Get a room you two!

Quote: evan rubivellian @ June 21 2011, 8:12 PM BST

Get a room you two!

View original

I've read 8 so far (picked at random). None of them have got a YES and only one has a MAYBE. Hoping for better things later.

I've been going through them in reverse alphabetical order and have only got this far before bedtime has caught up with me. These reviews were written in the reverse order they appear here. I'll do the rest as soon as I can. Remember, despite my "title" in regards the Sitcom Trials, my votes have no bigger influence or importance than anyone else's.

My votes:

BROKEN RECORDS.doc - Just people standing round talking in a record shop, no action, not funny. Then someone comes in and does a robbery which still manages to have no action in. NO

Caroline R.I.pdf - All reported action. People at a funeral describing things that the dead person did isn't interesting to watch, or promising for the future of the sitcom. NO

Checkpoint Dave - Sitcom Trials.pdf - Very funny dialogue, very very silly. YES

Cometh the Padre.pdf - After Rev, the Vicar of Dibley & Father Ted, this has its work cut out to impress. It doesn't. Coarse, wordy, not very funny. NO

dead healthy.pdf - Gets stuck into the action quickly with some good dialogue. Not a great ending. MAYBE

ENVIROMENTLY FRIENDLY 2011.pdf - Misspelling your own title isn't a good start. Then two guys walk around talking, occasionally stabbing litter with a fork. Nothing funny happens. NO

FOUR IN A GYM.pdf - Unless I missed something this is literally just four people in a gym talking & talking. Unless they get off the treadmill it's not going anywhere. NO

God Complex - Joe Deacon and Tom Guy.pdf - Somewhere between Bedazzled & Old Harry's Game, it's got some very well written dialogue and a lot of promise. YES

hardcow.pdf - It's all reported action, two people sitting round talking, but it's got spark & the characters stand out. Could work. MAYBE

Highway to Hell sitcom trial Beadles Baby Hand 3rd draft.doc - Nice premise, but then they just sit around talking & I can't tell the two leads apart. NO

Keith Lymingstone-Brown.pdf - Good fun, good premise, good dialogue, gets into the action quick, could work very well. YES

Lightning by John Gradwell.pdf - Love the dialogue, sparky & inventive. Also fast moving which makes this a bit short, with no real ending. MAYBE

Living With Danger.pdf - Entering as writer-performers, the showreel won me over. I am confident they can make this script funny, it reads not bad on its own. YES

lo-fi (3 scenes).pdf - A lot of people sit round talking. Then they move to a cafe and sit round talking. Lo-interest. NO

MATES RATES - Interesting characters, nice dialogue, action starts to get somewhere if slowly. MAYBE

NO PROSPECT.doc - A bunch of people sitting round cracking lame jokes. A good stab at characters but they're not likeable and don't draw me in. NO

NOT ON A SCHOOL NIGHT - Some nice characters, quite interesting dialogue, starts getting somewhere. MAYBE

Old Man (SitcomTrials).pdf - Sadly not interesting characters and not funny lines, plus nothing seems to happen. NO

Outgoings--No1ChristmasHit.pdf - Nice premise, nice lines, could play well. MAYBE

Privilege - Luke Cedar.pdf - Post The Thick Of It and Absolute Power, this has its work cut out to appeal or be funny. Sorry, didn't manage it for me. NO

ReasonstoBeCheerful.pdf - On a first reading this just seemed like a conversation full of puns. It could be a work of genius that escaped me. It could, I will concede, just be a conversation full of puns. MAYBE

ROCK.doc - A nice premise, but Withnail & I did it better. The words "this ends the first eight minutes" was a relief. NO

Shit Happens.pdf - There's a thin line between Rabelasian and gratuitously scatalogical. This puts a thick brown smear over both. NO

Shock Treatment.pdf - Not a bad idea, a colourful character, but the dialogue doesn't come across as funny or the action as believable. NO

Singing the Blues - It's a Blunderful Life.pdf - This is more like it. Original idea, good characters, funny stuff happens, good dialogue, very promising. YES

SuperFood.doc - Good dialogue, good characters, some action if a bit slight. Could be fun. YES

THE OAP BUS.doc - I like the approach of talking to the audience, and the structure was promising, but the dialogue is very flat and unengaging. NO

The Oldham Chronicles.pdf - This is just a sketch, but I confess I found it funny and think it would perform well. But not strictly a sitcom, so... MAYBE

The Pinkie Device.pdf - A little static, with some horribly old fashioned characters who are hard to tell apart. But it might read well. MAYBE

THEATRE OF DREAMS.doc - Nice bit of action, nice characters, funny lines. Didn't spot the cliffhanger but I'm sure that could be sorted. YES

There must be someone else.pdf - First script I laughed at (the Merrick line, now you ask). But the rest too laddish for my tastes. Successful wank routines in sitcoms are very hard to, er, pull off. NO

Treading water - sitcom trials.doc - Slightly interesting characters, but nothing much happens. Some nice touches in the dialogue, frustratingly water-tready. MAYBE

University of Life - George Barnes.pdf - Interchangeable characters, just chatting, no action. Flat, uninspiring, also very short. NO

URBAN GUERILLAS, sitcom trials.doc - Nice characters, funny lines, good action, very performable. YES

Kev F

Working my way through these, downloaded all the scripts with no problems except for Keith Lymingstone-Brown.pdf. Tried several times, it doesn't seem to open in my adobe reader. Anyone else having issues with it?

