And in The Trip when Coogan was talking to his son on the phone, did he realise that Brydon was actually a good friend? Or was he just agreeing with his son?
The Definition of Well Written Page 7
Quote: chipolata @ December 6 2010, 10:10 AM GMTAnd in The Trip when Coogan was talking to his son on the phone, did he realise that Brydon was actually a good friend? Or was he just agreeing with his son?
No, you're right.
I think he used the word 'actually' - showing (through the writing) that it had just occurred to him
It was a nice moment.
Quote: JPM1 @ December 6 2010, 9:47 AM GMTWould anyone else like to put forward a sitcom they think is the "worst-written" and why?
To me badly-written can be equated with predictable storylines, two-dimensional characters and cliched dialogue. Simple as that. So shows like Two Pints Of Lager and Coming of Age get my vote as being badly-written.
Quote: Lazzard @ December 6 2010, 10:20 AM GMTNo, you're right.
I think he used the word 'actually' - showing (through the writing) that it had just occurred to him
It was a nice moment.
just watched the clip. he doesn't the word "actually." Were you thinking of "suppose?"
I can't see him realising anything in that clip. That exchange could be viewed so many different ways that I think "mud" is the best way to describe that writing.
Quote: JPM1 @ December 6 2010, 12:48 PM GMTjust watched the clip. he doesn't the word "actually." Were you thinking of "suppose?" I can't see him realising anything in that clip. That exchange could be viewed so many different ways that I think "mud" is the best way to describe that writing.
Or maybe it was subtle writing? Sometimes a writer can finesse rather than bludgeon.
Quote: Marc P @ December 6 2010, 9:53 AM GMTWhat about the moment on the cliff top when the bore he escapes from gives him a little insight into his own personality/behaviour some moments before. Very well written - very funny. Oh what a gift it is to give us to see ourselves as others see us - etc!
And as I said before the show ain't finished yet.
So I watched that bit again and I have to concede.... but I may only concede halfway. Meaning I owe you a half-pint.
First, it's not really clear that he realises he was doing the same thing to brydon moments before. He doesn't apologise to Rob, he doesn't make any gesture or statement which says "oh, I get it" For all we know he ran away from the Boring Guy (I hope they called him that in the script) without learning any lesson at all.
Second, this is another example of a dropped thread which is indicative of lazy writing. For this sequence to really play out it would need one more scene - it has a beginning and a middle but no end.
Third, the realisation is so paltry compared to what he should be realising. It's like a tangent realisation. It's as if Macbeth, on his journey to discovering his true nature, realised that he'd always been tying his shoes incorrectly...
Quote: chipolata @ December 6 2010, 12:57 PM GMTOr maybe it was subtle writing? Sometimes a writer can finesse rather than bludgeon.
I grant you that they were going for subtlety, and I appreciate that very much.
Very often sitcoms do bludgeon and in those moments the form is at it's worst.
However, in this scene, they passed 'subtle' a long way back and have clearly entered the realm of 'obtuse' It's so wide open to interpretation that it fails to make a definitive gesture.
But - back to our pursuit of the definition of well-written.
I want to pick up on Chipolata's comments about two-dimensional characters and cliched dialogue.
I think these are both great components in a "bad" script.
But how do we recognize these or differentiate them from there more positive cousins - 3D characters and truthful dialogue?
Since we're on The Trip, let's stay there.... What makes ROb Brydon's character 3D in this? we know awfully little about him, we have no idea what he wants, we don't know what he expects to get out of The Trip... is he 3D?
Cliched dialogue - what makes an exchange cliche? Having heard it before? In The Trip they do almost teh same impression sequence in each episode - so has it become cliche?
P.S. isn't it interesting that this conversation about the trip got ejected from that thread, pnly to find itself here, alive and well, while The Trip's thread is dying a slow death...
[quote name="JPM1" post="700065" date="December 6 2010, 1:04 PM GMT"]So I watched that bit again and I have to concede.... but I may only concede halfway. Meaning I owe you a half-pint.
First, it's not really clear that he realises he was doing the same thing to brydon moments before.
It was to me.
