The Break a Leg Sitcom Pilot Is Out! Remember Us?

This isn't working for me.

Maybe it's the lack of professional audio ? Or maybe the average cinematography and less than average lighting ? Maybe it's the talent who fall into the 'Kinda' can act but not really' category ? Maybe it's just boring and really not that funny ?

-

Look at the Pilot of shows that have made it and this doesn't fall into that category. Look at stuff like Arrested Development for inspiration. All of those category's above have too be the best of the bunch

I do applaud your ambtious goals and congratulate you on making these episodes but these are coming up short in the "Ready For Primetime" area.

-

IMO .02
 
I watched about 5 minutes of part one. i thought it was funny, if not entirely derivative of the arrested development format. much of the cast was sufficient but clearly operating under subpar direction. as evidence you can witness the performers "directing themselves". often, they are in their own head, thinking like an actor and not the character, and pushing for the laugh. which ironically, robs their performance of the realistic earnestness it needed to work as a comedy. a skilled director would have seen this. editing was a little sloppy -- too tight in places, a little loose in others. location sound was very poor.

i would stop now. revise, maybe reconceptualize. by limiting yourself with an imitation, you can only succeed in making a compentently produced derivative work. it will never have a life beyond that. this is just my opinion for you to freely dismiss.
 
Last edited:
No, this is not going to make it on TV. However, it has the potential in it for someone to invest in a more professional production (better lighting, camera work, and sound). But it is funny, if a little long (I know you said you wanted to make the pilot episode long cause it was the pilot episode, but even the professional sitcom's first episodes are 22 minutes. You could easly trim ten to fifteen minutes off this thing and just make every single moment funny (I know, as a filmmaker, that's the WORST thing to hear - but I believe it's especially true in the sit-com world. Your sit-com has to be 22 minutes. When was the last time you saw an extended sitcom - even the greats - that was actually funny? There's a reason they're 22 minutes and every single producer in town is going to tell you the same thing. Of course you can tell me and them to f*ck off and do it your way, but you're just making the hill you have to climb a lot steeper. Why bother?)

I think you have something really funny here but you have to work with it. And I believe John and Cygnet are actually wrong about the acting. The acting is really good and while it feels a little scattershot, I think that's why it works - the randomness is part of the humor here. But the terrible sound is drowning out all of the crisp punchlines you need for the audience to really laugh and that's making the actors/acting look bad. For instance, when one of your actors delivers that perfect capper to a joke under his breath, it just sounds like mumbling! That's gotta be fixed.

I'm a fan of this material but I do believe it needs to be worked on a little bit.
 
C.G. Eads -- Thanks for the compliments. I agree, the sound isn't great -- Episode 2 will have much better sound. We sort of rushed it a bit, so, that was the result. Anyway, it's something that can be fixed, more or less. Glad you liked it though. As far as the actors -- most were auditioned, all are actors in or around the Bay Area. The girl who played Amber is named Alexis -- she's in a few national commercials and a great actress. The lead guy is, well, me, so thanks!


John Hudson -- Obviously, it's your opinion and, while I respect it, I don't agree with it, except for one thing -- I agree it's not ready for primetime. It can't possibly be ready for primetime, primetime shows cost anywhere from a few hundred thousand to a few million -- we fell a little short of that at a couple of hundred, if that. The show is intended for, A. internet audiences, B. to show our potential. Thanks for the comments though.

Zak Forsman -- We've got our own plan, but we appreciate the comments. I disagree about the acting -- at least about the other actors (I can't judge my own acting so well, but -- I'll vouch for the others) -- anyway, thanks for your thoughts.

CG Eads, again -- The sound will get better, but I agree that's what's hurting the show the most.

Thanks everyone for your thoughts!
 
I think sound is your only problem here. I f you can get the laughs all of America will watch. Take Dave Chappale. He does one skit about Rick James and it becomes an American catch phrase. His show went from obscurity to huge almost over night almost based on this skit alone but overall everything he did (90%) was funny. The fact that the show is not polished adds something to it. The guy in the black barret reminds me of the that dude from Myth Busters.

-Nate
 
Oh, man, he does totally look like the Mythbusters guy.. now I have to tease him relentlessly.

As for sound, like I said, I agree. We may just go in and ADR the sound that's faulty in a little bit to maximize the potential. Episode 2 should have good sound, that's the goal.

And yeah, Dave Chappelle also had the chance of being on TV and being Dave Chapelle, unfortunately we have neither. But, we'll keep trying!
 
Almost a year has passed, and now we have episodes 2 and 3. Like the seasons of desperate housewives, episode 2 was depressing and episode 3 was better, though not quite as good as episode 1. But they have these short "Conversation"mini-episodes that are getting better every day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top