Hi Derry Dee. Post a short section of your script. I will give you my honest opinion.
The Sitcom Mission 2011 Page 78
Not really, horse racing has a lot to do with the jockey, the ground under foot, the cut of the grass, the direction of the turns, so yes all these factors all go to what horse wins, not always the quickest.
By what you just said its like saying well if I didn't pick the winning horse then it doesn't make any difference if it won or not.
We can make 1000 excuses, why our scripts didn't make it through to the next round, the truth of the matter is, the people that are picking what works and what doesn't, didn't pick ours and there was probably a good reason behind why they didn't, I don't think it happened by accident.
But part of the issue here is subjectivity. Personally I'd rather eat glass than watch Miranda but other people think its brilliant. I adore HHGG but have close family members who look at me and say don't get it. Just because this script didn't get through might be down to many factors.
I will fully admit that mine probably failed on three counts: 1. it wasn't funny but that was because 2. I tend to think radio when I write rather than stage/tv and didn't really adapt the action. 3. Probably too short.
A further interesting point I have gathered from touring the forums today is that of the successful BCGers, pretty much all of them have sat at the feet of gurus (at £75 a time plus VAT) as well as having a track record of getting work onto the few open door opportunities that are around.
There's not much point saying I tried, it was rubbish, now I've giving up if it was the first attempt. You tried remember. There's a lot of people sitting on their backsides moaning about the rubbish on telly and doing nothing. We are trying to change it but its a learning process. It takes time. There's a quote on the writers room site by Paul Abbott I think. It's something like 'writing is rewriting'. It's getting the idea and honing it to make it work. Its being honest about the work. It's getting someone else to read it and critique it and perhaps its getting real about the process. I write in the day job and I know its tough when you've put heart and soul into something, pass it to a colleague to comment on and you can't read it for the red ink when its given back. But it makes it a better piece in the end.
Quote: Lee Brown @ March 15 2011, 3:25 PM GMTNot really, horse racing has a lot to do with the jockey, the ground under foot, the cut of the grass, the direction of the turns, so yes all these factors all go to what horse wins, not always the quickest.
By what you just said its like saying well if I didn't pick the winning horse then it doesn't make any difference if it won or not.We can make 1000 excuses, why our scripts didn't make it through to the next round, the truth of the matter is, the people that are picking what works and what doesn't, didn't pick ours and there was probably a good reason behind why they didn't, I don't think it happened by accident.
Classic races are won by the fastest horses taken the conditions into account. The jockey doesn't really count unless he's fixing the race of course. I don't think in the main it happened by accident either. I am not making any excuses I am just telling you that you shouldn't take it as a judgement that you couldn't write. I have no idea if you can or not, having not seen your material. But as in all things triangulation gives one a better perspective on how you stand in that regard. Nil desperandum etc. 
Sean - Can Zooo and I be extras please? Mr Tennant's assistants.
It's not who you know! It's how you tell them!
Cheers Derry Dee, good luck with your writing, lets us know how you get on.
Quote: Lee Brown @ March 15 2011, 3:25 PM GMTWe can make 1000 excuses, why our scripts didn't make it through to the next round, the truth of the matter is, the people that are picking what works and what doesn't, didn't pick ours and there was probably a good reason behind why they didn't, I don't think it happened by accident.
Maybe.
And no disrespect to the guys who ran the competition, because I think what they are doing is brilliant...
But if they were the funniest guys in the country, they would be pissing their sitcom royalties out of hotel windows right now, instead of reading through 1200 scripts about the recession.
Best not to go there, Dee. Pick up a fresh writing pad and think funny thoughts.
Yeah Marc, I know what you are saying. 
Quote: Ash Man @ March 15 2011, 2:10 PM GMTI want Declan to give me his critical review on my script, it impressed The Laughing Stock @ The BBC but not him. I wonder why?
Because taste in comedy is subjective. Also there may be other factors - did you fall down on the stageability factor perhaps?
Of course, the odds are also slightly different. The top ten per cent of Laughing Stock made the long list (120 or so - can't remember the numbers?). Whereas here it's 32 out of 1800, which is roughly 2% (I think). So I'd be surprised when you've made the final twenty five of Laughing Stock, not before.
(Though I think the guy for whom it happened the other way round has good reason to be surprised simply because of the same maths!).
Quote: Lee Brown @ March 15 2011, 2:46 PM GMTFrom that you seen the guys emails about reading the same type of theme over and over again, or things that just wouldn't work.
So if you take those out, let's say that's half, which leaves 600 scripts.
I'd argue that it's a bit of a leap to assume they'd take scripts out just because they offered a standard location or theme. You can take a standard location and spin gold from it after all.
They've been commenting on the statistics, not that that means anything flawed with stuff subbed under that premise.
Quote: Buster Spleen @ March 15 2011, 3:38 PM GMTBest not to go there, Dee. Pick up a fresh writing pad and think funny thoughts.
No way, I'm gonna stick with this for the moment.
It's a mockumentary, so not really appropriate for the theatre.
And I'm actually strongly considering getting this off the ground myself, using YouTube webisodes for example.
Quote: Derry Dee @ March 15 2011, 3:34 PM GMTBut if they were the funniest guys in the country, they would be pissing their sitcom royalties out of hotel windows right now, instead of reading through 1200 scripts about the recession.
They've only been doing it three years (well, not even that yet, I don't think but three iterations of this process, which is changing each time) but they're working hard to be in a position where they're pissing sitcom royalties out of the window. Yes, they want it but, as per advice for the writers, they're willing to work their arses off to get it.
Good producers will always have to read lots of scripts; primarily bad scripts too, I'm guessing.
Dan
Quote: Derry Dee @ March 15 2011, 3:34 PM GMTBut if they were the funniest guys in the country, they would be pissing their sitcom royalties out of hotel windows right now, instead of reading through 1200 scripts about the recession.
I don't know why they'd need to be the funniest guys in the country in order to tell whether a script someone else has written is funny (certainly, I think they're better qualified than the writer). An inability to be insanely funny does not preclude us from being able to laugh.