Thank You IndieTalk

[Birdman]

IndieTalk Screenplay Forum Posters:

The time has come for me to offer my sincere thanks to the many posters who have helped me create my Screenplay over the past six months.

I want to personally thank the following posters for their many follow-up posts and thoughtful insight. If I have missed anyone it was not on purpose:

Trueindie
Inarius
Mad_hatter
sweetie
ChimpPhobiaFilm
sfoster
richy
NickClapper
time2focus
victirtiti89
Will_Vincent
DIY

I also want to offer a SPECIAL thanks to the following posters who took the extra time to offer incredibly smart and thoughtful responses. Some of these responses were brilliant and could have commanded thousands of dollars in consulting fees. Many times I was left amazed by the amount of time and reasoning worded within their posts:

directorrik
rayw
FantasySciFi
IndiePaul
maz
ChimpPhobiaFilm

...Yes, ...even you, Rayw!


I know I have been an overly-emotional "pain in the ass" on a lot of issues, but it was all in a quest to have my screenplay the very best I could possibly make it. I challenged all of you on many complex issues that commonly haunt the Spec Script writer and many of you took a great deal of time out of your busy lives to offer very in-depth, well-orchestrated responses.

Much of the information on writing a screenplay can be found using Google searches ....but you can't really get to the meat of it unless you ask the people who are actively writing screenplays (and are maybe suffering the same questions that I have been suffering).

True, this is a very ego-saturated arena, and tempers are easily flared, but I want you all to know that there is NO POSSIBLE WAY I could have created my screenplay without all of your input and direction. I know these forums are "anonymous" by nature and many of you wonder if the shit you write is ever really appreciated (or utilized), well, I can HONESTLY say that your input was truly invaluable to me.

SUMMARY:

I now have a 100% completed, full-length feature film Science Fiction screenplay! It has taken six months to complete and has turned out to be the most complex, heart-wrenching, 117-page artistic endeavor I have ever attempted.

...AND I LOVE EVERY SINGLE PAGE OF IT!

I cannot believe my mind has orchestrated all of these scenes, characters and dialogue into an organized, cohesive story that I can sit down and read ...and actually LOVE!!

I took a frail, meaningless, beat-up female Science officer from another world who was left shattered and broken on a hardwood floor ...and within 117 pages I made her the Queen of the universe with her Giuseppe Zanotti gladiator stilettos firmly planted at the top of the food chain.

I read this script in my mind from FADE IN to FADE OUT every single day and I never get bored with it!

Lastly:

I may not win any awards, and as rayw clearly illustrates, will probably never see it made into a movie, ...but this movie shows on the big screen of my heart every single day. For six months I got to be God, creating people, worlds and happenings, controlling their fate, guiding their actions ...and ultimately offering a sense of Hope that we all search for every day of "real" life. .......It has been one truly great experience for me!

I thank each and every one of you!

-Birdman

 

[Birdman]

Congrats, Birdman May your screenwriting career spread its wings and soar

Surely we deserve to be treated to a small excerpt or two now the thing is done?

I've tossed this around in my head for several days now. I'm not sure if posting anything in a public form is a very smart idea ...but I DO owe a little pay back to the people who have dedicated their time in helping. Here's what I have:

(1) I am a graphic designer and an artist (oil paintings). While I was creating my screenplay I also made a Photoshop illustration of what my main character would look like. It helped me greatly! There is another thread in this forum where a poster is suggesting "flash cards" for developing your characters. Although mine isn't really a flash card, per say, it DID help me relate more to my character. It also gave me a greater emotional attachment to her along the way. I felt "bad" if I got distracted with life's duties and left her in a nasty situation for too long.

The character's name is "Jola". She is going through a strange genetic change that she doesn't fully understand. She morphs from a timid, peaceful, pretty little space alien girl to an ass kicking, trash talking, pipe-wielding hellion who kicks some serious intergalactic ass. She learns all about fighting from a handsome, young ex-Marine ...and a few select "Earth movies".

Throughout the movie she is guided by a strange, supposedly-extinct flower called a "Vaxalon" which she doesn't realize is actually forming her destiny as the "Queen of the Universe".

This is Jola in her final stages of her genetic transformation:

(2) I'm also providing a small section of the script just for fun. This is a section where she is first expressing interest in "weaponry". She's also struggling to understand human thinking and why we do the crazy things that we do.

.PDF SCRIPT EXCERPT

Thanks again to everyone for all of your help!
-Birdman

 

[trueindie]

Very nice. I like it.

 

[maz]

Nice stuff, Birdman. I love the pic and the idea behind it, as long as you don't have it blown up to lifesize and in your room with you while you sleep

The script excerpt was decent too, although that whole "is this what you humans call love?" alien cliche tends to grate on me a bit when it's played straight like here. Still well written enough (loved the Scarface callout) and the dialogue is nice.

A couple of things I picked up on:
- the line "it's called, taunting, Honey"... I would say that it would be better done as "it's called 'taunting', honey". Quote marks around 'taunting' (although in context it would work with no punctuation at all), and no capital for Honey (unless it's his actual name for her rather than just a generic pet name?) The same thing applies to 'Baby' later on (I notice you declined to capitalise the vocative "li'l' girl" or "girl" elsewhere).

