Readers of this blog will remember that I'm not a huge fan of Amazon's Imdb – the definitive database of screen entertainment, and one of the things about it that annoys me is the "Goofs" section that accompanies most titles.
This is where those sad individuals get to write their reports after they've peered at their screens watching and noting down anything they claim is wrong. "Sod the story – let's find fault and make ourselves feel in control!"
They find continuity errors, revealed crew and/or equipment in the form of shadows and reflections (and sometimes right there in shot!), factual errors and anachronisms. I've spotted a few over the years, but I try not to let them spoil my enjoyment of the drama.
Errors during filming are not the responsibility of the writer, but the facts of the stories are (fantasy and science fiction aside).
Which leads me to explain why this blog entry is late: it's because at UCF we have been sweating over a module specifically about research – about the market, the audience we're aiming for, and the accuracy of the subject matter we are writing about.
Cameron came unstuck with one such example in Titanic where he has Rose talking about Freud's theory on male preoccupation with size, when in reality Freud didn't write about this until 8 years later.
Now, that sort of "goof" is typically spotted by someone who really needs to get out more, but at least here, in Cornwall, we are learning how to avoid writing such errors into our novels and screenplays and keeping such individuals out of the sunlight.
Wednesday, 21 April 2010
Tuesday, 13 April 2010
Some stuff comes back
Despite dramas such as Heartbeat, The Royal and The Bill getting wiped off our screens due to some indiscriminate whim of an ITV executive (both of whom have, by this time, gone on their merry ways), the power of the audience is being felt almost as if they were calling "it's behind you!" I am talking about the welcome return of Foyle's War, which began on ITV, Sunday 11th April.
Axed in 2007, the show has been given a new lease of life following the weight of public demand. I remember watching an interview with its creator, Anthony Horowitz, when it first aired and he said that each series would deal with the events of a particular war year – chronologically, of course.
But then ITV's then director of television decided that he wanted to attract an upmarket younger audience – as if he would know what people want to watch. I mean, let's face it: such arrogance is usually some misguided and desperate attempt to pull in more advertising revenue by attracting... more upmarket viewers? Amongst the younger audience? I'll stop there before I commit the cardinal sin of generalisation and falling into cliché country – a bit like the former ITV director of television did.
In its normal run, as originally outlined, Foyle's War got to 1943... and then, after being dumped, jumped to 1945 for a one-off 2-hour special just to cap it all off and make way for the wealthy youth. I don't think.
I realise that Anthony Horowitz will, at the very least, have storylined the programmes that were never made, and I sympathise with him. The new series takes over after VE-day in 1945, which is better than nothing, and I'm wondering if they'll consider a series that backtracks to those missing years.
Let's hope so.
Axed in 2007, the show has been given a new lease of life following the weight of public demand. I remember watching an interview with its creator, Anthony Horowitz, when it first aired and he said that each series would deal with the events of a particular war year – chronologically, of course.
But then ITV's then director of television decided that he wanted to attract an upmarket younger audience – as if he would know what people want to watch. I mean, let's face it: such arrogance is usually some misguided and desperate attempt to pull in more advertising revenue by attracting... more upmarket viewers? Amongst the younger audience? I'll stop there before I commit the cardinal sin of generalisation and falling into cliché country – a bit like the former ITV director of television did.
In its normal run, as originally outlined, Foyle's War got to 1943... and then, after being dumped, jumped to 1945 for a one-off 2-hour special just to cap it all off and make way for the wealthy youth. I don't think.
I realise that Anthony Horowitz will, at the very least, have storylined the programmes that were never made, and I sympathise with him. The new series takes over after VE-day in 1945, which is better than nothing, and I'm wondering if they'll consider a series that backtracks to those missing years.
Let's hope so.
Friday, 9 April 2010
Yippee for The Book Show
As I've previously mentioned, The Book Show, which is shown on the SkyArts 1 channel, has certainly sold a number of books to this household. And whilst this blog is primarily about screenwriting and associated trivia, naturally I read books for entertainment, escapism and as a source of inspiration, so this programme is a damned useful resource.
