I am intrigued by what feedback you'd accept.
Would it really be someone saying you are very funny, that made me laugh.
Honestly.
Ficees the Gleerak goes to School SKETCH Page 4
Quote: Will Cam @ 27th January 2014, 10:59 PM GMTOk. It is not funny. There are no jokes. There is a confusing structure. The binary bollocks is just that.
If you disagree on the lack of jokes please feel free to highlight them in your script it bold or put a few in a post.
I'm not going to argue with anyone over whether its funny or not; that is 100% subjective. I believe I put in enough jokes/funny lines that there's one every second line, or thereabouts. If you don't think they're funny I'm not going to hold that against you.
I still don't understand why the structure is confusing. Everything happens inside one class room, everyone is introduced... I'm looking at how it might be confusing to someone without the benefit of being in my head, and I'm at a loss. So again, I'm not rejecting your criticism that it's confusing, I'm just admitting I don't understand how it's confusing. I can't infer from your comments why you're confused. If you want to tell me how it confuses you, I'd like to know. If not, fine, thanks for your feedback.
The binary spells 'Clone' and 'Cun-' in ASCII (cf. Mr Goodlad). I think it could be read out as-is, and be funny. So that's subjective comedy stuff again.
Anyway, thanks for your feedback.
Comedy isn't subjective
Quote: sootyj @ 27th January 2014, 11:13 PM GMTI am intrigued by what feedback you'd accept.
Would it really be someone saying you are very funny, that made me laugh.
Honestly.
I've accepted all the feedback. I just haven't agreed with all of it. Some of it I've dismissed with aplomb, some of it I've engaged with. None of it have I responded aggressively to, or overly defensive. Some people seem to be annoyed because I haven't said "oh, you're right. This is confusing and unfunny."
A survey of less than ten people hasn't convinced me to rewrite it to appease the tastes of the respondees. If that's a crime here, I'll bid you all adieu long before I reach 200 posts.
If I was you I'd let it lie and Post something else before the regs fire up the burners and send it and you to comedy HELL! 
One of the biggest mistakes make in comedy is the assumption it's subjective, personal or rebellious.
It isn't it's more like a science, one with rigid rules, rules that aren't even it's own.
Because comedy is all about taking perceptions, situations with their own rules and subverting them.
On that basis say an expressionist piece of art or an interprative dance is far freer, in that it's creating the perceptions as it goes along.
Where as comedy subverts the rules, but only obeying them.
I get it. So the character is a comedy writer who constantly demands an explanation for why people aren't laughing. It's quite funny, but drop all the alien stuff and just go with the frustrated writer bit.
Hi JaPi,
I have just read the sketch again and now understand the 'story' - sorry, but I did have to read it more than once though.
I think this was partly due to-
a)Using 'Ficees' as a name was a big distraction, I read the first half of the sketch thinking he was a sentient turd and hence expecting turd related gags.
b)The intro could have been much simpler and explained the set up in plain language - all the binary just acted as a smoke screen, it was just too confusing and added nothing.
I think it really needs a rewrite to be more accessable and the jokes need to be stronger and centre stage.
As always WTF do I know...
I may regret this but...
Overall the sketch is too long without enough accessible gags. It may have been written for a scifi show, but it's performed by actors and the show is aimed at the general public (or at least those who listen to Radio 4 comedy).
I'm a geek. Been programming/developing IT systems for 30 odd years. Love maths and the pursuit of knowledge. Love SciFi. And I had trouble spotting the jokes. I'm guessing that your average non-technical thespian would have even more trouble...
I suspect that a note, at the start of the sketch, about the clones being clones and Arnold being a robot and the way they speak may have helped some readers. On that note though... are the clones identical clones of each other? If so do they speak with the same voice? In which case: how the hell do people know who is talking on the radio? And if they have distinct voices, then you probably have a few too many characters.
Quote: JaPi @ 25th January 2014, 7:24 PM GMTNARRATOR:
It's a Monday morning at School Station 0100-0011-0100-1100-0100-1111-0100-1110-0100-0101 and class 58972 is in session. That's 'clone' spelled in binary, you know. Enrolled due to an administrative error, the new student, Ficees, does not look like the other students. They have very different diets.
I didn't like the binary. Splitting the bytes into nibbles made me initially look at each nibble individually.
It's a gag not some cypher in a Dan Brown novel. It needs to be more obvious. I suspect you knew this, as you had to explain/note that it was 'clone' in binary.
As an aside, the binary would be very tedious. Beeps or hexadecimal would be better...
As another aside: I also love puns. And I realise that some puns work better on paper and others work better spoken - it's down to whether the pun is based upon homonyms or homographs, or something.
