 |
|
|
|
Tuesday, January 30, 2007 |
|
Get Your Instapitch On... |
|
|
|
From Red Right Hand. Great stuff to inspire and delight.
Oh, and the Doctor Who stuff? I don't get it. But it sounds like a cool episode.
- E.
INSTAPITCH™ (THE TRAVEL EDITION)
In which I promise to get to a point...
Something I read in a very old book has stuck with me through my excuse for a writing career and it's something I keep very much in the front of my mind, next to the big box of those hooking monkeys.
The book in question is The Trouble With Tribbles by David Gerrold and it's the story of how that famous episode of Star Trek happened, from young David deciding he wants to be a writer all the way through through production and the aftermath of the tribble phenomena and the initial rumblings of organized Star Trek fandom. My copy is yellowed and is a seventh printing from 1976, but it's an intriguing look inside the brain of a young writer in a television world that has changed a lot while not changing at all.
The first chapter is about opportunity knocking and that when it does, you better be able to answer the door. Better yet, if you can, have the coffee made and hot and snacks on a tray. That's why I keep my spec pile rotating. I like to have a lot of different things ready to go at any time.
Sometimes, opportunity comes in different ways. you never know who you're going to meet and waht they're going to ask for? Can you think on your feet? Can you pitch something at the drop of a hat if you had to?
Occasionally, I like to exercise my brain a bit by coming up with one pitch for every show I watch, preferably in just a couple of minutes each. It's a good brain stretch for a short drive to pick up some beer and hardcore porn, or in my case, soda and funny books.
You don't have to work it all out. Just a little more than a log line's worth. And be hard on yourself. Is it cool or did you just barf up something to beat the clock? Honestly, my Instapitch™ to myself for an episode of Shark was met with a rolling of my eyes at...myself. It sucked, I moved on.
It's fun because it lets you put a little thought to some shows that are "unspeccable" or not spec worthy. Last night, I did one for Doctor Who (foreign show, no good for the spec) "The Forty-Four Doctors" in which The Doctor must convince The Mighty and Dread Confederation of the Sanguinary Obliton, in essence a "murder galaxy" (population: 500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 very angry rubber-suited monsters (of which there'd only be three or four rubber suits and a lot of cut and paste)), that there is something worse in the universe than them and they're looking at it. Can he destroy an entire galaxy bent on killing everything in sight? How will he do it (hint: here)? What toll will the contemplation of such genocide take on him? Blah, blah blah. Total time thinking about this: From here to the Boston Market for meatloaf (and a lot of that was coming up with the name Mighty and Dread Confederation of the Sanguinary Obliton). Not on the way back. That was the unpleasantness with Shark.
I can only imagine how ridiculous that sounds to someone not familiar with the peculiarities of Doctor Who. Or how ridiculous it sounds to those who do. Anyway, I'm setting that one free...to the wild.
A little test of speed, style and other stuff. You can even do it with old shows if you so desire. Who knows? You might stumble over something you can use somewhere else.
BTW, this whole thing of being ready when opportunity knocks relates to the hand-wringing I've seen of late in reference to Jane Espenson's post about writing spec pilots. It's one agent she spoke with recommending anything but specs to be used as writing samples. And even if something original opens the door, they may want something else after its opened. Do both. Be ready for all eventualities. Go to war with the army you've got, and make sure that army is the one you want. Y'know?
Still working out the kinks of a Heroes spec, but I think I know how to do it now.Labels: market, pitching, plot, Red Right Hand
Posted by
scribosphere @
2:00 PM |
|
|
|
|
Monday, January 15, 2007 |
|
Eric's POV - Writing: An Emotional Freefall |
|
|
|
Writing: An Emotional FreefallPOSTED BY ERIC ANDRADE OVER AT Eric's POV.
Having a great technique can literally catapult you to the top of your profession. It's true in acting. It's true in massage therapy. It's true in advertising. So it is also true in screenwriting. And these techniques can be taught. They have to do with breaking down the story, breaking down the character, breaking down the scenes, and you can find great techniques for your writing from him and him and him and her.
However...
Nothing and NO ONE can teach you how to let go. And if you're a writer like I'm a writer than I suspect you might know what I'm talking about. There are necessary points in your work that you really need to be able to understand what your protagonist, antagonist or ANGRY BARKEEP #1 is feeling.
Not thinking: FEELING.
And if you're any kind of writer, you probably like your role as the omniscient, detached, non-interventionst overlord.
But it may kill your script.
You have to be able to get in there when your boy is beaten down; the girl has left him; he's just come in from the pouring rain to a ransacked apartment; his cat ran away; there's a message on the machine from his mother telling him that his father finally succumbed to the cancer...and CRY with him.