- have you kept an eye on the pet name vocatives by William? They seem to be very frequent, and it does seem a little repetitive.

- if the alien is being ultra-precise about things, I'm not sure she would describe a car as "rotary transportation". "Rotary" implies the whole thing spins around an axis.

Would love to read more!

 

[Birdman]

Nice stuff, Birdman. I love the pic and the idea behind it, as long as you don't have it blown up to lifesize and in your room with you while you sleep

...I think the wife already isn't very happy with her picture at her 350px size. ...Women are funny!

The script excerpt was decent too, although that whole "is this what you humans call love?" alien cliche tends to grate on me a bit when it's played straight like here. Still well written enough (loved the Scarface callout) and the dialogue is nice.

...Her species is actually "anti-love". There is no romance or sexual intercourse. The females are "workers" and that's pretty much their sole purpose in life. They are a 100% non-violent species and she rags on William all the time about how violent Earth is. Her confusion in the "Scarface" situation was the "friend" reference prior to blowing up his office doors. Later (after she morphs) she uses various movie quotes she learned to taunt her enemy. She also ends up riding William like a racehorse in a rather steamy sex scene.

In order to pull off an effective "after personality" you have to highlight the "before personality".

A couple of things I picked up on:
- the line "it's called, taunting, Honey"... I would say that it would be better done as "it's called 'taunting', honey". Quote marks around 'taunting' (although in context it would work with no punctuation at all), and no capital for Honey (unless it's his actual name for her rather than just a generic pet name?) The same thing applies to 'Baby' later on (I notice you declined to capitalise the vocative "li'l' girl" or "girl" elsewhere).

...The standard I used was to cap anytime where a pet name could be used in place of the person's actual name. Generic names, (like "lil' girl", girl, son, or boy) were not capped. This was at the bequest of my English teacher wife and a split-decision on internet searches regarding the matter.

Here is the result of many internet searches:

Link #1
Link #2
Link #3
Link #4
Link #5
Link #6
Link #7
Link #8
Link #9]
Link #10

...as you can see, the opinion on this matter is all across the board. I lump this into the same category as "what to put on the title page." and "Does the WGA number make you a noob?" It all depends on whose hands my script ends up falling into and whatever personal opinion they may have on the matter. What I chose to do was take the safest possible route, (i.e., use caps) and keep it consistent throughout. ....That's one of the many things you all taught me to get around these "iffy" situations.

- have you kept an eye on the pet name vocatives by William? They seem to be very frequent, and it does seem a little repetitive.

He uses a lot of them, but that's just the way he is. He represents the standard "jar head" gun-toting Marine type who considers himself a macho man (like Bruce Willis). She has a hi-tech "metal cockpit case" with important diagnostic equipment that he calls, "her purse". Grating, chauvinistic or other stereotypical personality flaws are common in many famous Hollywood characters.

- if the alien is being ultra-precise about things, I'm not sure she would describe a car as "rotary transportation". "Rotary" implies the whole thing spins around an axis.

...I think the standard viewer understands the "rotary" context. She refers to the planes that hit the WTC as a "tropospheric aircraft". Sure, someone may be quick to point out that not all aircraft are confined to the tropospheric layer of the atmosphere, but in the end we all have to get the job done in under 120 pages.

"Quad-wheeled, terrestrial, gravity-based transportation machine" is technically a lot more accurate description ...but after a few times of hearing her say that I'd probably be hoping she would get killed early on (like I did that horribly obnoxious "Jar Jar Binks" idiot character in Star Wars).

Would love to read more!

...Hopefully one day you can SEE it!

-Birdman

 

[maz]

...Her species is actually "anti-love". There is no romance or sexual intercourse. The females are "workers" and that's pretty much their sole purpose in life. They are a 100% non-violent species and she rags on William all the time about how violent Earth is. Her confusion in the "Scarface" situation was the "friend" reference prior to blowing up his office doors. Later (after she morphs) she uses various movie quotes she learned to taunt her enemy. She also ends up riding William like a racehorse in a rather steamy sex scene.

In order to pull off an effective "after personality" you have to highlight the "before personality".

Just to be clear, the reference to "is this what humans..." had nothing to do with actual love, but more to do with the cliche of supposedly humorous/touching alien naivety in the face of the mundane and commonplace. It can be used effectively, but usually it isn't.

...The standard I used was to cap anytime where a pet name could be used in place of the person's actual name. Generic names, (like "lil' girl", girl, son, or boy) were not capped. This was at the bequest of my English teacher wife and a split-decision on internet searches regarding the matter.

Here is the result of many internet searches:

Link #1
Link #2
Link #3
Link #4
Link #5
Link #6
Link #7
Link #8
Link #9]
Link #10

...as you can see, the opinion on this matter is all across the board. I lump this into the same category as "what to put on the title page." and "Does the WGA number make you a noob?" It all depends on whose hands my script ends up falling into and whatever personal opinion they may have on the matter. What I chose to do was take the safest possible route, (i.e., use caps) and keep it consistent throughout. ....That's one of the many things you all taught me to get around these "iffy" situations.