'Clone' and 'Chinese Language One' doesn't really work. Your whole pun works better written down rather than spoken, which it would be on radio. This could be mitigated if somewhere it was literally spelled out - "oh it's clone I thought it was see-el-one".
ARNOLD
Oh, for the sentimental attachment of Alan Turing... Fine, CL379 when you've finished let CL468 use your imprinter.
Again I think that this is taking too big (or too many jumps) if it's meant to be a robot's analog of 'for the love of God'. It would have worked better changing either the 'love' or the 'God' bits, i.e. either "for the illogical sentimental attachment of god" or "for the love of Turing". Of these the latter is probably better, imo.
FICEES
My implant is region encoded to the Canis Major Dwarf Galaxy...
Which implant? Maybe something like 'nav-implant' might work. Maybe, as Gleerak is organic, just drawing an analog to jet lag might have worked better. "I'm still on Betelgeuse time" (Betelgeuse will always get my vote as funnier than Canis Major unless some sort of Dog's Bollocks pun is coming up - but I wouldn't expect others to follow that if I wrote it).
CL468
Don't mind 402, Ficees. The eugenicist for his batch was syphoning off ASPM genes to teach a mouse Cantonese.CL402
Shut up 468! Your eugenicist was so fat when she left the station the gravity disappeared!
I do like the idea of updating the 'yo mama' jokes, but ASPM genes passed me by and I'd possibly use something other than 'eugenicist' - maybe 'clone mother' or 'egg donor' would be more accessible and funnier (many peoples 1st thought upon hearing 'eugenics' or 'eugeneticist' may had econnections to Nazis).
And not long after this exchange, I feel that the sketch runs out of steam.
Quote: playfull @ 27th January 2014, 11:36 PM GMTHi JaPi,
I have just read the sketch again and now understand the 'story' - sorry, but I did have to read it more than once though.
I think this was partly due to-
a)Using 'Ficees' as a name was a big distraction, I read the first half of the sketch thinking he was a sentient turd and hence expecting turd related gags.
b)The intro could have been much simpler and explained the set up in plain language - all the binary just acted as a smoke screen, it was just too confusing and added nothing.I think it really needs a rewrite to be more accessable and the jokes need to be stronger and centre stage.
As always WTF do I know...
Thanks for taking the time to read it (twice!) Playfull.
There were turd related gags, but they were superficial ones. "The new student faeces is very different to the other students'. They have very different diets.", "Just follow the crumbs of the mouse faeces." "you could try brown-nosing the eugenicists' faeces."
If I were writing the thing from scratch I probably wouldn't have an intro, but that was a requisite part of the brief. I think the binary probably was a risky inclusion, given it's ability to polarise opinion. (Current mine vs everyone elses. 
)
Anyway, thanks for the response.
A sketch set in a classroom in space and no 'Black hole ate my homework' joke?
Come on...
All the binary nonsense would sound better if it was the sound of a modem (or a ZX Spectrum for ye olde folk).
Thank you Judgement Dave for your feedback!
Quote: Judgement Dave @ 27th January 2014, 11:39 PM GMTAgain I think that this is taking too big (or too many jumps) if it's meant to be a robot's analog of 'for the love of God'. It would have worked better changing either the 'love' or the 'God' bits, i.e. either "for the illogical sentimental attachment of god" or "for the love of Turing". Of these the latter is probably better, imo.
Now, that is a good note! I hadn't considered that. It would certainly be less inconspicuous to a reader! Thanks.
I suspect that a note, at the start of the sketch, about the clones being clones and Arnold being a robot and the way they speak may have helped some readers. On that note though... are the clones identical clones of each other? If so do they speak with the same voice? In which case: how the hell do people know who is talking on the radio? And if they have distinct voices, then you probably have a few too many characters.
Yeah, they're meant to be identical clones. In an earlier/longer version they were identical in batches. That said their personalities differ and their bodies differ slightly according to diet too, but I was imagining them all voiced by one actor, with the voices intentionally hard to distinguish from one another.
As an aside, the binary would be very tedious. Beeps or hexadecimal would be better...
Yeah, I realised that too late.
'Clone' and 'Chinese Language One' doesn't really work. Your whole pun works better written down rather than spoken, which it would be on radio. This could be mitigated if somewhere it was literally spelled out - "oh it's clone I thought it was see-el-one".
Ah. Maybe this is where it became confusing for some. Thank you for pointing it out!
