Quote: Griff @ December 11 2009, 7:46 PM GMTMicheal Jacob has hinted he is running it "differently" next time round.
I've heard that too.
Apparently, any writer deemed even remotely funny will be instantly disqualified and the eventual winner will go on to co-write the second series of 'Big Top' with Danny Peak.
Oh well now I feel left out 
No, my plans are to try and get something together to take up to Edinburgh, like a sketch show or a play or something.
The only thing I would say is that TV (no idea about radio) are pulling a lot of money out of comedy and drama for the next year or so due to costs (reality, factual and features are a darn sight cheaper to make) and the recession, so I don't think any of the Sitcom Trials writers should worry if they haven't been approached- it might be an economic thing. But there were some TV producers and execs in the audience at the final, so there's still interest clearly in what newish writers and performers are doing.
I was just proud to have summat on stage.
Quote: nitty gritty @ December 11 2009, 7:52 PM GMTI've heard that too.
Apparently, any writer deemed even remotely funny will be instantly disqualified and the eventual winner will go on to co-write the second series of 'Big Top' with Danny Peak.
I went to a workshop today and I can recommend them to everyone. I swear we all think we are the bees knees until our scripts are acted out.....then you see the flaws, massive ones.
Simon and Declan are the best and totally know what they are talking about.
I was gobsmacked at how, a script on the page is or can be totally different acted out, believe me, the difference is massive.
What is on the page and makes you belly-laugh is often not funny at all when acted out
Thanks Simon and Declan, the day was amazing and mind boggling
Quote: bushbaby @ December 14 2009, 12:30 AM GMTWhat is on the page and makes you belly-laugh is often not funny at all when acted out
Can you say with 100% certainty that this is a problem with the script?
(and is this in the right thread?)
Quote: Kevin Murphy @ December 14 2009, 12:36 AM GMTCan you say with 100% certainty that this is a problem with the script?
(and is this in the right thread?)
I don't know if this is the right thread, but who cares? hahaha
In many instances and I don't know the percentage but I would hazard a guess at 90% of scripts are hilarious on the page but not when acted out. It is a strange phenomena but true.
I think what it is, the comedy has to come naturally from the character and not gags/jokes
am I heck 
I just looked back through the SitsVac egroup files, back to the day when we used to select scripts for The Sitcom Trials by peer-group online reviw. That is to say everybody would upload their scripts, then all egroup member posted their reviews for all to read. They'd vote Yes, Maybe, or No and that enabled us to draw up a shortlist. Crucially this meant I personally didn't have to read the scripts (though, a lot of the time, I actually did).
Here, below, is an email from the Christmas 2000/January 2001 show (the shows were monthly) where one egroup member has reviewed all the scripts in contention. Does anyone remember writing any of these? The reviews themselves are now meaningless, but check out some of those titles.
Albert's all right
- maybe
- had some good lines that made me laugh. However it's a 'maybe'
rather than a 'yes' because the main character that would presumably
be driving the sitcom along never actually appears.
Albert's Hearse
- no
- too much of a sketch, wasn't able to begin to imagine the existence
of the characters outside it
Borrowing time
- maybe
- Some funny lines. Doubt the central character's neurosis over
growing old is enough to sustain a sitcom, but then you're limited to
what you can show in 2 minutes.
Boxed Up
- no
- didn't make me laugh and didn't really get the characters
Carol Decker is Missing
- no
- didn't like the Sparkes character, didn't seem original enough
somehow for me to want to see more of him.
Crook's Motors
- maybe
- I think the salesman's character can work, but it will take quite a
lot of originality to pull it off. The 2nd scene didn't seem to add
anything and in fact made the character appear less sustainable (as I
didn't find him funny in this other setting).
Diet's & things
- maybe
- funny dialogue, but visuals need to be removed (i.e. 'wet patch'
stuff). Found this the funniest of the Sparkes scripts - but also
contained less of Sparkes than the others, which probably doesn't
help you a great deal.
Dolphin Watch
- maybe
- characters and situation have some potential, but this script
didn't really make me laugh
Doubting Thomas
- no
- can't see how it would be expanded.
Euro Sub
- maybe
- have to confess this isn't really my cup of tea. Found the accents
incorporated into the speech styles actually got in the way
of 'seeing' the characters (beyond being able to say "that's the
Swedish one" or "that's the French one") but basic premise is good
and think there is obvious scope for getting laughs.
Fixers
- no
- most of it just didn't make me laugh (although I did like the Happy
Families bit) and didn't really warm to the characters. Think writing
something new for sitsvac rather than revising something you have
done previously will work better.