Or laugh with him. I'm not sure what he would do there. You're the writer.
I don't know your life.
But I do know that if you can't empathize with your characters feelings in some way when they are sloshing through the hell that you have created for them to test their limits: then you aren't really testing yours. And your characters may seem flat and uninspired.
I'm challenging you to try to go there a little more. I'm not saying to go out and recreate those scenes with you as the main character in real life. Hell no. And I'm not suggesting that you confine yourself to writing what you know. What you are comfortable within your own skin.
I'm asking to write what you KNOW. You have the same set of emotions—the same range of emotions—that I do, and that we all have. And at some point in your life, you've probably been exposed to them. And since you're a writer, you've probably closed yourself off from them. But you know them. You've been introduced.
Rip off that bandage. Get some air in there. Feel that pain just a little bit.
Give your characters what they need: emotion.
Good luck.
//Eric Andrade
Read/Post Comments
Categories: [characters_] [plot_] [action_]Labels: action, characters, Erics POV, plot
Posted by
scribosphere @
3:20 AM |
|
|
|
|
Thursday, January 11, 2007 |
|
Unknown Screenwriter - Handle Character Conflict |
|
|
|
How do your characters handle conflict?POSTED BY UNK OVER AT The Unknown Screenwriter.
But before I go back to characters… LOL.
A big thanks to those of you posting links to articles at Screenwriting Scoop! Almost 4,000 unique visitors so far and the tracker has some pretty impressive internet connections taking a look but I want to thank everyone for checking it out… I hope it doesn’t take ANYTHING away from your writing. By the way, if you can think of a category we might need, just let me know. And to answer the 20 plus emails to those of you who keep wondering what my ulterior motive is for tossing up the site… There isn’t any. Geez. I don’t need money. I’m not selling anything. So suspicious! But that’s okay… I still thank you for the thought… LOL. Kay. I’ve been up all night on this rewrite and I really don’t have time for a huge post but while I’ve been working, I keep wondering about the things my characters keep doing… Some surprise me… Some don’t. The ones that don’t are because these are the things I want my characters to do. By the way… Let me get a little off track… Great stuff in the Scribosphere lately and a lot being blogged about on characters! Love seeing that! Real quick before I head back to rewrite Hell… I have a word processing document that I add to every so often when one of my characters handles conflict in a new way than any of my characters have handled it before… Some of you might think it’s kinda stupid… If so, please feel free to stop reading. LOL. On the other hand, I thought it might actually be of some help to those of you that just can’t get your characters out of BORING MODE. The following list is by no means exhaustive… Please feel free to add your own to the comments section… I think we can all benefit from different perspectives. One of the things that I’ve done with MY list is to develop it into OUTLINE style. This makes it real easy for me to add new bullets under specific headings or categories. What I like about having a list at hand is that every once in a while, you get stuck, right? Okay, maybe not. I sure as hell do — and when I do, I like breaking out my list because it helps me brainstorm even more ideas… So… Without further delay… Here’s the list:
To see the list, follow this link.
//Unk
Categories: [characters_] [plot_] [action_] [ideas_]Labels: action, characters, ideas, plot, Unk
Posted by
scribosphere @
2:37 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
John August - Clarification on point one |
|
|
|
Clarification on point onePOSTED BY JOHN AUGUST OVER AT JohnAugust.
In my previous post on How to write a scene, I wrote that the first question a screenwriter should ask is, “What needs to happen in this scene?” Not only that…
Many screenwriting books will tell you to focus on what the characters want. This is wrong. The characters are not responsible for the story. You are. If characters were allowed to control their scenes, most characters would chose to avoid conflict, and movies would be crushingly boring. As I typed this, I anticipated a sea of hands shooting into the air, a chorus of But! But! Buts! So I added a lengthy disclaimer in which I wrote about terms like “character driven” and “character motivation.” But then I decided to cut it, just to get the reaction: John, are you fucking retarded? A character must act his character not what’s most convenient for you. — Chris Now that Chris has lectured the professional screenwriter on the craft, we can take a look at why I stand by my point.
To take a look at the clarification, follow this link.
//John August
Categories: [plot_] [characters_] [action_]
Labels: action, characters, John August, plot
Posted by
scribosphere @
2:15 PM |
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, January 09, 2007 |
|
John August - How to write a scene |
|
|
|
How to write a scenePOSTED BY JOHN AUGUST OVER AT JohnAugust.
