Admin - Pilot
On Thursday 8th May 2008 GMT at 4:45 PM GMT, jdubya said:
Coming up this Monday a pilot from the pen of BSG member and all-round goodfella David Isaac (Johnny Roulette), will be broadcast on Monday night on BBC Three at 11pm.
I've seen it. It's really good.
There is a trailer on facebook. As soon as I have the link I'll post it.
Come on fellow BSGers, let's all tune in and help him get a series.
Who will be watching?
On Thursday 8th May 2008 GMT at 4:46 PM GMT, zooo said:
Mee!
On Thursday 8th May 2008 GMT at 4:54 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Ditto.
On Thursday 8th May 2008 GMT at 4:56 PM GMT, chipolata said:
I'll watch the last twenty minutes on Monday night, but the first ten cuts across the Fntasy Channel ten-minute freeview.
On Thursday 8th May 2008 GMT at 4:57 PM GMT, Leevil said:
Which ironically one of our others members will be appearing on.
On Thursday 8th May 2008 GMT at 4:58 PM GMT, Tuumble said:
Ooo, I'll have to watch now!
Power to the Peoples Republic of BSG!
On Thursday 8th May 2008 GMT at 5:04 PM GMT, jdubya said:
Here it is.
The title track was written by Sheffield geniuses Little Man Tate just for the show.
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=12596744319&oid=15506345956
On Thursday 8th May 2008 GMT at 6:27 PM GMT, Curt said:
That's awesome wish I could watch.
On Thursday 8th May 2008 GMT at 7:12 PM GMT, EllieJP said:
Oooh I'll watch! 
On Thursday 8th May 2008 GMT at 7:45 PM GMT, hotzappa11 said:
I dont have stupid facebook so it won't let me watch.
On Thursday 8th May 2008 GMT at 8:18 PM GMT, EllieJP said:
Just watch on BBC3 at 11pm on Monday then! 
On Thursday 8th May 2008 GMT at 9:38 PM GMT, M Lewis said:
Quote: hotzappa11 @ May 8 2008, 4:45 PM BSTI dont have stupid facebook so it won't let me watch.
not missing anything - just a rapidly edited trailer.
On Thursday 8th May 2008 GMT at 11:02 PM GMT, Chappers said:
Someone bump this sunday/monday to remind me.
On Friday 9th May 2008 GMT at 1:18 AM GMT, Up4it said:
Quote: hotzappa11 @ May 8 2008, 4:45 PM BSTI dont have stupid facebook so it won't let me watch.
You should be able to watch the clip by using the link that has been posted.
On Friday 9th May 2008 GMT at 2:05 AM GMT, Aaron said:
Only if you have a Facebook account. Which he doesn't, as he said.
On Friday 9th May 2008 GMT at 12:11 PM GMT, swerytd said:
Ooo -- cool! See? Some of us can write! Well done 'Johnny'. Good luck for a series.
Dan
On Friday 9th May 2008 GMT at 1:57 PM GMT, chipolata said:
Quote: swerytd @ May 9 2008, 9:11 AM BSTOoo -- cool! See? Some of us can write!
We should probably watch it before making those kind of sweeping generalisations.
On Friday 9th May 2008 GMT at 3:24 PM GMT, swerytd said:
Oh, I meant "Some of us can write enough to get past the first rejection stage"...
Dan
On Monday 12th May 2008 GMT at 11:58 AM GMT, ContainsNuts said:
Thats fantastic news, I wish my sky + didn't blow-up, but I'll try and watch it on iPlayer. Well done Mr Isaac!
On Monday 12th May 2008 GMT at 12:19 PM GMT, swerytd said:
Good write-up in The Sunday Times' Culture section yesterday -- sounds promising as one of the 'Critic's Choice's.
Nice.
Dan
On Monday 12th May 2008 GMT at 12:49 PM GMT, steve by any other name said:
There seems to be some clips on the prod co website. Laughed out loud at one point. www.channelk.co.uk, I think!
On Monday 12th May 2008 GMT at 2:59 PM GMT, Mark said:
We've published an interview with David here. It's worth checking out I'd say as he gives some interesting and honest insight into what its like to finally break through after much trying...
http://www.comedy.co.uk/guide/tv/admin/interview/
If you want to know more about the show before you watch it tonight (11pm BBC3) have a browse around our guide. We've got character profiles and more in there.
On Monday 12th May 2008 GMT at 3:25 PM GMT, ContainsNuts said:
Great interview, very inspiring. I hope it all goes well and hopefully a few more successes from here to come....
On Monday 12th May 2008 GMT at 4:07 PM GMT, Leevil said:
This is all great and as 'Nuts says, very inspiring.
On Monday 12th May 2008 GMT at 10:10 PM GMT, Ben said:
Oh cool! Last I heard, Johnny was watching the pilot get filmed. I'll be watching this!
On Monday 12th May 2008 GMT at 10:22 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
Well done on this; seven years, hey? Ive still got time then!
On Monday 12th May 2008 GMT at 10:44 PM GMT, Stan Doubt said:
Definitely watching! OTV choice also - quality.
On Monday 12th May 2008 GMT at 11:57 PM GMT, Joeono said:
Well done fella for getting past all the hurdles, good luck with it. I'll be watching.
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 1:54 AM GMT, EllieJP said:
3 mins guys!!!
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 2:42 AM GMT, Aaron said:
Poor. The scruffy kid who pretended to be able to play saxaphone looks like Justin Hawkins. Who's been living in a skip for 7 months.
I sniggered a little when he fell through the door holding the camera phone, and at the idea of Jamie Oliver being beaten up by fat kids. Nothing else.
Nothing likeable about any of the characters, perhaps a bit of sympathy going for Neil Fitzmaurice's by the end. Quite honestly, they could all die tomorrow and I wouldn't feel a thing.
And then there's the casting. What the hell were they thinking? Most of the cast, particularly Justin Hawkins, look no more than about 17 years old, and yet the writing of the characters, and their jobs, suggest that they would be mid-20s at very least.
Shocking.
In comparison, more Placebo, please!
(It is good to see a new writer at least getting a chance though, and nice to see a dedication - if not perhaps misguided - towards sitcoms again.)
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 2:43 AM GMT, jacparov said:
Congratulations to Mr. Isaac, must be a great thrill seeing your name on TV.
I thought it was a little slow to begin with but the laughs started coming about midway through. The office manager was the best part for me (Neil Fitzmaurice?) clearly a fuse ready to blow there. I would of prefered it to of concentrated on him, it seemed a bit patchy trying to introduce everybodys story line at once, but I'm sure that would sort it self out in a series.
Overall, I quite liked it.
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 2:43 AM GMT, M Lewis said:
Agree with Aaron - only positive is it gives hope to all of us!
Half the characters seemed like they were acting for a panto, didn't care about any of them.
The cock on the white board said it all for me - a half hearted attempt at funny (the cock) ruined by the line "it looks like a cock". Couldn't have been more dumb if someone yelled back "oh no it doesn't"
Surprised they chucked in so many plot lines to a pilot when we don't know anyone - someone was pregnant, someone was after a promotion, tramp boy fancied the jazz lover, asian guy pretended he was a lawyer etc, etc - its as though they thought they couldn't introduce a character without giving them a little story of their own.
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 2:45 AM GMT, jacparov said:
Aaron, please don't start on Placebo! That really was dire.
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 2:46 AM GMT, zooo said:
Bums, I forgot to watch. Will it be repeated?
I got caught up with Shooting Stars on Virgin.
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 2:46 AM GMT, David H said:
Only noticed this from looking at the site but cannot argue with Aaron. It was dire. A host of really bland characters nothing separating one from the other.
Wasn't Darrell's squealing ripped straight from Finchy in The Office too?
It was nice to see the guy from Goodness Gracious Me and Rita, Sue And Bob Too back on TV. Not seen him for a while, but again he had nothing to work with.
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 2:48 AM GMT, M Lewis said:
Quote: David H @ May 12 2008, 11:46 PM BSTWasn't Darrell's squealing ripped straight from Finchy in The Office too?
Commbo of finchy, gareth and keith chegwin playing buttons at the Hexagon 1991
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 2:49 AM GMT, Seefacts said:
BBC3 makes me sad.
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 2:53 AM GMT, Badge said:
You mean Johnny Roulette isn't his real name? Bah!
Nice interview, and well done on the pilot David/Johnny. Quite a coup getting Jeff out of Peep Show and the slightly less funny one out of Goodness Gracious Me.
It was pilot-y, as expected. Some bits worked and others didn't. A bit too much of that BBC3-yoof style musical cutting between scenes for my liking, but maybe that's one of the compromises? My favourite bits were dialogue based rather than the grosser "comedy of embarrassment" bits - in fact for me the best line was early on where the careerist woman muttered something like "it's only a theory".
Interesting to see a pilot episode getting made with a lot of characters in it, by the way. It would be interesting to know how much pressure David was under to pare the enemble back a bit. I think there's a lot of general advice as well as discussion on other threads about keeping the number of characters as low as possible, especially for a pilot. For me it might have been easier to get into with one fewer male and female staff, but then again I don't know how their stories are going to progress.
Overall, though, I enjoyed it. It was a cut above last week's pilot in the same slot. On the downside I felt the shadow of "The Office" hanging over it, even though it's clearly aiming for a totally different feel, so hopefully that doesn't scupper its chances.
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 2:54 AM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: M Lewis @ May 12 2008, 11:48 PM BSTkeith chegwin playing buttons at the Hexagon 1991
Quote: Seefacts @ May 12 2008, 11:49 PM BSTBBC3 makes me sad.
