Dealing With Criticism of Your Work

[trueindie]

I think this is far too harsh an attempted distinction. You seem intent on disregarding screenwriting, story, structure, dialogue etc as purely handwavey abstract artistic choices, when actually there are valid, useful technical objective criticisms you can make of story, structure, dialogue etc.

You can. Sure you can, make technical objective criticisms of story, dialog etc. It's meaningful criticism to some, who follow story structures, and arcs, and dialog structure. It's meaningless to some others, like myself, who are unaware of story structure, dialog structure, and certain other artistic choices. Not to say that it's "handwavey," or to belittle it in any way, it's just that people like me have simply not been schooled in those things. Also, I don't care about dialog structure and story structure and arc. I've talked to people all my life. I've interacted with people all my life. I've never interacted with aliens or ghosts or murderers, but I'll make up dialog structure for them, in the cases I write about them. Maybe I'll try to make it look like stuff I've seen on TV. Or maybe I'll make it up.

If you want artistic criticism, because you will actually follow that advice, because you think that you'll structure your next project accordingly, fine. There's nothing wrong with that. What I'm saying is that I'm not looking for that advice, as that advice will not help me, as I will not heed that advice. It's just different approaches. Artistic criticism is useless to someone like me, who wasn't schooled in it, and on the occasions that he was, didn't appreciate, agree with, or care for it. It's just a different approach.

For the hero's journey, we need kryptonite for superman. I get it. I read that story. I've read it a thousand times. I'm not interested in that story. I don't care for the hero's journey. So while I could use criticism of my story structure in general, or dialog authenticity in general, I don't want criticism of my story and dialog structures as it relates to other stories. My story is different. Maybe it's not for the mass market. The mass market likes Superman, and if you're trying to sell your story to Hollywood, you should write Superman. But the mass market won't like my story. And that's fine. I'm not writing my story so it can follow some structure. I'm writing my story because I like it. If it happens to coincide with some existing structure, great, If it doesn't, so what?

Not picking a fight Maz, just giving you my opinion, and approach to the work by some

It's a way to go, I guess.

It's one way
Cheers,
Aveek

 

[maz]

You can. Sure you can, make technical objective criticisms of story, dialog etc. It's meaningful criticism to some, who follow story structures, and arcs, and dialog structure. It's meaningless to some others, like myself, who are unaware of story structure, dialog structure, and certain other artistic choices. Not to say that it's "handwavey," or to belittle it in any way, it's just that people like me have simply not been schooled in those things. Also, I don't care about dialog structure and story structure and arc. I've talked to people all my life. I've interacted with people all my life. I've never interacted with aliens or ghosts or murderers, but I'll make up dialog structure for them, in the cases I write about them. Maybe I'll try to make it look like stuff I've seen on TV. Or maybe I'll make it up.

If you want artistic criticism, because you will actually follow that advice, because you think that you'll structure your next project accordingly, fine. There's nothing wrong with that. What I'm saying is that I'm not looking for that advice, as that advice will not help me, as I will not heed that advice. It's just different approaches. Artistic criticism is useless to someone like me, who wasn't schooled in it, and on the occasions that he was, didn't appreciate, agree with, or care for it. It's just a different approach.

For the hero's journey, we need kryptonite for superman. I get it. I read that story. I've read it a thousand times. I'm not interested in that story. I don't care for the hero's journey. So while I could use criticism of my story structure in general, or dialog authenticity in general, I don't want criticism of my story and dialog structures as it relates to other stories. My story is different. Maybe it's not for the mass market. The mass market likes Superman, and if you're trying to sell your story to Hollywood, you should write Superman. But the mass market won't like my story. And that's fine. I'm not writing my story so it can follow some structure. I'm writing my story because I like it. If it happens to coincide with some existing structure, great, If it doesn't, so what?

Not picking a fight Maz, just giving you my opinion, and approach to the work by some



It's one way
Cheers,
Aveek

For the record, I'm with you in that I don't read books about screenwriting, or follow formal structures. And it's fine if you want to completely ignore constructive artistic advice. That's your prerogative. My personal view is that there's no point being a precious artist about anything I do, and every day's a school day. There's always someone's take on my ideas which will make me look at my choices in a different way, and make me better. Just because I've made my choices one way doesn't mean I won't make different choices on another occasion. Every time an artist creates something using certain artistic choices, he/she hopes that it will "work" for the intended audience. If it doesn't "work", then it's worth thinking about why it doesn't, and that can involve hearing from members of that audience: critics. If you ignore the audience, the artistic process is just onanism.