Quote: Mr Ashdown @ June 22 2011, 11:30 AM BST

Working my way through these, downloaded all the scripts with no problems except for Keith Lymingstone-Brown.pdf. Tried several times, it doesn't seem to open in my adobe reader. Anyone else having issues with it?

View original

Hi there

When I uploaded it for some reason it didn't wanna be seen as a .pdf, despite being quite literally a .pdf.

I managed to open it myself from the site via a download, but if you're still having trouble I could always email it to you if that helps.

Cheers

Tom

Quote: Mr Ashdown @ June 22 2011, 11:30 AM BST

Working my way through these, downloaded all the scripts with no problems except for Keith Lymingstone-Brown.pdf. Tried several times, it doesn't seem to open in my adobe reader. Anyone else having issues with it?

View original

Didn't open in Chrome (just says 'Loading' in the bottom left but never does), but cut and paste into IE and it goes straight there (seemingly negating all security!)

Dan

Quote: Mr Ashdown @ June 22 2011, 11:30 AM BST

Working my way through these, downloaded all the scripts with no problems except for Keith Lymingstone-Brown.pdf. Tried several times, it doesn't seem to open in my adobe reader. Anyone else having issues with it?

View original

I had no problem with it, it opened in Adobe 9 or something

Quote: swerytd @ June 22 2011, 3:12 PM BST

Didn't open in Chrome (just says 'Loading' in the bottom left but never does), but cut and paste into IE and it goes straight there (seemingly negating all security!)

Dan

View original

Cheers, Dan, I've got it to open now.

All right, admit it--who else is thinking of doing a Bushbaby and saying "Sod this writing reviews lark!"

I think my eyes are going to pop out of my skull.

All this reading does give me an insight into how competition readers must feel.

Punchdrunk--with the emphasis on pun.

Quote: Kev F @ June 21 2011, 11:49 PM BST

Shit Happens.pdf - There's a thin line between Rabelasian and gratuitously scatalogical. This puts a thick brown smear over both. NO

View original

Thanks, think I'll use that as my logline...

Do not despair, humour is subjective and I guess Kev has none hahaha
This is my opinion and again its just one opinion. Sitcom to me is this...
1....set up a story
2....in the middle everything goes wrong.
3....everything is resolved.
4....To me only Declan with Singing the Blues has done this. [and perhaps Swertz] All others are sketches/conversation etc etc, albeit that they are witty.

So, all those that haven't done that; and it is far, far easier to write a load of witty conversation than set up a story; should not even be considered.

When setting up the story, it isn't possible to have every line humourous because the character/s are explaining what is happening/about to happen. The skill is in the story line and not in the wit. But nobody but nobody these days gets that
In addition many of them wouldn't even go to a second episode as the premise/characters are going nowhere.
And in addition to the addition, if you refer to something in the script at the beginning......say a dog 'joke', that dog 'joke' should be referred to at least another couple of times within the story or what is the point of mentioning it in the first place? So many rules to sitcom and so many rules ignored in this comp.

P.S......to me, only Declan and Swertz would qualify......and of course, with the rules I have explained; my own

Quote: RedZed333 @ June 22 2011, 6:35 PM BST

Thanks, think I'll use that as my logline...

View original

bushbaby: Have you taken your script down? I can't find it among the entries.

Quote: bushbaby @ June 22 2011, 6:44 PM BST

Do not despair, humour is subjective and I guess Kev has none hahaha
This is my opinion and again its just one opinion. Sitcom to me is this...
1....set up a story
2....in the middle everything goes wrong.
3....everything is resolved.
4....To me only Declan with Singing the Blues has done this. [and perhaps Swertz] All others are sketches/conversation etc etc, albeit that they are witty.

So, all those that haven't done that; and it is far, far easier to write a load of witty conversation than set up a story; should not even be considered.

When setting up the story, it isn't possible to have every line humourous because the character/s are explaining what is happening/about to happen. The skill is in the story line and not in the wit. But nobody but nobody these days gets that
In addition many of them wouldn't even go to a second episode as the premise/characters are going nowhere.
And in addition to the addition, if you refer to something in the script at the beginning......say a dog 'joke', that dog 'joke' should be referred to at least another couple of times within the story or what is the point of mentioning it in the first place? So many rules to sitcom and so many rules ignored in this comp.

P.S......to me, only Declan and Swertz would qualify......and of course, with the rules I have explained; my own

View original

I agree with you about what a sitcom needs but this is for a stage play with minimal set. I don't like scripts that just have the characters talking but the only thing that matters when judging these scripts is can I watch this for 10 minutes. Story helps, characters help and structure help but some scripts have all this but are still boring. Forget the rules! CAN I WATCH IT FOR 10 MINUTES.