Every week 3 authors are interviewed by presenter, Mariella Frostrup, who tirelessly gets them to reveal why and how they put pen to paper (yes, some writers still do that) – or however – and makes the meeting seem so natural it's as if we are listening in on a friendly chat. It is hard to imagine she has the time to read every book, but that's the impression she gives. Ms Frostrup is an excellent presenter.
Other weekly features include an interview with an independent bookshop, a look at the writing environments of some authors, and guest celebrities tell us what books they are reading from their bedside table.
Aimed at readers, believe me when I say that all writers of fiction should watch this programme.
The Book Show is currently broadcast on Thursdays at 7pm on Sky channel 256 and Virgin channel 284. It is repeated, just in case you miss it.
Some people tell me that their existing Sky package doesn't include SkyArts 1, which is a shame because, particularly for writers, this is a must-have channel. Now, it's not for me to flog stuff for something as massive as Sky, but they say you can add the Sky Style and Culture Pack for just an extra £1 per month by going here, so it should be worth looking at this.
Wednesday, 7 April 2010
Not Creeking
I'm talking about the new episode of Jonathan Creek, "The Judas Tree", that was aired on Easter Sunday. Written by the series' creator, David Renwick, this places our hero, played by Alan Davies, in the same sort of scenario as he tended to find himself when the series first began in 1997. This is a good thing. Let me explain.
Just in case you're not familiar with the series' premise, Creek is a bit of an eccentric who devises magical acts for a professional stage magician and uses his analytical mind and technical skills to solve seemingly-impossible crimes. However, in the 13 years that he's been doing this, he doesn't seem to have got any older, he wears the same duffle coat, he speaks the same way, and his luck with the opposite sex is still as frustrating to me as it must be to him.
His assistants might have changed – but only because he has outgrown them. Good for him. Even the theme music and opening titles are like familiar friends drawing you into the show, which brings me to the point: the show returned in 2009 for a one-off, "The Grinning Man", after 5 years and yet it was as if it had never been off the air, so smooth was the continuity. It was like seeing old friends once more.
However, some other programmes have blatantly disregarded the need for such conventions as familiar theme music and title sequences that helped establish them in the first place, namely Sharpe and Agatha Christie: Poirot.
Yes, Jonathan Creek is an old friend and, so long as he's there and recognisable, there's hope for the world of television.
Just in case you're not familiar with the series' premise, Creek is a bit of an eccentric who devises magical acts for a professional stage magician and uses his analytical mind and technical skills to solve seemingly-impossible crimes. However, in the 13 years that he's been doing this, he doesn't seem to have got any older, he wears the same duffle coat, he speaks the same way, and his luck with the opposite sex is still as frustrating to me as it must be to him.
His assistants might have changed – but only because he has outgrown them. Good for him. Even the theme music and opening titles are like familiar friends drawing you into the show, which brings me to the point: the show returned in 2009 for a one-off, "The Grinning Man", after 5 years and yet it was as if it had never been off the air, so smooth was the continuity. It was like seeing old friends once more.
However, some other programmes have blatantly disregarded the need for such conventions as familiar theme music and title sequences that helped establish them in the first place, namely Sharpe and Agatha Christie: Poirot.
Yes, Jonathan Creek is an old friend and, so long as he's there and recognisable, there's hope for the world of television.
Wednesday, 31 March 2010
Bill gets axe
ITV's The Bill is for the chop, I'm sorry to say.
I've never watched it, but that doesn't mean I cannot appreciate its existence just like Last of the Summer Wine and Heartbeat, both of which are going or gone. The fact that such dramas as The Bill are being made adds a certain security in these times of troubled financial instabilities and means that, somewhere, all's well with the world and turning back the clock to happier times needn't rely on science fiction.
But now the reliable world just got a bit smaller.
ITV says the programme has been axed due to low viewer figures, even after a recent re-hash of the viewing time and format. The BBC has recently said that viewer figures aren't important to them but, to be fair, they need to be important to commercial channels that rely on such figures to determine advertising fees for the programmes they interrupt.
What the loss of a weekly drama series such as The Bill means is that there are 50 less opportunities for writers to earn a living. Some of the other blogs and forums are rather scathing of ITV's desire to replace drama with reality TV, but in this case I'll give ITV the chance to do what it says – and that is to create more shorter-run dramas.
Let's hope it follows through.
Guardian article.
