Firstly the audience is directly involved in the show through their votes.
I thought you'd stopped that kind of voting, because it's unfair if one writer brings 100 mates.
Sitcom Trials 2009 Page 21
This thread is locked. No further replies can be posted.
From Kev's website:
The Trials performs two show each night at 5pm and 7pm, with the panel of judges making a decision in the 5pm show (usually, the some judges may choose to view the 7pm show instead). The judges vote affects which sitcoms go through to the next stage of competition but not which sitcom ending is performed.
The audience vote is also factored in to which sitcom goes on to the next stage of the competition, but in any adjudication or close tally, the panel of judges' decision will be final.
At the end of both the 5pm and 7pm, the audience vote for each performance will be counted and announced, and the winner of the audience vote will perform its ending. After that final performance at the end of the 7pm show, the audience will be told which two sitcoms have been chosen to go through to the next stage of the competition.
A question, Kev, about that middle paragraph.
If the whole audience votes for sitcom A, while the judges all vote for sitcom B, which sitcom goes through? I ask not out of awkwardness but a desire to understand.
You know someone is just flipping a coin backstage.
Quote: Leevil @ July 4 2009, 1:47 PM BSTYou know someone is just flipping a coin backstage.
If they are it'll be the first time any money's been involved.
I don't think it's a real coin, most likely a prop (stolen from another production).
Quote: Mikey Jackson @ July 4 2009, 11:55 AM BSTI thought you'd stopped that kind of voting, because it's unfair if one writer brings 100 mates.
Hi Mikey
It's a little confusing because Simon and Declan who 'managed'* the Sitcom Trials for the last couple of years, and changed the voting system as you said, have a new venture now under a different name and Kev (who came up with the original Sitcom Trials format) has taken the reigns back on the Trials with a new format.
*I'm not quite sure what the correct term is here so apologies to anyone I may have offended!
JP
It's 'produced'! Good god, woman, you're a *writer*!!
Dan
Quote: swerytd @ July 4 2009, 8:27 PM BSTIt's 'produced'! Good god, woman, you're a *writer*!!
Dan
OK clever pants but wasn't Kev still a producer of this year's 'Trials'? I was trying to differentiate between their roles! I'm saying no more for fear of digging a big hole for myself!
Quote: Griff @ July 4 2009, 1:45 PM BSTIf the whole audience votes for sitcom A, while the judges all vote for sitcom B, which sitcom goes through? I ask not out of awkwardness but a desire to understand.
Good question. Well, firstly there are two performances, so two audiences to decide, hopefully different people each time. And they'll each be, we hope, satisfied by seeing the 'popular' choice's ending.
If, in both performances, the audience choose one sitcom as an outright winner, but the panel of experts vote for a different sitcom, then I guess both wind up in the semi finals. The reason for having a panel was to help get over the "which writer brings most friends" syndrome. Having two shows, giving a total audience of over 100, also should help ameliorate that (if a writer actually has 100 friends then they're like no writer I've ever met).
And I think the panel having the casting decision is a sensible one. This should only really be an issue if an atrocious sitcom (which surely wouldn't be shortlisted in the first place, he says optimistically) has a writer with 100 friends (all of whom would have to be without consciences or being paid by said writer, which raises the equally unlikely notion of any writer having that much money) who vote it through beyond all rational comprehension.
Which, if it happened, would be a laugh anyway. So it's a win win situation.
Now, as I said, I'm not producing this season, (insert name here) is. So I shall once more butt out, and let him answer the next question.
Love etc
Kev F Sutherland
Executive Producer
The Sitcom Trials
PS: Before I go. Declan and Simon produced the 2007 and 2009 spring seasons of The Sitcom Trials, and I had absolutely no involvement, other than giving them my blessing and permission to use the name and format. This season I am Exec Producing, which means it's my money that disappears if no-one actually comes to the show, but the Producer (or producers, just to confuse things further) will be doing everything else. Including answering questions, I should imagine.
Quote: Kev F @ July 4 2009, 9:08 PM BSTGood question. Well, firstly there are two performances, so two audiences to decide, hopefully different people each time. And they'll each be, we hope, satisfied by seeing the 'popular' choice's ending.
If, in both performances, the audience choose one sitcom as an outright winner, but the panel of experts vote for a different sitcom, then I guess both wind up in the semi finals. The reason for having a panel was to help get over the "which writer brings most friends" syndrome. Having two shows, giving a total audience of over 100, also should help ameliorate that (if a writer actually has 100 friends then they're like no writer I've ever met).
And I think the panel having the casting decision is a sensible one. This should only really be an issue if an atrocious sitcom (which surely wouldn't be shortlisted in the first place, he says optimistically) has a writer with 100 friends (all of whom would have to be without consciences or being paid by said writer, which raises the equally unlikely notion of any writer having that much money) who vote it through beyond all rational comprehension.