OK, fair enough, you've obviously done your research. I disagree vehemently on the pet names - they're not really standing for someone's name in the same way as, say, Captain or Sergeant; and at the same time they're not specific enough to be a nickname.

He uses a lot of them, but that's just the way he is. He represents the standard "jar head" gun-toting Marine type who considers himself a macho man (like Bruce Willis). She has a hi-tech "metal cockpit case" with important diagnostic equipment that he calls, "her purse". Grating, chauvinistic or other stereotypical personality flaws are common in many famous Hollywood characters.

I don't have a problem with chauvinistic, patronising characters per se - as you rightly say, they are very common. My only issue was that his dialogue becomes very (almost self-consciously) quirky as a result. There are something like five diminutive pet names in four pages of script? It runs the risk of appearing more like a sketch where someone is trying to lampoon the kind of character you want William to actually be, rather than an actually well drawn character. Just a thought, and obviously I haven't read the rest of the script.

...I think the standard viewer understands the "rotary" context. She refers to the planes that hit the WTC as a "tropospheric aircraft". Sure, someone may be quick to point out that not all aircraft are confined to the tropospheric layer of the atmosphere, but in the end we all have to get the job done in under 120 pages.

"Quad-wheeled, terrestrial, gravity-based transportation machine" is technically a lot more accurate description ...but after a few times of hearing her say that I'd probably be hoping she would get killed early on (like I did that horribly obnoxious "Jar Jar Binks" idiot character in Star Wars).

I can see the advantage for brevity, but it grates because it is (based on these five pages) inconsistent for a character who is so precise in her language use to be imprecise on this one occasion. I'm not sure why "wheeled transportation", which is more accurate and even briefer syllabically, should not be a suitable alternative

 

[Birdman]

Just to be clear, the reference to "is this what humans..." had nothing to do with actual love, but more to do with the cliche of supposedly humorous/touching alien naivety in the face of the mundane and commonplace. It can be used effectively, but usually it isn't.

...an example movie would be helpful at this point. I can't think of any movies where an alien is asking a human questions like this. Good thing "crashing spaceships" isn't considered cliche! I think a spaceship crashes in probably 95% of all SciFi movies. It would be tough getting a script past someone who was tired of those damned "crashed spaceships".

JOK, fair enough, you've obviously done your research. I disagree vehemently on the pet names - they're not really standing for someone's name in the same way as, say, Captain or Sergeant; and at the same time they're not specific enough to be a nickname.

...Just curious: Would you ping a person's script for having a different opinion in this matter as a Script Analyst? How would this affect your overall opinion of the script and the scriptwriter?

JI don't have a problem with chauvinistic, patronising characters per se - as you rightly say, they are very common. My only issue was that his dialogue becomes very (almost self-consciously) quirky as a result. There are something like five diminutive pet names in four pages of script? It runs the risk of appearing more like a sketch where someone is trying to lampoon the kind of character you want William to actually be, rather than an actually well drawn character. Just a thought, and obviously I haven't read the rest of the script.

...I can cut out the "Honeybabes", and such, but then there will be the person who will chime in with "William is too normal of a character. He lacks any special personality characteristics or flaws and is boring. Liven him up a little!" Truly a strange industry!

There are probably many people who pinged "Castaway" for how many times Hanks cries out "Wilson!!!" And the fact that he spends so much time talking to a stupid volleyball ...but hey, that's Hollywood for ya!

JI can see the advantage for brevity, but it grates because it is (based on these five pages) inconsistent for a character who is so precise in her language use to be imprecise on this one occasion. I'm not sure why "wheeled transportation", which is more accurate and even briefer syllabically, should not be a suitable alternative

...I guess she could have said "winged transportation" for airplane, too? I'm happy with "Rotary Transportation Vehicle" though. It gets the idea across and flows easy in my opinion. It ends up being just like the "Vision Impaired" vs. "Visually Impaired" argument regarding how to properly address the blind. Technically, the correct version is "Vision Impaired" ...but everyone goes with "Visually". The way I look at it is that if this becomes a major issue with someone reading my script, they'll probably be missing the whole plot and meaning of the script anyway. I've already figured that into the odds for success in this truly strange industry .

-Birdman

 

[maz]

...an example movie would be helpful at this point. I can't think of any movies where an alien is asking a human questions like this. Good thing "crashing spaceships" isn't considered cliche! I think a spaceship crashes in probably 95% of all SciFi movies. It would be tough getting a script past someone who was tired of those damned "crashed spaceships".

I dunno, it's something that is in just about every sci-fi where an alien has to integrate with the human world in some way. I have terrible recall for specific films, though. Not quite an extraterrestrial, but doesn't it happen in Terminator 2? Also not quite an alien, but something similar happened in Splash, I think?

Note though, that it's a character development decision rather than a narrative necessity (like spaceships crashing), and the fact that I'm bored with it says nothing at all about 'the industry'

Note also that I would say there are certain ways in which spaceships crash that probably are considered cliche.

...Just curious: Would you ping a person's script for having a different opinion in this matter as a Script Analyst? How would this affect your overall opinion of the script and the scriptwriter?

