Give it a rest, Seefacts. It is not virtually identical. There's one bloody character less for one thing. Not exactly a subtle change. you even said you liked the opening first time round, now you say you don't...? I have no idea why you're persuing this bizarre vendetta. You're like a terrier.
Quote: James Williams @ February 26, 2008, 7:56 PMGive it a rest, Seefacts. It is not virtually identical. There's one bloody character less for one thing. Not exactly a subtle change. you even said you liked the opening first time round, now you say you don't...? I have no idea why you're persuing this bizarre vendetta. You're like a terrier.
I said it was an improvement, which it was.
Don't be melodramatic - it's hardly a vendetta. I'm posting a critique.
I think once work has been posted and critiqued, I don't think it should be re-posted.
The forum is still the same people on it, the ones who liked it will tell you they liked it, the ones who didn't, will say that didn't. Probably with the same advice.
I have to say, as a casual bystander, I don't think Seefacts said anything out of hand. His comments are blunt to be sure, but I don't believe malicious. I for one am grateful to have people on this forum prepared to say when they don't like something. There's plenty to be inferred when something is posted and doesn't garner much of a response, but nothing says it better than God's honest critique. Just so long as it's constructive.
James, not to sound condescending, but you need to accept that not everyone is going to find your writing funny. Even the very best comedy has its critics. Pay heed to the criticism that rings true with you and to hell with the rest. If you don't like what Seefacts has to say then ignore him. Move on. Consider some one else's opinion. Martin Jones had some good points to make but you passed them by in big hurry to defend yourself.
And for the record, I think the spider-tramp bit works just fine.
was going to critique the second part but don't really want a argument.
Quote: wayne lewis @ February 26, 2008, 8:21 PMwas going to critique the second part but don't really want a argument.
Say what you want as Lee said this starts mirroring the previous thread, it will be closed.
Quote: David Bussell @ February 26, 2008, 8:16 PMI have to say, as a casual bystander, I don't think Seefacts said anything out of hand. His comments are blunt to be sure, but I don't believe malicious. I for one am grateful to have people on this forum prepared to say when they don't like something. There's plenty to be inferred when something is posted and doesn't garner much of a response, but nothing says it better than God's honest critique. Just so long as it's constructive.
James, not to sound condescending, but you need to accept that not everyone is going to find your writing funny. Even the very best comedy has its critics. Pay heed to the criticism that rings true with you and to hell with the rest. If you don't like what Seefacts has to say then ignore him. Move on. Consider some one else's opinion. Martin Jones had some good points to make but you passed them by in big hurry to defend yourself.
And for the record, I think the spider-tramp bit works just fine.
Thanks.
I don't want to be malicious, and I will always say that my (or anyone's) critique will be nowhere near as blunt as producers will be.
I've been told that my script wasn't funny and didn't make him [a producer] laugh - I was fuming. Mainly because I'd liked some of the stuff he'd produced and it was a big company. That's my harshest crit to date. Basically being told I couldn't write funny. But that's one person, compared to many who liked it. Maybe you should have done a straw poll in the first thread to see if you felt enough people liked to warrant your confidence in it.
I remember a lot of people DID like it, so I don't know why you felt the need to to say I had a vendetta. Because that's just not true.
Like I've said, I think you had (have?) the wrong attitude over this piece. If you're that confident about it, why do you need it critiquing again? You've shown an unwavering confidence of it, which is great, so why keep brining it back to the critique?
If I look at one of my scripts and think 'That's great' then that's me satisfied. If I can look at a piece of mine and think 'That's as good as anything out there' then that's good enough for me, I don't feel the need to ask other's opinions.
You've obviously got a lot of belief in it, so finish it so you're happy and send if off.
Good luck.
I think Seefacts and I are talking at cross-purposes, to some extent; he seems to be taking my "some people don't get it" comment as some sort of slur, inferring he doesn't understand it. I can see why this is the case. To be more precise what I mean is "he just doesn't find it funny". I am aware that different people find different things funny. It's apparent that quite a few people on here don't find it funny. I believe I can live with that.
While Seefacts's response might not be inherently unreasonable, I just felt my throat had been jumped down somewhat, especially as it is at odds with his critique of the same section in the first draft, and Seefacts is a relatively reclusive character normally. I'm not that bothered. As I recall, Seefacts, you originally said something along the lines of "actually I quite liked the start. Then lots of different characters started talking and I got confused. The characters need room to breathe." Well, I listened to your advice and cut one of the characters from the scene. *Shrugs* I also put a few more jokes in as suggested - that's why I reposted. But I see that you just don't like it! That's not a problem. I'm not fuming, I'm just baffled - I can't help it!
