Paramount comedy channel look like they are accepting short video submissions for their site/channel. I don't know if this has been mentioned before but I hope it's useful.
Paramount comedy channel
Cheers for that, ShoePie
I'd been aware of it but they weren't set up when I first checked them out.
Have you and Matthew tried Trouble TV (Sky 201 - TV:Homegrown) and YourkindaTV (Sky) as they both accept video subs.
Was amazed you and Matthew didn't get on to Comedy Shuffle, btw. The weird thing was for a six-episode run they selected just six Comedy Soup entries. These were all animations despite the fact that there is a seperate animation competition running. It seems amazingly skewed to that particular genre. There are some superb Comedy Soup non-animation videos on the site, that none of them were worthy of inclusion beggars belief.
I have noticed that the various competition winners are all invariably excellent productions (in quality and technical terms) but often aren't the funniest (or even funny). To stand a chance, it seems you have to have access to some serious kit.
Judge: It didn't make me laugh but ... Wow! What a cross-fade. We have a winner.
Have just heard about the Homegrown show, they sent a message to my myspace site, asking if I was interested; noticed youve all ready featured in at least one episode SlagA! Well done!
Hadnt heard about the Yourkindatv one though, so thanks for the heads up.
The Paramount one I did know about, from an ad on the channel itslef. Ive tried to submit stuff, but so far have heard nothing, and I havent seen any other new vids appear on the site yet.
As for the comedy soup thing, I wasnt really surprised as my stuff is very poorly shot, I think some bits of some of my vids are even out of focus! I agree that they seem only to have picked entries that were of a high technical standard to start with, even though there was mention of re-shooting sketches if needed. Didnt realise they were all animations either. I was surprised about how few they seem to have taken forward as well, one in each episode? Very poor.
p.s. Im assuming Im the Matthew youre referring to in your message SlagA! If not then Ill be looking a bit of a tit right now.
p.p.s oh, and bad luck on not getting picked for the shuffle show yourself, the judges are fools I tell you! Fools!!!
Yes, you're THE Matthew.
Personally, I was gutted re: Shuffle. IMO, there's a small core of very good Comedy Soup contributors that need (nay, deserve) a chance to shine on the glorious Beeb. In an interview I was asked to name some UK grassroots sketch producers that were rising stars. You and Anna Black were mentioned. I hadn't been introduced to ShoePie back then or he'd have had a mention too, as he's a highlight of the Beeb group, too.
P.S. I haven't meant to offend any other SitComers who film their own sketches but if you are a sketch maker and haven't let me know (despite my frequent undignified begs for you to come forward) I can't mention you.
Another thing about the Shuffle competition: Did you notice that some of the winners were over the 60-second time limit? There's a french word for it ... what is it, now? ... ah, I remember - Merde.
Quote: SlagA @ January 25, 2007, 6:48 PMIn an interview I was asked to name some UK grassroots sketch producers that were rising stars. You and Anna Black were mentioned.
Why thank you! I really like Annas stuff too, and have no idea how she makes so many?! Oh, and ive just submitted a couple of things to the mykindatv thing for Sky, so thanks.
I should really try and film some more stuff, and try and produce them better too, but it takes time and effort to do each and Im a very lazy person! Ive just finished writing a few episodes of a HELLO GEOFF CLINGE series, ten minute monologue things in a MARION AND GEOFF mould, and Im going to film the first episode to go along with the scripts when I send them out; Ill post it on the web somewhere. You got any more videos in the pipeline SlagA?
Yep, we need to get another batch out for podcasts and TV. You're not alone. Our production techniques also need to step up a level, too, if we want to make certain people (who can't see beyond the 'form' to the content) take notice. I'm referring here to a hardcore of very good writers (that I one day aspire to join) that seem to be overlooked time and again. For example, I am amazed that 'Bowie Sack' can be overlooked when more technical (and decidedly less funny) productions made the selection.
We film and edit in as high a quality as possible (DVD standard) but when it's converted to the file size and frame size restrictions imposed by YouTube and other outlets, they look crappy and pixelated. Other videos on the same sites look very good tho, so I need to a) work out what they're doing or if they aren't doing anything different to us b) work out how they're frigging the system.
SlagA You could try saving you stuff as a multipass divx they chomp sizes down amazingly. I dunno you might be already doing that.
