Clips from Sit-com Pilot

M

magicdavek

Well-known member
Yay! After 80 hours on my DVX100A, I'm finally putting a clip up on DVXUser.com! This is a clip from a pilot to a sit-com which is nearly complete:

http://homepage.mac.com/davekilpatrick1/iMovieTheater1.html

The understand what is going on in this clip, the two characters are support staff at an elementary school. To make sense of the end of the clip, it must be understood that earlier in the episode, the younger of the two guys accidentally left home with a bag of closepins his daughter was using as a "play lunch," leaving his real lunch behind.

I used the factory F6 setting, a 300 watt equivalent fluorescent light to supplement the office overhead fluorescents, and an AT897 shotgun mic (not optimally placed all the time).

Please, any feed back on the content would be appreciated.

Also, I'm on a trial with a .Mac account. If you try to access this after May 19, it may not be up there unless I decide to become a .Mac member.
 
I think what'll make the clip funny is if at the end, a psychotic homeless man wearing tights and a sombrero, runs down the hallway and shoots one of the guys in the face with a sawed-off shotgun.

I'm being serious by the way.
 
This is totally bizarre. I find myself wanting to watch it even though it doesn't resemble anything close to a broadcast sitcom or dramedy show. The laugh track reminds me of the old 70's and 80's sitcoms; in a strangely weird way.

To be honest, as always. I did not find this terribly funny nor the acting as solid as it should be; particaulry in your quest for financing or being picked up. As mentioned, there is possibly a concept here that we do not know and it is your right to protect it.

My subjective feeling is that it would come across better in a "Arrested Development" fashion of cinemtography. I would run hand-held and go for a very cinema-verite style sitcom with many cuts and angles and framing styles.

The talent is average to say the least and I admittedly did not find it funny; about as funny as watching Full House with John Stamos and the twins and to me, that show is an enigma on how it lasted so long or even got picked up in the first place.

I give you mad props for doing this however and strangely I was compelled to watch it; maybe it's the fact I havent seen any of our DVX'ers do something like this? Maybe it was the laugh track; or maybe it's because I am at the office and procrastinating actually doing any real work today.

IMHO and being honest as always.
 
Let me start by saying that the fact that you've undertaken a project like this is a great thing. I hope you will take the following as constructive suggestions!

- The guy laughing (in the context of the clip we've previewed) is weird. He is either breaking the forth wall or the character is an idiot. Usually, the village idiot is portrayed by not seeing the humor or irony in a given line - the deadpan straight guy is a staple of comedy shows. This guy just seems to be laughing all the time - why?

- I think you have something with the protagonist - he's no John Stamos, but he might be massaged into working with some assistance. He sounds like he is reading or is very uncomfortable on-camera. Editing might help in concealing his inexperience if that is what I'm reading.

- The writing needs to come up a bit - try collaborating with some friends on the dialogue, or if you already have, enlist some new talent. Again, in the context of what we've previewed, I don't see this as being unique in concept. It looks like a location-shot ensemble comedy.

- On the matter of sets, you should enlist a dedicated art director and properties person to assist. Doesn't so much matter who as long as it is someone. The sets did not establish or support a school until the dialogue suggested it. Television sets are dressed to the point of excessiveness - even if it means pushing beyond what exists in the real world. Stage scenes in a way that reinforces your location whenever possible - put talent in front of rows of lockers, by the library - hell outside on the school grounds if you can.

- From a blocking and framing standpoint, the piece seems dry and dull. The shot with laughing guy walking down the hall could be done in a closer tracking shot. If he breaks into a dance with a mop out of the blue, or something equally odd, you can definitely frame a wide static shot to get this - but just walking to establish that he is coming back with lunch? That might well be an editor decision.

Anyway, it isn't miserable, but certainly not ready to pitch IMHO. I could be totally off-base here, because you might have the next Trailer Park Boys already in the can!

e
 
props for shooting something and posting it for the world to see, that always takes guts.

for some reason i watched this 3 times last night, i wanted to comment, but wasn't sure what to say. i like the premise, but the jokes are way off- perhaps that's why it amused me so much, sorry to say. the actors were a little off as well. the laugh track simply killed me.

the best thing might be to hand it off to other writers to redo some of the dialouge, perhaps. as always this is just my opinion.
 
There is a new sitcom on called "office" which has a -Arrested Devolpement style of shooting to it. I agree with John this seems to be a good way to go. You may want to check it out for some ideas and expand alittle depth to your writing, possibly do some time line jumping- especially with elements such as the close pins part which has a back story that no one would understand. With out that its sorta like Laugh In, even more so with that laugh track.
Good Luck
 
The shots seemed boring to me. You almost always centered your talent, remember the rule of thirds... it is your friend.

Other than that, everyone else said everything I would have.
 
