Sitcom Trials Manchester 2011 - scripts invited Page 20

Quick question Kev, roughly how many scripts from the 40odd uploaded would you expect to go through to the live performance. I know you can't say exactly until the voting is over so I don't mean specifically but a rough estimate?

A quick "sorry" would have saved you a bit of time.

Ok the following are some of my votes, I'll do some more later.

Singing The Blues.......Yes
Shock Treatment.........Yes
3 Bitches...............No
Middling- the Gate......Yes
Amateurs................No
Bi-Polar................NO
As Sick As A Parrot.....NO
Outgoings...............Yes
Broken records..........No
Shit Happens............No
Footlights..............No
Urban Guerrillas........No
Theatre of Dreams.......No
The Pinky Device........No
The Oldham Chronicles...No
Mates Rates.............No
An Ex-Rated date.........NO
And Its Life and Life Only..No
University Of Life......No
Caroline................No
Treading Water..........No
Privilege...............Maybe
Old Man.................No
Not On A School Night...No
Superfood...............No
Cometh The Padre........No
Keith Lymingston-Brown...No
Checkpoint Dave.........Yes
There Must be Someone Else...No
The OAP Bus.............No
Reason To Be Cheerful...No......[just a nitpick, I know there are just two in the cast but I think they should still say each others name a time or two.]
Environmentally Friendly....No
No Prospect.............No
Hardcow.................No
Highway To Hell.........No
Lightening.............No
Living With Danger.....Maybe
Lo-Fi..................No
Four In A Gym..........No
Analysts...............Maybe
Apocalypse.............No
God Complex............No
Agent Of Chaos.........No

Right. These are my thoughts and votes on the entries.

I know how terrible it feels to get a negative review, so please remember that what follows is just my opinion. I could be completely wrong. So please don't take a review personally and give up writing because of me!

Urban Guerillas: Interesting idea, but the execution lacked spark, dialogue riffs felt similar to other sitcoms and Bea didn't really come across as anything more than the usual "dumb" character I've seen too much of. NO.

University of Life: The PDF copy was difficult to read because the author's name was splurged all over the background on every page. Needs more of a story to make it work. NO.

Treading water: Felt too tame and took a while to get moving.Needs tightening and cutting. Also, I've become immune to jokes based on words being stupidly misheard by characters as it seems to feature in every script. NO.

There Must be Someone Else: An awful lot of stage directions made this difficult to read, and spoilt the flow of the opening dialogue. Took too long to get into the guts of the plot. NO

Theatre of Dreams: Gets off to a good start with a real "scene" (in this case characters with conflicting goals) as opposed to people just talking about stuff. Could still do with a lot of editing though. We don't need to be told about Sebastian, for example, before he appears. Probably over the time limit of 8 minutes and didn't seem to be structured along the lines of the cliffhanger-resolution we were told to adhere to. But what the hell, I put strong writing above the letter of the comp rules. YES.

The Pinkie Device: I couldn't get into the Wodehouse-type dialogue, I'm afraid. It felt too unnatural. NO.

The Oldham Chronicles: Turned into surrealist poetry with the "Texaco/Macro/Pyro/Inferno/Weirdo/Ghetto/Asbo etc.. I couldn't decide if this was intentional or not! The characters did come too life but the story was too thin. NO.

THE OAP Bus: An interesting idea, but again too much spent on dialogue that doesn't go anywhere. It might work on stage, so I think the writer should consider that angle, but as a potential sitcom it doesn't have enough happening. NO.

Superfood: I wasn't that keen on the idea of a supermarket setting, but I think the writer has done very well. What I most enjoyed was that the humour came from the situations and the characters. So many entries try to jam "funny" dialogue in for the sake of it, but that's not the case here. YES.

Singing the Blues-It's a Blunderful Life: I have to be honest and say that on the first read I couldn't get past the massively-long monologue right at the start. But seeing this praised by Kev F and Bushbaby made me give it another go. I think Kev is using a different definition of the word "original" because I can't see that pissing all over Capra's "It's a Wonderful Life" is a particularly original idea. The dialogue felt contrived, the joke about naming your son after a football team has been done to death, and the storyline just didn't hold my interest. NO.