These two posts made me laugh much more than the show they are critiquing did.
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 2:56 AM GMT, Quentin said:
I quite enjoyed it! I liked the relationship between Mike and Daryl most and felt most of the funniest bits, for me, came from this. There were a lot of characters to get used to but overall I enjoyed it and hope a series gets made.
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 2:56 AM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: zooo @ May 12 2008, 11:46 PM BSTBums, I forgot to watch. Will it be repeated?
2:15am. If you have a DVD recorder, or even VCR.
It's also on NEXT Monday at 12:15am. Apparently.
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 2:58 AM GMT, Badge said:
Quote: M Lewis @ May 12 2008, 11:43 PM BSTThe cock on the white board said it all for me - a half hearted attempt at funny (the cock) ruined by the line "it looks like a cock". Couldn't have been more dumb if someone yelled back "oh no it doesn't"
Yes, that was one of the weaker bits. Kind of "how to dumb down an un-dumbdownable gag". The cock was okay, the explanation was not.
Quote: M Lewis @ May 12 2008, 11:43 PM BST
Surprised they chucked in so many plot lines to a pilot when we don't know anyone - someone was pregnant, someone was after a promotion, tramp boy fancied the jazz lover, asian guy pretended he was a lawyer etc, etc - its as though they thought they couldn't introduce a character without giving them a little story of their own.
Yes, I think that's what I was trying to say about the number of characters - especially for a pilot. There was a lot going on which made it harder to empathise.
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 3:01 AM GMT, Seefacts said:
Who is this demographic BBC3 are aiming at.
Surely the kind of slack jawed young morons they are making output for don't even watch TV?
e4 is just as bad - though The Inbetweeners actually stands out at being aimed at totally different people.
Dear BBC,
Can we have intelligent comedy with jokes rather than idiots saying things that sounds like jokes, but are actually unimaginative references to wee and tits.
Thanks.
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 3:07 AM GMT, M Lewis said:
its a good point (by seefacts) what is going on? Is this age group 18-25? I was hooked on Friends at that age - do "modern" youngsters need tit/cock/f**k/pussy to get a laugh?
I watch Friends re-runs with my two eldest 8 and 11...they laugh/i laugh - why do we have to narrow humour down to a certain group then aim for the biggest retard in that crowd? whats wrong with just being funny?
I'm not saying we should all watch "family" comedy but if you edited the office for a 10 year old it will still be damm funny (if you get it...my 11 year old loves it!) but you edit modern sitcoms of crude humour and there's nothing left!
There should be a quota on gags that they can use with a sexual reference - not because they arent funny...but because it may force people to look a bit harder for comedy within the writting and not just think..."hmm, cant come up with a killer last line so i'll just chuck in a cock" .
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 3:07 AM GMT, jacparov said:
Quote: Seefacts @ May 13 2008, 12:01 AM BSTWho is this demographic BBC3 are aiming at.
Surely the kind of slack jawed young morons they are making output for don't even watch TV?
e4 is just as bad - though The Inbetweeners actually stands out at being aimed at totally different people.
Dear BBC,
Can we have intelligent comedy with jokes rather than idiots saying things that sounds like jokes, but are actually unimaginative references to wee and tits.
Thanks.
For once I agree with Seefacts, why can't they just concentrate on making something funny rather than to 'fit a demographic' - whatever that is!
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 3:09 AM GMT, zooo said:
Quote: Aaron @ May 12 2008, 11:56 PM BST2:15am. If you have a DVD recorder, or even VCR.
It's also on NEXT Monday at 12:15am. Apparently.
Thanks Azza!
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 3:12 AM GMT, Badge said:
Quote: jacparov @ May 13 2008, 12:07 AM BSTFor once I agree with Seefacts, why can't they just concentrate on making something funny rather than to 'fit a demographic' - whatever that is!
Unfortunately for you/us, BBC3 only exists to serve a demographic - certainly in its re-launched state anyway. I hate all this demographic stuff. Just put on funny programmes and we'll all be happy.
In defence of Admin (a bit) - it wasn't all knobs piss and shit. That was Placebo.
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 3:16 AM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: Badge @ May 13 2008, 12:12 AM BSTI hate all this demographic stuff. Just put on funny programmes and we'll all be happy.
The universe is on the verge of implosion once more, as it appears that Badge and Aaron agree again.
Quote: Badge @ May 13 2008, 12:12 AM BSTIn defence of Admin (a bit) - it wasn't all knobs piss and shit. That was Placebo.
Yeah, thing with Placebo - and indeed Two Pints - is that it didn't try and hide the fact that it used that kind of humour. Shows like this, which allude to cock gags in a kind of "we're doing a knob gag, but cleverly, har har!" manner, are far worse than those that just come right out and are upfront about it. If you're going to do a sex joke, do a bloody sex joke. Don't try and be clever or witty about it. Just come out and do it.
Well, IMO anyway.
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 3:16 AM GMT, jacparov said:
I must of missed the relaunch, what is it called now? Retard TV?
On a plus note, BBC4 is brilliant, great documentary by S Fry on tonight.
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 3:17 AM GMT, Quentin said:
Quote: Seefacts @ May 13 2008, 12:01 AM BSTWho is this demographic BBC3 are aiming at.
I researched this recently for a project and was surprised to find the quoted demographic as 25-34 year olds. I thought it would be more like the 18-25 category suggested earlier. I'm at the lower end of the BBC's suggested demographic and the top end of the one suggested on here. Either way, I enjoyed Admin and would watch again-although I appear to be in the minority!
Now I've looked for the link, I see they claim to be focusing on 16-35 year olds. I think there is a massive difference between a 16 year old and a 35 year old-very broad demographic.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/commissioning/tv/network/channels/bbcthree.shtml
I do however agree that comedy should perhaps concentrate on being funny as opposed to aiming itself to certain age groups.
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 3:24 AM GMT, Badge said:
Quote: Aaron @ May 13 2008, 12:16 AM BSTThe universe is on the verge of implosion once more, as it appears that Badge and Aaron agree again.
Yes, well... there are some universal truths on which it's impossible not to, aren't there? Don't think for a minute I feel happy about it though.
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 3:26 AM GMT, Splodge said:
Mmm, I watched the first ten minutes, found it devoid of real laughs and I switched on to Pappy's Fun Club on Radio 4.
The casting kind of ruined it, they looked like 15 year olds, it made the whole thing unbelievable.
Loosely on the theme of solicitors, Outlaws (the comedy with Phil Daniels) on BBC Three a few years ago was brilliant and it's a shame that BBC Three now look to be moving away from any form of comedy with adults as the main focus, despite the fact that returning shows such as Pulling, Gavin and Stacey and Ideal (their big hitters) aren't child centric, for want of a better phrase.
Also, why do BBC Manchester have such a stranglehold on comedy/BBC Three at the moment?
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 3:27 AM GMT, charlier said:
I did pre-empt a few bits that didn't happen, I would've put money on the "oh, you like jazz... and sax?" to be a smudge on the paper and it really say jizz and sex.. I also guessed the cock joke the second they started using the whiteboard.
The "scene breaks" music seemed totally out of place.
Other than that I liked the falling into the women's toilets with the camera phone..
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 3:29 AM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: Splodge @ May 13 2008, 12:26 AM BSTAlso, why do BBC Manchester have such a stranglehold on comedy/BBC Three at the moment?
Because the north is just as much of a 'target' as 'youth', apparently.
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 3:30 AM GMT, sootyj said:
I guess it must be not so grim up north.
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 3:31 AM GMT, jacparov said:
No sootyj, it's still a shithole.
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 3:33 AM GMT, M Lewis said:
Quote: charlier @ May 13 2008, 12:27 AM BST
Other than that I liked the falling into the women's toilets with the camera phone..
Although its physically impossible to fall through a door that opens inwards unless you are mental and have problems balancing (may have been the case). Be easier to just issue all 17 year olds with Del Boys bar fall and not need to give them this twaddle.
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 6:28 AM GMT, catskillz said:
I've just been to the BBC Three website, and it's left me feeling confused. They say their programmes are only for people aged between 16 to 35 (a group which I am part of, by the way), but they also say the channel is a "laboratory for BBC 1 and 2", i.e. that's the place where they show all their pilots. If both these claims are true, does that mean the BBC have stopped making sitcoms for the over-35s?
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 11:22 AM GMT, M Lewis said:
when did this start? if you take a look at the top US /UK sitcoms from the last 30 years how many where made for a certain demographic? Pretty sure i remember watching Only Fools/Friends/Cheers/Open All Hours etc etc with my family?
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 11:44 AM GMT, JohnnyD said:
I rather enjoyed it. I thought the pregnant girl was very good.
It's good to see such a large (and 'distinguishable') ensemble in a sitcom.
Quote: Aaron @ May 12 2008, 11:42 PM BSTMost of the cast, particularly Justin Hawkins, look no more than about 17 years old, and yet the writing of the characters, and their jobs, suggest that they would be mid-20s at very least.
Give 'em a break. Next, you'll be saying Reg Varney's too old to pull dolly girls.
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 12:35 PM GMT, Stan Doubt said:
I agree. the individual subplots between the characters were good and pulled the show along, with lot of potential for a series. Every show has at least one predictable base joke 'the cock on the whiteboard', and I didn't mind it so much as there was lot of other stuff that was funny by that point.
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 12:37 PM GMT, ContainsNuts said:
Wow, remind me to never announce any work I may get broadcast on here. No punches pulled for a BCGer. I've watched a lot worse and this is his first break. Its obviously a lot funnier than whatever other people are producing.
BTW we are a demographic too, and this may have not been aimed solely at our one.
