Having watched most of this series I would have to say that I must eat my words.

I didn't like the first episode much and that may have been for two reasons. Possibly as it was written as a pilot or else the "look" of the thing (lighting, sets, inserts etc.)

However as it developed I found myself enjoying it more each week. I have continued to struggle with the "look" but have really enjoyed the script, storylines and cast.

Now on the humble pie diet and would murder for a curry!

It takes a big man to fill size 44 trousers.

Quote: SlagA @ November 10, 2006, 7:39 PM

I have to admit that i found the extended interview a bit demoralising. It only reinforced the impression that to get ahead in the biz, you have to already have links in the biz.

For example: The situation where Avalon fund Lee Mack to write a sitcom, the end result of which is a series of unrelated gags, so they then have to call in Andrew Collins (a true gentleman for giving us on the lower rung his time btw) to give it structure and character. Why are avalon funding an initial script that is totally deficient in the basic dramatic component of all sitcoms - character? Even newbies know that character and their interactions / reactions drive humour and plot. To me this screams another example of 'names' getting opportunities that other perhaps more talented writers are missing out on.

View original

I hope it didn't come across as me getting a job because of who I knew! You would not believe the amount of meetings I've had about projects at the BBC and elsewhere that came to nothing. Occasionally they reached pilot script stage, which meant I was paid for my troubles, but often these would involve just brainstorming sessions, for which one is not paid. Before Grass came along (an opportunity that only arose because I'd worked on soaps for the best part of five years, don't forget), I'd begun to think that I'd never get anything original off the ground. It's a bloody hard slog getting on to the carousel.

Also, part of Avalon's "development" of the sitcom was getting another writer in. Lee is a highly experienced stand-up, but had never written narrative comedy before, hence the need for another writer. Avalon spent that development money with no idea that it would lead to a commission. That's the gamble, isn't it, which production companies have to take. Of course it's going to be more of a gamble getting a less experienced writer on board.

This doesn't make it any easier for those on the "lower rung", as you put it. But look at it this way: there has never been so much comedy on TV. So many channels. So much more opportunity. You've never had it so good. I don't consider myself talented, but I am a hard worker and that counts for a lot. It's grim to think that you have to work for nothing to break into TV, but it's worth it, if that's what you really want to do.

At first glance I thought i'd find it annoying, but some of the jokes made me laugh quite alot and i quite liked the last episode best, although was that a monty python esk bit i saw at the very end (with the fish?)

With reference to the extended interview, which I enjoyed, I think something that stood out was that the foundations for Andrew's current success seemed to be laid back in the late 1980's. It has obviously taken 2 decades of hard work to get to this point. I didn't read it and think that he had been offered the writing gig because of who he knew, and I'm pretty sure that that wasn't what was being implied in a previous posting.

One of the things that frustrates me most about this business, as an outsider trying to break in, is that there is no set way of doing it. (Or if anyone knows one, please share the sectet.) It's not like being a teacher or an accountant. There is a huge reliance on being in the right place at the right time with the right knowledge and experience. I had my third feature screenplay optioned by a producer and after 18 months of re writes he had a meeting with, I think, Working Title to discuss their coming on board. Unfortunately, the meeting was scheduled for the 11th September 2001 and was cancelled while he was on the train from Edinburgh to London. And that was that. He tried for another couple of years to resurrect the project but to no avail.

I'm not even sure where I was heading with that, but I guess all one can ever do is keep writing, honing our craft in the hope that, one day, the geeky kid who used to sit next to you in maths gets the job of head of comedy at the BBC. And hope that he remembers how funny you always were. And not the time you pulled his chair out as he was about to sit down and he ended up in casualty in need of three stitches in his head.

Bloody terrorists!

Cheers for that Andrew. You're a top guy for responding.

As 'Steve by any other name' suggests my comments were aimed at the early stage of the project, prior to your involvement, not your particular experience at breaking through. Few people appreciate how much effort goes into writing, especially in character development. You're a deserved success, and I appreciate your hard work (and your undisputed talent, sir. Add humble to your list of likeable characteristics :-). My writing partner, SlagB, is an NGOut fan.

What is frustrating for me is that initial funding surely came through LM's name and not his experience because he was equally inexperienced and untested (in the narrative field) as the vast army of wannabe writers. They took a risk with LM and no pilot script but they could have taken a similar risk with an untried writer and a pilot script that demonstrated character development skills. It seems to indicate where they prefer to put their faith. I have a fear TV is believing its own hype re: the celebrity midas touch.

Leaving NGOut aside, there are several comedies on the screen that i think would have been rejected at the first stage if those same pilots had been written by newbies, and not certain 'names'.

