hm I was nearly shot for doing that, I suppose it's a case all rules are unchangeable, except the ones that are
FLAT - My latest attempt at a TV sitcom. Page 8
Quote: Chimes of Freedom @ February 3, 2008, 8:29 PMI've read Scene 1 of the redraft and, if I'm honest, I have to say it doesn't inspire me to read Scene 2.
It needs to be funnier and much more interesting.
Without changing anything except the way people say things, I'd go:
SCENE 1. LIVING ROOM. INT. DAY. (MONDAY)
THE FLAT IS IN ITS USUAL BARELY LIVEABLE STATE. MESS EVERYWHERE.
MATT IS ASLEEP ON THE SOFA UNDER A BLANKET, NOT VISIBLE.
JIM ENTERS, DRESSED FOR WORK.
JIM:
Have you seen my notepad?NO RESPONSE
JIM TAKES A FORK FROM INSIDE ONE OF MANY DISCARDED POT NOODLES AND JABS THE BLANKET.
THE BLANKET MOVES AS MATT ROLLS TIGHTER INTO THE BLANKET
MATT (STILL INVISIBLE):
Hey ! Man sleeping here!JIM:
My notepad! I’m in court in half an hour.NO RESPONSE FROM MATT
JIM (CONT):
Hand it over or I’ll call the social and tell you've not got Beri-Beri.MATT'S TOP HALF EMERGES QUICKLY FROM THE BLANKET AND HE HANDS OVER THE PAD.
JIM:
(READING) Shopping list: Pot noodle, pot noodle, pot noodle, vodka, pot noodle. (LOOKS UP) I think you'll find it's got two “o”s.MATT:
Voodka?JIM POCKETS THE NOTEPAD AND GOES TO LEAVE
MATT (CONT):
Wait! I need advice.JIM:
Can it wait?MATT:
No, I think I’m becoming important.JIM SMILES AN EXAGGERATED SMILE
JIM:
You know? I somehow doubt that.MATT:
I am. I’m becoming important. (HE POINTS TO HIS DOWNSTAIRS BITS)JIM:
Oh. You mean . . .MATT:
It keeps going on strike.OPENING CREDITS
Thanks for taking the time to suggest improvements.
However IMO the changes you suggest make the piece neither funnier nor more interesting.
Apart from not getting the voices quite right (e.g. Jim's WAY too wordy), TBH these "jokes" are exactly the sort of nonsense I am trying to avoid.
It doesn't sit right. Thanks though.
It does amaze me that that extremely short scene was so uninspiring you couldn't read any more. Also seems odd for you to then suggest significantly increasing its length with this sort of material.
Edit: Increasing.
Quote: James Williams @ February 3, 2008, 8:48 PMThanks for taking the time to suggest improvements.
However IMO the changes you suggest make the piece neither funnier nor more interesting.
--------------------I think it's better, a big improvement.
Apart from not getting the voices quite right (e.g. Jim's WAY too wordy), TBH these "jokes" are exactly the sort of nonsense I am trying to avoid.
---------------------"Jokes"? What - funnier ones? How can Jim be too wordy? He barely says anything? Pob was wordier.
It doesn't sit right. Thanks though.
It does amaze me that that extremely short scene was so unispiring you couldn't read any more. Also seems odd for you to then suggest significantly increase its length with this sort of material.
God help the script editor who'd have to work with you!
yeah, we finally agree seefacts
Quote: sootyj @ February 3, 2008, 7:43 PMHave now found the rest of the script?
Structurally it's pretty good, with nicely built up jokes, and pacing (the continual finding of worse and worse stuff in the bag especially)
And it does have some pretty good jokes, the copy cock one stands out. The running jokes are good, and it's rare to see them done well.
How ever you are pushing the watershed button pretty hard, and limiting the slots it could play from the get go. I mean dildo, and anal humor is gonna' push you after 22.00
Also there's a lot of to and fro banter, that can be pretty tiring to read, every one seems to be a comic character, and every one seems to be agitated most of the time.
A couple of more "straight" characters to have stuff bounced off might help.
n.b. also format could be better, e.g. don't write scenes for sitcoms, jsut fond this out myself!
And a flatshare sitcom with a person has embarrassing thing in friends bag, is already widely down, you do need an unexpected twist some where, to break the format.
Many thanks. I think I copied the formatting off the Two Pints example on Writersroom.
Interesting what you say about the agitation of the characters. I suppose I got that from Curb. I'll think about it!
Impressive page count this thread is building up.
I stick stuff up, because I want to know why stuff doesn't work.
I've found theres plenty of people who'll tell you your stuff's good to keep you happy.
The honestly fairly critical are damndably rare.
And production companies will by and large just ignore you, if they don't like your stuff (and by like I mean make money out of it)
I'm having a script reading next week for my beloved sitcom script, I expect to have it thoroughly shreaded. But thats what I need if one day I'm gonna make it,
If you read the thread, James had already rejected a (slightly) better malapropism for 'impotent'. I think 'important' is far too common a word for this purpose. (Maybe 'imprudent' would work.)
Quote: Leevil @ February 3, 2008, 8:59 PMImpressive page count this thread is building up.
Do you want me to review your sitcom Leevil, as I'm doing bugger all until Match Of The Day.
I can bump the thread with my thoughts if you want?
Quote: Seefacts @ February 3, 2008, 9:07 PMDo you want me to review your sitcom Leevil, as I'm doing bugger all until Match Of The Day.
I can bump the thread with my thoughts if you want?
Lol, you may if you wish. Not really a sitcom though, just a random scene with my characters being... random?
Quote: Seefacts @ February 3, 2008, 9:07 PMI'm doing bugger all until Match Of The Day.
Newcastle won 4-1.
if any one fancies hearing my sorry old audio sitcoms first episode here's the link, be brutal, I've lain kleenex on my keyboard to catch the tears
http://www.wirelesstheatrecompany.co.uk/our_plays.php?cid=4?cid=5
n.b. the kleenex is for tears only!
I thought the re drafted scenes were much better, especially scene one.
Quote: Seefacts @ February 3, 2008, 8:53 PMGod help the script editor who'd have to work with you!
Well, we'll have to disagree. I suspected you and many others may prefer Chimes of Freedom's edit. It confirms that those of you who do just don't "get" the style of what I'm trying for.
The irony is that IMO in the suggested edit the two characters were made to sound similar, the scene was lengthened, a couple of half-decent jokes were distorted and made far less funny and some naff ones were thrown in. Exactly what I've been accused of doing all along.
I am open to editing that I think works. IMO that didn't, in a big way - sorry. And it is really nice of you to suggest ways I can improve.
As I say, thanks for taking the time for critique y'all. A lot of it's been very very useful and I'm constantly improving the script as a result.
I'm also clearly writing on a different wavelength to many people.
Sorry to sound an arrogant arse but some people's perception of what makes a good script amazes me. It's fascinating!
Quote: Leevil @ February 3, 2008, 9:09 PMLol, you may if you wish. Not really a sitcom though, just a random scene with my characters being... random?
I'll give it a look.