Completed Screenplay! - Copyrighting Questions:

[Birdman]

Hello again!

Okay, so it's been five months and I've finally gotten this sucker down to 125 pages. That's it! Can't strip another frickin' page out of it. I am currently proofreading and checking for scene fluidity. Here are my questions:

(1) Let's say I have what I feel is an official "First Draft". I get it copyrighted. Soon after I have it copyrighted I see some errors or other issues that need fixing. Am I able to edit the copyrighted version or do I have to totally re-register a new version?

(2) If I don't get it copyrighted and I have "people" look at it (to proof or evaluate) there is a chance, however remote, that someone could rip it off. How does one get their scripts proofread by others and not get ripped off? I've seen in other threads where posters have stated that NDA's are worthless ...and their reasoning for thinking this way is very sound (directorik). What do you do?

(3) I am considering a companion novel to go with the screenplay. I know it's usually the other way around, but hey. ...Is there anything special I need to do with my screenplay registration with regard to me writing a follow-up novel?

Thanks in advance,
Birdman

P.S. Get your popcorn ready, folks! ...Coming to a theater near you!

 

[Birdman]

I'll give you example of what I meant about critical people.

I showed my screenplay to one of my critical friends. Did I mention he has nothing to do with screenwriting? So, now I do.

He didn't say much about the story, idea, characters and all other important things. The story is about people with superpowers. There is one character who has a power to unleash shock waves to throw a person 5 meters backwards. So he went into debate with me, saying that I should count and write how many decibels of sound cause a person to fly 5 meters backwards.

What I wrote is, - "Jacob unleashes a shock wave that pulls him 5 meters backwards".

What he suggested is, - "Jacob unleashes a shock wave of X decibels that pulls him backwards", - and said that the producer/director himself will go into math and count how many meters away a wave of X decibels should pull. Because one the most interesting points for the producer/director is how good I know math... Huh...

And again, he said nothing about the story, characters, or other things that are really important.

Your friend who said, "Jacob unleashes a shock wave of X decibels that pulls him backwards" is trying to impress you with his vast wisdom that you obviously don't possess in his mind. He will never be able to give you good feedback because his own ego is in the way. BTW: The way you wrote it was correct.

BTW: My wife chose to "read" my script during the SEC Championship game (Kentucky vs. Florida). You can probably guess how much of my screenplay was occupying her mind.

Nothing is perfect. Suppose you somehow succeed to please one critic, you'll find out that you did SOOO much to please only one man. Other critics are not pleased. You can't make everyone happy.

And doing your project for critical people... Why? They are about 2% percent of the world's population. Why not targeting a larger audience? For example - Thor: The Dark World got so many critics, but who cares? It's still a good movie.

...There are several ways to review (critique) a script. Having someone read it to give you feedback on the overall hook, feel and impact of your script is one way. Another is to have someone find grammatical/punctuation errors. Another is to have someone evaluate consistency of a character's dialect or southern drawl. Another critique would be on proper use of screenplay format (sluglines, day/night, traveling, etc.).

It would be difficult for someone to be evaluating sentence structure and punctuation while trying to grasp the overall hook and feel of your screenplay. I work in graphic design. We have to proof everything we do a minimum of three times. No project goes out without someone OTHER than the creator proofing the work. OTHER people find mistakes that you will not. It happens every time. Proof! Proof! Proof!

Where I will agree with you that you can't please everyone, you still have an obligation to whoever reads your script (and even more to yourself) to make sure EVERYTHING in your script is as close to perfection as you can possibly make it. True, some people may not care that much about spelling errors ...but what if the person who really counts does?


-Birdman

 

[Inarius]

Your friend who said, "Jacob unleashes a shock wave of X decibels that pulls him backwards" is trying to impress you with his vast wisdom that you obviously don't possess in his mind. He will never be able to give you good feedback because his own ego is in the way. BTW: The way you wrote it was correct.

As I said, he has nothing to do with Screenwriting or any kind of writing. He loves comics and says that reading many comics can help me with screenwriting... Oh, come on! Comics is more about drawing art, when screenplay is about writing.

He is actually one of those people who see a white paper with a small black dot in the corner, they focus on the black dot, forgetting that it's still a white paper.