That's why its called "constructive" criticism - it builds you up, so there's no point treating it as though it's knocking you down.

 

[trueindie]

For the record, I'm with you in that I don't read books about screenwriting, or follow formal structures. And it's fine if you want to completely ignore constructive artistic advice. That's your prerogative. My personal view is that there's no point being a precious artist about anything I do, and every day's a school day. There's always someone's take on my ideas which will make me look at my choices in a different way, and make me better. Just because I've made my choices one way doesn't mean I won't make different choices on another occasion. Every time an artist creates something using certain artistic choices, he/she hopes that it will "work" for the intended audience. If it doesn't "work", then it's worth thinking about why it doesn't, and that can involve hearing from members of that audience: critics. If you ignore the audience, the artistic process is just onanism.

That's why its called "constructive" criticism - it builds you up, so there's no point treating it as though it's knocking you down.

Onanism. I have to say that's a word I had never come across before. And I like to think I have an okay vocabulary. Such a beautiful use of it too. Hilarious. hahaha. I luv it.

No, you're right. I personally don't care for certain kinds of art, and don't want to be practicing onanism, by any means, when it comes to filmmaking.

But man, you won't believe the kinds of sh*t we filmmakers have to hear. I don't mind viewer criticism at all. Viwer criticisms are like "I liked the part where such and such happened, but I didn't like the part where so and so said this," or "I don't think I would have killed the cat, I would have killed the dog instead. That makes more sense. What do you think?" or "I don't think that entire conversation was necessary. I think it was redundant, maybe you can take that part out. I was already aware of that information."

That's viewer criticism. That's great. I love that stuff. Here is filmmaker criticism:

There was no light in the background (yeah, that's because the generator went down)
I didn't like your choice of color
There was not enough contrast
It was too contrasty.
I didn't like your camera angle
I'm a purist. I only shoot on film (I'm exaggerating here, but I've heard a producer say this)
I'm a perfectionist. I wouldn't have put my name to this film (the dude still hasn't made his first film, because he is a perfectionist, but he finds me beneath him, because I made a film of a quality he disapproves of).

Filmmaker criticism, of an artistic nature, are without substance, most of the time, and highly subjective, and pretty useless for the most part.

In my favorite dreams, I slowly strangle filmmakers.

Edit: Actually, I'm being kind to filmmakers when I wrote the above. Some of those filmmaker criticisms I could actually use. But filmmakers, on this very forum, have criticized my work as "dull" as "took too long" advised me to cut down my 4 minute move by two minutes (or something like that), advised me that making the viewer sit through three minutes of boring material for a 20 second reveal was not good storytelling, etc., etc., etc. I would take their advice seriously, if while they criticized my work, showed me their thrilling, non boring, 2 minute short film, that was shot perfectly, and had perfect color and sound and acting. Then I would take them seriously. Until then, I'll act polite, and brush off their criticism as useless, for the most part. Some filmmaker criticism is useful. Some.

 

[Alcove Audio]

From "Ratatouille"

(Food) critic Anton Ego (love that name...) reviews Remy's cooking:

In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little, yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face, is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so. But there are times when a critic truly risks something, and that is in the discovery and defense of the *new*. The world is often unkind to new talent, new creations. The new needs friends.

There's more, but you get the idea.

How much weight to give criticism depends entirely upon the critic. Very early in my music career I met John Hammond ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hammond_(producer) ) who ripped me to shreds; he also had lots of positives to offer. Knowing who he was, I took his advice to heart. It was soul shattering and uplifting at the same time. However, it was much better than the flattery of family, friends and fans, or the vicious negatives expounded by the envious and my competition. There are many out there who thrive on tearing others down because it makes them feel better about their own lack of success, and they can come in very friendly guises.

It's all about the critic. It takes time and experience to know whom to listen to and whom to ignore.





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ih6jcKd7VwU

 

[Modern Day Myth Prod. LLC]

Maybe this is the best you can produce at this time and place. If so, don't worry what people think. You know in your heart that you did your best.

But, what about the future. Is this as good as you want to be? We have to be organic and grow. Seek out new knowledge, new tools, and new techniques to be better in the future.

