First of all, hello! I'm new here. Let's get right to the point! I spent the summer with my cousins in the Bronx. Cursing is part of their vocabulary. They use it as humor also, which gave me an idea for a screenplay. Now..., do I stay true to the character, or is cursing frowned upon. Also, slang. How is that taken.
-
Wondering which camera, gear, computer, or software to buy? Ask in our Gear Guide.
Using curse words
- Thread starter dorio
- Start date
Not at all - not being touchy and not answering my question. I
understand why you liked what she said. I wanted to expand on
that a bit. I find your opinions interesting.
When I said it's fine that you didn't answer my question I meant it
sincerely, respectfully and honestly. Just as I sincerely, respectfully
and honestly meant I'm glad you found someone you agree with
about screenwriting.
I apologize for coming off as touchy or insincere.
Glengary Glenross. Perfect example of a great, classic, classy film that has a LOT of cursing. If used in a setting appropriate, I don't see why it would be frowned upon.
More bizarre theories. In your effort to brainwash them into subservience to anyone who calls themselves a "reader", you're overlooking the only truth that matters. You're completely forgetting the whole reason to write.
It is completely irrelevant who is making the film, you write for one and one alone....
the audience.
Which “audience” are you talking about here? The audience for the finished movie? Or the audience for the screenplay?
The audience for the screenplay is going to be readers, producers, directors, financers, actors, cast and crew. The majority of these people will have no interest in somebody’s written work, if it makes no sense. Poor spelling and grammar is unprofessional, especially as it is so easy to correct and learn. People don’t want to invest their time and money into something that has had such little effort put into, even at the self-funded, micro-budget, indie level. Regardless of whether it’s the most awesome story to ever have been told, who’s going to read through a piece of nonsensical work to find that out? I wouldn’t.
The audience for the finished movie, will not get to see the finished movie, if the screenplay isn’t up to scratch in the first place.
The audience for the movie. The people who are sitting in the theater. There is no other audience. Well, unless you want to count the ones sitting in front of their illegal download, lol
Screenplays don't have an audience. When someone is reading a screenplay they are just another person in the theater. Um, another member of the audience.
Everyone but you, is audience.
You, are, er, lemme see,
oh yeah, the writer. You aren't in the theater. You are in the audiences head.
Screenplays don't have an audience. When someone is reading a screenplay they are just another person in the theater. Um, another member of the audience.
Everyone but you, is audience.
You, are, er, lemme see,
oh yeah, the writer. You aren't in the theater. You are in the audiences head.
Yeah. They be whack, home gurl.
Umm... you think directors, producers, studios, actors, editors, and the MPAA all remotely adhere to the screenplay, don't you?
They don't.
Even writer/directors deviate from their own screenplays due to budgets, locations, and actors.
Consistantly you are failing to acknowledge the difference between a SPECULATIVE screenplay as a piece of literature (which it is not) and as a product.
You can grow your own chickens and use your own poopy eggs for your birthday cake - and that is fine.
You can paint a canvas with heinous BarbieDoll excrement for your own art show - and that is fine.
You can write your own screenplay replete with grammatical fo-paws
to direct yourself - and that is fine.But you cannot sell poopy eggs to the local grocer to market.
You cannot get an art gallery to contract a showing of your heinous BarbieDoll excrement "art".
You cannot get producers assistants and readers to get past page 5 of Yoda-Spanglish screenplays.
You can't.
Just learn grammar.
Use it.
GRAMMAR IS NOT AN IMPEDIMENT
Audience ain't never gonna see the screenplay.
WTH are you talking about?
No one's EVER going to see the film if it never gets made because SOMEBODY was too... "didn't care enough" to learn splellin' un gramer.
Again:
BTW, Are you talking about like... high school kids or adults?
Grammar shouldn't be a barrier to adults.
As I dropped off my kids at school this morning I recall about a decade or two ago when the schools were trying this idea of just getting the kids to write - no matter how AFU it was.
JUST GET 'EM TO WRITE ANYTHING!!!
WE'LL FIX IT IN POST!! (
same principles apply in filmmaking, y'know - catch it right in camera instead of spending four times as much effort "fixing it" in post).And I recall with my oldest that it took a couple years of elementary school to "fix in post" what kindergarten had FUBARed with this new program - subsequently abandoned.
I'm wondering if you're a natural proponent of the "fix it in post" education and filmmaking movement.
Gopherit.
See if that keeps working for you.