Shock Treatment: This is my entry, so I'm not going to comment. But a careful examination of the competition rules reveals that "writers are welcome to vote on their own scripts." So, in that case and after much deliberation... YES.

Shit Happens: Some funny lines in there but the story is almost intangible, the resolution predictable and I had enough shit in the toilet this morning. NO.

Reasons to be Cheerful: I'm sorry but I just couldn't take the puns. Reading all of the scripts for this comp makes me yearn for character and action, and loathe word play. NO.

Privilege: I think this is well written and the writer shows a lot of talent. The problem was the similarity in subject matter to "The Thick of It" and "In the Loop". Also, I didn't like the use of reported action, which seems to be a common recourse among the scripts here. Still... MAYBE.

Outgoings-No 1 Christmas Hit: I liked the premise, but I felt the execution didn't live up to expectations. There's a lot of talking going on when this is a story about hitmen--where's the action? I don't mean shooting, but you know, conflict, obstacles to goals being achieved. NO.

Old Man: This is in Steptoe and Son territory, but lacks the dramatic insight into people's lives to make the cringe comedy bearable. I suspect this would work a lot better with the scope of a full 30 minute episode to be able to flesh out the characters more, but for this comp... NO.

Not On a School Night: Too much stage direction in the opening, made it difficult to get into the story. Then the stuff with Tourettes just didn't come across as credible. If the kid has Tourette's then the staff would be accustomed to him using coarse language. And anyway, I'd rather see the actual scene with that happening than a scene with people talking about it. No.

No Prospect: Jokes about "big packages" from the postman. No.

Middling- The Gate: Conversation without any direction, didn't keep my attention. NO.

Mates Rates: Again, too many stage directions getting in the way of reading the script. But I think the relationship between a gay man and a straight man has a lot of possibilities for a sitcom. I'd like to see the script really tightened up though and made easier to read. Get rid of the parentheticals and try to have the lines strong enough to need no explanation. MAYBE.

lo-fi: Conversation without tension, took too long getting moving. NO

Living with Danger: Reminded me of Fanboy and Chum-Chum (which is good) but not enough done with the premise for my liking. NO.

Lightening: Too many parentheticals. Do you have to tell the actors how to breathe? But strong writing, good premise and humour springing from the events. YES.

Keith Lymingstone-Brown: Time travel can make for wonderful comedy such as "Back to the Future" but too much of the action here is offstage, with people talking about what they've done. NO.

Highway to Hell: Good premise but the dialogue lacks focus and doesn't hold interest. NO.

hardcow: I didn't like the humour and the story didn't grab me. NO.

God Complex: Sounded like a great premise, but four or five pages about God getting a pencil? NO.

Four in a Gym: Too little happening here. The scenes don't escalate into anything. NO.

Environmentaly (sic) Friendly: Read this a couple of times because the first time I couldn't get my head round it. It actually reminds me of "Nightingales"--a surreal sitcom from the early nineties. It's a fine line between surrealism and nonsense, but I think the writer does a good job. Would like the pace speeded up though. MAYBE.

Dead Healthy: The characterisation was good here, and I liked the idea of a dead body being found, but too much time was spent on dialogue that almost slipped into a Monty Python homage. NO.

Cometh the Padre: For me the strongest sitcom entry. The premise reminded me of something you'd find in a good Ealing comedy. I agree with Kev that the dialogue, though, is too coarse and takes away from the character. But for me the overall quality of the writing and the idea is undeniable. YES.

Checkpoint Dave: The arselicking at the beginning put me off. Fortunately, the humour picked up after that. A fresh idea and a nice plot. YES.

Caroline RIP: Could be a great idea for a sitcom, but a lot of dialogue with no tension. NO.

Broken Records: Again too much talk without really grabbing my attention. NO.

Bi-Polar: For me the most original idea here. Don't know how you'd pull off a whole series if it's just limited to two characters, but I'm sure it could be done. Premise aside, though, the dialogue did wander, lacked tension, and the climax didn't really push the right buttons. MAYBE.

