Close
Writersroom response
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, silentbob69 said:
HI
This is my first post.
I recently submitted a script to the Writersroom. It was my first ever submission to anyone and I got a feedback letter (they did read the full script so I suppose that is a plus) but some of the feedback was a bit baffling.
The script was a random episode not the pilot (should I have sent that in?).
The feedback said the script was basically a character study and the humour functions as a result of the interplay between the two main characters who are an odd couple. They share a course irreverent humour but there is little to differentiate between the two and the reader doesn't understand where any conflict would come from.
The entire episode is all about the conflict between them so I'm not sure what to make of that.
There is also mention that the characters don't develop over the course of the episode.
This is also baffling as how does any character change over the course of one episode of any sitcom? Does Robert Lyndsays character change that much in 30 minutes. Does Brian Potter change that much over 30 minutes. I would argue that some of the characters in Two Pints haven't progressed at all across all the series', only the circumstances change. The Green Wing had no character development whatsoever, but that didn't make any difference to the program.
I just can't get my head around how a character can go through such a transformation in 30 pages.
Has anyone else had any feedback like this and can they give me any tips on what to do next.
The feedback also makes comment that the actual episode I sent doesn't predominantly take place in the actual arena that the sitcom is set in (it didn't it was a kind of 'road trip' episode). So I am thinking of sending them the pilot one with all the characters in instead of the two who are predominantly in the episode.
The Writersroom says that they are just looking for someone who can write funny but the feedback doesnt actually state whether any of it was funny or not, but the whole thing was read so I'm (hopefully) assuming that there was some 'funny' in there.
Is it at least something that the whole thing was read or am I right to feel a bit deflated?
Any respones for a noob would be great.
Thanks
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, sootyj said:
Firstly you were write to write an none pilot episode.
Also welcome to the world of the script reader, they can be mysterious.
Sitcoms happen in Gorundhog day style cycles, every day the same as the last.
Basil Fawlty may not change from episode to episode, but he has the same cycle of growth each episode.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, silentbob69 said:
That's what I thought so it seems nigh on impossible to impress someone who thinks that the characters must go on some epic change.
The reader kept mentioning 'The pilot episode you have sent'. I made it clear on the letter it wasn't the pilot.
Is it something for them to have read the full thing?
I'm thinking of sending in another one.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, zooo said:
I think it's pretty rare for them to send anything back... isn't it?
I've not had experience personally, but that's the impression I get.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, sootyj said:
You got through 2 stages to get to that stage, it's pretty succesful.
Pretty it up, follow their advise, and try production companies.
Writer's room green light a tiny fraction of the scripts they get sent.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, silentbob69 said:
Thanks for all the responses.
I've written about seven episodes over the last couple of months in my spare time (mainly just for myself to see if I could do it)
Think I'll check through one of them and send another in and check out the production companies on the other threads.
One thing that made me laugh was that she said the characters had a 'coarse, irreverent humour'
Course!! This from the company that made Bottom, The League Of Gentlemen, and currently Two Pints...Those shows would be handicapped without the coarse humour (although I hate Two Pints and can't believe it has been on so long)
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, SlagA said:
If you resubmit it to the Writers' Room then change the title, they put it on a database and won't read rewrites or other episodes unless they request it. As far as my understanding goes. I may stand corrected, as is the norm. 
The Beeb was the home of dangerous humour for so long. The flagship of new comedy. I'm waiting for a return to that ethos. 
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, sootyj said:
Seriously though try prodcos, it's where BBC get's most of it's stuff from any way.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, silentbob69 said:
What do you think is the best ones to send to?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
Quote: silentbob69 @ May 11 2008, 12:38 PM BSTWhat do you think is the best ones to send to?
View original
Any and all, dont limit yourself; get your script out there and circulating. The writersroom is a complete waste of time.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Perry Nium said:
"Character development" - it's an oft-bandied about term but it can mean many different things. Basically, you're right in as much as obviously you can't have a character's personality change over the course of an episode, that would be just stupid and if that's what the reader is suggesting then he/she's an idiot.
But what you can do is an emotional change, so your character starts out sad and end up happy, starts out calm and ends up angry etc. The point of doing this is that it subconsciously hooks the reader / viewer into the story. Humans are always interested in other humans' emotions and if you can get emotional swings into your script, as opposed to, for instance, just having them angry and arguing with each other constantly, then the piece always seems far more balanced and it forces you to keep turning the page.
If you make your character go on some sort of journey, then return him to the status quo, you'll have a pleasing story.