I've never watched it, but that doesn't mean I cannot appreciate its existence just like Last of the Summer Wine and Heartbeat, both of which are going or gone. The fact that such dramas as The Bill are being made adds a certain security in these times of troubled financial instabilities and means that, somewhere, all's well with the world and turning back the clock to happier times needn't rely on science fiction.
But now the reliable world just got a bit smaller.
ITV says the programme has been axed due to low viewer figures, even after a recent re-hash of the viewing time and format. The BBC has recently said that viewer figures aren't important to them but, to be fair, they need to be important to commercial channels that rely on such figures to determine advertising fees for the programmes they interrupt.
What the loss of a weekly drama series such as The Bill means is that there are 50 less opportunities for writers to earn a living. Some of the other blogs and forums are rather scathing of ITV's desire to replace drama with reality TV, but in this case I'll give ITV the chance to do what it says – and that is to create more shorter-run dramas.
Let's hope it follows through.
Guardian article.
Monday, 29 March 2010
Blocked!
Finally it has happened: the very condition I never thought would afflict me has landed itself plop! right there on the mat – not literally, of course, so there's no actual mess to clear up; just a virtual expanse of nothingness that is even more frightening.
This concerns the 60-minute screenplay that I'm re-hashing into its Second Draft. The First Draft did work as a story (and I've seen much worse on TV) but, on reflection, it might have appeared too lightweight. My problem is how to convincingly get the protagonist to relent without making it seem too convenient when the story is about to end.
Since allowing myself to get bogged down with this, surprisingly I've been sleeping rather soundly, but waking up feeling like I've been doing The Times crossword all night. But if the solution has occurred to me during my period of somnolence, then why the hell can't I remember what it was?
I find myself speaking lines of dialogue in inappropriate places. I get strange looks. I'm only trying them out, but the more experimentally-bizarre the plot gets, the more space I am allowed by members of the public. My current wife says she's had enough – oh, not of me, well, sort of, I suppose, but of the characters encroaching on our lives.
"They're only pretend people," she snipes. Little does she realise that they are so real they're taking over, creeping up on me and whispering obtuse lines of dialogue for me to try out – until the day I can type "FADE OUT" and put them to rest.
Until the Third Draft, that is.
This concerns the 60-minute screenplay that I'm re-hashing into its Second Draft. The First Draft did work as a story (and I've seen much worse on TV) but, on reflection, it might have appeared too lightweight. My problem is how to convincingly get the protagonist to relent without making it seem too convenient when the story is about to end.
Since allowing myself to get bogged down with this, surprisingly I've been sleeping rather soundly, but waking up feeling like I've been doing The Times crossword all night. But if the solution has occurred to me during my period of somnolence, then why the hell can't I remember what it was?
I find myself speaking lines of dialogue in inappropriate places. I get strange looks. I'm only trying them out, but the more experimentally-bizarre the plot gets, the more space I am allowed by members of the public. My current wife says she's had enough – oh, not of me, well, sort of, I suppose, but of the characters encroaching on our lives.
"They're only pretend people," she snipes. Little does she realise that they are so real they're taking over, creeping up on me and whispering obtuse lines of dialogue for me to try out – until the day I can type "FADE OUT" and put them to rest.
Until the Third Draft, that is.
Tuesday, 23 March 2010
Short Seasons
I remember years ago being a fan of the BBC sitcom, ’Allo ’Allo. It was so popular, the Americans wanted it but, and this is the point, they didn't want TV series in anything less than 26 episodes.
So the BBC flogged the US all 4 series of ’Allo ’Allo bundled together as one US-sized "season" and then pulled out all the stops by going in for a mammoth 26-episode fifth series.
But, 20 years on, the norm is still 4, 6, 8, sometimes 10 episodes for a UK television series.
Is this a case of inadequate funding or simply not allowing the viewers to overindulge?
What has brought this to mind is a comment I read on Imdb written by a US fan of Kingdom. This person said that it was "a nice alternative to most American network television". After tasting the likes of... no, I'd better not fall into the trap of slaughtering the staple US TV diet; that would not be professional. Slap wrist and all that. I do, however, sympathise with this person.
But a viewer from Canada said: "What I can't understand is every television show that is shown in the UK only has about 6 episodes to them and it takes such a long time to produce them. My only guess to such little production rate is they're too busy with tea time than work time."
