Everybody give up....
I don't think it's quite as grim as you're making it out.
Yes - there is probably a load of crap around because it is easier to show your stuff on-line. But I don't think many of us think it's the be-all and end-all - just a stepping stone and help towards development.
If I had something that I thought was really earth-shattering I wouldn't put it on line. I'd develop it and then approach someone who I thought would like it.
I must admit that I've given up with these channel 4 and BBC and what have you video sites. I think they are getting lots of hits for doing bugger all. People like the Slaggs and shoepie are doing all the work for them and all they get is a load of points. Slaggs and Shoepie should be earning good money. There are some sketch shows out there that could do with their material.
Its a rather obvious statement from someone running a production company. These websites display anything anyone writes. They could spend two minutes on a joke and up it goes. Access is too easy.
He says talent needs to be nurtured first, but where are these nurturing opportunities? He says stand-up, but being able to do stand-up isn't the pre-requisit for being a comedy writer. Did the Pythons, John Sullivan etc do stand-up first?
I think there is a real problem here.
Contains Nuts, a brilliant explanation of the thoughts in my own head, but you put it down much better. The companies whining about lack of talent are the very ones that don't have an open submission policy. Can anyone spot the disjuncture between what a company says and its actions?
If comedy needs nuturing and the comedy production companies aren't nurturing then the blame for the state of comedy is firmly with them.
As to stand-up being the route into comedy, stand-up is a different form. A good stand-up isn't necessarily a good writer of sitcoms or sketches and vice versa.
I'm sorry, this is crap.
You say about nurturing or developing talent yet you give it not space or opportunity to develop. To say user generated materail damages standards is ridiculous. If that was the case, if the material online was crap then why is online viewing of this material up yet viewing of television down?
Admittedly there is a lot of crap, but no ore of a percentage than you will find on comedy shows on mainstream television. There are also some very innovative and clever ideas which would never see thelight becuase producers can't visualise them instantly.
The thing that is dragging down standards are lazy producers and sloppy writing / development. This happens in both spheres, but it's usually TV where a group effort is made.
Can I just comment, Slagg?
The problem with open submission policies is this; you are literally open to everything. And I know of one reader who wrote a critique for a nutjob only to be bombarded with abuse, hate mail etc. Another got stabbed.
There are a lot of people with a lot of crap. You have to develop contacts, not just send things into companies.
Everyone thinks writing is an easy gig, you sit down, scribble, the cheque comes. Thats why the industry attracts some of the laziest, greediest and talentless people. But it also attracts some fantastically good people as well, most of the people on here are good or very good.
As with any other work, you have to be professional and behave in a professional way. You also have to be careful who you talk to and keep notes of where you send stuff.
Samuel Johnson wrote "none but a fule e'er wrote for money".
There may soon be another avenue to publish stuff... www.roughcuts.co.uk
If RDF Media are to be believed the people who upload the best content to their Rough Cuts site will be given help to proffessionaly produce their stuff. Or something like that.
Quote: Wildjesusfishkid @ June 19, 2007, 10:39 PMI must admit that I've given up with these channel 4 and BBC and what have you video sites.
I did a few but I got the impression they were kind of rifled through to see if there was anything that could be developed.
There are a lot of people in these organisations who aren't that good and know it. I think it was nice to have a ready resevoir of ideas and material which they didn't have to pay for.
I don't think though that charging for a licence fee then asking people to upload their material was really what the organisation should be about.
As said, the problem with open submissions is that they'll get a lot of shite.
There's enough sub-standard writers IN the industry already, let alone getting 50 scripts a week that are most, if not all, garbage.
When it's scripts we're talking about it's not about finding companies with an open submission policy, it's about getting in touch with individuals - not secretaries who read the cover page and bin it anyway.
How many amateur things do you watch on, say, YouTube and actually think 'Wow, they should be on the telly'. Very rarely, so anything that's good just gets lost.
Face facts - you want to get your material on telly, you have to be in the right place at the right time and know the right people. And if you're good enough, it'll happen.
Agree with you Ed and SeeFacts but my point with open submission is that a company can't truly claim to be nurturing or searching when it won't look at unsolicited material. I'm aware of the problems for a company reading unsolicited submissions but that wasn't the drive of my point. The companies stance is like saying you want to buy a car but you won't go to a garage, you'll prefer to wait until the car you're looking for drives past your house.
As to being in right place right time, that's saying it's who you know but in different words, and that cannot be described as talent-hunting or actively nurturing.
Whats worse is that BBC, ITV, and C4 have all recently announced they are going to invest in new comedy talent, and then just opened video upload sites. The more of these sites the easier it will be to submit stuff and the more crap. Personally, I don't put my best work up there as then it loses its originality and someone can nick it or as they call it 'adapt it'.
Also they need to recognise the talent that can be nurtured. I simply don't believe that this generation is less talented than any other. If a script comes in that has a poor plot but great characters, then there is a scope to nurture. Anyway, I haven't submitted anything yet so maybe I'll get lucky.
Sorry I was uploading to youtube, whats this thread about?
It's infuriating to see a video of some 13-year old girl miming to a Kelly Clarkson song after 3000 views and my sketches/stand up receiving less than 500 between them.
But, f**k it. Let's upload some more stuff.
Quote: Stuart Laws @ June 20, 2007, 5:23 PMIt's infuriating to see a video of some 13-year old girl miming to a Kelly Clarkson song after 3000 views and my sketches/stand up receiving less than 500 between them.
But, f**k it. Let's upload some more stuff.
he's not 13 
Stuart, the worst was a girl burping to a song and that went into the 100,000s. There's a pile of vlogs / pirated shows / and junk but I also believe there's a little snobbery going on re: TV's attitude to user-generated content. If amateurs can be seen to produce good product, the mystique of the industry will be dispelled. In some ways, there is always fear when a new medium encroaches on past traditions. There is never an initial rush to welcome the new, even when the old medium appears to rest on cutting edge technology itself.
YouTube and Myspace are really, from my perspective, networking tools to contact like-minded peers and also a source of great camerawork ideas. Although we don't see User-Generated sites as a tool to lever into the industry, it is a tool for raising awareness of brand.
The advantage with 4Laughs is that it forces The Slaggs to regularly film new work.
I don't think we should fear plagiarism. The funny person remains funny, whether his joke has been nicked or not. If you've devised a great idea and it is nicked then you know you're headed the right way. Plus, we don't have a limited source of jokes that once we've written them, we dry up. Funny people can always produce comedy, plaigarists will be exposed by their own paucity of imagination.