Congratulations Madam, you have been selected to write a sitcom. I simply require your bank account details and sort code.
Doing it ourselves? Page 3
This thread is locked. No further replies can be posted.
My main worry is that if you have a 100 pledged 'writers' as shareholders all wanting their script to be the final one, you'll have a lot of people pulling out when their script drops out.
Plus if you're a writer with a 1% share in somebody else's pilot then I can't see how will it open the door for you and the other 98 writers? Surely it's only a share in someone else's career, not your own.
Yes, I'm interested but what return are we looking at? You need to think, budget and what are the potential paybacks and how do they equate to the initial share?
Quote: SlagA @ December 19, 2007, 9:24 PMMy main worry is that if you have a 100 pledged 'writers' as shareholders all wanting their script to be the final one, you'll have a lot of people pulling out when their script drops out.
Plus if you're a writer with a 1% share in somebody else's pilot then I can't see how will it open the door for you and the other 98 writers? Surely it's only a share in someone else's career, not your own.
Yes, I'm interested but what return are we looking at? You need to think, budget and what are the potential paybacks and how do they equate to the initial share?
The initial stage would be to look for pledgers (say 40 - 50 pounds). If the specified target was achieved (say 7k) then the money would be asked for. During the time of collecting this fund the writing competition would be started. Each writer would also put money into the fund (say 10 pounds) for entering a script. Writers (unless also a pledger or the winning writer/s) would have no voting rights.
The fund whatever the total at the closure of the writing competition would be locked as the budget. All pledgers and writers (you could be both) would have put the money into the fund at this time.
At that point if you were only interested in seeing your script made, you could take no further part. However I'd hope that a majority would see benefits in trying to push through, and not all pledgers would have entered a script.
There would also be the benefit in that I'm sure everyone would be able to learn something from the process. Also on the slight chance that the whole thing was a success and the pilot gathered TV interest you would then have a % share in a production company formed to create a series.
Quote: Rob B @ December 19, 2007, 10:18 PMThe initial stage would be to look for pledgers (say 40 - 50 pounds). If the specified target was achieved (say 7k) then the money would be asked for. During the time of collecting this fund the writing competition would be started. Each writer would also put money into the fund (say 10 pounds) for entering a script. Writers (unless also a pledger or the winning writer/s) would have no voting rights.
The fund whatever the total at the closure of the writing competition would be locked as the budget. All pledgers and writers (you could be both) would have put the money into the fund at this time.
At that point if you were only interested in seeing your script made, you could take no further part. However I'd hope that a majority would see benefits in trying to push through, and not all pledgers would have entered a script.
There would also be the benefit in that I'm sure everyone would be able to learn something from the process. Also on the slight chance that the whole thing was a success and the pilot gathered TV interest you would then have a % share in a production company formed to create a series.
Also, all the people who went for the football club thing didn't do it because they wanted to play, it was just to get involved in something new. It could well be the same.
Also, if it actually got somewhere then there could be a small amount of money to be made so people could get their cash back.
This is interesting, i would be happy to part with 40-50 quid.
Is there anyone involved who has the skills required to take this forward though?
Note: Alright maybe not happy but willing.
Quote: Seefacts @ December 19, 2007, 10:26 PMAlso, all the people who went for the football club thing didn't do it because they wanted to play, it was just to get involved in something new. It could well be the same.
Also, if it actually got somewhere then there could be a small amount of money to be made so people could get their cash back.
You encourage me seerfacts. Plus not everyone on these forums writes, some just love sitcom. Okay so this thread is in the writers area, so it has that bias at the moment. The competition would be aimed at writers, the initial stage not so.
This idea will either bomb or work. And I don't knw which 
Quote: jacparov @ December 19, 2007, 10:33 PMThis is interesting, i would be happy to part with 40-50 quid.
Is there anyone involved who has the skills required to take this forward though?Note: Alright maybe not happy but willing.
Hopefully the skill set will come from the people who join up. An executive of 5 or 6 would be formed from the pledgers to provide the driving force of the project. Other important jobs would be allocated according to experience.
Quote: SlagA @ December 19, 2007, 9:24 PMMy main worry is that if you have a 100 pledged 'writers' as shareholders all wanting their script to be the final one, you'll have a lot of people pulling out when their script drops out.