Mr Isaacs, I know you'll be reading these comments. Remember this is a great achievement and something huge to build on. All the best.
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 12:42 PM GMT, Lee Henman said:
Well I sat down to watch this last night and quite happily made it through to the end without once wanting to put my foot through the screen or firebomb BBC3.
For a pilot, which are notoriously difficult anyway because you do have to 'introduce' the characters, I thought it was well-structured and had a good few decent laughs peppered throughout.
One thing I did think though that the whole thing would've been lifted out of that "Officey" feel if it'd been filmed in front of a live studio audience. The rhythm of the gags felt more studio audiencey to me.
Well done David, here's hoping you get a series to develop this further.
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 12:59 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: M Lewis @ May 13 2008, 8:22 AM BSTwhen did this start? if you take a look at the top US /UK sitcoms from the last 30 years how many where made for a certain demographic? Pretty sure i remember watching Only Fools/Friends/Cheers/Open All Hours etc etc with my family?
Probably fairly recently, in an attempt to draw specific groups in from other channels.
Quote: ContainsNuts @ May 13 2008, 9:37 AM BSTWow, remind me to never announce any work I may get broadcast on here. No punches pulled for a BCGer.
It might hurt initially, but I'm sure that pretty much any writer would rather we were brutally honest than sycophantic. One would hope that our words spur him on to improve his future work.
For me, its biggest problem was casting. There were probably jokes which would have come through far more effectively had they not looked closer to 12 than 30.
Quote: JohnnyD @ May 13 2008, 8:44 AM BSTGive 'em a break. Next, you'll be saying Reg Varney's too old to pull dolly girls.
Why should I? It ruined the whole show. Took any sense of reality out of it. Willing suspension of disbelief and all that, completely gone.
"I don't want anyone staring with disbelief at my willy suspension!"
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 1:05 PM GMT, Sofa Matt said:
I thought that it was better than anything that I've had commissioned. 
I sky+'d it and have just watched it. I read the comments here 1st and wasn't expecting a great deal but was pleasantly surprised.
From a wannabe writer's point of view, I didn't think that it was too far away from the sort of standard that I am able to write, in that it didn't seem overly polished to me.
I think it's main flaw is that the writing certainly doesn't come across as being particularly clever, but equally there wasn't enough cheap nob and piss jokes to keep the masses laughing.
Worth a series I feel though......watch the 1st episodes of Blackadder or OFAH and you wont be laughing that much either.
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 1:09 PM GMT, JohnnyD said:
Quote: Aaron @ May 13 2008, 9:59 AM BST.. had they not looked closer to 12 than 30.
They're Admin staff - as in the title. They file, photocopy, etc.
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 1:10 PM GMT, Stan Doubt said:
Admin people usually are temps in their late teens/early twenties though - I think it would've looked less realistic if they were older.
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 1:11 PM GMT, Seefacts said:
Quote: Sofa_Matt @ May 13 2008, 10:05 AM BST
Worth a series I feel though......watch the 1st episodes of Blackadder or OFAH and you wont be laughing that much either.
Wrong.
What about series 1 of Father Ted, Peep Show etc etc.
It's on the telly - there can be no excuses for it not being really good.
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 1:17 PM GMT, David H said:
I don't think it does any favours to the MA scriptwriting course at Salford Uni when one of its former pupils comes up with this sort of stuff. You can't teach people to be funny.
The teaser set the tone when Neil Fitzmaurice 
said something along the lines of 'We're a professional outfit.' Then of course, unprofessional things occured. This was exactly the sort of thing Gervais and Merchant were trying to avoid when writing 'The Office'. And they were spot on. It's all forced jokes and people trying to be characters when they're nothing of the sort.
The writer mentioned in his interview, terrific that he did one by the way, that the producer thought 'Mike' was flat. Weren't the rest of the characters?
I want all writers to succeed and write funny scripts that we've all enjoyed in the past, but this, like 99.9% of BBC Three's output, is a million miles away.
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 1:18 PM GMT, Sofa Matt said:
Quote: Seefacts @ May 13 2008, 10:11 AM BSTWrong.
What about series 1 of Father Ted, Peep Show etc etc.
It's on the telly - there can be no excuses for it not being really good.
I am only putting forward the argument that those shows now viewed as classic British comedy had to find their feet.
I agree that Father Ted and Peep Show were good straight from the off, but I'm not sure about 'etc etc', dont think I've seen it.
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 1:25 PM GMT, ContainsNuts said:
Quote: Aaron @ May 13 2008, 9:59 AM BST
It might hurt initially, but I'm sure that pretty much any writer would rather we were brutally honest than sycophantic. One would hope that our words spur him on to improve his future work.
For me, its biggest problem was casting. There were probably jokes which would have come through far more effectively had they not looked closer to 12 than 30.
I think any writer would appreciate honesty, yes, but when you have spent how ever many months/years he did on this, was built up by and interviewed by this site, for such a major occasion, I'm sure he would of hoped for a less harshness. I've seen some crap on the critique forum and its usually always dealt with sympathetically. This is usually quite a supportive community.
Also, when we've had people like Andrew Collins, the actors from sitcoms etc we seem to always be respectful. Its in everyone's interest to have more writers and such on these forums. If we are going to be so brutal, we won't. Of course you should say if you didn't like it but when its one of our own, there is no harm in being more tactful.
Quote: Seefacts @ May 13 2008, 10:11 AM BST
It's on the telly - there can be no excuses for it not being really good.
Sorry, I thought you were working on a tv project? Surely you know then that TV is a test bed just like anything else and that, therefore, not every thing can be 'really good'. Also 'really good' is a subjective term, it can never be universal so the argument seems flawed.
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 1:45 PM GMT, JohnnyD said:
Quote: Seefacts @ May 13 2008, 10:11 AM BSTIt's on the telly - there can be no excuses for it not being really good.
Who needs excuses? This was good. I spent an enjoyable half-hour in the company of some believeable characters. (And I watched 'Admin'.)
It's unrealistic to expect the schedules to be filled with 'really good' stuff, with good not being good enough.
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 2:04 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: JohnnyD @ May 13 2008, 10:09 AM BSTThey're Admin staff - as in the title. They file, photocopy, etc.
So? They don't need to look middle aged. They just need to appear to have actually left school. Even then, quite simply, the way that the characters came across was much older than their visual appearance.
Quote: ContainsNuts @ May 13 2008, 10:25 AM BSTOf course you should say if you didn't like it but when its one of our own, there is no harm in being more tactful.
That might be valid in terms of normal critiquing, but once a writer's work is broadast - pilot or not - then it's in the public domain and becomes public property. Once a show is made, it leaves that "one of us" realm and becomes open to just as much criticism or praise as Two Pints, The Young Ones, Dad's Army, Tittybangbang, Fawlty Towers, and so on. I'd have been just as harsh had my own brother written it.
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 2:05 PM GMT, Ben said:
What will be the next step for this show?
How do the BBC decide whether to commission a whole series? Viewing figures? Critic's reaction?
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 2:10 PM GMT, EllieJP said:
Lets hope they don't read this then.
As an impartial non judgemental viewer...I laughed... although it took me a while to get into it...and I saw the cock gag "cumming" a mile off. The characters - although there are a lot -were okay and you could get to know them after watching a couple of times. As others have said themselves, they remember the person and the stigma attached it i.e Pregnant blonde, so obviously something sunk in.
Lets hope the BBC give it a chance and we can see for ourselves some success for some of the writers on here.
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 2:34 PM GMT, ContainsNuts said:
Quote: Aaron @ May 13 2008, 11:04 AM BSTThat might be valid in terms of normal critiquing, but once a writer's work is broadast - pilot or not - then it's in the public domain and becomes public property. Once a show is made, it leaves that "one of us" realm and becomes open to just as much criticism or praise as Two Pints, The Young Ones, Dad's Army, Tittybangbang, Fawlty Towers, and so on. I'd have been just as harsh had my own brother written it.
Wow, I'm surprised and disappointed in that. I thought there would be a bit more support for the people who contributed to your website. Especially as this was built up as 'one of our own members' on the front page. I'll certainly keep quiet about anything I do in the future.
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 2:37 PM GMT, Seefacts said:
Well, giving back slaps all round is just as damaging and very patronising.
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 2:38 PM GMT, sootyj said:
Critique must always be honest, or it is instantly invalid. You can choose to say nothing, but you should never choose to be actively dishonest.
Frankly in the unlikely chance that a BBC comissioner should chance upon this site, what would they make of us if there was nothing by sycophantic praise?
I saw a bit of it yesterday, and it was ok, quite funny, but not brilliant.
A perfectly functional BBC3 sitcom, with some slightly school boyish crudity. I prefer I deal, but it's better than Placebo.
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 2:51 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: ContainsNuts @ May 13 2008, 11:34 AM BSTWow, I'm surprised and disappointed in that. I thought there would be a bit more support for the people who contributed to your website. Especially as this was built up as 'one of our own members' on the front page. I'll certainly keep quiet about anything I do in the future.
What it may or may not say on the front page is down to Mark.
Quite simply, I love comedy. Sitcoms especially. So when I see something I don't like, I'm not going to hold back in my criticism of it. Who wrote it, and however well I might know or be familiar with them, is entirely inconsequential. I'm sure he's a perfectly nice chap and has come up with good stuff. But Admin was just plain poor.
Quote: Seefacts @ May 13 2008, 11:37 AM BSTWell, giving back slaps all round is just as damaging and very patronising.
Totally agree.
Quote: sootyj @ May 13 2008, 11:38 AM BSTCritique must always be honest, or it is instantly invalid. You can choose to say nothing, but you should never choose to be actively dishonest.
