FLAT - My latest attempt at a TV sitcom. Page 5

I will try and look at some of your work, Tuumble. The long pieces really do put me off though and I can only read a bit of it like I have done with this. Reading page after page of scripts on paper I'm fine with, but not on screen.

I look at the beginning of the scene as an outsider and I've put an asterix where I think it's going wrong for me. You have the normal dialogue that propels the thing forward but it's these little comments that I don't feel are adding to it or could certainly be improved upon. I just get the feel of what I'm in for when I read these bits of dialogue I've asterixed.

SCENE 1. LIVING ROOM. INT. DAY. (MONDAY)

MATT IS ASLEEP ON THE SOFA. DAVE IS DRESSED, SITTING ON THE ARMCHAIR. ABI IS DRESSED FOR WORK, AND WALKS IN FROM THE KITCHEN WITH A PINT GLASS HALF FILLED WITH COFFEE.

WE HEAR SIRENS. NO RESPONSE FROM ANYONE. JIM ENTERS, DRESSED FOR WORK.

JIM:
*Sirens?* Going to work Abi?

ABI:
Yes. *Ha bloody ha, Jim*.

DAVE:
At least you’ve both got jobs to go to.

MATT:
Oh, will you lot pipe down? I’m trying to get some sleep here.

JIM:
You’re always asleep. *I slept like a log. No sex noises – have you two had a fight?*

MATT:
I don’t want to talk about it Jim.

ABI:
(DRAINING DRINK) Ok guys; Matt. I’m off. Laters. (EXITS)

DAVE:
She seemed a little, er, cagey this morning. *She put twice as much Pro Plus in her coffee.*

JIM:
*She can put barbiturates in her coffee for all I care.*

Well, I don't know what to say to that really!!
What is it about those particular bits you don't like? For me, they establish the characters' relationships, attitude, and are mildly amusing to boot.

I think the bits you've asterisked are the "jokes"!! Not in-your-face 'witticisms', just mildly amusing banter, was the intention.

I, also, was confused by:
JIM:
Sirens? Going to work Abi?
ABI:
Yes. Ha bloody ha, Jim.

Is 'Sirens' part of a joke I've missed. Or is it just 'Ha bloody ha' because I'm dressed for work, it's early morning and I'm obviously off to work.

That's what I thought. I thought they were intended to be the jokes. But the thing is they're not amusing. I can absolutely see that you think they are, because, believe me, I've written the same sort of stuff in the past thinking the same thing. But they're not sharp enough.

Sirens go off. Abi never goes to work. Jim is saying that the sirens are there to commemorate Abi going to work for once.

I say "jokes"... they're not really "jokes" just "banter". It's not meant to be really sharp incicisive humour. It's not meant to be Blackadder or NGO. It's naturalistic, mildly amusing dialogue. I didn't sit down and think: "Ooh, that's hilarious dialogue!" It's a tickle. The characters and the plot are meant to drive the humour.

I think the main problem is that the plot elements kick in after the first scene... but then, I find the opening intriguing. I thought people would want to know what happens to Dave.

What's meant to be the main humour of this scene is Dave (yet again) being a passive instrument to the events of the plot and letting Jim push him to do his job for him. It's all in character; Dave's a nervy wimp and Jim's abrupt and pushy - and I admit to finding that concept very amusing. Also the business of Matt not understanding Dave's needs and giving him all his stuff so he can go to court. This isn't witty dialogue, it's meant to be humour arising from the characters and the situation.

Taken to its later extremes in the script, what isn't funny about Matt thinking his ex has a voodoo dildo? Again, this is situational, not dialogue. I know the dialogue can elevate everything else, and I did already think that it might need to be more witty in the opening section - this was a test bed to see if that was true. It clearly is!!

I agree, James, nothing wrong with a spirited defence. There with you all the way.

And your point about contradictory crits. A very good point. That's what I meant with the Aesop reference about the impossibility of pleasing everyone because everyone's opinion is different. The hardest part is determining what is relevant to you and your vision for the piece. Only you can decide that.

Got to echo I missed the 'sirens' combined with the 'going to work' dig along with a few other readers but that's maybe because it's an episode 3 opener. I could see the humour and the plot lines, though.

However saying that readers are dismissing it before investing time on it; I can't imagine a commissioner / script reader with 60 scripts to read through over the weekend will give it more attention than it's recieved here. They'll give you so much less time, depending on if they spilled their coffee or Liverpool won the night before.

I think this piece is so different to the rest of your work I've seen and it's a mid-show opener. Plus the disadvantage is that it starts low-key, there's no obvious teaser or cliff-hanger to hook readers. La Plante said "Start with a f**k or a fight. Preferably both." True that's drama but I think there are parallels. When I started incorporating Bang! introductions to sitcom episodes and fiction, feedback from submissions improved.

So don't worry about defending. As I said, I need to look at it again when I have more time.

I agree with this. I obviously need to make the opening more of a bang. The trouble is, it's kind of meant to be "flat"; episode 2 opens like this:
SCENE 1. LIVING ROOM. INT. DAY. (SUNDAY)

MATT AND ABI ARE SLOUCHING ON THE SOFA. JIM IS SITTING ON THE ARMCHAIR. ALL ARE IN THEIR DRESSING GOWNS. THE CURTAINS ARE DRAWN.

