 |
|
|
|
Friday, February 02, 2007 |
|
Happy Groundhog Day! |
|
|
|
Billy Mernit writes about one of my favorite romantic comedies: Groundhog Day.
Cheers!
- E.
Yes, it's that time of the year again. Romantic comedy lovers, romantics, lovers comedic or serious -- pretty much all humans with beating hearts know that as soon as February rolls around, there's a major holiday to be reckoned with, one that's come to symbolize the meaning of love and romance for America, if not the world.
I'm speaking, of course, about Groundhog Day.
Granted, there was a time, long, long ago (i.e. before 1993), when this holiday lacked the romantic associations since bestowed on it, due to the efforts of Danny Rubin, Harold Ramis and Bill Murray. But ever since the writer, director and star, respectively of Groundhog Day created what's now generally acknowledged as one of the great American movies of all time, February 2nd has become synonymous with romance and comedy. In fact, when people ask me to name a couple of my favorite romantic comedies, this one invariably comes to mind.
Groundhog_dayWhat's that? You've never thought of this cinematic classic as a romantic comedy? For shame. I have it on good, nay, unassailable authority that the film more than qualifies. For starters, it says so right on the friggin' DVD box's front cover ("A romantic comedy fantasy that is Bill Murray's best screen performance" -- thank you, Gene Shalit). But you can also look up the definition of romantic comedy in the um, definitive text on same, and find (p.12) that "a romantic comedy is a comedy whose central plot is embodied in a romantic relationship" and that (p.13) "the central question posed by a romantic comedy is: 'Will these two individuals become a couple?'"
As you well know, when TV weatherman Phil Connors (Murray) gets inexplicably trapped in the same repeating February 2nd, his sole recourse to getting out of it becomes the object of his affections, producer Rita (Andie MacDowell); his salvation lies in the answer to their coupling question. (Screenwriting theorist sticklers may point out that the story's central question is really, Will Phil ever get out of February 2nd? To this I say, also true, because the movie is a rom-com hybrid -- ibid, pp.21-28 -- a romantic comedy/high concept fantasy, and thus the couple/escape conflicts are intertwined. But let's stop boring our civilian readers, shall we? Thanks.)
Strange but true, there still exist deprived, disadvantaged people who have not seen the movie Groundhog Day. If you are one of those poor souls, what better opportunity to improve the quality of your life, than to view it this Friday, on the official Day itself? And even if you're one of the many enriched individuals who's seen it, Groundhog Day is of course a movie that you can watch over and over, and over, and over and over and over...
Ground_main_1...And if you're a major Groundhog Day fan, you might even consider journeying to the scene of the crime: the town of Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania is having its annual celebration, and it promises to be quite a hoot. Such a trip was actually enjoyed by Day's writer and star before the movie was made, and therein lies a little tale that speaks, I believe, to the true spirit of romance, or as we might say, what love's got to do with it.
Danny Rubin recounts the following in his illuminating interview accompanying an early draft of the screenplay in Scenario (Spring '95 issue, regrettably out of print). He talks of having been hired, fired and re-hired to work on the script, and when he, his wife Louise and kids were preparing to move from Los Angeles to New Mexico, getting a call from Bill Murray:
He says, "Do you realize that the day after tomorrow is Groundhog Day?"--"Yep."--"And do you realize that between the director, the producer, the star and the writer of this film, nobody has been to the festival at Punxsutawney? Doesn't that seem wrong to you?" And I said, "Absolutely. And I think you should go, I think that will be a great thing." And he said, "I think we should go." And I said, "Bill, that's a really nice offer, sounds like fun, but I'm moving, I'm moving my family, we're up to our necks in boxes, I can't just abandon them and go off to Punxsutawney." And he said, "Well, think about it and call me back. Here's my number." When I got off the phone, Louise asked who it was. "Bill Murray," I said. "He wants me to go to Punxsutawney tomorrow." And she said, "Cool." And I said I'd told him I couldn't do it. She said, "Are you nuts?" So I talked to [the studio] and they said, "We'll pay for the move, we'll get someone to help pack, we'll fly out a friend of your wife's to help her move in so you don't have to be there."
