hah-hah
Feedback you genuinely don't agree with? Page 3
Quote: Marc P @ September 3 2009, 10:34 AM BSTWhat's wrong with specifics?
The problem with giving us specifics of a crit is that it won't make any sense to us out of context. We'd need the script and the full crit to even begin to pretend we could comment on the validity. And even then, as has been pointed out, it's all subjective.
Jacob, this is the common experience of the writer. One of The Slagg Brothers' scripts had a complete demolishing by some producers. Some so bad, we kinda lost faith in it. But we perservered and continued sending it out. It became the script that got us noticed by others, won second place in an international competition, and gained us our first (I hope it's a first rather than only :-) screenplay commission.
You have two choices, disregard the crit or incorporate it into a new draft. That you had to explain things in response to the crit sounds to me like missing information that needs to be explicit within the script.
The most important thing is finding the producer that shares your vision and your sense of humour. And that takes bloody-minded (and bloody-nosed) obstinacy.
Quote: chipolata @ September 3 2009, 10:27 AM BSTWithout going into specifics, how well regarded a producer is he? Does he have a track record you respect, or is he just someone you've never heard of but sent a script to anyway?
Ditto the slags and Chip.
there are so many complicated factors at play. I think all you can do is trust your gut instinct, your vision and the advice of someone you respect.
But at the same time you have to be prepared to admit you may be wrong.
Quote: SlagA @ September 4 2009, 10:24 AM BSTThe problem with giving us specifics of a crit is that it won't make any sense to us out of context. We'd need the script and the full crit to even begin to pretend we could comment on the validity. And even then, as has been pointed out, it's all subjective.
Actually it's not all subjective. Some of it is objective. By specific I meant, for example, the critque of form. The way the story is told. WIthout going into the specific narrative you can be specific about the type of narrative and cite examples in the public domain that can illustrate and back up your belief. Sometimes explaining things make them clearer to oneself too. Comedy might be subjective but craft isn't.
I shall be tackling this when I give the Mac-Taggart lecture at next year's Edinburgh festival.
Quote: Marc P @ September 4 2009, 11:00 AM BSTBy specific I meant...
Now you've been more specific, I can see your point... er... um... Damn, now my hypocrisy is laid bare before the world. A fiendish trap you set before me.
Quote: SlagA @ September 4 2009, 11:13 AM BSTNow you've been more specific, I can see your point... er... um... Damn, now my hypocrisy is laid bare before the world. A fiendish trap you set before me.
Pride is an enemy of art, confidence is its friend.
You have to ask yourself which it is.
Then do what they say.
oh I like that.
Accept feedback you genuinely don't agree with if you are being paid, otherwise not.
I can't see the problem of changing something, even to the point of what you may now think will ruin it. Treat it as an exercise and keep the original version. This is what I did.
I now prefer the "ruined" version and it's doing "quite well" for me at the moment.
Although, I admit I still miss all the Moby Dick references that no one got.
Quote: Marc P @ September 4 2009, 11:00 AM BSTActually it's not all subjective. Some of it is objective. By specific I meant, for example, the critque of form. The way the story is told. WIthout going into the specific narrative you can be specific about the type of narrative and cite examples in the public domain that can illustrate and back up your belief. Sometimes explaining things make them clearer to oneself too. Comedy might be subjective but craft isn't.
Well said, Marc. Structure of an episode is something I've paid more and more attention to as I've got more experienced at writing. I will spend a lot more time working out scene sequences in the best order to make the show flow, than I did when I first started. There are right ways and wrong ways to structure a half-hour of comedy and to tell the story in the most accessible and efficient way possible. I think showing you understand how to structure not only an episode, but also individual scenes, really helps your chances of getting interest. Yes, you need a good ear for dialogue, some great characters and (obviously) humour, but clever and intelligent form can often add to your comedy. (Conversely, lazy or badly thought out form can weaken the comedy.)
Me and my writing partner have been writing for about 12 years now since we were 13 and when we were about 17 we wrote and finished our first full TV series of 6 eps each 30 minutes long.
We sent it some guy to get it critiqued and paid £60 for the privilege (yep we were bloody stupid!), I can't remember the guys name, he's quite well known from what I understand.
Anyways his 4 page critique was alright. He said we were clearly talented writers but gave strong criticism on numerous parts of the second episode we'd sent in. He told us our concept (at the time was so unique) would never work and over the past 3 or 4 years there's been stuff out that's extremely similar (this person writing for one of them I might add...though no hard feeling if he used part of our idea, if he did he did it wrong and the show wrote some of is a bag of rubbish and so not funny)
Never the less I did and do agree with some of the stuff he said but stand firm that the idea, it's concept and unique format works and is hilarious. I had it read by a number of work colleagues and friends who were unaware of that side of my life and they thought it was hilarious in parts. Obviously needing much work!
Any way after that long, boring and egotistical drawn out crap my point is this; when you read the stuff you've written deep down you know if it's any good or not, you just have to admit to yourself if something's not quite right, accept it and deal with it.
I do not think I would get as far as finishing a work unless I believed in it, and I do not think I have ever written anything that deep down I did not think could be better. But some imperfection you have to live with; keep pulling things apart and you will never finish anything.
The best way of dealing with criticism is to try it on for size. Try doing it their way, and see if it works. You may be pleasantly surprised. If you are secure in your own worth then humility can be a strength.
Quote: jonikversal @ September 14 2009, 7:15 PM BSTMe and my writing partner have been writing for about 12 years now since we were 13 and when we were about 17 we wrote and finished our first full TV series of 6 eps each 30 minutes long.
We sent it some guy to get it critiqued and paid £60 for the privilege (yep we were bloody stupid!), I can't remember the guys name, he's quite well known from what I understand.
Anyways his 4 page critique was alright. He said we were clearly talented writers but gave strong criticism on numerous parts of the second episode we'd sent in. He told us our concept (at the time was so unique) would never work and over the past 3 or 4 years there's been stuff out that's extremely similar (this person writing for one of them I might add...though no hard feeling if he used part of our idea, if he did he did it wrong and the show wrote some of is a bag of rubbish and so not funny)
Never the less I did and do agree with some of the stuff he said but stand firm that the idea, it's concept and unique format works and is hilarious. I had it read by a number of work colleagues and friends who were unaware of that side of my life and they thought it was hilarious in parts. Obviously needing much work!
Any way after that long, boring and egotistical drawn out crap my point is this; when you read the stuff you've written deep down you know if it's any good or not, you just have to admit to yourself if something's not quite right, accept it and deal with it.
Ok.