Don't be artificial and think you cannot grow and just be content with today's achievement. Become organic and grow to become bigger and better.

 

[samwagner1000]

I think this is far too harsh an attempted distinction. You seem intent on disregarding screenwriting, story, structure, dialogue etc as purely handwavey abstract artistic choices, when actually there are valid, useful technical objective criticisms you can make of story, structure, dialogue etc.

+1 thank you maz, someone who gets it!

these are very distinctly made decisions. there are a few common sayings in film production that i've found to be, yes, maybe old and tired, but also things i consider all the way through a production:


"for everything you do, have a reason" - not just every line of dialogue, not just the story structure, not just lens choices, not just contrast choices, but everything because all of these choices made have an impact on the film as a whole. honestly @mussonman, i think aspect ratio or Red Epic choices are of lesser importance. did upressing the Wire really make it any better? nope, not really! i could give a fuck, i'll watch that show in 240 it's so damn good! if i can light a scene with my t3i, I can light a scene with my Red, granted you make slightly different decisions based on each camera because of their quality, but what's important is that i have the mastery of lighting techniques so not only do i know how to light for different qualities of gear, but i also know how to light to convey mood and theme. both are artistry!!!

"know the rules before you break them" - i need to know the hero structure, even if i ignore it, i have to know how and why i'm not writing a story in this style because that's an ARTISTIC CHOICE

 

[trueindie]

I'm about to say some things that will probably turn everyone against me. Maybe I won't say everything I want to say. Maybe I'll temper it a bit. We'll see.

know the rules before you break them

I first heard this line, when I joined the summer film program at a school in Toronto. I remember how impressed I was with that line. And after a while, I realized, that at least for me, it was the worst possible advice ever. All it means is that I need to stop thinking, stop feeling, and pay the school, so that they can teach me the rules, and then I can break them. so before I break the rules, I need to pay the teaching industry and buy their books. That's what it really means.

There are other professions in the world too. I can't think of another profession where you need to learn the rules, before you can break them. If you break the rules in accounting, your balance sheet is not going to balance. If you break the rules in Civil Engineering, your building is going to collapse. But you can break the rules in filmmaking, because???? they're oh so important. They're so important, that you can break them. But you need to learn them. That doesn't even make any sense.

I'm not saying this about every single thing about filmmaking of course. If you don't point the mic in the right direction, the audio is going to come out sounding funny. If you break the 180, your audience will lose visual perspective. But those are really tight rules, and there are only but a few of them. The rest of it is art. It's open to interpretation, and it's subjective, and it's not bound by rules. How can the storytelling portion of filmmaking possibly be about rules? I don't get it.

+1 thank you maz, someone who gets it!
"for everything you do, have a reason"

Sure. Have a reason. There's nothing wrong with having reasons. Most of us have reasons for shooting things a certain way. I have my reasons too. But 'what' that reason is, is up to me isn't it? I definitely have my reasons for shooting things the way I'm shooting. But sometimes, I have to compromise on my art, and my budget becomes the reason. But a reason, I surely have got. I don't put the camera just about anywhere and press record. Nobody does.

i need to know the hero structure, even if i ignore it, i have to know how and why i'm not writing a story in this style because that's an ARTISTIC CHOICE

The thing is that I'm not actively ignoring the hero structure. It's just not on my mind. I'm not really thinking about the style of the story. Some people are thinking about it. Some aren't. I'm not. I just don't care about the style, or the arc. I just want my story to come out the way I see it, the way I feel it. I don't want to burden it with what style I want to follow. Sometimes the style itself can be art. That kind of art is not native to me. It's not natural to how I think. I wouldn't be any good at it, if I tried it. It's burdensome to me. It's burdensome to my mind. So I just don't think about it. I am more interested in feeling my story. I want it to be emotional. Happy or sad, I want it to touch my audience/reader. That's all I want to think about.

But I'm not really a true artist, in the best sense of the word. I think I'm limited. So I try to act within the limitations that I feel I have. There is no way, I'm going to limit myself further, by adhering to other people's rules. There are people who're truly gifted, and imaginative, and naturally creative, and quick learners. I know I am not that person. I don't have time for rules.

