Quote: Nick Rivers @ February 12, 2008, 12:15 PMbut objectively, can you see why 2 pints IS a good sitcom ?
No I honestly can't.
I just hope the scheme results in some good new comedy.
BBC Comedy College Page 6
This thread is locked. No further replies can be posted.
Quote: Nick Rivers @ February 12, 2008, 12:15 PMbut objectively, can you see why 2 pints IS a good sitcom ? Just not to your taste. of course sales/ popularity is not the only barometer of something's quality, but, for the BBC, it should certainly be one of their foremost considerations.
I agree. I think learning to look at shows objectively is one of the most crucial things for new writers because we need to be able to look at our own scripts objectively as well.
Quote: Robin Kelly @ February 12, 2008, 12:35 PMBBC? Diversity? It's political correctness gone mad! MAD!!!!
Surely you mean it's political correctness gone alternatively sane? 
SUSAN NICKSON:
No no no!
WANNABE WRITER:
Well I just thought it was a clever witty line that showed the counter argument, and then reversed the balance of power within the existing character dynamic.
SUSAN NICKSON:
What have I taught you? Surely it's obvious! First Sheridan flashes her tits, and says something like "Okay get your knob out" and then he's sick on her. Easy.
WANNABE WRITER:
Isn't that just a little crass?
SUSAN NICKSON:
Whats the point of mentoring, if they just refuse to learn?
Quote: Dolly Dagger @ February 12, 2008, 11:47 AMLots of people eat McDonalds but it doesn't mean it's any good.
I don't like McDonalds am paranoid about my weight plus I'm a vegetarian, so it's not for me.
Comedy as we all know is subjective. Sue is very young to have written all those eps and successfully so. I just think it's a funny sitcom
Quote: Rob B @ February 12, 2008, 1:40 PMSUSAN NICKSON:
No no no!WANNABE WRITER:
Well I just thought it was a clever witty line that showed the counter argument, and then reversed the balance of power within the existing character dynamic.SUSAN NICKSON:
What have I taught you? Surely it's obvious! First Sheridan flashes her tits, and says something like "Okay get your knob out" and then he's sick on her. Easy.WANNABE WRITER:
Isn't that just a little crass?SUSAN NICKSON:
Whats the point of mentoring, if they just refuse to learn?
What's your point Rob? If it's 'filth', this board has loads of examples that other posters find hilarious, it's just that Sue is a known/successful writer
Quote: Nick Rivers @ February 12, 2008, 12:15 PMbut objectively, can you see why 2 pints IS a good sitcom ?
2 Pints is a good sitcom because, in my opinion for what it's worth:
A) The characters are very-well observed and hardly ever say or do anything outside of the constraints of their character, just to get a laugh.
B) The plotting is fairly simple but that's fine by me. I HATE complicated plots in anything, including comedy.
C) It manages to capture that part of the audience without resorting to portraying them as scum, a la Shameless.
D) Great performers. Ralf Little especially - shame he's gone. (Although I must say I didn't warm to the new barman character in the live Xmas spesh)
E) It's not pretentious or self-conscious in any way, shape or form.
F) Swearing and knob gags are, and always will be, big and clever.
One thing Two Pints is most certainly not is witty!
Maybe something that rhymes with witty.
(And that's the sort of joke you'd find in Two Pints!!)
I watched an episode and thought it had perked up a bit recently, actually. Still completely daft, mind. What I find irritating as a viewer and a writer is that the scripts are so flabby. They career round aimlessly. Some might call it whimsy but I think it's lack of craftsmanship personally. No restraint. Too much dead wood.
And people claim it has "well-rounded unique characters". I mean, really. I can see why people like it but really, it is a 2-D rather than a 3-D creation, and it shouldn't have pretensions above that. One "character" can be summed up as a selfish moron with a squeaky voice, another as a biscuit-obsessed moron (I mean, that was such a huge overblown running 'joke', the mind boggles!), etc. etc.
Sure, I can see why people watch it and I'm not necessarily condemning it, but normally I'd rather watch a well-performed Shakespeare comedy than read the Beano, and I'd rather eat at Claridges than McDonalds. I just don't find it very stimulating.