I'm not a script analyst at all, but if I were then it would depend. It the story is great, the grammar and punctuation wouldn't sway my opinion of the script or the scriptwriter one way or the other. It's more just a matter of polishing the product as far as is possible in case there are busier people than I with less tolerance for odd looking things like random capitalised vocatives

...I can cut out the "Honeybabes", and such, but then there will be the person who will chime in with "William is too normal of a character. He lacks any special personality characteristics or flaws and is boring. Liven him up a little!" Truly a strange industry!

There are probably many people who pinged "Castaway" for how many times Hanks cries out "Wilson!!!" And the fact that he spends so much time talking to a stupid volleyball ...but hey, that's Hollywood for ya!

There is a difference though between a character and a caricature. A caricature is a mass of catchphrases and vocal tics. A character conveys attitude and emotions in more subtle ways. Again, the story would take priority, but I don't think a well-written character should be overwritten, and I think all the (deliberately, on your part) patronising vocatives are just that. Five or six in four pages? In my opinion, it's too much.

...I guess she could have said "winged transportation" for airplane, too? I'm happy with "Rotary Transportation Vehicle" though. It gets the idea across and flows easy in my opinion. It ends up being just like the "Vision Impaired" vs. "Visually Impaired" argument regarding how to properly address the blind. Technically, the correct version is "Vision Impaired" ...but everyone goes with "Visually". The way I look at it is that if this becomes a major issue with someone reading my script, they'll probably be missing the whole plot and meaning of the script anyway. I've already figured that into the odds for success in this truly strange industry .

-Birdman

Again, you're right that it's not a major issue. It's about ironing out all the character inconsistencies wherever they appear. I think it's a glaring inconsistency (as it's inaccurate) but you disagree. I'm not saying you're wrong about it, just that I'm another pair of eyes and it immediately stuck out to me as an issue. It seems like you're determined to get the extra syllables in at the expense of character consistency, so if you think the trade-off is worth it, then that's cool

 

[Birdman]

I dunno, it's something that is in just about every sci-fi where an alien has to integrate with the human world in some way. I have terrible recall for specific films, though. Not quite an extraterrestrial, but doesn't it happen in Terminator 2? Also not quite an alien, but something similar happened in Splash, I think?

...Hate to break it to you, but Terminator wasn't an alien. He was a robot. Not only was he a robot, but he was a 100%, grade-A "home grown" EARTH robot created via advanced American technology. And no, Mermaids aren't aliens. ...They are fish.

Even so, let's take the Terminator issue. I know the scene you are thinking about. It's in "Terminator II" where Arnie asks young John Conner, "Why do you cry?" Later in the movie he artfully snatches a dangling tear from young John's eye and tells him "I know now why you cry."

Sickeningly sweet? ...Yeah! .....................How much money did Terminator II make?

Data, from "Star Trek" struggled with human emotions and it was a major part of his character's struggle. There is the very well done episode where he receives his emotion chip and goes emotionally nuts. Brent Spiner played the role of Data in the Star Trek series and did an EXCELLENT role of playing the confused robot (who was also Earth property (Federation) and not an Alien.

Spock is another and probably the only TRUE alien in the mix. But even with Spock, you have to take into consideration that he was "half human" and was personally choosing to eliminate the emotional side of his personality.

All of these characters were designed as to be a portal for exploring human emotions by way of entities who were not well versed at (or seemingly incapable) expressing emotions. Technically they are no different than the characters who have suffered some type of horrible trauma in their life and refuse to put their hearts out on the table ever again. These characters make up the overwhelming majority of "entities" struggling to understand human emotions. If you are no longer able to use these characters to highlight human emotions, then we all might as well give up screenplay writing and take up bowling.

This is the danger one encounters when assigning "Cliches" based on one's personal opinions where none are actually present. If you applied your "Cliché" mentality to the movies mentioned above and binned the scrips as a result .......How much money would you have ultimately cost your production studio?

Note also that I would say there are certain ways in which spaceships crash that probably are considered cliche.

...What goes up, must come down. Planes crash, cars wreck, trains collide, boats sink, submarines implode, ....and spaceships crash. If you say that you can no longer have a spaceship crash because so many have crashed before, ....then an empty bowling lane in your neighborhood awaits you.

I'm not a script analyst at all, but if I were then it would depend. It the story is great, the grammar and punctuation wouldn't sway my opinion of the script or the scriptwriter one way or the other. It's more just a matter of polishing the product as far as is possible in case there are busier people than I with less tolerance for odd looking things like random capitalised vocatives

...The pattern I followed was a specific format as explained earlier. If you were an Analyst and felt that anyone not , as you say, "vehemently" subscribing to your determination as to what should be capped and what should not ....in the end, how much money would you be costing your production studio?

There is a difference though between a character and a caricature. A caricature is a mass of catchphrases and vocal tics. A character conveys attitude and emotions in more subtle ways. Again, the story would take priority, but I don't think a well-written character should be overwritten, and I think all the (deliberately, on your part) patronising vocatives are just that. Five or six in four pages? In my opinion, it's too much.

