Quote: Kev F @ December 6 2009, 10:19 AM GMTDon't see them complaining.
That's us told then. 
I agree you can get a lot into a 15 to 20 min time slot. It's challenging but can be done very well as these competitions have shown. It was more the 10 min/ break/ 2 min slot I'm not convinced about. But that's just a difference of opinion.
I would be complaining, however, if I was one of the writers/ performers who had been chosen and has now been slated by the organiser!?
Ouch.
Quote: Kev F @ December 6 2009, 10:19 AM GMTReturning to the subject of the 10 minutes and the cliffhangers, I watched an episode of Big Bang Theory last night (watching series 2 on Virgin Media TV On Demand, you can also see them mornings on Channel 4) and was surprised to see by the end that it was only 20 minutes long. So, by the time they get to their ad break, they've had less time than most Sitcom Trials entries to grab their audience and make sure they don't flip over. Don't see them complaining.
I don't think that's comparing like with like, Kev. By the time of the ad break, the audience may well be hooked because there a lot of things built up in the first half that they want to see resolved, and they know they're going to have ten minutes in which things will get resolved. If the Big Bang Theory was only 12 minutes long and went to an ad break after 10 minutes, and didn't have time to resolve a lot of things after the break, how happy would the audience be then? I don't know, nor does anyone, because people don't make TV shows like that. I can only speculate why not.
But there are obviously differnt views on this, and as you say there is something in having slightly different criteria for different things like Sitcom Trials, Sitcom Mission and Sitcom Saturday.
Quote: Badge @ December 6 2009, 6:21 PM GMTI don't think that's comparing like with like, Kev. By the time of the ad break, the audience may well be hooked because there a lot of things built up in the first half that they want to see resolved, and they know they're going to have ten minutes in which things will get resolved. If the Big Bang Theory was only 12 minutes long and went to an ad break after 10 minutes, and didn't have time to resolve a lot of things after the break, how happy would the audience be then? I don't know, nor does anyone, because people don't make TV shows like that. I can only speculate why not.
But there are obviously differnt views on this, and as you say there is something in having slightly different criteria for different things like Sitcom Trials, Sitcom Mission and Sitcom Saturday.
I guess to some extent it's finding good writers.
Also a good writer would be able to add to the first part.
Quote: bushbaby @ December 6 2009, 1:50 AM GMTWhich just proves that what isn't funny on the page translates to hilarious acted out...as in Royle Family, the scripts are so banal, it is only because Caroline Ahern had contacts and was able to act it out in front of directors/producers that she got the series on TV
SampleJim
What did you cook for Dave's tea?Caroline
I did a big meal
Jim
What
Caroline
Beans on toast.Funny on paper? No way. Acted out in the Royle Family style? Hilarious
That is funny on paper though. Not hilarious, but it's a gag and made me chuckle.
Quote: Martin H @ December 6 2009, 8:50 PM GMTThat is funny on paper though. Not hilarious, but it's a gag and made me chuckle.
I wonder also, would it be funny in a posh southern accent or does it only work with a northern one?
Quote: bushbaby @ December 6 2009, 8:58 PM GMTI wonder also, would it be funny in a posh southern accent or does it only work with a northern one?
Northern accents are funny - full stop!
Quote: Jane P @ December 6 2009, 6:14 PM GMTThat's us told then.
I agree you can get a lot into a 15 to 20 min time slot. It's challenging but can be done very well as these competitions have shown. It was more the 10 min/ break/ 2 min slot I'm not convinced about. But that's just a difference of opinion.
I would be complaining, however, if I was one of the writers/ performers who had been chosen and has now been slated by the organiser!?
Ouch.
I guess I escaped because the direness of the performance exactly matched the terribleness of my script.
Having just told 2 writers their poor scripts were saved (initially at least) by excellent performances and one director/set of actors they essentially stuffed up a very good piece can we assume that entries are now open for next years trials Kev? Or are you tied up with the middle east peace talks?
Quote: Ponderer @ December 6 2009, 9:11 PM GMTHaving just told 2 writers their poor scripts were saved (initially at least) by excellent performances and one director/set of actors they essentially stuffed up a very good piece can we assume that entries are now open for next years trials Kev? Or are you tied up with the middle east peace talks?
That's why I didn't comment on any scripts till it was all over. Remember those were my comments on reading the 20 shortlisted scripts for the first time, and I'd expect 100 other readers to have 100 other views. I remained impartial throughout the whole run, have no part in the script selection or voting and tried to pass no comment throughout. I don't think it's unfair that I comment on what I think or have thought about any script or performance now is it?
Back in the day, remember, Sitcom Trials scripts used to be selected by peer-review, with every entry going up on public display on the SitsVac egroup and every member reading, reviewing and voting on them before they even got shortlisted. So I'm sure you prefer it this way round?
So, to reiterate, I wasn't saying two "poor" scripts were "saved" by performances, I'm saying two scripts I liked less than others and that I had criticisms of (that I kept to myself at the time) did well. And I'm not saying a director or cast stuffed up the other script, just that it fared less well on the night for a whole lot of reasons.
Still don't know plans for next year, but whatever happens you can rest assured I won't be reading the submissions and my thoughts on the scripts will be immaterial.