...There are several ways to review (critique) a script. Having someone read it to give you feedback on the overall hook, feel and impact of your script is one way. Another is to have someone find grammatical/punctuation errors. Another is to have someone evaluate consistency of a character's dialect or southern drawl. Another critique would be on proper use of screenplay format (sluglines, day/night, traveling, etc.).

It would be difficult for someone to be evaluating sentence structure and punctuation while trying to grasp the overall hook and feel of your screenplay. I work in graphic design. We have to proof everything we do a minimum of three times. No project goes out without someone OTHER than the creator proofing the work. OTHER people find mistakes that you will not. It happens every time. Proof! Proof! Proof!

Where I will agree with you that you can't please everyone, you still have an obligation to whoever reads your script (and even more to yourself) to make sure EVERYTHING in your script is as close to perfection as you can possibly make it. True, some people may not care that much about spelling errors ...but what if the person who really counts does?

I'm not talking about grammar or spelling, but even here, if there are spelling errors in every sentence, that's a problem, but if there are 2-3 spelling mistakes through all the script, that's forgiven.

I think critique to a screenplay is something that needs to be given only by screenwriters, novel writers, directors, producers... People who know how to write.

 

[maz]

As I said, he has nothing to do with Screenwriting or any kind of writing. He loves comics and says that reading many comics can help me with screenwriting... Oh, come on! Comics is more about drawing art, when screenplay is about writing.

I'd disagree with you there. Apart from anything else, the better comics (or graphic novels, as I guess they are called, even though they are just comics) are generally written independently of the art (often on two entirely different continents), with the writer delivering a script to the artist (the 'director') to produce. Both are visual media, both depend on impressive visuals and smart, tight writing to work well; they have more in common than you might care to admit.

I don't see what that has to do with insisting on adding the number of decibels in a shock wave though. Sounds more like a physics geek than a comics geek.

 

[Inarius]

I'd disagree with you there. Apart from anything else, the better comics (or graphic novels, as I guess they are called, even though they are just comics) are generally written independently of the art (often on two entirely different continents), with the writer delivering a script to the artist (the 'director') to produce. Both are visual media, both depend on impressive visuals and smart, tight writing to work well; they have more in common than you might care to admit.

If the comics are written independently of the art, then the original writings ARE NOT comics yet, but written stories. What makes it comics is the art. The same as a screenplay IS NOT a movie yet - it's still a written document. So, watching a lot of movies without reading the actual scripts will help with screenwriting? I doubt that.

The same as reading a comics story before the art is applied, IS NOT the same as reading the final comics with the art.

I don't see what that has to do with insisting on adding the number of decibels in a shock wave though. Sounds more like a physics geek than a comics geek.

That was another statement about the story. It has nothing to do with the comics.

 

[maz]

If the comics are written independently of the art, then the original writings ARE NOT comics yet, but written stories. What makes it comics is the art. The same as a screenplay IS NOT a movie yet - it's still a written document. So, watching a lot of movies without reading the actual scripts will help with screenwriting? I doubt that.

Then we disagree again. You might not learn the nitty-gritty of formatting, slug lines etc from watching a movie, but for structure, story, pace, dialogue that works etc (i.e. all the really important things), I find there is nothing better than watching a good movie (or TV show). Indeed, even a bad movie or TV show, and the mistakes it makes, teaches me more about screenwriting than just reading scripts. Since I became interested in screenwriting, I find I 'reverse engineer' movies and TV shows to the shooting scripts in my head as I watch; it's very helpful.

The same goes for comics. A story is a story, no matter the format.

 

[Inarius]

Then we disagree again. You might not learn the nitty-gritty of formatting, slug lines etc from watching a movie, but for structure, story, pace, dialogue that works etc (i.e. all the really important things), I find there is nothing better than watching a good movie (or TV show). Indeed, even a bad movie or TV show, and the mistakes it makes, teaches me more about screenwriting than just reading scripts. Since I became interested in screenwriting, I find I 'reverse engineer' movies and TV shows to the shooting scripts in my head as I watch; it's very helpful.

The same goes for comics. A story is a story, no matter the format.

Yes, story is a story, but I'm talking about the writing as a craft.

I know some people who watch 10+ movies a week, but they can't make up a story of their own, let alone writing it. When you became interested in screenwriting, you never looked into written scripts? You never searched for screenwriting tips? Never attended (or thought to attend) screenwriting curses? I think the fact that you're in this forum, proves that you needed something beyond watching movies.

