<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Death of Economical Writing?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://lonelocust.com/2009/06/16/1213/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://lonelocust.com/2009/06/16/1213/</link>
	<description>Every swarm starts with one...</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Aug 2010 06:35:36 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: One-Ten</title>
		<link>http://lonelocust.com/2009/06/16/1213/comment-page-1/#comment-12393</link>
		<dc:creator>One-Ten</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 21 Jun 2009 21:34:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lonelocust.com/2009/06/16/1213/#comment-12393</guid>
		<description>First glance at this post&#039;s title and I thought you meant economical with words.  As exemplified by Tony Jordan, who described on Charlie Brooker&#039;s excellent &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00fvgj5/Charlie_Brookers_Screenwipe_Series_4_Episode_3/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;writers&#039; &lt;em&gt;Screenwipe&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; of removing from his dialogue one word at a time, until it ceased to make sense.  Then putting the last word back.

The thing is, I think the writers on Primeval were pretty decent writers.  It was the story editors, producers, show-runners that made the mistakes.

You&#039;re right about economies, though.  Many of the shows I love were kept to their budget through the power of suggestion.  I remember how one of the directors who worked on &lt;em&gt;The Avengers&lt;/em&gt; recollected in a documentary creating a set in bank simply by shooting through some bars representing the tellers&#039;.  Where are the expensive sets in &lt;em&gt;Ultraviolet&lt;/em&gt;?  On the other hand, you can tell immediately where all the money spent on special effects in &lt;em&gt;Torchwood&lt;/em&gt; has been saved from (writers, script editing, coherence).

Interesting etymology for the term &quot;Watershed&quot;!  Twenty years ago you&#039;d have had to wait until after midnight for some erotically cascading water.  9pm was just the dividing line between when you were and were not allowed to say bugger.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>First glance at this post&#8217;s title and I thought you meant economical with words.  As exemplified by Tony Jordan, who described on Charlie Brooker&#8217;s excellent <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00fvgj5/Charlie_Brookers_Screenwipe_Series_4_Episode_3/" rel="nofollow">writers&#8217; <em>Screenwipe</em></a> of removing from his dialogue one word at a time, until it ceased to make sense.  Then putting the last word back.</p>
<p>The thing is, I think the writers on Primeval were pretty decent writers.  It was the story editors, producers, show-runners that made the mistakes.</p>
<p>You&#8217;re right about economies, though.  Many of the shows I love were kept to their budget through the power of suggestion.  I remember how one of the directors who worked on <em>The Avengers</em> recollected in a documentary creating a set in bank simply by shooting through some bars representing the tellers&#8217;.  Where are the expensive sets in <em>Ultraviolet</em>?  On the other hand, you can tell immediately where all the money spent on special effects in <em>Torchwood</em> has been saved from (writers, script editing, coherence).</p>
<p>Interesting etymology for the term &#8220;Watershed&#8221;!  Twenty years ago you&#8217;d have had to wait until after midnight for some erotically cascading water.  9pm was just the dividing line between when you were and were not allowed to say bugger.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