High Cragg 1
- no
High Cragg 2
- yes
- along with some previous voters' comments, this will be probably be
starting to drive you crazy - but I found the two male characters
really funny while I didn't find the 2 female characters made any
impression on me at all
Hugh Janus
- yes
- funny lines and funny character. Don't know how easy this will be
to sustain in different situations but it worked here.
Joan & Valerie 3
- yes
- my favourite of all the scripts. Would wonder how they'd fare as
central characters in a sitcom, but at least I'm wondering.
Kiss me Son Of God - 19th hole
- no
- didn't like the characters and found the mental cul-de-sacs
dialogue irritating rather than funny
Londoners
- no
- just didn't find it funny I'm afraid. Characters didn't seem
original.
Martine McCutcheon is dead
- no
- interesting setting, but characters didn't make me laugh.
Mr Wiggins
- maybe
- some funny lines, but no idea where the character goes from here.
Shocking Coffee
- no
- not easy to follow and didn't find it funny. Suggest using the BBC
sitcom template for formatting as well (can be used with Word 95, 97,
2000) so you start the reader off with a positive attitude.
Splashy
- maybe
- some funny lines and a Captain that's frightened of sailing has
some comic potential, but too may lines that didn't work for me (e.g.
think scene 4 could be removed and you wouldn't have lost anything)
Sister Tracey
- maybe
- when I read the title and description I nearly gave up on it as
only being worthwhile for a sketch from the start, but there were
funny lines ("that's nothing like what happened between me and Judas
so I guess I'm all right") and nothing to suggest you'd run out of
material by the time it ended.
Stars in their eyes
- no
- again, can't help but find Sparkes unfunny
Swimming with the fishes
- maybe
- some funny stuff here (bits about the chair and the book of crime
plans) but was losing interest towards the end. Think the character
of Carol doesn't really ring true - seems more like a male character
with a female name, but as she gets most of the laughs, pushing her
even further along this line may have some good comic potential.
Maybe making her into the most disturbed criminal you can imagine
and allowing another central character to come in to take the
audience sympathy (a younger sister/brother who wants to run a
legitimate business being an obvious option - but it might work).
Swindon Paula
- no
- didn't like characters, didn't make me laugh
The end
- no
- again, don't like Sparkes
The funny farm
- yes
- liked it, funny lines and the characters seemed to work well off
each other
Trollied
- no
- didn't find it funny, couldn't see how else the characters would be
used
Trollied Part 2
- no
- same as before
Weather
- no
- a sketch
We are Leeds
- no
- again, this felt more like a sketch - can't imagine a sitcom with
these characters
Whistling in the dark
- no
- didn't make me laugh. Characters don't really seem to come to life.
Think the 'You Hum It' characters might be fine peripheral characters
for a sitcom set in a holiday resort, but for me I don't think
there's enough to them to work as central characters. Just can't
imagine them doing anything interesting.
Berryman
- yes
- good lines, good characters. Made me want to see more of it.
Go Forth and Multiply
- maybe
- some good lines and interesting characters. Found slagging off the
French a bit tired and unoriginal (even if it usually gets laughs).
Go Forth and Multiply 2
- yes
- funny lines, think Steven and Jack play off each other very well.
The 2 doctors
- maybe
- some lines worked for me (e.g. David Icke certificate & think if
you get the word 'Frankengerbil' into the dialogue it will be worth a
laugh), but many didn't. Doubt characters are sustainable - but who
knows?
the ministry for things 2
- no
- would probably have reacted to this more positively if I'd read it
earlier, but I've had enough now of characters not getting the gist
of what the other is saying and going off at tangents
Ticket to Hell
- no
- more misunderstanding characters and didn't find it funny
Martine McCutcheon is dead
- no
- interesting setting, but characters didn't make me laugh.
Brilliant title. I want to read this one right now!
Carol Decker is Missing
- no
- didn't like the Sparkes character, didn't seem original enough
somehow for me to want to see more of him.
Ditto.
Nice to see you have learned your lesson Kev F. Can't wait to read what you think of next years entries.
I wrote a sitcom a while back in which the main character's nemesis was Carol Decker; she inexplicably had a deep gruff voice and most scenes involving her would end with her giving the protagonist a mug and saying "Here's some china in your hand. I like it milky, two sugars."
I don't know why I didn't pursue the idea...
'Here's some china in your hand. How many sugars?'
'Make mine a double, Decker.'
Anyone ever hear the (allegedly true) story about the T'Pau gig where Carol Decker came off stage and went back to her dressing room to discover that someone had ejaculated all over her coat? No? Just me then? 
Quote: Griff @ December 23 2009, 12:41 PM GMTIs that someone Tim, or "someone"?
Someone. However, I've no idea who would do such a thing. 
I thought ejaculating over coats was fairly common place.