Without reading too much of the above it seems you've had a good detailed critique which presumably what you wanted.
And welcome by the way.
Writersroom response Page 2
The thing I always think with the Writers Room is to remember that you've got virtually no chance of getting the script you send in made.
As a result, you must think of it as a calling card, rather than one episode of a show. So I'd say it's best to send a complete work, beginning, middle and end.
Thanks for all the responses..I will re check another one and submit it to a few different companies.
I understand what everyone says about character development over a number of episodes it just seems like quite a tall order to a/ introduce a whole bunch of characters to someone who knows nothing about them and then b/ have this development and dazzle someone inside of 30 pages (or 10 if you're not that lucky).
When any sitcom appears then you can't know all about the characters by the end of the pilot so it takes a few episodes to learn to like them. It took probably years for some of the smaller characters in Only Fools (Trigger, Boycie etc) to turn into real 3D characters instead of just there to react against.
I suppose it's like everyone says, The Writersroom says they just want to find new talent but then the feedback doesn't actually address your writing at all, just points of the script.
Is it necessary to have someones name when submitting to production companies as they don't all seem to have anything like Writersroom.
yes ring the company up and say you are writing to the producer could you have his/her name
Quote: silentbob69 @ May 11 2008, 8:42 PM BSTWhen any sitcom appears then you can't know all about the characters by the end of the pilot so it takes a few episodes to learn to like them. It took probably years for some of the smaller characters in Only Fools (Trigger, Boycie etc) to turn into real 3D characters instead of just there to react against.
I've never understood this excuse as loads of shows manage to do everything that's needed in the pilot including setting up major and minor characters. Also why don't comedy feature writers use that excuse? I found American Pie 1 funny enough and didn't need to wait until American Pie 23 to learn to like it. It all depends on how good the characters and story are and they should be good from page 1.
Quote: silentbob69 @ May 11 2008, 8:42 PM BSTI suppose it's like everyone says, The Writersroom says they just want to find new talent but then the feedback doesn't actually address your writing at all, just points of the script.
Not quite everyone. I believe the feedback does address your writing. The main characters are too similar, there's no story, there's no character development, it hasn't got any legs. That seems like a pretty good basis for a re-write to me or at least something to bear in mind for your next idea.
Quote: Robin Kelly @ May 11 2008, 10:20 PM BSTNot quite everyone. I believe the feedback does address your writing. The main characters are too similar, there's no story, there's no character development, it hasn't got any legs. That seems like a pretty good basis for a re-write to me or at least something to bear in mind for your next idea.
As I said before you did well to get a detailed critique instead of a standard sorry so stop moaning and do what they suggest.
Quote: Robin Kelly @ May 11 2008, 10:20 PM BSTThe main characters are too similar, there's no story, there's no character development, it hasn't got any legs. That seems like a pretty good basis for a re-write to me or at least something to bear in mind for your next idea.
Hi Robin. Just interested to know what your definition of character development is? I've spoken to several different producers, all who have differing rules so it can be confusing, seemingly even for the professionals. For me, character development is just about finding out a bit more about the character through his actions / emotions /. It doesn't have to be a huge thing, (especially if the character is only in a supporting role)
I think the confusion with this is that most people mistake "character development" with "personality change". So when a Writer's Room reader or scripty guy reads the script and whinges that a character wasn't developed enough, the writer thinks he means that the character's personality must change. For me though it doesn't mean that at all. It's actually the audience's perception of the character that needs to change, because of something new we discover about the character, exactly the same as we would on a 2nd or 3rd date with a real-life person. So for instance on a first date with someone, they might tell you they're a vegetarian, yet on a second date they eat fish and chips, because fish "isn't a proper animal". So in that scenario, the character has developed in our own mind, because we've discovered that they're not quite the Linda McCartney we thought they were.
I hope I'm making sense here - i just got back from a birthday party and I'm a bit squiffy.
What's your take on it?
Quote: David Chapman @ May 11 2008, 10:31 PM BSTAs I said before you did well to get a detailed critique instead of a standard sorry so stop moaning and do what they suggest.
I wasn't aware that I was moaning, I thought the idea of forums was for people to air their thoughts and speak with like minded people who might be able to share experiences..My mistake.
Thanks for all the responses though.