I appreciate your point of view. It's the prevailing point of view in the film industry, or at least in the film learning industry. But I think my point of view also has a side, and is never mentioned in formal circles. So even though I know everyone is going to disagree with me, I just wanted to make the point, that I don't have to know the rules before I make my film. Maybe that means I'm a bad filmmaker. Maybe. But it's the only way that's natural to me. I don't know of any other way to make this thing fun. It has definitely not been good for the pocketbook.
Cheers

 

[GuerrillaAngel]

If you don't point the mic in the right direction, the audio is going to come out sounding funny. If you break the 180, your audience will lose visual perspective. But those are really tight rules, and there are only but a few of them.

But it is those few that matter. Break the 180 rule just once and your audience is "out of the picture". All your other "artistic' decisions (and money) have gone to waste.

 

[mus]

I think this is far too harsh an attempted distinction. You seem intent on disregarding screenwriting, story, structure, dialogue etc as purely handwavey abstract artistic choices, when actually there are valid, useful technical objective criticisms you can make of story, structure, dialogue etc.

I think you and samwagner are both misinterpreting what I am saying, in fact, Maz, you even seem to be agreeing with me. But every creative/artistic criticism, even if conveyed respectably or analytically, eventually boils down to one simple thing that critic is trying to say: ..."I don't like this."

I'll try to sum it up with my own critique of something random:

(Background on this critique, I HATE Country Music) I believe every country song panders to its target audience. I think it is the most blatant contrived, unoriginal, sell-out genre there is. In fact, very few of the artists or songs can be differentiated from one another. If they were to sing less about their personal troubles and relationships, as well as try some other instruments than acoustic guitar once in a while (how about nothing but one man and an Ocarina? Not enough Ocarina in music these days) then it has the potential to improve and increase its likability. Perhaps if they re-recorded all of their songs about trucks to biting social satire commenting on how trucks harm the environment, I could take the time to care about their musical efforts.

I honestly believe that this would make country music better (for me.) But, if all Country Artists were to change to meet my criticism.... wouldn't that completely change what it was all about? Subsequently, ruining it for the people who do like it? Hopefully, the artists themselves? Can't you see how useless my artistic criticism is here?

When the creators of South Park first tried to get their show on the air, they went to Fox executives first with their pilot episode. “The woman at FOX at the time was like yeah, no,” recalls Trey Parker. “What people want to see in animation is… they don’t want to see kids, they want to see families.”
Was this criticism valid? If they had changed it to fit the executives' tastes, there still would've been people who liked it as a show (maybe) But the creators definitely wouldn't have liked it.

You absolutely cannot adhere to artistic criticism! You can read it, listen to it, understand it, use it to gauge the type of people your content is for and who it isn't for, but you can't adhere to it. (Unless you already think it's valid criticism, meaning you don't think you made the best possible product)

If at the end of the day, you made a film you didn't like because you were busy trying to please someone with different tastes than you... well... (see below)

that's a surefire way to never, ever improve your filmmaking.

 

[WalterB]

But it is those few that matter. Break the 180 rule just once and your audience is "out of the picture". All your other "artistic' decisions (and money) have gone to waste.

Unless you do it on purpose, because your character is getting confused and is losing grip and perspective.
And then still it needs to be done with caution.

Those are very important rules.
One can debate whether they are in the technical or creative part of filmmaking: I think there is a large grey area where they are intertwined. If you break those rules and it s*cks, it was either a bad creative choice or a technical 'accident'. If it works, you made a creative choice and executed it in the right way.

I think the saying should be: "You can only break the rules if you know them."
It doesn't mean you have to break them.
If rules would only exist to be broken, then it wouldn't be rules: it would be BS you shouldn't do EVER.
It means you understand why those rules exist, what is means on screen and with that knowledge you can make an educated decision to not follow them.

It is like crossing a road. You know you have to wait for a green light, before you walk acoss the street.
But if there is no traffic at all,so you are sure you can safely cross the road, you could break that rule, because you understand why the rule exists.

Putting all creative decisions beyond the touch of feedback is silly: language has grammar and syntax, just like framing does. And they influence mood, pace, etc. All pretty subjective things and still you can learn from other people's critisism.

@trueindie:
don't worry
Any opinion is interesting.
Even critisism on the subject of critique of subjective subjects is something we can all learn from, because it broadens perspective and sharpens the mind

 

[GuerrillaAngel]

Unless you do it on purpose, because your character is getting confused and is losing grip and perspective.
And then still it needs to be done with caution.