Frankly in the unlikely chance that a BBC comissioner should chance upon this site, what would they make of us if there was nothing by sycophantic praise?
Also totally agree. Although I should add that such people DO visit the site and DO read what we say. Our no-holds-barred critiquing is what makes it worth their while to visit.
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 2:53 PM GMT, manchester's trendy chorlton said:
But Aaron, don't you think there is merit to approaching the giving of criticism in a slightly more tactful way? People are more likely to listen to criticism when it is well thought out and even in it's tone.
Especially given that some of criticism that has been posted on here has actually come across as being a little spiteful, perhaps indiciating a case of sour grapes/jealousy?
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 2:55 PM GMT, ContainsNuts said:
Quote: Seefacts @ May 13 2008, 11:37 AM BSTWell, giving back slaps all round is just as damaging and very patronising.
Guys, I'm a bit surprised that you think there are two extremes: brutal honesty and sycophantic. Like you either have to be one or the other. You can be completely honest but not as harsh.
I thought we were proud to have a community of writers here, how discouraging is that when your respectful peers shoot you down. Just cos he's got something on tv doesn't mean he is a different person now.
Seefacts, your own story has been pretty inspiring but I can see people being put off telling there ones if they think we don't give a shit about them once they get somewhere.
Also isn't it good to have writers on board to speak to the comedy fans, any respect for that? Or do we not give a shit about anyone on here?
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 2:59 PM GMT, Aaron said:
[quote name="manchester's trendy chorlton" post="154773" date="May 13 2008, 11:53 AM BST"]But Aaron, don't you think there is merit to approaching the giving of criticism in a slightly more tactful way?[/quiet]
That's true, but then haven't we been tactful? I highlighted a couple of points which did make me laugh, and equally pointed out what I particularly didn't like about the show, and I think everyone else did the same. No one's said that the writer should hang himself in shame. If you think that that people have been too harsh, then I would suggest that your more favourable opinion of the show may be creating a bias towards it.
Quote: manchester's trendy chorlton @ May 13 2008, 11:53 AM BSTEspecially given that some of criticism that has been posted on here has actually come across as being a little spiteful, perhaps indiciating a case of sour grapes/jealousy?
I can't really comment here, but I wouldn't have thought that what people have said is spiteful.
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 3:02 PM GMT, Griff said:
Well, on one hand, yes, writers working in the public domain need to get a thick skin and not care about what a bunch of muppets on a website say.
On the other, well, surely there's a middle ground between "not giving patronising back slaps" and some of the comments that have been posted in this thread.
It seems a bit thankless when the writer has taken some time to give us the insider perspective, especially when we can be certain he will be reading our feedback. I guess that's the last time he'll make the effort to write any further pieces for us. Although the way some people choose to express themselves says more about them than the subject they are addressing, so he might not be too bothered. Anyway, he now has a TV commission after seven years of hard work, so I shouldn't think he gives a toss what we think. Good for him.
I never saw Admin by the way.
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 3:05 PM GMT, Seefacts said:
Quote: ContainsNuts @ May 13 2008, 11:55 AM BSTGuys, I'm a bit surprised that you think there are two extremes: brutal honesty and sycophantic. Like you either have to be one or the other. You can be completely honest but not as harsh.
I thought we were proud to have a community of writers here, how discouraging is that when your respectful peers shoot you down. Just cos he's got something on tv doesn't mean he is a different person now.
Seefacts, your own story has been pretty inspiring but I can see people being put off telling there ones if they think we don't give a shit about them once they get somewhere.
Also isn't it good to have writers on board to speak to the comedy fans, any respect for that? Or do we not give a shit about anyone on here?
Well it's certainly a difficult position to be in.
From my own story - I've taken time to keep people up to date and everyone has been great and interested, and hopefully it's acted as a proof new writers can break through and also I've given tips and guidance which I hope have helped BUT when my big sitcom break does come (which I believe it will) what happens if you all think it's shit (you won't, mind
)?I've been an active board member for a while, and hopefully a recognisable poster but I don't expect any work I write to get ritually sucked off by others just because people have been interested in what I've got to say.
It wouldn't upset me either, as I know I'd be proud of my work and more importantly I'm confidence enough to think anything I write is good.
It's hard to balance. There are posters on here who I've enjoyed reading their thoughts and insights and stories, but when I read their stuff in critique it doesn't do much for me. That's life. I still like reading their posts though.
The fact that Admin has got a universal panning is an extreme I think. Normally every show gets mixed reaction on boards due to the cross-section of people on here. But when it comes down to it, it wasn't very good and there's not a lot else that you can say. Sometimes in life, things aren't very good - that's the way of the world.
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 3:06 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: ContainsNuts @ May 13 2008, 11:55 AM BSTGuys, I'm a bit surprised that you think there are two extremes: brutal honesty and sycophantic. Like you either have to be one or the other. You can be completely honest but not as harsh.
In comparison to what they might be thinking about the show, I'm sure some people HAVE restrained themselves.
Quote: ContainsNuts @ May 13 2008, 11:55 AM BSTI thought we were proud to have a community of writers here, how discouraging is that when your respectful peers shoot you down. Just cos he's got something on tv doesn't mean he is a different person now.
No, that's correct, but in order to get to this point I'm sure he's more than used to his work being criticised. And no one, as far as I saw, has made a personal insult. There haven't been pleas for him to hang himself in shame. The show is what's been criticised, and if it's deemed to be good enough to be made and broadcast, then it should expect to be attacked by those who dislike it.
Quote: ContainsNuts @ May 13 2008, 11:55 AM BSTSeefacts, your own story has been pretty inspiring but I can see people being put off telling there ones if they think we don't give a shit about them once they get somewhere.
I don't think that there's anything but respect for someone who's actually managed to get their show that far. But again, the show has been criticised and not the writer personally. We shouldn't hold back just to spare feelings. If Susan Nickson was openly and actively a member, would people be more positive about Two Pints? I highly doubt it. Again, your more favourable view of Admin seems to be leading you to judge negative comments as being more harsh than otherwise.
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 3:06 PM GMT, Seefacts said:
Quote: Griff @ May 13 2008, 12:02 PM BST
On the other, well, surely there's a middle ground between "not giving patronising back slaps" and some of the comments that have been posted in this thread.
It seems a bit thankless when the writer has taken some time to give us the insider perspective, especially when we can be certain he will be reading our feedback. I guess that's the last time he'll make the effort to write any further pieces for us. Although the way some people choose to express themselves says more about them than the subject they are addressing, so he might not be too bothered. Anyway, he now has a TV commission after seven years of hard work, so I shouldn't think he gives a toss what we think. Good for him.
Yeah, I doubt he does give a toss. I wouldn't.
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 3:08 PM GMT, ContainsNuts said:
Quote: manchester's trendy chorlton @ May 13 2008, 11:53 AM BSTBut Aaron, don't you think there is merit to approaching the giving of criticism in a slightly more tactful way? People are more likely to listen to criticism when it is well thought out and even in it's tone.
Especially given that some of criticism that has been posted on here has actually come across as being a little spiteful, perhaps indiciating a case of sour grapes/jealousy?
I agree, and also this for a guy who has taken time out to contribute to this website and would have formed some 'limited' relationships here. I've celebrated quite a few people's success on here, I would be pretty disappointed if those people then went for me with knives if I didn't pull something off.
I'm not just saying this for David, but for other posters here. He's like a lot of us, trying his best in life, we know that because he shares his time with us. I think that deserves a bit more respect over a complete stranger.
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 3:11 PM GMT, zooo said:
Quote: Seefacts @ May 13 2008, 12:05 PM BSTThe fact that Admin has got a universal panning is an extreme I think.
I don't think it has, to be honest. A lot of people seemed to like it.
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 3:12 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Catch it on iPlayer, zooo! I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on it.
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 3:22 PM GMT, ContainsNuts said:
Quote: Aaron @ May 13 2008, 12:06 PM BSTAgain, your more favourable view of Admin seems to be leading you to judge negative comments as being more harsh than otherwise.
Well that's wrong because I haven't given a favourable view of the show at all, in fact I haven't given any yet. I have a favourable view that someone on here made a break through and deserved less bluntness. You can read what people have posted to see what I mean.
Yeah, Seefacts, you've put in a lot of effort to keeping us up to date, you didn't need to do that but in return I know if I think its shit I will be constructive about it. In fact your quote below sums up how you can be completely respectful but saying what you really think:
Quote: Seefacts @ May 13 2008, 12:05 PM BST
The fact that Admin has got a universal panning is an extreme I think. Normally every show gets mixed reaction on boards due to the cross-section of people on here. But when it comes down to it, it wasn't very good and there's not a lot else that you can say. Sometimes in life, things aren't very good - that's the way of the world.
So fair play. It wasn't my cup of tea either BTW, but I'll add that I wish a fellow BCGer luck with it and future work.
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 3:27 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: ContainsNuts @ May 13 2008, 12:22 PM BSTWell that's wrong because I haven't given a favourable view of the show at all, in fact I haven't given any yet. I have a favourable view that someone on here made a break through and deserved less bluntness. You can read what people have posted to see what I mean.
Ok, fair enough. I still think that people have been pretty fair in comparison to what they could have said, but I suppose we'll have to disagree.
Either way, the one thing I think everyone has agreed on is that it's good to see a new writer given a chance, and best of luck in future.
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 3:35 PM GMT, hotzappa11 said:
Sorry to say but I didn't really enjoy it. A couple of moments where I chuckled but that was it. I thought Jessica Hall's performance as the pregnant girl stood out above the rest of the cast though. But it's good see someone having success.
