Rugby - We need a proper Title! (temp)

[flipside]

Originally posted by finbar


Instead of another actor? You obviously haven't met any actors.

I genuinely haven't. Are they really that bad? The only half famous actor I have ever seen is Christian Bale, who I went to the same school as for a while. The other guy who also went to that school is Owen Parkin, who is a rather poor 2nd XI cricketer for Glamorgan.

[finbar]

With a few exceptions, they're basically immensely unpleasant, immature children. Usually, the better the actor, the more unpleasant and immature.

[flipside]

Originally posted by finbar
With a few exceptions, they're basically immensely unpleasant, immature children. Usually, the better the actor, the more unpleasant and immature.

I take it, that this causes some tension within your profession then.
I mean, we can all be immature. I personally, have always tried to keep an a mental age of about four, but, to know that something that you have created, that really has a message, is represented best by someone that I considered an idiot, would p*ss me off.
Do you just accept that you have to rely upon him to do his job, whilst knowing that he doesn't really know what it is; do you all just try to educate them to be slightly more human; what?

[finbar]

It's a bit like children - by which I mean, real ones. You just have to put up with them. They're a necessary evil.

As a writer, one can only cross one's fingers that, between them, the actors and director: (a) understand the intention; and (b) have the skills to get it right. Depending on the production, the writer can have input into the process, albeit very carefully and tactfully put.

"The Simpsons" got it right. Draw your characters. If you don't like 'em, you just rub 'em out and start again.

[flipside]

Originally posted by finbar
It's a bit like children - by which I mean, real ones. You just have to put up with them. They're a necessary evil.

As a writer, one can only cross one's fingers that, between them, the actors and director: (a) understand the intention; and (b) have the skills to get it right. Depending on the production, the writer can have input into the process, albeit very carefully and tactfully put.

"The Simpsons" got it right. Draw your characters. If you don't like 'em, you just rub 'em out and start again.

Have you ever tried that?
Not that I can ever understand a full episode, but it must be very liberating to have that freedom of expression within characterisation and action.
What always gets to me about "The Simpsons" is how it works on so many levels with an incredible degree of acuity, in such a bizarre way, yet hardly ever appears forced or unnatural.

[finbar]

Originally posted by flipside

Have you ever tried that?
Not that I can ever understand a full episode, but it must be very liberating to have that freedom of expression within characterisation and action.
What always gets to me about "The Simpsons" is how it works on so many levels with an incredible degree of acuity, in such a bizarre way, yet hardly ever appears forced or unnatural.

The cartoon form is incredibly liberating for a writer. Providing you're being true to the style and tone, there are few limits. "The Simpsons", IMHO, has produced some of the great American TV writing of all time. For me, it's up there with just about everything Garry Shandling has done. And everything else is a very, very distant second.

But if you watch enough eps of the "The Simpsons", you'll notice they have quite distinct style, tone and characterisation rules or conventions. What's particularly interesting, though, is that when they break any of those rules or conventions, which they do from time to time, it sticks out like the proverbial.

[flipside]

Originally posted by finbar


The cartoon form is incredibly liberating for a writer. Providing you're being true to the style and tone, there are few limits. "The Simpsons", IMHO, has produced some of the great American TV writing of all time. For me, it's up there with just about everything Garry Shandling has done. And everything else is a very, very distant second.

But if you watch enough eps of the "The Simpsons", you'll notice they have quite distinct style, tone and characterisation rules or conventions. What's particularly interesting, though, is that when they break any of those rules or conventions, which they do from time to time, it sticks out like the proverbial.

Ummm......
I understand what you mean, but I have not followed it enough to say any more than that I have an idea about how they build the story, what the characterisation is, the tonal effect , how that builds upon the previous scene and extends it....etc.
I mean, does this shift represent the change of writing, the deliberate change or breaking of rules, or that when they do change their rules, it is is done deliberately to reinforce a certain message.
If I am just being obtuse, and it is as obvious as the dog's testicles , please excuse me . I would like to know.

[flipside]

*flipside would like to apologise for being drunk*
*More than usual*

[finbar]

Originally posted by flipside
*flipside would like to apologise for being drunk*
*More than usual*

Let's just say you're keeping Havak's bar stool warm for him.

[flipside]

Originally posted by finbar


Let's just say you're keeping Havak's bar stool warm for him.

Just trying to keep your eye in- ode boy.
I could never drink bitter by the yard like him, although I can feel the sense of "Shoeburyness" creeping in.

[finbar]

Originally posted by flipside

Ummm......
I understand what you mean, but I have not followed it enough to say any more than that I have an idea about how they build the story, what the characterisation is, the tonal effect , how that builds upon the previous scene and extends it....etc.
I mean, does this shift represent the change of writing, the deliberate change or breaking of rules, or that when they do change their rules, it is is done deliberately to reinforce a certain message.
If I am just being obtuse, and it is as obvious as the dog's testicles , please excuse me . I would like to know.