Sorry to join your big boy conversation (slagA and Matthew) But I will be filming some stuff soon as a friend will be buying some professional gear (DVD recorder/editing software) in the next week or so (he needs a portfolio for directing) and he sees me as the "funny guy who can write and be funny" so you may be seeing some sketches/general antics from me soon enough... were working on a mockumentry of my college first though.
And SlagA I have watched a various amount of your videos and although they’re not professional they are watchable (in that they are good enough not to annoy me) and for youtube its not bad at all.
Really want to get my finger out cause I see you guys with all this and all I'm doing is scratching my arse writing a sitcom, which is questionable at best (the sitcom not my arse scratching).
Thanks for including me in that list of super soupers slagA!
Yeah slagA your stuff always seems to be fairly well lit and have clear sound. As does Mathews. I think your sketches were funnier than a lot of the clips shown. I enjoyed the Jimmy Carr episode but I was disapointed they went with a lot of well known internet clips. They're were good but everyone's seen them before so it's not exactly new talent.
Do you think recording in 4:3 instead of widescreen was/is an issue?
After watching Comedy Shuffle I realised my sketches would have really looked out of place quality-wise on that show. Which is why I'm spending more time on my next sketch. But I find there's a balance between quality and output. I could spend ages on animations but I'd never finish them so for now I don't mind rendering my animations in glorious crappo-vision.
The Pie
Gavin - excellent suggestion. I'll now surf to find out more about divx.
ShoePie - You're a definite highlight amongst the Comedy Soup-ers, short, sweet and funny. You know when to stop recording (in the animation equivalent of that term) and that ability to self-edit is a crucial component to comedy. Getting in to a sketch / short and back out at the right points. I've still to master it. The frustrating part about a certain competition was (as Matthew suggests) that they offered to help re-filming where needed, implying that picture / audio quality wasn't going to be an issue. That not a single sketch submission involving actors was selected, indicates to the contrary.
Paul - filming your work is the way to go. Several reasons but the primary one being, it's easier to tempt a producer to pop a DVD into a PC than it is to get them to sit still with a 45-50 page script. Even The Office had to go this route to secure a commission. I think, especially with unusual or ground-breaking ideas, it's easier to help a script-reader 'see' the end result in his / her mind with images. It shouldn't be the case, as they are script-"readers" and the script should create that image but it has become an 'instant-NOW' generation and they want the shortcut to the goods not take the leisurely path of reading. Most of our filmed sketches are characters and snippets from scenes taken from a planned sitcom / sketch show hybrid (or bastardisation, depending on POV) called "Birth School Work Death."
Out of interest SLAGA, do you actually see yourself as a writer, or writer/performer? Are you writing with one hopeful eye on appearing in the final product, or is the filming just a fun sideline and a way to help get your material noticed?
Definitely writer as opposed to writer/performer. It literally is a case of making a 'product' with the best materials available to us - which is not a great amount as you can tell. Although often I 'know' how a line should be delivered, I haven't the ability to deliver it that way. I need access to some decent actors who can take multi-parts.
Where are you on the spectrum?
Definitely a writer. I think I can perform to some small degree, at the very least I dont think Im completely awful in the little bits of filming Ive done, but Ill always think of myself as a writer and am certainly not sending scripts off with any thoughts of my appearing in them. Having said that, I do quite enjoy the performing and think that whatever happens in the future regarding my scripts, Ill carry on putting little bits of audio and film on the internet. Ive also always liked the idea of being a part of a sketch troupe, like The League Of Gentlemen, but anyway, to answer the question properly, Ive always seen myself as a writer. But then arent most comedy writers frustrated performers? They wish they were up there getting the laughs, but dont have the talent/nerve/opportunity/guts to do so. So Im a writer who wishes he could perform. But cant. so. Right. This has gabbled on a bit. The end.
I love all aspects of the comedy process, the writing is easier if you perform it as you can deliver the line as you intended and acting can be fun as well for the first reason alone and its generally a laugh.
Couldn’t agree more SlagA put in the producers shoes I would much rather sit back and watch a sketch/sitcom rather than sit with a script.
I'd be proud to call myself a writer/performer but more along the lines of Steven Merchant performer not a massive role but enough to keep my acting ego happy.