Jeremy Buechner is up first.
In “Goodbye Radar” part two, is it true you named Radar’s love interest after one of your exes? And is it true they wanted to have a goodbye for you and your writing partner in the credits?
The answer to the first question is yes. Named after one of my former girlfriends, Patty Haven.
The second answer is no. And that’s fine because usually when they do that it’s usually because the person died.
Steve Lanzi has a question about spec scripts.
How many scripts would you recommend I have in the can and ready to show people, before looking for an agent?
At least two. If the agent likes the script he/she reads, his/her first question will be “what else do you have?”
That goes for TV or screenplays.
For TV, have an original pilot and a spec from an existing show. If you’re doing comedy, you might want to have three scripts — a pilot, a spec for an existing single-camera show, and a spec for an existing multi-camera show. Having two pilots (one of each) is also not a bad idea.
Actually, the more scripts you have, the better. If you write three pilots chances are the third one will be better than the first.
Remember, you only have one chance to make a first impression. Make sure your scripts are as good as they can be and make sure you proofread them fifteen times.
Good luck.
From Liggie:
I saw this article stating that movie dialogue has become increasingly hard to understand in recent years. Although there may be stylistic reasons for hard-to-decipher dialogue, like Altman's overlapping lines, the article cites a lot of technical reasons for this. Primarily, the emphasis has been so much on visuals that the sound crew can't get their mics close enough to the actors to properly record the actor's voices, and there's only so much sound editing software can do with subpar source material. Have you found this dialogue comprehension to be an issue, and how did you manage the sound crew's operations when you were showrunning?
Personally, I was a stickler on that because for comedy the audience has to be able to clearly hear every word. If the sound wasn't good we did it again.
I also see no excuse for incomprehensible dialogue in movies. I think it’s a cop out that they can’t place the mics closer to the actors. And they can always loop later.
Producers and directors and actors know the script so often times the words are clear to them. But for the audience they’re sometimes not. And “sometimes” is becoming prevalent. You shouldn’t have to utilize the Closed Caption feature for English speaking programs.
And finally, Mike Bloodworth asks:
When did you officially decide to be a comedy writer? That is when did it become more than just a whim or fantasy.
Almost 47 years ago to the day. Tune in tomorrow for the full story.
18 comments :
FQ: Was the character of Diane Chambers inspired by, or modeled on, Klara Novak in THE SHOP AROUND THE CORNER? When I watch the movie, Klara's pretentions and pseudo-intellectual aspirations call to mind the similar aspects of Diane Chambers's personality. Also, Shelley Long is attractive in an accessible, non-bombshell way, similar to Margaret Sullavan. (The Alfred-Klara dynamic could also be seen as a model for the Sam-Diane dynamic, although that sort of antagonism isn't exclusive to TSATC.)
Tbh, I suspect that we are now at a stage where even the older generations have grown up listening to loud music and our hearing simply isn't as good as it would have been for people of equivalent age in previous generations. And there are more older people.
And sound people like to show off. The sound people, not unreasonably, want to exploit better sound systems in cinemas and home cinemas and have a greater range of. volumes. I often have to decide whether to put the volume to a level where I can hear the dialogue comfortably, but that means that action scenes get crazily loud disturbing everyone else in the house. Or I set the volume to spare my family but struggle to hear the dialogue.
And, it seems to me, directors are far more likely to shoots scenes where we don't see the person talking. Sometimes that's completely legitimate - such as when the reaction is more important than what's said - but other times it feels like directors are scared of holding a shot on a talking face for too long.
Of course, it'll be a combination of all those and other factors besides.
TV from the 70's. Can you name them? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlEgIUjcqHA
A cliffhanger!
I hate cliffhangers. Survival is suddenly the key element in following this blog. I must hang on until 6 am Pacific time tomorrow, and to ensure it I’m knocking on wood because that works, you know.
I've noticed that when movies or shows go for the dramatic, emmy-bait moments, characters speak in such low volume and hushed tones that even with the volume cranked, I can't hear them.
There's a very simple solution to volume problems. Do what I do--turn on the closed-captioning.