One of the thing I admire most about Jane Espenson’s blog is that she talks very directly about the words on the page, giving names to techniques I use but never really think about. The two-percenter, for example. So one of my goals for 2007 is to get a little more granular in my advice-giving, and talk less about Screenwriting and more about screenwriting — in particular, scene writing. Spend a few years as a screenwriter, and writing a scene becomes an almost unconscious process. It’s like driving a car. Most of us don’t think about the ignition and the pedals and the turn signals — but we used to, back when we were learning. It used to flummox the hell out of us. Every intersection was unbelievably stressful, with worries of stalling the car and/or killing everyone on board. It’s the same with writing a scene. The first few are brutal and clumsy. But once you’ve written (and rewritten) say, 500 scenes, the individual steps sort of vanish. But they’re still there, under the surface. It’s just that your instinct is making a lot of the decisions your conscious brain used to handle. So here’s my attempt to introspect and describe what I’m doing that I’m not even aware I’m doing. Here’s How to Write a Scene.
There are some great tips following, so click this link to read them.
//John August
Categories: [plot_] [dialogue_] [structure_] [action_]Labels: action, dialogue, John August, plot, structure
Posted by
scribosphere @
6:29 AM |
|
|
|
|
Monday, January 08, 2007 |
|
Alligators in a Helicopter - The Process |
|
|
|
The ProcessPOSTED BY SCOTT MULLEN OVER AT Alligators in a Helicopter.
So the screenplay I'm writing now is the first new one I've actually gotten immersed in in several years. My Nicholl script was an old script that I tweaked, while my supernatural thriller was the latest rewrite of a script I first wrote 2 or 3 years ago.
I did start several other scripts last year, only to get sidetracked and ultimately set them aside. I wrote about 40 pages of a horror movie rife with sex and violence; I wrote about 15 pages of a supernatural comedy that I had done a pretty full treatment of. Both are scripts I'd like to finish sometime this year.
But now I'm immersed in the new thing, and trying to refine my writing process, which is something that I know all writers wrestle with, and something that by its nature is different for everyone.
I used to dive into the actual writing process way, way too early. I'd come up with some interesting characters and a basic situation, and just jump right in. I dig the actual writing process much more than the sitting-around-and-thinking-about-it process, and I wasn't mature enough to rein myself in.
The good thing with this is that I'm the kind of writer who gets a lot of ideas while actually writing scenes, more so than in the pure-brainstorming process, so there's a method to my madness.
The very bad thing is that this process tends to take a long time, because in the course of finding the best story (which often had little resemblance to the story I started out with, while probably neither was actually the "best" story) I would write draft after draft after draft after draft.
I'd like to say that I'm such a genius writer that I knocked out my Nicholl semi script on the first pass. The truth is that it took about 20 drafts, during which a LOT of different storylines came and went.
But as I kept setting that script aside, and writing other stuff, I refined my process more. Some scripts came easier than others. My frozen time script somehow blew into my head fairly fully-formed; I wrote out an extended treatment of it, and then knocked out a first draft. It still took a few more passes and a couple of story shifts to get it right, but it was a lot less work than my Nicholl script was, while quality-wise they are fairly similar.
Still, the essential quandary for me (and, I'm guessing, a lot of other writers), is this:
Read about the essential quandary over here.
//Scott Mullen
Categories: [characters_] [plot_] [action_] [dialogue_]Labels: action, Alligators in a Helicopter, characters, dialogue, plot
Posted by
scribosphere @
4:01 PM |
|
|
|
|
Sunday, January 07, 2007 |
|
Scriptwriting & Reading in the UK - Watching the Script |
|
|
|
Watching the ScriptPOSTED BY DANNY STACK OVER AT Scriptwriting & Script Reading in the UK.
To achieve the ultimate literacy in screenwriting, the writer must be fluent in the visual language of cinematic storytelling. This means dismissing all the convenient words and phrases that easily describe everything that’s going on, and instead, relaying exactly what’s occurring on an audio and visual level. That’s the intention. That’s the ideal. ‘Less is more’.
The reason why we’re continuously told that sparse screenwriting is more effective and fluid than regular prose is not because readers are lazy, or that execs want to quickly get through the script. It’s because the fewest amount of words conveys the immediacy of what’s happening on screen. We know this, we get it, we’ve ticked it in our box of screenplay fundamentals.
Yet, so many writers unnecessarily overwrite the narrative description in their screenplays. They spoon-feed information about character motivation, backstory and a whole range of stuff happening off-screen. Even the produced screenplays available on-line are full of this kind of language, which helps to perpetuate the generalised standard of screenwriting from Oslo to Ohio.
//Danny Stack
To continue on this post, follow this link.
Categories: [plot_] [action_] [structure_] [dialogue_]Labels: action, Danny Stack, dialogue, plot, structure
Posted by
scribosphere @
1:32 PM |
|
|
|
|
Saturday, January 06, 2007 |
|
Fencing With the Fog - The Sidekick Story |
|
|
|
The Sidekick StoryPOSTED BY MARYAN BATCHELLOR OVER AT Fencing With the Fog.