What a cheek! No, kind Canadian person, we make "shows" in such small numbers because we put so much care into them and, as my current wife says, "You can't have too many sweets at once; they make you sick."
So the BBC flogged the US all 4 series of ’Allo ’Allo bundled together as one US-sized "season" and then pulled out all the stops by going in for a mammoth 26-episode fifth series.
But, 20 years on, the norm is still 4, 6, 8, sometimes 10 episodes for a UK television series.
Is this a case of inadequate funding or simply not allowing the viewers to overindulge?
What has brought this to mind is a comment I read on Imdb written by a US fan of Kingdom. This person said that it was "a nice alternative to most American network television". After tasting the likes of... no, I'd better not fall into the trap of slaughtering the staple US TV diet; that would not be professional. Slap wrist and all that. I do, however, sympathise with this person.
But a viewer from Canada said: "What I can't understand is every television show that is shown in the UK only has about 6 episodes to them and it takes such a long time to produce them. My only guess to such little production rate is they're too busy with tea time than work time."
What a cheek! No, kind Canadian person, we make "shows" in such small numbers because we put so much care into them and, as my current wife says, "You can't have too many sweets at once; they make you sick."
Thursday, 18 March 2010
Can writing be taught?
I have a friend who says no, and a wife who says no. But I disagree.
It should go without saying that no one person and no university course can teach you (or me) how to get ideas. But they can suggest places to look. It might be just a case of pointing across the street and asking the student to imagine what that person in the smart business suit is doing with that old lady who is hitting him with her walking stick – and then to think beyond the obvious. Just teaching a concept of thought as simple as that one may be all that's required to get someone writing – that can be taught.
All stories, in whatever format (verbal, novel, script, etc.) follow the pattern of having a beginning. middle and end. There's a bit more to it than that, of course, and there are cases where the temptation to mix these up has been too great for some writers and directors, but I shan't confuse the issue by mentioning them. Let's accept that structure is important and many would-be writers start off without any planning or, indeed, having any knowledge of the form required to lay out a story – but that can be taught.
A little knowledge of the history of the English language (much of it lifted from other languages) can help in carefully choosing words to provide emphasis. You can learn that.
We were taught punctuation at junior school, yet now many 16-year-olds leave school without a clue about correct use of apostrophes and even simple commas – that can be taught.
These are just a few instances of teachable aspects used in writing.
"Ah but," you may say, "this is not teaching writing per se, is it?"
I agree that writers need to feel almost a primal urge to write – rather instinctively like breathing, eating, procreating... and not just so they can see their name in print or on the rolling credits (which, on TV, are getting faster, have you noticed?) I believe that wanting to write should not be to satisfy vanity. Quite simply, writers must want to tell stories.
And that cannot be taught.
It should go without saying that no one person and no university course can teach you (or me) how to get ideas. But they can suggest places to look. It might be just a case of pointing across the street and asking the student to imagine what that person in the smart business suit is doing with that old lady who is hitting him with her walking stick – and then to think beyond the obvious. Just teaching a concept of thought as simple as that one may be all that's required to get someone writing – that can be taught.
All stories, in whatever format (verbal, novel, script, etc.) follow the pattern of having a beginning. middle and end. There's a bit more to it than that, of course, and there are cases where the temptation to mix these up has been too great for some writers and directors, but I shan't confuse the issue by mentioning them. Let's accept that structure is important and many would-be writers start off without any planning or, indeed, having any knowledge of the form required to lay out a story – but that can be taught.
A little knowledge of the history of the English language (much of it lifted from other languages) can help in carefully choosing words to provide emphasis. You can learn that.
We were taught punctuation at junior school, yet now many 16-year-olds leave school without a clue about correct use of apostrophes and even simple commas – that can be taught.
These are just a few instances of teachable aspects used in writing.
"Ah but," you may say, "this is not teaching writing per se, is it?"
I agree that writers need to feel almost a primal urge to write – rather instinctively like breathing, eating, procreating... and not just so they can see their name in print or on the rolling credits (which, on TV, are getting faster, have you noticed?) I believe that wanting to write should not be to satisfy vanity. Quite simply, writers must want to tell stories.