...No doubt there will be Script Analysts out there reviewing scripts with a calculator in hand just like someone looking at the Amazon Rain Forrest will be pointing out the number of fallen or rotted trees that can be seen at the very front. "Honey Bunny" was used a lot more times than any vocative that I used in "Pulp Fiction" and I guess your hand would have been rigidly poised over the trash can with that one, too, ...Baby!


Lastly,

Maybe what would help most would be for you to post up five or six pages from one of your scripts that you feel is perfectly formatted, lacking any form of "cliché", has perfectly orchestrated character types with no "caricaturesque" qualities that will reach our hearts, touch our souls, keep us all engaged and leave us with a better understanding of what life is really all about without the use of any pet names along the way.

I challenge you in your next post to post up here on IndieTalk, Maz's version of the way they all need to be written in the Screenplay world.

-Birdman

 

[maz]

I read the first sentence of your reply, where you smugly tried to shoot down my examples with a counter-argument I had already made and decided it was not worth reading any more. I've encountered people like you when working with novel authors, and there is a point where an honest attempt to help meets a perfect storm of arrogance and insecurity, and it is rarely profitable to take it any further.

Good luck, Birdman.

 

[Birdman]

I read the first sentence of your reply, where you smugly tried to shoot down my examples with a counter-argument I had already made and decided it was not worth reading any more. I've encountered people like you when working with novel authors, and there is a point where an honest attempt to help meets a perfect storm of arrogance and insecurity, and it is rarely profitable to take it any further.

Good luck, Birdman.

...I take it there won't be a "Five Page .PDF" coming from you anytime soon? Hey, I understand. It's a tough crowd.

FYI: I went back and lower-cased any pet name usage. It's not that big of a deal. The internet makes clear arguments for caps and no caps, but I went back and changed them anyway. William didn't use very many pet names in the other areas of the script. The area I posted was the largest grouping in the entire script... and where he was the most cocky. I also took out half of them anyway just for the sake of "forum peace".

I'm sorry, but a sappy one-liner from a robot played by a very bad actor and a reference to a "fish movie" dated way back in 1984 hardly qualifies as being "Cliché". This was your least-powerful argument. People walking away with their backs to an explosion is a true "Cliché". A sniper shooting another sniper through his scope is a true "Cliché". People running away from a car down the middle of the street is a true "Cliché". ...An alien trying to understand human interaction is NOT "cliché". ....The fact that you struggled to find any examples is proof.

Hell, Taco Bell made a TV commercial about why action heroes walk away with their backs to an explosion. It's because they are heading to Taco Bell!

Now, ...I TOOK your suggestions of the "pet name" usage and the use of caps. I did this in YOUR honor. Now you have to do something in MY honor: When you read someone else's script and they are handling a structural element in a way that differs from yours, DO NOT ping their script just because you feel you are right. Many times there are opposing views on how to handle formatting and structure issues. If this industry can't reach a true consensus on what is correct, then allow the person to use the formatting method he chooses (as long as they are consistent).

-Birdman

 

[maz]

I know I really should leave it, but I feel I have to bite...

...I take it there won't be a "Five Page .PDF" coming from you anytime soon? Hey, I understand. It's a tough crowd.

No idea what this is referring to, but I thought the whole discussion was about your script? And the thread was about people who have helped you? So I tried to help you further with some thoughts and advice. That's all. You can take it or leave it, it's fine. I really couldn't care less either way.

FYI: I went back and lower-cased any pet name usage. It's not that big of a deal. The internet makes clear arguments for caps and no caps, but I went back and changed them anyway. William didn't use very many pet names in the other areas of the script. The area I posted was the largest grouping in the entire script... and where he was the most cocky. I also took out half of them anyway just for the sake of "forum peace".

That's just silly. If you want to leave the pet names in, leave them in. Artists live and die by such decisions, so don't let a random person on a forum change your mind for you. At the same time, don't be too hasty to shoot down any dissenting opinions as perceived irrational criticism. What it does mean is that one reader (and possible viewer) was irked by it (although I did add the caveat that I haven't read the whole script to be able to determine whether it really is a problem). Extrapolate from that what you will.

I'm sorry, but a sappy one-liner from a robot played by a very bad actor and a reference to a "fish movie" dated way back in 1984 hardly qualifies as being "Cliché". This was your least-powerful argument. People walking away with their backs to an explosion is a true "Cliché". A sniper shooting another sniper through his scope is a true "Cliché". People running away from a car down the middle of the street is a true "Cliché". ...An alien trying to understand human interaction is NOT "cliché". ....The fact that you struggled to find any examples is proof.

That's nonsense. The fact that I have poor recall of movie titles is not "proof" of anything other than the fact that I have poor recall of movie titles. And you live (I think) in a country where Mexicans and even Brits are referred to as "aliens", and you don't see that a cyborg or a mermaid is an alien even if it's not an extraterrestrial? Humans are humans. Any other sentient, self-aware life form is alien to some extent, especially when thrust unsuspecting into the modern world.

