Quote: Hardcorr @ February 12, 2008, 6:57 AM
I agree, my last rejection was a sitcom parody of a Soap. I called it "Depression street". Needless to say, they didn't even mention the awful name, they said it was because of too many characters.
Production companies have to pay each of the actors, and the crew, and themselves, as well as make the show. So the less expenses, the more feasible it will be to make/cash to go round/likely it will be picked up.
They told me it had good gags and a good pace but I was gutted as I'd been working on it for ages. So I learned for the next time. The next time being this time. Fingers crossed!
DAVID BUSSEL YOUR SITE IS AWESOME. I RECOMMEND IT TO EVERYONE!!!
Unless you're Harry Hill, in which case it gets snapped up.
Which I'm glad about, as HH is brilliant.
Quote: catskillz @ February 12, 2008, 2:41 PM
Well, I must admit, you lot have got me a bit worried now, about having too many characters. The thing is, a lot of them are only appearing for a short time in each episode, and others are only appearing in one episode, so I don't think the number of characters will be as much of a problem as you think.
Anyway, don't forget those successful shows that have large numbers of characters, e.g. Alan Partridge, Scrubs, Arrested Development, and 30 Rock.
The Simpsons is another, but I doubt a sitcom with 35 regular or semi-regular characters will ever happen.
Sitcoms in the states have more cash and more episodes so a show like, I don't, know, Friends, can have mums and dads and cousins in it. But a 6 part UK show, no I doubt it.
Back on topic though - naming sitcoms is very hard, but enjoyable when you get what you think is a good title. I spend DAYS researching obscure slang about the sitcom subject and came up with a brilliant title . . . Then got told to change the location, the title had to change.