Probably not in that exact context though, but every teenager (on or off TV) doesn't think their parents actually have sex.
It IS, however, a typical stereotype in society. That's what I mean.
Isn't it best to avoid typical stereotypes and make sure the characters are unique and have their own voice?
Writersroom gives that very same advice.
And okay... doesn't need to be 100% original, but SHOULD do things in a different way or a different take on an idea.
Quote: Mikey J @ November 4 2008, 7:09 PM GMTProbably not in that exact context though, but every teenager (on or off TV) doesn't think their parents actually have sex.
It IS, however, a typical sterotype in society. That's what I mean.
Isn't it best to avoid typical stereotypes and make sure characters unique?
Writersroom gives that very same advice.And okay... doesn't need to be 100% original, but SHOULD do things in a different way or a different take on an idea.
All the best comedy characters are stereotypes who can be summed up in a word or two. Del Boy = cockney wideboy. Victor Meldrew = miserable old bastard. Alf Garnett = racist loudmouth. The trick is to have one overriding personality trait backed up with other layers. That's what makes characters interesting. Layers.
All characters are stereotypes to some extent. It rather depends on the context. I doubt that Ray Cameron, Barry Cryer or Kenny Everett were vilified for their use of city gents in the first series of The Kenny Everett Television Show.
Oh yeah Mikey, go and edit your post drastically! 
Quote: Lee Henman @ November 4 2008, 7:15 PM GMTAll the best comedy characters are stereotypes who can be summed up in a word or two. Del Boy = cockney wideboy. Victor Meldrew = miserable old bastard. Alf Garnett = racist loudmouth. The trick is to have one overriding personality trait backed up with other layers. That's what makes characters interesting. Layers.
Yeah, interesting stuff about layers. 
But I'm sure if a new show had another cockney wideboy in it, it would get slated for that.
(I mean if the new character was just like Delboy and didn't have anything different about the character.)
Oh yeah Mikey, go and edit your post drastically!
OOPS! Sorry Aaron. I figured that city gents wasn't a good example, so I changed it.
Slated by who? Aspiring and semi-successful writers? Critics? Or the viewing public whose attention needs to be gained, and whose cash will eventually (hopefully) be forked out on DVDs?
By slated, I meant by everybody, not just critics or BSG members.
Aaron I know your general view is that you don't like it when writers dare to criticise shows from a writers perspective.
OOER. This is news to me.
OK, I'll stop digging my hole now.
Quote: Griff @ November 4 2008, 7:41 PM GMTAaron I know your general view is that you don't like it when writers dare to criticise shows from a writers perspective.
Mm, not quiiiite. But I really can't be bothered to go over it again. So yeah, sure, whatever supports your argument.
And I've come to the conclusion that this is true. After dealing with 2 rejections today, which had some great feedback, it's amazing how people read things differently.
A month or so ago I had an agent say she really enjoyed the script I sent her. Another came back telling me it wasn't for them. Today, I also had a had producer tell me to do one thing and another do something else.
Anyway, I guess this thread was more of a way to complain and get things off my chest and how writing is very frustrating.
Anyway, going back to the original post, (shown above, although isn't there a line missing now?) I suppose writing is very subjective.
What you may see as great may be loathed by a producer. Or vice versa.
Earlier on in this post, it was clear that I didn't take my most recent rejection well, thus leading to a few rather self-righteous posts, which I apologise for.
Rejection is hard to take, but it's best just to write as good as you can and keep on trying.
Quote: Mikey J @ November 4 2008, 8:14 PM GMTAnyway, going back to the original post, (shown above, although isn't there a line missing now?) I suppose writing is very subjective.
What you may see as great may be loathed by a producer. Or vice versa.Earlier on in this post, it was clear that I didn't take my most recent rejection well, thus leading to a few rather self-righteous posts, which I apologise for.
Rejection is hard to take, but it's best just to write as good as you can and keep on trying.
Stick your first ten pages, properly formatted, in critique, you can be sure of a judicious analysis there.
Quote: Marc P @ November 4 2008, 10:37 PM GMTStick your first ten pages, properly formatted, in critique, you can be sure of a judicious analysis there.
