British Comedy Guide

Sitcom writer attacks executives

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/jun/30/tv-commissioning-sitcoms

Sadly, we all already knew that, and many creative people spoke out against the current situation with the BBC commissioners.

That's why you see more and more comedy talent jumping ship and working with Sky... ironically, that cuts off a huge portion of the audience who don't have Sky.

And even Sky prefers to push more mainstream comedy on the main channels, which leaves gems like Hunderby, Love Matters pilots, Common Ground shorts and Psychobitches on Sky Living, Sky Atlantic and Sky Arts with pitiful audiences.

80,000 people watched the first episode of Psychobitches. It's LAUGHABLE, if you pardon the pun.

https://www.comedy.co.uk/forums/thread/18356/

I suppose it's always been the same: good radio writing cut out people who didn't listen to the radio, good variety acts cut off people who didn't go to the theatre.

But the BBC has maybe wrongly tried to be too respectable for its own good.

Oh my God, tell me that vampire thing didn't happen. Sounds like something right out of a sitcom. Goodness me.

I don't think the person has given up, he's got a PR firm and has written an article for the Guardian.

He's a bit vague on the whole process and doesn't really go into much more detail than "tv execs interfeered." I can't remember the show that well, so did it have a vampire in?

Also, wasn't this a College of Comedy thing, with the aim of producing a pilot for BBC3? So anybody who entered must have anticipated a heavy youth element. Of course it begs the question why it was chosen in the first place if it didn't feature enough young people and was going to be intefered with.

Quote: Maurice Moss @ July 1 2013, 8:55 AM BST

Oh my God, tell me that vampire thing didn't happen. Sounds like something right out of a sitcom. Goodness me.

Yes I believe it! It proves the modern young execs are clueless about the creation side, have no insight about what has always been funny and works, but go for 'trends'. These people have come out of uni as exam passing automatons, heavy on management, low on creative arts judgement. They see a new jingle or catchphrase or trend 'trending' Sick and think they all have to follow it. Vampires 3 years ago, tomorrow it could be potato eating shite hawks. They should go back to recruiting queers from the theatres as TV execs, at least they knew their stuff. Angry

Quote: Tim Azure @ July 1 2013, 9:43 AM BST

I don't think the person has given up, he's got a PR firm and has written an article for the Guardian.

Though he does say in the article that he's given up writing for TV.

Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ July 1 2013, 10:48 AM BST

Vampires 3 years ago, tomorrow it could be potato eating shite hawks.

Now you've said it in public I'm afraid 'Spud Gobblers' (my next script) will be competing with hundreds of other shite hawk themed shows.

Iinteresting responses by some top writers

http://www.chortle.co.uk/news/2013/07/01/18200/theyre_not_all_bad%21

Sounds a bit like the writer went in with the wrong attitude.
Writing a sit-com is one thing - wrangling it through the system is another.
Both skills are vital if you're going to get anywhere.

But some of his opinions have been challenged by Jim Poyser, who worked with Warburton on the 2010 pilot. In a tweet to Bain, he said: 'I produced Inn Mates and I thought the Execs were pretty good on it. Writer wouldn't take notes though, and wasn't all that funny.'

Wasn't all that funny.... FFS. :)

It is all incredibly unedifying.

What is getting lost is that not one of these other writers are actually disagreeing with John, but adding to his article by making a clarification that he failed to (or, perhaps more likely, The Grauniad edited out): that there are bad execs, but there are good execs, too. There are also good execs who make bad decisions at times. And execs who are good with some formats, but not with others.

And producers who come out saying that they work with writers who "aren't all that funny" are doing themselves the greatest disservice.

Hear hear.

I am sure Micheal has a take on all this ;)

If a writer suggests there's a problem with the execs, then why isn't he attacking the person that employed them?

Share this page