Quote: bigfella @ February 10 2012, 5:58 PM GMTBlimey.
Is this your Gerald Ratner moment Declan?
No.
The Sitcom Mission 2012 Page 49
This thread is locked. No further replies can be posted.
Quote: bigfella @ February 10 2012, 5:58 PM GMTBlimey.
Is this your Gerald Ratner moment Declan?
I don't get this.
What's wrong with Declan saying that he's read a really good script and an awful script?
I'm glad there are crap ones in there, it increases our chances.
(Unless of course it's mine he's referring too)
Quote: Declan @ February 10 2012, 3:41 PM GMTWhat is amazing is that some people have invested a good amount of money by entering, but have completely ignored the rules and guidelines.
In what way, Declan, what's the most common rule flouting you seeing? Not being funny?, unoriginal?, unstageable?, too wordy? too static? too many characters? too long?, too short? (goes 
at this last one, maybe). Please add your own if I haven't included enough.
And if you've sinned in one way, could you still make up for it in another and get longlisted, do you think, from experience? Or do most finalists not tick every box? Ta in advance.
Quote: bluer than blue @ February 11 2012, 7:46 AM GMTI don't get this.
What's wrong with Declan saying that he's read a really good script and an awful script?
I'm glad there are crap ones in there, it increases our chances.
(Unless of course it's mine he's referring too)
There's nothing wrong with saying it.
Bigfella was making a joke (you knew that though didn't you?)
Bigfella wasn't making a joke. 
Whether they've paid or not, I'm not sure writers should expect to be exempt from criticism. It's part of life for professionals, even Shakespeare got his fair share, tho it was mainly from jealous rivals. We are not buying pretty glassware, but competing for a sought after commission that may well change someone's career and even fortune. So our taste is as fair game as our technique or ability, surely?
All he said was he read a bad script.
Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ February 11 2012, 2:01 PM GMTYes, but to be precise about it, he didn't say simply that. I think BF may have been suggesting, in a lighthearted and jovial manner, that if the author of that entry was reading the thread, innocently searching for any sign that his (doubtful it's a she) cherished 'baby', as some scribblers are inclined to call their manuscripts, had yet met with any formal perusal, maybe even met with praise matching his very own, and was strooken, forelorn and even knocked asunder by such an unforewarned savage public trouncing that no mere, innocent patron, having paid good wage to his vile accoster, should ever, surely, in God's own comedy forum, have to suffer.
Sorry, just read that Thunderer script again, hard to get the language out of one's head. Can you take it off?
Yes but as Declan never actually named names-how would the offending author know?
Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ February 11 2012, 11:39 AM GMTIn what way, Declan, what's the most common rule flouting you seeing? Not being funny?, unoriginal?, unstageable?, too wordy? too static? too many characters? too long?, too short? (goes
And if you've sinned in one way, could you still make up for it in another and get longlisted, do you think, from experience? Or do most finalists not tick every box? Ta in advance.
We're pretty liberal when it comes to content and we think most things can be covered by imaginative staging. However, what is particularly irksome is references to hordes of unseen extras in pub scenes (no extraneous characters) and the inclusion of children (no pets or children). All of these things can be referred to but don't have to actually appear.
If we're laughing and interested, we'll keep turning the page, it's that simple. But if we have to choose between one script that ignores the rules and one that sticks to them, which would we go for?
And I think there's a subtle difference between ignoring the rules and breaking them.
What, genuinely, struck me with my entry is how clearly I could see the flaws
in it one minute after I'd clicked 'send', that I couldn't see a minute before.
I'm sure there's a lesson in there, somewhere, for me.
Quote: rwayne @ February 11 2012, 3:24 PM GMTWhat, genuinely, struck me with my entry is how clearly I could see the flaws
in it one minute after I'd clicked 'send', that I couldn't see a minute before.
I'm sure there's a lesson in there, somewhere, for me.
I saw a couple of massive errors in the introduction to our ebook (Your Sitcom Mission... Should You Choose To Accept It, two five star reviews on Amazon) as soon as I uploaded it. The good thing about ebooks being that you can change the text and upload it very easily. But we still need to sort out the spacing thing.
"However, what is particularly irksome is references to hordes of unseen extras in pub scenes (no extraneous characters) and the inclusion of children (no pets or children). All of these things can be referred to but don't have to actually appear"
My script has referencing to other "extras" in a bar but it was my intention that these people are never shown. Hope that comes across. I swear I'm no rule breaker man, I swear!
Quote: Samuel Lees @ February 11 2012, 5:03 PM GMT"However, what is particularly irksome is references to hordes of unseen extras in pub scenes (no extraneous characters) and the inclusion of children (no pets or children). All of these things can be referred to but don't have to actually appear"
My script has referencing to other "extras" in a bar but it was my intention that these people are never shown. Hope that comes across. I swear I'm no rule breaker man, I swear!
That's fine.
What I can't stand is 'everyone turns their heads to look at them'.
It would be better to mention in the opening stage directions that the pub crowd are unseen (and can be inferred by sound effects), followed by something like 'They shrink in embarrassment as everyone stares at them'. It may be a tiny difference, but it shows that you're considering what the audience sees (our heroes being embarrassed).
For the bronze feedback, will that be sent on the 29th of Feb. via email?
Quote: Miss Pugs @ February 11 2012, 7:21 PM GMTFor the bronze feedback, will that be sent on the 29th of Feb. via email?
Yes.