I think we've upset someone Page 13

Extracted from Michael Jacob's blog...
------------------------------------------------------
Some ideas are immediately rejected, either because it feels as if they don't work, because they are areas of life which commissioners and channels shy away from...

...so by the time a new comedy series arrives on television, it has gone through several stages of approval, and been subject to notes and thoughts at every point in its upward ascent.

Despite all of the stages, and the different kinds of expertise involved, some shows work very well, some work moderately well, and some become car crash television. The audience decides, and the only way really to judge whether or not your show works is to sit at home and watch it go out. And if it doesn't work, it's too late by then.

The excitement of comedy is its imprecision. No one can guarantee a hit, and an identical writer and production team can follow a massive success with a complete turkey.
--------------------------------------------------------

Just some thoughts...

I think anyone who "wants to write for (established) televison" and be paid for doing that JOB would do well to reflect on the above extracts from Michael's blog. It's like if you want to be a policeman at the Met, you wouldn't turn up with a mohican haircut, facial tattoos and your typed-out amendments to existing laws that you feel need to be changed (..or a black face???) would you?

You have to write something that will "fit in", also you'll have to accept that plenty of other TV-types will put their fingers into your cooking pot too, add ingedients that maybe you don't want, and give it a stir the wrong way around the pot, etc. They want a "hit". And it's their definition of a hit, not your definition of a hit. And a hit on their terms, not yours. And it's your JOB to deliver that.

I myself don't "want to write for television" (established or otherwise). What I want to do (and do) is write for myself. Maybe other BSG'ers do this too? I dunno. If what I write is suitable for televison, then great. And I don't mind ideas from others going into my/our pot (as long as I like the ideas..) or someone else editing my work (as long as I like the job they've done..) This "attitude" may mean I never get on TV with my writing. But I would rather not be on TV, than on TV with something that I don't personally believe in.

For me writing is not a JOB, it's an art. I may well be a mediocre artist, I don't actually care except that I'll try to learn and try harder. If I am only ever going to be mediocre than I can't stop doing it anyway, as it's what I do and love doing. If I ever have any commercial success, then fine. But for me the writing can only come from the heart, and not from the wallet. But television is a BUSINESS first and foremost and writers who "want to write for televison", must recognise that and "apply for the JOB" accordingly.

Good luck with it anyway!

I was becoming uncomfortable with the universal slagging off of shows on here but I think this actually points a finger at people and society generally. More people will complain about something than would sing its praises. We are naturally a race of moaners.

Is jealousy involved? Maybe but it can be demoralising when watching something that looks sub-standard and we feel we could do better if we had the chance. Thing is, if we felt that way we just have to prove it because the channels don't deliberately make bad comedy.

Jamie Oliver made an interesting point in his Ministry of Food show last week. If we did everything based on reasoned expectations we'd never have gone to the moon. We need people to challenge our beliefs as to what is possible or else there would be no progress and everything would stay the same.

Comedy is like that in many ways. Think of all the classic material that we would've missed if someone hadn't taken a chance on an unusual premise or concept rather than the trusted studio style presentation.

Dad's Army, Steptoe & Son, 'til death us do part, Porridge ... all took chances in their day and all were considered 'risky' when they were first broadcast...

...are any TV channels taking risks now with new sitcoms?

I've often read/heard producers and commisioners saying they want 'silly' comedy at the moment and that they don't want/have had enough of/don't personally like 'comedy of embarrassment', you know like the successful and critically acclaimed shows like The Office and Curb Your Enthusiasm.

Is this because they feel that they just want to do something different because it's time? Isn't it best to have a variety of types of comedy and then there's something for all tastes?

Quote: Marc P @ October 8 2008, 9:27 AM BST

. At least SootyJ seems to be saying he needs help that the BBC isn't providing for him to progress in his chosen career. I think if he looks in the right places he might find the help is there to find out for himself if he can do it. If the drawbridge is raised then Micheal Jacob is standing there dangling a rope. He might not look like Robin Hood and thankfully isn't wearing green tights but he does shoot straight.

View original

Where is said help? I found the BBC to be a most inaccessable place, most prodcos respond to phone or e-mail and give feedback, unless weighed down under sheer weight of response.

The attitude of sod off to writers room and wait your 6 months is dispiriting.

I pay for a comercial cable service to get the bright, shiny crap I enjoy,

where as the BBC has a duty to entertain ultimately, I wish it didn't feel like

was copying them.

Quote: Dolly Dagger @ October 8 2008, 9:48 AM BST

Mmmm. I'm not so sure.

MJ in the comments to his blog:

"It would be wrong if up and coming writers didn't feel they could do better than the established lot, and write the scripts to try and prove it, but I think the alternative comedians had more to say than: this is baaaaad, or this is sh**e."

'Someone' on the Coming of Age thread:

"Watched fifteen minutes of this last night. It is shit. Like, as has been mentioned, a crappy kids sit-com with added, constant sex 'gags'.
It is baaaaad. To think they cancelled Pulling to fill BBC3 up with more stuff like this. It beggars belief. "

Maybe it's just coincidence?

Btw 'someone' isn't me, and there is some sort of more constructive criticism between the words 'shit' and 'baaaad'.

View original

*hurries to look up author of said post, but agrees with sentiment that 'Pulling' shouldn't have been cancelled*

most prodcos respond to phone or e-mail and give feedback, unless weighed down under sheer weight of response.