Groundhog_day2_1This level of support was very nice, and I embarked on the most surreal adventure of my professional life. All of a sudden I'm flying in a private plane from the middle of nowhere to the middle of nowhere in the middle of the night with Bill Murray and we're talking about the script. We landed somewhere near Punxsutawney at 2:00 in the morning. And there were fans out there waiting for him--it was supposed to be a secret...
Rubin goes on to say that he used a lot of what he saw on that trip in the script. He'd originally only spoken to the town's Chamber of Commerce and looked at their literature, but:
After we actually saw it, there was a whole different feel to it than we had imagined. It was delightful, really delightful--a wonderful civic event. We incorporated a lot of that into the movie... Everyone there knew it was a goofy ritual--it was almost sophisticated in its hickyness. What was so much fun about the festival is, it's the middle of the night, zero degrees, they've got bonfires going--and they're playing Beach Boys music.
Groundhog_day
Sometimes I read this excerpt to a screenwriting class when I'm talking about the inestimable value of research, to illustrate how really being there can make all the difference in writing a given project. But I quote it now in this pre-Valentine's Day context to highlight my favorite moment in Rubin's story, which is when Louise says, "Are you nuts?"
I just love that! Gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling every time, because it seems to me that Danny Rubin's wife is the hidden heroine of the Groundhog Day saga. Love doesn't mean never having to say you're sorry. It means having someone be able to say "Are you nuts?!" to you at a crucial moment. Love is sometimes about saving loved ones from themselves -- which come to think of it, is kind of at the core of what the movie ended up being about, don't you think?
Go watch it again, again, and see if you agree.Labels: Billy Mernit, characters, craft, Living The RomCom, screenwriting, Story, structure
Posted by
scribosphere @
1:54 PM |
|
|
|
|
Sunday, January 21, 2007 |
|
Creative Thinking = Creative Screenwriting |
|
|
|
Hi All,
Hope your Sunday is going well. This post from the Mystery Man caught my eye. I like what he's saying, and I agree. It's pretty pointless to dwell on the "nothing is new under the sun" or "there are only 12 stories to be told" memes. They just demoralize you as a screenwriter.
And if you are a screenwriter like me, you don't need demoralization from others. I've got an endless supply I'm trying to ignore sitting right next to me, thanks.
So, here's an excerpt. Thanks, Mystery Man.
- E.
From, "What's A Spec Writer To Do?"
Be great. Be strong. Be of good cheer. You're amongst friends. Study psychology. Study philosophy, religion, and mythology. Study contemporary issues. Study amateur scripts that fail. Study pro scripts that fail. Study legendary screenplays by true mold-breakers like Stanley Kubrick’s Napoleon, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. Study history. Study cinema. What hasn’t been done before? What’s being done now that’s wrong? What’s missing in today’s movies? How can you manipulate structure and technigue to find originality?
Storytelling will never die. There is an endless number of great stories that haven’t been told yet, but there are few writers today who can tell those stories really well. The possibilities for new and exciting characters are endless. The variety of contradictions that could be built into characters to have depth are innumerable. Why should Hamlet be the character with the most depth? Who the hell says there can’t be a modern Shakespeare? Or another golden age of cinema?
Above everything, master the craft. Make every detail count. Never, ever sell yourself short. You have to have vision, passion, a love of films, and a true devotion to the craft. You have to be willing to try and fail. You have to push yourself and others. You have to give and receive honest feedback. You have to learn to take criticism. You have to engage other writers in a constructive discussion about the craft. You have to be capable of dealing with the absurdities of the business. And if you fail, fail spectacularly, and go down swinging with the most unforgettable stories ever written.Labels: craft, Mystery Man, Story, structure
Posted by
scribosphere @
5:12 PM |
|
|
|
|
Friday, January 19, 2007 |
|
Crazy Talk |
|
|
|
Scott the Reader posts on some "techniques" that writers use that drive him crazy.