I watch movies and TV shows too, but after every movie I watch, I read its script.

 

[maz]

Yes, story is a story, but I'm talking about the writing as a craft.

I know some people who watch 10+ movies a week, but they can't make up a story of their own, let alone writing it. When you became interested in screenwriting, you never looked into written scripts? You never searched for screenwriting tips? Never attended (or thought to attend) screenwriting curses? I think the fact that you're in this forum, proves that you needed something beyond watching movies.

I watch movies and TV shows too, but after every movie I watch, I read its script.

I always get nervous when people talk about writing as a craft. It is a craft if you're a journalist or a polemicist or whatever, but it's not really one that is relevant to movies or entertainment. In this field, storytelling is king, and the ability to present and portray an absorbing world, character, and sequence of events is far more important than being able to 'write well'. Watching a well-put-together movie or TV show or comic book (or even a bad one) is far more useful to this than reading a hundred scripts, in my opinion. Does that mean that every person who watches movies can write a movie? Of course not. But if you want to learn about storytelling (and not everyone does), then watching movies with good stories (and bad ones) is a good place to start.

And yes, I have downloaded scripts to read, but mainly to see how the script I had in my head for whatever I'd just watched matched up with the script on paper, and to learn more about how interesting screen moments were presented on paper. There are the nuts and bolts of screenwriting (formatting, conventions etc.), which are not as hard to master as they are often made out, and the core of storytelling, which is gold.

 

[Birdman]

Yes, story is a story, but I'm talking about the writing as a craft.

I know some people who watch 10+ movies a week, but they can't make up a story of their own, let alone writing it. When you became interested in screenwriting, you never looked into written scripts? You never searched for screenwriting tips? Never attended (or thought to attend) screenwriting curses? I think the fact that you're in this forum, proves that you needed something beyond watching movies.

I watch movies and TV shows too, but after every movie I watch, I read its script.

Okay, I have to chime in on this one. I've never written a movie script before ...nor anything else. I deplore writing! I thought up my movie while driving around in my car making deliveries. It got to the point where I needed to find a way to properly document what I had in my mind.

...Viola! I end up buying an education-discount version of FinalDraft and had at it.

The only experience I have in this arena is the movies I've watched my entire life (and a vivid imagination).

To your credit, though, I have sought out formatting suggestions from this forum, but mainly for issues that are not common to the average script. If anything, I've found most people's opinions about this trade to be extremely depressing and discouraging ...but you are still correct that I did seek out more information.

My point is that even if someone doesn't have script writing experience, if they have common sense they can follow a movie script.

-Birdman

 

[Inarius]

maz, Writing craft is not only about fitting the format. Writing craft is to write it the way that every word the reader reads, he must ask, - "What's next? What's next?! Tell me more! Tell me!!!". That's called a good craft! It's NOT only depends on the story. Give two people - professional writer and not a writer - to write THE SAME story from an outline and teach them the format. Same story, same formatting, but they'll write it differently. The pro.writer has a better way of self-expression.

I agree with you that building up a story is a different skill than writing, but if one chooses to write it as a screenplay, than he should learn from what is related to it. A football player can't teach how to play basketball, if you know what I mean.

 

[ChimpPhobiaFilms]

ChimpPhobiaFilms, it doesn't matter computer games, screenplays, or anything else in the world... Project is project. Focus on the wrong things and you fail.

Are you on as tight of a deadline to write a screenplay as you are to fix or smooth out a video game? With a screenplay, you have more time to do different drafts and try out different things. You have the ability to play around and mess with certain elements and take time to perfect your story... and fix flaws. So why not just write the best story you can, and go through it to eliminate flaws so that the experience can be more enjoyable for the viewers of the film, whether they are critics or an audience. Whether or not something is the 'wrong thing' is purely subjective, and one element that could be considered to one person important could be nothing to another, and vice versa.

And again, he said nothing about the story, characters, or other things that are really important.

Ok, did you ask him for feedback on stories and characters, or did you just ask him for feedback? Because you may need to specific what you think he should be focusing on in terms of giving feedback. If you already did emphasize the areas that you want him to focus on in terms of feedback to him, and he instead focused on elements that were not as important in your eyes, that is poor attention on his part and you should find someone else to give you feedback. I personally didn't like his criticism, but don't immediately write seemingly pointless feedback off as nonsense.

