renamed "Costello and Abbott," was rejected by Universal Studios. The result was a "permanent chill" between the two partners, according to Lou's daughter Chris Costello, in her biography Lou's on First.

I'm sure there is more info on the net--Crestville 15:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are Adam Sessler and Morgan Webb from G4TV's X-play considered a double act, Morgan being the "straight man" (or woman in this case) with Adam being the comic? Jedibob5 19:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not really familiar with them but from their pages, it doesn't seem so.--Crestville 13:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's this paragraph, which talks about how sometimes the two guys in a certain comedy act don't always get along: "Dudley Moore ended his partnership with Peter Cook by walking out on the final Derek and Clive recording, and Tommy Cannon and Bobby Ball, at the height of their success, did not speak to each other off stage - though the respective pairings later repaired their relationships. However, Americans Abbott and Costello ended their career despising each other, as did Rob Newman and David Baddiel and brothers Mike and Bernie Winters."

Should Cheech and Chong be included in that list too? My understanding is that they aren't really on speaking terms with each other anymore. Can anyone verify or deny this?

I feel like the characters from the U.S. version of the Office are mislabeled. Anyone who has seen the show can see the Jim Halpert is the epitome of a straight man, with his sarcastic comments and wry looks at the camera. He and Dwight should be under comic and straight man section, since they interact more on the show, while Dwight and Michael Scott should be under the interchangeable list. Their demeanors are similar, and they play off each other when they're on screen together —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.62.25.74 (talk) 23:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. Dwight and Jim are a more classic example rather than a classic non-example. Jim is clearly a straight man to Dwight. There are instances where they switch but those are special occasions rather than say demonstration of their interchangeability. - RamdomWolf 198.96.35.166 (talk) 05:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

how did this term came to be? --AnYoNe! 19:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But the 80s and 90s have *no* non-British acts, and the 70s tries to munge the sketch comedy troop of the Not Ready for Prime Time Players into a group of people who did duo acts; it's not really valid, and once removed, the 70s become all british, too.

I think this should all be minimized; discuss the changes of the duos, and the acts, but most of the specific acts, if they stay, should be moved to their region. There's also no need to provide the big list at the end; if it's really needed, it should go somewhere else, as a 'List of Comedy double acts' instead (though truly, it skates perilously close to WP:NOT's 'not a list').

Someone might want to look at the aspects of double acts that have been translated into late night tv pairings, and the occasional daytime show such as Regis and Kelly.

Finally, some attention should be paid to other cultures; Canadian acts such as Smith & Smith, or the Indian Goundamani and Senthil. I understand that this is based at least partly on 'you write what you know', but right now there's barely a nod to any non-British comedy duos existing after the 60s.

I'm sorry I can't work on this - I'm afraid I just like comedy, but I know nothing about it to speak with much authority. --Thespian 08:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How come little britain isn't mentioned on this page?Kansaikiwi (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems to me that this article is attempting to do two different things, and thus is doing neither very well. When I accessed the article I was expecting it just to cover classic comedy "double acts" (Abbott and Costello, Eric and Ernie, etc.). Instead, there's a lot of extraneous material covering pairings in sitcoms, and attempts to shoehorn members of larger comic troupes (most obviously, the Marx brothers) into the "double act" category. I can see that the current form of the article results from a merger of other articles ("comic foil" etc.) into the "Double Act" article, but it seems to me as a casual reader that this was a mistake. As a reader I think I'd be better served if Wikipedia could offer me a suite of articles with suitable cross linkages. I suggest the following: "List of Double Acts" (a simple list), "Double Act" (a discussion of the nature and dynamics of double acts, with suitable examples), "Comic Foil" (a discussion of the foil in comedy, as distinct from the "straight man" of a double act, again with suitable examples - and for this I suspect you can go all the way back to Plautus!). I'd also completely eliminate pairings in sitcoms where the pairings arise solely from casting decisions at the shows' inceptions (thus excluding Dharma and Greg, etc.), but add a list or article titled something like "Regular Film/TV Pairings", to cover cases like Crosby/Hope, Tracy/Hepburn, Hancock/James. The point with a double act is surely this: you don't hire one without the other, because what you're hiring is the chemistry and history of the duo, and not just their ability to react to lines read from a script by another actor. Many of the cases cited in this article aren't really double acts at all. I'd be interested to hear your comments on this. RomanSpa (talk) 09:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

rather then ambiguous/interchangable Chuck and Morgan are again a classic example of the double act. While Chuck in the show has been a funny character in terms of his dynamic with Morgan he's clearly always the straight man of the group. I might argue that because Chuck is funny at times he shouldn't even be considered for this article but if you are considering the Chuck/Morgan dynamic by themselves then there's pretty much no way it doesn't match up. - Ramdomwolf 198.96.35.166 (talk) 05:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Which one is the straight man?--Johnny 42 (talk) 03:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good question, and I don't know - both had their comedic moments. However, I would guess that Akroyd ("Elwood"?) was meant to be the straight man... Engr105th (talk) 11:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems to me that one of the more prominent (and now classic) American "straight man-funny man" examples in television would be Andy Griffith and Barney Fife of the Andy Griffith Show of the 1960s...Any thoughts? Could they be added? Engr105th (talk) 11:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why is the mention of Kirk and Spock in the section on the 1970s? The original Star Trek series in which they did the worst of their "comedy" ran from 1966 to 1969. Can we shift it up a decade? →mrs smartygirl← | Talk 00:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Second banana redirects here from, for example, Who Censored Roger Rabbit? - but this page doesn't explicitly explain what the term means. I'd edit it myself but I have never heard that term in my life. Maybe it means more in the USA than here in the UK. It might be better to ditch Second banana altogether and rephrase pages like Roger Rabbit to use a more common, generic, or self-explanatory term but if we're going to redirect people here, we should probably define it somewhere, even if with just a passing reference. Dybeck (talk) 17:29, 6 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]