Enjoy. I did.
- E.
I've Said It Before, But I'll Say It Again...
I actually have posted on this before, but since they keep popping up in things I read, I feel that I need to rant about these bad screenwriting habits again.
Things that drive me crazy in your script:
CHARACTERS TALKING TO THEMSELVES. There are times when a character might logically talk to themselves -- hell, there are times when I talk out loud to myself -- but it needs to be done very judiciously and sparingly, if at all.
Instead, I read script after script, where the writer, desperate to make us understand what is going on in a character's head, will have them just blurt it out, even if there is no one else in the room.
I read one script the other day that had about 15 different incidences where this happened, with about a half-dozen different characters. And in most of the cases what they were saying was really very obvious anyway.
Trust your readers/audience to understand things, and if you think they need a push, figure out how to do it visually or more inventively. There's always a better way than the random I'm-alone-but-I'm-chatty blurt out.
MENTIONING THE MOVIE IN THE SCRIPT THAT YOUR SCRIPT IS SIMILAR TO. I've read two scripts in the last week that did this, part of an odd habit that is shockingly widespread and endlessly reoccurring.
It seems to be driven by guilt. Writers who find themselves penning scenes (or storylines) that are derivative of something that came before feel driven to namecheck this film, as if acknowledging it makes it okay.
But there are few really-original moments any more, and pointing out the ones your script is borrowing is counter-productive; it just makes the reader even more-aware that even you know that you haven't put forth the effort to make your tale truly original.
Best-case scenario? You make your script as original as possible. But if it does hew close to something that came before (because that's the best way to tell the story), don't feel you have to point it out. If you are doing a story about some kids going on an adventure, you really don't need a scene in which "The Goonies" plays on a TV in the background, or one of the kids mentions that in "Stand By Me" the kids found a body.
CRIMINAL MISUSE OF APOSTROPHES. "It's" is ONLY to be used to represent "it is", not when something is possessive.
"Let's" is short for "Let us", so you shouldn't write "Lets go".
Apostrophes are used as possessives, or to replace letters. If you are talking about the Kennedy clan, they are the Kennedys, not the Kennedy's.
It's The 1960s, not The 1960's. Shortening years, it should be The '60s, not The 60's.
Characters are in their 30s, not their 30's.
VARYING THE NAME OF THE SAME CHARACTOR IN THE SCENE DESCRIPTION. If a guy's name is John Brown, you shouldn't be calling him John sometimes, and Brown others. In the dialogue, fine, but not in the scene description.
And after you intro characters, we should never see their whole name again. It shouldn't say JOHN BROWN as the name over all the dialogue (much less something like ASSISTANT DA CHARLES KINCAID). Pick the first name or the last and stick with that, and make sure it's what you are calling him in the scene description.
EXCLAMATION POINTS IN SCENE DESCRIPTION. These look really amateurish. If you are writing an exciting scene well, you really don't need them.
posted by Scott the ReaderLabels: Alligators in a Helicopter, characters, craft, market, scribosphere, structure
Posted by
scribosphere @
7:52 PM |
|
|
|
|
Saturday, January 13, 2007 |
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Thursday, December 28, 2006 |
|
$1000 Spielberg - Shady Protagonists, Redeemed Antagonists |
|
|
|
Shady Protagonists, Redeemed AntagonistsPOSTED BY CLIVE DAVIES OVER AT $1000 Spielberg.
