Quote: chipolata @ December 16 2009, 1:16 PM GMTI think people are pretty snarky in any walk of life. I work for a big organisation that you would have all of heard of, and we're always slagging each off and running each other down.
The Department of Social Affairs and Citizenship?
Quote: chipolata @ December 16 2009, 1:16 PM GMTI think people are pretty snarky in any walk of life. I work for a big organisation that you would have all of heard of, and we're always slagging each off and running each other down. It's great!
The Samaritans?
Quote: Marc P @ December 16 2009, 1:21 PM GMTThe Samaritans?
You're not the suicidal punster that rings every Thursday night? Listen, there's more to life than critical acclaim or big sales! 
Quote: chipolata @ December 16 2009, 1:24 PM GMTListen, there's more to life than critical acclaim or big sales!
I know. 
Quote: Marc P @ December 16 2009, 1:27 PM GMTI know.
Hey now! 
I think a lot of the problem here is that 'we' think we know it all. I wrote my first sitcom about ten years ago and it would have been accepted, except it was set in a massage parlour and deemed to be too risque. But Ch4 thought enough of it to send it on to Head of Comedy ITV, and he rang me up to see if I had anything else....which I didn't then.
I look back on that and yes it still is funny but it's more comedy drama than sitcom.
I attended a sitcom mission's workshop last Sunday and learned more in a day [about sitcom writing]than I could ever have done in years on my own, plus I realised what was wrong with other sitcoms I have written.
It's also not just about a first episode, 'you' have to be able to sustain that calibre for a series. Also, I notice so often that some don't have a beginning/middle/end to their....so called sitcoms and so the format has not been followed, that will no doubt be why many scripts are rejected.
I personally like Big Top from what I have seen and think it very funny and for all ages....which makes a change.
The Big Bang Theory was soooooo not funny until nearly the end of the first one and I am so glad I stayed with it and for some of you, maybe Big Top will appeal to you if you give it a chance
well, that's my two penneth..... 
Quote: chipolata @ December 16 2009, 1:28 PM GMTHey now!
Chip you've changed. 
You're moving nearer h than lucas on the warmth scale.
Quote: Rob H @ December 16 2009, 2:43 PM GMTChip you've changed.
You're moving nearer h than lucas on the warmth scale.
That's what love does to a man! Although I'm sure it'll turn to shit pretty quick, then I'll be back to the Lucas end of the warmth scale!
Quote: chipolata @ December 16 2009, 3:00 PM GMTThat's what love does to a man! Although I'm sure it'll turn to shit pretty quick, then I'll be back to the Lucas end of the warmth scale!
That's reassuring to know.
*ruminates on whether he likes 'in-love' Chip.*
As regards the personality of bitter/non-bitter/spiteful/lovely writers on here (or indeed any other forum). This point has been made ad infinitum elsewhere on this site over the years, but I would hope people realise that the nature of this medium (the internet) means that everyone is, to greater or lesser degrees, putting on some sort of "character" when they post. This is not even really a conscious thing to do, it's just the nature of having a debate/conversation with only text as one's means of expression. (Oh, plus emoticons, which are subjective to say the least.)
Whether one posts under one's real name or a pseudonym, as one's comments are there in print, there is a greater awareness of the fact that they will be scruntinised. The subconscious temptation to "spin" one's personality is almost unavoidable. This "acting" is likely to be even more accentuated on a site which is meant (mostly) to be about comedy - the stakes are raised to try and say something relatively amusing/interesting/unusual. This can lead to remarks becoming occasionally more polarised/extreme in order to achieve an effect.
I hope those within the industry have the insight to realise that everyone who posts on an internet message board (be they writers or non-writers, under their own name or anonymously) are usually offering up a skewed version of themselves: in the same way that a stand up comedian on-stage is usually very different off-stage. After all, comedy fans mostly love comedy because it pokes fun at the nasty, mundane and over-serious things in life. If we're guilty of anything it is trying to find something amusing to say, because real life is often far too serious.
I'm more guilty than most of posting something in the past, sitting back and thinking it was pretty funny, without contemplating the implications if not read with the "right eyes". It's a fine balancing act, which I would hope industry people would appreciate. However, I would say that places like the BCG do far more good for British comedy than bad; the occasional times we cause some hurt are regrettable, but a price worth paying I think.
The fact that this thread has garnered over 300 responses suggests that at least we're willing to accept that, as a collective, we might get things wrong.
Quote: Tim Walker @ December 16 2009, 3:53 PM GMTThe fact that this thread has garnered over 300 responses suggests that at least we're willing to accept that, as a collective, we might get things wrong.
I'm sure some of blackdahlia1's threads used to get that type of response. God I miss him and wish you hadn't all picked on him. 
Quote: chipolata @ December 16 2009, 3:56 PM GMTI'm sure some of blackdahlia1's threads used to get that type of response. God I miss him and wish you hadn't all picked on him.
That was an "internal issue"... *coughs* 
Quote: Griff @ December 16 2009, 4:11 PM GMTTo be fair
To be fair, you've used that phrase rather a lot of late.
Quote: chipolata @ December 16 2009, 4:14 PM GMTTo be fair, you've used that phrase rather a lot of late.
It's a cunning subliminal ruse in order to give us the impression that he is fair. 
(Wish I'd though of it. )