As Sick as a Parrot: Football's not my thing, and the sitcom did seem a little tame. Nevertheless there was good characterisation, dialogue and a nice little plot. YES.

Apocalypse, John: Zombies are definitely not my thing, and the climax was predictable even before the set-up. But the characters came to life and I think there's potential here. MAYBE.

And it's Life and Life Only: I actually read the other one of this writer's scripts first, and this felt like a second episode of that with the names changed. "You are" is abbreviated to "you're" and "your" is used to indicate possession. Don't rely on spell-checkers. NO.

Analysts: Loved the characterisation here. I felt that the plot hadn't really been worked out well, but I suspect the writer probably has a full-length episode written that works better. In any case I think gusto makes up for the shortcomings. From one psycho psychologist to another: YES.

An Ex-Rated Date: I thought the characters were speaking broken english because of their inability to use the past tense of "text". Lots of spelling mistakes, typos, call them what you will, they made it difficult to read. Did like the coughing joke but the rest wasn't up to this standard. NO.

Amateurs: Interesting idea but the plot was stretched too thin. NO.

Agent of Chaos: Loved the central character, and some of the dialogue was really great, but it needs tightening up. MAYBE.

3 Bitches: I just didn't care for these characters. NO.

My respect to every writer who entered this competition, regardless of whether I gave a YES, NO or Maybe. Lots of people say they'll write something, but never "have the time". You've all made the effort and you should all be proud.

Every doc I click on now says doc not found. Has my PC gone haywire?? I do hope not

Same thing happened to me--try refreshing the page. Worked for me. Failing that do the old turn it off and turn it on again.

That did it, thanks....phew

Ok, here's mine. At the end of the day it's just my opinion and I've had a few 'no's already - along with many many rejected scripts in the past, so what do I know? In no order whatsoever...

An Ex Rated date. Could kick in with the jokes a bit faster, but otherwise simple and funny.
YES.

Middling. Apart from a couple of decent jokes it didn't have enough of a unique hook to appeal to me.
NO.

The OAP Bus. The idea's sound and it's a pleasant amble, but it felt more like a small incident in a comedy-drama than a sitcom.
NO.

Lo-fi. To be honest I'm not sure what was going on here. People chatting in cafes, then an electrocution? Sorry, it went over my head.
NO.

Four in a Gym. Too many jokey conversations that weren't very funny and no real story. Not for me I'm afraid.
NO.

Caroline RIP. The meandering conversations were strangely soothing, but otherwise I found it pretty static, longwinded and hard to read due to the strange punctuation.
NO.

Urban Guerillas. Pleasantly silly. Liked the characters and the irreverent story.
YES.

Analysts. Interesting idea, but didn't grab me as a sitcom. Didn't find the jokes as funny or inventive as the very original setting.
NO.

Checkpoint Dave. Good idea and some funny stuff at the start. Liked the characters too, but it ran out of steam towards the end.
MAYBE.

As sick as a parrot. Very old-school jokes and setup, plus a bit of an unbelievable ending. Still, I liked the jokes and characters and I think it might work well live.
MAYBE.

Highway to Hell. Like the band idea and the characters are ok, but on the whole it wasn't funny for me. There was a very very long 'graveyard' joke!
NO.

Apocalypse John. An interesting idea with decent characters and some decent jokes. The dialogue sometimes felt a bit forced and it didn't make me laugh loads, but I think it could definitely be tightened.
MAYBE.

Broken Records. Sorry, but it seemed too formulaic and not funny to me.
NO.

Singing the Blues. Tightly-written with some amusing exchanges, but the re-hashing of the '...Wonderful life' story is a well-worn cliche. Also it didn't seem like a sitcom - everything worked out so well for the characters at the end. Could there be a second episode?
MAYBE.

University of Life. Very short. Sorry, but I couldn't see any interesting character or story in it.
NO.

Living with Danger. Loved the idea and it read really funny (even without watching the showreel).
YES.

Reasons to be Cheerful. It'd probably do well as a play on R4, but it's too dry and quippy for this format for me.
NO.

The Oldham Chronicles. I enjoyed the jokey banter of the first 2 pages, but it got pretty tired pretty quick and seemed to descend into a long in-joke which I didn't get.
NO.