Which, if it happened, would be a laugh anyway. So it's a win win situation.
Now, as I said, I'm not producing this season, (insert name here) is. So I shall once more butt out, and let him answer the next question.
Love etc
Kev F Sutherland
Executive Producer
The Sitcom TrialsPS: Before I go. Declan and Simon produced the 2007 and 2009 spring seasons of The Sitcom Trials, and I had absolutely no involvement, other than giving them my blessing and permission to use the name and format. This season I am Exec Producing, which means it's my money that disappears if no-one actually comes to the show, but the Producer (or producers, just to confuse things further) will be doing everything else. Including answering questions, I should imagine.
Kev - all sounds good - however in the situation you describe, a writer wouldn't need 100 friends. They would only need 26 friends (to get an unbeatable majority of an audience of 50), and have those friends attend both shows. And if the audience preference for the other three shows was shared equally, you could win with just 14 mates who went to both shows (14+12+12+12 = 50 people). That's far from implausible, given some of the large mobs that turned up in the 2007 Trials. And friends will always vote for their mates script, regardless of conscience or payment or atrociousness.
So it's right and proper that the independent panel will have the casting vote.
Quote: Griff @ July 5 2009, 12:50 AM BSTKev - all sounds good - however in the situation you describe, a writer wouldn't need 100 friends. They would only need 26 friends (to get an unbeatable majority of an audience of 50), and have those friends attend both shows. And if the audience preference for the other three shows was shared equally, you could win with just 14 mates who went to both shows (14+12+12+12 = 50 people). That's far from implausible, given some of the large mobs that turned up in the 2007 Trials. And friends will always vote for their mates script, regardless of conscience or payment or atrociousness.
So it's right and proper that the independent panel will have the casting vote.
You know no-one's ever spelled out the maths of that to me so simply and brilliantly before, thanks Griff. That equation may in fact become part of the introduction to the show.
But please folks, pretend you never read it. Heaven forfend that every shortlisted writer should bring 14 friends to both shows every night. 14 paying friends. Heavens to Betsy that would be dreadful.
Quote: Kev F @ July 5 2009, 8:45 AM BSTYou know no-one's ever spelled out the maths of that to me so simply and brilliantly before, thanks Griff. That equation may in fact become part of the introduction to the show.
But please folks, pretend you never read it. Heaven forfend that every shortlisted writer should bring 14 friends to both shows every night. 14 paying friends. Heavens to Betsy that would be dreadful.
Kev, there must surely be some way round having the audience vote thingy. Basically it means lesser material can get put forward whilst genuinely good stuff doesn't. Particularly writers who don't live in, or near, central london who can bring a gang of friends. How does that reflect well on you, how does it reflect well on the industry? If the show can't finance itself in some way or other, or make a mimimal amount of loss - don't do it. Have you tried sponsorship. Have you applied for a lottery grant? Have you considered lottery funded spaces who may well give you a significant dicount on venue hire costs. If it is not an industry panel vote that decides the outcome of the trials - it is essentially meaningless. If it's not a fair trial what kind of trial is it?
Does it really matter?
At the risk of sounding naive here just having your work on the show is good enough regardless of how many friends the other writers have, isn't it?.
The opportunity of having your stuff seen hopefully by the right people whether you win or not is the main aim isn't it?
Have a strange feeling I will regret this post.
Everything matters.
Quote: Marc P @ July 5 2009, 9:04 AM BSTKev, there must surely be some way round having the audience vote thingy. Basically it means lesser material can get put forward whilst genuinely good stuff doesn't. Particularly writers who don't live in, or near, central london who can bring a gang of friends. How does that reflect well on you, how does it reflect well on the industry? If the show can't finance itself in some way or other, or make a mimimal amount of loss - don't do it. Have you tried sponsorship. Have you applied for a lottery grant? Have you considered lottery funded spaces who may well give you a significant dicount on venue hire costs. If it is not an industry panel vote that decides the outcome of the trials - it is essentially meaningless. If it's not a fair trial what kind of trial is it?
The Sitcom Trials is a show which, for 10 years come October, has put the fate of sitcoms in the hands of the audience. They decide the outcome of the evening, so we don't waste their time with anything they don't like, and they're never more than 10 minutes away from something they might prefer.
That catchy little mantra, or variations thereof, sums up The Sitcom Trials. It's an entertainment format, and a creative talent showcase, and it works for both punters and for the writers and performers involved.
With the extra added bonus of running the season as a competition with an overall winner, we add the controlling element of the panel of judges, who bring with them expertise from the industry.
We have had sponsorship in the past, from Honda for two of our Edinburgh runs, but sadly that dried up. And we had a TV series, with the hope of another always a prospect. It is, as you say, essentially meaningless, but no more so than Strictly Come Dancing or the Oscars. Relax, you really might enjoy it.