Awesome stuff. Can we re-enter stuff that we've previously entered?
The Sitcom Trials 2013 Page 3
Quote: Trinder @ January 29 2013, 7:21 PM GMTAwesome stuff. Can we re-enter stuff that we've previously entered?
Yes you can. (And here's the announcement post, re-posted so it's nice and bold near the top of the page)
Announcing The Sitcom Trials - So You Think You Write Funny 2013
The Sitcom Trials returns in force in 2013, with the ultimate competition to find the best new situation comedy talent in Britain. And this year we have joined forces with the UK's longest running comedy new talent competition - So You Think You're Funny.
Since it began in 1988, So You Think You're Funny? has kick-started the careers of dozens of the country's top stand-up comedians including Peter Kay, Dylan Moran, Lee Mack, Tommy Tiernan, Sarah Millican, Rhod Gilbert to name a few, with heats held across the country and a grand final at the Edinburgh Fringe. Now the Sitcom Trials are offering that same opportunity to sitcom creators.
The Sitcom Trials has been running since 1999, showcasing brand new sitcoms in a competition format. Its first Edinburgh Fringe show in 2001 at the Gilded Balloon starred Miranda Hart in a self-penned sitcom set in a joke shop, with a little blonde-haired sidekick and a fanciable chap in the café next door (sound familiar). The following year's show starred future Perrier-winner Laura Solon. If you think you could follow in those illustrious footsteps, now is your chance.
The Sitcom Trials - So You Think You Write Funny is open to writers and writer-performers whose comedy writing has never before been broadcast on national TV or radio.
You are invited to submit a 10-minute sitcom script (to guidelines, below). The entries will be selected by our panel of script reading judges, and the lucky shortlist will be showcased on stage, by our teams of professional actors, and voted for by the audience and a panel of judges from the comedy industry. The 5 scripts that prove most popular in the heats will be performed in the grand final at the Edinburgh Fringe where one sitcom will win a cash prize and a development deal with Gilded Balloon Productions.
If you are a writer-performer, whether an actor, a comedian, or a sketch-team, and you wish to perform the competing sitcom yourself, then that is fine. You're asked to submit a YouTube demo of your performers along with your script entry, it's as easy as that.
Oh, and did we mention The Sitcom Trials - So You Think You Write Funny is completely free to enter?
The deadline for script & video submissions is midnight March 31st 2013 and all details can be found at the website sitcomtrials.co.uk
The Sitcom Trials 2013 Script Guidelines:
Sitcom Trials scripts need to be written for a maximum of 4 actors, with no more than 3 of the same sex. This can be varied only if you are performing your own script & can supply the entire cast.
The format needs to be a script of approx 10 minutes duration ending in a "cliff-hanger" moment (e.g. the ad-break moment, leaving the audience wanting more). The script then needs a denouement scene of no more than 3 minutes max. What will happen is the audience with see the first "half" of all the sitcoms in contention, then only see the ending of the winner (of the audience vote on the night). That way the audience never get bored by anything they don't like, and they're never more than 10 minutes away from something they might prefer.
Scripts can be laid out as TV, radio, stage or movie scripts, whichever the author prefers.
They can be sent as word document or pdf document. Please avoid other formats if at all possible.
Top tip: These scripts are to be performed on a minimal theatre stage, with few if any props, so it is best not to enter scripts that rely heavily on visuals, or on a filmic treatment. Scripts written with radio production in mind would work best in this limited stage environment. For examples of how previous Sitcom Trials performances have worked, see the many video clips at sitcomtrials.co.uk
Submission:
Scripts can be laid out as TV, radio, stage or movie scripts, whichever the author prefers.
They can be sent as word document or pdf document to scripts@sitcomtrials.co.uk
Include your name, mailing address, contact email, and which location you could best attend if your script is shortlisted for performance: Manchester, Bristol or London.
If you intend performing your own script, include a link to a YouTube (or other online) clip that shows the performers in question. If they are performing the script that's entered, that may be more helpful (but not essential).
The deadline for script & video submissions is midnight March 31st 2013. Any questions, ask here at the Forum.
Kev F Sutherland
Producer
The Sitcom Trials
sitcomtrials.co.uk
Exciting stuff Kev - though obviously Badge's question is a key one. Do sketches/jokes on Newsjack rule us out?
Good luck to those entering the Sitcom Trials So You Think You Can Write Funny? 2013. We'll be encouraging our students to enter it as it's a great way to write to both a brief and a deadline and for a lucky few to get their script performed in front of a live audience.
Quote: Frantically @ January 30 2013, 9:08 AM GMTExciting stuff Kev - though obviously Badge's question is a key one. Do sketches/jokes on Newsjack rule us out?
