COPPERS Page 3

Quote: bushbaby @ February 7, 2008, 8:36 AM

Just a point, we are always being told (with rejected scripts) that we should 'see' action, it shouldn't all be dialogue. So if the incident is visual and there is no dialogue at a certain part of a script, how else can one 'show' what is going on without lengthy directions? I wonder what Mr bean scripts look like.
An example of a script I submitted to writersroom is below. The directions are lengthy but are intended to be shown right at the beginning of the sitcom as the titles go up, the titles to finish as the first dialogue is said. How else could it be done? But it does follow the rules of 'show' rather than 'say'
The work was rejected even though it was written in the BBC's 'safe' format and intended for 'before the watershed' slot.

................

BATTLE OF WITS
working title

EPISODE 1

ELSIE AND TOM ARE BOTH PENSIONERS.
SHE IS MID SIXTIES AND HE LATE SEVENTIES.
THEIR NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOURS/FRIENDS
BRENDA AND JACK ARE ALSO PENSIONERS.

Sc 1 Day. TOM AND ELSIE’S HOUSE.

. DOWNSTAIRS, ELSIE
GLANCES THROUGH THE WINDOW
AND SEES THE POSTMAN
COMING UP THE DRIVE.
SHE HURRIES TO
OPEN THE DOOR BEFORE
HE KNOCKS. HE HANDS HER
A FLAT PACKET. SHE THANKS HIM,
CLOSES THE DOOR AND CHECKS
TO MAKE SURE TOM IS
NOT WATCHING.WE SEE THAT THE
PACKET IS FROM A CRUISE COMPANY.

SC 2 Same Day. NEXT DOOR AT BRENDA’S
ELSIE KNOCKS ON NEXT DOOR
AND BRENDA LETS HER IN.
WE FOLLOW THEM INTO THE LOUNGE
WHERE BRENDA POURS THEM A
CUP OF TEA. ELSIE HOLDS UP
THE PACKET FOR BRENDA TO SEE.
ELSIE
Da-dah!!!
BRENDA
Tickets?
(ELSIE NODS)
ELSIE
Have you told Jack yet Brenda?

View original

BB, it could be written like this:

Sc 1. Hallway. Day.

Elsie (65) is brushing her coat in the hallway.

She hears the gate and rushes to open the front door before the postman can knock.

She quickly takes a packet from him making sure she has not been observed.

We see that it is from a cruise company.

SC 2. Neighbour's house. day 1.

ELSIE sitting in the lounge of her friend's house.

Brenda (68) brings in a tray of tea.

ELSIE
Da-dah!!! (she holds up the packet from the postman)

BRENDA
Tickets?

(ELSIE NODS)
ELSIE
Have you told Jack yet Brenda?

and so on.

You really have to make it as simple as possible. Every little scrap of unnecessary direction and detail helps to re-inforce to the reader that there is nothing special in your script and you are just one of the many who want to write but have no special ability to do so.

Point taken Godot but titles can be lengthy and so the action I have put in the directions was sort of timed so that when Elsie first speaks, the titles have just finished. Surely an editor would know that.
Also with your theory, do you think a Mr Bean script would have been accepted by a new writer then? The editor would be bored long ago after the first couple of pages.

Mr. Bean would never make it through an unsolicited scripts system. It was a vehicle designed for someone and most probably much of it was improvised. I doubt if complete scripts even exist. (writer's scripts, not director's scripts)

The point you haven't grasped is not 'have no stage directions', but 'make them count' and 'write them in such a way that they don't send the reader to sleep'.

On the first page of Money by Martin Amis, he talks about a car 'sharking out of a lane'. That's much more economical way of writing, 'a low slung, rather menacing car came out of it's lane in a bobbing, predatory fashion'.

Quote: Godot Taxis @ February 7, 2008, 10:07 AM

On the first page of Money by Martin Amis, he talks about a car 'sharking out of a lane'. That's much more economical way of writing, 'a low slung, rather menacing car came out of it's lane in a bobbing, predatory fashion'.

View original

Now you've taken the argument too far. Scene Action is no place for figurative language. 'Sharking' is open to interpretation and inappropriate for that use.

yeah, it could have been a pathetic shark (ing) and emergency stopped for ice cream and jelly ?

According to the 'Bible':
Sharking refers to an act in which the perpetrator sneaks up on a victim, usually female, in a public area and forcefully exposes the victim's intimate parts before running away.

Now you direct the scene!

Quote: JohnnyD @ February 7, 2008, 10:17 AM

Now you've taken the argument too far. Scene Action is no place for figurative language. 'Sharking' is open to interpretation and inappropriate for that use.

View original

I don't think that's going too far at all, just so long what you're trying to say is being communicated.

All too often scene description is strung together with weak verbs and it makes for a miserable read. This is especially true when reading action. I would much rather read a car chase where the vehicles 'traded paint' than simply 'hit each other'. And why describe someone 'walking' into a room when a verb like 'slopes', 'marches' or 'ambles' will do?

Be economical with your words but make them pop.

I don't think that (generally) script readers want verbal flourishes in the Actions. They're not reading for pleasure!

'slopes', 'marches', 'ambles' are not figurative language and are clearly better than walks(when appropriate).

Chimes , your self deluding very unfunny , and probably a total onanist.

GIVE UP! YOUR CRAP!

Quote: Rockabilly @ February 7, 2008, 11:32 AM

Chimes , your self deluding very unfunny , and probably a total onanist.

GIVE UP! YOUR CRAP!

View original

should that be you're crap?

Quote: Chimes of Freedom @ February 7, 2008, 7:43 AM

I agree that the direction 'The two girls turn around and slowly walk over to Dave's side of the car and stop by his window' can be shortened without loss of meaning. Whether it NEEDS shortening is a different matter.

View original

>_<

Despite admitting Godot's shortened version works just as well as your (by comparison) flabbier line, it seems the rule you apply (quite rightly imo) to other people's work is clearly not the rule you apply to your own.

But I think that may be because the writer gets too close to their work and see each word as a precious commodity that 'just has to stay' in the document. But if the words don't justify their presence, they have to go. Clearly the line under discussion does not justify itself as it stands. In truth, Godot's line works not as well, but better. Same info for less verbage.

If it CAN be shortened without loss of information then it SHOULD be shortened. That's economical writing and is not comparable to txtspeak. If it takes more words to say the same thing then the line is flabby and not concise.

Re: Bushbaby's point, writers needn't concern themselves with credits and their placing, and filling up the space that they take. Those decisions are usually taken by the director and production team. The writer writes. If they choose to put your action over credits then great. Equally they may decide otherwise. You may have an input, but you are not in control.

Thanks SpagA, I'm not exactly a novice

Yep, I know that, BB.

Quote: Chimes of Freedom @ February 7, 2008, 3:51 PM

Producers can get very bored reading, say, a full page of directions. They enjoy a bit of diversion.

P.S. Before anyone suggests I want to turn directions into a full-blown comedy set - I don't. Let's keep them concise but let's occasionally make them entertaining to read.

View original

'The two girls turn around and slowly walk over to Dave's side of the car and stop by his window'

Entertaining? Diverting?

What do you do for kicks, watch grey paint dry?!

The funniest thing is this discussion of a sketch that isn't even there!

Quote: Chimes of Freedom @ February 7, 2008, 4:06 PM

No. I read YOUR scripts.

View original

I see you still haven't learnt to exercise restraint when the possibility of an obvious gag surfaces.