Or a crap 3 chord rock band.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Croydesponger said:
My sympathies! Sounds very similar feedback to the first thing I subbed. Some positive elements but fairly confusing comments about how (in their view) it needed improving. I'm sure we would all be happy to improve stuff IF they would accept re-writes! Treat it as a learning exercise and hit them with something else so that when they say 'what else you got?' you can dig out the re-write.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, bushbaby said:
It is a step forward, one usually gets...We can't use the script at this time.yours sincerely
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, sootyj said:
Watch TV check out the names of the companies that you like, and then contact them. I couldn't recommend any specific ones they're all different.
And like I say on character development think Ground Hog, the same pattern of character development repeated each episode.
There's a thread somewhere here with some tips on that.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Godot Taxis said:
Quote: Croydesponger @ May 11 2008, 3:48 PM BSTMy sympathies! Sounds very similar feedback to the first thing I subbed. Some positive elements but fairly confusing comments about how (in their view) it needed improving. I'm sure we would all be happy to improve stuff IF they would accept re-writes! Treat it as a learning exercise and hit them with something else so that when they say 'what else you got?' you can dig out the re-write.
View original
I think that's a very good point. The feedback is much less useful if there is absolutely no reason to rewrite. Whilst I don't have any trouble accepting that the judging standards are probably fair and relevant, there is a disparity between what they judge you on and what they say they want. Supposedly the submitted script is a test of talent, but if that was the case, it wouldn't really matter whether what you've written is suitable for broadcast. And any writer worth his salt can write to a brief. My writer's room experience was not good. After having my script read by a contemporary factual producer at the BBC, who told me it was far above the standard they were likely to receive, it was returned unread.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, David Chapman said:
Without reading too much of the above it seems you've had a good detailed critique which presumably what you wanted.
And welcome by the way.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Antrax said:
The thing I always think with the Writers Room is to remember that you've got virtually no chance of getting the script you send in made.
As a result, you must think of it as a calling card, rather than one episode of a show. So I'd say it's best to send a complete work, beginning, middle and end.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, silentbob69 said:
Thanks for all the responses..I will re check another one and submit it to a few different companies.
I understand what everyone says about character development over a number of episodes it just seems like quite a tall order to a/ introduce a whole bunch of characters to someone who knows nothing about them and then b/ have this development and dazzle someone inside of 30 pages (or 10 if you're not that lucky).
When any sitcom appears then you can't know all about the characters by the end of the pilot so it takes a few episodes to learn to like them. It took probably years for some of the smaller characters in Only Fools (Trigger, Boycie etc) to turn into real 3D characters instead of just there to react against.
I suppose it's like everyone says, The Writersroom says they just want to find new talent but then the feedback doesn't actually address your writing at all, just points of the script.
Is it necessary to have someones name when submitting to production companies as they don't all seem to have anything like Writersroom.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, bushbaby said:
yes ring the company up and say you are writing to the producer could you have his/her name
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Robin Kelly said:
Quote: silentbob69 @ May 11 2008, 8:42 PM BST
When any sitcom appears then you can't know all about the characters by the end of the pilot so it takes a few episodes to learn to like them. It took probably years for some of the smaller characters in Only Fools (Trigger, Boycie etc) to turn into real 3D characters instead of just there to react against.
View original
I've never understood this excuse as loads of shows manage to do everything that's needed in the pilot including setting up major and minor characters. Also why don't comedy feature writers use that excuse? I found American Pie 1 funny enough and didn't need to wait until American Pie 23 to learn to like it. It all depends on how good the characters and story are and they should be good from page 1.
Quote: silentbob69 @ May 11 2008, 8:42 PM BST
I suppose it's like everyone says, The Writersroom says they just want to find new talent but then the feedback doesn't actually address your writing at all, just points of the script.
View original
Not quite everyone. I believe the feedback does address your writing. The main characters are too similar, there's no story, there's no character development, it hasn't got any legs. That seems like a pretty good basis for a re-write to me or at least something to bear in mind for your next idea.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, David Chapman said:
Quote: Robin Kelly @ May 11 2008, 10:20 PM BST
Not quite everyone. I believe the feedback does address your writing. The main characters are too similar, there's no story, there's no character development, it hasn't got any legs. That seems like a pretty good basis for a re-write to me or at least something to bear in mind for your next idea.