I would if it was a sketch or something, but I'd rather not publicly reveal my project.
I want to protect my idea for the time being.
I'm sorry if I am repeating anyone else's opinion on this subject. The only thing I will say is that (and this is obvious) no two people are going to have the same opinion of your script. The pilot I'm currently re-writing, which is commissioned, was rejected by a contact of mine at a major production company who had read and enjoyed a lot of my stuff. I was initially disappointed that he didn't like it but it's not like he wished me ill with it. The opposite in fact, he has been really excited it had been picked-up elsewhere.
Find your own voice.
Find your own voice.
Number one rule. Find your own voice.
It may not bring you success. But I've never tried to write to someone else's idea of comedy. Write what you belive in. If it's a line that you find really funny, even it is not obvious (especially good if it's not obvious) then stick by it. For example, in a recent script meeting a throwaway line about (of all things) Maya Angelou's 'I Know Why The Caged Bird Sings' - not an obvious reference or an obvious source for comedy - was unexpectedly (to me) really liked.
Write what you find funny. Then, cross your fingers, and hope for the best.
Please don't let us start writing to what we are (erroneously) told is a formula.
Love, Tim.
Quote: Griff @ November 5 2008, 12:25 AM GMTIf you want to do this , it's probably best to wait till Seefacts gets back.
No, I'm done with analysis in Critique. I'm leaving well alone.
Quote: Tim Walker @ November 6 2008, 10:13 PM GMTI'm sorry if I am repeating anyone else's opinion on this subject. The only thing I will say is that (and this is obvious) no two people are going to have the same opinion of your script. The pilot I'm currently re-writing, which is commissioned, was rejected by a contact of mine at a major production company who had read and enjoyed a lot of my stuff. I was initially disappointed that he didn't like it but it's not like he wished me ill with it. The opposite in fact, he has been really excited it had been picked-up elsewhere.
Find your own voice.
Find your own voice.
Number one rule. Find your own voice.
It may not bring you success. But I've never tried to write to someone else's idea of comedy. Write what you belive in. If it's a line that you find really funny, even it is not obvious (especially good if it's not obvious) then stick by it. For example, in a recent script meeting a throwaway line about (of all things) Maya Angelou's 'I Know Why The Caged Bird Sings' - not an obvious reference or an obvious source for comedy - was unexpectedly (to me) really liked.
Write what you find funny. Then, cross your fingers, and hope for the best.
Please don't let us start writing to what we are (erroneously) told is a formula.
Love, Tim.
I agree to a point - having a distinct voice is obviously very important in comedy, especially in sitcom I think. But I also think that (especially when you're a new writer) it's a good idea to take note of current trends and tailor your work as required. By doing this I don't think you're selling out or compromising your artistic integrity, more simply giving yourself the best possible chance of building a decent profile within the industry, which will then hopefully go some way to convincing the people that matter that you're a definite force to be reckoned with and that maybe - just maybe - your opinion is worth listening to.
So what I'm saying is, it's good to be a maverick, but there's a fine line between "maverick" and "twat". And I know which side of that line I'd rather be.
Quote: Lee Henman @ November 11 2008, 2:19 AM GMTI agree to a point - having a distinct voice is obviously very important in comedy, especially in sitcom I think. But I also think that (especially when you're a new writer) it's a good idea to take note of current trends and tailor your work as required. By doing this I don't think you're selling out or compromising your artistic integrity, more simply giving yourself the best possible chance of building a decent profile within the industry, which will then hopefully go some way to convincing the people that matter that you're a definite force to be reckoned with and that maybe - just maybe - your opinion is worth listening to.
So what I'm saying is, it's good to be a maverick, but there's a fine line between "maverick" and "twat". And I know which side of that line I'd rather be.
If you want to be a "hack" as opposed to a "writer", then fine. Life is a series of compromises. I don't believe, however, I would have got anywhere following a set of rules on how to write comedy. I believe writing to "current trends" is complete bollocks. Tell me, what premise/scenario/style of comedy is the current trend?
All the best.