Over the holiday I completed the character sheet on one of my spec scripts and have now started looking at plotting. One of the conclusions I’ve come to over the last couple of years is, I’m not really as interested as I used to be, in films where the good guys is flawless and the bad guy is totally evil. Maybe this is about me getting older, because there was a time when I loved those kinds of movies, but now I look for a little more complexity in my characters. One of the advantages of taking a few days off over the holiday, is I ended up watching some TV. A thing I rarely do these days. I’m a real Humphrey Bogart fan and catching some old black and white movies is always a real treat. To me the characters Humphrey Bogart portrays are always more interesting than your vanilla hero. His protagonists always held the possibility they might not be the good guy after all. There was always that edge, that you didn’t get with say a John Wayne movie. Big John was always going to do the right thing; Boggie, well, you just never knew. All in all I’ve always preferred a shady protagonist, a person who comes right in the end, but who really has to think about it, before choosing the harder but more noble road. To balance the shady protagonist, I’ve come to the conclusion that the kind of films I’d like to see in the cinema should offer redemption to the antagonist. I don’t know about you, but I’m sick of two dimensional villains who pathologically pursue their agendas. So, I’ve decided for my next couple of scripts to ensure that in the final act, the primary antagonist is placed in a position where they get to choose between pursuing their agenda or redemption — if they reject redemption then they get everything they deserve, but if they accept redemption, I can either forced them to continue down a path they’ve rejected, by using external stressors (Oh the irony!) — or I can use my second antagonist to take over the role of putting pressure onto the protagonist. My main point today is this — throughout film history a great deal of latitude has been put into the creation of our protagonists, our hero’s character arcs have always had room for complexity — isn’t it about time we did the same for our antagonists? related articles: multi-antagonist screenplays multi-protagonist or protagonist vs antagonist
//Clive Davies
Read/Post Comments
Categories: [characters_] [structure_] [action_]Labels: $1000 Spielberg, action, characters, structure
Posted by
scribosphere @
7:15 AM |
|
|
|
|
Saturday, December 23, 2006 |
|
$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 |
|
|
|
|
Saturday, December 16, 2006 |
|
Eric's POV - Channelling Aaron Sorkin... |
|
|
|
Channelling Aaron Sorkin + Arguing with David MametPOSTED BY ERIC ANDRADE OVER AT Eric's POV.
And so it goes: you embark on your spec writing, thinking that the idea you have is so brilliant, that the outline you did was so bullet-proof; that you merely have to sit down and type it up.
And then you do. And it sucks.
Sadly, the work of writing does not stop once the beat sheet is complete; nor when the cards are on the board; nor when the treatments are done; nor when the first draft is printing furiously out of your trusty ink jet.
You've got to develop your character backstories. You have to do your research (and here, I'm talking about getting to know your characters). You have to make every effort to inhabit the world in which you are proposing to be omniscient. Which means, you have to own the actions and elements of every little thing in this world.
And if you don't then you end up with forced situations, lame dialogue and an inferiority complex that compels you to believe that it's not the script that's the problem, but everyone who has given you feedback on it.
Dialogue is the writer's key to expressing character. And actors' interpretations of that dialogue are what bring the characters to life. It layers personality over the verbal expression, exposing their innermost thoughts through actions. You can write the actions, but an actor can take your stage directions and make them into something much more alive. I've seen it happen.
Aaron Sorkin is a master at creating dialogue that is extremely good at exposing the core of his characters. Yes, he does it in a sometimes unorthodox way, but you can't say that his characters' inner lives are not portrayed in stark relief. It's bloody brilliant.
Hence I'm channelling Aaron Sorkin.
Now...if the actors just read their lines, no one would ever buy a ticket to see this movie, because only half the job is done. And without the actor giving their interpretation of character based on the dialogue supplied by the writer, how can we know whether or not it's crap writing?
We can't.
Hence, the beef I have with David Mamet. His claim once was that actors should just read their lines as they are written, because the dramatist's writing takes care of the drama.
No way, dude.
Of course, any actor would kill to get to recite Mamet. Indeed a great resume builder.
Ultimately, I guess he can say what he wants and not worry about pissing off actors.
I certainly don't have Brad Pitt looking for my next spec script for development.
But still: Actors are not talking props. They're the writer's missing twins.
//Eric Andrade
Read/Post Comments
Categories: [characters_] [dialogue_] [structure_] [action_]Labels: action, characters, dialogue, Erics POV, structure
Posted by
scribosphere @
5:30 AM |
|
|
|
|
Thursday, December 14, 2006 |
|
One Slack Martian - Way Leads On to Way |
|
|
|
Way Leads On to WayPOSTED BY ADAM RENFRO OVER AT One Slack Martian's Screenwriting Blog.