Hi Kev
I don't want to detract from all the positives of the Trials. I had the best experience in the previous run, and it's a great opportunity and showcase for writers/ directors/ performers etc.
To bring it to Leicester Square and attract the judges you have has been excellent.
But... I do find your standpoint here a little odd and potentially offputting to writers in future. You didn't say you liked a script less than the others you named the writer and said it was dire.
You veer from saying your opinion isn't valid to saying it was justified.
As a writer yourself and the name behind it all I don't really understand why you're not reading them all in the first place and putting on the best show you can. Or if you're to remain impartial then I'd have thought that should be the case throughout. Although as the compere and publicist you weren't impartial at all, so are you saying we shouldn't listen to anything you say about them next time round until after the event?
You're not in the same position as any other reader - it's like the boss delegating and then blaming their staff if something goes wrong!
Apologies for going on - as writers we expect plenty of criticism along the way but not from the people we thought were on our side.
I'll shut up now - and I am looking forward to the winning script, End to End being picked up at some point.
JP
Mentioning people by name is insulting and unprofessional.
Might I reccomend modifying your post?
Quote: sootyj @ December 7 2009, 8:59 AM GMTMentioning people by name is insulting and unprofessional.
Might I reccomend modifying your post?
Guys, as the writer of 'The Assemblage Of Evil' and therefore one of the subjects of Kev's post, I have to say that I feel neither insulted nor demoralised by it. This is not because I am some sort of gluten for punishment who loves criticism but because, looking at it in the cold light of day, the comments where spot on.
I was luck enough to go down to the finals last week and be apart of the whole experience. I met all the guys from the Unexpected Items who where fantastic people, and yes they had indeed "brought it to life creating an end result that was better than the script alone". I also met some others including James and I think I said hello to Kev. Everyone I met seemed genuinely nice, and please that I had come down, but where also way to polite (no doubt due to good upbringings) to say anything other than fantastic things about my script. It was all very British. I guess due to a combination of the time and the place - and everyone just being very relieved that the whole thing was over and you could have a drink and relax, and perhaps being worried that I was Scottish and therefore might have a weapon on me (I did notice the Falsettosocks got frisked on the way in) - that no one would really say what they really thought of everyone else's work.
Far from insulted by it, I welcome what Kev has said. He was asked an opinion and he gave it. Good on him.
"lacked action or originality": I totally agree with this. I came in to this competition very late and was not really aware of what the format was or what the ground rules where. The only thing I had to go on was a few short clips I came across on the internet. They seemed to imply that the space and scope for movement on the stage would be extremely limited. Unfortunately I way over compensated for this and stuck to a single set staging with very little props. I also lacked a proper narrative with the whole thing looking more like an extended sketch rather than a short sitcom. And my ending was stuck on with a bit of blue tack. As for originality, I suppose I have to totally agree with this also. It has been done before, and much better. This is something which I don't think anyone can argue with. I committed the cardinal sin in writing by sending something which I knew to be far from finished and extremely rough. 2/5 is extremely reasonable.
"Talky, been done better before, not funny enough.": Yes it was talky, again partly due to over compensation for the lack of anything happening, but mostly due once again to lack of writing experience on my part. Not funny enough is probably the hardest one to take; however, I take that one on the chin. Its pointless thinking your stuff is funny if you happen to be the only one thinking it.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's extremely important to embrace criticism. It's what makes you stronger and better. Some of you guys need to be a little bit more mature about all this. I have no doubt that there is a lot of talent out their which is being wasted writing trivial or petty comments about stuff that doesn't matter. Focus your energy on what is important - your own development as a writer. What makes us the people that we are is partly the mistakes we have learned from, but mainly the mistakes we keep making. Some of the most useless, obnoxious, self centred people I have ever met all seem to share the same trait - they refuse to accept that they might be wrong.
Kev's comments where made for the best of intentions and without an inch of malice. They where honest, candid, and above all, accurate. So let's have less pettiness and more honesty, and let's accept our failings and learn from them. My script next year will be much, much better.
Joe, I agree with all you say but I'm a tad puzzled as to how your script [not you personally] or others that 'lacking action or originality' get selected initially
I can only assume that whoever read it disagreed. These are all personal views that will vary from person to person. I'm not saying that my script was total garbage, but it did have flaws as highlighted by Kev. He clearly wasn't that impressed by the quality of the jokes and the premise but that isn't to say he is right. He has a lot of experience in this area so his judgment should at least be noted. For a full explanation we really would need the input of the people or person who read the script initially, and also the input from the judges who voted it through. I would suggest, however, that even after all that you would probably still not have your answer.
Quote: Joe Deacon @ December 7 2009, 1:50 PM GMTI can only assume that whoever read it disagreed. These are all personal views that will vary from person to person. I'm not saying that my script was total garbage, but it did have flaws as highlighted by Kev. He clearly wasn't that impressed by the quality of the jokes and the premise but that isn't to say he is right. He has a lot of experience in this area so his judgment should at least be noted. For a full explanation we really would need the input of the people or person who read the script initially, and also the input from the judges who voted it through. I would suggest, however, that even after all that you would probably still not have your answer.
Ok, can you not put your script on here so we can have a read?
Quote: bushbaby @ December 7 2009, 2:01 PM GMTOk, can you not put your script on here so we can have a read?
That probably wouldn't answer your question either.