Quote: Declan @ March 13 2011, 12:13 PM GMTOk, here's an example for you.
"A man in his fiftys sits at a bar."
What's my dad doing in this script?
The Sitcom Mission 2011 Page 53
Quote: scubanut @ March 13 2011, 12:10 PM GMTI came over all Humpty Dumpty there.
Now there's a haunting image...
Thanks Griff.
I'm glad your mime artists used the correct grammar.
I'm getting nervous...
I actually wrote were instead of we're, but only noticed it when it was too late.
Can I play my "actually English isn't my mother tongue" card?
Quote: Declan @ March 13 2011, 12:13 PM GMTOk, here's an example for you.
I've just read the intro for a script.
"A man in his fiftys sits at a bar."
Come on then, what would you do?
I don't think anyone's actually arguing against this point, are they? Incorrect spelling is bound to make a script look unprofessional and makes the writer have to work harder to impress the reader, I'll run with that.
Quote: simon wright @ March 13 2011, 12:14 PM GMTGriff is entirely right that we should differentiate between a character misusing a word (as Del Boy would) and a writer misusing it. Unfortunately most of the mistakes turn up in the action part of the script rather than the dialogue.
Again, I don't think anyone's arguing against any of this. Certainly, I think grammatical errors and misuse of words in the dialogue matter less than in the stage directions, and yes, it depends on a character to character basis. A character who is a linguistic pedant better get every sentence right.
We're a microcosm of the industry. If misusing a word pisses us off what do you think it does to a reader at a production company?
Not arguing against that either. Though I'd prefer if it was getting pissed off at an actual misuse rather than an imagined one.
Fascinating stuff in what both Simon and Declan have come across during the reading of over 1200 scripts. However on reading a lot of the comments I feel that there is a lot of literary snobbery on show here.
A large number of people have been bold and in some cases brave enough to send in their scripts and idea's to try and win a competition and maybe change their lives for the better. In my opinion I believe that the concept behind the comedy and not the grammar content is what makes a fantastic end product.
Millions of kids go through the education system disinterested in the English language because of teachers that are literary snobs. Is it not better to encourage and nurture the hidden talents of someone rather than to attack their weaknesses?
Educate us all, don't discourage.
Rant over.
Quote: jack martin @ March 13 2011, 12:50 PM GMTFascinating stuff in what both Simon and Declan have come across during the reading of over 1200 scripts. However on reading a lot of the comments I feel that there is a lot of literary snobbery on show here.
A large number of people have been bold and in some cases brave enough to send in their scripts and idea's to try and win a competition and maybe change their lives for the better. In my opinion I believe that the concept behind the comedy and not the grammar content is what makes a fantastic end product.
Millions of kids go through the education system disinterested in the English language because of teachers that are literary snobs. Is it not better to encourage and nurture the hidden talents of someone rather than to attack their weaknesses?
Educate us all, don't discourage.
Rant over.
I think there's an element to which it's about making things easier for the reader.
I can see where Declan and Simon are coming from to a degree. If a script is littered with spelling and grammatical errors it suddenly becomes hard to read. I'm reading a book at the moment that's incredibly badly proof-read and every single error breaks the flow. It's hard to get involved and enjoy the material without that flow.
But I think it would have to be littered before it really becomes an issue. One or two would make me frown, but we all miss things and over-rely on the spellchecker these days. I think it would require a lot to become actually unreadable and discardable.
Of course there is the theory that the very nature of language is changing as the media through which it is communicated through.
Mobiles, internet and what ever else comes next are now being used by children under 5. So perhaps our whole paradigm of communication has changed?
Now we produce a smooth continual stream of conciousness across multiple platforms. Applying the same rules as held in the day of the type writer and fountain pen may be hopelessly dated.
Grammar and standardised spelling may be tools of a bygone era.
Quote: sootyj @ March 13 2011, 12:57 PM GMTGrammar and standardised spelling may be tools of a bygone era.
Only in your dreams, Sooty.
Are you wearing pants Stott?
Quote: Matthew Stott @ March 13 2011, 12:58 PM GMTOnly in your dreams, Sooty.
"but we all miss things and over-rely on the spellchecker these days...
If people did use a spellchecker we'd have far less to complain about.
Of course the main reasons that we'd reject a script are that it isn't funny/isn't original/is only a sketch. Good grammar and spelling are the icing on the cake.
We've had scripts where a writer spells the main character's name in several different ways. Trust me; it's annoying.
I'm dead in the water if this caper continues its drift toward Latin.
My English is barely passable on a good day with the wind behind me.
I never had any form of education but I know funny when I see it and I can also sympathise with the poor sod who has to try and read my stuff.
But that said, funny should be funny and I remain reliant on that fact, as no other course is open to me.
Perhaps I should enter text competitions and offer to write kidnap letters on Gum Tree.
Quote: Teddy Paddalack @ March 13 2011, 1:12 PM GMTI never had any form of education
Raised with wolves?
"but we all miss things and over-rely on the spellchecker these days...
Quote: simon wright @ March 13 2011, 1:08 PM GMTIf people did use a spellchecker we'd have far less to complain about.
Of course the main reasons that we'd reject a script are that it isn't funny/isn't original/is only a sketch. Good grammar and spelling are the icing on the cake.
We've had scripts where a writer spells the main character's name in several different ways. Trust me; it's annoying.
Thank you Simon, that's all I wanted to hear, basically just make sure your sitcoms bleeding funny!
"but we all miss things and over-rely on the spellchecker these days...
Quote: simon wright @ March 13 2011, 1:08 PM GMTIf people did use a spellchecker we'd have far less to complain about.
The problem is that the spellchecker doesn't always work. In my experience, it's wrong more often than it's right. I'll get queries on grammar that's totally okay, and it'll ignore incorrect spelling as long as there's another word that is spelt that way.
(Oddly, the automatic spellchecker here flags up 'spellchecker'. And dialogue. How strange.)
We've had scripts where a writer spells the main character's name in several different ways. Trust me; it's annoying.
Not saying it ain't! I can only imagine the hell on Earth you gentlemen have been going through in the last few days.