Quote: Perry Nium @ May 12 2008, 1:56 AM BSTHi Robin. Just interested to know what your definition of character development is? I've spoken to several different producers, all who have differing rules so it can be confusing, seemingly even for the professionals. For me, character development is just about finding out a bit more about the character through his actions / emotions /. It doesn't have to be a huge thing, (especially if the character is only in a supporting role)
I think the confusion with this is that most people mistake "character development" with "personality change". So when a Writer's Room reader or scripty guy reads the script and whinges that a character wasn't developed enough, the writer thinks he means that the character's personality must change. For me though it doesn't mean that at all. It's actually the audience's perception of the character that needs to change, because of something new we discover about the character, exactly the same as we would on a 2nd or 3rd date with a real-life person. So for instance on a first date with someone, they might tell you they're a vegetarian, yet on a second date they eat fish and chips, because fish "isn't a proper animal". So in that scenario, the character has developed in our own mind, because we've discovered that they're not quite the Linda McCartney we thought they were.
I hope I'm making sense here - i just got back from a birthday party and I'm a bit squiffy.
What's your take on it?
I agree, they need to have the same recognisable comic personality as that's where the comedy is going to come from but that personality has to be challenged by the story. Like a strict moral vegetarian who can't eat a living thing but just can't resist fish and chips (although it's funnier if it's bacon). There is recognisable truth there.
The example of Two Pints was used as the characters not developing over six series when so much story has happened with relationships breaking down, couples getting together, having babies, affairs, new jobs, deaths, new friendships, etc.
Quote: David Chapman @ May 11 2008, 10:31 PM BSTAs I said before you did well to get a detailed critique instead of a standard sorry so stop moaning and do what they suggest.
That's why the advice is to just write one episode. If you write the whole series and you're told it's fundamentally flawed then it's natural to whinge and moan and blame the readers to avoid re-writing or starting all over again.
For me the character development refers to something before the first line of dialogue. That is to say that the characters are fully realised in the first place. Not developed through the course of the story but fully three dimensional and 'real' from the get go.
Let's take David Renwick - we know pretty much all we need to know about Jonathan Creek from the first sixty seconds or so of meeting him in the first episode.
You should do the same thing with all your characters - reveal character, advance the plot and make people laugh at the same time.
Quote: Marc P @ May 12 2008, 8:40 AM BSTFor me the character development refers to something before the first line of dialogue. That is to say that the characters are fully realised in the first place. Not developed through the course of the story but fully three dimensional and 'real' from the get go.
Let's take David Renwick - we know pretty much all we need to know about Jonathan Creek from the first sixty seconds or so of meeting him in the first episode.
You should do the same thing with all your characters - reveal character, advance the plot and make people laugh at the same time.
Yes, working on that avoids the too similar main characters problem and sparks lots of ideas for stories to avoid the lack of story problem as well.
Speaking of David Renwick, no-one could argue that the One Foot in the Grave main characters weren't fully developed before the first page of dialogue but it didn't preclude him adding depth or motivation later.
For instance, a few series in it was revealed that they had a child that had died but it was only when writing that particular episode that Renwick thought of it.
well done for getting some feedback.
I submitted a radio script myself about four years ago and got back some very odd feedback.
Basically it said my script was hammy with a silly plot and story with some fairly amusing situations and characters. Shame the reader didn't seem realise that it was a spoof. I thought my response was so typically BBC though, the sort of response Monty Python would've enjoyed satirising.
Quote: Perry Nium @ May 12 2008, 1:56 AM BSTHi Robin. Just interested to know what your definition of character development is? I've spoken to several different producers, all who have differing rules so it can be confusing, seemingly even for the professionals. For me, character development is just about finding out a bit more about the character through his actions / emotions /. It doesn't have to be a huge thing, (especially if the character is only in a supporting role)
I think the confusion with this is that most people mistake "character development" with "personality change". So when a Writer's Room reader or scripty guy reads the script and whinges that a character wasn't developed enough, the writer thinks he means that the character's personality must change. For me though it doesn't mean that at all. It's actually the audience's perception of the character that needs to change, because of something new we discover about the character, exactly the same as we would on a 2nd or 3rd date with a real-life person. So for instance on a first date with someone, they might tell you they're a vegetarian, yet on a second date they eat fish and chips, because fish "isn't a proper animal". So in that scenario, the character has developed in our own mind, because we've discovered that they're not quite the Linda McCartney we thought they were.
I hope I'm making sense here - i just got back from a birthday party and I'm a bit squiffy.
What's your take on it?
I agree with the above, Basil fawlty for example always goes from mildly irritated to lunatic in the course of an episode. 
Quote: silentbob69 @ May 12 2008, 7:17 AM BSTI wasn't aware that I was moaning, I thought the idea of forums was for people to air their thoughts and speak with like minded people who might be able to share experiences..My mistake.
Thanks for all the responses though.
Yes- but you've had a good response and enough pointers.
I'm not being bitter, but you've got more than most of us get and I feel that you should do what they suggest - and then give us some tips. 
Will do.
Didn't mean to come across like that. It's the first time I had submitted anything and I just wondered what other people had experienced and what they did next.
Thanks to everyone who responded.