Quote: chipolata @ March 24 2011, 9:18 PM GMTSimon and Declan were unprofessional in revealing specific details of scripts and exposing their writers to ridicule. I would have been furious if anything I'd entered in the competition was revealed on a public forum without my consent. I made a jokey point about them doing this on the night of the results but alas the point was missed.
Your face is unprofessional.
Quote: Matthew Stott @ March 24 2011, 9:20 PM GMTYour face is unprofessional.
*fetches hammer and nails from garage*
*Christens Chip Pointless Pilate*
*hahahahahahahahahahah-!*
Quote: Declan @ March 24 2011, 6:52 PM GMTThe deter
In a lot of professions, it's not the best that make it, it's the most determined.
Like which?
Quote: Griff @ March 24 2011, 9:39 PM GMTI'm sensing you feel this isn't the first time this has happened to you on BCG.
You're not wrong.
Sorry if anyone thought we were unprofessional by revealing script details without the author's consent.
We never named any of the authors we did this to, and we were trying to be helpful for future use. I apologise if any of the authors were offended, but it was pretty unprofessional of them to ignore our rules, guidelines and FAQs in the first place.
What really, really, really irks us is when people completely ignore the guidelines, rules and FAQs. Next year we will be putting a codeword in the guidelines to make sure people have read them. Anyone not putting this codeword on the front of their script will be immediately disqualified.
Quote: chipolata @ March 24 2011, 9:18 PM GMTSimon and Declan were unprofessional in revealing specific details of scripts and exposing their writers to ridicule.
Then you are going to HATE the new Sitcom Trials. We're inviting scripts now (deadline June 19th) and, for the first time since 2006, we are selecting scripts through the peer-reviewed method by which all entrants and members of the online forum get to read, review, and vote on the scripts in competition.
I confidently predict we won't get 1200 entries, and I won't have to read them all.
See details in the new Sitcom Trials 2011 thread.
Declan, just a word from someone who has spent years trying to idiot proof instructions.
To quote the immortal Adams "A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools."
If you think a codeword will do the trick, try it but I guarantee that again a proportion of entries substantially similar to the number that you had this year will fail to comply with whatever rules you set out.
Hi KL
You're right. They will. We just don't have to read them.
We will also be putting a clause in the rules to say that anyone not putting the codeword on the front of their entry is open to utter ridicule of a number of sorts - physical, verbal and three others that I'm not allowed to mention.
Cheers, Declan
In some ways I agree with Griff's point - if people didn't make the cut but were very close then an email of encouragement from Declan / Simon might be of benefit but it's a big leap from there to people asking for a full 'top 200' being published. Laughing Stock didn't publish the 'top 180' and I don't see anyone beating down their door. I don't know Declan or Simon personally but I'm guessing they're about the same age - might even have the same sense of humour - so if your script was not to their taste then I'm sorry but that's the nature of the competition. It doesn't mean you should give up writing for ever. It took one guy at NBC to 'get' the humour of Larry David - his belief was that if people 'got it' he could have a massive show on his hands. They believed in it and stuck with it when ratings were poor. Maybe, ultimately, Declan and Simon didn't believe in the scripts that failed to make the final 32 - that doesn't mean to say someone else won't.
Quote: Griff @ March 24 2011, 8:27 PM GMTI thought he was saying the opposite to that, but I'm very tired:
I don't think it's quite the opposite. I think we're both acknowledging that determination seems to beat ability, which is something of a shame.
Just had a quick catch up. Thought it would all have quietened down by now but there were several more pages since I last looked. Just for the record, I would like to have known whether or not my script made the top 200 but I see that's off the cards now.
Also testing to see whether the photo I submitted since I last posted comes up now. (It didn't. What paranoid interpretation should I put on that?)
I note no one has seen fit to point out that the infamous fishfinger helmet was revealed not by Simon or Declan but by the writer asking a question on the forum.
I suspect the writers who submitted unstageable scripts because they couldn't be bothered to read the rules can't be bothered to read the forum either so won't have been offended by their exposure but, if any were, hopefully they'll learn by their mistakes and read the rules next time.
As I said earlier, the fish finger helmet makes me laugh everytime someone brings it up, it's brilliant. That why I've picked up on it in the thread and referenced it a few times. If it was something unfunny and rubbish I wouldn't have. On reflection, it probably would annoy me if someone made a running gag out of something in a script I'd written, so I'll stop.
Just think .. if someone keeps quoting you in the future, you might get re run fees, so chin up
The Fish Finger helmet is magnificent. Even the phrase itself is wonderful. I had a glance at the script it was in and it was funny in context too.
Quote: seascribe venus @ March 25 2011, 8:21 AM GMTJust had a quick catch up. Thought it would all have quietened down by now but there were several more pages since I last looked. Just for the record, I would like to have known whether or not my script made the top 200 but I see that's off the cards now.
Also testing to see whether the photo I submitted since I last posted comes up now. (It didn't. What paranoid interpretation should I put on that?)
I note no one has seen fit to point out that the infamous fishfinger helmet was revealed not by Simon or Declan but by the writer asking a question on the forum.
I suspect the writers who submitted unstageable scripts because they couldn't be bothered to read the rules can't be bothered to read the forum either so won't have been offended by their exposure but, if any were, hopefully they'll learn by their mistakes and read the rules next time.
To suggest that anyone, who entered this competition, 'couldn't be bothered to read the rules' seems rather insulting. Of course people read the rules...now, of course, it's entirely possible people may have misunderstood them.
Believe it or not some people who enter this competion aren't experienced writers. This may well be, as it was for me last year, the first venture into writing that some entrants have made...that is one of the great things about this competition. It offers a genuine opportunity for the more experienced and able writers alongside an avenue for people to start to write. The very fact that people entered the competition rather indicates that they COULD be bothered.