A fair point politely made will always be welcome. A fair point rudely made won't.

Marc, we chose what we considered to be the best scripts to go through to the public showcase because we want people to come along and have a good time, and also we want to be able to sell those scripts to the industry. We only win if somebody else does. There's no point in us putting on scripts that don't make us or anyone else laugh.

My point about the winning entries was that we didn't choose the winners. We chose four of the five that went through to the Grand Final, the other one chosen by audience vote. Two of the finalists had done our workshops, three hadn't.

Abigail and Emma aren't getting hit in the pocket. They made £5k. Rejoice! Ciaran and Andy owe us a bit of cash after getting optioned by Hat Trick. I haven't heard any of them complain.

The development deal was agreed with the Writers Guild.

I believe I've answered these points as much as I can. Our process is as transparent as we can make it.

If you don't want to enter/go on a workshop/buy a book, then don't. It's a free country. And it won't change the way I read your sitcom. We're looking for funny and interesting work we can sell on to the industry. The more we can do, the more people will enter the competition. If we can't do it, people will stop entering, end of.

I don't mind being challenged about our operation - in fact I welcome it, we have nothing to hide - but if I use small things like facts I expect them to beat ill-informed opinion.

Hi Kev; in the brief and on the first page of this forum it says the deadline for voting is midnight Sunday 9th, but you've also referred to the deadline as being Saturday (today). Just in case anyone out there is still considering voting, could you tell us which is correct?

In my military days we used to get round this problem by specifying either 23.59 Saturday 8th or 00.01 Sunday 9th.

Personally I'd like the voting to end today. If it ends on Sunday night I'm not going to know the results until Monday evening.

Quote: Will Cam @ October 7 2011, 11:07 PM BST

A fair point politely made will always be welcome. A fair point rudely made won't.

View original

Will: But if it is a fair point we should listen either way, no?

It would seem this thread has been kidnapped by a troublemaking idiot with a pseudonym and turned into a debate about a different show. Can I remind everyone that today is the last day to read, review and vote on the entries in this month's Manchester Sitcom Trials.

I won't be posting any more in this thread until more reviews are posted, or the deadline passes (at midnight tonight) whichever is the sooner.

Kev F Sutherland
Producer
The Sitcom Trials

Honestly some of the fuss is ridiculous.

Kev F etal I'm sure are trying to make some money from their courses, good for them everyone has to earn a living.

And contests always come down to trusting someone's being fair. As much as the Sitcomission, as DAZ's tell us in 15 words why you hate skidmarks.

This contest seems to attract more sour grapes than a poor quality red wine.

Oh and only an idiot criticises education.

I agree with most of what you say sootyj and support both initiatives, anything helping writers get noticed is a good thing. I think it is okay to question things sometimes, though, and seek clarification which both Kev F and Declan are happy to do. I think it was the connection between the course and shortlisting for the showcase and the prize that our man earlier, in admittedly rather aggressive form was questioning. It is hard to separate the two I can see. Kev F and Simon and Declan make the rules... so as they say no one is forcing anyone to enter or attend. Which is fair enough.

This all seems a bit silly. I don't see music instructors, vocal coaches and the like getting grief.
Likewise it's no surprise when people who have taken performing seriously and had coaching win competitions like the X Factor despite the influx of talentless wannabes, untrained singers and one trick ponies.
Not that the Z Factor or it's competitors don't get slagged off on the interweb by faceless critics of course.

It was an exchange that I wish had took place by pm and not public.

All I read on other threads was that one person ran a course, a person paid his money and attended, then entered a competition ran by the course-organiser's former business colleague and then won. And then provided a testimonial for the course, saying he won because the course improved his knowledge of writing a sitcom.

This, I felt personally, was a bit suspicious. As is the general unfairness of the voting system.

Then, in the face of various glib dismissals, I went onto to say I felt ALL courses were hollow and charged for content (education) that can be picked up for free anywhere.

At no point do I say Declan, Simon and Kevin are doing anything illegal or accuse them or doing anything against any legal practise.

