FLAT - My latest attempt at a TV sitcom. Page 4

No apologies for your comments Charisma - this is turning into an interesting discussion.

My sitcom is really the son of modern shows such as The Office, Extras and Curb, but dealing often with silly stuff as in Two Pints. (Which I do not happen to like, by the way!)

IMO it's a lot more mature and better written than my radio sitcom, which had the more old-fashioned "pack the gags in" approach.

While it's assumed here that producers are only interested in old-fashioned fare, I'm not so sure. I think they're more interested in characters and situations than all that "oh he's as happy as Hitler with a headache" nonsense. However, neither the characters nor the situation have impressed anyone here, which is what really disappoints; in fact both have been singled out for criticism.

For instance, I find it really very funny in the first scene the way Jim bundles Dave off to court. To top it off he relaxes with a cup of tea. There are no "gags", it's just characters acting in amusing ways. Well, I find them amusing, anyway! I also like typical Jim ascerbic lines like "have a proper shave, you look like a burns victim." And the sheer nerve of it is funny too.

I will append a character summary shortly, as readers here are actually less-well equipped than a prospective producer by their omission. If anyone cares to read it!

It might not be so in-your-face and may lose appeal as a result, but that's part of the reason I want to be in the industry. I've no major hopes for anything as an outsider but writing is a career I am going to pursue.

I have to say I think, Seefacts, you have to read more than a couple of pages of the script before you can comment on its genre etc.

You can say "What I read was shit and a producer won't read further than I did so it's a failure", fair enough, but little beyond that I feel.

Maybe it's a bit light on jokes in the beginning but there *are* jokes peppered through the script - maybe there's more at the end and I need to work on it, but there are jokes in there!

And Charisma's right in that much of the dialogue in more modern shows does not leap off the page - unless you know the characters.

I also don't agree at all that character-work is an optional extra. In a most good sitcoms the humour comes directly from the characters.

Quote: James Williams @ January 30, 2008, 6:14 PM

No apologies for your comments Charisma - this is turning into an interesting discussion.

My sitcom is really the son of modern shows such as The Office, Extras and Curb, but dealing often with silly stuff as in Two Pints. (Which I do not happen to like, by the way!)

IMO it's a lot more mature and better written than my radio sitcom, which had the more old-fashioned "pack the gags in" approach.

While it's assumed here that producers are only interested in old-fashioned fare, I'm not so sure. I think they're more interested in characters and situations than all that "oh he's as happy as Hitler with a headache" nonsense. However, neither the characters nor the situation have impressed anyone here, which is what really disappoints; in fact both have been singled out for criticism.

For instance, I find it really very funny in the first scene the way Jim bundles Dave off to court. To top it off he relaxes with a cup of tea. There are no "gags", it's just characters acting in amusing ways. Well, I find them amusing, anyway! I also like typical Jim ascerbic lines like "have a proper shave, you look like a burns victim." And the sheer nerve of it is funny too.

I will append a character summary shortly, as readers here are actually less-well equipped than a prospective producer by their omission. If anyone cares to read it!

It might not be so in-your-face and may lose appeal as a result, but that's part of the reason I want to be in the industry. I've no major hopes for anything as an outsider but writing is a career I am going to pursue.

I have to say I think, Seefacts, you have to read more than a couple of pages of the script before you can comment on its genre etc.

You can say "What I read was shit and a producer won't read further than I did so it's a failure", fair enough, but little beyond that I feel.

Maybe it's a bit light on jokes in the beginning but there *are* jokes peppered through the script - maybe there's more at the end and I need to work on it, but there are jokes in there!

And Charisma's right in that much of the dialogue in more modern shows does not leap off the page - unless you know the characters.

I also don't agree at all that character-work is an optional extra. In a most good sitcoms the humour comes directly from the characters.

View original

In a first episode that someone reads the only person on the planet who knows the characters is the writer - so relying on them is not a good idea. And character gags can still be good gags.

I actually think some character stuff is lazy too. I'm Alan Partridge series 2 is quite hard work to watch as it's too much character stuff - relying on Coogan to get a laugh because he knows saying 'rectal gas' will get a laugh.

You can't just sit there and drum into people that it'll be be funny on the night. That's not how it works.

