British Comedy Guide

The Sitcom Mission 2011 Page 37

Quote: Griff @ March 7 2011, 10:23 AM GMT

I don't believe anyone goes to the Trials with the primary objective of being entertained. Every single person in that audience is there because they are supporting friends who are writers, actors or directors, or because they would like to become involved in the Trials themselves and are scoping it out.

Griff, I think in general I agree with your points here, and certainly at Sitcommission last year I was in the audience for 4 of the shows and the compere asked who in the audience was associated with a sitcom or a writer and pretty much every hand went up every time. Oddly, I did meet a few genuine punters at the last Si and Dec run Sitcom Trials at The Leicester Square Theatre. One had even come back to the semi-final specifically to see mine, which is the second most flattered I have been as a writer. So its not entirely true that there are no punters, but they may be exceptions proving rules.

I wholly concur on the voting thing though. It leaves a nasty taste even when it works in your favour - I say this as someone who qualified for the final on audience vote in my first outing. Interestingly, we got quite a few more votes than the pathetic number of people I could drag down from the Midlands so I suppose there must have been independent people there.

I think that point stands, Griff. And particularly in the latter stages of sitcommission and the trials run by Si and Dec, where votes are cumulative across rounds for a place in the final, there were certainly odd results which looked a bit like audience packing. I think they are right to do away with it this time, although what it will do to audiences remains to be seen.

The process is dependent on what the promoters hope to gain.
If the quality of the scripts is poor then they need to get bums on seats and as such need to pander to the writers who have a support base in order to cover their costs.
If however they have a few good ones, then they can showcase their own system to people like Hat Trick and bathe in the kudos whilst securing 12.5% of a successful sitcom.
I like to think that who ever wins does so based on the premises that their work is quality, as opposed to gauging the reaction of bussed in fans and taking partisan audience actions as being indicative of the quality of the piece.
For my part I am unemployed and could not afford to attend the viewing myself let alone gather up a posse of fans to cheer it home, as such I do not hold out much hope.
That said I enjoyed entering this competition and remain determined to write in the vain hope that I get spotted amongst the thousands of others who write comedy.
At least these people never asked for dough up front, there are so many who do this that a writer needs to have access to dough just to have their work considered.
So good luck to all who entered and I hope the winner gains a a commission.

I'm a little worried now. A couple of my characters may come across as generic but I didn't want to spoon feed the reader with thoughtless exposition to beef them up.
I'm glad about the way they're going with ditching the audience voting as I haven't got any friends anyway (assuming I get through of course).

I've now got to concentrate on writing my uber high concept sitcom about zombie ninja robots from the future who communicate using only hyperbole and recycled Red Dwarf bloopers that only people who bought the "Smeg ups" VHS in 1997 would possibly remember.

This has undoubtedly been asked before, but what was last years winner like? Did anybody see it? And are there any reviews of it online anywhere?

Quote: chipolata @ March 7 2011, 1:09 PM GMT

This has undoubtedly been asked before, but what was last years winner like? Did anybody see it? And are there any reviews of it online anywhere?

https://www.comedy.co.uk/fringe/2010/thunderer/

Quote: Jinky @ March 7 2011, 1:24 PM GMT

https://www.comedy.co.uk/fringe/2010/thunderer/

Cheers.

Quote: chipolata @ March 7 2011, 1:09 PM GMT

This has undoubtedly been asked before, but what was last years winner like? Did anybody see it? And are there any reviews of it online anywhere?

He kindly sent me the script and it is really funny and a worthy winner.
It was about the press in Jack the Rippers time :D

Quote: Teddy Paddalack @ March 7 2011, 12:57 PM GMT

The process is dependent on what the promoters hope to gain.
If the quality of the scripts is poor then they need to get bums on seats and as such need to pander to the writers who have a support base in order to cover their costs.
If however they have a few good ones, then they can showcase their own system to people like Hat Trick and bathe in the kudos whilst securing 12.5% of a successful sitcom.
I like to think that who ever wins does so based on the premises that their work is quality, as opposed to gauging the reaction of bussed in fans and taking partisan audience actions as being indicative of the quality of the piece.
So good luck to all who entered and I hope the winner gains a a commission.

