Syd Field is offering courses on screenwriting, and his wikipaedia entry refers to him as a guru, but I don't know how good he really is. Does anyone know?
-
Wondering which camera, gear, computer, or software to buy? Ask in our Gear Guide.
Who is Syd Field?
- Thread starter Aspiring Mogul
- Start date
Well said.I included a link to his production credits on my first post - not impressive for a 'guru', check the dates too - old stuff:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0276055/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1
The most talented people in the business most often make the worse teachers because they don't know how to impart their knowledge to others.
Those with a gift for teaching are most often not the best in the field that they teach.
The fact that Syd Field is a script consultant for major Hollywood studios is enough for me to take classes with him.
Those with a gift for teaching are most often not the best in the field that they teach.
The fact that Syd Field is a script consultant for major Hollywood studios is enough for me to take classes with him.
When it comes to writers, the person you would have the highest hopes to be a guru can very well be the most boring antisocial recluse in the world.
In film, rules have been broken everywhere, from lighting to editing and Screenwriting is no exception.
But first, you have to master the rules so you can tell when to break them. In my own view, most successful stories are plotted against the 3-act structure if scrutinized.
The writers will always break the rule only to mend it somewhere in the story.
Syd Field is a great shot and I have read his works most in my career. There is no reason for you not to get familiar with the 3-Act. Matter of fact you have everything to gain and nothing to lose.
For writers like me who do spec scripts quite a lot, it becomes too expensive for me to stray away from the rules - and am quite safe when aware that i am doing so.
REMEMBER, THE OLD RULES WILL ALWAYS BE DIEHARDS. You can manage to break a few but it takes quite a lot to break all of them and still stand undisputed.
SYD FIELD IS A GREAT SHOT FOR ANY ONE WHO IS SOMEONE IN THIS GAME.
But first, you have to master the rules so you can tell when to break them. In my own view, most successful stories are plotted against the 3-act structure if scrutinized.
The writers will always break the rule only to mend it somewhere in the story.
Syd Field is a great shot and I have read his works most in my career. There is no reason for you not to get familiar with the 3-Act. Matter of fact you have everything to gain and nothing to lose.
For writers like me who do spec scripts quite a lot, it becomes too expensive for me to stray away from the rules - and am quite safe when aware that i am doing so.
REMEMBER, THE OLD RULES WILL ALWAYS BE DIEHARDS. You can manage to break a few but it takes quite a lot to break all of them and still stand undisputed.
SYD FIELD IS A GREAT SHOT FOR ANY ONE WHO IS SOMEONE IN THIS GAME.
But he's not really is he...
His website has a few cool quotes from good writers who credit his books as helping them. That's good and positive. But if he was a really used as a script consultant by major Hollywood studios he would have the IMDB credits to say so. At least some thanks, or co-writer credits.
I looked him up on the Writers Guild of America website, he does't even have an agent. If he's important in Hollywood, he would be repped by WME, CAA or one of the other tier one agencies.
My point is be very wary regarding these 'script gurus' and 'guru script consultants'. Most are a cruel joke who charge big bucks and have zero screenwriting credits.
Syd Field's a respected screenwriting teacher and his classes are not crazy-prices. That's cool but screenwriting has changed a huge amount since his screenwriting credits - in the 1960s.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0276055/
Last edited:
Syd is the real deal.
When you listen to him talk you are learning from his great experience of working with the studios and how theywant thinks done.
That's why the studios call him.
Also, when you get to know studio people, there is a lot they do that doesn't even show up on IMDB.
His lectures and books are aimed to teach screenwriting to beginners. You don't teach calculus until you've taught basic math skills. Writing non-linear stories is advanced screenwriting, not for beginners. Having had to read many beginner scripts, they are lucky to understand the 3-Act structure adequately.
I always suggest that writers consult lots of sources and glean from them what works best for their learning styles. I guarantee that despite Snyder's popularity, following STC will not produce a non-linear storyline. The use of flashback to develop non-linear narratives in film is not new. And to assert that the basics of structure, story and dialogue have changed so radically from the inception of motion pictures is debatable. What is true is that the formatting has become more standardized. Anyone who reads scripts across the decades will see a decided change in format and presentation styles.
Since 'guru' is literally 'teacher', I don't see a problem with the term as applied. Snyder, Field, McKee, Trottier, Hauge, et al. provide approaches that work well for different students. Snyder has two feature films, both with co-writers. McKee has one feature and several television episodes. I know someone quoted John August as a resource. His opinion of the non-linear films like Memento, etc. was summed up in his statement: "I find that non-linear structure is often just a flashy trick to disguise bad storytelling, or worse, a boring plot." I guess he's also behind the times.
Rather than disparage teachers, I think it's important to weigh the messages they deliver. Syd's approach is more open/less restrictive in approaching the 3 Act structure. You could read Linda Aronson's book on non-linear scripts. So many new writers get hung up on "act", "arc", "turning point", etc. These are just convenient names for ideas to help teach and organize the process of writing, just as "fraction" or "percent" are terms for ideas of working with portions. In practical screenwriting, you reach a point where you don't think about it, it's automatic.
I think Field's ideas are relevant and offer a way of looking at screenwriting which is not quite so formulaic. Grab his book from the library (free!) and read it. Do the same with Snyder and the rest. Read successful screenplays (free!) on the Internet. The aim of every teacher is to get you to understand the basics so you can then go out and learn by doing. Find what works for you and start writing.
I always suggest that writers consult lots of sources and glean from them what works best for their learning styles. I guarantee that despite Snyder's popularity, following STC will not produce a non-linear storyline. The use of flashback to develop non-linear narratives in film is not new. And to assert that the basics of structure, story and dialogue have changed so radically from the inception of motion pictures is debatable. What is true is that the formatting has become more standardized. Anyone who reads scripts across the decades will see a decided change in format and presentation styles.
Since 'guru' is literally 'teacher', I don't see a problem with the term as applied. Snyder, Field, McKee, Trottier, Hauge, et al. provide approaches that work well for different students. Snyder has two feature films, both with co-writers. McKee has one feature and several television episodes. I know someone quoted John August as a resource. His opinion of the non-linear films like Memento, etc. was summed up in his statement: "I find that non-linear structure is often just a flashy trick to disguise bad storytelling, or worse, a boring plot." I guess he's also behind the times.
Rather than disparage teachers, I think it's important to weigh the messages they deliver. Syd's approach is more open/less restrictive in approaching the 3 Act structure. You could read Linda Aronson's book on non-linear scripts. So many new writers get hung up on "act", "arc", "turning point", etc. These are just convenient names for ideas to help teach and organize the process of writing, just as "fraction" or "percent" are terms for ideas of working with portions. In practical screenwriting, you reach a point where you don't think about it, it's automatic.
I think Field's ideas are relevant and offer a way of looking at screenwriting which is not quite so formulaic. Grab his book from the library (free!) and read it. Do the same with Snyder and the rest. Read successful screenplays (free!) on the Internet. The aim of every teacher is to get you to understand the basics so you can then go out and learn by doing. Find what works for you and start writing.