It's always good to have several tools in the toolbox, even if one is an example of what happens when you use it.
Umm... 100% wrong.
Screenplays ain't literature.
They're blueprints and filmmakers are general contractors.
If the GC can't read your pig-scribbling screenplay... I mean blueprint, he isn't going to build your house.
There are big fat books of house blueprints, all with fully detailed schedules for everything from framing, electrical, and plumbing.
Screenplay - same thing.
GL & GB
I think I'm done here.
Ray
Last edited:
Yes, that.
And the education reading/writing program that sucked and took years to undo in my kids as well - stupid!
If you write for yourself, bully -- carry on, put it on a shelf and let it collect dust.
If you write for someone else (i.e. an audience in whatever form), break down the simple hurdles for them, like the ability to recognize words (spelling) and have those words paint images in their heads (grammar). As a filmmaker, if I can hide the fact that my viewers are watching a film, I'm successful. If they see the flaws in my craftsmanship, they spend more time thinking about how bad a job I did in my craft than they do thinking about the poignant message I'm trying to deliver.
As I've said many times re: how great your message/story/art is -- If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, who cares?
We make stories to tell to people. There are 3 parts to this equation; the storyteller, the story and the audience. Producer, product and consumer. Without all 3, you fall upon the worst kind of enthymeme.
No one wants their script to be unreadable, but that's how everyone starts out. "Learning grammar" is an irrelevant distraction. It's off track. If you want to be a good screenwriter and to achieve that you're studying grammar, then you're missing the point.
Have you noticed how "wrong" all of my commas are? That's because years of screenwriting have given them the role of pushing movement forward. Not words, ray, movement. Yet, standard grammatical rules will tell you they are wrong, and that's because standard grammatical rules weren't designed for screenwriting.
There are no rules for screenwriting,
Have you noticed how "wrong" all of my commas are? That's because years of screenwriting have given them the role of pushing movement forward. Not words, ray, movement. Yet, standard grammatical rules will tell you they are wrong, and that's because standard grammatical rules weren't designed for screenwriting.
There are no rules for screenwriting,
No, I am just ignorant. No, seriously, I am.
I've never been aware of it. It's not an issue. All writers develop their quirks, they become part of their style. The writing shouldn't involve awareness of the words. I mean, I just don't know any more ways to explain it. It's twisty writing. You sort of have to bend them into the shape of what you're seeing. Often it's in the rereading that you iron it out.
It was someone on a message board who made me aware of the comma issue. pff, of course.
I just consider myself lucky I'd already sold a few scripts before reading the internet. Or I think it would have really messed me up as a writer. I think it would have taken away my confidence.
Maralyn, your use of commas is just fine. I don't know why you, or anybody else, would even mention it as a possible problem.
You have a strong command of the English language. I feel quite confident that any screenplay you write will have an audience that finds it easy to read, "proper" English be damned.
But that ain't the case for everyone in this world. Not everyone is at our level of writing. Many people actually need to adhere to grammatical rules, simply for the sake of being able to effectively communicate an idea.
Spend some time in a public high school classroom; read some of the student's writings, and then tell me that grammar doesn't matter.
It's worth noting that, although you spouse an anarchistic style of writing, your writing is actually very grammatically correct, comparatively speaking.
You have a strong command of the English language. I feel quite confident that any screenplay you write will have an audience that finds it easy to read, "proper" English be damned.
But that ain't the case for everyone in this world. Not everyone is at our level of writing. Many people actually need to adhere to grammatical rules, simply for the sake of being able to effectively communicate an idea.
Spend some time in a public high school classroom; read some of the student's writings, and then tell me that grammar doesn't matter.
It's worth noting that, although you spouse an anarchistic style of writing, your writing is actually very grammatically correct, comparatively speaking.
And it proves that writing a lot just naturally makes your grammar better.
Anyway, I was reading a different thread below. Scary stuff. You're all obviously "arc" believers as well. It's like I've stumbled on some isolated tribe. Or a splinter cell.
Ah ah ah, na, I'm not going to stick around and debate it. Just ... please .... lose that word.
But sticking around and debating is the only thing we're all around here for! What I love most about IndieTalk is everyone is different. Everyone has different filmmaking philosophies and goals. By arc I assume you're talking "Heroic Journey" stuff? Not everyone digs that. Not everyone is in the "splinter cell"...but some people are.