No. We need to clarify these rules, which is a problem the stand up competition So You Think You're Funny also has. There it's a question of how long you've been gigging versus how many gigs you've done. With us this is really intended to make the competition fairer to new writers of sitcom, and I think sketches on Newsjack shouldn't rule anyone out.
Quote: Declan @ January 30 2013, 10:40 AM GMTGood luck to those entering the Sitcom Trials So You Think You Can Write Funny? 2013. We'll be encouraging our students to enter it as it's a great way to write to both a brief and a deadline and for a lucky few to get their script performed in front of a live audience.
Thankyou, mutual respect all round.
Quote: Kev F @ January 30 2013, 7:25 PM GMTNo. We need to clarify these rules, which is a problem the stand up competition So You Think You're Funny also has. There it's a question of how long you've been gigging versus how many gigs you've done. With us this is really intended to make the competition fairer to new writers of sitcom, and I think sketches on Newsjack shouldn't rule anyone out.
Thanks Kev. Excellent news...well, not if my family were hoping to see me over the next couple of months, but I'm sure they'll cope.
Couldn't open the DocX or word files on my Kindle so here goes.
Well done to all that entered and good luck.
All the fun of the fair
No
The Ged and Bozo dialogue grated and I couldn't get into it. I did
enjoy the scenes in the therapists office.
Are we not men
No
The odd funny ine but soul-less characters and pretty ridiculous
situations, plus it felt a lot like my own script.
Cliff and Elaine
Yes
Very funny, good gag rate and the characters felt familiar straight
away, will be interesting to see how you stretch it out into something
with legs but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Donnies Appraisal
No
The dialogue doesn't flow very well and Donnie grated on me very
quickly. I think the humour could do with being a lot more subtle
instead it read like a load of mixed twitter rants.
Expecting the worst
No
Not very funny, sadly. Fairly well written (though Abi's boss should
really have a name) but the characters felt fairly indistinguishable
and it just felt like two women talking about babies and men and not
much else, good last line though.
Fletcher Mallard
Maybe
I've warmed to Fletcher but the dialogue between Linda and Helen
didn't feel very natural and overly sentimental which pulled me out of
it quite a bit, some cracking jokes though.
Fourply
No
The banter between Martin and Sharon just seemed to go on forever and
the payoff was pretty weak. The bit where Sharon held out the toilet
raised a smile but not much else.
Giraffe
No
Not that funny and a bit scatty. The (unnamed) head waiter had all the
best lines which is probably a no-no for a non regular character when
you're trying to establish a sitcom.
Hilly Etcetera
No
I had to read it twice and I still can't decide if it's just really
leftfield and I don't get it or just not funny and incoherent. Not for
me I'm afraid.
I see a penguin
Maybe
Started really well but I found that the guest characters (Miriam and
Howard) were a lot funnier and more interesting than Becky and Orson,
could do with a rethink.
Judgement day
Maybe
Very funny, good gag rate but I'm not sure about the setting and what
would happen in other episodes. Also a few errors in the script where
you forgot to change the characters names in your edit (Travis is
called Trench in an action description and a character called Barry
who I assume is Neville gets a line out of the blue).
Mary Godmother
Maybe
Some good dialogue and jokes but the character of Tommy was
inconsistent, a moron one minute then cracking wise about the economy
the next.
Midnight Music
No
I didn't find it that funny to be honest, well written in places but
nothing grabbed my attention.
Nice
No
Pretty boring, I kept switching off and reading it on autopilot and
had to go back over a few times. Needs a hook and I might be able to
get into it.
No Hopers
No
Came across as a very crude inbetweeners rip off, not much to laugh at
but could just be my sense of humour isn't attuned.
Post docs
Maybe
Well written with a few laughs but I still feel the dialogue could be
a bit sharper given the material.
Poundland
No
Nothing very funny and was just an expositional "this is all the crazy
people that work here" episode with nothing else going on.
Second coming of Christ
No
God and Christ exchanging expletives for 5 minutes might be funny for
a one off sketch but its not a sitcom, or in this case, funny.
Sodding House
Maybe
Very funny in places but not a very coherent or exciting plot,
potential for a yes otherwise.
Spies like us
No
A few funny lines but the hole U/you misdirection just made me groan
everytime it was used and the plot felt very thin.
Stranded
No
Not funny, I'm sure the "The Raven" recital was hilarious in the
writers head but it left me cold and the payoff was a massive cop out.
Symposium
No
I just got bored reading the monologues, nothing was happening and
nothing I thought was funny.
The Boomerangers
No
The neverending expositional monologue put me off, felt like the story
had no drive and nothing made me laugh.
The Dating Coach
NO
Pretty scattered, the plot felt like an extended sketch more than a
sitcom premise.
