I know this has probably already been discussed - but what really is the best way to present a new sitcom? Other than actually filming it that is?
I was advised to send one episode and a synopsis of the characters and the series. Is this sensible?
I sent mine to BBC Writers Room and eventually got THE rejection letter.
Pointless sending anything to the writers room, really. And it gets entered on their Database under your name and title, which means if you send it back re-written with the same title, they just send you a piss-off-postcard.
Your best bet is to write the synopsis under a working title, and contact someone who is working in the same sort of style you are. Producers are usually surprisingly approachable, although the turn around is longer, you get a reply from someone who is actively working in the same area you are, and therefore, with any luck, it's more worthwhile.
I work mainly with producers because I *know* what sort of work they have done and I can tailor things accordingly. Also you get better feedback.
The writersroom is overwhelmed with material. 10,000 scripts pile in there, most are entirely unsuitable. It's mainly designed for identifying talent and developing it, although the people working there also try and write sitcoms, well, some of them do, and to me it seems unwise to write something and send it to another writer who is trying to get the same result you are.
Don't get me wrong, the Writersroom is a good idea, but sometimes they filter out things which surprises me, considering some of the material which does get developed. Having said that, the same thing has happened with producers, so it's all down to who you approach, when and how.
Why is the writers room a good idea?
It seesms to be harking back to when the BBC traditionally saw themselves as patrons of the dramatic arts.Now they are, `mentors` and champions`.
Writers dont need patrons or champions-they just need decencyy and respect.
I would rather hit the independents and do the rounds.
I am not just saying this because I had a script rejected,(I dont think),but it does seem like trying to break into the Brinks Mat.Maybe I`m ttoo old.The industry seems full of young go-getters who compete to write hip,filthy shockable stuff.Maybe i could change my name and do like wise,huh??
Okay Jack.
having been in the business you know the people. How would we find a sympathetic producer? And again what would you send them? The whole of one episode and a synopsis?
I really can understand how it must be receiving unsolicited stuff because I've been trying to be fair to everyone on here and read their submissions for Critique. However lots of them are just too long to hold the attention and if I see one too long I tend not to bother even reading it.
I just received a BBC writers room rejection, and it made me laugh, because the pilot I'd sent in was called 'Meet the Head', and the letter they sent explained they couldn't go any further with my script 'Meet the Hand'!
Shows how much attention they give to new scripts!
I'm going to tidy mine up - maybe with a colaborator, maybe alone - and then send it off to someone else. Hopefully a producer recommended by Ed.
Just out of curiosity ... hands up everyone with a Writers Room rejection slip, an interesting statistic I think. My hand stays firmly in lap on that one ... its pinned on the wall (W.R.R.S. that is!).
Yeah - I've got one somewhere, don't know where at the moment or what it says.
But I keep it so I can say "Look you Bastards - you were wrong" - hopefully.
The writers room is a good idae because of two reasons
A) It is a filter for people who are not familiar with the industry to submit to. Although this is not a comfort, it does mean that those in charge don't waste time with ideas which don't have legs or are plainly unworkable. Now, this also means they turn down a lot of good stuff simply because they don't recognise it.
B)You would be amazed at some of the stuff which gets sent in. Ideas written in handwriting, strange paper...photocopied sheets where the numbering is wrong.
Both of these are positive in a negative way, if you see what I mean.
On another forum I was talking to someone who works in the Production sector of the BBC, who praised the writers' room. Personally, I don't like this system, because it discourages talented people. I have not seen (although I have to be honest and say I haven't read that many) any work on here which didn't at least have potential. It's because people are learning the art of it. Some are very gifted.
The only way of getting work, or at least getting something constructive is to approach someone who is working in the same sort of style that you are. Or someone you respect. You can't build a working relationship with someone you don't respect or whose work you don't rate. That is a recipe for disaster.
I'm not saying working with a producer is a piece of cake, but you are working with someone who at least has some sort of idea of what works and what doesn't. Like any working relationship you have to develop it. There will be things both of you will say which the other will not like. It's all about compromise without sacrifice.
All this means you are having their attention. Now, the writers room filters out - in my opinion wrongly in many cases - material which producers can't or won't use. Releasing them to work on your script or someone elses' or whatever.
There is obviously a finite amount of time these people have or are prepared to spend on work. So getting them to spend time on yours is no mean feat in itself.
I am not advising you or anyone to pester producers. Do not send things cold. Be professional. Approach them as you would approach anyone else.
I'm babbling I know, but I want to say that it's not a dead end street. The Writers Room is far from perfect, asalmost every writer knows, but you would have even further problems and longer waits if it didn't exist.
This doesn't excuse the ineffiency or poor comprehension of even getting a title right, though. That's just lazy.
Thanks Ed. How much would a producer change things do you think? Would it just be for practical reasons or do some like to just stick their oar in?
Do you know some good ones we could approach or is that a bit of cheek? Sorry but you need a bit of that.
Quote: David ChapmanThanks Ed. How much would a producer change things do you think? Would it just be for practical reasons or do some like to just stick their oar in? Do you know some good ones we could approach or is that a bit of cheek? Sorry but you need a bit of that.
You need a bit of cheek. But you also need to appear to be professional. Otherwise the whole thing falls down.
Producers like to put their mark on things, mainly cosmetic. But you need to be able to negotiate and see tehir point. Sometimes things look good on paper which would not for various reasons work in practice, and vice versa.
It's their name on the end of the credits, don't forget. So they do, in many ways, have every right to have a say. but not to change things with no reason. That sometimes happens.
I only approach producers with my work.
One in particular, on an older project, went through the entire 63 page script and wrote notes on it about what she'd like to see. They're much more approachable than the BBC.
I'd never send anything to the writer's room, seems a huge waste of time. Same with their competitions. I don't want to be farmed into writing for Two Pints . . .
Quote: Seefacts @ May 29, 2007, 9:41 AMI only approach producers with my work.
One in particular, on an older project, went through the entire 63 page script and wrote notes on it about what she'd like to see. They're much more approachable than the BBC.
I'd never send anything to the writer's room, seems a huge waste of time. Same with their competitions. I don't want to be farmed into writing for Two Pints . . .
Competitions never really lead anywhere.