Nothing is perfect. Suppose you somehow succeed to please one critic, you'll find out that you did SOOO much to please only one man. Other critics are not pleased. You can't make everyone happy.

We're talking about selling a script. That is the hardest part of a screenwriter's journey, it's not the actual release of the film, but being actual able to get one or a couple of executives/development people to get interested in your script and decide to make it in a film. If you've looked at statistics and stories and the amount of new screenwriters that work their way into the industry by sending their work into a studio, you'll find that it is INCREDIBLY difficult to get recognized by a studio. In that case, you are appealing to ONE or a couple of critics. So yes, you have to create the most perfect script that you can so that the ONE or a couple of people who are reading your script are impressed.

Now onto the actual release of a full film: audiences are critical as well. Now, audiences are critical, but they don't pinpoint their dismay for a film as specifically as a critic will, pointing out individual problems that they disliked. They usually will strongly dislike, dislike, kinda thought it was okay, thought it was good, or thought it was the best movie they'd seen in a long time! Guess what, there are audiences of varying intelligence, and their intelligence and perceptiveness is usually determined by the kind of movie you are making. Not that I'm going to write off people that enjoy certain films as idiots, but some films get the attention of audiences that just want to see explosions and have mindless fun, and other audiences want to see an interesting period in history shown in a unique way as well as perhaps learn something, etc. If you happen to have an audience of people that are closely paying attention to a movie and are captivated by it, chances are a continuity error or confusing character motivation might take them out of it. So, to avoid that possibly happening, why not just try to eliminate as many flaws as possible?

Also, most errors that pointed out in GREAT movies are usually in production. It's not errors within a script, but errors that happen during production.

And doing your project for critical people... Why? They are about 2% percent of the world's population. Why not targeting a larger audience? For example - Thor: The Dark World got so many critics, but who cares? It's still a good movie.

I'm just saying you should try to make as perfect of a film you can so that you can appeal to as many people as possible. By making a screenplay that is full of flaws, you're limiting your already slim chances of getting accepted by a studio that decides they want to make your script into a film.

Keep in mind that your script isn't the final script. If your script gets read and doesn't get stuck in development hell, then people go through it with a fine toothed comb and pick out flaws. The idea of writing an amazing script with few flaws isn't to appeal to the audiences, but to get the approval of the person who decides they want to make your script INTO A MOVIE.

 

[Inarius]

Are you on as tight of a deadline to write a screenplay as you are to fix or smooth out a video game?

It wasn't a commercial project, so we didn't have any actual deadlines. But if we're talking about deadlines... as we all know, life is short. Even shorter than you think. Awfully true. So you don't have an actual deadline to write a script, but you don't wanna spend years on writing a script, so you? Even without actual deadlines, we should make our own deadlines.

Ok, did you ask him for feedback on stories and characters, or did you just ask him for feedback?

Alright. When I come to a friend for a feedback, I do the next:

1) - Show them the logline, and ask them to tell me what story comes into their mind after reading it
2) - I compare what they tell me to the actual story, to see if the pitch works
3) - I tell them to read the synopsis
4) - I tell them about the major characters
5) - If they ask, I give them the treatment or the script

I've shown the script only to 3 out of 12 people. One of the 3 is that critique I'm talking about. Of course I asked him for feedback for the story and characters, and his answer was, - "The setting and the characters are good, but", - and there go some minor details, like the one with decibels.

Another one critical (he didn't read the script) was actually criticizing the idea, which is much more helpful. However, he focused on my prime decisions. For example, I made the major characters between the ages of 20-25 and he didn't like it, saying they should be 30+. I decided that superpowers will NOT be very strong, so that they can support melee combats, not make melee combats irrelevant. He didn't like that too, saying that superpowers must allow their owners to crush armies of enemies. But that's debates about the ideas, not the flaws.

 

[ChimpPhobiaFilms]

It wasn't a commercial project, so we didn't have any actual deadlines. But if we're talking about deadlines... as we all know, life is short. Even shorter than you think. Awfully true. So you don't have an actual deadline to write a script, but you don't wanna spend years on writing a script, so you? Even without actual deadlines, we should make our own deadlines.