Remember those brutal notes I wrote on the screenplay I reviewed the other day? Well, not only did the characters lack some very basic differences that would make the conflicts come naturally, but my sidekick had story problems.
Every character has a story. While the viewer may not need to know the whole story, the writer most certainly should. Since the sidekick is usually a sounding board or voice of reason for the protagonist and often helps shape a conclusion or define the theme or morality of the whole film, his back story is sometimes critical.
Common sidekick problems I've noticed in amateur screenplays: - The sidekick is just there. No story at all.
- His back story conflicts with his character's behavior.
- His back story is a superfluous waste of time
- His back story is a poorly executed red herring
- We learn too much about his back story
- We don't learn enough about his back story
- His story is too big for the role he plays in the film
My story notes told the author that her sidekick had a back story that was bigger than his role in the film AND her sidekick was entirely too wimpy for the back story she'd given him. Double whammy. Something had to change. My opinion was that not only did her sidekick need to grow a pair, but she also needed to adjust his back story. As usual, she took it well. The trick is knowing how much back story is enough. Where's the balance? Well, that's like asking how long to cook a turkey. You need to know the oven size, altitude, turkey weight, and whether it's a standard, convection or microwave oven. Or, you just figure it out as you go. (yeah, I know, bad analogy) The point is that if the sidekick is gonna be handing out advice and sewing a moral thread in the story, we need to know a little something about what he's basing his opinions on. Is he telling your protagonist that home is in the heart because he grew up in an orphanage or because he read it in a Hallmark card? Is he a minor sidekick with major consequences in the story or a major sidekick who is basically only there so the main character has something to throw humor at? It matters. It's a balancing act. The best comparison for my sidekick problem I can think of is Forrest Gump. Bubba Blue is a relatively minor character who leaves early in the film, but he's there long enough to make Forrest want to buy a shrimp boat. Why? Because Bubba knows shrimp. We know that Bubba knows shrimp and that's about all we really need to know about his background. Forrest and Bubba become fast friends and that's the rest of Forrest's motivation to begin the Bubba Gump Shrimp Company. But the beginning? It's because Bubba knows shrimp. Now, back to me. What did the author decide to do with my brutal notes? Well, I set my ego aside and realized that my sidekick problem would be the equivalent of giving Bubba a huge overblown family history. So I'm working on a "fruit of the sea" type solution. In case you don't know what a "fruit of the sea" solution is -- BUBBA: . . . shrimp is the fruit of the sea. You can barbecue it, boil it, broil it, bake it, saute it. Dey's uh, shrimp-kabobs, shrimp creole, shrimp gumbo. Pan fried, deep fried, stir-fried. There's pineapple shrimp, lemon shrimp, coconut shrimp, pepper shrimp, shrimp soup, shrimp stew, shrimp salad, shrimp and potatoes, shrimp burger, shrimp sandwich. That- that's about it. Yup, that's about it. //MaryAn Batchellor
Read/Post Comments
Categories: [characters_] [action_] [plot_]Labels: action, characters, Fencing With the Fog, plot
Posted by
scribosphere @
10:10 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
Unknown Screenwriter - On High Concept... Again |
|
|
|
The comment that ran too long…POSTED BY UNK OVER AT The Unknown Screenwriter.
So yeah… I was working on my rewrite… In fact, I’m almost done and I’m pretty happy about it. Anyway, I was working for quite a few hours straight and decided to take a little break… Yeah right. LOL. I read a few more screenwriting articles and even modified the post below and added some links that I thought some of you aspiring television writers might want to check out… After I’m done adding that information to the screenwriting article post, I notice in my WordPress Dashboard that there was a new link to my blog… So like any curious blogger, I click on the link and it took me here: Dissecting the High Concept Logline Which takes you to another screenwriting blog called: On The Scene Cool. First off, let me just say that we’ve all got opinions and I for one will go to my grave respecting anyone and everyone’s right to their opinion EVEN if I don’t necessarily agree with the opinion itself… So I read the post and to be honest, I was confused. Not confused about what HIGH CONCEPT is because as far as I’m concerned, I know what it is. What you may not know however, is that those posts caused quite a bit of email that ran the gambit… Everything from “I totally agree with you, Unk” to “You’re a fucking asshole, Unk.” Cool. I responded to them all when I should have been working on my rewrite… Good or bad, I responded. My responses to the hate email were not IN KIND by the way… LOL. I just kinda shine those on but I do reply with a nice, “I’ll keep that in mind…” But I digress… I read James’ post and thought he might have missed some points I had made with my post on the definition of high concept and I had intended to discuss loglines in the future but since this opportunity to do just that popped up, I thought, “Why not?” So what I’ll do is go ahead and post the comment I attempted to make to James’ post on his blog… I’ll also go ahead and make a comment after all but instead of the actual comment, I will let him know that I turned the comment into the following post here on my blog… But I’m not gonna do that until I finish here… One more thing… I do not attempt to DISSECT A HIGH CONCEPT LOGLINE here… I just explain the way I do it. You may do it differently and if you do, may God bless you. LOL. In fact, this is not a post about the kind of logline they use to MARKET a film… Nope. They pay marketing geniuses to come up with those loglines… LOL. I’m just a fuckin’ screenwriter. What I do is create what I call a COMPASS LOGLINE. I call it a compass logline because it’s the logline I create before I ever ever start writing. It always leads the way for me. It keeps me on track when I get off track and I tend to get off track ALL THE FUCKIN’ TIME. However, that’s NOT to say that you can’t turn right around and take a compass logline and recite it to someone so they know what your screenplay is about… It can definitely serve that purpose…
To continue on this "debate", follow this link.