View original
As I said before you did well to get a detailed critique instead of a standard sorry so stop moaning and do what they suggest.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Perry Nium said:
Quote: Robin Kelly @ May 11 2008, 10:20 PM BSTThe main characters are too similar, there's no story, there's no character development, it hasn't got any legs. That seems like a pretty good basis for a re-write to me or at least something to bear in mind for your next idea.
View original
Hi Robin. Just interested to know what your definition of character development is? I've spoken to several different producers, all who have differing rules so it can be confusing, seemingly even for the professionals. For me, character development is just about finding out a bit more about the character through his actions / emotions /. It doesn't have to be a huge thing, (especially if the character is only in a supporting role)
I think the confusion with this is that most people mistake "character development" with "personality change". So when a Writer's Room reader or scripty guy reads the script and whinges that a character wasn't developed enough, the writer thinks he means that the character's personality must change. For me though it doesn't mean that at all. It's actually the audience's perception of the character that needs to change, because of something new we discover about the character, exactly the same as we would on a 2nd or 3rd date with a real-life person. So for instance on a first date with someone, they might tell you they're a vegetarian, yet on a second date they eat fish and chips, because fish "isn't a proper animal". So in that scenario, the character has developed in our own mind, because we've discovered that they're not quite the Linda McCartney we thought they were.
I hope I'm making sense here - i just got back from a birthday party and I'm a bit squiffy.
What's your take on it?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, silentbob69 said:
Quote: David Chapman @ May 11 2008, 10:31 PM BSTAs I said before you did well to get a detailed critique instead of a standard sorry so stop moaning and do what they suggest.
View original
I wasn't aware that I was moaning, I thought the idea of forums was for people to air their thoughts and speak with like minded people who might be able to share experiences..My mistake.
Thanks for all the responses though.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Robin Kelly said:
Quote: Perry Nium @ May 12 2008, 1:56 AM BSTHi Robin. Just interested to know what your definition of character development is? I've spoken to several different producers, all who have differing rules so it can be confusing, seemingly even for the professionals. For me, character development is just about finding out a bit more about the character through his actions / emotions /. It doesn't have to be a huge thing, (especially if the character is only in a supporting role)
I think the confusion with this is that most people mistake "character development" with "personality change". So when a Writer's Room reader or scripty guy reads the script and whinges that a character wasn't developed enough, the writer thinks he means that the character's personality must change. For me though it doesn't mean that at all. It's actually the audience's perception of the character that needs to change, because of something new we discover about the character, exactly the same as we would on a 2nd or 3rd date with a real-life person. So for instance on a first date with someone, they might tell you they're a vegetarian, yet on a second date they eat fish and chips, because fish "isn't a proper animal". So in that scenario, the character has developed in our own mind, because we've discovered that they're not quite the Linda McCartney we thought they were.
I hope I'm making sense here - i just got back from a birthday party and I'm a bit squiffy.
What's your take on it?
View original
I agree, they need to have the same recognisable comic personality as that's where the comedy is going to come from but that personality has to be challenged by the story. Like a strict moral vegetarian who can't eat a living thing but just can't resist fish and chips (although it's funnier if it's bacon). There is recognisable truth there.
The example of Two Pints was used as the characters not developing over six series when so much story has happened with relationships breaking down, couples getting together, having babies, affairs, new jobs, deaths, new friendships, etc.
Quote: David Chapman @ May 11 2008, 10:31 PM BSTAs I said before you did well to get a detailed critique instead of a standard sorry so stop moaning and do what they suggest.
View original
That's why the advice is to just write one episode. If you write the whole series and you're told it's fundamentally flawed then it's natural to whinge and moan and blame the readers to avoid re-writing or starting all over again.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Marc P said:
For me the character development refers to something before the first line of dialogue. That is to say that the characters are fully realised in the first place. Not developed through the course of the story but fully three dimensional and 'real' from the get go.
Let's take David Renwick - we know pretty much all we need to know about Jonathan Creek from the first sixty seconds or so of meeting him in the first episode.
You should do the same thing with all your characters - reveal character, advance the plot and make people laugh at the same time.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Robin Kelly said:
Quote: Marc P @ May 12 2008, 8:40 AM BSTFor me the character development refers to something before the first line of dialogue. That is to say that the characters are fully realised in the first place. Not developed through the course of the story but fully three dimensional and 'real' from the get go.
Let's take David Renwick - we know pretty much all we need to know about Jonathan Creek from the first sixty seconds or so of meeting him in the first episode.
You should do the same thing with all your characters - reveal character, advance the plot and make people laugh at the same time.