Which implant? Maybe something like 'nav-implant' might work. Maybe, as Gleerak is organic, just drawing an analog to jet lag might have worked better. "I'm still on Betelgeuse time" (Betelgeuse will always get my vote as funnier than Canis Major unless some sort of Dog's Bollocks pun is coming up - but I wouldn't expect others to follow that if I wrote it).
The implant was meant to be like some kind of chip everyone has in their heads that picks up wifi, like in, um, Black Mirror. Intergalactic time zones though! Now there's a sketch. Honestly the reason I went with Canis Major was geographical. Wikipedia said it was the closest neighbouring galaxy to the milky way. If it were 3535, I might have gone further.
I do like the idea of updating the 'yo mama' jokes, but ASPM genes passed me by and I'd possibly use something other than 'eugenicist' - maybe 'clone mother' or 'egg donor' would be more accessible and funnier (many peoples 1st thought upon hearing 'eugenics' or 'eugeneticist' may had econnections to Nazis).
That was my dark undertone. Eugenics in 2525 = racist clone armies. But yeah, I take your point. Not great for 9am. Although some of the overt sexual stuff that did go out, I think I could have got away with it.
And not long after this exchange, I feel that the sketch runs out of steam.
Fair enough!
Thanks for taking the time! I appreciate your feedback. Genuinely helped. Thanks.
Quote: Flash @ 27th January 2014, 11:47 PM GMTA sketch set in a classroom in space and no 'Black hole ate my homework' joke?
Come on...
In deference, they never leave the station but for likely death. But yeah, it's a good line.
All the binary nonsense would sound better if it was the sound of a modem (or a ZX Spectrum for ye olde folk).
Yeah, it occurred to me after I'd sent it off to the BBC that that would have been a good way of doing it.
Anyhoo, thanks for the comment.
Quote: JaPi @ 27th January 2014, 10:48 PM GMTAgain, you're speaking like I've had loads of feedback identifying unarguable non-subjective faults with the sketch, which I haven't. I'm also not the student to your teacher. I never entered into that relationship with you.
If a sketch of mine ever attracts a producer's eye, then the relationship between us will be one that will require me to listen to what they have to say and adapt my work accordingly to get it on the air, even if I think it's bad advice.
Who says I'm unable to rewrite?
Criticise my sketch, but don't criticise my ability to write on the mistaken belief that I'm under any obligation to accept what you have to say as gospel.
I didn't say you couldn't rewrite I said IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO REWRITE.
You have had the necessary feedback, you have had more than most BCG members get here in critique, you are simply not accepting it. For instance up above I said Ficees is a shitty name for a character and will give the listeners a bad impression. Your response is basically "I chose it and that's what I want, so there!" instead of "I wonder what would be a better name".
I didn't say you were MY student. If you are not a student of comedy writing what are you doing on this forum posting your efforts for critique.
I can't see why you bother to post in Critique, just post things in Showcase if you think they are so superb that they don't need improving.
Quote: JaPi @ 27th January 2014, 11:05 PM GMTYeah, mine is the position of someone looking for feedback. I assume all writers do it. I am however, no longer looking for feedback from someone who can't handle my rejecting their feedback.
I don't CARE if you reject my feedback, but you have rejected all the feedback.
Quote: billwill @ 28th January 2014, 12:41 AM GMTYou have had the necessary feedback, you have had more than most BCG members get here in critique, you are simply not accepting it.
I'm not sure how you're defining "accepting critique". I'm accepting critique according to my own understanding of what that means. I was quite happy with a number of the posts I responded to.
Look, I don't know why you seem to have got yourself offended (I said SEEM, that has the same power as IF! Be not perturbed by my conditional-equivalent!)by my responses, but for what it's worth it was not my intention to upset you, IF you are indeed upset. Which you may not be. You may be drunk. That was a MAY! Same rules apply! Anyway. I'm sorry if my response to your feedback and others' hasn't been to your liking. I would suggest your best recourse would simply be to avoid leaving feedback on anything else I may write in the future, to avoid any possible further disappointment in my obstinacy in the face of well meaning critiques that I apparently fail to take on board with the desired amount of deference to the critiquer.
For instance up above I said Ficees is a shitty name for a character and will give the listeners a bad impression. Your response is basically "I chose it and that's what I want, so there!" instead of "I wonder what would be a better name".
You said "Why name a character Ficees?" I said "Why not?"
If you wanted me to respond with "I wonder what would be a better name", you should have included a multiple choice answer in which that was the only option other than something like "I love farts." with the caveat that if I don't respond my default answer is "I love farts." Just leaving it up to me to pick my own response, that's your own silly fault, that is.
I think that you enjoyed writing this and therefore it has achieved its purpose.
As for getting your stuff out there into the real world - I think your responses have shown that you are a long way from that.