The editors don't write shit jokes and act badly. The blame lies with the writer - full stop.
The Persuasionists Page 9
Quote: Damn His Duckpond @ January 16 2010, 12:34 PM GMTThe editors don't write shit jokes and act badly. The blame lies with the writer - full stop.
I'm not talking about specific shows, but if you don't think the edit can play a big part in the way something turns out, then you're wrong. Of course direction and the way a show is cut can play a huge part. But yes, the script has to be good to start with. Like I said, I'm talking generally, and not about this or any other specific show.
Quote: Matthew Stott @ January 16 2010, 12:37 PM GMTI'm not talking about specific shows, but if you don't think the edit can play a big part in the way something turns out, then you're wrong. Of course direction and the way a show is cut can play a huge part. But yes, the script has to be good to start with. Like I said, I'm talking generally, and not about this or any other specific show.
Oh I agree that the edit can be key, but in this case, to steer any sort of blame away from the writer is foolish. The editing team can only work with what they are given and let's be honest: they weren't given much.
Quote: Timbo @ January 16 2010, 9:23 AM GMTI still think you are missing the point. Comedy has a rhythm which can be disrupted by unsympathetic editing. If an editor thinks the idea of comedy is edit it as slickly as possible to cram in the maximum number of laughs, that is not necessarily going to work. Being technically good and having a sympathetic understanding of the material you are editing is not the same thing.
Quote: Matthew Stott @ January 16 2010, 11:52 AM GMTEditing well is a great skill and an important one; the way things are cut has a large affect on the finished piece. It is possible to ruin jokes, or whole shows, in the edit; just as it's possible to improve a piece through great editing. I remember watching a piece on Arrested Development where the edit people basically said that very often they would cut scenes in five or six different ways, all the different edits made the scene play in a different way. Though that is obviously in a non-audience show, it's very likely that there is less you can do with the more heavilly blocked live audience show.
I used to work as an editor. I was trying to resist saying it. Once again I know what you are saying but your viewpoint is slightly naïve. Pardon me. 
All editing is sympathetic. There are no editors who do not understand the rhythym of the show they are editing. The edit is done to reflect the director's vision and for time. The editor does not reshape the show. Occasionally there might be difficult edits that require the input of the director but not usually. The show has already been timed, rehearsed and scripted. The editor has the shooting script and any notes.
As the producer said they trimmed the show from 34 to 28 minutes. This wasn't done by unsympathetically cutting into comic pauses or the actors timing it was done by dropping a few scenes. If you play around with the video and audio tracks in the way that you imagine you cannot produce a watchable programme. A show like Mock the Week has many more edits and relies much more on 'sympathetic editing' but as I said before the best people work on these shows.
Quote: Matthew Stott @ January 16 2010, 11:52 AM GMTEditing well is a great skill and an important one
Thanks very much.
Quote: Damn His Duckpond @ January 16 2010, 1:12 PM GMTOh I agree that the edit can be key, but in this case, to steer any sort of blame away from the writer is foolish. The editing team can only work with what they are given and let's be honest: they weren't given much.
I agree. The writer is ungifted and incompetent.
Is there anyone leaning over their shoulder though, Godot?
Quote: Godot Taxis @ January 16 2010, 5:44 PM GMTAs the producer said they trimmed the show from 34 to 28 minutes. This wasn't done by unsympathetically cutting into comic pauses or the actors timing it was done by dropping a few scenes. If you play around with the video and audio tracks in the way that you imagine you cannot produce a watchable programme.
I wasn't saying this show was played around with, or that any show is, but that a finished piece can be greatly affected by the edit. Also, I'm probably thinking more of film, where the editor can play a much greater role. I wasn't talking specifically about any show, despite being in this thread, but of the potential of the edit in general.
Quote: Godot Taxis @ January 16 2010, 5:44 PM GMTThanks very much.
Now I feel ill. All editors are big, girly idiots.
My experience of a dozen sitcoms that I have attended is that laughter is not so much added to scenes but moved. After 6 takes of the same scene there is no way an audience will laugh as loud on each take. So it is, essentially, use the best take + use the best audience reaction. I remember being one of the unfortunates who attended the recording of Mad About Alice at Teddington - as most of the audience had walked out before the end, then I am sure the editors earned their money that night!