The Incompetent Hustle
No
Nothing very funny, sometimes the dialogue just batted aimlessly back
and forth.
The Lord Mayor
Maybe
The situation's good and the characters are well drawn but some of the
dialogue and jokes aren't up to scratch
and there are a fair few
typos. A good edit and this could be great.
The Luke McArdle Sex Chronicles
Yes
My own script so why not.
The Ward
Yes
Very funny and fairly well written, plot moved along pretty well obly
problem was the pre-punchline at the end could have been a little
sharper.
Theatre
Yes
Very funny with well drawn, likeable monster characters, felt very
familiar from the off, just wish we had seen a mid season episode and
not what feels like a pilot.
Toys 4 Boyz
Maybe
Funny but feels like a one trick pony after a while, will be
interesting to see where another episode takes us.
Umbrellas of London
No
I just got bored fairly quickly as nothing seemed to be going on, needs some cohesion methinks.
Thinks: Should I have started a separate thread for The Sitcom Trials - So You Think You Write Funny? to avoid confusion with the online voting for the Bristol Sitcom Trials?
The Sitcom Mission doesn't have these problems.
[quote name="sean knight" post="951446" date="January 30 2013, 11:09 PM GMT"]Couldn't open the DocX or word files on my Kindle so here goes.
Well done to all that entered and good luck.
Toys 4 Boyz
Maybe
Funny but feels like a one trick pony after a while, will be
interesting to see where another episode takes us.
Cheers I am working on Episode 2 currently entitled ' Taking Stock'
Whilst Graham settles into his new job, Jason wants a way out. Both are visited by disturbed Stalker fans
from their hey day and its up to the new head of security to come to the rescue. But will that be Evan or Throgg?
Quote: Kev F @ January 30 2013, 7:25 PM GMTNo. We need to clarify these rules, which is a problem the stand up competition So You Think You're Funny also has. There it's a question of how long you've been gigging versus how many gigs you've done. With us this is really intended to make the competition fairer to new writers of sitcom, and I think sketches on Newsjack shouldn't rule anyone out.
Thanks for this Kev. It would be useful to get this in the rules in a wording that works, i.e. it isn't just Newsjack but other shows, that may be non-com or com. It seems like the intention is to promote new sitcom talent, and to me it seems the word "sitcom" is as important as the word "new".
*the word "talent" may be debated later.
Almost done reading through the scripts for Sitcom Trials Bristol - will post up on Sitsvac later. Was this ST comp poo-themed by any chance? The number of scripts with strains and splashes makes me think Armitage Shanks will make a killing with props this month.
Happy Friday, peeps.
Alan
A CULT SHOW
-- this is very good. Characters are excellent, lots of conflict and tension, all of them are funny. Good gags also. Great setup. I liked it a lot. Equal best one here in my opinion. Definitely YES.
ALL THE FUN OF THE FAIR
-- Good use of scenes and characters are distinct. Some funny gags but not nearly enough for the length of the script. Feels way too long but decent so MAYBE
ARE WE NOT MEN?
-- this is not bad after a very confusing first page. Not brilliant but uses scenes properly and there are quite a few good gags in it. Characters are distinct and I especially liked the call back to Womanella and the last line is just so how sitcoms end! Would probably be quite enjoyable in performance so YES
CLIFF & ELAINE FALL OUT
-- There were a few good lines and I did laugh, but two people having a chat in a bunker is not a sitcom to me. Where's the action? What's happening? It's just banter and it needs a plot that generates some conflict or tension and thus generates humour. You perk up when the radio comes on or the knock at the door, but there's nothing to grab the interest in between. NO.
DONNIE'S APPRAISAL
-- Good that scenes are used, unlike a lot of the other scripts. But the lines are way too long and it was taking a long time for stuff to pass. Give Donnie his appraisal, then have him trying to resolve his issues (with hilarious consequences), then failing a reappraisal or something. Not just talking about it. Also, there aren't any consequences to Donnie's arrogance and lying. We need to see his comeuppance. It just felt like a lot more should happen. NO.
EXPECTING THE WORST
-- Just one big, long, meandering conversation without any scenes or real plot. Characters sound exactly alike to me and I couldn't differentiate them. Nothing really happens and I lost interest quite early on. Not my thing at all. NO.
FLETCHERMALLARD.
-- This is quite well constructed, and there are a lot of funny lines but the dialogue drags quite a bit in places and needs cutting. Characters are not too bad, if a little samey. I started to lose interest when Father Casey turned and lost the plot from there on in. NO.
FOURPLY (YOU KILLED MY CAT) - DON'T GET UP
-- Good start with funny characters showing conflict/tension, but then it's just a long conversation between them and feelsl like it could have done with a few scenes rather than just two. The, quite literal, toilet humour did nothing for me, I'm afraid. NO.
