Sitcom Trials 2009 Page 22

Hi Kev - I can see both your point and Marc's. In its original format Sitcom Trials is just a fun comedy show to be involved in, relax and enjoy it etc.

But once you start grading scripts in a knockout to present the winner to heads of TV networks, which affects people's careers, then I think you do have a responsibility to the writers/actors/directors being judged to make those decisions as fairly as possible. Which is where an independent industry panel comes in - i.e. let them judge the audience reaction for themselves if they wish, without making them beholden to riggable* vote counts - as it sounds like you are indeed planning to do.

(* apart from anything else, Sitcom Trials 2007 saw an extraordinary amount of voting shenanigans with double voting, opposition vote slips being ripped up during collections and so on)

Hello all,

Now is probably as good a time as any to introduce myself as the "Mysterious" (less mysterious if you've looked at the web site) producer of the next season of the Sitcom Trials. You can read about me on the web site, but basically I have been involved in comedy for a long time, was involved in the Sitcom Trials before it was the Sitcom Trials, have sat on the if.comedy panel, and was a grand finallist in the last season of the Sitcom Trials. Them's my credentials.

Regarding the audience vote - they get to pick the ending that the rest of the audience sees - this is still at the mercy of bringing along a load of mates. What Kev believes, and what I agree with, is that the audience have to take away something - in the old days, they could determine the result on the night. Because it's now a knockout competition where there is more at stake, they can't be afforded that level of control. They get to choose the ending of the show they are watching, and get to show their support of sitcoms they enjoyed, ultimately the judges get to choose the winner(s).

The judges will always have the final say - they will be given the results of the audience to consider, and if they think that the audience was wrong, or conveniently stacked in the favour of a less quality sitcom, they will have ample opportunity to overrule them. It was very apparent last year when the audience was padded out with mates - although pretty uncommon from the shows that I saw - and the judges are going to be just as aware as anyone of that.

For me, the two most important things this season are quality and fairness. And neither one of those is served if the votes can be rigged.

James http://www.sitcomtrials.co.uk

Quote: J'Parker @ July 5 2009, 10:58 AM BST

The judges will always have the final say - they will be given the results of the audience to consider, and if they think that the audience was wrong, or conveniently stacked in the favour of a less quality sitcom, they will have ample opportunity to overrule them.
For me, the two most important things this season are quality and fairness. And neither one of those is served if the votes can be rigged.

James http://www.sitcomtrials.co.uk

View original

In which case James I can give my approval.

And remember all any audience want 'to take away' with them from a trip to the theatre is a happy feeling of being well entertained.

And anything that isn't stuck down

Quote: J'Parker @ July 5 2009, 10:58 AM BST

Hello all,

Now is probably as good a time as any to introduce myself as the "Mysterious" (less mysterious if you've looked at the web site) producer of the next season of the Sitcom Trials. You can read about me on the web site, but basically I have been involved in comedy for a long time, was involved in the Sitcom Trials before it was the Sitcom Trials, have sat on the if.comedy panel, and was a grand finallist in the last season of the Sitcom Trials. Them's my credentials.

Regarding the audience vote - they get to pick the ending that the rest of the audience sees - this is still at the mercy of bringing along a load of mates. What Kev believes, and what I agree with, is that the audience have to take away something - in the old days, they could determine the result on the night. Because it's now a knockout competition where there is more at stake, they can't be afforded that level of control. They get to choose the ending of the show they are watching, and get to show their support of sitcoms they enjoyed, ultimately the judges get to choose the winner(s).

The judges will always have the final say - they will be given the results of the audience to consider, and if they think that the audience was wrong, or conveniently stacked in the favour of a less quality sitcom, they will have ample opportunity to overrule them. It was very apparent last year when the audience was padded out with mates - although pretty uncommon from the shows that I saw - and the judges are going to be just as aware as anyone of that.

For me, the two most important things this season are quality and fairness. And neither one of those is served if the votes can be rigged.

James http://www.sitcomtrials.co.uk

View original

That sounds fair to me. If picked, I mightn't be able to attend the show myself llet alone bring mates, so letting the judges have the final say is the best for me.

Welcome to James as the new producer.

I am a little confused as to what the cliff-hanger vote actually adds (I know its the classic format). If the judges have the final say (right and proper as everyone says) then the future of sitcom is demonstrably not "in their hands". If having the denouement of your show seen is a potential advantage (sounds like it might be to me, but I am open to persuasion) then the audience stacking is a possibility.

In line with Marc P's comment about audiences wanting to be entertained, and Leevil's comments on not seeing the end of something he was enjoying I would have thought personally that 4 completed pieces stand more chance of entertaining an audience than 3 cliff-hangers and one completion.

Just as a thought, there is obviously no entirely objective way of doing this as there were several examples last year of different results between the same sitcoms at different stages.

Also people only get to see 45 minutes of sitcom goodness rather than the 60 which has been rehearsed and prepared, which seems a shame. Except in the case of my sitcoms where five minutes fewer is exactly what the audience wants.