Thanks guys for the feedback. I have the opportunity to reshoot any scene. A few comments - some of which I should have explained ahead of time.

1) As far as acting goes, nearly every shot was a single take (does that clear anything up?). I'll explain why below.
2) The laughing guy was fed funny things from off camera which he was reacting to - believe it or not - that included some of the actual lines which he was reacting to in the clip you saw. While we were shooting - it was late in the day and we were all getting silly.
3) I admit, some of the framing was sub par (particularly the wallet shot) and knew for sure you'd all nail me for it (as you should!).
4) The comment about Arrested Development was interesting. I thought of my idea five years ago (long before the DVX or Arrested Development). When I saw Arrested Development, I thought that it was closer to my vision for how I wanted the show to look than anything else on TV. I envisioned all location type shots. However, I have a hard time appreciating the shaky camera action of Arrested Development. Also, I envisioned a laugh track (Arrested Development doesn't have one). The laugh track was clearly unpopular in this thread. Yet it is still used on most sit-coms. Catch an episode of 2 1/2 Men or Will and Grace or most any of them. It's there. (Don't for a minute think those are genuine live audience responses). I'd certainly go without a laugh track if that made things better. In sum, I WOULD like my sit-com to resemble the Arrested Development-type of cinematography (minus the Dramamine-inducing shaky camera).

My other comment is that I believe I made a mistake putting this up. I used this clip because it was least likely to give away my "unique" sit-com idea. That was not a good basis for selecting a clip. The "unique idea" has nothing to do with "setting" or the characters per se. Which leads me to say that my goal of the PILOT is to showcase my new idea, yet this clip doesn't do that. That's why I think it was a mistake to post this. While I'm calling this a "pilot," it is really like a schematic drawing - or a quick-hand portrayal of a concept that hasn't been done before on television (that's why most shots were single take). The part you got to see doesn't serve that purpose. I am easily agreeable to the criticisms above. My only real disappointment is that there wasn't much indication of amusement (at least not in the manner intended!). I'll need to go back to the drawing board. My goal is not for some producer to air my pilot - but to use it to get a pretty full understanding of the concept with the goal of reshooting/reworking it and upping the production values. But if the comedy value is not there, then that's a problem (although that hasn't hindered most current sitcoms :)).
 
Just a quick observation. I've been a member of this site for over a year. In this section (clips of DVX footage), there's some really well done stuff, middle of the road stuff, and plenty of really crummy stuff, too. What baffles me is that after watching some of the crummy stuff, posters will say - hey, nice work, great job, etc.

I put up a clip for the first time and get hammered! Well, I want you to know that you guys could have patronized me like I've seen in other threads, but you didn't. I'd rather be criticized than patronized! While at first I was disappointed, now I am very grateful for the "hammering." Rather than make me shy away from putting up clips in the future, it actually makes me feel more encouraged to do so (I just need to wait for my nose to stop bleeding :)).
 
magicdavek said:
Just a quick observation. I've been a member of this site for over a year. In this section (clips of DVX footage), there's some really well done stuff, middle of the road stuff, and plenty of really crummy stuff, too. What baffles me is that after watching some of the crummy stuff, posters will say - hey, nice work, great job, etc. I put up a clip for the first time and get hammered! Well, I want you to know that you guys could have patronized me like I've seen in other threads, but you didn't. I'd rather be criticized than patronized, and I want you to know that while at first I was disappointed, now I am very greatful for the "hammering." Rather than make me shy away from putting up clips in the future, it actually feel more encouraged to do so (I just need to wait for my nose to stop bleeding :)).
Click to expand...

I am glad you feel this way and expect the same thing from others; form my experience, when others give a not so desiarble take on one of my pieces; I already know it when they say it.

Neil Rowe a long time ago set the precedence for honest critiques and there a good handful or two of us that will give A SOLID CRITIQUE while others are still caught up in not wanting to hurt anyones feelings. I believe we will learn nothing it we are not honest with each other.

I'll say it again; this looks to be an ambitous project and I would love nothing more for than you to nail it. My creative-partner (S Reiman) and I always say "We'll know it ourselves when we nail it." and we haven't even come close; but that is our goal.
 
John,

I don't want someone patting me on the head when I do sub-par work. Even if you thought this was really GOOD, I'd not want you to simply tell me that, but suggest to me how to make it GREAT.

Now about that comment you made comparing something I did to Full House . . . I'll be working on that one with my therapist for a long, long, time.

:)
 
John_Hudson said:
I'll say it again; this looks to be an ambitous project and I would love nothing more for than you to nail it.
Click to expand...

Thank you. I've put in a lot of hours over the last year working on this project.
 
Magic,
I think when you work on something for a long time with people you know and like sometimes you loose perspective, so that things that seem really funny to you are lost on people that are not familiar with your friends and projects.

