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
Debate, then a proposal -
I've read Sun Tzu, although I am not a chinese warlord.
I've read the Torah, although I am not Jewish.
I've read many things that I don't believe in or agree with. Not agreeing with them does not make me discount them, it adds to my knowledge of the topic at large, but my stance on the topic as well. So blah blah blah Save the cat, blah blah blah character arc... I'd like to see the blah blah blah expanded into a nice syllogistic argument for us to work through and discuss, because I believe it's important to hear all of the dissenting voices, not just shouting, but taking the time to think about their methods and prove their worth to themselves and others.
Intellectual debate (OMG, There's a world outside the internets? I thought this grey void was all of reality) is all there is in here. In the internet, we are not corporeal beings (meat puppets)... we are beings of intellect alone. Language IS here. It is the only representation in a text based medium. Yes, we're biased toward it. Outside this plane, I still feel that the written word is the structural foundation of our society. Spoken words come and go, but once written down, it is codified, immovable and transmittable. Written language doesn't fluctuate as strongly as spoken language.
Since the topic at hand is writing, knowing how to use one's tools becomes very important. It is not the only way... I know a filmmaker who is a bit illiterate, but they use recordings of their voice telling the story as a template for everything they do. They don't have to hand the script to someone else they way they work, and they don't expect that anyone else will ever want to purchase their script. In this paradigm, what they are doing functions perfectly.
They will never expect that anyone else may buy their script. They will never expect that anyone else will be making their stories... if that were the case, this filmmaker wouldn't be pursuing filmmaking.
The formatting and the digestibility of the written script are the ways to get your story to an audience. I see far too many folks assume that because their story is brilliant, that their presentation is irrelevant. They don't understand why no one will even read their script and they blame the "way things are done" or the industry. New writers or not, being able to put together a coherent sentence is REALLY important.
Writing to your audience's expectations is also important. If the writer wants their script read and purchased/optioned/made... they had better learn to target their audience (short term, readers or indie filmmakers) -- including the vernacular they use (see how I just added this bit to tie it into the original topic
), their settings and their characters' journeys. If the end goal is just to put a story on paper, and that's the end product, feel free to do it however one chooses but that's generally not the reason to write a screenplay. There are better formats for that type of writing; specifically novels and short stories. These formats will have a much better chance of meeting an audience as a printed end product than a screenplay, whose formatting is specifically defined to allow for all of the mechanics of production to be able to work from it as a blueprint.
On the topic of arguing a single point or point of view:
When engaged in a debate, I stick to a single talking point at a time to allow the debate to address one thing at a time to stay focussed to facilitate some sort of resolution before moving to the next talking point -- very linear on my part, but effective to the discussion at large. I also strive to have a strong opinion in a debate as that fuels the discussion much more strongly. The discussion is important. I use these debates as the place to shake out the problems with my thoughts and methods. I do so publicly so that others can do the same with their thoughts and methodologies.
We are currently at an interesting crossroads in the filmmaking world. Film as a physical medium is becoming less important/relevant to filmmakers. It is now a format option rather than the only way to make a film. At the beginning of the digital transition, it was also assumed that if you were going for distribution that you needed to perform a film print of the product at the end... also no longer the only option. The filmmaking world is changing and the debate is REALLY IMPORTANT in that process. I won't say that any of us are Lumiere, Eisenstein or Griffith... but they made statements, then tested their hypotheses with projects to see if their arguments held up... here then, is my proposal:
Let's have a script contest. The winner gets mad props. The process works thusly --
1) write a 10 page script
- a)write a 1 paragraph summary of the script (keep this to yourself -- perhaps a 3rd party non-participant type holding on to them all or something)
2) submit for peer review
- a)read the scripts
- b)write a one paragraph summary for each of the scripts
3) in a poll thread that we'll make for the contest once all the submissions are in, vote for the script (not your own) that most closely matches between the writer's paragraph summary and your paragraph summary of their script
The goal is to find out how different writing styles affects the transmission of the story in the writer's head to the reader.
Discuss.
I've read Sun Tzu, although I am not a chinese warlord.
I've read the Torah, although I am not Jewish.