Their storytelling is quite extraordinary. Usually, storytelling proceeds on a logical basis - B follows A, C follows B, et al - with some twists thrown in along the way to avoid predictability. "The Simpsons" stories unfold on almost a "thought association" basis. A character within a scene will happen to think - that is, say - something, and that thought will link to the next scene, which can have next to nothing to do with the scene from which it linked.

But, of course, it's not a random process. It's ingenious plotting. Plotting being the process undertaken when you're working out a story's progress from beginning to end. Watch an episode. Whatever happens in the first 20 or 30 seconds is rarely what the episode is really about. Often, you won't discover what it's really about until the last 5 or 6 minutes. The apparently - but not really - random leaping around of the story is (a) how they manage to incorporate most of their many characters into an episode; and (b) manage to introduce so many layers into their stories.

A classic example was an episode that started with Bart and Homer fixing problems around the house - a video jammed in a VCR, etc - with fireworks. Within 30 seconds, via an apparently random word mentioned in a scene, the whole family was at a Literary Festival with guest appearances by writers like John Updike. And what was the episode actually about? Krusty the Clown had a love child he hadn't seen since she was a baby.

It takes very clever plotting brains to fashion those sorts of stories because, at their best, the story shifts all come from left field. You can't predict what's coming next. It's a storytelling process that really only works in animation. Audiences will always accept much more in the cartoon form - suspending disbelief, et al - than they will when actors are physically involved.

[Havak]

but I have promised the first I will offer him a drink at the Frog&Rosbif should Leicester come here to play against the Stade Toulousain and the latter is desperate enough to have thought about me as a son-in-law for his step-daughter. Their judgement might be... biased.

Well you have certainly got my bias if you want it. I will take you up on that offer some day.

It must be a recent trend, my compatriots were rather known for their rudeness with the foreigners and their inability to speak even a few words of another language.

You just defined ‘English’.

My own experience in France matches Finbar’s in that as long as you try in French first most people will then be very helpful.

What bothers me even more is the opportunity now for a government to geld the BBC. Just as the government here has done to the ABC without an excuse like the Hutton Report.

Two sacrificial goats and counting…

Seriously the Government needs to tread quite carefully – there has been a very English display of outrage (i.e. letters written in the strongest terms, a casual “it’s not on old boy” or two thrown towards the PM…).

A poll this morning showed four times as many people trust the BBC as any politician (and that was still less than 50% of those polled - the majority trusted neihter!).

Okay technically the beeb was at fault in several ways with it’s reporting – but the core fact that a Government sponsored report to Parliament stated only 45 mins were required for the launch of lethal WMD from Iraq when that was blatantly untrue has been left unresolved.

Total snow-job. And Hoon escapes yet again (he should have resigned over the death of the soldier forced to relinquish his body armour – but he clearly lacks the class to do so).

It’s a long day for me today – Tigers kick off at 7:45pm so I’m staying in the city. With apologies to Tamerlin I am hoping we kick some French butt.

Three wins in a row and I might start to think there is hope yet…

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by Havak

It’s a long day for me today – Tigers kick off at 7:45pm so I’m staying in the city. With apologies to Tamerlin I am hoping we kick some French butt.

As long as these are Parisian butts I don't bother...

[Havak]

I was hoping you might feel that way about Paris SF.

I watched their home game against Ulster and was astounded by how limitied their game still is - it remains about driving the ball up and letting the Argentinian pocket dynamo kick points just like when they played uis in 2001.

How on earth did Toulouse ever lose the Championship to them?

(of course having said all this they will now beat us!)

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by Havak
II watched their home game against Ulster and was astounded by how limitied their game still is - it remains about driving the ball up and letting the Argentinian pocket dynamo kick points just like when they played us in 2001.

I agree with you, their key player is indeed Diego Dominguez... and their game is rather poor.

How on earth did Toulouse ever lose the Championship to them?

It was one week after a hard H-Cup final won by the Stade Toulousain while the Parisians did not qualified themselves for the final phases of the H-Cup.

In three weeks the Stade Toulousain has played three tough games:

- H-Cup semi-final against the Munster
- French Championship semi-final against the Sporting Union Agenais
- H-Cup final against the Union Sportive des Harlequins de Perpignan

The day of the French Championship final, the engine was tired, the players were slower than usual, they commited unusual fools and so on... the trouble is that they could have won this game with a bit of luck... and will.

(of course having said all this they will now beat us!)

I have often witnessed that the more you brag about a game the more chances you have to lose it.