View original
Yes, working on that avoids the too similar main characters problem and sparks lots of ideas for stories to avoid the lack of story problem as well.
Speaking of David Renwick, no-one could argue that the One Foot in the Grave main characters weren't fully developed before the first page of dialogue but it didn't preclude him adding depth or motivation later.
For instance, a few series in it was revealed that they had a child that had died but it was only when writing that particular episode that Renwick thought of it.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, deian said:
well done for getting some feedback.
I submitted a radio script myself about four years ago and got back some very odd feedback.
Basically it said my script was hammy with a silly plot and story with some fairly amusing situations and characters. Shame the reader didn't seem realise that it was a spoof. I thought my response was so typically BBC though, the sort of response Monty Python would've enjoyed satirising.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, jacparov said:
Quote: Perry Nium @ May 12 2008, 1:56 AM BSTHi Robin. Just interested to know what your definition of character development is? I've spoken to several different producers, all who have differing rules so it can be confusing, seemingly even for the professionals. For me, character development is just about finding out a bit more about the character through his actions / emotions /. It doesn't have to be a huge thing, (especially if the character is only in a supporting role)
I think the confusion with this is that most people mistake "character development" with "personality change". So when a Writer's Room reader or scripty guy reads the script and whinges that a character wasn't developed enough, the writer thinks he means that the character's personality must change. For me though it doesn't mean that at all. It's actually the audience's perception of the character that needs to change, because of something new we discover about the character, exactly the same as we would on a 2nd or 3rd date with a real-life person. So for instance on a first date with someone, they might tell you they're a vegetarian, yet on a second date they eat fish and chips, because fish "isn't a proper animal". So in that scenario, the character has developed in our own mind, because we've discovered that they're not quite the Linda McCartney we thought they were.
I hope I'm making sense here - i just got back from a birthday party and I'm a bit squiffy.
What's your take on it?
View original
I agree with the above, Basil fawlty for example always goes from mildly irritated to lunatic in the course of an episode.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, David Chapman said:
Quote: silentbob69 @ May 12 2008, 7:17 AM BSTI wasn't aware that I was moaning, I thought the idea of forums was for people to air their thoughts and speak with like minded people who might be able to share experiences..My mistake.
Thanks for all the responses though.
View original
Yes- but you've had a good response and enough pointers.
I'm not being bitter, but you've got more than most of us get and I feel that you should do what they suggest - and then give us some tips.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, silentbob69 said:
Will do.
Didn't mean to come across like that. It's the first time I had submitted anything and I just wondered what other people had experienced and what they did next.
Thanks to everyone who responded.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, chipolata said:
I think the problem with writersroom responses is that they're not professional script reports, they just forward you some of the comments that the person who read it made. That's why they can sometimes seem contradictory or frustratingly vague. Congrats on the response, though. The last thing I sent them was returned within four weeks with a crisp thanks but no thanks.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, swerytd said:
Four weeks?! Well done. My 'thanks but no thanks' took three months...
Dan
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, chipolata said:
I think they've introduced a Zero Tolerance Policy on no-hope duffers like me.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, SlagA said:
Quote: chipolata @ May 14 2008, 10:41 AM BSTI think they've introduced a Zero Tolerance Policy on no-hope duffers like me.
View original
Four months? Three weeks? That's nothing. Whenever I walked down to the post box there was always a Writers' Room script reader waiting to hand it straight back to me, unopened. The last straw came when I caught them in the computer room deleting my latest script.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, chipolata said:
Quote: SlagA @ May 14 2008, 10:51 AM BSTFour months? Three weeks? That's nothing. Whenever I walked down to the post box there was always a Writers' Room script reader waiting to hand it straight back to me, unopened. The last straw came when I caught them in the computer room deleting my latest script.
View original
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, swerytd said:
too.
There's a sitcom in that, btw.
Dan
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, silentbob69 said:
Yeah there is..submit it!!
I sent mine of about three and half weeks ago and got an A4 feedback letter from the reader...musta have just got lucky.
I still think it's a bit naughty for the decision on all our hard work to be made by someone who doesn't even make programmes.
I bet half of the stuff knocked back by these people would probably have got a better response had it got to someone in production.
I love most of the stuff that the BBC has done over the years but lately I have been shocked at some of the stuff that has been greenlit.
Little Miss Jocelyn may be the singularly unfunny thing I have ever seen. I know it's a sketch show but the writing is non existant. The script must just state that talking loudly in various West Indian voices is hilarious.
For every Peep Show there's a Scallywagga!!!
We live in hope