GIRAFFE
-- I have to say I like the characters, though they could be a bit more distinguishable. Except the 'FUCK' guy; he's good. The dialogue needs work though and not all the gags hit home. Very long too. That said, certainly good enough for a MAYBE.
HILLY ETCETERA.
-- what actor is going to want to play a non-speaking role in a non-paying sitcom showcase? Try to give everyone a decent role to play. I read this twice and still not sure what's happening. Couldn't get into it I'm afraid and was completely lost. NO.
I SEE A PENGUIN
-- I quite liked this. Certainly the concept. Good characterisation, gags need some work and it's very stage-y, I think. That said, still a YES.
IN WITH THE NEW
-- if it's all based in an office, why are all the characters the same age? Make some of them 50s, 40s -that'll generate more conflict and tension and thus comedy. Characterisation is quite good but it's two guys talking for the first ten pages, with no plot to speak of. It's WAY too wordy though. NO
JUDGEMENT DAY
-- rather than them being mates, why not start in the help group for people worrying about the upcoming apocalypse? That would frame it better, I reckon. Quite funny, but in need of a rewrite so it's more focused. Characters need to be more distinct, I would say. NO.
KING CHICKEN AND THE NING NINGS
-- though the x position is quite a good gag, I would start with the 'abort the mission' bit as that sets the time rather well. If you're going to reference the audience, I think you should give them a role: geriatric thieves and robbers the earth no longer required or something. I'd find it funnier if they were solely setting up intergalactic chicken franchises to actually looking for the Heffnium. There's a lot of dialogue that needs cutting so we can get on with the plot. Feels really long too; way longer than 10 minutes. All adds up to a NO, but I'd be interested in a rewrite.
MAC BREATH
-- Characters are indistinct and there's not much plot. The dialogue is a bit too quick, if anything! The interesting bit to me was the wailing and banging ghost story, followed by wailing and banging. Why not put that at the start and have a couple of other 'incidents' to grow the tension and provide more comedy. I was, however, very entertained (and informed) by the many different ways there are to spell 'electrician' 
As it stands, NO.
MARY GODMOTHER
-- mine so YES
MIDNIGHT MUSIC
--Needs to start later on. Characters quite good though some sound a bit the same. Good gags. Funny. YES
NICE
-- the bodysnatchers plot needs to be introduced right at the beginning as it sort of appears from nowhere and that is kind of the plot. Bit too much banter where I couldn't really figure out what was happening. The characters are okay but need a bit of work both with differentiating them and getting me to really empathise with them. Sebastian needs to be an out-there character for that to work properly. Also, the organ snatching needs to be set up earlier -- could that be the first scene? The 'Ben/Agatha' fawning scene especially needs gagging up. But the main thing is that it seems unfocused; like there are three episodes going on at once. Concentrate on the organ-snatching and leave the figurines and fitness bits till other episodes. Needs work, but there are scenes, gags and keeps the dialogue short and snappy. MAYBE .
NO-HOPERS
-- couldn't really distinguish between the characters, they need to be made more distinct. Also didn't know what the plot was supposed to be in this one. I think you've got your work cut out as The Inbetweeners have done the 6th form thing in a better way. NO
NOT BOOK SMART - THE DATE
-- just one long scene with not much happening. Felt more like a one act play than sitcom. Nothing there to hook me in either plot- or character-wise. Characters sounded a bit samey also and need to be more distinct. NO.
OUT OF IDEAS
-- Good start. Like the beginning. Isn't it funnier if the character WAS called 'Pasty'? Could do with breaking up a lot of the longer paragraphs with some gags from the other characters but it is funny and I like a lot of the jokes. The alien needs to be introduced earlier I would say, masquerading as a 'normal'. I like the character relationships and it's far from perfect, mainly as the plot took ages to get going so would be interested in a 'non-first' episode to see how that goes and I didn't like the ending, so on the whole MAYBE.
POSTDOCS_BIOHAZARD
-- didn't really like the resolution, but perhaps it's supposed to be silly like that and just not for me. Felt like it needed a lot more gags and the plot sort of came from nowhere. Might be better if he was also expecting a package himself, there was a mix-up and he opened it accidentally. 'Laziness' felt a really weak out at the end. NO.
POUNDLAND
-- decent characterization and quite liked the setup. Quite a few good gags at the beginning. Didn't like the ending how everything just fell out cos she was drunk; can't she get drunk because of some character flaw? Also, why did Ray suddenly come out as gay in the same scene. Shows potential but needs a lot more work so NO. (It must be said that the constant you're/your mix-ups are REALLY irritating after a while.)