God Complex. I'm not bothered about page-count (far as I'm concerned it's more about timing), but this really could have done with some serious editing to make it drag less and make reading it less of a chore. Still, it has some good jokes and I think if it was pruned to get rid of the fat it would be quite a nice little comedy.
MAYBE.

The Pinkie Device. Could be a funny idiosyncratic comic-novel, but the humour didn't work for me in this form. Was it sitcom, or the start of a Jasper Fforde-style comic adventure?
NO.

Environmently Friendly. Bit bonkers and I don't know if it would make any sense performed live, but I kinda warmed to it and would like to see it.
MAYBE.

Theatre of Dreams. Some funny exchanges initially with James and Auntie Shelley, but it all grew too forced and shrill for me when Sebastian appeared.
NO.

Amateurs. Seemed to me to be a scene in a story rather than a story in itself. Some ok jokes, but not enough to lift it.
NO.

3 Bitches. It had a decent structure, but it didn't tickle me at all I'm afraid.
NO.

Outgoings. Great idea, nice characters. Some jokes missed but most were very good.
YES.

Superfood. It was a perfectly solid setup, but the humour was just a bit bland for me I'm afraid.
NO.

Cometh the Padre. It could be interesting - and a bit disturbing - as the start of a far-out morality play. But I don't think I'd laugh much, and I didn't at it as a sitcom.
NO.

And It's Life And Life Only. Some good jokes, but a lot that were just 'ok'. The story was too unrealistic.
NO.

Dead Healthy. Liked the 'John' character, but having a dead body as the hook is a brave move after Fawlty Towers. This doesn't really come off for me.
NO.

Lightning. A confident, funny first 8 or so pages seemed to lose steam towards the end.
MAYBE.

Hardcow. Comedies about fat Northern slappers (is there any other kind of slapper?) really aren't my cup of tea and the ending here felt a bit rushed. But to be fair it was mostly well-written and there were some good jokes in it.
MAYBE.

Agents of Chaos. I may have missed a lot of the humour in this because there's so much shouting. Still, I liked the Rod character and the basic story/idea.
MAYBE.

Privilege. Nice jokes, dialogue and a good flow. I liked the character of Peter Privilege and wouldn't worry too much that 'politician' comedies have been done in the past.
YES.

There must be Someone Else. I was surprised to find myself laughing at this quite a lot, unlike the other episode. It's very silly and I don't know if it'd work as a performance, but I'd like to see them try.
YES.

Old Man. Nice idea, but not very funny to me and the pathos of the ending seemed forced.
NO.

Keith Lymingstone-Brown. Some funny stuff. Rushed ending again, but I'd enjoy seeing this.
YES.

Shock Treatment. Again, some funny stuff. I think it'd work well live.
YES.

Mates Rates. Started very very slowly. It seemed to be trying to flip the 'stag-night-gone-wrong' on its' head, but didn't flip it very far. Wasn't very funny to read.
NO.

Not on a School Night. Felt like an early draft of a decent 30 minute sitcom. Introduced lots of characters and dilemmas, but then ditched some of them and rushed the others. Some funny jokes, but not funny enough for a yes.
MAYBE.

No Prospects. Sorry, it did try for some distinct characters but just wasn't funny to me.
NO.

Shit Happens. Fairly tightly-constructed. Dunno if the swearing is supposed to be funny or 'so-over-the-top-it's-art', but it doesn't work either way for me I'm afraid.
NO.

Treading water. The character of Alex could be quite funny, but everyone else was pretty dull and the story didn't grab me.
NO.

Rock Bottom. I didn't latch onto the characters or dialogue. It may come across as funny when acted out, but I honestly can't see it at the moment.
NO.

Bi-Polar. It's mine, so what are you gonna do?
YES.

Just to add to the debate about what does or doesn't constitute a good script, for this comp I've tried to base my judgment on 'Could it be made into a 12-minute sitcom to be performed live in a pub, that I personally would enjoy?'