//Unk
Categories: [plot_] [market_] [structure_]Labels: market, plot, structure, Unk
Posted by
scribosphere @
10:02 AM |
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, January 03, 2007 |
|
Scriptwriting & Reading in the UK - Which Way to Go? |
|
|
|
Which Way to Go?POSTED BY DANNY STACK OVER AT Scriptwriting & Script Reading in the UK.
At the early stages of concept and development for any story, all writers go through a series of doubts, queries and choices. In plot or summary form, the writer may not be wholly convinced that the story is taking its best shape, or whether the characters are working to their full effect, or if the pace and structure is smooth and efficient. Often, it is difficult to see the woods from the trees as the writer feels too 'close' to the whole affair and doubts if the story possesses enough positive qualities to take it through to script stage.
To avoid this uncertainty, sometimes it's worth going to first draft script immediately. It's easier to see the flaws and weaker areas of a story when it's down in script format, as opposed to having it laid out in a detailed outline/plot. Avoiding the tough demands of trying to figure out what's working, and what's needed, and what's not, is a natural impulse in the storytelling process. However, a basic passion about the concept and characters should be enough to convince the writer that the story is worth telling, and that while it may be hard work to get the story into shape, it's going to be worth it in the end.
So, here are a few questions that might help in getting over any potential writer's block: what was it about the concept that got you excited about the project in the first place? Is it a story you're burning to tell? Do the characters have an emotional and credible weight which makes you care passionately about them? In other words, do I respect them? Or is it more about plot - action/adventure/comedy etc?
Once you know the basic reasons why you want to tell the story, writing the outline or script becomes a somewhat easier task because instead of veering off into tangents about character and plot, you can continuously remind yourself WHY you're writing this story, and keep focused on what MUST happen (i.e. the plot elements that excite and interest you most, whether it's a character twist, an emotional journey or a big explosion).
Stick to your guns, so to speak. Knowledge is power, and while nagging doubt is part and parcel of the writer's process, it can easily be hurdled with a determined focus about the concept, characters and plot. This doesn't mean that you know the story inside-out; far from it, the characters and story may surprise you as you scribble it all down (a character may do something unexpected, leading you to a more exciting area of plot etc).
The point is not to get bogged down with the worry that the story's not worth it, or feeling insecure about the story's true value before you proceed. Remember the passion and excitement that got you this far, and hold on to that as you battle through the tough creative decisions that need to be made. Script readers and editors will have an opinion, and offer their advice, but they don't have all (or any) of the answers. It's all down to you.
Whether you're prepared to see the story right through to the end, or if you discover that the project's not got enough legs or merit for what you imagined, then it's all part of the writing procedure. Ideas come and go, stories last forever. Find the basic building blocks of your story (e.g. concept and characters) and go with your instinct. Entertain yourself. Let the characters surprise you but most of all, enjoy it.
//Danny Stack
Read/Post Comments
Categories: [plot_] [action_]Labels: action, Danny Stack, plot
Posted by
scribosphere @
3:16 AM |
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, December 27, 2006 |
|
Scriptwriting & Reading in the UK - Character Vs Everything |
|
|
|
Story Vault: Character Vs EverythingPOSTED BY DANNY STACK OVER AT Scriptwriting & Script Reading in the UK.
Deep breath. Aaaaand relax. It's over. Back to reality. Well, not quite. Take a few more days off why don't you? After all, it's practically New Year. Live it large, have that extra chocolate, drink that naughty cocktail, enjoy the moment. Then, you can get back into the swing of things with a newfound sense of purpose and dedication once the early dew of 2007 begins to emerge.
Still, you're no doubt going on-line, checking emails and surfing the blogs so here's something from the story vault archives (last Christmas) about the most important aspect of screenwriting: characters. See you in the New Year.