SECOND COMING OF CHRIST
-- I like the setup and it is a great idea but I didn't think the plot was up to much to be honest. Satan felt a bit inconsistent, as a sort of naughty mate for most of it, then an evil supervillain at the end. Not for me, NO.
SODDING HOUSE
-- Very good characterisation. Distinct voices that seem to know their place. Funny too. It's all a bit 'episode 1' though; would be interesting to see a different episode where everything isn't being set up. That said, probably good enough for a YES.
SPIES LIKE US
-- I liked this. Very good characterisation, good gags, has a plot of sorts. Ending is a bit Scooby Doo but a longer version would probably sort that. YES from me.
STRANDED
-- Confused me a bit. This is too much of a one-act stage play to be a sitcom. Needs a lot more gags. I was more interested in the poem recital to be honest. Characters aren't that distinct from each other, so I'd work on that a bit; maybe make one of them an idiot-savant, the other common sense-laden. Something that causes conflict and tension between the two of them. Really didn't get the woman bit and the narrator sounded like Treguard from 'Knightmare' to me (which is neither here nor there, to be honest). Needs work so NO.
SYMPOSIUM
-- Immediate thought was some guys in a pub basically doing a stand-up routine masquerading as a sitcom, which unfortunately means there isn't a plot happening and I lost interest very quickly. Not a big fan of this talking about sex, as I think it's been done to death, so it's probably not for me. Maybe I'm too old for this. The characters don't seem very distinct. Would be good if they had differing personalities/viewpoints on life; the stupid one (good for exposition), the brainy, geeky one with his long words that leave everyone confused, the permanently-drunk one (which would give a good 'left-field' skew on life) and the one who always wears shorts. Create a bit of tension and conflict and thus generate some comedy. NO.
THE BOOMERANGERS
-- Good start. I'm interested straight away with the cooking and the dancing. WAY too much exposition in the first few pages, hammering home what happened. Can't we find all this info out some other way? Discussion with someone? Some events letting us in on stuff? Slowly letting on through a discussion with the chefs via a recipe? Discussing it out loud feels a bit of a cheat. Also exposition in the stage directions: how are the audience going to find out the daughter left home six months ago? It takes a LONG time to figure out why she's home from university. In fact, it all degenerates into just a long exchange between the two characters with nothing actually happening, which is very disappointing after a positive start. The lodger turns up but it's too little too late. Script needs to get on with it and show us the plot. Needs a big rewrite. NO.
THE DATING COACH
-- Might work better if we start towards the end of George's session rather than the beginning, and we find out who he is later on rather than blurting it out straight away. I get the characters straight away and I like Antivirgin. Actual use of scenes (which has been rare so far in the scripts). I think if you make Antivirgin one of these people who really doesn't care about the finances, rather than slightly worried about them, it might work better. Make him completely flippant about the whole finance thing as though 'the important thing is the progress they've made!'. It is funny and I like the little touches like Gilbert coming in/going out/coming in. I'm confused about how Gilbert has worked for him for 3 years but they've never met before. Ending seems very rushed and needs work so MAYBE from me.
THE INCOMPETENT HUSTLE
-- technical note: try avoid using characters whose first initial is the same. People reading the script have to stop and think about who is saying what and it stops the flow and makes a script difficult to read. This one reads like a first draft. Characterisation of the main two is alright, the rest aren't as believable. It's not brilliant but it does have a plot of sorts, though the strepsil addiction needs to come or early on rather than just appear at the end. Needs a lot of work so NO.
THE LORD MAYOR
-- Characterisation is not bad. Should probably have another scene with his son halfway through. Quite a slow pace and felt like it was just getting going when it ended, so NO.
THE LUKE MCARDLE SEX CHRONICLES
-- Dialogue good here. No long paragraphs and it zips along because of that. Characterisation set up with minimum of fuss and very little exposition: showing not telling, which is excellent. And THERE IS A PLOT! Which so many scripts here are missing. I snorted with laughter at one point. Very well put together. YES.
THE REGULARS
-- It's just three guys chatting in a bush! Where are the scenes? Where's the action? It starts quite well too, with the 'let's catch the batman' vibe and then disappointingly we're not taken on any journey whatsoever. Not my kind of thing at all. NO.
THE SOCIAL COMMITTEE
-- Felix Aswad could well be one of the great sitcom names! Can the sitcom live up to this promise? I'm not going to say it's unstageable, as the yellow brick road and the aeroplane with the banner flying behind do all that for me. I did laugh at Clayton's entrance. That was excellent. Some of the lines are very long and could do with being broken up with gags. For some reason, I saw Felix as someone who would only ever converse exclusively in rhyme. There's not really a plot, as it's a setup episode, but it's very funny, which is the main thing. YES.
