Quote: Kev F @ December 7 2009, 10:04 PM GMTHi. Been away. Did I miss anything?
that's what I call a great sense of humour
Sitcom Trials Autumn '09 Page 58
To be marginally less flippant:
Quote: Griff @ December 7 2009, 1:46 PM GMTJoe, there's helpful criticism worth embracing, and then there's the person you sent your script to calling it "dire" and "cringeworthy" on a public messageboard. I can see Kev thinks that's fair game, and he is not being malicious, but it does put me off sending anything to him in future.
When James started running this season of the Sitcom Trials I made great strides to be hands-off and to leave him in charge. The easiest part of that was having nothing to do with script selection. (Haven't read all script entries since 2000, hence the peer-review script selection I set up back then). The slightly harder part was keeping off the forums. I am famously able to say the wrong thing online and in a tone of voice that never comes across right. And I say rude things about sitcom scripts. So I stayed schtum for as long as I could.
So when I passed on my original notes on reading the shortlisted scripts back in September, I did so as someone whose opinion of those scripts was irrelevant. The shortlist was chosen by a very good producer (James) and his very good hand-picked team of readers. No selection was made on one person's opinion alone, and I'm given to understand opinion differed on a few scripts. But I didn't want to be part of that and I wasn't. There was one shortlisted script (and no, you will never, now, learn which one) that I thought so baffling I could only comment something along the lines of "what the bloody hell was that?". But it went okay in its heat, didn't win, and someone got the chance for their work to be staged, which made people laugh, all of which is a good thing.
If this puts anyone off entering scripts into the Sitcom Trials in the future, then so be it. If there are future Trials, I once again will be uninvolved in selecting the scripts, and if I pass an opinion on your scripts you may never know about it, though I'll tell you if you ask, though why my opinion should be in the slightest bit of interest as I have no influence whatsoever over its progress through the Trials process beats me.
Surely everyone's got an opinion about every script they read and performance they see. Sorry if my opinions were expressed clumsily, in an inappropriate fashion.
For the record, if Daniel Peak is reading, I thought his sitcom on BBC 1, Big Top starring Amanda Holden, was shit. Sue me.
I think the big point of debate here is not whether Kev might have very valid comments to make, some of which may well be appreciated by the people concerned, but whether it is appropriate for a producer/promoter of a production to criticise certain aspects of said production - whether they be script, direction or performance - in a public forum. James P kindly gave me feedback on my Sitcom Trials entry when I came to see the show - he didn't have to do it and his feedback was gratefully received. I didn't agree with all of it either, but there were some things that made me go - "yeah, fair enough". However, I wouldn't have been too chuffed if he'd come on here saying "Badge's script was x y and z".
There's a world of difference between private feedback and public comment. Can you imagine the producer of a new BBC Three sitcom (or anyone else closely involved in the production) posting on here saying "yeah, the scripts for eps 1 and 2 were a bit off but fortunately the cast and directors pulled them round; ep 6 was a great script but the cast/director didn't make the most of it"?
Having said all that, there's also a world of difference between malicious intent and attempting to be constructive. I think Kev was attempting the latter - i.e. illustrating the points that some scripts don't come alive until the cast and director get involved, and some that looked great on the page don't actually fly in practice for a multitude of reasons. I don't think anyone would disagree with that. I'm in the camp that naming names wasn't right, but I don't think for a minute that Kev had anything but good motives for his post (even though I think it was a mistake).
P.S. x, y and z are variables.
P.P.S. I take the opposite view to Greg Lake.
why are people so sensitive?
Quote: bushbaby @ December 7 2009, 10:39 PM GMTwhy are people so sensitive?
This is a very complex question which is somewhat off-topic. But it is a good one. As is, "Why aren't people more sensitive?"
I'm afraid I don't know the answers to either.
As someone with no iron in the fire, I can't help but notice that the only person affected by Kev's comments to comment so far has explicitly said that he's not bothered.
I also think that perhaps for politeness's sake Kev could have cleared his comments with the victims before making them publically.
Quote: Griff @ December 7 2009, 10:45 PM GMTNo idea bushbaby. Maybe we should ask a writer. Apparently they understand stuff like that.
V good, only I am a writer/actor and being sensitive doesn't work. You have to be thick skinned 
Quote: Kev F @ December 7 2009, 10:21 PM GMTThere was one shortlisted script...that I thought so baffling I could only comment something along the lines of "what the bloody hell was that?".
So - care to name any names?
God, you wander off for a few hours and suddenly there's an extra 10 pages to read.