I think you're misunderstanding the word "cliche", and assigning it a necessarily perjorative meaning. It doesn't work that way for me. Cliches are cliches for a reason, because they are efficient and effective ways of conveying a point. They are the nuts and bolts of expression, and as long as the nuts and bolts don't make up too much of what you're creating, it's not an issue. I just happen to find this particular cliche a little tired. A better word (in that it avoids the negative connotations) might be "trope". It's very definitely a trope, and has been since Mork and Mindy and the tedious Mr. Spock.

The Terminator reference was to the extended/alternate version, btw, which I seem to remember has a lengthy scene about human feelings etc.

Hell, Taco Bell made a TV commercial about why action heroes walk away with their backs to an explosion. It's because they are heading to Taco Bell!

We don't have Taco Bells over here. We barely have tacos...

Now, ...I TOOK your suggestions of the "pet name" usage and the use of caps. I did this in YOUR honor. Now you have to do something in MY honor:

There was never any need to do anything in my "honour". I'm a nobody really. I was just giving you my thoughts on a few pages of script in exactly the same way as I have done for many other people on this forum. My personal view is that an author should never be dismissive of an opporunity to improve his or her work, and that's why I took umbrage at your snarky, snide, aggressive response to my opinions.

When you read someone else's script and they are handling a structural element in a way that differs from yours, DO NOT ping their script just because you feel you are right. Many times there are opposing views on how to handle formatting and structure issues. If this industry can't reach a true consensus on what is correct, then allow the person to use the formatting method he chooses (as long as they are consistent).

I don't think I made one single criticism of a structural or format issue. I said that I found the cliche/trope of the naive alien a little stale, but made it clear that was just my opinion. And I highlighted some grammar/syntax/punctuation issues that, again, have nothing to do with formatting or structure. It's just English and, in my view, it's a courtesy to get those things as right as you possibly can.

I have no idea what "ping" means in this context, and urbandictionary is no help, but I absolutely promise I will not send data to anybody's script in an attempt to discover its response and latency times

 

[Inarius]

I don't really understand how have I helped you , but good luck with your screenplay to be sold or made!

 

[Birdman]

I don't really understand how have I helped you , but good luck with your screenplay to be sold or made!

You made many responses to questions I asked. Many of your questions hijacked the thread over to something similar you were suffering with your "Rappatron" device, but the responses you and I received helped me get the product done.

Maz,

I've read your response, and I'm sorry to say you are right back in the original seat you started from. I have made arguments and backed them up. Here they are:

(1) Capping Pet Names: You can't allow yourself to be "Irked" at the way another member of the writing community handles capitalization if the way they have chosen is accepted by 50% of writers. If someone else is "Irked" that a writer did NOT use caps when they feel vehemently that they should have ...then the script writer is now stuck in a "Damned if you do - damned if you don't" situation.

(2) "Pinged" means "Red Flagged". My analyst pinged my script because I had my address on the Title Page. He was "Irked" that I did this ...so a percentage of my $99 went for him explaining to me how wrong this is ....even though there is NO set guideline on this matter and there are NUMEROUS sources that say that you SHOULD put your address on your Title Page. My analyst's critiquing of my script could have been better spent elsewhere rather than correcting me on something to where there is no set guideline ...and is his "personal opinion".

(3) "Cliché". The way you are defining Cliché is different than mine, but I think you are still saying they are the same and just don't realize it.

Here is the definition of "Cliché":

: a phrase or expression that has been used so often that it is no longer original or interesting

: something that is so commonly used in books, stories, etc., that it is no longer effective

...Trope is just a watered-down version of the same.

What I see coming from you is more of a "personal dislike" of the space alien interaction with human beings. For something to belong to the world of "Trope" or "Cliché" it has to be so prevalent that you can whip off quick examples in order to prove your point. I gave examples of various "Cliché" movie items that EVERYONE can relate to even to the point of being mocked in commercials. All you can do is express a "feeling" that you MAY have encountered this before somewhere, but aren't really sure. I keep waiting for you to toss out "Alf" (the muppet from the 70's) as yet another reason "Aliens interacting with humans" is trope or cliché.

You have not made a good argument in this area.

My personal view is that an author should never be dismissive of an opporunity to improve his or her work, and that's why I took umbrage at your snarky, snide, aggressive response to my opinions.

And I highlighted some grammar/syntax/punctuation issues that, again, have nothing to do with formatting or structure. It's just English and, in my view, it's a courtesy to get those things as right as you possibly can.

This is why you are right back in the original seat you were sitting in. Again, if half of the writing community feels one way, and you feel the other way ...what makes YOU the one who is ultimately correct? What makes YOU "vehemently" the one who's right? If you can't show any clear examples illustrating your point, yet you say what another writer has done is "Cliché" and it "Grates on you" the fact that they have used a certain approach ...then how are you "helping" the writer in question? Snarky responses were being fired off of your keyboard just as from mine. You just don't want to recognize that fact.

All you're really doing is offering your "personal opinion". Unfortunately you are one of those people who feels their personal opinion is more valuable than others.