And that cannot be taught.
Sunday, 14 March 2010
Recommended: Up
Last night we watched Up.
I first came across the trailer for this when we went to see Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince in 3D (make that the first 20-minutes in 3D, which they don't tell you about beforehand). I wasn't swept away, although the 3D trailer was entertaining enough. But that was just me being stubborn: I'd gone to see Radcliffe & and Co. battling with the forces of evil and had no time for mere animations.
But you see, once again I have been forced to change my mind, reconsider my opinion in the light of new evidence and admit, begrudgingly, not so much that I was wrong but that I'm not in a position to comment on a film until I have actually seen it.
Up is a scriptwriter's delight; the story is marvellous and "beats out" perfectly in the way taught in scriptwriting classes at many United States universities. After all, it is an American film, so why not? Unfortunately, this method of "beating out" a film is not so prevalent in UK institutions of advanced learning, I'm sorry to say.
Furthermore, it appeals to the audience quadrants as defined in Hollywood, and the story resonates. Scriptwriters, old and new, could learn a lot by studying the structure of this film – yes, I keep saying that.
We'll be buying this one on BluRay. This is one film I recommend, so remember: "Adventure is out there!"
I first came across the trailer for this when we went to see Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince in 3D (make that the first 20-minutes in 3D, which they don't tell you about beforehand). I wasn't swept away, although the 3D trailer was entertaining enough. But that was just me being stubborn: I'd gone to see Radcliffe & and Co. battling with the forces of evil and had no time for mere animations.
But you see, once again I have been forced to change my mind, reconsider my opinion in the light of new evidence and admit, begrudgingly, not so much that I was wrong but that I'm not in a position to comment on a film until I have actually seen it.
Up is a scriptwriter's delight; the story is marvellous and "beats out" perfectly in the way taught in scriptwriting classes at many United States universities. After all, it is an American film, so why not? Unfortunately, this method of "beating out" a film is not so prevalent in UK institutions of advanced learning, I'm sorry to say.
Furthermore, it appeals to the audience quadrants as defined in Hollywood, and the story resonates. Scriptwriters, old and new, could learn a lot by studying the structure of this film – yes, I keep saying that.
We'll be buying this one on BluRay. This is one film I recommend, so remember: "Adventure is out there!"
Monday, 8 March 2010
A cavity to fill
There was some memorable children's drama when I was a kid:
Nowadays, the BBC seems to be producing the bulk of output for children, whilst ITV seems to have drastically reduced its content for the junior market. Why is this? Might it have something to do with restrictions on advertising crappy high-sugar food during the breaks of TV programmes aimed at kids?
So let me get this straight: ITV doesn't make many children's programmes, now, because advertisers aren't interested in the slots watched by children...
Perhaps, in a perfect world, ITV should see the production of quality drama for children as a moral obligation. And talking of which, the manufacturers of junk food aimed at kids should also consider their responsibilities.
- The Battle of St. George Without (1969/70, BBC, black & white. Kids got together to save a disused church.)
- Timeslip (1970, ABC) – brilliant adventure series.
- Follyfoot (1970, Yorkshire Television) – okay, I realise this one was probably aimed more at the girls, but I fancied the heroine, Dora, so there. The producer sent me one of the scripts when, as a child, I asked if they were looking for new writers. He advised me to go out into the world, find new experiences and find out "what makes people tick". I think that, almost 40 years later, I might have done just that.
- The Queen Street Gang (1968). This came with the brand new Thames Television and I have the theme music going through my head at this very moment.
- Tom Grattan's War (1968). This was Yorkshire Television's adventure series, set on the farmlands of Yorkshire during the First World War. Amazing, and it could easily put to shame many recent offerings to children's entertainment.
Nowadays, the BBC seems to be producing the bulk of output for children, whilst ITV seems to have drastically reduced its content for the junior market. Why is this? Might it have something to do with restrictions on advertising crappy high-sugar food during the breaks of TV programmes aimed at kids?
So let me get this straight: ITV doesn't make many children's programmes, now, because advertisers aren't interested in the slots watched by children...
Perhaps, in a perfect world, ITV should see the production of quality drama for children as a moral obligation. And talking of which, the manufacturers of junk food aimed at kids should also consider their responsibilities.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)