It was a 'discussion' on the nature of course salesmen and their oversell tactics and this wasn't the correct place/forum to do it, and so I was wrong. I was wrong saying this fellow Kevin ran a course.

Even though it's a day too late. I am really sorry for getting on anyone's nerves.

Good luck to Declan and his future How To... courses.
I should have responded to his course post and not hijacked a the Trials competition thread. I thought the people in charge were all connected with eachother. I thought wrong.

Personally, I think it was all worth it just for the mention of "Comedy Yoda".

Luke: Comedy Yoda, what is the secret of comedy?

Beat.

Luke: Comedy Yoda, please, what is the secret of comedy?

Beat. Luke gets tired of waiting, leaves.

Comedy Yoda: Timing!

LUKE So Ben should I smoke the crack or inject the smack?

BEN Use the horse Luke, use the horse.

LUKE: I don't know which John Thaw DVD to watch?

COMEDY YODA: Use the Morse Luke, use the Morse

LUKE: I want to get in to sitcom writing but I am a bit of a novice, what should I do Yoda?

YODA: Do the course, Luke; Do the course.

Have some votes for you.
I've tried to judge these on the basis of this competition - ie are they sitcom/are they stageable? Not being an experienced reader of sitcom scripts and only having a single quick read through of each one, it's not easy to judge. All had something worthwhile about them.
Anyway here goes

A FISH TALE: Some nice exchanges and funny lines, but didn't have much of a cliffhanger and I felt it ended a bit abruptly - NO

ANIMAL SOMETHING: Wasn't sure about this one. Nothing much happened. Bit like a long sketch. Still, it had some laughs in and would play out quite well - MAYBE

APOCALYPTIC CAKE SALE: Nice idea - good situation, some decent gags. Not sure how easily it could be staged - MAYBE

ART FOR ART'S SAKE: Decent situaion and characters. Some laughs along the way, but didn't grip me - MAYBE

AS PLAIN AS DAY: Quite silly - nothing wrong with that. Some decent characters, good dialogue with plenty of laughs. Could work well - YES

DOING IT FOR THE KIDS: My one so it'll have to be - YES

GO WILD IN THE COUNTRY: Decent characters. Well written piece - ending was a bit predictable - MAYBE

KISS ME SON OF GOD: Judging purely on merit, have to say it was well paced,with snappy dialogue and well plotted - YES.

LOVE BITES: Didn't feel characters were believable. All seemed a bit forced. Some laughs but can't see much potential as a sitcom - NO

LEAPING TIGER: Some good exchanges between the Holy One and Leaping Tiger. Some nice lines. This would get laughs. Is this a sitcom or a long sketch - I'm not sure where it would go - MAYBE

LOVE ME TENDER: Not sure this is right for this competition. Not really a sitcom. Unusual scenario, has potential - well written but perhaps needs to be funnier - NO.

JOB CLUB: Too many characters. No real plot to speak of. Needs to be a bit punchier - NO

NOT AT THE ALLOTMENT: Didn't really work for me. Not enough laughs, and no real story progression - then a talking pizza cutter appeared - NO.

STEPPING STONE: The 3 characters had individual voices which was a big positive. Needed to pack in more laughs. Not sure it has too much mileage, still - MAYBE

TAKING OF PECKHAM 123: Very topical themes. Admirably silly at times. ?staging a problem maybe. Might work OK - MAYBE

TALENT SPOTTERS: Lots of ideas floating about but more like a long sketch than sitcom. Not easily staged, and for me, not funny enough - NO

THE MAD AXE MAN AND HER: Yes. Quite liked this one. Some nice interplay between the 2 characters. Would be interesting to see where this would go in future episodes (saw the post about him becoming the lodger). Worth a punt - YES

THE TRAGIC LIFE OF ROGER BULWARK: This worked pretty well on the page. Can see it working on stage too. Was sitcom-like, had a cliffhanger and decent ending - YES

THE WEDNESDAY THURSDAY CLUB: Might be tricky to pull off with 4 actors. Still, some funny lines. Not a bad basis for a sitcom - MAYBE

Hey Ben fancy some ketchup on your bacon sandwich/

Use the brown sauce Luke.

I love pun downs!