Damnit, I didn't really want to get sucked into a discussion about the relative merits of Two Pints! Sorry for irrelevant musings. *Punishes self*
Quote: bushbaby @ February 12, 2008, 1:47 PMI don't like McDonalds am paranoid about my weight plus I'm a vegetarian, so it's not for me.
Comedy as we all know is subjective. Sue is very young to have written all those eps and successfully so. I just think it's a funny sitcomWhat's your point Rob? If it's 'filth', this board has loads of examples that other posters find hilarious, it's just that Sue is a known/successful writer
Well if this board has loads of examples that are hilarious, why the hell do the BBC need her to mentor it? I don't care what people say because I watched a couple of episodes of GrownUps, she is a one trick pony imho. I don't doubt people find it funny though.
Now Armando Iannucci on the other hand has a vast knowledge from both extremes of comedy so he'd be an excellent mentor.
Go on admit it which one of those two do you think you could learn the most from.
Oh and on another point of why people single her out. Well she could be like most writers and stay just in the credits, but the BBC have taken it upon themselves to make her 'something'. As soon as you put your head above the parapet, given some of the fare she's produced its not suprising that people choose her as a figurehead for crap comedy
Quote: Rob B @ February 12, 2008, 2:03 PMWell if this board has loads of examples that are hilarious, why the hell do the BBC need her to mentor it? I don't care what people say because I watched a couple of episodes of GrownUps, she is a one trick pony imho. I don't doubt people find it funny though.
Now Armando Iannucci on the other hand has a vast knowledge from both extremes of comedy so he'd be an excellent mentor.
Go on admit it which one of those two do you think you could learn the most from.Oh and on another point of why people single her out. Well she could be like most writers and stay just in the credits, but the BBC have taken it upon themselves to make her 'something'. As soon as you put your head above the parapet, given some of the fare she's produced its not suprising that people choose her as a figurehead for crap comedy
Now Grownups is a different kettle of fish.
I can't think of anything good to say about that show. It was like someone had tried their damnedest to make it as Godawful as possible.
Let's throw down the gauntlet:
The "write an episode of Two Pints" competition!
All those who thinks Nickson has nothing to teach put your money where your mouth is and write a Two Pints script. Wonder what everyone would make of them.
Quote: Rob B @ February 12, 2008, 2:03 PMWell if this board has loads of examples that are hilarious, why the hell do the BBC need her to mentor it? I don't care what people say because I watched a couple of episodes of GrownUps, she is a one trick pony imho. I don't doubt people find it funny though.
Now Armando Iannucci on the other hand has a vast knowledge from both extremes of comedy so he'd be an excellent mentor.
Go on admit it which one of those two do you think you could learn the most from.Oh and on another point of why people single her out. Well she could be like most writers and stay just in the credits, but the BBC have taken it upon themselves to make her 'something'. As soon as you put your head above the parapet, given some of the fare she's produced its not suprising that people choose her as a figurehead for crap comedy
I said there's a lot of filth on here that posters find hilarious, that doesn't mean they are, more like the mutual admiration society.
Your example of Two Pints, highlights the filth in the sitcom. Why is it not ok for Sue but fine on here?
I didn't care much for grown-ups but other writers have flopped with stuff.
Quote: James Williams @ February 12, 2008, 2:02 PMAnd people claim it has "well-rounded unique characters". I mean, really. I can see why people like it but really, it is a 2-D rather than a 3-D creation, and it shouldn't have pretensions above that. One "character" can be summed up as a selfish moron with a squeaky voice, another as a biscuit-obsessed moron (I mean, that was such a huge overblown running 'joke', the mind boggles!), etc. etc.
You could just as easily sum up any comedy character in a few words.
Delboy: "Wideboy chancer with ambitions beyond his ability.
Victor Meldrew: Mysanthropic whinger raging at an unfair world.
Frank Spencer: Clumsy twat.
Quote: Perry Nium @ February 12, 2008, 2:19 PMYou could just as easily sum up any comedy character in a few words.
Delboy: "Wideboy chancer with ambitions beyond his ability.
Victor Meldrew: Mysanthropic whinger raging at an unfair world.
Frank Spencer: Clumsy twat.