Plus if you're a writer with a 1% share in somebody else's pilot then I can't see how will it open the door for you and the other 98 writers? Surely it's only a share in someone else's career, not your own.
Yes, I'm interested but what return are we looking at? You need to think, budget and what are the potential paybacks and how do they equate to the initial share?
I think I agree with this. Football is a completely different kettle of fish and having a share in a football team is rather a different concept to having a share in a 'production company'.
If the idea is 'invest £40 to be a part of the decision-making and pay £10 to have your script considered', surely most people will just pay the tenner. I'm just not sure anyone does want to be a small part of a makeshift team producing somebody else's work. What's in it for you if you are?
I'm not saying I don't like the idea. But how is this model superior to, say, asking 100 budding writers to each chip in £50, who then vote on each script, choosing the 'winner', who promptly pockets the cash and pisses off to do the job on their own, on the proviso that the money's spent on the pilot, without 99 other people trying to find something to do that doesn't piss off everyone else in the group? (I.e. just a competition.)
Actually I think everyone having continued involvement is a good idea, but in the simplified model above it's easier to see possible problems with both models.
I don't like nit-picking and while a lot of the criticism on here has been a result of poor understanding of the concept, I'm really not sure if it would work. There's also a laughably high quota of the usual "sounds good, when you've set it up and done all the work maybe you can count me in - good luck!"
If I wanted to self-start my stuff I think I'd rather get some mates together, shoot something on digital camera, set up a website - and put it on Youtube, then try and get people to watch it, by hook or by crook.
The thing is, you cannot assume that after shooting a pilot a commission from anywhere is a fait accompli. What difference will it make? The writer is still an unknown and the project would be just as high a risk. It seems like a top-down rather than bottom-up solution to me: the biggest bar to success, it seems to me, is being an unknown in the industry, for which nothing is a substitute for hard work (and getting yourself known). My dad and his brother got to the very final stage of having a radio sitcom commissioned, but in the end the Beeb just weren't prepared to take the risk as they weren't very well known. How would making the thing yourself neutralise this? I just don't think it would.
Quote: James Williams @ December 19, 2007, 11:37 PMI think I agree with this. Football is a completely different kettle of fish and having a share in a football team is rather a different concept to having a share in a 'production company'.
If the idea is 'invest £40 to be a part of the decision-making and pay £10 to have your script considered', surely most people will just pay the tenner. I'm just not sure anyone does want to be a small part of a makeshift team producing somebody else's work. What's in it for you if you are?
I'm not saying I don't like the idea. But how is this model superior to, say, asking 100 budding writers to each chip in £50, who then vote on each script, choosing the 'winner', who promptly pockets the cash and pisses off to do the job on their own, on the proviso that the money's spent on the pilot, without 99 other people trying to find something to do that doesn't piss off everyone else in the group? (I.e. just a competition.)
Actually I think everyone having continued involvement is a good idea, but in the simplified model above it's easier to see possible problems with both models.
I don't like nit-picking and while a lot of the criticism on here has been a result of poor understanding of the concept, I'm really not sure if it would work. There's also a laughably high quota of the usual "sounds good, when you've set it up and done all the work maybe you can count me in - good luck!"
If I wanted to self-start my stuff I think I'd rather get some mates together, shoot something on digital camera, set up a website - and put it on Youtube, then try and get people to watch it, by hook or by crook.
The thing is, you cannot assume that after shooting a pilot a commission from anywhere is a fait accompli. What difference will it make? The writer is still an unknown and the project would be just as high a risk. It seems like a top-down rather than bottom-up solution to me: the biggest bar to success, it seems to me, is being an unknown in the industry, for which nothing is a substitute for hard work (and getting yourself known). My dad and his brother got to the very final stage of having a radio sitcom commissioned, but in the end the Beeb just weren't prepared to take the risk as they weren't very well known. How would making the thing yourself neutralise this? I just don't think it would.
Thanks, this a nicely reasoned argument
1. Its not really a share in a production company, more like a share in an experience. Lets not overplay the idea it will be commissioned though that is the ultimate scenario.
2. I'm guessing not everyone interested would be a writer, and many writers may also take a share just to be able to vote. However this isn't relevant really because unless the target amount is reached it doesn't happen. It either flies or fails at this point
3. The idea of getting just writers to fund it is just as valid. However the basic idea works on the guarantee of a minimum fund, and the larger network of help that would be available.