Teddy,

I hope it didn't come across as negative. Si and Dec have, I know, wrestled with this for a while. The fact of the matter is that this is not a cheap undertaking and costs need to be covered(ish), but create any set of rules and some will try to work out how to play them to their benefit. Plus, even if showcasing in a non-competitive way a reasonable sized enthusiastic audience helps matters enormously (for all concerned). With less incentive to bring along a bunch of mates I shall be interested to see what audiences look like. In the vein of Griff's comments it may not get onto people's agenda when competing with everything else you might choose to see in London. This would be ironic as there seems a much greater guarantee of quality this time round with the process they have set out.

Thunderer was definitely good and they are 'in talks' I understand. the great thing this year is that the winner is guaranted a commission, although not that anything will be made.

Anyway, good luck to you and all entrants even if you did mention wheelchairs.

Quote: Ponderer @ March 7 2011, 2:11 PM GMT

Teddy,

I hope it didn't come across as negative.

Yes, I was quite shocked to find a negative post on the BCG message boards.

Quote: Griff @ March 7 2011, 10:23 AM GMT

I don't believe anyone goes to the Trials with the primary objective of being entertained... Every single person in that audience is there because they are supporting friends who are writers, actors or directors...

the Trials doesn't have a vested interest in identifying the best possible scripts the way the Mission now does. This is not a diss of any scripts that have done well at the Trials BTW.)

We're discussing different things. When I refer to the Sitcom Trials, I'm mostly thinking of the original show that I ran from 99 - 06 and the TV series, which wasn't run as a tournament but as stand-alone showcases with audience participation. In those instances, and in particular the three runs at the Edinburgh Fringe, the audiences came with the sole objective of being entertained. The TV audience were also not, solely, the writers' mates.

When Dec & Si revived the show in 2007 they developed the model of building audiences from the writers and performers' friends, but then fell foul of the whole block-voting problem which arose, which they solved with the introduction of an industry judging panel (an idea first suggested by Steve Coogan when Baby Cow were looking at taking the show on in 2004, something which didn't, as you can see, end up happening).

As for not having "a vested interest in identifying the best possible scripts", I'm not sure what you mean. The Sitcom Trials has always been about testing sitcoms out in front of a live audience. In the case of the Trials 99-06, I always had my own writing in there, subjecting it to peer review then audience vote, so I could hardly have had less of a vested interest could I?

Are you saying The Sitcom Mission has more of a vested interest in finding the best scripts because they're doing it with Hat Trick's sponsorship? I'd say that gave them less of a vested interest and should drive them more towards impartiality.

Either way, the Mission and the Trials are both good things. Vive la difference.

Quote: Declan @ March 6 2011, 5:58 PM GMT

Whatever you're thinking, someone else is thinking it too: we have (at least) two post-zombie apocalypse sitcoms.

I'd like to state, for the record, that one of the post-zombie apocalypse sitcoms is mine. I'm taking hope from the fact that it wasn't in the list of 'this is an example of the rubbish we've received', so hopefully it's not just been chucked right onto the fire.

Quote: chipolata @ March 7 2011, 1:09 PM GMT

This has undoubtedly been asked before, but what was last years winner like? Did anybody see it? And are there any reviews of it online anywhere?

And you can see the winner of the 07 Trials (Dec & Si), Sweet As, here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93w2sVXURmM

And clips from the December 09 (JP) winner & finalists, here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcEaOXath5w
and here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gfe-ZrbfeEc

Kev F

###(after all, you're not doing this out of the goodness of your heart to promote the careers of other writers), ###

I think he is.

Quote: Griff @ March 7 2011, 3:30 PM GMT

Bushbaby can I interest you in this scheme I've got for turning sea water into gold? I can offer you some shares at a very reasonable price.

Well, I've already lost 100 grand on a piece of land that I can't build on but thank you anyway

Share this page