Anyone else submitting their episode 2?
I think that's the one I'm going to send. Less faffing about changing scenes, all interior too. Plus I think too much set-up for my episode one for it to be a completely right entry.
It's the same premise as my 2011 entry, but less of the info, more of the gags and situation, moves along so much smoother!
Definitely. If your 'sit' requires a full episode just to explain what's going on, it's probably not suitable for The Sitcommission. If it doesn't, then don't waste your 15 minutes doing so.
In response to Declan's challenge:-
DAVE
Zeig Heil!
FRED
Er... I'm here to rob your bank. With this gun. But I don't speak French. Could you, like, get someone else to attend me? Por favor?
Quote: andyblacksheep @ January 7 2012, 11:55 AM GMTDefinitely. If your 'sit' requires a full episode just to explain what's going on, it's probably not suitable for The Sitcommission. If it doesn't, then don't waste your 15 minutes doing so.
There wasn't too much explanation, it's just that characters turned up one after another, and it was re past events. Plus it worked better when I made it longer for Laughing Stock and was able to use flashbacks.
I'd rather just scenes where the characters are riffing off each other and there's just a few lines of dialogue to reference what happened and what they're going to do about it.
Quote: Declan @ January 6 2012, 2:29 PM GMTHi Evan
From what we've found, writers who use the words 'obvious' or 'obviously' haven't made it clear to the reader at all. But I take your point. So that would give us:
DAVE (30, RECEPTIONIST, THINKS HE'S HITLER)
Good morning. May I help you?FRED (35, BANK ROBBER, NOT THE SHARPEST TOOL IN THE BOX)
Just give me the money.and
DAVE (30, RECEPTIONIST, NOT THE SHARPEST TOOL IN THE BOX)
Good morning. May I help you?FRED (35, BANK ROBBER, THINKS HE'S HITLER)
Just give me the money.Both have the same lines, but the direction changes the relationship and the meaning completely.
Not sure about this at all. Sure the character descriptions make a difference for such a limited dialogue exchange, but if Dave or Fred think they're Hitler and this doesn't become obvious over 15 pages of script then adding it in the character's intro isn't going to make any difference.
QUICK EDIT: I know the'Hitler' thing's an extreme example. Still, if a character doesn't come across as 'greedy', or 'jolly', or 'studious' in the script then what's the point of putting it in a character description? And if they do then why is the description needed?
In our script we had tiny descriptions before the first appearance of each character, but in the action rather than on the line headers. It's giving yourself a bonus opportunity for the reader to start enjoying your characters.
For that reason, I'd suggest injecting it with a little personality than simply a list of adjectives; you're trying to demonstrate you're a good writer, after all. And try and get something of the tone or feel rather than anything that should be obvious from the lines: In our case, Captain Horatio was described as 'an officer and a gentleman' rather than 'an officer, a gentleman and a dimwit' because the third point was glaringly obvious the moment he said anything. And finding that out was, hopefully, funny for the reader.
I'd only put instructions on the actual dialogues if the intended meaning was at odds with the apparent content:
JACK:
(meaning 'no')
Yes.
JILL
(hostile)
Thanks.
This is a classic case of real world versus ideal world.
In the ideal world the characters come across during the piece - no need for cheeky little descriptors.
In the real world, you get one read - one chance.
So if you can do something that gives the reader a steer on 'how' to read that particular character from line one, you'll get a better first-time read.
Quote: andyblacksheep @ January 8 2012, 9:09 AM GMTIn our script we had tiny descriptions before the first appearance of each character, but in the action rather than on the line headers. It's giving yourself a bonus opportunity for the reader to start enjoying your characters.
I see what you mean - it can be a nice hook to pull the reader in at the start. Though I'd still hope that a reading of the full 15 pages would render it unnecessary.
I just thought that some sort of description might help, that wouldn't be apparent in the dialogue, i.e. age and attire.
DAVE(35,Casually dressed):
As for my sitcom writing, there seems to be a lot of 'evolution' taking place, which is making it take a different path from which I first intended. It's almost a though it's taken on a life of its own and I'm just here to do the typing.
I always end up being the skivvy.
Quote: Park Bench @ January 8 2012, 11:25 AM GMTI just thought that some sort of description might help, that wouldn't be apparent in the dialogue, i.e. age and attire.
DAVE(35,Casually dressed):
Personally, I think descriptors like this belong in the action.
If there mode of dress/age is important, put it there.
If it isn't, don't put it in at all.
Parenthicals (bits in brackets!) should really apply to the speech rather than the speaker,ie to help with the read.
Though, it is legitmate to put them in the middle of dialogue to save breaking out into an action slug - which can break the flow ie
DAVE
Yeah, I only smoke with meals, now.
(hands back lighter)
I'm down to 40 meals a day.
Then there's stull like (V.O) and (O.S)...
It's easy to descend into bracket hell.
Quote: Park Bench @ January 8 2012, 11:25 AM GMTAs for my sitcom writing, there seems to be a lot of 'evolution' taking place, which is making it take a different path from which I first intended. It's almost a though it's taken on a life of its own and I'm just here to do the typing.
That's so often the way.
What'll happen is, it'll go somewhere you weren't expecting and end up better.
Then you'll have to re-write the first half to match the vastly superior second!
Quote: Park Bench @ January 8 2012, 11:25 AM GMTI
DAVE(35,Casually dressed):
As has been said, don't do that. If you need to describe someone, do it in the action description bit. But keep it brief. Russell T Davies often uses three quick descriptive words to get the gist across nice and quick.
Quote: Lazzard @ January 8 2012, 12:27 PM GMT.....
Then you'll have to re-write the first half to match the vastly superior second!
...
That's exactly as it seems.
Quote: Frantically @ January 8 2012, 10:51 AM GMTI see what you mean - it can be a nice hook to pull the reader in at the start. Though I'd still hope that a reading of the full 15 pages would render it unnecessary.
Aaaaah, but you're taking for granted that the full 15 pages will be read! If your characters aren't clear and interesting in the first few pages, the reader may not actually get passed that point...
Quote: Welshy @ January 8 2012, 3:22 PM GMTIf your characters aren't clear and interesting in the first few pages, the reader may not actually get passed that point...
If you're spelin and grama ain't all that, then you won't get past that point either.
Quote: Feeoree @ January 6 2012, 9:13 PM GMTAnyone else submitting their episode 2?
It's the same premise as my 2011 entry, but less of the info, more of the gags and situation, moves along so much smoother!
Does anyone have any advice to offer on the wisdom of re-submitting last year's script (appropriately re-written to hopefully get over the failure issue!) vs submitting another episode (presuming the concept of the original idea is strong) vs instead working on a completely new idea?