MovieBytes WinningScripts
      Message Board| Contest Comments| Update Profile| WinningScripts|

Screenwriting Contest Discount Coupons

Message Board

Screenwriting Contests Discussion Forum Subscribe in an RSS Reader

Messages posted since 07/21/2014
[Logout]

Topic: Meaningless & Pointless Pet Peeve

Author: Patrick Daly Posted: 06/15/08 10:19 PM

It absolutely drives me crazy everytime I see "lose" misspelled "loose".

Author: Jean Hunter Posted: 06/15/08 11:50 PM

I don't go crazy but I still cringe when I see "recieve" for "receive." :(

Author: Nathan Goldman Posted: 06/16/08 11:03 AM

I know it is retro of me, but I still don't like "impact" as a verb. It's a noun and when use as a verb, there is usually a more active version.

On the other hand, I endorse the use of prepositions at the end of a sentence -- it's like a separable prefix in German -- English is predominantly a teutonic language after all.

Here's a useful application of correct English. If you do not like a performance or writing, tell the actor or author, "that was terrific." He thinks you mean great, but you are using it's original mean -- terrible or appalling. It's a nice, tactful feint.

Author: Jean Hunter Posted: 06/16/08 11:45 AM

Reminds me of what a New York friend told me once - if you absolutely can't stand somebody and want to flip them off verbally just end the conversation with "have a nice day!" Be sure they are not from New York, however.

Author: Patrick Daly Posted: 06/16/08 11:51 AM

Regarding "impact", not only do I not like it as a verb, I don't like it as a noun either. People say "impact" when they mean "effect" (don't even get me started on the affect/effect conundrum). I'm with you on the preposition at the end of the sentence business. I think the latter of the following sounds more natural: "I'm not sure to whom she was talking" as opposed to, "I'm not sure who she was talking to". As I finished typing that sentence, I realized there's yet another one of these little things that perplexes me: When I was in college, I had a professor who was adamant that punctuation should always be inside quotes. Now, however, it seems like convention has changed somewhat and it seems to be acceptable to place punctuation outside of the quotes in certain circumstances. Don't ask me what those circumstances are, however, because I have no idea.

Author: Terry Frazier Posted: 06/16/08 12:26 PM

The end punctuation goes outside the qoutations marks if you're British or if the punctuation isn't part of the quoted sentence.

What drives me crazy is hearing people pronounce "nuclear" nuke-u-lar and "realtor" re-la-tor.

Author: Gene Langlais III Posted: 06/16/08 04:32 PM

Someday, when I give up on screenwriting and turn to supervillainy and/or despotism, my primary goal will be to hunt down and destroy people who misuse the word "literally." "Literally" has become the intelligent-sounding version of "like," and it annoys me to no end.

People will say things like "I was literally blown away" or "I was literally scared to death." Really? So you're "literally" dead now? Then why are you here butchering our language??

Author: Heather Hughes Posted: 06/17/08 01:47 PM

entitled when it should be titled

Author: Dean Hampton Posted: 06/17/08 04:13 PM

I'm sure there are alot of people who can spell and use punctuation and grammer just great, but that doesn't mean they can write a screenplay any better than I can and probably worse. I write how I write and then run it past my mom or my sister. Neither one of them has a creative bone in their body but both of them are walking dictionaries and/or encylopedias.

Author: Nathan Goldman Posted: 06/17/08 05:01 PM

Dean has a good point, especially for dialog. If you wrote formal, grammatical English, not only would it be boring, but the characters would pretty much sound alike, and it would destroy the verisimilitude. "People don't talk that way." But then again, this particular thread is aptly labeled MEANINGLESS & POINTLESS PET PEEVES.

Author: Terry Frazier Posted: 06/17/08 07:27 PM

Dean,

How is it that people who use good grammar and proper punctuation probably write worse than you? Using good grammar and proper punctuation doesn't mean your dialogue has to be the queen's English.

Let's say you use bad grammar and you mispunctuate your lines of description/action. Do you think that makes you creative? Are you absolutely certain that some producers won't think you're simply ignorant?

When did correct spelling, grammar and punctuation become a drawback in screenwriting?

Author: Tom Bragg Posted: 06/17/08 08:42 PM

Wow. All you wannabe screenwriters must be soooooo perfect.

Author: Peter Fraser Posted: 06/17/08 09:06 PM

... irregardless.

Aaaarrrggghhh.

Author: James F. Hollmer Posted: 06/19/08 01:12 AM

It's I saw, or I have seen, not I seen! Duh...

Author: Dean Hampton Posted: 06/19/08 04:41 PM

Sorry I probably shouldn't have said my scripts are probably better than anyone else here that has perfect spelling and grammer. That's just me being cofident of my own skills which is what it takes to make it. What I meant to say was just because you have perfect spelling and grammer that doesn't make you a great writer. You could have that all perfect and be boring as hell. No I don't send my scripts out with spelling errors and bad grammer. I have a writing partner who catches my mistakes and I catcfh his,and also before anything goes out we give it to my mom and/or my sister to proof read. Neither one of them can write though but can sure dish out the critisim. I don't argue with them though.

My pet peeve is when people say "If I were going" instead of "if I was going." Even movies you hear this. "If I were king of the forest. That should be "If I was". But those movies get made, so sue me.

Hey welcome back Ben. What took you so long, man.

Author: Terry Frazier Posted: 06/19/08 05:01 PM

No, Dean, it's "If I were...." It's the subjunctive case, so you use "were," not "was."

Author: Terry Frazier Posted: 06/19/08 05:01 PM

Also, it's "grammar," not "grammer."

Author: Nathan Goldman Posted: 06/19/08 08:34 PM

Yes, the past subjunctive is still somewhat viable, although the present subjunctive IF TRUTH BE TOLD has gone the way of the dinosaur (except in government resolutions, which proves my point).

By the way, try telling any one under, say, thirty, "to go in a counterclockwise direction," and forget about "incoming enemy at three o'clock". They're just as likely to look at their digital watch and tell you you've got plenty of time because it's only ten in the morning.

Author: Terry Frazier Posted: 06/19/08 09:47 PM

"If I were president, I would end the war." That's subjunctive, not past subjunctive. And just because you think grammar is passé doesn't mean everyone else does. Including young people.

It strikes me as odd that a person who aspires to work as a professional writer would hold the rules and conventions of writing in such low regard. It's like saying you want to be a professional basketball player but you aren't going to bother with learning how to dribble the ball.

Author: STEVEN CALDERWOOD Posted: 06/19/08 09:55 PM

Nathan that was a funny line...a true story, a buddy of mine was teaching his sixteen year old daughter to drive, he had to tape a #10 and a #2 on the steering wheel so she could LITERALLY visualize where her hands hands had to be.

Bogy at six o'clock- forget about it, I'm finished work by then!!!

I AXEDT my friend a question...that hurts so much more than asking the question!!!!!

I could go on but I'm just one of those NEWBIES...coming from a guy named BRAGG. Go figure!!!

Steve