By the way, does anyone know or David himself whether he sent the script to Channel K through their website at all? Because I see they allow submissions.
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 5:05 PM GMT, M Lewis said:
Quote: Seefacts @ May 13 2008, 11:37 AM BSTWell, giving back slaps all round is just as damaging and very patronising.
You don't go in the critique forum much do you
Maybe some of the responses are born of frustration rather than jealousy - i know i was dying for this to be good. If it had been it would have been clear proof that there is a way into TV for us "nobodies"...so i had high hopes - which where dashed because it was poor. I also have an issue with this current trend for childish adult humour in TV so i was doubly gutted that this was full of that too.
Had it been good i'd have been happy to have liked it.
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 5:32 PM GMT, Stylo said:
Firstly, well done David for getting a pilot made! A HUGE congratulations (you must be walking on air right now).
Secondly, the pilot did have a few teething problems (as others have pointed out) but the bottom line is that it has an array of interesting characters, and certainly potential for future episodes.
How many sitcom pilots have been fantastic? Not many; most series take a couple of episodes to warm up. I hope the Beeb gives our David a chance to explore these characters further.
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 6:48 PM GMT, David H said:
What people on here criticise is the script. When somebody comes on here and says they've had a commission we're all delighted for them. It's great news. But you're judged on your work.
You see David Renwick in one corner of the room and Susan Nickson in the other, what springs to mind? Their work.
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 7:06 PM GMT, JohnnyD said:
Quote: David H @ May 13 2008, 3:48 PM BSTWhat people on here criticise is the script.
And the BBC Commissioning Priorities.
And the Casting.
And the 'MA scriptwriting course at Salford Uni'.
And some other stuff (probably).
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 9:14 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
Why are people upset that theres been some bad reviews about this show on here? Just because hes a member doesnt mean anyone should lie, or pretend; if they dont like it then thay dont like it; it would be a bit pathetic if people tip toed around. I havent watched it yet, so dont know if its any good or not, but if I dont end up liking it then I should be able to say so; why shouldnt I? I dont see any bitterness on this thread, or any overly spiteful remarks; no more so then what people hand out to any other show they dont like, so to call it jealosy is just plain wrong.
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 9:27 PM GMT, oldcowgrazing said:
I watched it online last night and whilst it's not ground breaking stuff I found some of it amusing. I would certainly like to see a series made and see the characters develop.
Also I must be well fick cos most people on this thread said they saw the cock joke a mile off. Well I didn't. But you're right, they didn't need the "that looks like a cock" comment because the drawing told us that. Less is more etc.
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 9:51 PM GMT, ContainsNuts said:
Quote: Matthew Stott @ May 13 2008, 6:14 PM BSTWhy are people upset that theres been some bad reviews about this show on here? Just because hes a member doesnt mean anyone should lie, or pretend; if they dont like it then thay dont like it; it would be a bit pathetic if people tip toed around. I havent watched it yet, so dont know if its any good or not, but if I dont end up liking it then I should be able to say so; why shouldnt I? I dont see any bitterness on this thread, or any overly spiteful remarks; no more so then what people hand out to any other show they dont like, so to call it jealosy is just plain wrong.
Can you please read this thread properly before saying 'Just because hes a member doesnt mean anyone should lie, or pretend', no one said you should lie or pretend, I've said a few times that you should be as honest as you like. People are missing the point.
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 10:00 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
Quote: ContainsNuts @ May 13 2008, 6:51 PM BSTCan you please read this thread properly before saying 'Just because hes a member doesnt mean anyone should lie, or pretend', no one said you should lie or pretend, I've said a few times that you should be as honest as you like. People are missing the point.
I read it properly, people were saying others shouldnt tell it like they saw it, but to water it down because hes a member and we should be supportive. If you say people should be honest, then that means, um, being hones doesnt it? Which means that if someone thinks its shit, they can say 'I thought it was shit'. No one on here is under any obligation to water that down to spare a members feelings. So there.
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 10:16 PM GMT, Charly said:
Who's a member? I wasnt listening.
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 10:47 PM GMT, manchester's trendy chorlton said:
Mathew, what ContainsNuts meant was that people should give balanced critiques, rather than vague and broad smackdowns. If you haven't been in a formal creative environment you might find that difficult to comprehend. In all honesty, much of the criticism on here does seem quite knee-jerk and ill considered.
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 10:50 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: manchester's trendy chorlton @ May 13 2008, 7:47 PM BSTIn all honesty, much of the criticism on here does seem quite knee-jerk and ill considered.
Not that that's ever happened around here before.
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 10:53 PM GMT, ContainsNuts said:
Quote: Matthew Stott @ May 13 2008, 7:00 PM BSTI read it properly, people were saying others shouldnt tell it like they saw it, but to water it down because hes a member and we should be supportive. If you say people should be honest, then that means, um, being hones doesnt it? Which means that if someone thinks its shit, they can say 'I thought it was shit'. No one on here is under any obligation to water that down to spare a members feelings. So there.
Yeah well I'm glad I don't know you in real life if you go around telling people they are shit. I was just saying we could be a little more respectful to someone in our group. Saying something is plain shit is just disrespectful, its beyond what you need to say to a person who is part of this crowd. What's wrong with 'not funny'. I thought a writer would appreciate a little kindness from others, I was wrong about some people here. In fact I was wrong about here - full stop.
Quote: manchester's trendy chorlton @ May 13 2008, 7:47 PM BSTMathew, what ContainsNuts meant was that people should give balanced critiques, rather than vague and broad smackdowns. If you haven't been in a formal creative environment you might find that difficult to comprehend. In all honesty, much of the criticism on here does seem quite knee-jerk and ill considered.
That's the thing, he is a creative and done some good stuff, I thought people saying so would mean something.
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 10:55 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: ContainsNuts @ May 13 2008, 7:53 PM BSTSaying something is plain shit is just disrespectful, its beyond what you need to say to a person who is part of this crowd. What's wrong with 'not funny'.
So again, if Susan Nickson was a member...?
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 10:57 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
Quote: manchester's trendy chorlton @ May 13 2008, 7:47 PM BSTMathew If you haven't been in a formal creative environment you might find that difficult to comprehend.
Dont insult me please. Im not bad mouthing Admin, I havnt even watched the sodding thing yet, just saying that people have every right to say what they like about whatever they like.
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 10:57 PM GMT, swerytd said:
'Nuts wasn't saying we should like it just cos he's a member: he was suggesting we say we didn't like it in a more polite fashion, as some of the earlier opinions seemed a bit curt, that's all. And I think he makes a fair (and IMO good) point.
Just watched Admin now and genuinely enjoyed it. Admittedly it's not the best comedy ever or anything like that, but it was likeable enough. I liked the characters (maybe a couple of them do indeed ham it up a bit and didn't really see the point of the 'Head of Admin' woman) and would certainly watch a series involving them.
I read everything anybody said above and have to admit I wasn't looking forward to it as much as before I started reading but was pleasantly surprised after watching it. It engaged me and made me laugh. 'Mike' was well acted and did indeed appear a 'man on the edge'. There was a lot to get in and, personally, thought that the Asif strand (with his Dad and his Dad's mate) should probably have been a storyline in its own right in a different episode. But hey ho.
So, I think, a series would be welcome and should be given time to develop. And well done David.
Incidentally, I noticed it was 'Written AND Created By David Isaacs', which I believe harks back to a previous discussion somewhere around here.
EDIT: After a bit more thought, just put yourself in his position (admittedly a very lucky one). He's been trying to get stuff produced for seven years, probably written other stuff and may even have been surprised they picked up on this one (I know I was surprised at which sketches have been commissioned given the choices). Add to that that the script that got a thumbs-up, has since been rewritten and rewritten on the advice of (numerous) producer(s), it may very well not be anything like the original script. (I'd certainly be surprised if he started with that many characters in a half-hour show!). And with all due respect to David, I don't think he has the clout to say 'We're not doing it like that!' when something suggested and probably gone along with the flow. He'll have more control with the later stuff and it will no doubt improve as he learns his craft. Good luck to him, is what I say.
Dan
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 11:02 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
Quote: ContainsNuts @ May 13 2008, 7:53 PM BSTYeah well I'm glad I don't know you in real life if you go around telling people they are shit. Saying something is plain shit is just disrespectful, its beyond what you need to say to a person who is part of this crowd. What's wrong with 'not funny'. I thought a writer would appreciate a little kindness from others, I was wrong about some people here. In fact I was wrong about here - full stop.
Oh calm down, for gods sake. I dont go round telling people theyre shit, and I havent said that Admin is shit, that was just a sweeping sentance to get across the fact that people can say whatever the hell they like!! What is so weird about that?? Not everyone on here is a writer, and even if they are they dont have to be kind if they dont want to. I would never post 'It was shit' if I knew the writer was a member, Im not a c**t, but Im saying that anyone else has the right to if they want to.
Quote: swerytd @ May 13 2008, 7:57 PM BST'Nuts wasn't saying we should like it just cos he's a member: he was suggesting we say we didn't like it in a more polite fashion, as some of the earlier opinions seemed a bit curt, that's all. And I think he makes a fair (and IMO good) point.
And I agree, but thats not to say I think everyone else has to do that, its up to whoever posts to make up their own minds about how they post.
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 11:05 PM GMT, ContainsNuts said:
Quote: Matthew Stott @ May 13 2008, 8:02 PM BST
And I agree, but thats not to say I think everyone else has to do that, its up to whoever posts to make up their own minds about how they post.
Well I don't get your point. No one was questioning anyone's rights to post what they want. We were just saying there should be a bit of respect for a fellow member just like we show each other here (sometimes).