I've been watching the repeat of this tonight and while I am glad to see new comedies given a chance on the box it is a bit confusing when the script for the supposedly polished and broadcast piece includes the type of things that novice writers (rightly) get pulled up for - e.g when the character of Keaton first comes on he says something like "you're wondering why I'm so fantastic at my job as head of global". If that isn't an example of bad expositional dialogue I don't know what is.
Iain Lee was about the best thing in it in a thankless role. Daisy Haggard looks mainly bored, and "Cockney Jim" appeared to be doing an office party impression of Boycie from Only Fools and Horses.
Probably won't tune in next week.
Personally I want it to work - I want it to get better and bed in. Every time a new comedy fails, ripples in the pond spread, reputations are tarnished, performers lose confidence etc. 20 years ago it wasn't a big deal if a new sitcom failed. Those days are gone. We need the channels to invest in new comedy, and nothing encourages that more than new successful shows - so I do hope it gets better.
As it is right now, I thought there were some decent lines and a couple of lols, but largely it seems a bit of a mess. With the exception of Adam's character, they seemed fundamentally-unlikeable and I simply didn't care what happened to any of them. Thank God Miranda has revived the audience sitcom genre, because as it stands, The Persuasionists could have really damaged it.
But I hope it gets better. Give it a chance.
Quote: Mr Snodworthy @ January 17 2010, 1:09 AM GMTThank God Miranda has revived the audience sitcom genre,
What about 'The IT Crowd'? That's doing pretty well too!
Quote: Leevil @ January 16 2010, 5:47 PM GMTIs there anyone leaning over their shoulder though, Godot?
I believe the director would be (I have a friend who directs lifestyle TV shows and I know he attends the editing sessions).
The director was in the editing suite for at least some of the episodes here, yes.
Quote: Mr Snodworthy @ January 17 2010, 1:09 AM GMTPersonally I want it to work - I want it to get better and bed in. Every time a new comedy fails, ripples in the pond spread, reputations are tarnished, performers lose confidence etc. 20 years ago it wasn't a big deal if a new sitcom failed. Those days are gone. We need the channels to invest in new comedy, and nothing encourages that more than new successful shows - so I do hope it gets better.
As it is right now, I thought there were some decent lines and a couple of lols, but largely it seems a bit of a mess. With the exception of Adam's character, they seemed fundamentally-unlikeable and I simply didn't care what happened to any of them. Thank God Miranda has revived the audience sitcom genre, because as it stands, The Persuasionists could have really damaged it.
But I hope it gets better. Give it a chance.
I disagree with your opinion that Adam's character was the only likeable character, I quite liked Iain and Daisy's characters as well
The fact is (and this is mostly to us part-time/wannabe writers out there) when was the last time you watched anything and thought 'I wished I'd written that?' It's a fact that if we were to trawl critique just on this website we'd find better stuff than we've seen on the Beeb for the last few years. That's without taking in consideration those we don't know about out there that are producing some good stuff but tredding water like most of us.
It's frustrating and bloody annoying. I think the guy who wrote the circus sitcom and posted it in critique is a real and depressing example. Big Top got produced his was rejected. Yet just reading it you didn't have to be a TV exec to realise it was a thousand times better than the crap that was served up to us.
The decision making of what and what not to make at the Beeb is only part of the problem. Good writing is being stifled at grassroots. Writersroom is a joke and like most comedy at the Beeb a bad one. The whole system stinks and needs a complete re-think.
I'm depressed to think that my standards have dropped so low that because I laughed a few times in The Persuationists it's good. It's not. It's just marginally better crap than the rest of the offerings served up at the moment. Rant over. I'm going back to bed!
Quote: roscoff @ January 18 2010, 7:23 AM GMTThe fact is (and this is mostly to us part-time/wannabe writers out there) when was the last time you watched anything and thought 'I wished I'd written that?'
Easy, I wish I'd written Psychoville. I wish I'd written Miranda. Black Books, The IT Crowd, Green Wing...