Extreme caution, agreed. If you're a noob and do it without getting people hooked into your film first, you've lost them. Hence the reason for sticking with the basics until you know you can make films that keep people on the edge of their seats right up to the end. Wow them instead with story telling until you've mastered the craft.

-------

 

[WalterB]

Extreme caution, agreed. If you're a noob and do it without getting people hooked into your film first, you've lost them. Hence the reason for sticking with the basics until you know you can make films that keep people on the edge of their seats right up to the end. Wow them instead with story telling until you've mastered the craft.

-------

Indeed.

 

[samwagner1000]

@mussonman

what you're describing is "pandering," not necessarily "criticism." i don't pander to my audience, i make careful and calculated decisions about (hopefully, i'm certainly not anywhere near perfect) everything. then when i get negative comments, i can learn from them, understand what and where to tweak things to improve what i'm trying to say and how i say it.

and i also think you have a very one-track mind about what a review or a critique is and should be. i'll use a basketball analogy:

when i coach my players, i don't simply say, "i don't like your shot." (it may boil down to that, but i say more...) not even to the worst shooters i've ever coached (even if everything they do is wrong, because that's teaching tact, it can be slightly harsher in the film industry, but you'll see where i go with this). rather, i say, "you bend your legs well and that's good because it helps you with consistency, but you shoot the ball too low, this is bad because you will get blocked more often." this is what we call constructive criticism. even if your film's reviews are negative and unclear, there is almost always veiled constructive criticism in there. it's our job to uncover that and use it to improve. now, can critics be more tactful and clearly helpful? yes, but it's just as much our job as filmmakers to try to understand why they say what they say and see if we can use it to improve our work. not to pander to them, but to improve what we want to do with our films, even shitty critiques can help us here

@trueindie

you have to know those accounting rules if you want to break them to embezzle and get away with it. in film, it's the same, you have to know the 180 degree rule if you want to break it to convey something to your audience and get away with it.

and as a response to you not caring about theories, structures, or whatever: i think it's important for us as filmmakers to be experts on our art, know the rules, know the history, know the technology, etc in order to create things that others will enjoy. i'll go back to another basketball analogy because i've been around basketball in every aspect of the game for most of my life. if i didn't know the mechanics of the game, if i didn't study different shooters, if i didn't study different plays, should i be allowed to coach? no. think of yourself or your goal as being a film coach, sometimes you're wrong, sometimes you fail, but you are still an expert in your art and THATS why people watch and listen and care

 

[trueindie]

@trueindie

you have to know those accounting rules if you want to break them to embezzle and get away with it. in film, it's the same, you have to know the 180 degree rule if you want to break it to convey something to your audience and get away with it.

and as a response to you not caring about theories, structures, or whatever: i think it's important for us as filmmakers to be experts on our art, know the rules, know the history, know the technology, etc in order to create things that others will enjoy. i'll go back to another basketball analogy because i've been around basketball in every aspect of the game for most of my life. if i didn't know the mechanics of the game, if i didn't study different shooters, if i didn't study different plays, should i be allowed to coach? no. think of yourself or your goal as being a film coach, sometimes you're wrong, sometimes you fail, but you are still an expert in your art and THATS why people watch and listen and care

I care. I definitely care. But I care about the things that I care about, and I don't care about certain other things, not because I'm an expert on those things, but maybe at some level, I don't like those things. I know about the hero's journey. I just don't want anything to do with it, because I personally despise it. There's nothing wrong with it. I just don't like it. So I want nothing to do with it. Some people like horror, I don't like horror. Some people like the hero's journey, I don't like it. That's all.

And I've nothing against knowing more about the filmmaking art and craft and history. I've nothing against it, and I love some of it. But making filmmaking about formal education is just....

never mind. I can't win this battle, not today. Maybe one day.

Cheers

 

[maz]

I think you and samwagner are both misinterpreting what I am saying, in fact, Maz, you even seem to be agreeing with me. But every creative/artistic criticism, even if conveyed respectably or analytically, eventually boils down to one simple thing that critic is trying to say: ..."I don't like this."

I'll try to sum it up with my own critique of something random:

(Background on this critique, I HATE Country Music) I believe every country song panders to its target audience. I think it is the most blatant contrived, unoriginal, sell-out genre there is. In fact, very few of the artists or songs can be differentiated from one another. If they were to sing less about their personal troubles and relationships, as well as try some other instruments than acoustic guitar once in a while (how about nothing but one man and an Ocarina? Not enough Ocarina in music these days) then it has the potential to improve and increase its likability. Perhaps if they re-recorded all of their songs about trucks to biting social satire commenting on how trucks harm the environment, I could take the time to care about their musical efforts.