If you want to keep your audience interested, you better make some coherent sense in your script, and the tension better build throughout.
Now run along.
Oh, before you go and start typing Titanic 2: Let's Get This Party Started, you better check out a sequence method to help that story unfold.
Here’s an endorsement for sequencing from Kung Fu Monkey, who was well into his professional career when he began to study and apply the sequence approach. .
I personally like Soth’s mini-movie method and Blake’s 15 beats (see my sidebar). I’ve blogged about them often.
But here are two other sequencing approaches that I’ve run across.
from Kristin Thompson in Storytelling in the New Hollywood
She divides her story into 4 Acts, not 3.
1. Setup
2. Complicating Action
3. Development
4. Climax
David Bordwell’s Narration in the Fiction Film delineates a story into 6 parts.
1. introduction of setting and characters
2. explanation of a state of affairs
3. compacting actions
4. ensuing events
5. outcome
6. ending
But before you study any sequencing techniques, you should check out the 12 Stages of a Heroes Journey in Christopher Vogler’s The Writer’s Journey
Here a highlight:
1. Ordinary World - The hero's normal world before the story begins
2. Call to Adventure - The hero is presented with a problem, challenge or adventure
3. Refusal of the Call - The hero refuses the challenge or journey, usually because he's scared
4. Meeting with the Mentor - The hero meets a mentor to gain advice or training for the adventure
5. Crossing the First Threshold - The hero crosses leaves the ordinary world and goes into the special world
6. Tests, Allies, Enemies - The hero faces tests, meets allies, confronts enemies & learn the rules of the Special World.
7. Approach - The hero has hit setbacks during tests & may need to try a new idea
8. Ordeal - The biggest life or death crisis
9. Reward - The hero has survived death, overcomes his fear and now earns the reward
10. The Road Back - The hero must return to the Ordinary World. 11. Resurrection Hero - another test where the hero faces death – he has to use everything he's learned 12. Return with Elixir - The hero returns from the journey with the “elixir”, and uses it to help everyone in the Ordinary
Vogler also looks at the Hero’s Journey in this book. As UNK reminds us, it’s not all about plot.
More on character later.
//Adam Renfro
Read/Post Comments
Categories: [structure_] [plot_] [action_]Labels: action, One Slack Martian, plot, structure
Posted by
scribosphere @
4:07 AM |
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, December 12, 2006 |
|
Unk - Honesty is the best policy… |
|
|
|
Honesty is the best policy…POSTED BY UNK OVER AT The Unknown Screenwriter.
Character exercise...No, I don’t base this on the one chance meeting with Guy Pearce… Not at all. His comment simply reiterated what I was pretty sure I already knew. Well… Reiterated probably isn’t the right way to put it… What he told me that night back in Albuquerque was like the one and only time I ever talked back to my Dad when I was a kid. He didn’t hesitate to backhand my ass into the air where I promptly fell on my ass i.e., I talked back – got backhanded. Lesson learned? DON’T DO THAT. LOL.
The infomercial statement had the exact same effect on me… It was just like getting knocked on my ass… It made such an impression on me that I have never hesitated to bring this up to other actors I’ve managed to ask the question to and wow… The overwhelming majority seem to pretty much have the same attitude.
But this post isn’t just about writing a character that a star will love… No. A post like that would only be telling part of the story…
So let’s get going.
Many writers seem to be on one side or another i.e., PLOT vs. CHARACTER. This has always fascinated me because as a writer, what really makes writing fun for ME are the characters that I’ve created. Sure, plot is cool. I would never say that it isn’t but for the life of me, I can’t understand writers that say PLOT drives CHARACTER.
Imagine that. You write a story and screenplay where your plot forces your character to go this way or that way. I’ve read screenplays like that.
They suck.
Why do they suck? Because in these types of screenplays, it’s always about the ACTION. I’ve even read screenplays that had some outstanding action sequences in them. Very unique. Original. Amazing. But the action sequences didn’t work because the characters were like those little Army men you used to play with when you were a kid i.e., they were simply being moved along the plotline as action took place.