You need the reader to be laughing straight off in those first 10 pages. Jokes need to grab them and jump out. You say you know the characters inside out, but we don't and you have to remember that.

You can do good trad gags and learn about characters in one hit. See Red Dwarf episode 1.

Lister / Rimmer opening scene. You learn everything you need to about the dynamic and you get some great gags.

You say about dialogue and knowing the characters - no one knows them, you don't have the luxury. Big stars do - Gervais does with Extras. You, or indeed we, don't.

FLAT

CHARACTERS

Matt and Abi met at university. Dave found the flat because he has difficulty settling into a job and it’s cheap. Jim has been installed in the flat for several years, and has seen a number of people come and go. Usually he is the reason they go.

DAVE

24. A hard-working young man who is constantly striving to say the right things and overcome the numerous obstacles put in his way by his housemates, with varying degrees of success. Now working as a recruitment consultant so he can earn enough money to relocate to London. Intelligent, but under-confident; a bit of a bumbler. Holds an English degree. Think: Hugh Laurie.

MATT

26. A jobless ship-wreck of a man. Eeks out a living through various Ebay scams. Almost permanently stoned. Prone to flights of fancy. Terminally lazy. Has a 3rd-class psychology degree. Doesn’t pay any rent and technically does not live in the flat. Welsh. Possibly other regional accent. Think: Justin Lee Collins.

ABI

24. Matt's girlfriend. Bolshy and aggressive. Has a dark side… is about 90% dark side. Suffers to some degree with Matt's laziness. Works in the local library. Is intelligent but puts across the image of being ferociously intelligent. Talks the talk, but is often ineffective. Kicked out of university for plagiarism. Think: Amy Winehouse crossed with Janet Street Porter.

JIM

35. Former sub-editor turned journalist. Miserable and blunt, his preferred method of communication is a dismissive curse. Alcoholic. Self-styled connoisseur. Self-interested; although suffering from occasional ennui, will have fits of activity if it achieves his own ends and screws others over. More often he prefers to direct others to do his bidding.
Think: Withnail from "Withnail and I".

Quote: Seefacts @ January 30, 2008, 6:32 PM

In a first episode that someone reads the only person on the planet who knows the characters is the writer - so relying on them is not a good idea. And character gags can still be good gags.

I actually think some character stuff is lazy too. I'm Alan Partridge series 2 is quite hard work to watch as it's too much character stuff - relying on Coogan to get a laugh because he knows saying 'rectal gas' will get a laugh.

You can't just sit there and drum into people that it'll be be funny on the night. That's not how it works.

You need the reader to be laughing straight off in those first 10 pages. Jokes need to grab them and jump out. You say you know the characters inside out, but we don't and you have to remember that.

You can do good trad gags and learn about characters in one hit. See Red Dwarf episode 1.

Lister / Rimmer opening scene. You learn everything you need to about the dynamic and you get some great gags.

View original

I shall try and strengthen the beginning with more gags. I think some of the characters' speech can also be stretched more in line with their character without going OTT. Jim can be more abrupt, for example.

You really shouldn't have to explain yourself James. If we were regular viewers we would get nothing but what is shown. You attitude to dispute crit is really off putting.

I also don't agree at all that character-work is an optional extra. In a most good sitcoms the humour comes directly from the characters.

Most of the most popular characters are based on real people, which gives them their "spirit"? Your characters appear on page as artificial and flat, their voices don't distinguish from each other. Maybe you need to find yourself a writing partner to include a new voice and life into the other characters?

But there is clearly a difference of opinion here because while I acknowledge there is room for improvement, I like the opening and would want to read/view on. But I shan't go on.

Quote: Leevil @ January 30, 2008, 6:40 PM

You really shouldn't have to explain yourself James. If we were regular viewers we would get nothing but what is shown. You attitude to dispute crit is really off putting.

I also don't agree at all that character-work is an optional extra. In a most good sitcoms the humour comes directly from the characters.

Most of the most popular characters are based on real people, which gives them their "spirit"? Your characters appear on page as artificial and flat, their voices don't distinguish from each other. Maybe you need to find yourself a writing partner to include a new voice and life into the other characters?

View original

If I genuinely don't agree with something I don't see any problem with discussing it.

They are based on real people; I simply cannot fathom how they could be perceived as "artificial and flat", is all.

I appended a character summary because this is what I would send with the script to a producer.