I've read many things that I don't believe in or agree with. Not agreeing with them does not make me discount them, it adds to my knowledge of the topic at large, but my stance on the topic as well. So blah blah blah Save the cat, blah blah blah character arc... I'd like to see the blah blah blah expanded into a nice syllogistic argument for us to work through and discuss, because I believe it's important to hear all of the dissenting voices, not just shouting, but taking the time to think about their methods and prove their worth to themselves and others.
Intellectual debate (OMG, There's a world outside the internets? I thought this grey void was all of reality) is all there is in here. In the internet, we are not corporeal beings (meat puppets)... we are beings of intellect alone. Language IS here. It is the only representation in a text based medium. Yes, we're biased toward it. Outside this plane, I still feel that the written word is the structural foundation of our society. Spoken words come and go, but once written down, it is codified, immovable and transmittable. Written language doesn't fluctuate as strongly as spoken language.
Since the topic at hand is writing, knowing how to use one's tools becomes very important. It is not the only way... I know a filmmaker who is a bit illiterate, but they use recordings of their voice telling the story as a template for everything they do. They don't have to hand the script to someone else they way they work, and they don't expect that anyone else will ever want to purchase their script. In this paradigm, what they are doing functions perfectly.
They will never expect that anyone else may buy their script. They will never expect that anyone else will be making their stories... if that were the case, this filmmaker wouldn't be pursuing filmmaking.
The formatting and the digestibility of the written script are the ways to get your story to an audience. I see far too many folks assume that because their story is brilliant, that their presentation is irrelevant. They don't understand why no one will even read their script and they blame the "way things are done" or the industry. New writers or not, being able to put together a coherent sentence is REALLY important.
Writing to your audience's expectations is also important. If the writer wants their script read and purchased/optioned/made... they had better learn to target their audience (short term, readers or indie filmmakers) -- including the vernacular they use (see how I just added this bit to tie it into the original topic
), their settings and their characters' journeys. If the end goal is just to put a story on paper, and that's the end product, feel free to do it however one chooses but that's generally not the reason to write a screenplay. There are better formats for that type of writing; specifically novels and short stories. These formats will have a much better chance of meeting an audience as a printed end product than a screenplay, whose formatting is specifically defined to allow for all of the mechanics of production to be able to work from it as a blueprint.On the topic of arguing a single point or point of view:
When engaged in a debate, I stick to a single talking point at a time to allow the debate to address one thing at a time to stay focussed to facilitate some sort of resolution before moving to the next talking point -- very linear on my part, but effective to the discussion at large. I also strive to have a strong opinion in a debate as that fuels the discussion much more strongly. The discussion is important. I use these debates as the place to shake out the problems with my thoughts and methods. I do so publicly so that others can do the same with their thoughts and methodologies.
We are currently at an interesting crossroads in the filmmaking world. Film as a physical medium is becoming less important/relevant to filmmakers. It is now a format option rather than the only way to make a film. At the beginning of the digital transition, it was also assumed that if you were going for distribution that you needed to perform a film print of the product at the end... also no longer the only option. The filmmaking world is changing and the debate is REALLY IMPORTANT in that process. I won't say that any of us are Lumiere, Eisenstein or Griffith... but they made statements, then tested their hypotheses with projects to see if their arguments held up... here then, is my proposal:
Let's have a script contest. The winner gets mad props. The process works thusly --
1) write a 10 page script
- a)write a 1 paragraph summary of the script (keep this to yourself -- perhaps a 3rd party non-participant type holding on to them all or something)
2) submit for peer review
- a)read the scripts
- b)write a one paragraph summary for each of the scripts
3) in a poll thread that we'll make for the contest once all the submissions are in, vote for the script (not your own) that most closely matches between the writer's paragraph summary and your paragraph summary of their script
The goal is to find out how different writing styles affects the transmission of the story in the writer's head to the reader.
Discuss.
The thing that's weird about what you're saying is the whole "our" method aspect. The fact that you've collectively adopted a method that you believe worked for one commercial children's writer and will therefore work for you. And the fact that you promote and defend this method with such gusto.
I just think you'd benefit from letting go of that a bit.
And look, I think you people are sweet, quite a few of you are even funny, which, on the internet, is rare. And it is healthy to hang out with other filmmakers and writers, and it's great to get feedback on your pages, and talk about your ideas.