Nobody says that you have to takes years on a script, but another awful truth is that breaking into any type of industry, ESPECIALLY the entertainment industry is difficult, and to break into the industry as a screenwriter, it's hard, but not impossible. There are a couple of different routes, and one of them that writers (unfortunately) try to go down is sending directly to a studio. But if one feels they have the talent to break in this way, and think that they could become that lucky few, then you have to write the best screenplay possible.

I've shown the script only to 3 out of 12 people. One of the 3 is that critique I'm talking about. Of course I asked him for feedback for the story and characters, and his answer was, - "The setting and the characters are good, but", - and there go some minor details, like the one with decibels.

Take what he says with a grain of salt. It could be nonsense or useful, and in this case, sounds like nonsense.

Another one critical (he didn't read the script) was actually criticizing the idea, which is much more helpful. However, he focused on my prime decisions. For example, I made the major characters between the ages of 20-25 and he didn't like it, saying they should be 30+. I decided that superpowers will NOT be very strong, so that they can support melee combats, not make melee combats irrelevant. He didn't like that too, saying that superpowers must allow their owners to crush armies of enemies. But that's debates about the ideas, not the flaws.

Well... problems lying within the ideas could be considered flaws, but let's not get into that.

Anyway, to you and Birdman: good luck!

 

[maz]

maz, Writing craft is not only about fitting the format. Writing craft is to write it the way that every word the reader reads, he must ask, - "What's next? What's next?! Tell me more! Tell me!!!". That's called a good craft! It's NOT only depends on the story. Give two people - professional writer and not a writer - to write THE SAME story from an outline and teach them the format. Same story, same formatting, but they'll write it differently. The pro.writer has a better way of self-expression.

Again, I politely disagree. Writing a script that has the reader hanging on every word is not as important as writing a story that has the viewer hanging on every second. Screenwriting IS story. Dialogue is story; neat, concise action sections are story. Anything that gets in the way of the story is counterproductive. And in your example, if the non-writer has a better imagination than the professinal writer, and they both have the same grasp of screenwriting conventions (formatting etc), I guarantee the non-writer will produce a better screenplay.

The parts of 'writing craft' that are absent in an imaginative non-writer are easily fixed, even if that involves paying a third party to tidy up the script. But in the absence of story, you're left with empty words.

Anyway, this is a big old tangent Good discussion, though.

 

[Birdman]

if the non-writer has a better imagination than the professinal writer, and they both have the same grasp of screenwriting conventions (formatting etc), I guarantee the non-writer will produce a better screenplay.

...I'll second this statement!

Plus, you can learn to write 'better", but it's hard to develop a vivid imagination if you don't already have one.

-Birdman

 

[Inarius]

Again, I politely disagree. Writing a script that has the reader hanging on every word is not as important as writing a story that has the viewer hanging on every second. Screenwriting IS story. Dialogue is story; neat, concise action sections are story. Anything that gets in the way of the story is counterproductive. And in your example, if the non-writer has a better imagination than the professinal writer, and they both have the same grasp of screenwriting conventions (formatting etc), I guarantee the non-writer will produce a better screenplay.

The parts of 'writing craft' that are absent in an imaginative non-writer are easily fixed, even if that involves paying a third party to tidy up the script. But in the absence of story, you're left with empty words.

Anyway, this is a big old tangent Good discussion, though.

Oh... you just don't get me. I should improve my writing skills .

Do you know that feeling, when two of your friends are telling you the same joke, but the first doesn't make you laugh, and then the second friend retells it and you laugh like a horse? Why??? The difference is in the way they tell the joke. It's the same story, but one has good speech skills, the other doesn't. Speech skills can be learned over time.

Conclusion
Joke = the story, the creative aspect, the idea
Speech skills = the craft, the way of expression

P.S. How can a professional writer have less imagination than a non-writer? You know, the more one uses his imagination, the more it grows.

Plus, you can learn to write 'better", but it's hard to develop a vivid imagination if you don't already have one.

Imagination is like a muscle - if you train it, it grows. If you don't train it, it weakens.

 

[Birdman]

P.S. How can a professional writer have less imagination than a non-writer? You know, the more one uses his imagination, the more it grows. Imagination is like a muscle - if you train it, it grows. If you don't train it, it weakens.