Incidentally, Seefacts also thought that Chimes of Freedom's suggested redraft was far better, which changed the line "Give it to me or I'll ring the landlord and tell him there's a hobo sleeping on his sofa" to: "Give it to me or I'll ring the social and tell them you've not got beri-beri". IMO my new line is a lot better than both. It just goes to show how peculiar individuals' tastes can be.
I'm watching "American Inventor" and feel like one of those loonies peddling an unbelievably shit invention, saying "I'm not mad, it works, honestly!"
I think in this context any criticism of the piece is going to be worthless unless the person giving the critique sees any merit to it. Otherwise it's just a wholesale "no", and what's constructive in that? I believe in it. I'm not going to abandon it because a few people disagree with me.
I'm not calling it "Flat" any more either, as I think this gives people the wrong idea. I have not dismissed anything that's been said out of hand, but to set it on a boat is solving a problem that isn't there. The central action actually takes place at Crown Court this episode. It is an interesting idea though.
So - well, whatever. It's probably best not to comment unless you actually like it (even just a tiny bit), because otherwise it's just an irreconcilable difference of opinion on whether it's funny or not.
on the upside you got 22 replies so far. which is nice.
keep at it and don't let the bastards get you down! (even if i was one of them!
)
About 18 of them containing no direct critique.
I suppose I should apologise. I know people see me as stirring shit when threads get a lot of replies like this. I don't mean to. I'm going to bed now!!
Quote: James Williams @ February 26, 2008, 9:40 PMI think Seefacts and I are talking at cross-purposes, to some extent; he seems to be taking my "some people don't get it" comment as some sort of slur, inferring he doesn't understand it. I can see why this is the case. To be more precise what I mean is "he just doesn't find it funny". I am aware that different people find different things funny. It's apparent that quite a few people on here don't find it funny. I believe I can live with that.
While Seefacts's response might not be inherently unreasonable, I just felt my throat had been jumped down somewhat, especially as it is at odds with his critique of the same section in the first draft, and Seefacts is a relatively reclusive character normally. I'm not that bothered. As I recall, Seefacts, you originally said something along the lines of "actually I quite liked the start. Then lots of different characters started talking and I got confused. The characters need room to breathe." Well, I listened to your advice and cut one of the characters from the scene. *Shrugs* I also put a few more jokes in as suggested - that's why I reposted. But I see that you just don't like it! That's not a problem. I'm not fuming, I'm just baffled - I can't help it!
Incidentally, Seefacts also thought that Chimes of Freedom's suggested redraft was far better, which changed the line "Give it to me or I'll ring the landlord and tell him there's a hobo sleeping on his sofa" to: "Give it to me or I'll ring the social and tell them you've not got beri-beri". IMO my new line is a lot better than both. It just goes to show how peculiar individuals' tastes can be.
I'm watching "American Inventor" and feel like one of those loonies peddling an unbelievably shit invention, saying "I'm not mad, it works, honestly!"
I think in this context any criticism of the piece is going to be worthless unless the person giving the critique sees any merit to it. Otherwise it's just a wholesale "no", and what's constructive in that? I believe in it. I'm not going to abandon it because a few people disagree with me.
I'm not calling it "Flat" any more either, as I think this gives people the wrong idea. I have not dismissed anything that's been said out of hand, but to set it on a boat is solving a problem that isn't there. The central action actually takes place at Crown Court this episode. It is an interesting idea though.
So - well, whatever. It's probably best not to comment unless you actually like it (even just a tiny bit), because otherwise it's just an irreconcilable difference of opinion on whether it's funny or not.
I do think that the newest version is better that very first one you posted - you've improved it, no doubt.
I must have been on drugs to agree with Chimes - I'll have to check that out.
Am I reclusive? I do have a funny beard and don't leave the house very often.
The format of slob v neat, neat gets annoyed with slob, slob gets the upperhand on neat, is not new (The odd couple)but then what is, all comedy has been done its just a matter of trying to find a fresh angle. And in my personal oppinion unlike the odd couple we have no idea why these two men are living together if one is a drunken slob and the other a bullying snob, I just think a little background might help, Men behaving badly was mentioned, now this was a funny sitcom (and still is) but we knew why the characters were living as they was because background was fed to us from the start in reference. Please do not take offence I think you have a good idea but in my opinion it just needs to be fuller, But if you are happy with it then I wish you well.
In some books on 'how to write comedy' etc it usually says you don't have to explain why the characters live together, they just do and the viewer will accept that.
James obviously finds the script very funny or he wouldn't have bothered to write it.
I had a look at some of the sitcom scripts on the Beeb writersroom web and didn't find any funny, particularly Two Pints Lager, a sitcom which I find hilarious normally. Off the page and acted I am sure that script would be as funny as I find all their other episodes.
James will visualise in his head how his script should be acted out and if he laughs, it is said that 10% of the audience will too.