-Birdman

 

[mad_hatter]

Birdman – You really need to learn to take constructive criticism for what it is. You’ve clearly taken the advice that Maz has given on board. Presumably, you took a second look at those links you provided and realised that they actually concur with Maz’ “opinion”? And, I for one, agree with Maz that the “alien-who-doesn’t-understand-human-emotion” is cliché. I also agree that you don’t have to define alien as extra-terrestrial, making “Terminator 2” a very good example. Regardless, that doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t write clichés. If someone expresses a dislike of cliché, that’s fine. No need to attack them. But if somebody tells you they believe something to be cliché, and you don’t agree, perhaps you ought to dig a little deeper into the genre, just to be sure. Unfortunately, you may find that the idea that you believe to be so original, may not be original at all.

We barely have tacos...

Erm... Excuse me… The Danny Trejo “Old El Paso” adverts tell me different!

 

[WalterB]

Birdman – You really need to learn to take constructive criticism for what it is. You’ve clearly taken the advice that Maz has given on board. Presumably, you took a second look at those links you provided and realised that they actually concur with Maz’ “opinion”? And, I for one, agree with Maz that the “alien-who-doesn’t-understand-human-emotion” is cliché. I also agree that you don’t have to define alien as extra-terrestrial, making “Terminator 2” a very good example. Regardless, that doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t write clichés. If someone expresses a dislike of cliché, that’s fine. No need to attack them. But if somebody tells you they believe something to be cliché, and you don’t agree, perhaps you ought to dig a little deeper into the genre, just to be sure. Unfortunately, you may find that the idea that you believe to be so original, may not be original at all.


.......................

There is nothing wrong with that, just present it in a great context.
The climax of The Fifth Element comes to mind. It's a bit of a reversed version: "Why should I save humanity if they are so cruel?" is answered with love...

Most recent 'alien' who doesn't understand human emotions and interactions must be 'Sheldon' from the Big Bang Theory

 

[Birdman]

Birdman – You really need to learn to take constructive criticism for what it is. You’ve clearly taken the advice that Maz has given on board. Presumably, you took a second look at those links you provided and realised that they actually concur with Maz’ “opinion”? And, I for one, agree with Maz that the “alien-who-doesn’t-understand-human-emotion” is cliché. I also agree that you don’t have to define alien as extra-terrestrial, making “Terminator 2” a very good example. Regardless, that doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t write clichés. If someone expresses a dislike of cliché, that’s fine. No need to attack them. But if somebody tells you they believe something to be cliché, and you don’t agree, perhaps you ought to dig a little deeper into the genre, just to be sure. Unfortunately, you may find that the idea that you believe to be so original, may not be original at all.

No, Mr. hatter. You are absolutely wrong. I did NOT take a "second look" at my links as they have been the same all along. I used these links to show that HALF of the writing community says it's one way and the other half says the opposite. Had YOU taken a "second look" at those links you would clearly see this.

If someone writes "Their going to the store." In a sentence and someone posts that it should be, "They're going to the store." ...then the OP has just received 100% Constructive Feedback on their writing as this is unarguably true.

However, when there is a split in the writing community as to what is considered "correct format", then you present yourself as a self-absorbed know-it-all who feels their way is correct REGARDLESS of the facts.


As CLEARLY stated earlier, if something is based on "opinion" it does NOT represent the industry standard. It surprises me greatly that you would also succumb to considering your personal formatting opinions as being "Rule of law."

The reason I chose to lower-case the pet names is ONLY because it doesn't matter. Since half say its one way and the other say the opposite, 50% of the people will stand in judgment of my script regardless of which way I choose. Why ? Because like you, Maz and others, you are convinced YOUR personal take is the correct one.

-Birdman

BTW: the main reason I opted for lower case was to get Maz to post up 5 pages of one of HIS scripts. And as I expected (which happens with self-opinionated people) he completely dodged the challenge.

 

[Birdman]

There is nothing wrong with that, just present it in a great context.
The climax of The Fifth Element comes to mind. It's a bit of a reversed version: "Why should I save humanity if they are so cruel?" is answered with love...

Most recent 'alien' who doesn't understand human emotions and interactions must be 'Sheldon' from the Big Bang Theory

Excellent observation (especially noting the 5th Element reversal).

"Understanding emotions" is a cornerstone in the movie industry. Rocky had to deal with "fear" in Rocky III. "For the first time in my life, I'm afraid, okay?" "FEAR" is dealt with in just about every movie ever made. Saying an alien who is forced to deal with strange situations (or emotions) is cliche is a complete and total cop-out. People who feel this way have a personal opinion against scifis and what they are about.

An alien dealing with the idiosyncrasies of human life is NO DIFFERENT than Tom Cruse having to learn all about why a Samurai does what he does in "The Last Samurai". Anyone who excludes a movie genre from exploring the exact same things that are explored in EVERY OTHER GENRE is literally a fool ...and is missing out on a multitude of movie script opportunities.

Lastly:

I HATE "Water Movies". That is my personal opinion. I feel the restrictive environment of a boat out on the water limits the scope of opportunities available in other situations. However, "U571" is an EXCELLENT movie and one of my favorites!

That being said, I'm sure there are many people (and scriptwriters) out there that hate the restrictive nature of a spaceship battle in a SciFi. The idea that two captains battle each other and the action generally takes place on the two bridges (and usually communicating with each other over large display screens) may se "very boring and restrictive".