THE WARD
-- Be nice if the two women were doing something whilst they were talking, helping set the scene for the ward but at least something is happening. There is a plot and the characterisation is quite good, especially Peterson. Long paragraphs need breaking up with more gags as, in points, it's quite dry. Bit of a "stage-y" ending for me, so MAYBE.
THEATRE
-- I like this. It's very funny and the characters are very good. To be honest, you won me over with Mr Willifiddle, but good luck trying to get an actor to play him having his leg cut into then broken. Joint best sitcom in this selection. YES.
TOYS 4 BOYZ
-- Something about this is good. I think it's the dialogue: pretty sparky. Some of the characterisation is alright as well, Jason and Graham in particular. There doesn't appear to be any plot or much action though, just dialogue, so it's just some people bantering in a room, which does not a sitcom make. NO.
UMBRELLAS OF LONDON
-- Rather than telling us that Geoffrey is chastised by these youths, can't that happen in the first scene? That would give us a bit of action/tension/conflict. Talking about it in retrospect seems a bit boring. It's very wordy and needs a good edit. Why does Katie turn up on page six? If she turned up right at the beginning, it'd set up the characters, their jobs, etc without all the explanation leading up to this. In fact, the whole thing needs a reorganisation I would say. Start with Geoff's mockney accent for the tour platter with Katie pretending to be one of the tourers, they get sidetracked by the youths, go from there. Bit more action, bit less 'talk-y'. Characters are quite good and distinct. And I did very much like the idea that he unmasks a different person as Jack the Ripper each tour -- that should come out right at the beginning and be 'his thing'. MAYBE.
Quote: swerytd @ February 1 2013, 9:06 PM GMTTHEATRE
...good luck trying to get an actor to play him having his leg cut into then broken...
I am counting on there being a lot peg-legged sailors in Bristol just returned from the Napoleonic wars looking for acting jobs...
Thanks for the vote!
Cheers,
Andrew
A Cult Show. Maybe.
It's ok, but for me there's too much focus on the cult itself and not much else. Feels a bit one-dimensional. I would like to know more about the characters and their background. It reads like a long sketch.
All the Fun of the Fair. No.
I like the situation and there are a few good jokes, but I think scene 2 would be difficult on stage. Also, I know it sounds picky, but a local paper wouldn't pay money for a story. That's national news territory. Ged's unsympathetic character puts me off too.
Are We Not Men? Yes.
My favourite. I laughed more at this script than any of the others. Hilarious, although I suspect the author was making a point rather than seriously considering anything beyond what it is.
Cliff & Elaine Fall Out. Yes.
I particularly like the fact it doesn't end on a false alarm, which would have been lazy. Nice and contained - literally - and some good laughs, although maybe could have done with a few more.
Donnie's Appraisal. No.
The characters don't stand out. The conversation with the boss is unrealistic as well. I like the idea of a profoundly delusional person going about things, but Donnie is a very unsympathetic character. Jimmy is not well defined.
Expecting the Worst. No.
Got confused by this one. Read it twice and still not clear about why Abi had Laura's boyf arrested. Or why Laura doesn't react much to this, or even seems surprised when she speaks to him and he's in a police station. Afraid I didn't laugh much either.
Fletcher Mallard. Yes.
It's mine
Fourply. No.
Jokes felt forced (no pun intended). Very long first scene with little development of plot. Starts off grounded in reality but then there's a hugely bizarre ending.
Giraffe. No.
Slow to start. Why doesn't Joel want to eat at the restaurant? One or two good lines, but quite a few redundant lines too and it's slow-going. I'm afraid I found the giraffe references a bit tedious by the end too. Sorry.
Hilly Etcetera. No.
Too many characters, perhaps? Two non-speaking parts as well - would actors want to bother doing them? There seemed like there were a fair few scene changes too, not sure it would work on a stage. I like surreal stuff, but this seemed surreal in a very... er, surreal way and I didn't laugh much.
I See a Penguin. No.
The characters weren't very well developed, and the ending seemed a bit flat. Starts off more like a sketch, rather than a sit-com.
In With the New. No.
Slow to start. Lacked funny lines. The dialogue gets bogged down and doesn't progress the plot. It's just two blokes talking to each other and showing little of themselves, or forcing the plot onwards.
Judgement Day. No.
Don't know who these characters are. The paedo joke doesn't seem to fit in. I thought it was a decent idea but it just concentrated mostly on characters talking about sex.
King Chicken and the Ning Nings. No.
A bit too much sci-fi for me. Didn't make me laugh out loud like this writer's other script. I'm not a fan of audience participation either...
Mac Breath. No.
I didn't learn much about the characters. Things seemed to pick up a bit on page 7 with the story about the apartments but there weren't enough jokes for me overall.
Mary Godmother. Maybe.