Quote: James Williams @ January 30, 2008, 6:41 PM

But there is clearly a difference of opinion here because while I acknowledge there is room for improvement, I like the opening and would want to read/view on. But I shan't go on.

View original

One device you could consider is a character telling a story.

Sorry to go back to Red Dwarf but in both 'Marooned' and 'Duct Soup' you learn so much about Lister's character from a little speech/story he has. But it's also brilliantly funny.

The virginity story:

"I was so excited I nearly dropped my skateboard!"
"How old were you?!"
"12!"

And from Duct Soup:

"She told him she was trying to get an all over tan from the light bulb"

Really good gags, mixed with a really show and tell about a character.

Or make the characters a bit bigger and broader - then gradually round them off. You need to lay down basic foundations first so we get an idea, then smooth the edges.

Quote: James Williams @ January 30, 2008, 6:43 PM

They are based on real people; I simply cannot fathom how they could be perceived as "artificial and flat", is all.

I appended a character summary because this is what I would send with the script to a producer.

View original

Real people aren't that funny or interesting.

They're called 'characters' for a reason. Many famous characters are one, two or three people put together.

Quote: Seefacts @ January 30, 2008, 6:46 PM

They're called 'characters' for a reason. Many famous characters are one, two or three people put together.

View original

They do happen to be a mix a number of people. But then - look at Seinfeld.

I will work on making the character stuff more obvious. But as it stands differences are certainly there, plain to see. Seems obvious to me.

Maybe I should give one of the characters a truly in-your-face characteristic which stands him apart from the others... maybe he really, really loves biscuits!! Joke.

He sounds like a right cracker!

I got into this late and haven't yet read the original article but I saw the page count going up and wondered what was causing the flurry. So apologies James, I'll try and get around to it when I have a mo.

Something that immediately struck me tho ... Putting up character sheets seems to defeat the main goal of a script, imo. If readers need the character sheet to make sense then something's gone slightly wrong. Remember the audience will never read that sheet, so if the words and actions haven't conveyed character then it falls over.

However bear in mind that I've only read the last page or so of exchanges and I'm trying to catch up with the rest of the board, so take my comments with a pinch of salt. Your other work is generally accessible and well-recieved so maybe you haven't got the distance of time on this project? Maybe.

Quote: James Williams @ January 30, 2008, 6:52 PM

I will work on making the character stuff more obvious. But as it stands differences are certainly there, plain to see. Seems obvious to me.

View original

It does seem obvious to you, because you wrote them and that is good. But at the same time, you need them to be obvious to other people too because they are the ones who'll produce it. This is perhaps what you need to work on, mate.

Yep. I thought they were delineated enough but clearly they're not!
Thanks for the feedback. Things to think about!

Quote: SlagA @ January 30, 2008, 7:09 PM

I got into this late and haven't yet read the original article but I saw the page count going up and wondered what was causing the flurry. So apologies James, I'll try and get around to it when I have a mo.

Something that immediately struck me tho ... Putting up character sheets seems to defeat the main goal of a script, imo. If readers need the character sheet to make sense then something's gone slightly wrong. Remember the audience will never read that sheet, so if the words and actions haven't conveyed character then it falls over.

However bear in mind that I've only read the last page or so of exchanges and I'm trying to catch up with the rest of the board, so take my comments with a pinch of salt. Your other work is generally accessible and well-recieved so maybe you haven't got the distance of time on this project? Maybe.

View original

I only included the character sheets as it occurred to me that a producer would have them.

By the time an audience sees it, they have actors helping them out.

Producers need to have more creative vision than the lay person and even then they have the help of a sheet such as the one I posted.

Forgetting producers and selling the thing, I thought people might like to have a closer look at the characters, understand them etc. People tend to be aggressively negative about things if they don't think they will "sell". "I don't think it will sell= it's a failure." It's not all about "selling" and getting things commissioned (in this context); I thought if people did get to know the characters by hook or by crook then they could suggest ways to bring them out more, or suggest places where they do not seem to act to type.

I'd be interested to hear what The Slags think - please bear with it and read it all

Re: time...
I've sat on existing episodes of this for some time. I am still extremely pleased with the outcome. Feedback has been overwhelmingly negative to the extent that it has caused an error message in my head!