I honestly believe that this would make country music better (for me.) But, if all Country Artists were to change to meet my criticism.... wouldn't that completely change what it was all about? Subsequently, ruining it for the people who do like it? Hopefully, the artists themselves? Can't you see how useless my artistic criticism is here?

When the creators of South Park first tried to get their show on the air, they went to Fox executives first with their pilot episode. “The woman at FOX at the time was like yeah, no,” recalls Trey Parker. “What people want to see in animation is… they don’t want to see kids, they want to see families.”
Was this criticism valid? If they had changed it to fit the executives' tastes, there still would've been people who liked it as a show (maybe) But the creators definitely wouldn't have liked it.

You absolutely cannot adhere to artistic criticism! You can read it, listen to it, understand it, use it to gauge the type of people your content is for and who it isn't for, but you can't adhere to it. (Unless you already think it's valid criticism, meaning you don't think you made the best possible product)

If at the end of the day, you made a film you didn't like because you were busy trying to please someone with different tastes than you... well... (see below)

Well, sure - nobody said that you have to listen to your critics and follow what they say to the letter. Nobody's demanded adherence. But you absolutely cannot blindly ignore it.

What struck me about your original statement, however, was that criticism of your artistic choices is useless. It isn't. They are your choices, and you have to make them, and then a smart artist will see what works and what doesn't and take these things into consideration with the next project. If a review for a film says "It looked great for the budget, and the sound was really well mastered, but the dialogue was a little clunky and the story could have done with being less rushed", can you not see how you can take useful information from that?

Your reduction of artistic criticism to "I don't like this wah wah wah" is also inaccurate (although sometimes it is just that) - what constructive artistic criticism actually is, is "I don't think this works because..." and it's that "because..." that a filmmaker absolutely has to read and take on board, even if you elect to subsequently disregard it. It's only if you disregard every bit of such constructive creative criticism that you end up standing still.

Your South Park example is interesting. I haven't seen South Park for nearly 15 years, but I can virtually guarantee you that that show has changed from s01e01 to the current day (is it even still being made?), and that many of those changes reflect valid creative criticisms of the show's early efforts. Absolutely they were right not to bend on those Fox criticisms that would undermine the whole vision and purpose of the show, but that doesn't mean they ignored all criticism (and ignoring Fox is good practice in general). It is sleight of hand to say that because Trey Parker et al disregarded one pretty fundamental criticism that that somehow proves your point.

 

[maz]

and as a response to you not caring about theories, structures, or whatever: i think it's important for us as filmmakers to be experts on our art, know the rules, know the history, know the technology, etc in order to create things that others will enjoy. i'll go back to another basketball analogy because i've been around basketball in every aspect of the game for most of my life. if i didn't know the mechanics of the game, if i didn't study different shooters, if i didn't study different plays, should i be allowed to coach? no. think of yourself or your goal as being a film coach, sometimes you're wrong, sometimes you fail, but you are still an expert in your art and THATS why people watch and listen and care

As a coda to this I will just add that in terms of screenwriting, rules are overrated - screenwriting is essentially storytelling, and most people don't need to know about False Defeats and Inciting Incidents to tell a story. All that is a way for people to make money out of people telling stories. I'm all for a less rigid approach to screenwriting.

BUT, in the absence of those rules, you have to be able to take criticism and advice from the audience, and the audience is everyone - other screenwriters, members of your target demographic, people outside your target demographic, people with a knowledge of film history and people with none. It's the only way to improve, even if you disregard 80% of it.

 

[samwagner1000]

@trueindie

all i'm saying to you is that the more you know, the more you know what to avoid and how. i don't think you're out of line to not want to write a hero's journey or a horror film, but don't ignore the theories and conventions because if you don't know them, you might mistakenly write or use them

@maz

just...thank you thank you. and even if the criticism doesn't have that "because," it's probably implied in that review somewhere, it's up to us to find it!

also they are still making South Park, some is funny, some is trite, but credit where credit is due. i've always been impressed by their process

and yes, i agree, lots of screenwriting rules are just training wheels, but i found them helpful in my learning process whether or not i use them much anymore