4. This wouldn't stop anyone self funding a project with mates.
5. On the point that its probably won't get commissioned - Yes probably. However it possibly would have more chance than your self funded project (and I'm not meaning to sound rude)
Firstly because the chances are the winning script will be better than yours. Second is that the larger network will provide more options with contact, actors, locations, equipment etc. Thirdly there is actually a media kudos to a project like this. Which of these is more likely to get media interest. "BBC commission unsigned writer" or "BBC commission online sitcom". The sheer fact this idea would be unique gives it a unique selling point. A "USP" is virtually the first think marketting look for in a product.
Mm, I anticipated the media angle. I suppose from a writer's point of view the fact that someone else's script would likely be chosen (and even if it wasn't the chances of 'success' are slim) is disheartening. That's selfish, but really I'm more concerned with my own success, and I suspect a lot of people are.
I'm sure it would be a good experience, but it's so hard to find the time and energy to push your own projects, without getting embroiled in anyone else's labour of love. I think a lot of people would be more prepared to gamble forty quid on their script being chosen, on the proviso that if it wasn't they wouldn't be obliged to take it any further. Could still lead to resentment and/or game-theory tactical voting, however. Suggest maybe having 2 or 3 votes: 10 points to one's favourite, 5 to the 2nd favourite, or whatever. Might improve the chances of getting a fair vote. Maybe that's misjudging how people would behave, I don't know.
Would you get the same response if there was a competition to find the best sitcom, say, on the forum before anyone was obliged to invest?
I don't know. As I say, I do quite like the idea. It seems appealing in many ways.
I probably mis-read this at first becauseI thought it was a sketch show - not a sitcom. That would have a better chance. As I say good luck because once it's oganised you could get good publicity because of the way it's set up and maybe shortcut to gettig it viewed.
I always thought the football thing couldn't work because if everyone gets a vote on picking the team you might get 3 goalkeepers, 5 centre forwards and 3 wingers.
@David: I think the major thing about the football thing is that it happened. Will it work to produce the next big club. Almost certainly no, as I have an inkling they'll be voting to sack the manager every few weeks.
@James: I do agree that's how some people will feel. Writers have to be selfish and driven if they want to make it, and if it was 100% writers I'd agree once a winner was picked they'd all go off and do there own thing.
I do actually think we'd get a fair few entries as the prize of having your 30 minute sitcom made is not rubbish. I bet many people here will have entered competitions with a worse prize than that.
On how much you have to contribute. Well the only thing you have to is pledge money, or write a script, after that nobdy can force you to take part further.
I think this is an exciting idea, I'd toyed with setting up something similar myself. I'm a member of MyFC and the whole things a lot of fun. (It helps that Ebbsfleet's not so far from me)
I personally thing this would be a cool idea for a way to get a sketch show off the ground, not so keen on it being a sitcom, if its a collection of sketches then every member can have a part in it and a chance of getting their work filmed. Sketches could be submitted and voted for. and yes, I read the stuff about the Sketch project on here and think thats a great idea - even though I was sad to get a message back that it was 'full up' or some such.
Good luck with planning this!
I believe a sketch show is a much better idea than a sit-com because it will always give writers the chance to put their ideas forward. If you don't get in one week maybe the next. If there's hope then people will keep coming back. Newsrevue is a good set up but I have always thought they have been restricted by the fact that all sketches have to be currently newsworthy. With an open plan approach you could include anything you liked. A sit-com will be somebodies baby and everybody who doesn't get chosen will be p*ssed no matter what they say. And they will be investing money to promote somebody elses stuff. I think all interested should seriously consider this. If we should grow then maybe we get to be the guys that choose sit-com's but sketches are easier to manage offer more variety keep people interested and now I'm getting bored with myself. You get the idea.
Problem I see with the sketch show is that it would require far longer to film, cost more, use more locations, require the actors for longer, more props etc. Its also less unique. Go onto youtube and there are 1000's of comedy sketches people have made.
Also remember there are people that aren't writers. Look on the non writer threads on this forum and you'll see many names that never appear on the writers area but do love sitcom. Anyway we'll see... It'll either work or not