They were merely there. They showed up.
You can, almost immediately, recognize that screenwriters that write these kinds of screenplays either follow the mindset that PLOT drives CHARACTER or, they simply don’t know enough about their characters to make them multidimensional.
This is one of the reasons I really like writing that first draft from my gut which is in fact, from my characters’ guts. Yeah, I take the time and effort to create a character on paper before I ever start writing a damn thing. I might even already possess what I KNOW is a great high concept but to me, without a great character to carry out that high concept, I got nothin’.
Don’t get me wrong… I believe in outlines. I also take the time and effort to create a good outline. I use a structure that I’ve managed to tweak that suits my own beliefs but more importantly, SUITS the characters. You can try to say that your story is about the overall incident that takes place but really… That’s not what an audience is going to respond to. Nope. They’re going to respond to your characters. An audience doesn’t sit back in their seat and root for action to take place. The audience doesn’t sit there and root for a twist or turn in the story.
Nope.
To read what the audience really root for, follow this link.
//Unk
Categories: [characters_] [plot_] [structure_] [action_]Labels: action, characters, plot, structure, Unk
Posted by
scribosphere @
5:10 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
Screenwriters of Tazmania - You're a Lazy and Arrogant Writer |
|
|
|
You're a Lazy and Arrogant Writer POSTED BY TAZ OVER AT Screenwriters of Tazmania.
I know there's no way you can finish your script because you sit and procrastinate all day long. You sit in a coffee shop several hours and won't bother to type a single word, because you know it'll never become any finished screenplay. It doesn't matter if you have the highest concept currently possible for the human mind to create, you're too afraid.
Afraid of what? Afraid of being lazy, of not be able to write it good, of getting a writers block along the way, of developing another idea instead, of spending too much time on something that never will be made.
And you're right, cause it won't. Even if you finish that script based on the greatest idea ever all you gonna get is disappointment delivered faster than Fed-Ex can pass a tiny package to its neighbour. There's simply no certain way to get through the filters set up in Hollywood currently, too hard if even possible.
But what am I talking about, you won't finish that script anyway. You haven't even outlined it properly, you're too eager to get started and write the next block-buster. Too eager to find an agent before you even have started or in a hurry to tell your friends you're the next Kaufman even though you know that's not true.
I know why you work that way - you love writing. You love it so much you're ready to become a professional faster than you should, ultimately ending up destroying that chance of yours by disappointing yourself. Ironically it won't be the agent or producers or Hollywood in general that will say "no" to your script. It will be you.
You will be your own enemy.
To read the rest of this post, follow this link.
//taZ
Categories: [ideas_] [structure_] [market_] [plot_]Labels: ideas, market, plot, structure, taZ
Posted by
scribosphere @
8:25 AM |
|
|
|
|
Monday, December 11, 2006 |
|
Scriptwriting & Reading in the UK - Script Reading Commandments |
|
|
|
Script Reading CommandmentsPOSTED BY DANNY STACK OVER AT Scriptwriting & Script Reading in the UK.
1. Thou Shalt Read The Script in Its Entirety
When you’re reading a poor script, your mind will naturally wander and your attention will stray so try to stay focused as you don’t want to miss any important plot detail that will impede your ability to write up a good synopsis later.
2. Pitch it, Baby
Writing a good logline will tell you, and the exec, whether the script is actually a film or not. Trying to sum up the script you’ve just read in one or two sentences can sometimes take longer than any other part of the report, but it’s worth it.
A broad sweep of the premise and the story is more suitable than a basic description of the concept. The following (flexible) template works particularly well in getting all you need to get across: “It’s about A CHARACTER who WANTS SOMETHING/HAS A GOAL but CONFLICT and WHAT HE DOES TO OVERCOME CONFLICT.”