Just maybe loosen up on "the method", that's all. It's invasive and overbearing. Having a method will only take you away from developing your own instincts. Which are ultimately what your survival will depend on.
You should have a short film writing workshop instead. I honestly don't think contests are good for writers. They tell them that they're bad. Which.... I think is bad.
But a workshop would be good. Something that they have to have a finished short done in, say, six weeks.
Start by discussing ideas, possibly outlines, but nothing too detailed, then a rough draft, then some feedback, and from that a finished short. I bet some good scripts would come out of it.
Maralyn, the hero's journey being popular here is due to many discussions we've had here in the past. The end result of those discussions is that it's a very effective method, and even all of the artsy stuff that claims not to adhere to it can be shown to follow it as well. It's really just based on fundamental story telling that has been around as long as fire.
We defend because it's rhetorically stronger for multiple parties in a discussion to have strong opinions... that way, we are forced to think about why we would do things one way or another. It's a debate, not personal.
Prove that there is another approachable method that can be taught to folks (it seems to me the primary reason people end up here is that they are looking for someone to answer a question). I'd love to offer other possible methods here, but the amorphous "just write, it's correct that way" doesn't solve new writer's problems. This particular format of communication (the online topical forum) is generally focussed on finding solutions to problems.
We defend because it's rhetorically stronger for multiple parties in a discussion to have strong opinions... that way, we are forced to think about why we would do things one way or another. It's a debate, not personal.
Prove that there is another approachable method that can be taught to folks (it seems to me the primary reason people end up here is that they are looking for someone to answer a question). I'd love to offer other possible methods here, but the amorphous "just write, it's correct that way" doesn't solve new writer's problems. This particular format of communication (the online topical forum) is generally focussed on finding solutions to problems.
i'm not sure if you can prove that
I'm not sure something is worth pursuing because it's been around that long. Women have been subordinate to men in most cultures, since around the time of fire... not sure if that is a good thing. Religion has been around for..... you get my drift
. I'm kind of kidding, but the point I'm trying to make is that just because it's been around, or because everybody else agrees, is not a good or even interesting reason to do somethingWhat is the problem of the new writer? Is s/he trying to perfect a method, or is he desperately trying to put down on paper the story that wants to explode out of his head? What method should he follow? What does a method or an arc have to do with the story in the writer's head. If the story inside his/her head has an arc, great. If it doesn't, then it doesn't.
If you get the chance, pick up a copy of Larry McMurtry's All my friends are going to be strangers. That book, doesn't need anything. It doesn't need an arc, a plot, or for the protagonist to learn anything. It's just a fantastic read. Maybe it's not for everybody. But I liked it. Maybe it follows some method. I should read it again. But I remember thinking at the time I read it that it was just a bunch of things that happen to someone. There's no point to the story. At least I couldn't find one. But I loved it.
Method is not necessary. Someone who wants to tell a story, will find a way to effectively express him/herself.
Last edited:
I appreciate what you are both saying but stop using you (plural) and we (collective). This group holds many diverse opinions. I don't personally agree with "Save the Cat" as definitive, though I think it is helpful and instructive for new writers. So being labelled as either "one of those guys" or "one of us" doesn't really fit my style. Please speak only for your own preferences and not globally stereotype the whole group.
I'm not sure how you fit Koyaanosqatsi into the hero's journey. And there are other story motifs if you examine Asian, African, and North American folktales. The Heroine's Journey as mentioned in the book "Women who Run with Wolves" has differences. And please don't mention Disney heroines! There is the Anti-Hero's Journey. And non-linear stories totally skew the linear story type. Even older movies (pre-1970) tend to have freer, non HJ story structures. The more broadly you read scripts and stories, the more you realize there's more out there than just the hero's journey. It is simply easy to teach thanks, in part, to Joseph Campbell. So most gurus follow it. That's not wrong since that is the purpose, instruction. But once a student has mastered that basic form, they should read and experiment and move on.
I agree that there shouldn't be a strong adherence on any particular guru. While I often cite Michael Hauge, I don't write that way. However, for someone who is first learning the craft, it is helpful to have some beat sheet or guidelines. It's like training wheels when first learning to ride a bike. It gives a bit of security and reduces bruised knees.
