Quote: Kev F @ October 6 2011, 8:20 AM BST

It is a lovely irony that I introduced the online peer-review system of voting so that I wouldn't ever have to read a big pile of sitcom scripts, then stopped doing the Sitcom Trials largely because of the amount of time it was taking up, and here I am greatly enjoying reading and reviewing the scripts that are coming in to the latest Manchester Trials, and am getting the biggest thrill from, of all thing, counting up the scores.

Having just added up another set of scores and amended the running total, I am delighting in the way every vote can make such a dramatic difference, with every Yes vote suddenly boosting a script by 2 points, and every No dragging it back by one. At the top of the table we now have a script with 15 points, and bringing up the rear another script with minus 6. And that will, of course, all change. (Just 3 Yes votes would pull everyone out of minus figures, though it will now take 15 No votes to drag that leader completely down to earth).

The diversity of opinions really does make one worry about the usual situation where your work will be rejected by just one script reader or editor. In practice, I think, the BBC get three people to read a script before making a final decision, though often it can be just one person's opinion that lets the script get that far.

I fully appreciate the difference between an experienced, trained or professional script reader, who knows how to read and judge a script properly, and someone who may be speed-reading, just picking out gags they like, or making their decisions on a dozen other spurious bases. But a large part of any reader's judgement, whether in the Sitcom Trials' amateur realm or in the professional world of TV and radio, is going to be subjective. After all, even once a sitcom hits the screen it can divide viewers. I've had recent conversations with people who in turn love or loathe Miranda, Gary Tank Commander, My Family and Fresh Meat (yes, it is possible for someone to not like Fresh Meat) and it's quite possible all comedy is Marmite. Certainly this round of Sitcom Trials voting suggests the 18 scripts in contention very much fall into the Marmite category, every one of them having received at least one damning No Vote, a Maybe and a Yes vote from someone.

So carry on enjoying your power, Sitcom Trials readers. Every opinion matters and I like to think we're all learning something along the way.

Read the scripts at: http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/SitsVac/files/-%20Sitcom%20Trials%20-%20Manchester%20Oct%2021%202011/

Post your reviews and votes here.

View original

Bloody hell, is this another script...?

Quote: RedZed333 @ October 6 2011, 10:27 AM BST

Bloody hell, is this another script...?

View original

You have a point Zed. The Billy Wilder quote in your signature says everything I just did in a lot fewer words.

Quote: AJGO @ October 5 2011, 5:12 PM BST

The person who voted on yahoo seems to have given feedback on a piece I haven't seen that isn't with the rest of the files- is there somewhere else I should be looking?

Also, the late entry- will you be asking everyone who's voted to adapt their posts/files so that the points system isn't awry?

View original

Hi Kev, could you let us know about these please?

Quote: AJGO @ October 6 2011, 12:03 PM BST

Hi Kev, could you let us know about these please?

View original

There appears to be a late entry called Love Me Tender, which most people haven't reviewed. If it were to suddenly start racing ahead in the polls and anyone thought that was unfair because it had missed the deadline, I'd have a look. As it is, that's not yet happening. All other scripts seem to be the original 18 that were there at the deadline.

The script you may be referring to, that stands out in Pete Stone's votes, is Job Club, the correct title for the script that many people are calling Main Text, because the document you download is called Main Text and neither the script's proper title or the author's name appear in the downloaded script (top tip for the future everyone, put your name and title on your scripts, ideally in the header or footer of every page, unless you're seeking anonymity).

I was referring to Debbieoz2002's vote for Job Club- thanks for clarifying about title, but where is Pete Stone's votes file? And Bart Hulley's votes file?

Re. Love Me Tender- you seem to have an understanding of how votes will work out so will have to take your word for it! I know my entry will be languishing at the bottom but if others are low/mid-table and a piece that was submitted after deadline is higher because of the 0 points compared to others' -1 points (because people voted before LMT was submitted) that does seem to be a bit off...

Quote: AJGO @ October 6 2011, 1:31 PM BST

...where is Pete Stone's votes file? And Bart Hulley's votes file?

View original

Those votes are in the Forum section of SitsVac: http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/SitsVac/messages the same place where the Files are uploaded. Once upon a time that was the only place to upload your votes, now the BCG forum has taken over.

my votes were posted direct to the yahoo group as that was where I came across the scripts. being an oldie writer on sitcom trials that was how I first got involved. my votes are posted below for those that did not see them, it's a long time since I have done any writing (not quite given up but training to be a paramedic takes time) and reviewing so I am very rusty. No offence intended to any of the no votes I gave out.

A Fish Tale - No
A 70's sitcom without the jokes. Sorry but can't see how the wife would have ever trusted hubby to buy the fish in the first place.

Animal Something - No
Sorry but it was just the same bits of funny repeated endlessly with slight variation. Not enough happened, was just two identical twins talking about their lives.