Of course the teddy bear is the classic moment. But I want to say a word for Charles Dubin. The scene where he leaves and the way the camera circles around him as he rides away is, to me, brilliant directing.
Thanks for the answer and Friday Question inclusion, Ken. It's appreciated.
In case I don't get the chance to say it later on, happy holidays too. :-)
Thanks Ken. As always much appreciated. I guess persistence pays off.
When I was in radio so many old timers were practically deaf because they had their headphone volume up too loud for so many years. I admit that I have abused my hearing when I was younger. But I'm pretty lucky because compared to many of my peers my hearing is still relatively good.
I think HONEST ED is correct in his analysis. The main problem with movie/TV sound is they way they're mixed. As people age they tend to lose high frequencies first. A lot of movies emphasize the bass and low end. I guess because of all the explosions and gunfire.
Plus, today's speakers including sound bars and especially center speakers are inadequate for reproducing dialog clearly. I've seen ads for "voice clarifying" speakers, but I have never heard one in person. So I have no idea if they actually work.
There is something that would help. It's so old fashioned that you might not think of it. Put treble, bass and midrange knobs on center speakers. That way you could custom adjust it to your satisfaction. Yes. I know. Most TVs have frequency adjustments, but this would improve the sound even more.
M.B.
Good audio is by far more vital than a good picture. We seem to be better able to compensate for poor, washed out visuals. For instance, I once watched LORD OF THE RINGS on a 27" CRT with the big (Audio) rig. Very Immersive.
I have no idea WHAT any of you are talking about, regarding hearing dialogue. Never, have I ever, had a problem in this area. Is it really a "thing"?
>I also see no excuse for incomprehensible dialogue in movies.
The worst offender for this is Lost in Translation.
Leighton, here's the article that's been spurring conversation on incomprehensible movie dialogue in a number of online forums. A lot of people seem to agree it's a "thing".
https://www.slashfilm.com/673162/heres-why-movie-dialogue-has-gotten-more-difficult-to-understand-and-three-ways-to-fix-it/
@ Rondar
Have never experienced this. Interesting. Perhaps people have become too addicted to texting, Twittering, and e-mailing, and SEEING words, as opposed to hearing them. Sometimes, it takes an act of god to just have a phone conversation with people. "STOP texting, and pick up the GD PHONE." I honestly think that it affects people's brains.
YES, in recent years, I have noticed more people asking me to repeat myself, EVEN THOUGH I have spoken clearly.
I will agree, that in contemporary productions (whatever format), there is FAR too much overlapping dialogue. "Important" information is being spoken simultaneously, or in the background. Does EVERYONE have to speak at once?
Major plot info might get lost in the muddle. Is this a stylistic choice? Bad editing?
Related to NOTHING, if you want to watch a really WEIRD movie, try "The Baby" (1973) on tubi. It was late to the game, in old-celebrities-doing-semi-horror-crap. In an interesting side-note, the actor playing the "baby" ended up being a teacher in San Antonio, where I've lived for 33 years. He died two years ago.
It's totally worth your time, because it's so f-ing odd.
Hi Ken, you could call this an FQ or a request for a longer post, depending on how it moves you: What do you think about the decision at HBOMax to cancel the reboot of the series HEAD OF THE CLASS after just one season?
Also, do you have any comments on the reboot of SEX AND THE CITY this far?
Thanks!
Janet
I think the issue with audio is simply that films and TV shows today are all mixed for Dolby 5.1 or similar surround systems. The mix engineer sits in a perfect audio environment, surrounded by expensive high-end equipment, and gets the balance just right.
But at home, we watch on a TV with small, poorly separated speakers, and hear something totally different. And the experience varies enormously from one TV to another.
In the old days, music engineers would audition their mixes in their car and on a "shoebox" cassette player. TV audio guys would audition their mix through a bog-standard, cheap telly. (Sorry for the obscure language here - I'm British!)
Nobody is doing this today. Nobody is considering the listener/viewer at home. Every now and again, there is such an uproar over a piece of bad TV sound that even the BBC will apologise and issue a re-mix.
By the way, I work in film and TV, and teach this stuff.
Post a Comment