I agree that most of the posts here are seeking solutions or feedback. And often the feedback received is shaded by personal experiences. Some things cannot be proven as what works for one person doesn't work for another. For me, I have to 'customize' what I say to the particular person I'm working with. In an online medium, you don't always have that luxury of know that person. Directorik was very patient answering a question in another thread. We have a few posters that try the patience of other contributors here. Without the benefit of hearing the tone of deliver, written words are sterile and can be misinterpreted. Sometimes even just finding a solution is difficult since the question is misunderstood. And some contributors seem to argue against every suggestion that's made only further heightening tensions. I don't think that's intentional, it's just the way it comes across.
Rather than 'prove' I'd offer 'provide'. But there will always be others to challenge that as well. I'd only ask that instead of everyone labelling other people's techniques as 'bad' or 'wrong' or 'misguided' or whatever, we entertain, even slightly, that it works well for them. And instead of being prescriptive--"This is what you must do.", be suggestive--"This has helped me and might work for you. Try it."
The competition and workshop approach both suggest "There is a right way!". I don't believe there is a single 'royal road' to the perfect screenplay or story.
I laugh that there are writers who believe that all literature can be broken down into twenty or so plots. There are some on this group, and I apologize. Perhaps it's true and Spock was right about IDIC--"Infinite diversity through Infinite Combination". It's very reductionist. I do believe that there are a core set of experiences we share throughout life--love, rivalry, hate, passion, grief, loss, success, jealousy, etc. But I'd be very conceited to think that I can ennumerate them. The same with stories and screenplays. "This transition has to be here and represent this in order for ..." That's pompous. And good directors and screenwriters prove that all the time by breaking the 'rules'. No, we don't see it in Hollywood releases, but we do see them in independent films. But as pointed out, they know what the 'rules' are and break them with good effect knowing how to make the violation seem natural. That is class. Much as Mozart did in his "Musical Joke" breaking rules of counterpoint and voicing. And early modern composers like Stravinsky and Scriabin using 'unnatural' harmonies. Art is about breaking rules, but which rules?
So having a competition raises "Whose rules will be used to judge?" The atonal music would not fare well in Beethoven's court. A writing workshop raises "What rules must be used to assess what is being taught and learned?" If anything is "art" then is there a reason to teach? Is anything "not art"? How does one know? And in the dilemma is evoked a "rule" of some kind to distinguish "art" from "non-art". And that distinction goes back to what I mentioned previously, it is agreed upon as a group--cultural.
I didn't mean to ramble, but I see this thread rumbling in a way that cannot be logically resolved if the goal is to prove one or the other is "right". And certainly to assume that everyone reading here is "camp Edward" or "camp Jacob" is inaccurate. I'm decidedly independent. I'm much more Underworld.
I'll address the bits directed at me:
1) WE have had discussions. The hero's journey is an effective storytelling method. I made no WE based judgements in that statement (not offended or angry, just pointing it out). I'm trying to be very careful to only make factual assertions on the part of WE, since I don't speak for everyone's opinion/viewpoint/what have you.
2) Provide would be a much better word... that was bad word choice on my part.
3) I was hoping the result of the competition would be to test storytelling style effectiveness, not to resolve definitively that there is one way to do it. I'm really interested if there are other strong ways to make stories reach the reader/viewer.
1) WE have had discussions. The hero's journey is an effective storytelling method. I made no WE based judgements in that statement (not offended or angry, just pointing it out). I'm trying to be very careful to only make factual assertions on the part of WE, since I don't speak for everyone's opinion/viewpoint/what have you.
2) Provide would be a much better word... that was bad word choice on my part.
3) I was hoping the result of the competition would be to test storytelling style effectiveness, not to resolve definitively that there is one way to do it. I'm really interested if there are other strong ways to make stories reach the reader/viewer.
I appreciate that clarification. In some of these exchanges it was unclear to me when 'we' meant "the group has discussed ..." vs. "the group has agreed ...". You are absolutely right that on various threads we have re-hashed these issues again (and again ... and again). I agree that it is an effective method, just not the only method. I've been surprised by shorts that are very innovative.