Apocalyptic Cake Sale - Maybe
Came across like a david brent/gareth from the office scene written by a crack-addict. It is probably rubbish but there is a slim chance it could be a work of genius (although I was tired when I read it)

Art for Art Sake - No
talk about something that happened, followed by talk about something that might happen. with part 2 more talk about something that happened. Please let these characters do stuff as they were actually quite interesting.

As Plain as day - maybe
not bad. stuff happened. characters were different, although they all seemed to be idiots. The inspector character was more fun than most though.

Doing it for the kids - no
it may do it for the kids but not for me.

Go wild in the country - maybe
I should really be a yes as I have seen it done, but it comes across as a bit dated to me and to be fair it has had a few airings in the best so maybe time for something new.

kiss me son of God - maybe
still funny, although I am still amazed that no-one questions the physics defying one-inch gap all-round line.

Love bites - no
I hated the two blokes. I think the first page with character descriptions did it for me. Details about the guys, no details about the women. when the women eventually appeared in the script they were non-descript voices.

leaping tiger - maybe
utterly mental and made me laugh, just needs a bit more stuff happening to convince me of a yes.

love me tender - maybe
well written in terms of character, but just needs a bit more oomph to it.

job club - no
too many characters not enough funny and even less story

not at the allotment - maybe
some funny and with some more stuff happening it could work, but it was a little dull.

taking of peckham123 - yes
was quite funny. some outright laughs that were lacking elsewhere. Although suspect the whale costume bit may be a struggle to portray on the cheap.

the mad axe man and her - yes
absolutely out if it's tree loopy juice stuff. Will either be the funniest thing since the last funny thing or completely the opposite of that. I hope it's the former.

The tragic life of roger bulwark - yes
An interesting premise, some well rounded characters and some laughs. all is good.

stepping stone - no
just did not stuff my envelope

talent spotters - no
didn't like the setting nor the characters.

well that was a bit of fun. not read any sitcom trials scripts for a long time. good luck to all of you who wrote stuff, don't take anything I have said personally as my own writing is just as bad as some of these and not quite as good as the rest of them.

Quote: Kev F @ October 6 2011, 1:41 PM BST

Those votes are in the Forum section of SitsVac: http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/SitsVac/messages the same place where the Files are uploaded. Once upon a time that was the only place to upload your votes, now the BCG forum has taken over.

View original

Thanks very much for that. So are you including Bart Hulley's as they didn't have reviews?

Quote: kigelia @ October 6 2011, 1:42 PM BST

my votes were posted direct to the yahoo group as that was where I came across the scripts. being an oldie writer on sitcom trials that was how I first got involved. my votes are posted below for those that did not see them, it's a long time since I have done any writing (not quite given up but training to be a paramedic takes time) and reviewing so I am very rusty. No offence intended to any of the no votes I gave out.

View original

Hello, welcome to BCG! Thanks for putting your votes where technologically challenged people (okay, just me) can find them

Also, I presume yours is Weds/Thurs Club- don't forget you can vote for your own piece!

Quote: AJGO @ October 6 2011, 1:56 PM BST

Hello, welcome to BCG! Thanks for putting your votes where technologically challenged people (okay, just me) can find them

Also, I presume yours is Weds/Thurs Club- don't forget you can vote for your own piece!

View original

thanks for the hello.

weds/thurs club is not mine. I did not submit anything this time. I think I failed to review wed/thurs club as it had loads of characters and whilst from past experience you can have some leeway with cast number in the trials I felt this one went too far the wrong way.

if I missed anything else out let me know and I will try to look over it tonight.

good luck to all of you who entered. My experience of the sitcom trials was nothing but positive and I learnt a lot about comedy writing from my time involved in it. Sadly I think the main lesson I learnt was that whilst I could be funny, I was not consistently funny enough, but you never know this reviewing bout could re-awaken the writer within.

OH dear yet again missed out, been on holiday.

Mine was 'Wild Style', about a couple who try free campervan living, something I know about.

Very best of luck to all who have got through!

Holidays are for wimps.

HI from massive wimp!

Lol.

Quote: kigelia @ October 6 2011, 1:42 PM BST

my votes were posted direct to the yahoo group as that was where I came across the scripts...my votes are posted below for those that did not see them...

View original

A pox on the internet and its anonymity and pseudonyms. I was just about to tot those votes up before I read your introductory paragraph and realised I already had done. I hope there's no-one else with different names on the two forums who's going to catch me out like that!

Quote: AJGO @ October 6 2011, 1:56 PM BST

Thanks very much for that. So are you including Bart Hulley's as they didn't have reviews

View original

I've made a note that they came without reviews (and also about other voting details, ie writers voting for their own scripts etc) so if there's a photo finish, those things can be taken into consideration. The more sets of votes we get, the less such things will signify.

Kev: Have all the writers involved voted? Are we still waiting on anyone? Thanks.

Kegalia: Thanks for the votes. I did "As Plain as Day" and was just wondering about your Inspector comment--do you mean he was more fun than the other characters in the script, or more fun than characters in other people's scripts? Either way, I'm glad you liked him!