Inn Mates Page 10

Having thought about it for some reason, here are my thoughts on some things I personally would address if I was going to make more of this show:

First, I would make the different tribes mix more, rather than being entirely separate entities. I thought it an odd choice and I'm not sure what keeping them separate was supposed to add?

Second, I would focus on the group of five Hollyoaks-esque characters and work on their comic personas more; what is it about each that is going to make people want to watch them and generate comedy? Like it or loathe it, it's obvious from the off who each Two Pints character is and what funny they are going to bring to the table each week.

I would drop the pretty boy and his girlfriend, they add nothing apart from being attractive to look at, and instead make the Community officer bloke the slouchy, trying not to be boring characters best friend.

I would also make it so that the kid trying to connect with his Dad was also hanging around the main group, trying to also connect with them, and failing.

I would think about dropping bits in peoples houses, and focus just on the pub and outside the pub.

A personal thing, but I would avoid the blasts of currently popular songs that blared out every time we changed to a new scene; it quickly becomes annoying and is already being done in other shows.

I think that's it.

Quote: Micheal Jacob @ August 10 2010, 2:08 PM BST

Hi Tim

I think to be fair there was only one suggestive suggestion of anal sex. Also, from its inception as Sunday Lunchers, the show has always been about different people who drink in the same pub, and in the underlying sense it's about relationships, aspirations and possibilities.

View original

Sorry, Micheal, as usual I was ignoring the actual realities of this particular script and, instead, just using it for a launching pad for my regular diatribe against What Is Wrong With British Sitcom. If you want well-researched criticism then there are others on here who can provide it.

EDIT: Like Mr Stott, for example. He's probably done a spreadsheet and everything...

Sunday Lunchers? That working title seems to suggest something with a rather different vibe to what eventually hit the screen. It is probably not fruitful to speculate on the development process too much, but I wonder if in this case the pilot might not end up as a step back before taking a step forward.

If were on specifics. I would look at the Blue character, as she could be in danger of becoming a bit one note. I'd add some other dimension in. Is she for example a primary school teacher or social worker?

Quote: Marc P @ August 10 2010, 2:18 PM BST

If were on specifics. I would look at the Blue character, as she could be in danger of becoming a bit one note. I'd add some other dimension in. Is she for example a primary school teacher or social worker?

View original

Yes. Her getting drunk is not in itself, at least to me, funny. Add another dimension or she's just a young drunk person.

Quote: Tim Walker @ August 10 2010, 2:11 PM BST

This rather supposes that the writer just writes what they want to see and this is then graciously green-lit to the shooting script. I think producers, script editors and the like have to take their proper share of the flak when the flaws appear and the criticism grows. Sadly, it's the writer who tends to get the shittiest end of the stick with which the show is beaten.

Any writer who's been in a script meeting will know the pressures put on them to re-write based on the production team's suggestions. This, when it works, is a positive collaborative process. However, it can be that the writer is made to feel completely beholden to these "suggestions" - i.e. if you don't do this way then "we feel" it's less likely to be made. To be fair to the writers, rightly or wrongly, this can feel like an enormous veiled threat. I've ignored suggestions I really thought were terrible, or completely shifted the tone of a script to something I didn't want my name on. As you can see, my bloody-mindedness has paid vast dividends . I really do think though that if TV people have identified a writer to have talent, they should show a bit more faith in their judgement, their vision. (Sometimes at least.)

View original

I completely agree about sharing or taking responsibility. As you say, every show is a collaboration which can have negative or positive outcomes, and it's generally the writer or writer/performer who gets stick.

My philosophy of production is invariably to try to deliver the writer's vision and to protect the writer from the wilder shores of suggestion coming from elsewhere. However, in the real world, some suggestions can't be ignored. For example, as I've noted before, we were asked to open the show out from what was intended to be a single pub setting, which I didn't and don't feel did violence to it, and nor did John when he'd had 24 hours to reflect.

A general problem is the degree of neurosis surrounding a pilot - script or production - and everyone's desire to make it work, which can certainly put a lot of pressure on a writer, new or otherwise.

I've always found bloody-mindedness an essential writerly quality.

Quote: Micheal Jacob @ August 10 2010, 2:21 PM BST

we were asked to open the show out from what was intended to be a single pub setting, which I didn't and don't feel did violence to it, and nor did John when he'd had 24 hours to reflect.

View original

Ah, reminds me, who is the current BBC Controller of Waterboarding?

Quote: Micheal Jacob @ August 10 2010, 2:21 PM BST

as I've noted before, we were asked to open the show out from what was intended to be a single pub setting, which I didn't and don't feel did violence to it, and nor did John when he'd had 24 hours to reflect.

View original

I can't help thinking that the single pub setting might have resulted in a more distinctive and coherent product; if nothing else it would have provided a focus to overcome the issue of unconnected storylines happening to unconnected groups of people.

Please forgive me for not quoting - and I'm shortly going to go away and do some notes on someone else's pilot, but just to respond.

Yes, more integration of the characters is obviously desirable. Yes, people need more than one dimension, but with 11 characters in 28 minutes, it's hard not to deal in primary colours. Sunday Lunchers originally had 22 characters, and dropped in on different people, their stories and their dramas in a pub carvery in real time.

Quote: Micheal Jacob @ August 10 2010, 2:33 PM BST

Sunday Lunchers originally had 22 characters,

View original

Blimey!

Quote: Matthew Stott @ August 10 2010, 2:39 PM BST

Blimey!

View original

That's nothing. My new Twitter-based sitcom, Tweeps, has 140 characters...

Quote: Tim Walker @ August 10 2010, 2:41 PM BST

That's nothing. My new Twitter-based sitcom, Tweeps, has 140 characters...

View original

Your response just highlights your own comedy ignorance, Matthew.

Quote: Tim Walker @ August 10 2010, 2:45 PM BST

Your response just highlights your own comedy ignorance, Matthew.

View original

F**king peasant.