To read this interesting post, follow this link.
//Danny Stack
Categories: [characters_] [plot_]Labels: characters, Danny Stack, plot
Posted by
scribosphere @
8:52 AM |
|
|
|
|
Saturday, December 23, 2006 |
|
The Film Diva - Dramatic Action |
|
|
|
Dramatic ActionPOSTED BY FILM DIVA OVER AT The Film Diva.
 I've been working really hard the last few months to craft plots with a lot of dramatic action, so I thought I'd share with you all and hopefully learn a few things from the collective intelligence
I've been hearing so much about. This part is Writing 101, so please bear with me if you are, like, waaaaay past this in your work. :-)
Dramatic action describes the story beats that relate the plot. This is different from things that establish factual things about the character (e.g. he's married), or things that establish motivation or need (e.g. Reese's story in The Terminator confessing his reason for traveling through time). Dramatic action primarily concerns itself with conflict, specifically, conflict that generates action, i.e. plot.
For instance, in television, dramatic action is generally compressed (e.g. those short teasers in L&O that set up the crime), expressed in dialogue (like when characters talk about how angry so-and-so's off-screen behaviour makes them -- Aaron Sorkin is the master of this type of drama as I have yet to see anything actually happen during one of his shows), or elided (as in two characters prepare for the "Big Raid," then we cut to the aftermath of the raid).
In contrast, film stories are comprised of the most dramatic action you can find, bits that exemplify the protagonist's emotional journey. I'll go back to my favorite film LA CONFIDENTIAL for an example here. The open of the film establishes the main players and the film's themes through a jail riot (the Bloody Christmas scandal). From here on, the viewer can anticipate Exley's bulldog response when he discovers the inconsistencies in the Nite Owl murders and that he will be uncompromising in his pursuit of the truth, no matter the cost, as well as each of the other core cast members' emotional responses to the rising tide of shit that is at the heart of the film.
To read further on dramatic action, follow this link.
//Film Diva
Categories: [action_] [plot_] [characters_]Labels: action, characters, Film Diva, plot
Posted by
scribosphere @
4:53 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
$1000 Spielberg - Think S.A.N.T.A. |
|
|
|
Make A Successful No Budget Movie - Think S.A.N.T.A.POSTED BY CLIVE DAVIES OVER AT $1000 Spielberg.
I’ve been trying to find a simple way for people to remember the basic principles of $1000 Movie making — the ideas we believe will allow us to make a commercially successful movie on a $1000 budget. Then when I was busy hanging up my Christmas stocking, it hit me! Santa! Santa would help me explain. S - Start with Story The key to having a successful movie is about having a great idea for a story, a story people will want to see — so forget about genres, forget about what camera you’re going to shoot it on and concentrate on coming up with the perfect idea. When you’ve got that perfect idea — write a logline and test it out. When you’ve got your story, make sure you write an outstanding Script. A - Assess your resources — Before you start writing your script, start planning your production and this starts with a list of the resources you currently have — you’re going to need a camera, sound recording equipment, a way of controlling light, a few skilled people to operate the equipment, locations, actors, editing equipment and music for your sound track. Your list will try to cover as many of those items as you can — and then will extend to people you know who may be able to fill in the holes. Play to your strengths, you may not own any film making equipment or know any film makers, but maybe you know great musicians or your friends are great actors. Then when you’ve worked out what you’ve got, Acquire the things you don’t have. The way you do that is by inspiring the people who have the resources you need to make the film, to come on board and help. By far the best way to do this is to have a great story idea and a stunning script — nothing brings in resources faster than a hot project. N - Never compromise, Never settle for second best, Never assume how much your film can achieve The worst thing a $1000 film maker can do is assume that because of their budget, they’ll have to make a product which is substandard and that won’t be able to compete in the market place. This is utter nonsense — There is absolutely no reason at all why a $1000 movie can’t achieve global cinema distribution or be the toast of Sundance. But the only way to achieve that is to Never, ever make a decision to produce a lower quality film, based solely on financial necessity. Which leads us neatly onto T - Turn your disadvantages into advantages. At the heart of $1000 movie making is this one simple idea, be creative and keep a positive attitude — and by this I don’t mean a Polly Anna “everything is rosy” kind of denial of the realities of a situation. My experience is that every situation that occurs can be turned to a film makers advantage if they constantly ask themselves “How can I get this to work for me?” When my first feature film bankrupted me, I thought it was the end of the my career as a film maker, instead I’ve managed to take being penniless and turned it into an advantage. and finally A - Advertise your movie and build an Audience Don’t expect to be discovered, don’t expect to become an overnight success, don’t expect to get distribution for your no-name, no-budget movie if you can’t create a buzz about it. Right from day one successful film makers think about how their movies is going to be sold — they create a demand for their movie. So, there you have it — if you want to create a successful movie on $1000 just think S.A.N.T.A. Story, Assess and Acquire, Never compromise, Turn adversity to your favour, Advertise to build your Audience. //Clive Davies Read/Post Comments
Categories: [structure_] [plot_] [ideas_] [action_]
Labels: $1000 Spielberg, action, ideas, plot, structure
Posted by
scribosphere @
4:44 AM |
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, December 20, 2006 |
|
Pen Mightier than Spork - The Seven Deadly Sins of Horror |
|
|
|
The Seven Deadly Sins of Horror (300th post)POSTED BY JAMES MORAN OVER AT The Pen is Mightier Than the Spork.