I don't think this is true. A few do - famously Baby Cow - but most of the biggies (Hat Trick, Tiger Aspect, Hartswood etc) really don't look at unsolicited scripts from unknown writers.

Comedy Unit, Screenplay productions, Channel X, that's enought for me to be getting on with.

Comedy Unit has Rough Cuts, which maybe the only ongoing open access show.

Quote: Griff @ October 8 2008, 10:52 AM BST

*hurries to look up author of said post, but agrees with sentiment that 'Pulling' shouldn't have been cancelled*

I don't think this is true. A few do - famously Baby Cow - but most of the biggies (Hat Trick, Tiger Aspect, Hartswood etc) really don't look at unsolicited scripts from unknown writers.

View original

Depends who you reach I think. Tiger read my stuff aggggges ago.

Quote: sootyj @ October 8 2008, 10:56 AM BST

Comedy Unit, Screenplay productions, Channel X, that's enought for me to be getting on with.

Comedy Unit has Rough Cuts, which maybe the only ongoing open access show.

View original

The Comedy Unit are non-committal though.

Well they kinda all are.

Imagine a prodco that said they'd produce anything.

They'd get more shit than the chemical crappers at Glastonbury.

Mostly from me admittedly.

Quote: sootyj @ October 8 2008, 9:15 AM BST

Apropo of nothing I'm just watching George Osbourne on the news.

He looks very handsome but caddish.

Like he'd get his nanny pregnant then fire her, whilst laughing into his glass of champagne.

View original

Quote: sootyj @ October 8 2008, 10:59 AM BST

Well they kinda all are.

Imagine a prodco that said they'd produce anything.

They'd get more shit than the chemical crappers at Glastonbury.

Mostly from me admittedly.

View original

Well, it's more that even if they like the stuff they won't commit themselves.

I took my sitcom away from them in the end.

Quote: sootyj @ October 8 2008, 10:47 AM BST

Where is said help? I found the BBC to be a most inaccessable place, most prodcos respond to phone or e-mail and give feedback, unless weighed down under sheer weight of response.

The attitude of sod off to writers room and wait your 6 months is dispiriting.

I pay for a comercial cable service to get the bright, shiny crap I enjoy,

where as the BBC has a duty to entertain ultimately, I wish it didn't feel like

was copying them.

View original

I'm not quite sure what you are saying here but you did say earlier.

'Maybe I'd be less bitter if the BBC hadn't so blatantly kicked the ladder away for new writers.'

A ladder here is a metaphor for help. That is encouraging, developing new talent. There is help there, but you need to do more than just send stuff in to writersroom I guess. Thousands and thousands of unsolicited scripts get sent to the BBC they have to deal with it all somehow. You say you have been writing for a year SootyJ? In the big scheme of things that isn't too long. Think how long it takes to become a professional in other spheres, a Lawyer, A Doctor etc. If you find your head is bleeding from bashing it on the wall of TVC have a look around and see if you can find a back door.

Bet there were many tears in Glasgow that night.

Was that night the Glasgow Post had a story of shock massive suicide by comedy producers.

Just messin'

Quote: Perry Nium @ October 8 2008, 1:38 AM BST

And (successful) writers too. There's a lot of silent readers on this site. Don't forget a Google search for the word "sitcom" comes up with 12 million results, with this here site being number 3. It's very high profile and attracts writers, producers and telly bigwigs alike. That's obviously not to say we need to bow and scrape to them, but for God's sake if you're going to fantasise about sodomizing a comedy producer with their own unlubricated BAFTA award, at least use a pseudonym!

View original

I think this raises a very relevant issue. Anonymity. Most people on this site, like most internet forums, use pseudonyms, and many do so and behave impeccably. But for some it does seem to be a means of hiding whilst making comments which that person wouldn't dream of making if they were readily identified. The level of vitriol which is sometimes used is, I'm sure, completely different from the type of discourse that person would employ if they were in a room with the person they're arguing/discussing with. Does this lack of openness lead to a more abusive and dysfunctional argument? I think so. Most of the comedy writers I've met in person have been charming and sensitive, but here it's all too frequently considered "honest" and "straight-talking" to say things those people would simply never say to that person's, be they a producer or fellow writer's, face.

If you're a writer and you want to presumably further your writing career, then posting here should surely be a means of helping. How can hiding your name do this? I remember reading Phil Barron's blog, where he said he couldn't believe how many writers use pseudonyms on the internet, when it is clearly in their interests to get their name as much "out there" as possible (he said it more articulately than that).

I really think it would help foster a more generous and humane level of debate and discussion if more people used their own names and knew that what they said would be immediately identified as by them. All trolls use pseudonyms and would be much more easily recognised in this way.

I know I'm going to be slaughtered for saying this when anonymity is the norm, and I genuinely am not attacking everyone who uses a pseudonym. I think generally this is a pleasant site and people are generous and open, but some are not. I really think if we've got the guts to criticise or attack other people's shows and other people's writing, we should have the guts to say who we are. Just like Michael Jacobs, Victoria Lloyd and other professionals do.

Quote: Frankie Rage @ October 8 2008, 10:18 AM BST

It's like if you want to be a policeman at the Met, you wouldn't turn up with a mohican haircut, facial tattoos and your typed-out amendments to existing laws that you feel need to be changed (..or a black face???)

View original