Here's the thing though: storytelling analysis and critique is not about telling you how to do something. It's about seeing what's been done, understanding what works and WHY it works. Once you understand something, you can use it...or not, as you see fit. It's a tool, not a dogma.
Anyway, I do get where you are coming from, by saying "there is a lot more to learn other than use of language". Absolutely agree with that. And I do agree that the number one way to improve any skill is to keep doing it. And it works for you, which is awesome, and the most important thing. To quote the Levellers "there's only one way of life, and that's your own!"
However, on the other hand, there are skills that are improved by drilling fundamentals. Take, for example, composing music. Playing scales on a guitar has absolutely nothing to do with composing music, any more than working on grammar has to do with telling a story. But I can say without a doubt, for me, my WRITING improved a hundredfold after I got in the habit of doing scales every day. It's a purely technical exercise, but it has expanded my skills, rather than made them formulaic. I'm far more likely to "break the rules" in what I write today than I was five years ago, because I understand them better, not only consciously, but subconsciously. Harmonic relationships are in my head better than they were.
I don't know if there's a directly analgous exercise for writers, but it seems like grammar would be it. If not grammar, maybe a considered study of people talking (not just listening, but studying). I agree there's lots to learn about storytelling (or lighting, or audio recording, etc), and that you learn a lot by practical experience. But as an entirely self-taught person with grand ambitions, I also believe in learning as much as possible in as many ways as possible. Nothing you read or learn should (or even can) limit you. Limitations are inexperience (you just can't quite do what you want to) or ignorance (you don't yet know there is a thing that you want to do), both of which can be overcome.
Again, my 2 cents, and no disrespect meant to you or your methods. They're working out for you, and that's what matters!
Wow. Threaten, cajole, insult, condescend, then exit stage right.
An aborigine stumbles from the woods with rings stretching the neck and earlobes touching the shoulders and says that we look strange and we should stop speaking English. The aborigine then demands we adopt some pidgin dialect to suit their fancy and then dances back into the woods. Somehow, I don't think it's the villagers who are to blame. ... Then again neither is the aborigine.
We have a world of diverse cultures that function perfectly well by different internal rules. As Benjamin Whorf illustrated, language, culture, and the interpretation of reality are interdependent.
"We dissect nature along lines laid down by our native languages. The categories and types that we isolate from the world of phenomena we do not find there because they stare every observer in the face; on the contrary, the world is presented in a kaleidoscopic flux of impressions which has to be organized by our minds — and this means largely by the linguistic systems in our minds. We cut nature up, organize it into concepts, and ascribe significances as we do, largely because we are parties to an agreement to organize it in this way — an agreement that holds throughout our speech community and is codified in the patterns of our language... all observers are not led by the same physical evidence to the same picture of the universe, unless their linguistic backgrounds are similar, or can in some way be calibrated" (Language, Thought and Reality pp. 212–214). [from http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Sapir-Whorf_hypothesis]
However you want to define screenplay, screenwriting, storytelling, story/character development ('arcs'), etc. will depend on your group. As a film group, our vocabulary and culture is shared. There is nothing wrong with 'arc' or any other term. They are just words that make it easier in our culture to share and teach. It allows us to debate. Though in the sense above, it helps to have outsiders come in to help unsettle us about what those notions and definitions really mean. Challenge our views of reality to be beyond "just the words". If someone wants to fit into a new culture, they need to learn the language and rules. They may not be as fluent as a native but they can be easily understood.
If you want to be successful in the "film entertainment industry culture", you need to become fluent in its language and customs enough to be taken seriously. Scripts are a lingua franca. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be challenged to think in new ways, explore new worldviews. To me, that is what the heart of independent filmmaking is about--experimenting and pushing understanding.
Tolerance, though, needs to extend in both directions. There is a side that needs to connect to the mainstream, to the popular culture, i.e., the audience. What's successful in Europe isn't necessarily successful in the US and vice versa. Being aboriginal isn't bad. But neither is being a villager. We can learn alot from each other and benefit each other.
Actually, I kind of assumed she was talking about the Arc of the Covenant, cuz I totally believe in that. You have to be sure to avert your gaze when you open it, cuz it'll literally melt your face off.
If, however, she was talking about character arcs, and/or a 3-act arc, well yeah, I believe in that as well. Because it's been working for thousands of years, for thousands of very popular plays, novels and movies. Maralyn, I feel like we've had this debate before. Oh, that's right -- we have; you just felt like beating a dead horse?