What precisely consitutes a sitcom...? Christ knows - it's evolved into so many fforms. I guess all I can say is I know it when I see it...mostly. I wouldn't kick 'League of Gentlemen' out of bed just 'cos strictly-speaking it was a series of linked comic sketches sharing a common location - but some people might. If a script doesn't have a clearly-defined beginning, middle and end? If I'm laughing I probably won't notice.

So the funny in a pub thing's my sole criterion. I'd hate for people to get the idea that - for example - I gave Evan's script a 'yes' just because he gave me one.

Hang on...'Maybe'? What the f**k is 'Maybe'??

You're a dead man Ruby.

Hi,

As Jim did further back in the thread I'm only going to vote for the scripts I want to give a full 'YES' to. Writing comedy is a tough process and I applaud each and every writer who has had the guts to submit a script to Sitcom Trials. I don't really want to dent the motivation and creativity needed to write any of those scripts, especially not on a forum. Whilst some scripts didn't always hit the funny bone and laugh count for me personally, or didn't fit the length and performance guidelines of the event, I could certainly see the spark, the idea and passion in absolutely all of them.

But a 'YES' go to:

Apocalypse
As Sick As A Parrot
Bi-Polar
Broken Records
Checkpoint Dave
Environmentally Friendly
Middling - The Gate
Shit Happens

Quote: Kev F @ June 23 2011, 5:14 PM BST

And criticising my maths for Christs sake (which was, as someone else spotted, quite right to begin with, so there's two pointless posts you wasted your life writing and I wasted my life reading!)

View original

You try and make a joke. Evidently this doesn't work in either my posts or my sitcom.

Again, I apologise for criticising your flawless mathematics skills. I am trusting you to count them up, if it's any consolation

Quote: Kev F @ June 23 2011, 5:14 PM BST

Swerytd, have we had yours in?

View original

No, but I'm joking around on here to have a few laughs that should be in many of the sitcoms. It's hard work, I am utterly fed up with the sheer amount of cock/fanny jokes in the scripts and you yourself asked us to post all our votes at once, which I shall do when I have read them all.

Dan

There you go.
Apologises if any reviews cause offence, but remember, they're just one bloke's opinion.

It's past 2:30AM and I think my eyes are about to bleed.

Middling - The Gate
Not a bad read. Seems more like a long sketch though. Not sure what the hook is? And for some reason, for me, Lee was like Lee from Not Going Out.
MAYBE

3 Bitches
I wasn't going to vote for mine, but others have done. I was actually going to give it a no as it's just 3 horrible girls talking. But it's pacey, they do, stay in character, there are some fun lines, and it's vey stageable.
YES

Amateurs
Sorry. Didn't get who these people are and what they're doing. No differentiating character traits, just people talking.
NO

Agent Of Chaos
Contains exterior scenes, therefore not stageable. Sorry.
NO

An Ex Rated Date
Sorry. Didn't do it for me. Bob and Tom sound like they could be the same person.
NO

And It's Life And Life Only
These are the Bob and Tom characters from Ex Rated Date. Same sort of plot too.
Don't see why these have to be 2 separate sitcoms, as they both have the same central theme.
NO

As Sick As A Parrot
Sorry. Too wordy with no funny lines. I've seen footy tactics done with condiments somewhere before.
NO

Apocalypse John
Didn't do it for me. Rambling converations.
NO

Analysts
Again, didn't do it for me. Rambling converations.
NO

Bi-Polar
Nice idea. Simple to stage. Dialogue sharp, yet rambled at times.
Not sure if it could substain a series, but could work better as a one off stage show. (think Edinburgh)
YES

Broken Records
No many characters. Dodn't do it for me.
NO

Caroline RIP
People talking about a dead woman.
NO

Checkpoint Dave
Easy to stage. Can't see it having legs for a series though. But nice characterisation and dialogue. Could have done with more funny lines.
YES

Cometh The Padre
Too wordy. Lack of funny lines.
NO

Dead Healthy (Gymlife)
Lots of rambling dialogue. Nothng really happens.
NO

Environmentally Friendly
Nothing happens, people talking.
NO

Footlights
Not sure what to make of this. It's a bit mad.
MAYBE

Four In A Gym
Nothing happens, people talking.
NO

God Complex
Heaven setting as an office is a cliche no no.
NO

Hard Cow
Couldn't really get into this.
NO

Highway to Hell
Sorry. Didn't do it for me. Bad News did it better.
NO

Keith Lymingstone-Brown
Time machine's done to death. Too much exposition in dialogue.
NO