Second, this is another example of a dropped thread which is indicative of lazy writing. For this sequence to really play out it would need one more scene - it has a beginning and a middle but no end.
It is all part of the piece
Third, the realisation is so paltry compared to what he should be realising. It's like a tangent realisation. It's as if Macbeth, on his journey to discovering his true nature, realised that he'd always been tying his shoes incorrectly...
They had in mind what they wanted to do I am sure. It's not Macbeth it's a character comedy piece.
And I said it was about the audience as well remember when it comes to character being revealed.
't's about realisation - sometimes for the characters, sometimes for the audience. It's all about what the audience discovers about the characters, and sometimeswhat the characters discover about themselves. For this -watch The Trip.'
Marc you're killing me! I write a short essay and you write four word responses....
What does "it's all apart of the piece" even mean?
ARGH!
My whole point, throughout this entire exchange has been that they don't know what they're doing. just because they have something in mind doesn't mean that it's well-written.
A comedy piece (remember, all comedy is a character comedy) should still be held to the same rigorous standards. You can hold 30rock, seinfeld....any number of sitcoms to the same standards and they hold up just fine - why excuse The Trip?
Quote: JPM1 @ December 6 2010, 1:19 PM GMTMarc you're killing me! I write a short essay and you write four word responses....
What does "it's all apart of the piece" even mean?
ARGH!
My whole point, throughout this entire exchange has been that they don't know what they're doing. just because they have something in mind doesn't mean that it's well-written.
A comedy piece (remember, all comedy is a character comedy) should still be held to the same rigorous standards. You can hold 30rock, seinfeld....any number of sitcoms to the same standards and they hold up just fine - why excuse The Trip?
It means you will have to watch the thing in it's entirety before you make the judgement on dropped threads. My point throughout has been they know exactly what they are doing and they are doing it very well. You saying you would have added another scene does not mean it is badly written - just that you think you could do a better job.
Quote: JPM1 @ December 6 2010, 1:12 PM GMTBut how do we recognize these or differentiate them from there more positive cousins - 3D characters and truthful dialogue?
By watching. You either believe in them and what they're saying, or you don't.
Quote: Matthew Stott @ December 6 2010, 1:23 PM GMTBy watching. You either believe in them and what they're saying, or you don't.
So you're saying it's entirely subjective and there's no way of looking at more critically?
Quote: JPM1 @ December 6 2010, 1:12 PM GMTP.S. isn't it interesting that this conversation about the trip got ejected from that thread, pnly to find itself here, alive and well, while The Trip's thread is dying a slow death...
To say this thread is 'about' The Trip is a huge mis-reading.
It's actually about writers ie those that write, discussing the merits - or lack of same - of using text book tools to analyse comedy.
Once one gets a bit more writing under the belt, one soon discovers the limitations of these paradigms - preferring to rely on gut instinct, and talent to get you through.
A lot of the shoddy fare one sees on the screen - both large and small - is due in no small part to a reliance on these templates.
It's a language you need to understand - for sure - but mainly because it is what will be used by the people with the money (the ones that can't write - hence their hiring of you) - and if you don't pay it lip-service they get all cross.
Quote: JPM1 @ December 6 2010, 1:27 PM GMTSo you're saying it's entirely subjective and there's no way of looking at more critically?
I hope I won't irritate you with another soundbite - but art isn't a science. Of course one can be objective, but not always about ones own subjectivity,
Quote: Lazzard @ December 6 2010, 1:32 PM GMTTo say this thread is 'about' The Trip is a huge mis-reading.
It's actually about writers ie those that write, discussing the merits - or lack of same - of using text book tools to analyse comedy.
Once one gets a bit more writing under the belt, one soon discovers the limitations of these paradigms - preferring to rely on gut instinct, and talent to get you through.
A lot of the shoddy fare one sees on the screen - both large and small - is due in no small part to a reliance on these templates.
It's a language you need to understand - for sure - but mainly because it is what will be used by the people with the money (the ones that can't write - hence their hiring of you) - and if you don't pay it lip-service they get all cross.
I....um...started the thread.... I...er....know what it's about....
And you tell other people off for being condescending!