Viewing 18 posts - 1 through 18 (of 18 total)
  • Bradley Wiggins on the big screen
  • Premier Icon alfabus
    Free Member

    Wiggins’s achievements set to become a Hollywood film?

    shouldn’t that be ” Wiggins’ “?

    Premier Icon LapSteel
    Free Member

    Tom Cruise?

    Premier Icon brakes
    Free Member

    Rhys Ifans is the favoured choice for the lead role

    are you ****ing joking? he’s the most unathletic piece of spaghetti I’ve ever seen.

    Premier Icon unklehomered
    Free Member

    A) really? rather not now, and rather not hollywood, nice independant british film like Flying Scotsman would be better

    B) you reckon? says the Daily Express… 😆 esteemed bastion of fact and calm fact checking…

    Premier Icon Onzadog
    Free Member

    who? Brad or Rhys?

    By the way,

    alfabus – Member

    Wiggins’s achievements set to become a Hollywood film?

    shouldn’t that be ” Wiggins’ “?

    No, Wiggins’s is correct (or so I’m told by the other half who has these sort of discussions all the time with editors in the office. I also saw Julian Fellows’s TV show which explained the same thing.

    However, someone will be along in a moment to say that the other way is correct.

    Then someone else will say that language is organic and fluid (man) and that what’s correct is what people use.

    Premier Icon unklehomered
    Free Member

    However, someone will be along in a moment to say that the other way is correct.

    Hello!

    My understanding is that either is correct, but once you’ve decided which you’e going to do, stick to it. (and if you like, argue vehemently about it on the internet)

    Myself, i fall on the Wiggins’ side of the argument.

    Premier Icon mudshark
    Free Member

    “Wiggins’s” is the only correct option.

    You others are confused.

    Edit – you others are thinking of plurals.

    Premier Icon molgrips
    Full Member

    Wiggins is not a plural, so yes it’s Wiggins’s. His family would be known as the Wigginses.

    I wonder if something belonging to the family would be the Wigginses’ ?

    Premier Icon atlaz
    Free Member

    I’m going to say Wigginses to keep the STW tradition of pointless contrariness going

    Damn… molgrips’es’ post beat me to it

    Premier Icon richmtb
    Full Member

    Oh! For ****‘s sake.

    Premier Icon Onzadog
    Free Member

    rich, is that belonging to **** or is there more than one ****?

    Premier Icon alfabus
    Free Member

    So the conclusion is that they can never make the film, because the whole production would be beset by confusion as to whether it is wiggins’ or wiggins’s life story.

    Probably for the best, it would almost definitely have been shite.

    Dave

    Premier Icon unklehomered
    Free Member

    Do you mean one **** that has posession of a sake, or for the sake of several ****s? If the latter, then you’re wrong…

    balls… also too slow. 🙁

    Probably for the best, it would almost definitely have been shite.

    this +1

    Premier Icon rusty90
    Free Member

    And if he’s played by Rhys Ifans – Ifans’s portrayal of Wiggins’s life; production halts due to apostrophe uncertainties.

    Premier Icon maccruiskeen
    Full Member

    says the Daily Express

    Premier Icon buzz-lightyear
    Free Member

    Wiggins’s is correct

    It’s not definitive either way but depends which style-guide you follow. Names ending in a “zz” sound are often excepted because the singular possessive is awkward to pronounce with an added sibilant. Wiggins’s is an example of that.

    Charlton Heston had the same problem making a film about Moses:

    “Is this chariot Moses’s?”
    “No, it’s Spartacus’.”

    Premier Icon CaptainFlashheart
    Free Member

Viewing 18 posts - 1 through 18 (of 18 total)

The topic ‘Bradley Wiggins on the big screen’ is closed to new replies.