Different strokes for different folks, Maralyn. One size don't fit all. I'm glad your method works for you, but I don't think you should feel the need to force it down everyone else's throat.
In the first thread we had this conversation in, you were bashing the formulaic methods of "Save the Cat", and all the many other similar screenwriting methods. In this very thread, you've used your success as proof that your anarchic writing methods are THE way to go, and there's no other method worth a lick of salt. But, are you aware that there have been MANY successful Hollywood films that were written with the Save the Cat method (most recently being "How to Train a Dragon")? So, does that blow a hole in your theory? Or, does it just prove that works for some might not work for others, and we should all find the method that works best for us?
If, however, she was talking about character arcs, and/or a 3-act arc, well yeah, I believe in that as well. Because it's been working for thousands of years, for thousands of very popular plays, novels and movies. Maralyn, I feel like we've had this debate before. Oh, that's right -- we have; you just felt like beating a dead horse?
Different strokes for different folks, Maralyn. One size don't fit all. I'm glad your method works for you, but I don't think you should feel the need to force it down everyone else's throat.
In the first thread we had this conversation in, you were bashing the formulaic methods of "Save the Cat", and all the many other similar screenwriting methods. In this very thread, you've used your success as proof that your anarchic writing methods are THE way to go, and there's no other method worth a lick of salt. But, are you aware that there have been MANY successful Hollywood films that were written with the Save the Cat method (most recently being "How to Train a Dragon")? So, does that blow a hole in your theory? Or, does it just prove that works for some might not work for others, and we should all find the method that works best for us?
Anyway, look, nobody in the real world talks like you. Or thinks like you.
Maybe some guy who wrote a script based on a novel found some book useful in some way....
SO WHAT??
Do think that this book is therefore gospel?
There were probably a lot of things influencing him, maybe he was inspired by the book he was adapting as well. Maybe maybe maybe... bla bla bla, who cares? It's a children's film. Do you want to write children's films? Even if you did, everybody out there likes to be a bit unique. You know, have a bit of individuality in their approach. Express their own... thingie majig. And the conversations they have with each other are about the things that connect them. Stories, ideas, themes....
Nobody in the real world thinks or talks like you people. Nobody.
And the internet arguments are Juuuuuust..... Sssoooooooo .... Boooooooring.
Reeeeaaaaaallllllyyyyy.....Reeeeaaaaaallllyyyyyy...... Boooooooooooring....
Everything always HAS to be reduced to the lowest and most irrelevant common denominator. It's unnatural.
So... whatever. I wish you well.
Maybe some guy who wrote a script based on a novel found some book useful in some way....
SO WHAT??
Do think that this book is therefore gospel?
There were probably a lot of things influencing him, maybe he was inspired by the book he was adapting as well. Maybe maybe maybe... bla bla bla, who cares? It's a children's film. Do you want to write children's films? Even if you did, everybody out there likes to be a bit unique. You know, have a bit of individuality in their approach. Express their own... thingie majig. And the conversations they have with each other are about the things that connect them. Stories, ideas, themes....
Nobody in the real world thinks or talks like you people. Nobody.
And the internet arguments are Juuuuuust..... Sssoooooooo .... Boooooooring.
Reeeeaaaaaallllllyyyyy.....Reeeeaaaaaallllyyyyyy...... Boooooooooooring....
Everything always HAS to be reduced to the lowest and most irrelevant common denominator. It's unnatural.
So... whatever. I wish you well.
Last time I checked, I lived in the real world. I didn't think it was a great movie, but I enjoyed "Train Your Dragon". Yeah, it's primarily a children's movie, but I know a lot of adults who really enjoyed it, much more than I did. Besides, since when is being a children's movie a derogatory statement? To answer your question, yes, I do someday want to make a children's movie. I want to make all sorts of movies, across the spectrum.
Do I think Save the Cat is gospel? Of course not. But I do think there's some great wisdom in it, and I do think that I improved as a screenwriter, after reading it. And you're wrong to passively dismiss the extent to which its methods were used, in the writing of "Train Your Dragon". Save the Cat has a very specific "beat sheet" -- things that must happen in the story, in a particular order. It's very defined, and rather constrictive (too constrictive, in my opinion). The script of "Train Your Dragon" was not just influenced by it -- it strictly followed the prescribed method.
Have any of your scripts made $200mil (domestic)?
That doesn't make your method wrong; I'm not saying that at all. I'm just saying that it's wrong of you to tell us that our method is wrong.