Okay. I tried to play nice. Said I wouldn't slag off other movies. But enough is enough.
No more bad horror movies. I won't stand for it.
It is not the 1950s anymore. It's 2006. There are things you can NO LONGER DO. You don't see UFOs on wires in science fiction movies anymore, so why should we put up with the horror equivalent? We've all seen a lot of horror movies, we don't fall for the same shit that we used to. And yet writers and directors persist in treating us like fucking kids who've never seen a slasher movie before. Come on. We're adults. We're not stupid. So today, I bring you the Seven Deadly Sins of Horror, the sins that must never be committed again. I know, I know, there are many more horror movie sins than these, ones you really shouldn't be doing - but the ones here are the absolute worst of the worst, sins that there can be no excuse for. Filmmakers, consider yourself put on notice - you are all now expressly forbidden from putting ANY of the following in a horror movie:
7 - The grabbing hand: How many times have you sneaked up on a friend, walked silently right up behind them, and then suddenly grabbed their shoulder? Without intentionally trying to freak them out? And then been surprised that you scared them? Never. And yet it happens in horror movies all the time. There are no deaths coming up, but it's been 7 minutes so they have to insert a fake scare. Oh my God! A killer! Oh, wait, it's just his friend grabbing his shoulder. It's ridiculous. Same goes for the cat scare, although I really shouldn't have to say that in this day and age. Sure, sometimes we still need the fake scare trick, to build up the tension, keep the real horror off screen for a while, but you've got to do something different.
6 - Sudden attacks of deafness: If you're in a building with someone, and they wander out the door, they will still be able to hear you if you call out to them. Especially if you then go wandering around, panicking, and screaming out their name at the top of your voice. They *won't*, however, completely fail to hear you, then suddenly appear out of nowhere and make you jump, usually by grabbing your shoulder (see above). Unless they're deliberately trying to scare you. If someone vanishes and doesn't respond to shouts, then they'd better be dead or unconscious.
5 - Magic, psychic killers: Oh thank goodness, the large breasted girl has managed to put some distance between herself and the killer. Oh look, she's found a car - and it's unlocked! And the keys are in the ignition! And the engine has started, first time! Hooray! She's going to escape! I hope that the killer hasn't somehow magically teleported into the back seat, where he will suddenly pop up to stab or garrotte her. I'm sure that won't happen though, because he'd need the aforementioned teleporting skills, plus the ability to psychically predict which car she would choose. And it would make no sense to hide in the back seat, wait until she starts driving, and *then* attack her. So he probably won't do that. Oh. He did.
4 - Cars that get scared: Oh dear, the car suddenly won't start - how inconvenient, being that I am, at this very juncture, being chased by a monster. Yes, the same car that drove me ALL THE WAY UP the fucking mountain, and has been working for YEARS, has chosen THIS PRECISE moment to break down, just as I'm trying to escape - as opposed to, say, Act One, for example. How come the car never breaks down just *before* the horny, doomed teenagers leave for their road trip? If a previously healthy car suddenly won't start, it had better be because the killer has mangled it, or stuffed a dead body into the engine.
3 - Sudden attacks of clumsiness: Run! Run like the wind! Run from the killer! Oh, you fell over. Well done. Because able-bodied adults fall over ALL THE TIME, don't they? Yes, I know you need the killer to catch up for the sake of the plot, but do something else. Throw a locked door, a trap, a speeding car in the way, anything. Just don't have them fall over. It's lazy and stupid. Same goes for someone hiding, trying to stay quiet, who just happens to knock over a display stand filled with 500 metal plates. If I ever need to hide from a killer, I'm going to be as careful as I possibly can, thanks. If the character who falls over is female, you lose even more points. If she is subsequently helped up by a male character, then your bus to the 1950s is leaving shortly, be on it.