Yes but all those characters are believable, and well observed. I've never met a character like the faux posh bird, the barmaid, or somebody that has an obsession with biscuits. Personally I think its a case that 2 pints has just been shown so much that it seems like the chracters are rounded and realistic. Like all TV if you show it enough it, and I'll admit its watchable, but its hardly deserving of any praise or consistant showing.
Quote: Perry Nium @ February 12, 2008, 2:19 PMYou could just as easily sum up any comedy character in a few words.
Delboy: "Wideboy chancer with ambitions beyond his ability.
Victor Meldrew: Mysanthropic whinger raging at an unfair world.
Frank Spencer: Clumsy twat.
I thought you'd say that!
My point was really that "squeaky voice" and "likes biscuits" are not really character traits, in the same way that "chancer" or "mysanthropic" are. I don't want to devolve the discussion into semantics but I think but Two Pints is a 2-D world.
Personally I think this scheme is a great idea, but I strongly suspect it will have an entry requirement, like the Continuing Drama scheme, which will prohibit the entry of most of us who write on this site, who have maybe a few sketch credits for Newsrevue or Treason Show.
If you look at the careers of numerous comedy writers who emerged from the 1960's onwards, it's clear that radio comedy, and particularly radio sketch writing, was a way in for them to mainstream comedy. In particular Week Ending kick-started the careers of innumerable writers. A show that let you fax stuff in or go to the weekly writers' meeting and try to get sketches and gags on the radio, without any entry criteria other than a strong sense of humour.
Writers Room will not look at sketches. And you will search in vain there for details of such an open access show. They refer, or used to, to Parsons and Naylor and Bearded Ladies, because they used to take unsolicited stuff, but both have now stopped doing so. But neither were ever as open as Week Ending. Sadly I am old enough to remember that show, and whilst erratic, it was full of energy and verve, unsurprisingly when it had producers like Douglas Adams, John Lloyd, Simon Brett and Armando Iannucci.
I know Recorded for Training Purposes tried to fill the gap, but it still went down the competition route, taking on a group of writers most of whom it apparently quietly dropped at the end of the second series, and never fulfilling its initial promise to go open access.
Everyone imagines they're going to write a sitcom which will get taken straight to mainstream t.v., but you're more likely to win the lottery. Getting a sketch produced on radio is a far more realistic aspiration, and such a possibility could encourage a whole generation of writers who now despair of ever breaking through that glass ceiling.
Couldn't one such open access show, even if put out late night like Week Ending, be regularly produced on national radio by the BBC?
Quote: John Kelly @ February 12, 2008, 2:50 PMPersonally I think this scheme is a great idea, but I strongly suspect it will have an entry requirement, like the Continuing Drama scheme, which will prohibit the entry of most of us who write on this site, who have maybe a few sketch credits for Newsrevue or Treason Show.
If you look at the careers of numerous comedy writers who emerged from the 1960's onwards, it's clear that radio comedy, and particularly radio sketch writing, was a way in for them to mainstream comedy. In particular Week Ending kick-started the careers of innumerable writers. A show that let you fax stuff in or go to the weekly writers' meeting and try to get sketches and gags on the radio, without any entry criteria other than a strong sense of humour.
Writers Room will not look at sketches. And you will search in vain there for details of such an open access show. They refer, or used to, to Parsons and Naylor and Bearded Ladies, because they used to take unsolicited stuff, but both have now stopped doing so. But neither were ever as open as Week Ending. Sadly I am old enough to remember that show, and whilst erratic, it was full of energy and verve, unsurprisingly when it had producers like Douglas Adams, John Lloyd, Simon Brett and Armando Iannucci.
I know Recorded for Training Purposes tried to fill the gap, but it still went down the competition route, taking on a group of writers most of whom it apparently quietly dropped at the end of the second series, and never fulfilling its initial promise to go open access.
Everyone imagines they're going to write a sitcom which will get taken straight to mainstream t.v., but you're more likely to win the lottery. Getting a sketch produced on radio is a far more realistic aspiration, and such a possibility could encourage a whole generation of writers who now despair of ever breaking through that glass ceiling.
Couldn't one such open access show, even if put out late night like Week Ending, be regularly produced on national radio by the BBC?
I agree wholeheartedly with this.