ooooooobrirfbvibbidfceijdciedbciejcdije dixje dixj eijd xi
My Failure
This is actually really good.
Some of the first few jokes were cheap tangents, but I actually laughed at this a lot.
The dialogue is razor sharp.
Obvious thing at a glance - way, way too many line descriptors (i.e: 'smiles', 'almost elated' 'slightly irate'). It makes the script practically unreadable. Even half the amount you've included here would be over-kill. One on every single line is ridiculous.
You only ever need to include these if the manner the line should be said in isn't obvious from the dialogue or context (or there are several alternatives). I'll try and find one that's right and point it out...
I was working on the premises that descriptive was required, I can alter that no problem.
My real concern is if what I write is funny.
Quote: Teddy Paddalack @ March 17 2011, 2:49 PM GMTI was working on the premises that descriptive was required, I can alter that no problem.
My real concern is if what I write is funny.
I agree with the need to alter that aspect. Let the attitude come from the dialogue and only put stuff in parenthesis if it is really necessary.
Quote: Marc P @ March 17 2011, 2:51 PM GMTI agree with the need to alter that aspect. Let the attitude come from the dialogue and only put stuff in parenthesis if it is really necessary.
This is true, but for some reason this script's (one word) descriptions and rapid-fire dialogue gave me a clear as day picture of the characters and the tone.
Quote: Derry Dee @ March 17 2011, 2:57 PM GMTThis is true, but for some reason this script's (one word) descriptions and rapid-fire dialogue gave me a clear as day picture of the characters and the tone.
Maybe but it will bug the hell out of a pro reader. 
Just read this and I quite enjoyed it. Doug is an interesting character who captures my attention, though at times I did feel it was a little bit heavy on the one-liner gags and putdowns. Surely he must have some redeeming qualities that we can identify with? Maybe he loves kittens. Perhaps not.
I concur with the above comments though. Don't use any descriptors unless you utterly, desperately have to. The goal is for this to be read by actors - they won't be acting and interpreting the characters if you tell them exactly how to say every line.
Also, get your punctuation, grammar and sentence structures correct. For example...
Quote: Teddy Paddalack @ March 17 2011, 9:21 AM GMTDOUG
(Nodding sadly goes off on a tangent)
"What are doing emigrating?"
I'm being quite picky here, but the word 'you' is missing. It's fairly obvious to understand what the sentence means but it's little blips like this that'll make the reader get angry and want to tear your script in half with their bare hands.
Keep up the good work though. I'd say that your character-craft and comedy skills are good, you just need to work on polishing the script and creating some more dimensions for the characters.
Quote: Marc P @ March 17 2011, 3:06 PM GMTMaybe but it will bug the hell out of a pro reader.
Can't argue with that.
P.S. How many of the world's top script writers became professional script readers?
Funny will always be funny. 
Quote: Derry Dee @ March 17 2011, 4:06 PM GMTP.S. How many of the world's top script writers became professional script readers?
Don't know but a frig of a lot of script readers go on to be development executives, producers,executive producers etc, etc. They don;t like it either. And NONE of the world's top script writers put a line in telling the actor to act at every stage - if that helps?
Quote: Marc P @ March 17 2011, 4:10 PM GMTThey don;t like it either. And NONE of the world's top script writers put a line in telling the actor to act at every stage - if that helps?
I know that.
But, surely the most important thing in the success of a sitcom is whether or not it is funny.
If "The Office" was hand-written on toilet paper, with more words in parentheses than dialogue, it would still be funny.
This guy's script is also pretty funny.
Quote: Derry Dee @ March 17 2011, 4:17 PM GMTI know that.
But, surely the most important thing in the success of a sitcom is whether or not it is funny.
If "The Office" was hand-written on toilet paper, with more words in parentheses than dialogue, it would still be funny.
This guy's script is also pretty funny.
THE most important thing, at this stage, is getting it read in the first place. That kind of thing will get it stopped being read pretty quickly. There are forests worths of crap scripts that readers/producers etc have to wade through. If your script is a nugget of gold let them see it shine because you have polished it. Don't hide it's light under a bushel of unhelpful verbiage is what I say!
The grammar & diluting the descriptions I can alter and appreciate it being highlighted.
Having identified that aspect I will ensure it is observed, however my main concern remains whether or not it's funny
My first thoughts on this is that there is no built in trap that would keep Evan and Doug together. The cafe is obviously a sh#t hole so why would Evan, a uni student, want to spend one minute more there? However what if Doug was Evans uncle and Evans parents have said something like when you go to uni uncle Doug will help you out with money. He runs a good restaurant and the money he will pay you will help top up your grant. Family is family and all that. Now suddenly you have Evan caught in a moral trap, the family is expecting him to help Doug out and so it is now no longer easy for Evan to simply walk away. Evan, on the face of it seems a nice guy, straight laced and honest. Whereas Doug is a bit of an arse and totally untrustworthy. So now you have conflict between your two main characters, neither whom can leave the other.
One of the main things that stands out are the instructions in parenthesis. This occurs on almost every line of dialogue. Not only did this distract from the main read through but this is the equivalent of telling the actors how to do their job. They are trained actors and they understand how to read a script. If something is ambiguous in the dialogue and could be read different ways then the odd hint is ok but this should be the exception and not the norm.
As the script went on I felt that you started to convey information and past events concerning people not in the script itself. The humour and story should come from what your characters do themselves and not some side event story about others. And who was Ripper? A scene change or two may have been nice to break up the sitcom otherwise you have 15 minutes of people talking in one position. A last item I would mention is that you do not need "speech quotes" on your dialogue.
Overall I did like this sitcom. It did raise a smile here and there and I think the main characters certainly had some life in them.
Def.
I only had fifteen minutes, Melvyn Bragg explaining the oxymoronic complexities of Citzen Kane was going to be in the other fifteen.
Still its nice to see other viewpoints and I can only learn from my mistakes.
I think the chances of encapsulating so much in so short a space were never good in the first place.