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 11:08 PM GMT, swerytd said:
Quote: Matthew Stott @ May 13 2008, 8:02 PM BST
And I agree, but thats not to say I think everyone else has to do that, its up to whoever posts to make up their own minds about how they post.
Well, to some extent I agree. ie. it's up to the poster but I personally think posts should be put politely regardless of whether we're talking about a writer we know or don't know. Or whatever we're talking about, in fact. Unless it's the 'Abuse Other Posters' thread
Dan
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 11:13 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
Quote: ContainsNuts @ May 13 2008, 8:05 PM BSTWell I don't get your point. No one was questioning anyone's rights to post what they want. We were just sticking up for a fellow member.
My point is that , well, people can say what they like; its not a difficult one. I didnt understand why there was such a kerfuffle over the fact that there had been some damning reviews and said so; then you and whoever the other one was jumped on my back about it!
People have the right to be nasty about a TV programme! And stick up for the writer all you like, and well done on him getting his show onto TV, and I look forward to watching it on the Iplayer thingy, but if people want to slag it off then they can. I dont know why Im having to defend myself here!! I havent even watched it!Quote: swerytd @ May 13 2008, 8:08 PM BSTWell, to some extent I agree. ie. it's up to the poster but I personally think posts should be put politely regardless of whether we're talking about a writer we know or don't know. Or whatever we're talking about, in fact. Unless it's the 'Abuse Other Posters' thread
Dan
Agreed, and I dont think Ive ever been overly rude, but if others want to, well, up to them. Itd be nice if they didnt, but if they want to, go right ahead.
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 11:18 PM GMT, ContainsNuts said:
Having the right to post what you want doesn't make it right to do so in all situations. Thats what we are saying. I got your point about anyone can post what they want - its rather obvious, so the fact you are saying it suggests you support the just say what you want attitude which I think is quite harmful.
My message is an extension of 'have respect for others on the forum' that's all. You come across as saying 'treat people how you like' which we are debating about.
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 11:19 PM GMT, swerytd said:
Quote: Matthew Stott @ May 13 2008, 8:13 PM BST
Agreed, and I dont think Ive ever been overly rude, but if others want to, well, up to them. Itd be nice if they didnt, but if they want to, go right ahead.
No, I didn't mean you Matt. Sorry if it came across like that. I meant everyone generally. And world peace and all that...
Dan
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 11:25 PM GMT, Paul W said:
Ok, I've just finished watching it - First of all David congrats on getting the commission, we have had our tiffs but I still have a great respect for anyone who can get a commission and really put the time into their work.
But I found the sitcom very mediocre. I thought it was very so so. I would love to see this being developed into a full series, because frankly there is some great potential here and I think something funny can be made of this but things need to be tweaked and changed around.
The characters Darrel and Tanya were my "favourite" and least annoying the rest seemed to be unfunny chavs or "straight men".
I felt it was also a bit all over the shop in places and a lot of unnecessarily needing dialogue and scenes - for instance, the scene where they discussed Kenny being "good at filing", it seemed a pointless scene to me a "filler scene".
But to sum up, I got a few giggles and I hope the characters are developed a bit (and possibly a few actors changed) and I feel this could make a good show.
And one more thing before I sign off, CN would you please stop taking this the wrong way, this is a community, and I have been caught on both sides of the fence with things like this, I've written some terrible stuff in my time, which has been slated but I don't let it get me down and neither should you. It's opinion, I think Aaron was a bit blunt, but he can be that blunt if he wants.
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 11:32 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
Quote: ContainsNuts @ May 13 2008, 8:18 PM BSTHaving the right to post what you want doesn't make it right to do so in all situations. Thats what we are saying. I got your point about anyone can post what they want - its rather obvious, so the fact you are saying it suggests you support the just say what you want attitude which I think is quite harmful.
Why is it harmful though? Im sure the writer doesnt care, at least not in this case-hes on TV!
Have you stuck up for all the writers of shows who arent members whove been called every name under the sun on here?Yes its an obvious point to say people can post what they like; obvious because its true. Im not a rude person, or generally blunt in my views, but I dont see anything wrong with others being. Anyway, I dont want to go any further with this, its pointless and distracting from what the threads supposed to be about. This is an internet forum, or message board (Or whatever you call it) Unless you put strict rules in place, people are going to be rude about TV programmes, so get a thick skin.
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 11:32 PM GMT, ContainsNuts said:
Who is getting who the wrong way? everyone is telling me that people can post what they like. I never said they couldn't! I suggested a small token of support for a fellow member. What a crime I'm committing.
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 11:35 PM GMT, ContainsNuts said:
Quote: Matthew Stott @ May 13 2008, 8:32 PM BSTWhy is it harmful though? Im sure the writer doesnt care, at least not in this case-hes on TV!
OK that's it for me. Its my own fault if I haven't got my point across but if you think that's what I'm doing then we've gone 20 steps backwards. No worries, I stop trying to make the same point.
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 11:38 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Right. Let's change the track slightly. Which bits of which posts did you feel weren't as tactful as you'd have liked?
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 11:39 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
Quote: ContainsNuts @ May 13 2008, 8:35 PM BSTOK that's it for me. Its my own fault if I haven't got my point across but if you think that's what I'm doing then we've gone 20 steps backwards. No worries, I stop trying to make the same point.
Got your point, just felt others had a right to behave as badly as they like. If saying 'I thought this was rubbish' is now classed as behaving badly that is. Anyway, looking forward to watching Admin.
And good luck with the show in general, whether or not I end up liking it, I hope it gets a series as its nice to see members making it!
On Tuesday 13th May 2008 GMT at 11:44 PM GMT, ContainsNuts said:
Quote: Aaron @ May 13 2008, 8:38 PM BSTRight. Let's change the track slightly. Which bits of which posts did you feel weren't as tactful as you'd have liked?
I'm happy to put in a new CD completely Aaron, I've lost enough time and people (it seems) in this.
On Wednesday 14th May 2008 GMT at 12:28 AM GMT, manchester's trendy chorlton said:
Re The Pilot:
for me, the tone was a little uneven. It was as if the writer was caught in two minds - whether to go for something pretty sophisticated, or something fairly broad. the show suffered as a result in my opinion. How much this might have had to do with interference from above, I don't know.
There were too many characters, and as a result I think the show struggled to get across exactly what it might have been aiming for. The character of Asif was funny, but I don't think that the pilot episode was the right time to give him a story to himself. Ditto the pregnancy plot.
On the positive side, I think the character of Darryl (the suck-up admin guy?) was very well realised. Clearly, there were nods towards Gareth Keenan, Dwight Shrute, Hank Kingsely - but I don't think it came across as being too derivative. The actor really owned it as well, fair play to him.
I found the almost non-stop upbeat bland-indie soundtrack to be an unwelcome addition. Seriously, the writer should have put his foot down over that - it had producer-note written all over it.
Basically, I think that this is never going to change the face of sitcom, but deserves a series to see where it can go.
Just to add, and again an issue with bbc3 producers, i think they were aiming to hit too many demographics with this. Let it be itself, and the appropriate people will watch it.
On Wednesday 14th May 2008 GMT at 1:59 AM GMT, M Lewis said:
Quote: manchester's trendy chorlton @ May 13 2008, 9:28 PM BSTClearly, there were nods towards Gareth Keenan, Dwight Shrute
If only. That's like saying Ann Widdicomb is a nod towards Eva Longoria!
A review i found (not good in case you cant be bothered to read it)
http://www.thelondonpaper.com/cs/Satellite/london/tv/article/1157151716221?packedargs=suffix%3DArticleController
On Wednesday 14th May 2008 GMT at 2:17 AM GMT, Aaron said:
Grrrr. I hate the way people keep calling Tittybangbang 'Titty Titty Bang Bang'. 
On Wednesday 14th May 2008 GMT at 2:18 AM GMT, jacparov said:
Ouch! They didn't like it did they! It wasn't all that bad, not good mind, but not THAT bad. I think a good show could be made of it. Although I'm getting to the point where I hope the BBC actually stop trying to make comedy anymore, they really are crap at it. (Except for NGO, which I love.)
On Wednesday 14th May 2008 GMT at 3:08 AM GMT, Joeono said:
Overall I liked it, good but not great, but has the potential to be great IMO. I'd rather watch this than an episode of Two Pints. The relationship between Daryl and Mike was a highlight for me, also liked the joke about the guy lying about being able to play the sax to impress the girl. I did think some of the characters looked a bit young to begin with though but having worked in this type of environment I think the ages are about right and I think the writer made it clear that this wasn't his initial intention and has been tailored to suit the bbc3 audience which I suppose is fair enough. If I was presented with the choice of altering something slightly and getting it made or sticking to my guns and it being left on the shelf collecting dust, I'd make some changes as well.
I'd like to see it get a series as it seems to have promise to me and I think that sitcoms need to be given a chance to 'bed in' before they can get into their stride and become something really good. This doesn't mean they should get away with being shit, they should still be funny ofcourse, and I think this was. People and TV execs having short attention spans and little patience with things is something that I really despair of, I think people should give things a good crack of the whip before writing it off.
Low spots for me was the pregnancy story, don't remember anything funny hapening with this, although I liked the character of the pregnant girl. The guy who plays Daryl just looks funny to me and is played well, so this is a good bit of casting and the guy that plays Mike is always good so this is a good foundation. As has been mentioned, the musical interludes did not fit the show at all for me and if I was the writer I'd try and knock this on the head as soon as I could if it got to a series.