But really, it's no different than two ships battling it out on the open seas. It's just another way to display the battle and the thought processes that come into play.

So the people who proclaim certain scenarios that display "conflict" or "dealing with one's emotion" in relation to a certain genre as being "cliche" ...are nothing more than fools.

And this is obviously my "opinion". NOBODY should alter their script based on my opinion.

-Birdman

 

[Birdman]

Side note:

Anyone (alien, robot, computer, or just a confused schmuck) who is confused about why people do the things they do, why people express themselves in certain ways, or why people's actions are seemingly contradictory to what would be considered "reasonable" or "logical" are NOT the focal point of the situation.

THEY (and their confusion) are not what is in play!

Rather, they represent a "mirror" as to the problems found within humanity Be it emotions, actions, behaviors, love, hate, war ...the entire human experience.

Someone who says "an alien struggling with understanding humans" is cliche has a myopic view of what they are seeing. Instead of looking at the alien ...they should be looking at themselves. All that alien (or any other confused movie character) is doing is putting humanity on trial. They hold US ALL accountable for our own actions .

I would argue that people who personally dislike these types of scenarios do so because they have serious problems dealing with their own personalities. They find it too painful to see their own inadequacies reflected right back at them from someone who could be considered more "pure" than they are.

-Birdman

 

[mad_hatter]

No, Mr. hatter. You are absolutely wrong. I did NOT take a "second look" at my links as they have been the same all along. I used these links to show that HALF of the writing community says it's one way and the other half says the opposite. Had YOU taken a "second look" at those links you would clearly see this.

I'm not sure I really needed to take a second look, as I was pretty sure I understood the words that were written in those links. But still, I took a second look anyway. Here are some quotes from those links:

LINK 1 - “I don’t know what to tell you, but I use capitol letters for every pet name...” (I guess this is a yes, for capitalization, although they don't sound too sure themselves...)
LINK 2 - “...terms of endearment, when used in place of someone’s name, do not get capitalized: “Will you get that for me, dear?”...”
LINK 3 - “The name of a "vocative" or term of endearment, is usually not capitalized.”
LINK 4 - “No. They're fine as is.”
LINK 5 - “Terms of endearment aren’t capitalized.”
LINK 6 - “According to The Chicago Manual of Style 15th Edition, which applies to book-length fiction and nonfiction, pet names are always lowercased. It gives this example: "Sorry, sweetheart."...”
LINK 7 - “If it is just a generic use of another word, such as "honey" or "baby" or "sweetie" then no...”
LINK 8 - “we don't normally capitalize the name of a "vocative" or term of endearment...”
LINK 9 - "I love you, babe." NOT, "I love you, Babe." (This is from a forum, so the people there are likely only as knowledgeable as you or I...)
LINK 10 - “...if you referred to someone in the third person, calling them darling: 'Well, if Darling thinks so, then...' It should only be lower case in 'You are such a darling.' That would be a common noun.”

So, from my second look, based on those 10 links, I'd say that only 10-20% of writers feel that capitalization is correct. I'd also be inclined to argue that those writers are wrong.



And are you seriously suggesting that the only reason you changed from the way that you believe was perfectly correct and acceptable, was to goad a stranger on an internet forum into posting their own work? If that's true, that's just daft.



Again, the whole thing about the cliché.... It's fine to use clichés; go for it. But you have to understand that it is a cliché and some people wont like that.

...self-absorbed know-it-all who feels their way is correct REGARDLESS of the facts...

Have you ever heard the term “the pot calling the kettle black”?

 

[Birdman]

Hatter, I already anticipated you would make a "percentage" argument in favor of not using caps, so what I will do as soon as I get home is get you five solid links that say "use caps" and five solid links that say "don't use caps". It will be a complete waste of time for me, but some people refuse to see the point.

I wasted my time posing the original links showing there is no set guideline on what to do. You wasted your time researching each one, picking and choosing certain posts that aided your claim and drawing a 20% conclusion. I will further waste time by getting a bunch of links that will bring that percentage up to 50%. Then you can waste more time dissecting some of the percentage arguing they aren't "reliable sources". Then I can waste more time countering with more links that will show more of exactly what I pointed out in the original links.

In the mean time, I have a job for you:

Your job, Mr. hatter, is to surf the internet and find as many links as you possibly can that show the sentence, "Their going to the store." Is perfectly acceptable. I'll even accept 20% of them if you can find them.

In your very next follow-up post I want to see where there is division in the writers community as to the use of the word "Their". Matter of fact, if you can find ONE SINGLE LINK that says that use of the word "Their" is perfectly acceptable, I will openly admit that someone can use "Their" in that way. Got it?

In the mean time, I'll go waste more valuable lifetime balancing out the "percentages" on the other issue that is supposedly "literary science".

-Birdman

P.s. My wife has as Masters in Education. She said the default structure is the one I used in my script. She also said this is a matter of personal choice in most situations. However, a couple of anonymous goons in a script form recollect themselves as "writing gods" and anyone opposed to their " opinion" on the matter simply doesn't like constructive criticism.