Quote: Ben @ June 8 2012, 7:16 PM BST

We didn't get commissioned

View original

Yet!

In response to the poster, I was one of the co-writers of the project Ben's talking about and I agree that the money you're working with won't go very far. Our project was pretty ambitious (shot at Pinewood with one sketch involving an indoor forest) but every every single person involved worked for free and it still came in at significantly more than your budget. Just feeding people and paying their travel expenses will eat into a grand in no time.

That all said, a lot can be achieved on a little these days so if you're still intent on producing a pilot on a microbudget I would recommend a few things...

Get that script perfect before you go one step further. If your script's good enough you might even be able to hook some names with it. You'd be surprised the sort of people you can get involved if they like what you're putting out there enough and you retain a professional attitude.

Rehearse. Book a room and have a professional table read. You might even get some extra gags out of it.

Be very economical with your story. Keep it indoors and to as few locations as possible. Likewise, have as few people on screen as possible.

Spend money on sound. Don't scrimp on this. Can't stress that enough.

Don't think you have to shoot a full half hour. You won't be able to make a broadcast quality pilot on that money anyway so think of your end result as a calling card. A 15 minute extended sketch was enough to land the makers of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia 7 seasons and counting!

Good luck.

Also get some of these guys to act etc. You know.. if they like the script!

Sage advice, thanks guys. I was pretty conscious whilst writing that the cheaper something would be to produce, then the more likely it is to get picked up - the office, the smoking room and peep show all being examples of this. I know that to do it properly but independently will be a massive undertaking, and so plan A will be to send it to production companies etc. But when this proves fruitless I expect I'll be searching for comic actors who are living in london and have got some free weekend time; so if your idea of a good time is trying to help out a complete comedy rookie stranger then watch this space!

The Pinewood pilot you guys put together sounds epic - I don't suppose it's on the internet for general viewing?!

Quote: Newman @ June 10 2012, 3:45 PM BST

The Pinewood pilot you guys put together sounds epic - I don't suppose it's on the internet for general viewing?!

View original

You're in luck, Baddiel, there's some clips here:

https://www.comedy.co.uk/forums/thread/23998/ https://www.comedy.co.uk/forums/thread/23999/

Quote: Newman @ June 10 2012, 3:45 PM BST

Sage advice, thanks guys. I was pretty conscious whilst writing that the cheaper something would be to produce, then the more likely it is to get picked up - the office, the smoking room and peep show all being examples of this.

View original

What makes you think The Office, The Smoking Room and Peep Show were cheap? Or that shows are commissioned on price? Cheaper can be attractive, but quality comes first.

Quote: Micheal Jacob @ June 10 2012, 9:23 PM BST

What makes you think The Office, The Smoking Room and Peep Show were cheap? Or that shows are commissioned on price? Cheaper can be attractive, but quality comes first.

View original

Of course I'm only speculating, but it's difficult to imagine how vast sums of money were spent on the first series of these shows, particularly in The Smoking Room and The Office. Aren't they essentially just people reading scripts in an office, how much can that cost? And the original Office pilot isn't a million miles away from the finished article and I assume it was funded my Merchant and Gervais and so was probably done pretty cheaply.

My guess is, written as they were by relatively unknown writers, that they wouldn't have been commissioned if they'd been particularly expensive to produce, regardless of how good we all now know them to be. It's because these shows are of high quality (in my view Smoking Room isn't funny but agree it's quite well written) that they can be successful - as they rely on the quality of the script rather than elaborate sets or big name actors.

I think it would be pretty foolish for any aspiring writer to include any elaborate setups in their work because a channel isn't going to gamble significant amounts on unknown writers - and why should they? Also it's lazy and probably betrays a lack of talent; you could watch the best comedies (Seinfeld, AD, Partridge) with your eyes closed and they wouldn't be any less funny for it.

Oh Newman...speculation and guessing won't get you very far.

Quote: Micheal Jacob @ June 11 2012, 9:40 AM BST

Oh Newman...speculation and guessing won't get you very far.

View original

I don't really know what your point is. Are you trying to be funny, or are you just being facetious?

Are you the Michael Jacob who is involved with Two Pints and My Family? If this is the case then your previous comment about 'quality' getting commissioned... well I concede that was funny....

I think his point is that your speculations are unfounded.
The only difference between the cost of 'Smoking Room' and something more ornate like, say 'Blackadder" is sets & costumes.
Actors cost the same, lighting cameramen cost the same, writers cost the same, studio hire, catering, lighting, sound, insurance, editing etc etc.
The process literally eats money.

Point taken Lazzard, but is it really that daft an assumption (for someone that doesn't know anything about TV production) that sets, stages and costumes cost a lot of money? Although I doubt that the process literally eats money ;-)

Having read Jacob's (genuinely enjoyable) blog I've realised he's a fellow Gooner... and so now I really regret my tetchiness and undue hostility - I'm just an overly sensitive wannabe writer.

Sensitivity won't get you very far either Newman! Just ask Arsene.

Quote: Newman @ June 11 2012, 11:19 AM BST

Point taken Lazzard, but is it really that daft an assumption (for someone that doesn't know anything about TV production) that sets, stages and costumes cost a lot of money? Although I doubt that the process literally eats money ;-)

Having read Jacob's (genuinely enjoyable) blog I've realised he's a fellow Gooner... and so now I really regret my tetchiness and undue hostility - I'm just an overly sensitive wannabe writer.

View original

Not at all. I should have been kinder and more precise. The Smoking Room had a large core cast to allow for people popping in for a fag and popping out again, as well as guest actors in most episodes. The set, comprising the room and a corridor outside, was quite large and built in a studio. It required special extractors to remove the smoke between takes. It sometimes employed two cameras, and needed two costume people and two make up people, sometimes three. There was a designer, art director and set-dresser and a normal crew. Each episode was a five-day shoot, which is standard for a single camera show, though they can sometimes be six-day weeks. Studio hire isn't cheap, and of course there was catering every day. Add in the costs of post-production, and it all equates to the price of a normal, mid-range single camera show.

Come on you Reds indeed.

Micheal he said gooner not gurner!

Quote: Newman @ June 11 2012, 11:19 AM BST

Although I doubt that the process literally eats money ;-)

View original

You've obviously not seen extras & background artists at the lunch wagon...

Quote: Micheal Jacob @ June 11 2012, 11:54 AM BST

The Smoking Room had a large core cast to allow for people popping in for a fag and popping out again, as well as guest actors in most episodes. The set, comprising the room and a corridor outside, was quite large and built in a studio. It required special extractors to remove the smoke between takes. It sometimes employed two cameras, and needed two costume people and two make up people, sometimes three. There was a designer, art director and set-dresser and a normal crew. Each episode was a five-day shoot, which is standard for a single camera show, though they can sometimes be six-day weeks. Studio hire isn't cheap, and of course there was catering every day. Add in the costs of post-production, and it all equates to the price of a normal, mid-range single camera show.

View original

A very interesting insight - thanks for sharing.