All in all, good effort and well done to the writer... think we can count on him reading this. As I writer I can understand and sympathise completely with the process of being criticised. I always think that the best criticism is put in a tactful and respectful way and also for it to be constructive. Being harshly criticised can sometimes make you want to hunt down the perpertrator like a dog and burn down his house, but this passes...eventually...and after a restaining order. What we all have to remember I think is that everybody is entitled to their opinion, and that it is just that, an opinion, it is up to you whether you listen to it and take heed, or ignore and tell them to go and f**k themselves.
Apologies for the long post...just some thoughts.
On Wednesday 14th May 2008 GMT at 12:03 PM GMT, Sofa Matt said:
Quote: manchester's trendy chorlton @ May 13 2008, 9:28 PM BSTRe The Pilot:
for me, the tone was a little uneven. It was as if the writer was caught in two minds - whether to go for something pretty sophisticated, or something fairly broad. the show suffered as a result in my opinion. How much this might have had to do with interference from above, I don't know.
There were too many characters, and as a result I think the show struggled to get across exactly what it might have been aiming for. The character of Asif was funny, but I don't think that the pilot episode was the right time to give him a story to himself. Ditto the pregnancy plot.
On the positive side, I think the character of Darryl (the suck-up admin guy?) was very well realised. Clearly, there were nods towards Gareth Keenan, Dwight Shrute, Hank Kingsely - but I don't think it came across as being too derivative. The actor really owned it as well, fair play to him.
I found the almost non-stop upbeat bland-indie soundtrack to be an unwelcome addition. Seriously, the writer should have put his foot down over that - it had producer-note written all over it.
Basically, I think that this is never going to change the face of sitcom, but deserves a series to see where it can go.
Just to add, and again an issue with bbc3 producers, i think they were aiming to hit too many demographics with this. Let it be itself, and the appropriate people will watch it.
This is IMO is the most accurate and fairest review in this thread.
In a bout of laziness I echo and agree with it's contents entirely. Nuff said.
On Wednesday 14th May 2008 GMT at 12:24 PM GMT, Marc P said:
I think it suffered because it was a traditional studio based sitcom filmed single camera. And I don't think it had a high enough gag rate. The conceit of the Office allowed that - but this didn't have the same 'mockumentary' device. Both technical issues that someone somewhere should have known.
But well done on David getting it made - and I might be wrong but I do feel there were probably too many chiefs on the show which diluted his comic vision of what it should be.
On Wednesday 14th May 2008 GMT at 12:41 PM GMT, Nigel Kelly said:
Quote: Sofa_Matt @ May 14 2008, 9:03 AM BSTThis is IMO is the most accurate and fairest review in this thread.
In a bout of laziness I echo and agree with it's contents entirely. Nuff said.
I'm even lazier and will agree with you 100 per cent.
On Wednesday 14th May 2008 GMT at 12:57 PM GMT, chipolata said:
Quote: manchester's trendy chorlton @ May 13 2008, 9:28 PM BSTRe The Pilot:
for me, the tone was a little uneven. It was as if the writer was caught in two minds - whether to go for something pretty sophisticated, or something fairly broad. the show suffered as a result in my opinion. How much this might have had to do with interference from above, I don't know.
There were too many characters, and as a result I think the show struggled to get across exactly what it might have been aiming for. The character of Asif was funny, but I don't think that the pilot episode was the right time to give him a story to himself. Ditto the pregnancy plot.
On the positive side, I think the character of Darryl (the suck-up admin guy?) was very well realised. Clearly, there were nods towards Gareth Keenan, Dwight Shrute, Hank Kingsely - but I don't think it came across as being too derivative. The actor really owned it as well, fair play to him.
I found the almost non-stop upbeat bland-indie soundtrack to be an unwelcome addition. Seriously, the writer should have put his foot down over that - it had producer-note written all over it.
Basically, I think that this is never going to change the face of sitcom, but deserves a series to see where it can go.
Just to add, and again an issue with bbc3 producers, i think they were aiming to hit too many demographics with this. Let it be itself, and the appropriate people will watch it.
Although I usually hate to agree with MTC because it feeds his monstrous ego, this is a fair summation of the show.
Generally, I think the criticism has been pretty fair and not nearly as vitriolic as it could have been. And to be honest, to succeed as a writer you need thick skin otherwise you're in the wrong profession.
On Wednesday 14th May 2008 GMT at 2:04 PM GMT, manchester's trendy chorlton said:
I agree with Nigel and SofaMatt.
On Wednesday 14th May 2008 GMT at 4:20 PM GMT, steve by any other name said:
I managed to catch it on BBC i player this morning. Whilst I would agree with some of the comments on this thread, particularily regarding the age of some of the cast, which I think only applied to Kenny, who seemed way too young to be getting interest from the admin woman and to believe that a solicitor would be interested in him, even if she ultimately wasn't, I actually enjoyed it. Apologies for the length of that sentence.
I would judge it against the same criteria as I would any comedy, ie did it make me laugh, yes.
Not brilliant but not at all bad, I'd rather watch more of Admin than After You're Gone or whatever that poorly concieved show is called. I can't believe that a painter and decorator can ever have afforded to buy that enormous house and then not have to sell it when he got divorced. Nor that he wouldn't have redecorated it in his time there.
I hope we get to see more of it.
On Wednesday 14th May 2008 GMT at 4:25 PM GMT, jdubya said:
I liked it.
I can't believe the amount of jealousy which seems to inform a lot of the comments on this thread.
Some of you should be ashamed of yourselves.
On Wednesday 14th May 2008 GMT at 4:29 PM GMT, oldcowgrazing said:
I don't think jealousy is the reason for the criticisms.
On Wednesday 14th May 2008 GMT at 4:30 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
Quote: jdubya @ May 14 2008, 1:25 PM BSTI liked it.
I can't believe the amount of jealousy which seems to inform a lot of the comments on this thread.
Some of you should be ashamed of yourselves.
Having watched it I think a lot of the comments were fair. It was ok, with some promise, but it wasnt anything amazing. Theres room for improvement if it goes to a series, so good luck to the writer and I hope he gets that call! Where is the jealosy? That some people didnt like it?? I think most of the reviews have been quite level headed and fair.
On Wednesday 14th May 2008 GMT at 5:03 PM GMT, jdubya said:
I don't have a problem with things being criticised at all. I was just surprised at how downright nasty a lot of them came across as.
that's all.
On Wednesday 14th May 2008 GMT at 5:13 PM GMT, M Lewis said:
Quote: jdubya @ May 14 2008, 2:03 PM BSTI was just surprised at how downright nasty a lot of them came across as.
No one is being deliberately nasty but 99.9% of people on here dont know the writer from Adam and have no idea how much of the finished piece is even down to him...so there's no reason to pansy around the bush with comments....if it sucked it sucked. This is the Internet, not a village church tea tasting.
As has been said already...no one holds back on 2 pints and placebo and similar crap, why is this any different?
And as for jealousy...jealous of what? I'd be surprised if anyone here watched the show and read the reviews and now feels jealous....personally i find it encouraging that stuff a long way south of decent gets on TV because it means its only a matter of time for me
On Wednesday 14th May 2008 GMT at 5:38 PM GMT, oldcowgrazing said:
Quote: M Lewis @ May 14 2008, 2:13 PM BST...personally i find it encouraging that stuff a long way south of decent gets on TV because it means its only a matter of time for me
Mm hm..be sure to let us know when your sitcom gets broadcasted.
On Wednesday 14th May 2008 GMT at 8:01 PM GMT, M Lewis said:
Quote: oldcowgrazing @ May 14 2008, 2:38 PM BSTMm hm..be sure to let us know when your sitcom gets broadcasted.
some chance - buy a Radio Times, i'm not your mother.
On Wednesday 14th May 2008 GMT at 8:06 PM GMT, Griff said:
Will the Radio Times still be going by then ?
On Wednesday 14th May 2008 GMT at 8:10 PM GMT, Seefacts said:
Quote: Griff @ May 14 2008, 5:06 PM BSTWill the Radio Times still be going by then ?
"First issue 28 September 1923"
Hardly a flash in the pan publication, is it?
On Wednesday 14th May 2008 GMT at 8:13 PM GMT, Griff said:
Yes Seefacts. Well spotted. That was kind of the point. I was teasing Mr.Lewis by suggesting that it will be so long before his sitcom gets on the telly that even a venerable magazine like RT might have ceased publication. If he had told us to look in London Lite the same quip might not have been so hilarious.
On Wednesday 14th May 2008 GMT at 9:43 PM GMT, M Lewis said:
Quote: Griff @ May 14 2008, 5:13 PM BSTYes Seefacts. Well spotted. That was kind of the point. I was teasing Mr.Lewis.
"teasing" .... what next? Kiss chase?
On Wednesday 14th May 2008 GMT at 9:47 PM GMT, Griff said:
Everything's machismo with you, isn't it. How's that writing coming on, anyway ? When can we expect the good news ?
On Wednesday 14th May 2008 GMT at 10:02 PM GMT, M Lewis said:
Have to admit....i pondered long hard before going with machismo. Sarcasm with a laborious explanation of why it was funny was my plan B.
What good news?
On Wednesday 14th May 2008 GMT at 10:10 PM GMT, Griff said:
Well any good news really. But I suppose I was angling for some kind of writing success story.
QuoteSarcasm with a laborious explanation of why it was funny was my plan B.
Ah, but without the laborious explanation, it wouldn't have come across as quite so sarcastic. Gosh, there I go again.
On Wednesday 14th May 2008 GMT at 10:31 PM GMT, M Lewis said:
Quote: Griff @ May 14 2008, 7:10 PM BSTWell any good news really. But I suppose I was angling for some kind of writing success story.