There are some good lines, and I like the idea of the mafia lamenting how big business is better at crime than they are. The grammar jokes are good, but I felt they should have come from just one character, even if two of them are brighter than the rest. However, i'm almost mafia-ed out with films and TV prog and I think the characters (although not Mary's) should be different from the stock characters you get in every TV and film to make it really stand out.
Midnight Music. Maybe.
The characters are distinct and it reads well, but the problem was I didn't care enough about the 'situation'. That said, it didn't seem to fall into many of the traps that other scripts do.
Nice. Maybe.
It didn't make me laugh, apart from the 'mad pianist' line. It seemed a bit obvious, however I liked how the last scene referred back to the first scene.
No-Hopers. No.
There wasn't any differentiation between characters and the dialogue involving the teacher was unrealistic. I'm afraid I didn't laugh either.
Not Book Smart. No.
Starts promisingly and then gets bogged down in anal sex. And not in a good way...There's an awful lot of talk about the date, which is the plot, but we weren't shown what happens on the date.
Out of Ideas. Yes.
Made me laugh out loud, especially the 'poor swines' line. Could see this working well on stage. I liked Delta's turn to the audience to provide a conspicuous recap.
Postdocs. No.
For me it ends on a damp squib. There are some good laughs at the beginning but I thought overall I didn't really learn a lot about the characters.
Poundland. No.
Becky didn't seem to match her character description. The gay man who's pretending not to be gay is a bit ham-fisted.
Second Coming of Christ. No.
There's a lot of talking about stuff without enough stuff actually happening. Satan seemed one-dimensional too.
Sodding House. Yes.
It probably shouldn't, but the 'sodding' jokes made me smile all the way through, like 'Darling' did in Blackadder Goes Forth. Nice story. However, I think the beginning/intro is too long and all the info needs to be supplied quicker and more cleverly.
Spies Like Us. No.
Struggled to believe someone like Darren Rock works in the intelligence services, even if that is the joke. And we don't get to know the characters either. Felt like a succession of one-liner gags, or feed lines for jokes.
Stranded. No.
Slow starting. Then does it turn into a sketch? What's the difference between Eaton and James? Reading it felt a bit like being in a dream, which can be a plus, but it didn't work for me this time.
Symposium. No.
I don't think a 10-minute script can sustain two unlikable characters in Nick and Jacob. Also, there was no plot and little characterisation and it doesn't develop in any way.
The Boomerangers. No.
The change in the mother's mood at the very beginning made me snigger, but then she kept saying "bugger and shit" at odd moments. There was no cliff hanger, or plot.
The Dating Coach. Maybe
This might go down well in a pub. The Gilbert interview was good. Scene 1 felt formulaic and a bit obvious, but the script got better as it went on.
The Incompetent Hustle. No.
A lot of stage instructions about desks. Not sure if this would work on stage in such a short set. And how do you fast forward five minutes on stage?! It had a weak ending.
The Lord Mayor. No.
A lot of scene changes again for a very short comedy. Jokes were a little weak too. Broad brush strokes with no subtlety of character.
The Luke Mcardle Sex Chronicles. No.
I am obviously missing something. Why does Luke want to find himself a straight man, when presumably the basic requirement is that Luke would be gay in order to do this, even if that is stretching credibility? But he's not gay! (is he?)
The Regulars. Maybe.
Straight into the plot, which is good. I think some of the jokes need to be improved/tightened and maybe a little more differentiation of the characters but I enjoyed reading it. A bit like Last of the Summer Late Night Wine, or something.
The Social Committee. No.
Opening scene is going to a be a tad difficult to pull off on a stage, isn't it? Scene two is very funny. But there's no cliff hanger.
The Ward. No.
Shades of the opening scene of The Office. Scene two had a lot of talking and not much showing. I'm afraid I didn't laugh and I think it needs trimming and tightening up.
Theatre. Yes.
Distinct characters, funny lines, although there was a little too much reliance on the well-trodden "Surely women aren't bally well equal to men?" thing.
Toys4Boyz. No.
Too much exposition and not much plot development. Needs to get to the store opening a lot quicker.
Umbrellas for London. Maybe.
Gentle. Not much of a cliffhanger. Marysia could be better developed. Geoffrey's character is much more developed than the other two's.
Here are the scores from the Evan jury. If anyone has any questions or points they'd like me to go over in more detail I'm happy to oblige. Just send me a private message.
One thing I would like to mention is that with nearly 40 scripts to read, those writers who took the trouble to make things easy for the reader have my undying love. Some scripts had more stage directions and character profiles than dialogue, and this is quite simply a pain in the arse to read. Often I skipped the character profiles and stage directions entirely and just read the dialogue.
A Cult -- The shit-smeared opening left a bad taste in my mouth. Think of the poor Prop Manager! NO.