2 - Miraculous recoveries: Can we please retire this one? Please? "He's dead... oh no, he's alive!" Having the killer pop back up was a genuine surprise when Michael Myers did it in Halloween, but guess what? That was nearly 30 years ago. It's finally time to end that tradition, it's been done way too often. Come on. We need a new thing. Just leave it alone. Right, I'm finished with this paragraph. No I'm not! Booga booga booga! Okay, I am now.
And the NUMBER ONE thing that you must NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER use in a horror movie again, ON PAIN OF DEATH:
1 - Characters who don't kill the killer when given the chance: I really, really thought we'd laid this one to rest, but apparently not. Imagine you're in a real life situation, and some crazy guy has repeatedly tried to kill you. It's terrifying, your life is in danger, he WILL kill you if he can, probably torturing and raping you beforehand, perhaps wearing your skin, perhaps eating your internal organs. But oh happy day, you get a lucky break and manage to knock him out, or immobilise him. When he wakes up or frees himself, he will continue trying to kill you, and will probably succeed. But right now, you have a few minutes. Do you (a) kill him, or (b) run away, giving him a chance to come after you again? The answer is, of course, (a). You kill him. By ANY means necessary. Your gun's out of bullets? Smash his face with it. Gun too small? Sharpen it and stab him with it. No gun? Hit him with a chair. Drop heavy objects on him. Set him on fire. Run him over. If you have nothing nearby, just fucking jump up and down on his head until the skull cracks, then keep jumping until it splits all the way open, then keep jumping until it's a bloody stain on the ground. You're fighting for your life, wouldn't you do whatever you could to save yourself? Sure, the killer can have the upper hand all the way through the movie, more weaponry, traps, that's fine. But if a character gets a chance to kill the killer, they had better fucking kill him, and make sure he's dead, preferably by decapitation, head-smashing, dismemberment, or exploding. No excuses. None. End of story. This is an INSTANT movie destroyer, because it yanks you out and makes you realise that it's just a plot contrivance to keep the story going for longer, while the whole audience is screaming "kill him!" in frustration. But some filmmakers are under the mistaken impression that it's okay, that we won't notice the glaringly stupid thing the main character has just done. We will though, and the second you do it, I'm walking out, and there is NOTHING you can possibly say to me to explain yourself, so I don't even want to fucking hear it. If you think I'm that much of a fucking retard that I'll sit there and happily accept your sloppy, slapdash, half arsed piece of shit of a movie, then you can Go. Fuck. Yourself.
And there we have it. If you have the gall to allow any of these in your movie, then you obviously have no respect for us or yourself, and we will be within our rights to hunt you down and gut you like a fish. People like you are responsible for horror's bad reputation, for review quotes like "of course, we don't go to horror movies expecting a sensible plot". Don't think to yourself "oh, it's only horror, it doesn't matter", or "it doesn't need to make sense", or "only horny 12 year old boys will see it" - it DOES matter, it DOES need to make sense, and although the audience is made up of a wide variety of people, young and old, even the horny 12 year old boys won't fall for your shit. Times have changed. You'd better change with them, or make romantic comedies instead. Don't say you weren't warned. //James Moran
Read/Post Comments
Scribosphere: Great stuff James! Congrats on the 300:th post. Keep 'em coming!
Categories: [plot_] [action_] [ideas_] [characters_]Labels: action, characters, ideas, James Moran, plot
Posted by
scribosphere @
9:20 AM |
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, December 19, 2006 |
|
Complications Ensue - Good Adaptations |
|
|
|
Good AdaptationsPOSTED BY ALEX EPSTEIN OVER AT Complications Ensue.
Matt asks: what about William Goldman's adaptation of his book The Princess Bride? Pretty good, no?
I certainly wouldn't diss Goldman adapting his own work. And I'd add Michael Crichton's many adaptations of his own novels, e.g. Jurassic Park, which did OK at the box office as I recall. [He shared credit with David Koepp. Also created E.R.]
Of course a novelist can adapt his own book if he understands what a screenplay is. If the writer is familiar with both forms, it can work brilliantly. What's needed is for the writer to re-imagine his story in the new medium, which means giving up some of the beauties of the old medium.
It's usually pretty easy to spot an adaptation, even by a fresh screenwriter. There are scenes that play on their own without forwarding the plot. There are characters who seem important but don't justify their importance. I still go with Hitchcock's technique. Read the book once, or even a couple of times. Then put it down and write the script. Whatever you remember is probably important. Whatever you forget, probably isn't.
//Alex Epstein
Read/Post Comments
Scribosphere: The Hitchcock technique is very interesting actually. Should work good.
Categories: [plot_] [action_] [ideas_]Labels: action, Alex Epstein, ideas, plot
Posted by
scribosphere @
10:56 AM |
|
|
|
|
Saturday, December 16, 2006 |
|
$1000 Spielberg - Multi-Antagonist Screenplays |
|