MATT IS PLAYING ON HIS X-BOX. HE HAS A TOOTHBRUSH IN HIS MOUTH. HE TAKES IT OUT OF HIS MOUTH AND SPITS OUT INTO A LAGER CAN. HE RESTS THE BRUSH ON THE CAN.

ABI:
Ah, I love Sundays, slouching around.

MATT:
Ooh, yeah. I thought it was Tuesday.

ABI OPENS THE CURTAINS. IT IS DARK OUTSIDE.

The nights are drawing in, aren’t they?

ABI STARES OUT OF THE WINDOW.

ABI:
Maybe I’ll put some clothes on. Nah.

OPENING CREDITS

I know NOTHING about this really as i've only be a writer for 3 days but i used to think that lots of my favorite shows were full of mildly amusing banter until i wrote some and people said it wasn't that funny. I then watched those shows again and realised that, what i thought was the witty sort of banter i may have with a co-worker, is actually non-stop, sharps as nails, humour.

Its a bit like i how i used to think that when i ran a team meeting at work you could film my pep talks and send them to Aron Sorkin for use in the West Wing. Doing "casual" and "normal" communication between people in a way that is really funny or exciting, yet still seems realistic is an art....i have just learnt!

I haven't read the comments so far, so forgive me if I end up repeating what others have said already.

On the plus side, the dialogue works well and it made for an easy read. The characters showed promise and the interplay between them was believable and compelling.

One the down side, I wasn't sure what the 'situation' part of your sit-com was. Where's the conflict? What's at stake?

Also, this is part 3? The way the characters talk (stating out loud what they do for a living etc) it reads as though you're introducing them for the first time. It's all exposition and no action. Get them doing something and this will go places.

Quote: David Bussell @ January 31, 2008, 4:57 PM

Where's the conflict? What's at stake?

View original

So important it'll slap you in the face and make your trousers fall off and catch on fire.

Good point, well made.

Quote: David Bussell @ January 31, 2008, 4:57 PM

I haven't read the comments so far, so forgive me if I end up repeating what others have said already.

On the plus side, the dialogue works well and it made for an easy read. The characters showed promise and the interplay between them was believable and compelling.

One the down side, I wasn't sure what the 'situation' part of your sit-com was. Where's the conflict? What's at stake?

Also, this is part 3? The way the characters talk (stating out loud what they do for a living etc) it reads as though you're introducing them for the first time. It's all exposition and no action. Get them doing something and this will go places.

View original

They're all stuck in the flat. The main conflict is between what Dave wants to do (move to London, impress parents, girlfriend and landlord etc.) and his housemates (who are perfectly content where they are and frustrate everything Dave does). I thought there was plenty of conflict between Jim and Matt and between Dave and Jim in this episode (particularly when Dave finds the drugs, for instance) ... were there particular bits that need tuning up?

So it's mainly Dave vs. the others - although everything anyone does sickens Jim, so he's at odds with everyone. Dynamism: Have you read all of it? Obviously it's too much of a slow-burner. The subplot is static but I tried to make the main "court" main plot as dynamic as possible.

I've not consciously tried to make the characters state their occupations etc., but I suppose it could look that way. Maybe I should tone it down. *Ponders*

I also think a couple of the jokes are a bit crap. I've been tinkering with Matt's "impotent" malapropism for a while. He said "incompetent" at first. It's not very funny and I shall get rid of it wholesale. Trouble is where the jokes really are just not very good it makes it look like the whole thing is trying too hard and failing, so the baby gets thrown out with the bathwater.

Quote: James Williams @ January 31, 2008, 7:14 PM

They're all stuck in the flat. The main conflict is between what Dave wants to do (move to London, impress parents, girlfriend and landlord etc.) and his housemates (who are perfectly content where they are and frustrate everything Dave does). I thought there was plenty of conflict between Jim and Matt and between Dave and Jim in this episode (particularly when Dave finds the drugs, for instance) ... were there particular bits that need tuning up?

View original

I should clarify. I mean what's at stake in the scene? Each scene needs some kind of conflict. What you have is a conversation.

Quote: David Bussell @ January 31, 2008, 7:42 PM

I should clarify. I mean what's at stake in the scene? Each scene needs some kind of conflict. What you have is a conversation.

View original

Ah, you mean the first scene. Well, (in my head!) it's Dave vs, Jim and Matt: Jim quite viciously twisting Dave's arm to go to court for him. Matt popping up with "you can borrow my 'phone", "you can take my bag," etc., which infuriates Dave.
...
I mean, Dave is pushed out of the flat by Jim, despite his protestations. Seems like conflict to me - and not a subtle one either.

Quote: James Williams @ January 31, 2008, 8:09 PM

Ah, you mean the first scene. Well, (in my head!) it's Dave vs, Jim and Matt: Jim quite viciously twisting Dave's arm to go to court for him. Matt popping up with "you can borrow my 'phone", "you can take my bag," etc., which infuriates Dave.
...

View original

'Phone? Just put phone.

Quote: Seefacts @ January 31, 2008, 8:16 PM

'Phone? Just put phone.

View original

Make me.