3. Thou Shalt Write a Good Synopsis
Your synopsis may contain more narrative flair than the script itself but hey, you’re a writer too, so be respectful to the plot (no matter how poor) and don't describe the script ‘beat by beat’. Avoid long sentences. This will be hugely appreciated by the execs, as they’re always looking for concise, clear and well-written reports, especially the synopses. It makes their job so much easier. You might make the story sound good but you can always rip it to pieces later in the ‘comments’ section.
4. Be Harsh, but Fair; Be Cruel, but Kind
Scathing criticism has become a trademark style for readers everywhere but it’s important to stay objective and not just trash a script because you feel like it. If something is terrible, you have to give sound reasoning as to why it’s so bad, and offer valid critical comment on the style and detail of the script.
Even the most turgid of screenplays will have some merit, somewhere, so offer a few positive comments, if you can, as it will help the exec be kinder in his rejection letter. Also, the recommendations break down into “Pass”, “Consider” or “Recommend”. There is no “Pass/Consider”. This drives execs nuts. Make up your mind, be decisive.
5. It’s Not About ‘You’
There is no ‘I’ in ‘Reader’ so avoid phrases like: “I don’t think this works” or “I laughed out loud” because the coverage shouldn’t bring attention to the reader, it should be wholly focused on the script. Your comments represent what you think so there’s no need for any first person narrative. Some comments like, “in this reader’s opinion”, are okay because it helps to qualify the balance of critique being offered. Also, don’t try to be too funny, jokey, glib or dismissive. This doesn’t help anyone.
To read the remaining 6 commandments, follow this link.
//Danny Stack
Categories: [structure_] [ideas_] [action_] [general_]Labels: action, Danny Stack, general, ideas, structure
Posted by
scribosphere @
9:30 AM |
|
|
|
|
Sunday, December 10, 2006 |
|
$1000 Spielberg - Free Screenwriting Software |
|
|
|
Free Screenwriting Software POSTED BY CLIVE DAVIES OVER AT $1000 Spielberg.
Over the years I’ve spend a reasonable amount of money on tools to help with my screen writing. Most of them have been good investments. But for the $1000 film maker and the baby spec script writer here are two free tools that you may find useful. The first is a free screen writing programme called Celtx, for those of you who are still driving yourself insane trying to format your scripts properly in Microsoft Word this will definitely be a step up. Celtx does all the things you’d expect from screenplay formatting software, in that it lays your script out professionally (You still need to know the rules! LOL) The other freebie is a beta online version of Storybase. Storybase is a piece of software which provides a huge buffet of potential scenarios from a given emotional trigger. Up to now it’s only be available as a for as a purchase — now they’ve released a free online version. //Clive Davies
Read/Post Comments
Categories: [market_] [structure_] [general_]Labels: $1000 Spielberg, general, market, structure
Posted by
scribosphere @
6:09 AM |
|
|
|
|
Saturday, December 09, 2006 |
|
One Slack Martian - You don’t need Western Union |
|
|
|
You don’t need Western Union...POSTED BY ADAM RENFRO OVER AT One Slack Martian's Screenwriting Blog.
...to take advantage of telegraphing. One of your goals as a screenwriter should be to make the audience want to know what’s going to happen next. As long as you’ve got that going on, well, you’ve got it going on. Now that’s a goal, not a method. Exactly how do you keep the audience interested? Well, you could take the Picasso approach and just throw stuff on the canvas and see what sticks. But there was only one Picasso . . . and he was a painter, so that doesn’t really apply (oh, excellent paint pun) here. So get yourself a method. (Check out Blake or Soth on the sidebar for some methodology.) After you have a method, you can add some other tools to your screenwriting toolkit to keep the audience wanting to know what will happen next. One of those tools is TELEGRAPHING. Telegraphing is a technique that consists of directly telling the audience what will happen in the future. Sometimes this is a whop over the head: Billy
I’ll see you at high noon, sheriff.
Other times it is a bit more subtle. These may be visual and not verbal, like . . . . a guy fixing his boat or a woman buying a wedding dress These things suggest which direction the script is going. They help you skip longer exposition later on. You can cut straight to Billy and the Sheriff meeting | |