All the fun of the fair. Too many characters, and too much stuff going on to follow. Might work if the idea had more room to breathe, but as it is, NO.
Are We Not Men? -- Didn't feel very original and a lot of the jokes seemed too contrived--Womanetta? I did like the taps though. MAYBE.
Cliff and Elaine: Original idea for a sitcom, but the plot didn't go anywhere until right at the very end. NO.
Donnie: The main character felt too unbelievably twattish. NO.
Expecting the worst: Too much talk and not enough tension. NO.
FletcherMallard: I liked the main character, even if the military arse is a bit of a well-worn stereotype. But I didn't buy his reaction to illness. Someone who'd been in the army and seen real action would be more likely to laugh off serious illnesses than overstate minor ones. That said, it's still got a lot going for it. YES.
Fourply: Took too long to get going. NO.
Giraffe: Good, solid writing here. The introduction of characters is handled well and the dialogue is witty. YES.
Hillyecetera: Any script featuring someone's eye being licked by a curry-eater is something I'm definitely going to get behind. YES.
I See a Penguin: This is mine. I hope it has a good future. YES.
In With the New: Format made it difficult to read. NO.
Judgement Day: Too much talk with no forward motion. NO.
King Chicken: Characters didn't grab me. As a sci-fi spoof if didn't offer anything really different to Red Dwarf or Futurama. NO.
Mac Breath: I found it difficult to differentiate the characters. The plot didn't go anywhere for too long. NO.
Mary Godmother: I didn't like the wordplay, which detracted from the characters rather than added to it. Nor did the stereotypical mafia dialogue tropes help. I'd rather see this done a little more realistically with English mobsters. But the idea was good. Am I right into thinking this was made into a sketch by "Breaking Bad" productions. I seem to remember seeing something along these lines. Anyway. MAYBE.
Midnight Music: This felt quite fresh and the writer has obviously put in an effort to make things easy for the reader. Good writing based around characters that did things and stood out. YES.
Nice: Too much talk with no tension, stuff that happened before the present moment. NO.
No-Hopers: Felt like a sketch rather than a sitcom. Didn't find the characters interesting.NO.
Not Book Smart: Too many stage directions getting in the way of things. Difficult to follow. My advice is to let the dialogue do more of the work. NO.
Out of Ideas: Too much stage direction. Didn't grab my interest. NO.
Post-Docs-- Excellent plotting and strong characterisation. Easily, YES.
Poundland: Good start and some funny situations. Felt a little like another retread of The Office at times and "He turns out to be Gay" may have been a good enough plot twist for Benny Hill but not in this day and age. That aside I think the writing is good. Yes.
Second Coming of Christ: The opening wasn't very strong and the characters didn't grab my interest. Very little forward momentum to the dialogue. No.
Sodding House: Opening line was too long and expositioney. Nanny felt like a character from Blackadder. NO.
Spies Like Us: Didn't grab my attention. Opening dialogue didn't really seem to be going anywhere. NO.
Stranded: Actually could be a very good idea for a sitcom, but this execution doesn't do it justice. Lots of talking with nothing actually moving the story forward. NO.
Symposium: A conversation is not the same as a plot. Not enough ideas here. NO.
The Boomerangers: What the hell is going on? If it's just the mother talking why do you keep breaking up the dialogue? Or is she talking with someone else but you made a mistake with the character name? NO.
The Dating Coach: A good idea for a sitcom here, but the execution doesn't do it justice. First, calling the main character "Antivirgin" has the effect of constantly tripping up the eye, making it difficult to read. Also the fact that he's so crap means it's hard to suspend disbelief. NO.
The Incompetent Hustle: The title reveals the tendency for "on the nose" writing which robs the script of tension and sparkle. NO.
The Lord Mayor: Uploaded after the deadline according to the yahoo groups info. NO.
Luke McArdle Sex Chronicles: Didn't seem to be an actual premise to this one. NO.
The Regulars: Dialogue felt awkward, and difficult to read because of the format. Didn't really care about the characters. NO.
The Social Committee: The dialogue seemed good, but the constant stage directions appearing all the f**king time pissed me off so I stopped reading. Let the dialogue do the work. NO.
The Ward: Started off okay, though I think the scene could have been shorter, but then lost wind with the next scene where things felt too expositioney. NO.
Theatre: Don't know if this would have the legs for a sitcom, but certainly works well as a one-off. The dialogue was hilarious in places, but overlong in others and again too many stage directions for easy reading. Nevertheless, YES.
Toyz 4 Boyz. The manager introducing himself to his own staff as the manager felt unrealistic. The subsequent scene tries to do too much and didn't hold my interest. NO.
Umbrellas of London: Best title of the bunch, but the opening scene was confusing to read and lacked punch. NO.