I'm not particularly sensitive (this may be a lie)- I put my first round eliminated script up on critique for general ignorance and so its fair game for Kev or anyone else to comment. I regard this as part of the learning process. I prefer feedback to be direct and personal (if I were a crap writer on one of Griffs shows I'd like him to let me know, for example) but I'll take what I can get. In this case I was actually interested to see if the problem was in the writing or the production. I am still unsure.
I don't feel, however, it is appropriate to comment publicly if such comment is not invited, particularly without speaking to those involved. Whether insult was either intended or perceived is irrelevant in my opinion. I'm not suggesting Kev is a bad person, just that the post (which I found interesting when posted with anonymity) was not helpful. I also wonder if other, potentially good, writers might be put off, which I know isn't the end of the world, but may reduce quality for future runnings.
Quote: Fence @ December 7 2009, 11:45 PM GMTSo - care to name any names?
Quote: Badge @ December 7 2009, 10:24 PM GMTHowever, I wouldn't have been too chuffed if he'd come on here saying "Badge's script was x y and z".
Badge's script was, in point of fact, both x and y but fell well short of z.
Quote: Ponderer @ December 7 2009, 11:49 PM GMTBadge's script was, in point of fact, both x and y but fell well short of z.
Oi! I'll have you know there were plenty of zeds in it. zzzzz
For anyone wanting a taste of what won, the #sitcomtrials winners End To End by McNeil & Pamphilon have edited all their best bits into one video: http://www.mefeedia.com/watch/26252324
Enjoy
It would be glorious one day if there were to be a sitcom trials in Newcastle.
Whilst I have not been privy to all the ins and outs of this thread's recent activity... I would say that criticism and the learning to take it is as vital a skill for a comedy writer as making people laugh.
If people have been criticised and had their egos bashed by comments against their work then I would suggest they look at their own attitudes to what they don't like.
Far too many wannabee comedy writers sit and moan about other people's efforts (usually the material that is broadcast) and cannot differentiate between something they don't like and something they are being petty over because it was chosen to be staged, recorded or broadcast.
Feedback, criticism, opinions and conflicts of agenda are VERY common place when getting work actually commissioned and produced. People can sit about chipping in on writing forums til the cows get the last train home, but until they have actually had work produced and experience the challenges of getting comedy broadcast they need to be less precious about criticisms.
So what - someone said your work was "not very strong" or worse. Get over it. If its anyone with a comedy CV of note they will normally be somewhat correct. But the writer's job is to learn from it, develop and move on.
You do not achieve that by harping on back and forth about whether its right to criticise to whatever extent.
I have had work staged by Kev F Sutherland (not under the Trials banner). I saw immediately how hard it is for a small ensemble with (I imagine) scant funds to pull off a staged rendering of someone else's comedy writing, but they did it competently and professionally. I do not think it is fair to lambast Mr Sutherland and the Comedy Trials when - let's face it - it is the only chance a lot of writers will ever get to expose their work.
And people really need to get a thicker skin if they want their comedy writing to reach the people. Petty knee-jerk reactions is not the behaviour of writers that get paid to write comedy.
Quote: 2ChristianTypists @ December 10 2009, 12:02 PM GMTIf people have been criticised and had their egos bashed by comments against their work then I would suggest they look at their own attitudes to what they don't like. Far too many wannabee comedy writers sit and moan about other people's efforts (usually the material that is broadcast) and cannot differentiate between something they don't like and something they are being petty over because it was chosen to be staged, recorded or broadcast.
I don't have any strong feelings about this either way, but I think you may have missed the point people were making. They (and I may have this wrong) didn't think it was a good idea for a writer to be named and their work being publically criticised by the show producer (or organiser).
Whilst writers take criticism in different ways (I never take it personally myself - I've just had a director tell me they thought a script I'd written - that other people really liked - was 'horrible' and I feel they're entirely entitled to their opinion), I think some posters who also entered the Trials may be confused why a script that was so bad was selected.
If I had seen a good script put on at something like the Sitcom Trials, which was subsequently ruined by the cast and/or director I wouldn't say so publically, for a number of reasons. 
Quote: Dolly Dagger @ December 10 2009, 12:08 PM GMTThey (and I may have this wrong) didn't think it was a good idea for a writer to be named and their work being publically criticised by the show producer.
But comedy writers need to get their work "out there". And in doing so they will get caught in the critical crossfire - whether it is public or not. It's a bit odd that writers who want their work to be seen and heard are only wanting private criticism.