I think I need to read some more of the sitcom and thinking behind it before I can form an opinion.

I am not qualified to comment on Flat as I haven't read it but I've been interested in the comment here. It has certainly sparked debate which you should be grateful for whether you agree with it or not.

You are having the characters, jokes and situation dissected which can only be a good thing because you are getting more than your own opinion on them.

I made a post of similar length regarding my script (in 2 parts) and then a 'reprint' of a later scene which is not so daunting to read. I've had 2 comments.

What does this tell me?

Hard to say for sure. Have people been put off by the length of script and haven't got time to read it? Is it that it's terrible? Is it so ordinary it's not worth a comment? I'm little further on than when I posted but you have at least got some stuff to work with.

Look at the comments, look at what they refer too and act accordingly. That doesn't mean just change it but CONSIDER if it's worthy and if it is, make the necessary adjustments. If not ignore it.

We can't see what's in your head - it may be perfect which may just mean that you have to describe the action differently so we understand fully what's happening.

50+ comments in a crit (even if many are yours) is a good thing. Don't get defensive, cherish it.

I had a read James, but I think I need another read.

Tuumble, yep, you make good points, first the amount of feedback generated on such a longish piece is value for money. Second, yes, I'll admit to overlooking longer pieces, even longish sketches. I'm so busy catching up with the rest of the site that I have to cherry pick by scanning the opening. I think most writers here do the same.

Feedback is basically an opinion that is biased by a person's tastes and preferences. A writer should never be like Aesop's farmer with the donkey, they should write true to themselves and make choices based on feedback IF they feel it warranted. But if everyone is making similar points then it is potentially a big red flag that something needs addressing.

As to character sheets, I think they are a writer's tool to get into character, rather than a means to convey information to other people beyond the remit of the script. I rarely include them in submissions because if the character isn't declaring themselves on the page then no amount of detailed biog can save him / her. If I do include them, I try to slip it into the one paragraph synopsis just before the episode outlines. Remember this is opinion but for me, nothing puts me off reading a synopsis or script that starts with lists of character details.

Give me another day, and I'll try and be more specific. How long have you left it between writing and rereading it?

It's been a fair few months since I finished this episode and a fair couple of months since I've written anything on the sitcom as a whole.

I don't feel that "defensive" is *wholly* how I'm behaving (I am being a bit defensive, obviously!); if people take the time to try and understand the piece I feel I'll get more rewarding feedback. I feel there's a lot of "I didn't get it and a producer wouldn't either so re-do it."

I know that it starts off a bit slow, which I thought originally I may need to address... but at the same time, I don't want to turn it into something it wasn't intended to be.

I feel if one doesn't agree with all the criticism (and by the way, I do aim to improve in all the areas critiqued (i.e. everything!), so I am listening), then one is branded "awkward" or "ungrateful". I've not been rude or unthoughtful or churlish so I don't see a problem. I see no onus on me to say "yes you're all spot on!" when I objectively do not think this is entirely the case and I've worked so hard to cover all my bases.

One problem is that the response has been ranged across all areas of the sitcom; "the characters don't have a voice"; "the plot is aimless"; "there aren't any jokes"; another is that while most people "attack" certain areas, there are the odd one or two comments that completely contradict - some say the dialogue is "too realistic", some say it's just plain bad and ill-thought out... some say there "aren't any jokes, it's more of a drama", others say "the jokes are forced"... very confusing.

The fact is I have specifically worked on all these areas to ensure: Different voices; different mannerisms; dynamism of plot; relaxation of tension in quirky sub-plot; farce-action that gratifies and then transcends expectation; humourous but natural dialogue.

I thought the feedback after the first section was probably the most useful; it seemed to degenerate after that. I mean, there are ways and means of passing comment. Some of the posts have been, I feel, a little insensitively and forcefully put.

I've seen loads of bristly customers on here with sub-mediocre work arguing ten to the dozen about how their work is great. It would be easy to suggest I'm one of them but I don't wish to be lumped into that category - I'm no fool and I think the piece has merits that have been curiously overlooked.

Tuuuuuuuuumble, I think people like an argument which I seem to be supplying and I also think that you'll get more if you post in instalments. And if you call someone an arsehole every now and again you're bound to get a flood of posts in!

...I didn't call anyone an arsehole, by the way, for anyone joining the thread late!!