Quote: chipolata @ July 2 2013, 10:16 AM BST

I agree with your broad thrusting, Marc, (although I've yet to be convinced that Warburton is some great comedy writer and his vision was anything to get excited about). But what's your solution? Make producers like university professors and give them tenure?

View original

Yup like the old BBC... Barry Took let Monty P have their head because there was a slot to fill - that was all. At the moment the system for comedy and drama internally is to design camels for Epson.

The bottom line is that a scheme designed to find new talent has ended up with the talent declaring that they will never write another comedy again.

What a disaster!

Perhaps 'lessons can be learned'.....

Quote: Frantically @ July 2 2013, 7:31 AM BST

Yes, that helped clear up my misunderstanding - cheers for that Aaron.

I was going to respond to your other point - but with lines like "...It's not a point it's a word..." and "...It's a collaboration if it is a 'collaboration' ... " maybe it's best I wait for the Aaron version.

Hell, it may turn out I agree with you

View original

His other point, I think, is that although in some cases an actor/performer may have a heavy hand in crafting the comedy and/or its characters in the first place - as was the case with Hancock - the writers are the day-to-day creatives.

Actors bring the world to life, whilst it is (or was, traditionally) the job of the executives, producers, etc, to facilitate the idea in its transition from page to screen. The literal 'business' side of showbusiness, if you will.

Increasingly over the last 10-15 years, however, the lines have become very blurred. Whilst actors and writers still fulfill the same roles, for various reasons executives are now creeping into the creative process.

I'd equate it to the writer being a sculptor, and the executives museum curators. Their role should be to take the sculpture and find a way to exhibit it to its best advantage - not to begin remoulding it, hacking off a little bit on one side and an outward-stretched leg on the other, just to fit it through a narrower doorway.

Quote: Aaron @ July 2 2013, 1:28 PM BST

I'd equate it to the writer being a sculptor...

View original

I wondered why I keep feeling there's a ghost behind me as I type.

(Mustn't say these things out loud. Mustn't say these things out loud.)

Also the nature of collaboration meaning a mutually supportive process.

Quote: Aaron @ July 2 2013, 1:28 PM BST

His other point, I think, is that although in some cases an actor/performer may have a heavy hand in crafting the comedy and/or its characters in the first place - as was the case with Hancock - the writers are the day-to-day creatives.

Actors bring the world to life, whilst it is (or was, traditionally) the job of the executives, producers, etc, to facilitate the idea in its transition from page to screen. The literal 'business' side of showbusiness, if you will.

Increasingly over the last 10-15 years, however, the lines have become very blurred. Whilst actors and writers still fulfill the same roles, for various reasons executives are now creeping into the creative process.

I'd equate it to the writer being a sculptor, and the executives museum curators. Their role should be to take the sculpture and find a way to exhibit it to its best advantage - not to begin remoulding it, hacking off a little bit on one side and an outward-stretched leg on the other, just to fit it through a narrower doorway.

View original

Blimey! I predict seeing Aaron on the panel of "Question Time" by this time next year.

Quote: Marc P @ July 2 2013, 1:40 PM BST

Also the nature of collaboration meaning a mutually supportive process.

View original

Indeed. Supportive in defined but separate and complementary roles, not all sticking an oar in to the same part of the process. Too many cooks and all that.

Absolutely.

Quote: George Kaplan @ July 2 2013, 1:41 PM BST

Blimey! I predict seeing Aaron on the panel of "Question Time" by this time next year.

View original

Ball bags!

Your response, please Aaron...

Quote: Aaron @ July 2 2013, 1:28 PM BST

I'd equate it to the writer being a sculptor, and the executives museum curators. Their role should be to take the sculpture and find a way to exhibit it to its best advantage - not to begin remoulding it, hacking off a little bit on one side and an outward-stretched leg on the other, just to fit it through a narrower doorway.

View original

Mmm. Although the curator's rightly going to be in trouble if the doorframe of the venerable old building gets damaged by an item he's commissioned.

Lots of execs (most, in my limited experience) have strong production backgrounds. They've usually been involved in comedy for a number of years on a number of shows, so they know what they're talking about. They're not pencil pushers and their job isn't just to enable the many thousands of unrecognised genuises (who are apparently out there) to save television, it's to make good programs. It doesn't always work, but it's not exactly a mature response to throw your toys out of the pram and denounce television forever when your first pilot fails. Like most things in life, there's a learning curve, and you have to respect that other, more experienced people aren't necessarily going to give you autonomy if they think you're going wrong.

In any case, shouldn't the sculpture be in an art gallery? What's the museum curator doing commissioning modern art? He sounds incompetent.

I think you've lost the Question Time gig there, Aaron. Maybe a quicker response?

I think Aaron has made his point.

Wouldn't wash with Question Time, though, would it? Answer one question and bugger off?

Quote: MCharsley @ July 3 2013, 10:46 AM BST

Mmm. Although the curator's rightly going to be in trouble if the doorframe of the venerable old building gets damaged by an item he's commissioned.

Lots of execs (most, in my limited experience) have strong production backgrounds. They've usually been involved in comedy for a number of years on a number of shows, so they know what they're talking about. They're not pencil pushers and their job isn't just to enable the many thousands of unrecognised genuises (who are apparently out there) to save television, it's to make good programs. It doesn't always work, but it's not exactly a mature response to throw your toys out of the pram and denounce television forever when your first pilot fails. Like most things in life, there's a learning curve, and you have to respect that other, more experienced people aren't necessarily going to give you autonomy if they think you're going wrong.

In any case, shouldn't the sculpture be in an art gallery? What's the museum curator doing commissioning modern art? He sounds incompetent.

View original

I must admit I very much had British Museum kind of ancient sculpture in mind, not none of that modern art poncery. But either way, gallery, museum, same difference. Showing shit off.

All I have to add is that just because someone has been in the business a while, even if they've good shows to their name, it doesn't mean they're necessarily any good themselves, or will offer good advice to a specific writer on a specific project.

I take it back. Aaron would be better than Russell the Brand on Question Time.

Probably that's why writing in partnerships works so well. The buck doesn't stop at one person, but nor is the programme being written by a committee.