Personally, I just thought that the jokes were not funny and the delivery was flat and the guys reaction was strange because in a sitcom you never see someone just laughing at the lines like someone in an audience.

I like the laugh-track idea but I think you just need some funnier material and re-think the laughing guy. Its good to have a character to bounce lines off of, but he needs to be more a part of the action with a real contribution rather than just some guy laughing uncontrollably.

You shouldnt take offense at the well intensioned critiques, we all learn by making mistakes. When you ask for peoples honest opinions you have to be ready to accept them. Keep trying, it was a good effort!

John
 
John (Raptor3400),

First, I'm not the least bit offended by the criticisms. I appreciate them (I was joking about John Hudson's comment about Full House-what you don't know is I'm vice president of the Full House fan club and John Hudson is treasurer).

Second, your critique was very well articulated - very constructive. You're right, the laughing guy was like a one man laugh track. You don't see that on sit-coms. As mentioned, we were getting silly late in the day, feeding him lines. He was laughing so hard we kept the camera rolling - it was really a poor editing decision, from what people are suggesting. The familiarity with the personalities is likely a real issue here. Thanks.

I'm glad you bucked the tide and mentioned that you didn't mind the laugh track. Like them or not, they've been here for over 50 years and not likely to disappear anytime soon. I felt like it was a necessity, but would drop it if it detracted from the show.

I think I'll shortly be posting another clip from the sit-com.

Again, thanks for your suggestions.
 
I'm going to talk to the people involved and re shoot this scene. No laughing guy (same guy, just under control), better framing, more head shots - follow most of the suggestions. I'll even look for some better materials. I'll see you all back here in a week or so.
 
What I specifically meant about the FULL HOUSE; I did not find it funny, even though I knew I was supposed to find it funny.

I want to see more and would love to give any insight, take it or leave it, as asked for or willing. Get those actors to relax, rethink the dialogue, find a style of cinematography that works for you; really think about a style and follow it and stamp your mark onto it.

I'm doing the same; everytime a new UNDEAD film is submitted I am working towards bigger and better; I know it sucks but I am learning everysingle outing for the next time around.

Serious; I want you to pull this off in flying fashion and you will know when you nail it. You'll sit back in the editing room and go "Shite! That's it." It will be like an Epiphany; a revelation.

NExt time out? Get as much footage and as many takes as possible until you find that 'look' you are after; even if you do not know the look yet. The more you have in post the more you can work with.

Keep us in the loop; there are alot of people that sit on the sidelines and never post anything; I did for the longest time. It takes something to throw it out and say "Hit me!". I have more respect for you than those others that make excses; something I did for the longest time.
 
"Also, I envisioned a laugh track (Arrested Development doesn't have one). The laugh track was clearly unpopular in this thread. Yet it is still used on most sit-coms. Catch an episode of 2 1/2 Men or Will and Grace or most any of them. It's there. (Don't for a minute think those are genuine live audience responses)."

Let me chime in here. FYI Will and Grace and 2 and a 1/2 men ARE recorded in front of an audience. Sure there are laugh specialists that come in and smooth out the laughter in post - and maybe add a little bit here and there, but that is genuine laughter.

What's odd about your choice of using laughter here is the context. There are shows that tape in front of a live audience "Multi camera shows" and there are shows that do not "Single camera shows." Single camera shows - Bernie Mac, Arrested Development, Scrubs, Malcolm in the Middle - use one camera and are shot like short 22 minute movies every week. There are many different locations, and it's a completely different style show from a Will and Grace, Friends, 2 and a 1/2 men type show. You can tell when watching multicamera shows that they are taped in front of an audience - it's lit differently - there are only a few main sets, and obviously the laughter. If you did choose to use a laugh track on this, I would work hard to:
1) to make the laughter much more realistic sounding. This could involve bringing in a ton of your family and friends and recording their laughter to picture. Or even shooting it on a set in front of an audience like a multicamera.
2) shoot it in such a way that the audience is tricked into believing it's taped in front of an audience.

Since I'm on the topic of multicameras, if you did shoot it like a multicamera, it would look totally different. There would be less coverage, more movement (those cameras moving around the floor to counter the actions of the actors, and generally speaking the staging would be more open for the sake of the audience.

Well, however you spin it, I think you're best suited either:
1) shooting it in front of a live audience with a set and crew and everything - almost like a play with cameras
or
2) shooting it single camera and losing the laugh track altogether.

The most important question you need to ask yourself is - what fits this show better - 1 or 2 main sets and a live audience, or many locations and no laugh track.

If you're trying to sell it, that's the first question that would be asked - multi camera or single camera. Also, certain networks might be looking for more multi cameras than single cameras. Generally speaking, right now multi cameras are favored - possibly because they're easier to produce. Malcolm in the Middle spends over 2 mil per episode for 6 shooting days (including all cast & crew salary).

Bill
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top