I know what you mean as a member of this 'culture' but I also think you need to examine what you're saying. "Effective" measured how? By what standard? Competition necessarily implies judgment based on criteria. Which criteria? Strong compared to ...? What determines 'strong' vs. 'weak'? Might Tarantino be a 'weak' writer depending on the criteria? Why do the awards go so often to dramas rather than comedies? Is dramatic writing somehow 'stronger'?
I'm not trying to be critical, I greatly appreciate your posts AND your willingness to openly examine these. The points you make get to the very heart of the issue raised by Maralyn. I appreciate that Maralyn stepped forward and asked the group to examine screenplays as more than words. I don't completely agree with that, but it did require me to think. Until we developed measuring instruments, we didn't know about UV light or radiation. Magnetism and electricity were 'magic'. And, by some doctrines, branded heretical and evil. How do we measure the illusive nature of "strong" vs. "weak", "good" vs. "bad" or "effective"? For the Greeks, that which was beatiful was good. And not to string too many cliches, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The Hero's Journey is fine but overused, it becomes a cookie cutter. Lots of great tales can be woven with it as a backdrop. It doesn't limit creativity in my mind. I just happen to see more out there.
The short shared by LasVegasIRA with the man with the bomb inside his chest is hard to fit into the HJ. He awakens, panics, seeks help and escape, finding none, he resigns himself and explodes. It's a one person shot. There's no mentors, helpers no twists and turns in the prescribed sense. It's pure tension. Many of Hitchcock's movies make use of the same tension. Some of his films don't readily fall into the Hero's Journey. I've seen some horror shorts which violate the Hero's journey but very well done. Though I would agree that it has three phases/acts/what-have-you: thesis, antithesis, synthesis. It has a structure with transitions distinct from the story motif. (Yes, I know you hate that word Rayw.)
I agree that it is a marvelous device. And "Save the Cat" is a great starting point for someone wanting to learn the craft. But anyone serious about screenwriting will want to go beyond that. Read more. Watch more. Write more. Listen more. Live more. It's needed to enrich your writing.
You can be a filmmaker with a Sony Handycam. Taking home pictures, using your home computer's software to edit them, add titles, maybe add some audio. You can even post it to Youtube or Facebook. And some of them ARE impressively good. They go viral! Most of the viral posts don't follow the Hero's Journey (henceforth HJ). Is 'viral' considered 'strong' or 'weak'? Anyway. That's a great start, but if you're really serious about filmmaking, you take a couple classes or study books. Test the theory by shooting movies with multiple cameras, angles, etc. You get a better camera. Learn about lighting and sound. Maybe get AfterEffects. Maybe upgrade to FinalCut, Premiere or SonyVegas. You push yourself to excel. And you play without worrying about the consequences. If you like it, you share it and get feedback from other filmmakers and the audience.
"Save the Cat" is the screenwriter's Sony Handycam and Videoworks. It's a great place to start and can get good results. As NickClapper mentioned a while back in another thread, reliance on the HJ tends to create a uniform structure so that the viewer can look at the clock and know what to expect next. It seems every kid's movie has to have a maudlin moment where the mom/dad/grandparent/etc. dies/leaves/etc. And depending on whether they live, they come back in the last 5-10 minutes. Why? Because the mentor always abandons the hero when most needed or after teaching the lesson needed. I like movies that don't allow you to sit back and be lulled. I don't think 'twists' should only happen at the end! Beyond linear stories, are non-linear stories and interwoven stories. Blake is screenwriting 101.
"Buried" was a gripping read. The movie had Ryan Reynolds. I never saw the movie. There's no HJ evident in the tense psychological drama. It does have some classic transitions. It argues for what I believe--that story motif (HJ) is separate from the act structure. That overlaps with what Blake, Hauge, Ackerman, and others teach. Mysteries, crime and horror generally (not all) don't use the HJ but continue to follow a structured development. In writing TV episodes, I follow an act structure, not a story motif. It's possible to force fit anything, so I'm sure some will disagree and say I'm deluded and channel HJ unconsciously. But there's an awful lot of TV without HJ. Oops, are those stories "strong" or "weak"? See, it's really not a nice predicament that Maralyn has cast us into.
Anyway, that's another thread and has NOTHING to do with "Is it okay to have swearing in my script?"