Quote: Ponderer @ July 5 2009, 11:53 PM BST

I am a little confused as to what the cliff-hanger vote actually adds (I know its the classic format).

View original

I can, reluctantly, see the point of the audience vote, it is a talent contest, and, heaven knows, voting is part of the zeitgeist. It is the cliffhanger that genuinely puzzles me. Surely you are going to feel cheated, if having sat through something, you do not find out how it is ends? Assuming that is, that it is not truly terrible - and surely the object is not to stage sitcoms that are terrible.

And is it not, in any case, kind of difficult to judge a comic plot if you do not know how the elements are resolved? It could be that the seemingly random elements are brilliantly brought together in a satisfying and unexpected twist, or it could be that a seemingly ingenious plot that promises to go somewhere simply peters out and disappoints. The ending the audience think they are going to enjoy is not necessarily the one they will enjoy.

There's lost of interesting debate on this thread but the bottom line is: "them's the rules". They're advertised as such and they are the same for everyone.

Good luck to all entrants.

Quote: Badge @ July 6 2009, 12:31 AM BST

There's lost of interesting debate on this thread but the bottom line is: "them's the rules". They're advertised as such and they are the same for everyone.

Good luck to all entrants.

View original

On the other hand, it was a post on BSG last year (by zooo) that persuaded Simon and Declan to only use the audience vote for selecting the "fifth entry" in the grand final of the Trials, and to use the judges votes to select the other four, so there's no harm in bouncing around feedback and ideas.

As far as "the rules" go, yep, all us writers gotta send in 10 mins plus a payoff scene, that's fixed. But I would think that what happens on the night re performance is by no means fixed at this stage (see the "writing a second episode" aspect of previous Trials for an example of rules in permanent flux...)

The cliffhanger thing is for the benefit of the audience, not for the writers. And yes, of course some will be disappointed. But it does work, the format has worked in the past and the audience, whether they see their chosen ending or not have still bought into to ALL the sitcoms more than they would do if they played out in their entireties.

Don't get caught-up on the cliffhanger, make sure more than anything you've got a great ten minute script - make sure people want to find out the ending whether the see it on the night or not. If it's compelling enough a plot that people are really going to be upset if they don't see the end then that's where your votes come from, that's why industry people are going to be interested in speaking to you - you've done a great job. The ending is a bonus for everybody, not something people are missing out on - see it that way and psychologically it should all slip into place.

Quote: Griff @ July 5 2009, 11:59 PM BST

Also people only get to see 45 minutes of sitcom goodness rather than the 60 which has been rehearsed and prepared, which seems a shame. Except in the case of my sitcoms where five minutes fewer is exactly what the audience wants.

View original

Whilst the dates are fixed, the exact make up of the live-shows has not yet been determined, there is no reason there need only be four sitcoms in each live show, by adopting the cliffhanger-system, we have the potential to have an extra sitcom each night, the audience gets to see a wider-range of things, and there are actually more opportunities for writers, directors, and performers. This decision however, will completely rest on the quality of scripts - we're not going to squeeze in extra scripts if they don't meet our standards.

If Britain's Got Talent and Strictly Come Dancing has taught us anything (other than the terrible state of once great broadcasters) it's that even the highest profile events that are subject to far greater scrutiny than our little contest are still prone to issues when it comes to judging - what would you rather: complete fairness or have Kelly Brook sitting on the judging panel? I think we all know the answer to that one!

Kelly Brook is going to be there?!

Just out of curiosity, was it felt that the sitcoms trial seasons that did not have the cliffhanger were unsuccessful?

Quote: J'Parker @ July 6 2009, 7:54 AM BST

Whilst the dates are fixed, the exact make up of the live-shows has not yet been determined, there is no reason there need only be four sitcoms in each live show, by adopting the cliffhanger-system, we have the potential to have an extra sitcom each night, the audience gets to see a wider-range of things, and there are actually more opportunities for writers, directors, and performers. This decision however, will completely rest on the quality of scripts - we're not going to squeeze in extra scripts if they don't meet our standards.

View original

It's not just about script quality though. Simon and Declan have admitted they had real difficulty producing 32 sitcoms last year, with some of the productions really suffering as a result (directors taking on too many sitcoms and not being able to dedicate enough time to rehearsals and working with writers etc).

Quote: J'Parker @ July 6 2009, 7:54 AM BST

What would you rather: complete fairness or have Kelly Brook sitting on the judging panel? I think we all know the answer to that one!

View original

I don't think anyone has a problem with the audience voting. I think they just want the audience to be impartial in that voting.

Vote-rigging wouldn't do The Sitcom Trials as a whole any good anyway. If that happens and a sitcom wins because of audience vote-rigging, it would lose respectability with the industry bods and they might not think it worth turning up to future runs.

I imagine the final wouldn't be subject to the same rules, and it would be a purely industry-panel vote. Is that correct?

Dan