is there a 2013 mission?
The Sitcom Mission 2012 Page 79
This thread is locked. No further replies can be posted.
Quote: Trinder @ December 6 2012, 10:54 PM GMTis there a 2013 mission?
We're not ignoring you guys, honest. We're just finalising some details.
Hedging your bets in case the world ends, more like. 
Sooooo, is it going ahead this year do we know?
Quote: Trinder @ January 2 2013, 12:16 PM GMTSooooo, is it going ahead this year do we know?
Quote: simon wright @ December 9 2012, 7:13 PM GMTWe're not ignoring you guys, honest. We're just finalising some details.
Quote: simon wright @ December 9 2012, 7:13 PM GMTWe're not ignoring you guys, honest. We're just finalising some details.
Not sure if that answers the question. A bit of vague promise there but I would've thought something concrete would have to be in place by now to meet their usual deadlines. Unless they're shifting the shows to the end of the year.
If it is running again, I'd like to see a rule like 'No entries that qualified/were showcased last year can enter again'. I looked at the long list last year and there were quite a few sitcoms that had been finalists the year before. It sort of becomes a closed shop for a lucky few then doesn't it? instead of a true open competition. When everyone's paying for entrering, I'm not sure if that's fair. And no old tricks like just changing the title and characters' names. 
Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ January 5 2013, 1:14 PM GMTNot sure if that answers your question, Trinder. A bit of vague promise there but I would've thought something concrete would have to be in place by now to meet their usual deadlines. Unless they're shifting the shows to the end of the year.
If it is running again, I'd like to see a rule like 'New entries only'. I looked at the long list last year and there were quite a few sitcoms that had been feen finalists the year before. It sort of becomes a closed shop for a lucky few then doesn't it? instead of a true open competition. When everyone's paying for entrering, I'm not sure if that's fair. And no old tricks like just changing the title and characters' names.
I don't really see your reasoning here.
Presumably any entrants who submitted the 'same' sitcoms had taken the feedback and decided to improve on their original entries. I can't see anything wrong in that if that's what they decided to do. If they do do that and get short listed again then you have to assume that they are because they are better than other entries.
If you enter with the same thing or something totally different doesn't disadvantage anybody else either way. Sitcom A beats sitcom B if it's better. The number of years you've entered or the number of scripts you submit doesn't really matter does it? They are judging the scripts and not who sends them.
I see what you are saying but, surely, a competition to find the best scripts needs to do just that.
I'm not sure new writers will be or should be discouraged though. If your only reason, somebody may have, for entering is thinking that they might win, be offered a commission and have people queuing up to shovel money at them to write then they aren't being very realistic. What I've found. ( just from my own experience ) Is that people write, initially, because they want to write and often for a long time before they even show it to anyone let alone entering a competition with it.
It may be, ultimately, more of a disadvantage to re-enter the same thing. These judges and organisers must talk to each other and I'd imagine and would assume these people would prefer evidence of ability based on more than one script. If you have one script that's good it may be deserving of a place in the short list. I would have thought it would have to be a lot better than good for these judges (knowing it to be submitted again) for it to win or for them to be 'courted' by these commissioners on the strength of it.
'I looked at the long list last year and there were quite a few sitcoms that had been feen finalists the year before.'
'Quite a few'?
Can you name them? Because we can't.
It seems I can't, only one in 2010 and 11, The Box. So you get my full praise for being inclusive and fully open after all. 
It seems I was confusing lists for The Sitcom Trials, Laughing Stock and Shortlist's contest which had several/a few/some of the same titles long/shortlisted for Sitcommission - I can't be anymore accurate because my website links for the other contests have expired, out scouring through the internet proves that the above comps were where I saw the same titles again, not in this one.
Probably wrong to casually assume it was this contest they reappeared in instead of the others, but now we know it definitely wasn't! And my presumption did get a response, which was the main aim really, alas not with the added update on this year's contest I'd hoped for. So keep up the excellent work, er guys. 
I think some titles containing the same words like Art and End and Box may have fooled me. You do need to take another look back at these things to convince yourself they weren't the same ones as you'd thought! Or I thought. Ah well.
We promise that we're not holding out on you regarding dates. The truth is that we're really keen not to repeat ourselves. If all we had to do was jump through the same hoops as last year, then we'd have everything done and dusted by now.
That's enough cliche's for one para so I'm starting a new one. Essentially what I'm saying is 'announcement to come as soon as we've finished tweaking.'
Before we let you know about The Sitcom Mission 2013, here are details of a brand spanking new 8-week sitcom-writing course we're teaching at City Academy in London.
There's a taster evening on Jan 23 and the course starts on Jan 30.
As we all know Seinfeld had the 'no hugging, no learning' rule.
If you were to create a manifesto for a modern British sitcom what would the rules be?
Keep the pen moving...
Rule Number One: No characters who are unbelievably stupid.
I'm fed up of characters you can't believe in. Sure, everyone makes awful mistakes now and again, but some sitcoms rely on people who are unbelievably thick all the time.