Again, Please Type The Full Words

Earlier I called a journalist out for writing “auds” instead of “audiences” and “distrib” instead of “distributor.” This is completely unacceptable, and any professional writer who shortens words like that should be smacked repeatedly. So, I have to mention that I’ve seen this again. And again. And again.

In the special edition of Variety on actors published in December, 2014, a headline reads, “Jolie’s ‘Unbroken’ Wows Auds at Its Premiere” (p. 9). And in the special “Ultimate Awards Nomination Guide” of Variety (and I’m guessing that this will actually not be the ultimate awards nomination guide; after all, why wouldn’t they published one next year?) there is another incredibly obnoxious shortening of a word. Regarding the film The Theory Of Everything, we get this: “The superb perfs by Eddie Redmayne and Felicity Jones imbue ‘Theory’ with several dimensions” (p. 56). These writers deserve severe beatings. Perfs? Why this aversion to writing the actual words? Is the word performances so distasteful to them? Do they believe it’s just too long a word for their readers to handle? Well, no, because the word performance is printed in full later in that very same short piece. So they’re not even consistent. Perhaps they just don’t like the word in its plural form, for the writers use “perfs” again in a short piece on the film Whiplash: “sure, it’s secondary to the powerful perfs” (p. 58), but write out “performance” (“an exhausting, physical performance”).

The December 10, 2014 issue of Deadline includes some obnoxious shortening of words as well. A piece on screenplay nominations includes these lines: “That said, I certainly wouldn’t be shocked to see Dan Gilroy grab a nom for his intriguingly creepy Nightcrawler. The film reps his directorial debut, but here is where is name is likely to show up” (p. 31). Particularly irritating is “reps” instead of “represents.” “Nom” (instead of “nomination”) is used again a little later: “but who finally could grab a nom for their very funny Big Eyes” (p. 31). And “nom” is used in the piece titled “Excessive Forces”: “could be looking at first Oscar nom” and “A Golden Globe nom” (p. 33).

The December 5, 2014 issue of The Hollywood Reporter has a short piece on the Scientology documentary, Going Clear (p. 18), but uses “doc” and “docs” several times, including in its headline: “HBO Going Clear: Scientology Doc From Oscar Winner.” (I can’t wait to see this documentary, by the way.)

In the December 12, 2014 issue of The Hollywood Reporter, Gregg Kilday writes “nom” instead of “nomination” and “doc” instead of “documentary” in the line, “Conventional wisdom says foreign films, animation and documentaries are DOA when it comes to Oscar’s biggest nom, but the controversial Edward Snowdon doc – and its all-star pedigree – could stand out in a very muddied field” (p. 42). In the same piece, Kilday writes “toons” and “docs” in this line: “Although the Academy never would admit it, foreign flicks, toons and docs are left sitting at the kids’ table.” Kilday again writes “doc” instead of “documentary” in the following paragraph, and “docs” a few paragraphs after that, and again a few paragraphs after that, and uses “doc” a couple more times as well. Kilday writes “nom” instead of “nomination” four more times. Ouch. Clearly, this is a writer that should be fired and then beaten. Of course, the editor is also to blame for not putting a stop to this.

The December 19, 2014 issue of The Hollywood Reporter uses “noms” instead of “nominations” in the piece titled “Best Picture: It’s The Battle Of The Sexes.” Here are a couple of examples: “While Tracks has received more noms from the early-announcing indie groups” (p. 89) and “But, perhaps tellingly, while several could result in acting noms” (p. 89). And then in a piece on documentaries, writer Gregg Kilday insists on shortening the word to “doc.” Ugh. Even the title is “15 Docs That Must Be Seen.” Here are a few other examples from the piece: “Interviewed in the doc” (p. 91), “one of this doc’s producers” (p. 91), “Oscar-nominated for his doc short” (p. 91), and “this doc travels to the boomtown oil fields” (p. 91).

The December 26, 2014 issue of The Hollywood Reporter again uses “nom” instead of “nomination” in lines like “Among them, they have 11 noms for best and supporting actress” (p. 62) and “If she secures an Oscar nom, it will be her fifth” (p. 62) and “for which she already has picked up a Globes nom” (p. 62) and “with five previous Academy noms, including her recent best actress nom for American Hustle” (p. 62) and “who could well earn her first Oscar nom for playing Michael Keaton’s daughter in Birdman” (p. 62). And, as you probably noticed, that’s just one page. Enough already! Stop, stop, stop.