I mean no disrespect, Knightly. I DO agree that Blake provides good guidance. I also grasp Maralyn's point that we can't be too rigid in thinking that a beginning text defines the whole arena of screenwriting or use it to label "good"/"bad" or "weak"/"strong". But between the two of you, my synthesis is that beginners need something to help them get started which is culturally judged as good. But writers also need to be encouraged to innovate.
Bob Ross taught to make "happy little clouds" and guided absolute beginners to create beautiful pictures. Blake (and others) teaches how to make "happy little scenes" into beautiful screenplays. They can still be attractive creations. It's just a question of how many waterfalls and forest scenes do I need hanging in my living room? What if I want to be a cubist or pointillist or, heaven forbid, ABSTRACT!
Climbing off the soapbox.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raXanYjTF18
It's a great soapbox and well structured statement
My yardstick for the "competition"/"experiment" was specifically based on the argument that you may have a great story, but based on how you present it, it could fail to communicate the story you wanted to the audience (whether that be the person reading the script, or a potential producer thereof).
So the success wouldn't necessarily be making the most compelling story, but communicating the story through the use of disparate styles... potentially even the same story premise from different mouths to see how they differ... although I do realize that the argument being made by Maralyn is to not staunch the creativity of new writers by stomping the grammar nazi jack boots all over their new beloved script.
This debate has brought me to examine my own perceptions of story based on presentation... and as a scientist, I thought an experiment would be a good way to put my hypothesis to the test. The difficult part with the challenge would be eliminating as many variables as possible.
I'm glad this thread has raised good debate as well... I love a good strong debate, especially with really good argument counter arguments riding right along that edge of everyone throwing their hands up... that's when the analytical magic happens
My yardstick for the "competition"/"experiment" was specifically based on the argument that you may have a great story, but based on how you present it, it could fail to communicate the story you wanted to the audience (whether that be the person reading the script, or a potential producer thereof).
So the success wouldn't necessarily be making the most compelling story, but communicating the story through the use of disparate styles... potentially even the same story premise from different mouths to see how they differ... although I do realize that the argument being made by Maralyn is to not staunch the creativity of new writers by stomping the grammar nazi jack boots all over their new beloved script.
This debate has brought me to examine my own perceptions of story based on presentation... and as a scientist, I thought an experiment would be a good way to put my hypothesis to the test. The difficult part with the challenge would be eliminating as many variables as possible.
I'm glad this thread has raised good debate as well... I love a good strong debate, especially with really good argument counter arguments riding right along that edge of everyone throwing their hands up... that's when the analytical magic happens
I find these topics interesting. As to the use of profanity in screenplays, I agree that it depends upon the particular screenplay and the character (s) being portrayed. For example, I have one screenplay that has fairly extensive vulgarity in it. That flick is intended to be rated R with unrated bits for the DVD (yes, I'm hoping for theatrical distribution). On the other hand, I have a screenplay that has no profanity in it at all (I may add some in the beginning to illustrate the MC's transformation through the film) and that one is intended for a PG rating. They are very different flicks with characters that could not be much more different.
As for whether or not words are important in a screenplay, it depends upon how you see the film being made. If you are a one person show that is going to do everything yourself, you don't even need a screenplay as such. You could set up your camera in whatever location you chose and just behave as you imagined the action happening in your mind. Is that form any less valid than a major studio motion picture with a cast of hundreds and a crew of thousands? Hell no. Are you likely to get widespread commercial distribution? Hell no, but... maybe. If you are writing a screenplay with the intention of selling to/making it through a studio, you had better follow the conventions set up by the industry as applied by the gate keepers of the studio system (screeners) who are inundated with sub-par spec scripts every day and who are looking for any reason to throw your hard work into the garbage. Things like improper grammar, incorrect use of punctuation and poor spelling are considered hallmarks of amateur writers and, as such, give the screener that excuse to dump your manuscript into the circular file. Sure, if you (in the general non-personal use of the word) have connections to someone who has connections to one or more decision makers, you can get any turd produced, but if that were the case you would likely be on location instead of this forum. The way I see it, getting a screenplay sold is hard enough without saddling yourself with unnecessary obstacles.
But, what the hell do I know, I'm just some schmuck sitting behind a keyboard.