Closed a couple of big sales this week.
As for writing, i would write under my real name and try not to cross pollute....last thing i want is to be on the BAFTA red carpet and get asked what i thought of the accusation that i appear machismo when conversing on websites!
On Wednesday 14th May 2008 GMT at 10:52 PM GMT, Griff said:
QuoteAs for writing, i would write under my real name
So "M Lewis" is a pseudonym ? Cunning.
On Wednesday 14th May 2008 GMT at 11:16 PM GMT, manchester's trendy chorlton said:
'Closed a couple of big sales'
Classic M Lewis post. Top.
On Wednesday 14th May 2008 GMT at 11:27 PM GMT, M Lewis said:
Quote: manchester's trendy chorlton @ May 14 2008, 8:16 PM BST'Closed a couple of big sales'
Classic M Lewis post. Top.
It was that or the story of my test drive in an M5 (The M5 story starts better but goes quickly down hill when the uncomfortable sports seat option causes my braces to rub on my shoulders)
BOT - Just noticed an Admin thread on Digital Spy .... seems hardly anybody has seen it - i wonder how they decide what to do with a pilot when they stick it on late at night with no promo and, therefore, get little feedback? (interesting the guy on DS that did see it loved it....although their forums tend to focus on whether Chantelle & Charley have been spotted in town so i dont know if thats good or bad!)
On Wednesday 14th May 2008 GMT at 11:33 PM GMT, garyd said:
Quote: M Lewis @ May 14 2008, 8:27 PM BSTIt was that or the story of my test drive in an M5 (The M5 story starts better but goes quickly down hill when the uncomfortable sports seat option causes my braces to rub on my shoulders)
Are you Jeremy Clarkson?!
On Wednesday 14th May 2008 GMT at 11:35 PM GMT, zooo said:
Hee.
Did anyone see the pics of him in bright green shoes?
On Wednesday 14th May 2008 GMT at 11:37 PM GMT, M Lewis said:
Quote: garyd @ May 14 2008, 8:33 PM BSTAre you Jeremy Clarkson?!
He's an argumentative, opinionated tosser who just talks crap to get a reaction.
On Wednesday 14th May 2008 GMT at 11:38 PM GMT, garyd said:
Quote: M Lewis @ May 14 2008, 8:37 PM BSTHe's an argumentative, opinionated tosser who just talks crap to get a reaction.
As I said...
On Thursday 15th May 2008 GMT at 12:14 AM GMT, M Lewis said:
Quote: garyd @ May 14 2008, 8:38 PM BSTAs I said...
When you're ready to do gags on your own let me know, happy to carry on helping out till you find your feet though.
On Thursday 15th May 2008 GMT at 12:27 AM GMT, Griff said:
Maybe you should share some of your great gags with us, show us how it's done ?
On Thursday 15th May 2008 GMT at 12:33 AM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: Griff @ May 14 2008, 5:13 PM BSTIf he had told us to look in London Lite the same quip might not have been so hilarious.
On Thursday 15th May 2008 GMT at 12:34 AM GMT, M Lewis said:
No gags from me, not funny enough.
On Thursday 15th May 2008 GMT at 12:34 AM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: M Lewis @ May 14 2008, 8:37 PM BSTHe's an argumentative, opinionated tosser who just talks crap to get a reaction.
He's a legend!
On Thursday 15th May 2008 GMT at 12:35 AM GMT, M Lewis said:
Quote: Aaron @ May 14 2008, 9:34 PM BSTHe's a legend!
As i said.
On Thursday 15th May 2008 GMT at 12:35 AM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: Griff @ May 14 2008, 9:27 PM BSTMaybe you should share some of your great gags with us, show us how it's done ?
This is getting bitchy now.
Let's get back to Admin.
Bad, weren't it?
On Thursday 15th May 2008 GMT at 12:41 AM GMT, Griff said:
QuoteThis is getting bitchy now.
Only now ? But fair point, I will leave it. I'm just interested to see M Lewis's material since he is so scathing about everyone's efforts on here.
Anyway I never saw Admin and I don't suppose I will now.
On Thursday 15th May 2008 GMT at 12:43 AM GMT, Seefacts said:
Quote: Griff @ May 14 2008, 9:41 PM BST
Fair point. I'm just interested to see M Lewis's material since he is so scathing about everyone's efforts on here. But I will leave it.
At the risk of sounding like a dad stepping in at school. I've read M Lewis's pilot, and it VERY funny.
On Thursday 15th May 2008 GMT at 12:50 AM GMT, Griff said:
I'm even more intrigued to read it now.
On Thursday 15th May 2008 GMT at 12:51 AM GMT, Seefacts said:
Quote: Griff @ May 14 2008, 9:50 PM BSTI'm even more intrigued to read it now.
Maybe if you be nice, he might let you.
On Thursday 15th May 2008 GMT at 12:52 AM GMT, Griff said:
It's worth considering.
On Thursday 15th May 2008 GMT at 1:09 AM GMT, catskillz said:
I haven't seen it all yet, so I can't really comment.
One thing I would like to know, is how long the script was, i.e. how many pages.
On Thursday 15th May 2008 GMT at 1:10 AM GMT, jacparov said:
Quote: Seefacts @ May 14 2008, 9:43 PM BSTAt the risk of sounding like a dad stepping in at school. I've read M Lewis's pilot, and it VERY funny.
Thats maybe but does it have any knob jokes, or if you're Placebo no jokes and just knobs?
On Thursday 15th May 2008 GMT at 1:42 AM GMT, alison2345 said:
I enjoyed it.
On Thursday 15th May 2008 GMT at 1:46 AM GMT, hotzappa11 said:
I'd like to read it. That's M Lewis's script if possible.
On Thursday 15th May 2008 GMT at 2:02 AM GMT, M Lewis said:
Quote: Seefacts @ May 14 2008, 9:43 PM BSTAt the risk of sounding like a dad stepping in at school.
If i get some papers sorted out will you adopt me?
On Thursday 15th May 2008 GMT at 2:05 AM GMT, Seefacts said:
Quote: M Lewis @ May 14 2008, 11:02 PM BSTIf i get some papers sorted out will you adopt me?
Yeeeeeeeeeah.
I can tousle your hair and call you 'champ'.
On Thursday 15th May 2008 GMT at 2:10 AM GMT, M Lewis said:
ok....although i'm 6ft6 with a grade 2 so not sure how practical that will be? You could teach me to play spoons?
On Thursday 15th May 2008 GMT at 2:12 AM GMT, Seefacts said:
Quote: M Lewis @ May 14 2008, 11:10 PM BSTok....although i'm 6ft6 with a grade 2 so not sure how practical that will be? You could teach me to play spoons?
Well I'm 5 foot 7 with a grade 1 . . . Piano that is.
On Thursday 15th May 2008 GMT at 2:15 AM GMT, M Lewis said:
I am learning piano with my kids....we could be like the guys in Big (bagsy i'm tom hanks)
On Thursday 15th May 2008 GMT at 2:22 AM GMT, oldcowgrazing said:
I want to learn to play the trombone.
On Thursday 15th May 2008 GMT at 2:25 AM GMT, jacparov said:
Quote: oldcowgrazing @ May 14 2008, 11:22 PM BSTI want to learn to play the trombone.
Has someone been watching Young Musician of the Year?
On Thursday 15th May 2008 GMT at 2:28 AM GMT, Seefacts said:
Quote: M Lewis @ May 14 2008, 11:15 PM BSTI am learning piano with my kids....we could be like the guys in Big (bagsy i'm tom hanks)
Ace.
I've been learning for a few years now. It's quite hard.
Big?! Are you learning on a massive piano you play with your feet then? THat's cheating.
On Thursday 15th May 2008 GMT at 2:32 AM GMT, M Lewis said:
At 34 my 12 year old is starting to catch up with my (limited) talents - i'm thinking of doing her fingers Baker Boys stylee...that'll teach the cocky little shit.
On Thursday 15th May 2008 GMT at 3:11 AM GMT, Aaron said:
One day, she'll stumble across this page, see what you've written, and do you in with a sledgehammer to the face.
On Thursday 15th May 2008 GMT at 3:15 AM GMT, Griff said:
That's where his pseudonym comes in handy.
On Thursday 15th May 2008 GMT at 3:42 AM GMT, Aaron said:
I bet it does.
On Saturday 24th May 2008 GMT at 2:38 PM GMT, Tim Walker said:
Quote: jdubya @ May 14 2008, 1:25 PM BSTI liked it.
I can't believe the amount of jealousy which seems to inform a lot of the comments on this thread.
Some of you should be ashamed of yourselves.
I don't see any comments which you can assume are motivated by jealousy. It's a simple fact that most people, including myself, found it poor. Congratulations to the writer for getting to pilot stage. It was a promising premise which wasn't fulfilled. Whether or not a series would show a dramatic improvement, who knows? (Personally, without a major bout of re-casting, re-styling and improved jokes, I doubt it.)
I'm in agreement with opinion that, whether you're a member or not, on your works ye will be judged. Producers are ruthlessly honest to those of us that write and that is deemed acceptable. I don't think anyone is making it a personal issue, which would be the only reason to take issue.
And if and when I get one of my scripts to pilot stage (and this was a broadcast, not non-broadcast pilot - so no excuses) I will expect it to be judged as to whether or not it is credible and funny. Why would anyone want or expect anything other than members' honest opinion?
On Tuesday 27th May 2008 GMT at 8:50 PM GMT, Bam said:
I haven't seen this but having read the posts I'm glad I'm not the only person in the world not on facebook!