"Imagination" is at the heart, the CORE of ANY creative process. Writing, painting, sculpture, literature ...doesn't matter. The "tools" used to release one's imagination will always take a back seat to creative imagination.

On the flip side, (as MAZ pointed out) a highly imaginative individual who lacks the proper "tools" to execute what's in his mind is just as lost as the "professional writer" who lacks imagination.

If you have the imagination and have the tools ...then you are a candidate for screenplay history.

Imagination is like a muscle - if you train it, it grows. If you don't train it, it weakens.

Haaa! Nope! You either have an imagination or you don't. Leonardo da Vincii, Kurt Vonnegut, Gian Lorenzo Bernini, and Mozart didn't reach the levels they did by training their imagination. They came into this life genetically pre-programmed with their wild imaginations. ...Their SKILL and EXECUTION is what they trained.



-Birdman

 

[Inarius]

Haaa! Nope! You either have an imagination or you don't. Leonardo da Vincii, Kurt Vonnegut, Gian Lorenzo Bernini, and Mozart didn't reach the levels they did by training their imagination. They came into this life genetically pre-programmed with their wild imaginations. ...Their SKILL and EXECUTION is what they trained.

Everybody has imagination from birth. The famous people you mentioned did what they did mostly not because they were gifted from birth (even if they were), but mostly because they did it much and worked hard for it. Because they did it from earlier age. Read the biographies of known people, and you'll see that they started their activities from a very early age. And if they don't, they still have a hard work to do. You know, any "birth gift" can be lost, if you don't use it.

How a child learns to walk? He tries to walk. How one learns to swim? He tries to swim. How you learn to play football? You go and start playing. Imagination is not a constant too. Reading books, creating, inventing - all develop it.

 

[Birdman]

Inarius,

I am a fairly gifted painter. However, I could "train my imagination" every second for a thousand years and never match the imagination level of Michelangelo ...or Picasso.

There are people who can perform extremely complex math equations faster than a computer. I struggle with basic math skills. ...and if I "trained my brain" in math for a thousand years I STILL wouldn't come close to the processing speeds of these genetically pre-programmed mathematicians. I am limited in that respect.

Just as a person's brain can have a genetic advantage in performing mathematical equations ...the same goes for the "imagination" part of the brain.

We have a fundamental philosophical difference on this issue.

-Birdman

 

[Inarius]

I could "train my imagination" every second for a thousand years and never match the imagination level of Michelangelo ...or Picasso.

...and if I "trained my brain" in math for a thousand years I STILL wouldn't come close to the processing speeds of these genetically pre-programmed mathematicians.

You can't know that. Who told you that you wouldn't match their levels? You don't match their levels today, because you didn't do what they did. Steven Spielberg started making films at his early teens. Sid Meier started creating imaginary worlds when he was a kid, long before he became a famous computer games creator. Eminem was making raps at a very early age, too.

Yes, there are talents given at birth, but they never stand on the same level.

 

[maz]

Oh... you just don't get me. I should improve my writing skills .

Do you know that feeling, when two of your friends are telling you the same joke, but the first doesn't make you laugh, and then the second friend retells it and you laugh like a horse? Why??? The difference is in the way they tell the joke. It's the same story, but one has good speech skills, the other doesn't. Speech skills can be learned over time.

Conclusion
Joke = the story, the creative aspect, the idea
Speech skills = the craft, the way of expression

P.S. How can a professional writer have less imagination than a non-writer? You know, the more one uses his imagination, the more it grows.



Imagination is like a muscle - if you train it, it grows. If you don't train it, it weakens.

In your example, if the joke is the same then yeah, I take your point. A better analogy would be coming up with the joke in the first place. You can be a talented orator, but a naturally funny person will be funnier than you regardless, even if they don't possess the same 'skills' at speaking. There are lots of comedy writers who would be awful at standup comedy... but they are funny, and successful as a result. They know they can always rely on talented comedy actors to make the most of their jokes.

Same with screenwriting: an imaginative person can tell a great story and convey it, and then get somebody else to tidy it up to an acceptable level of 'craftsmanship' if necessary, but an unimaginative but talented writer can never 'borrow' somebody else's imagination.

I'm not sure that imagination is like a muscle. Outside of maybe taking lots of LSD I'm not sure there's any way to cultivate it. You have it or you don't.