Yep, The Slagg Brothers are serious about comedy and we'll do what's needed to break through.

Quote: SlagA @ November 12, 2006, 12:07 PM

What is frustrating for me is that initial funding surely came through LM's name and not his experience because he was equally inexperienced and untested. They took a risk with LM and no pilot script but they could have taken a similar risk with an untried writer and a pilot script that demonstrated character development skills.

View original

Fair enough, but with respect, if you were a stand-up comedian who'd been working his arse off touring for years, gradually improving and making a name for himself, you'd be pretty cross if a TV network or production company wasn't prepared to put a project of yours into development. Don't forget, Lee had starred in and co-written The Sketch Show, which was on ITV and won a Bafta and transferred to the US. His time was right.

Yes, Lee Mack is a great stand-up.

Quote: Andrew Collins @ November 12, 2006, 12:53 PM

Fair enough, but with respect, if you were a stand-up comedian who'd been working his arse off touring for years, gradually improving and making a name for himself, you'd be pretty cross if a TV network or production company wasn't prepared to put a project of yours into development. Don't forget, Lee had starred in and co-written The Sketch Show, which was on ITV and won a Bafta and transferred to the US. His time was right.

View original

Certainly a good point. Would you think that the prod. co had expected to be hiring someone else in to write with Lee though, but they just weren't aware as to how far said writer (obviously yourself) would have to go?

you all miss the obvious. becks may be a great footie player but does it give him the right to expect a managers job? should amount of effort in one area give autamatic right in another area? is there a level playing field when ability is ignored in favourt of who you are?

Agreed. Being a good stand up doesn't necessarily mean you will make a good sitcom writer - they are completely different disciplines. A good recent example of this is Dogtown. I haven't seen their live act, but I'm told that Live!Girls! are good performers. However, they are unable to write a TV show as Dogtown so painfully demonstrated.

Quote: The Rude Baron @ November 13, 2006, 10:43 AM

you all miss the obvious. becks may be a great footie player but does it give him the right to expect a managers job? should amount of effort in one area give autamatic right in another area? is there a level playing field when ability is ignored in favourt of who you are?

View original

It's a fact of life though isn't it. It's not isolated to the world of script writing or the world of Football. Comedians who work the circuit are going to meet the right people because of the job they do. They're networking all the time, whether that's their intention or not. Footballers are in the world of Football. Roy Keane has had no management experience yet he walked straight into a "top" management job at Sunderland. He's a recognised figure, who's going to put bums on seats, at least for a short while. If Ginger Jesus had applied and got that job, would have been uproar. And you can extrapolate this to just about every work place in the country. A friend gets someone a job, someone whos knows someone gets them a promotion, even though there are more suitable people who've applied.

There's no definitive answer. There isn't a set of rules you can follow thats going to gaurantee anything.I guess all people can do is just keep plugging away, writing quality, and maybe someone someday.....

Am I coming across as negative? Blame women.

I agree with Ginger Jesus - networking (and lots of it) is key. There's someone out there who probably wants your script but you won't know who till you know a lot of people.

I don't see the problem with Lee Mack either: a) he can clearly write some funny lines and b) he has an established fan base plus a well-known name to boot which is going to bring viewers to the program. You can't blame Avalon for picking him over someone who may be able to write equally funny jokes but isn't (yet) as well known.

That does lead to a bit of a catch 22 (i.e. how do you become a big name if you can't get a commission because you're not a big name) - that's where the hard work and all that networking comes in!

It's not impossible - whilst I can't divulge names or details I know of at least 3 people on our writers directory who have got their scripts optioned in the last few months but are keeping quiet about it.

Anyway we're getting a bit off topic: the TV - a closed shop? thread Wheeler started is probably a better place for all this discussion.

I hope that BSG will interview the 3 actors of NOT GOING OUT.

Let's draw a line under this and say: NGO is proof that TV isn't a closed shop. BBC1 were prepared to take a risk on Lee by giving him his own Friday night sitcom. Think how much safer it would be for them to commmision, say, a spin-off of Only Fools And Horses? Or order up another episode of The Royle Family? Meanwhile, BBC3 is awash with sitcoms that don't have "star" names in them, and are written by relatively new writers. I feel the pain of anyone who feels it is a closed shop, and that it's not what you know but who you know, but bad writers wouldn't last five minutes in TV. You might be able to get your first break by who you know, but it would be your last job if you were no good at it. When I worked on EastEnders, I saw writers far more experienced than me taken off an episode because they were taking too long to reach a decent draft. Ability (as I hesitate to use the word talent) will out.