Lightning
Failed to hold my attention.
NO

Living With Danger
Didn't really get what was going on.
NO

Mates Rates
Just banter between characters who act and sound all the same.
NO

No Prospect
I think it was trying to be too much like Bottom.
NO

Not On a School Night:
Stage directions making it hard to read. Too wordy. Just people taking.
Couldn't work out whether they were teachers or students.
NO

Old Man
Not sure how it could be staged. Toilets flushing, then shower going.
NO

Privilege
Just like that sweary politics comedy, whatever it's called. Nothing new to offer the genre.
NO

Outgoings
Nice simple idea. Easily staged. And amusing lines, all in character.
YES

Lo Fi
Yet another sitcom where two men talk about one man's ex.
NO

Reasons to be Cheerful:
Sorry. Too many puns.
NO

Shit Happens
Reminds me of Still Game in a way. Or could even be a new cartoon for Viz.
YES

Shock Treatment
Nice little amusing idea. Easy to stage.
YES

Singing The Blues
It's A Wonderful Life did it better. Seems to be one long sketch. Can't see how this would make a series.
And Sarah saying "Oh no, what am I going to do. Oh, I know. I'll go to Eve, blah blah" to herself aloud only happens in cartoons and pantos.
NO

Superfood
Just didn't do it for me. The supermarket genre, although hardly ever done, feels like it's been done to death.
Every supermarket shelf filler who thinks they can write tries to write a supermarket sitcom, which is why hardly any have ever been made.
NO

The Oldham Chronicles
Just banter with losers in their forties.
NO

The OAP Bus
Reads like a young children's programme. Even has a "Hello I'm..." intro.
NO

The Pinkie Device
Just posh banter.
NO

Theatre Of Dreams
Pretty easy to stage. Not my cup of tea, but see how others could find it amusing.
The interview with the auntie was fun.
MAYBE

There Must Be Someone Else
Didn't grab me, I'm afraid.
NO

Treading Water
OK, but the one loser lazy guy, one normal guy duo has been done to deaf.
NO

****EDIT******
I meant death and not deaf. >_< (Twas late at night)

University Of Life
Yet another dirty student flatshare.
NO

Urban Guerillas
Started off OK, but after a while I lost interest. Not really sure who they're supposed to be.
Were there more than 4 characters? I lost count.
NO

Although I do agree with bushbaby that a lot of sitcom scipts (as a whole, not just some of the above) don't have any plot and are simply people talking, (mine included in this contest) but the brief did say it was to be read script in hand and to think of it like a radio play.
Therefore I submitted the only script of mine that could fit that format.

The good news, everyone, is that the Manchester Sitcom Trials will be performing scripts chosen entirely from the entries we are currently voting on.

Depending on the length and nature of the scripts that win (I know they're all supposed to be a standard length, but clearly they're not, and some are actually very short, and one contender features a writer-performer team which might also have to be considered) the team will be showcasing 4 or 5 scripts.

So, a 1 in 10 chance of your script being performed on July 2nd. Aren't you glad you entered now?*

Very good voting is happening, and we're starting to see a few favourites, keep those reviews & votes coming.

All the best

Kev F Sutherland
Executive Producer
The Sitcom Trials http://sitcomtrials.co.uk

* Oh no, I bet someone's going to have a go at my maths again...

I'm glad I didn't enter that entirely maths-based sitcom.

</joke> just to hammer it home, in case anyone's in any doubt.

Dan

Pi in the Sky?

No, that's ridicul-- oh, hang on, is that a joke? Ah, now I've thought about it a bit, I see what you did there.

Incidentally, there's a bit of voting going on at the Yahoo group, if anyone is interested in this masochist's votes

(EDIT: The linked posted no longer exists and was updated for this one with some scripts were upgraded which probably has nothing at all to do with Kev's comments below)

Dan