As for whether or not words are important in a screenplay, it depends upon how you see the film being made. If you are a one person show that is going to do everything yourself, you don't even need a screenplay as such. You could set up your camera in whatever location you chose and just behave as you imagined the action happening in your mind. Is that form any less valid than a major studio motion picture with a cast of hundreds and a crew of thousands? Hell no. Are you likely to get widespread commercial distribution? Hell no, but... maybe. If you are writing a screenplay with the intention of selling to/making it through a studio, you had better follow the conventions set up by the industry as applied by the gate keepers of the studio system (screeners) who are inundated with sub-par spec scripts every day and who are looking for any reason to throw your hard work into the garbage. Things like improper grammar, incorrect use of punctuation and poor spelling are considered hallmarks of amateur writers and, as such, give the screener that excuse to dump your manuscript into the circular file. Sure, if you (in the general non-personal use of the word) have connections to someone who has connections to one or more decision makers, you can get any turd produced, but if that were the case you would likely be on location instead of this forum. The way I see it, getting a screenplay sold is hard enough without saddling yourself with unnecessary obstacles.
But, what the hell do I know, I'm just some schmuck sitting behind a keyboard.
I'm not going to write a dissertation as the posters above have done, just say
And why so many hero's journey discussions? Because there's lots of truth to it. Franky, I think it's the definitive method. Everyone should read Kal Bashir's more than 2000+ stage version. You won't get better insights. It converted me.
And why so many hero's journey discussions? Because there's lots of truth to it. Franky, I think it's the definitive method. Everyone should read Kal Bashir's more than 2000+ stage version. You won't get better insights. It converted me.
Sometimes the dissertations can be a good thing
FantasySciFi has taken a lot of his time to give us a piece of his mind. If you read it carefully, there's a lot one can glean off what he has to say. So I'll thank him for some of us.
Your pithiness is appreciated of course
Fuck me.
Have we not already beat this
goddam
It's like killing Boris "the Blade"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53szBDUt7kM
"The word
"fuck"
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0208092/trivia?tab=tr&item=tr0768668
Last edited:
Nah, youRight. Because no successful film has ever had an F-bomb in it...
fucking
fuck
Aren't you
fucking
You mean "Because no successful
fucking
fuckin'
"There.
That's
fuckin'
LMFAO!
The problem with the books is that they inhibit story. By definition. They look at story from the outside in, instead of from the inside out. So that as a tool, they shape and cap the story before it's even begun.
They annihilate storytelling dimensions, such as instinct and inspiration, and reduce the process to a simple equation.
Save the cat went viral because it seemed like it had easy solutions to complex problems. But there are no easy answers to complex problems. Only the illusion.
You have to suffer for it. You have to go there, and suffer through it.
And I can tell you, the life of an indie screenwriter is a life of pure hell. Even when you're successful. It is fraught with immeasurable anguish and despair. As well as that, you need to have the patience of a saint. Because you, are the plughole for all of THEIR suffering as well as your own, and you have to grin and bear it.
All I'm suggesting is that you don't preach these formulas, unless they have brought you success.
The road is hard enough, you'll only make it more wretched for yourselves and each other by getting waylaid with these soulless formulas and rules. You are robbing yourselves of the journey of discovery, which is the only one that will take you anywhere.
They annihilate storytelling dimensions, such as instinct and inspiration, and reduce the process to a simple equation.
Save the cat went viral because it seemed like it had easy solutions to complex problems. But there are no easy answers to complex problems. Only the illusion.
You have to suffer for it. You have to go there, and suffer through it.
And I can tell you, the life of an indie screenwriter is a life of pure hell. Even when you're successful. It is fraught with immeasurable anguish and despair. As well as that, you need to have the patience of a saint. Because you, are the plughole for all of THEIR suffering as well as your own, and you have to grin and bear it.
All I'm suggesting is that you don't preach these formulas, unless they have brought you success.
The road is hard enough, you'll only make it more wretched for yourselves and each other by getting waylaid with these soulless formulas and rules. You are robbing yourselves of the journey of discovery, which is the only one that will take you anywhere.
Humm. Interesting. In my humble opinion if reading a book destroys your creativity, then how creative are you really?
One of my favorite F-bomb scenes from Planes, Trains and Automobiles…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWRxPDhd3d0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWRxPDhd3d0
Right. Because no successful film has ever had an F-bomb in it...