Things I see over and over in amateur writing...

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Re: Things I see over and over in amateur writing...

    This reminds me of the time when another DD'er challenged Jeff to a psychic card experiment. Jeff sure does find himself in these situations.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Things I see over and over in amateur writing...

      Originally posted by Why One View Post
      This reminds me of the time when another DD'er challenged Jeff to a psychic card experiment.
      I don't even know what that means but that just made me laugh so hard.

      Merry Christmas!

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Things I see over and over in amateur writing...

        When I read this thread, for some reason, I keep thinking of this:

        None Shall Pass!
        "I just couldn't live in a world without me."

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Things I see over and over in amateur writing...

          Not gonna touch that one Jeff.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Things I see over and over in amateur writing...

            Six minutes watching someone eat?

            Hmm ... That does sound artsy-fartsy pretentious.

            But maybe it had a point. I guess I am going to have to try to find the script and read it.


            "The fact that you have seen professionals write poorly is no reason for you to imitate them." - ComicBent.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Things I see over and over in amateur writing...

              Wait until you see two Ghosts communicate via subtitle.

              Obviously it has artistic value to people because Jeff said reviews were good and it has big stars attach themselves for little to no money.

              Honestly, I could probably let a complete Amateur write a script, and get two big name stars to attach, give it the exact same distribution schedule and make two million. That's not even peanuts in the movie biz even though it has a 1.9 million in profit bottom line for the producers.

              Bottom line is it is not a commercial film, no studio would ever market it to the movie going audience of 16 - 30 year olds. And in no way would that script get past a studio reader. Like most art films they are heavy on imagery and metaphor and light on story.

              I'm ok with people saying they like it and see the value if they are ok in me saying I don't. But everyone should make up their own mind.

              I'm pretty sure here the aim of most of us is to be a writer of commercial material. The type of stories that studios and boutique production houses like to push out. I guess there are some that do not care about any of that and just want to write the stuff they wish to.

              Even Jeff admitted that at the end of the day a lot or all of his feature scripts would fit perfectly on any standard structure theorist diagram. See, there is a reason why these gurus who can not write scripts can tell you how you stories work. It has nothing to do with page numbers. The page number is not the important factor. The important factor is that they know movies move fast, the pacing to a great script is very fast. Not pacing as in action. Pacing like as in the timing of reveals, reversals, character intros, momentous moments. They know that by the time the writer has gotten to that 1/4 mile marker of a story, it is time for a new wrinkle. It could be page 27, or 32, who knows. I never saw John Tucker Must Die, but I'd bet money that the hero is glued into the plot (often called the point of no return) somewhere between pages 25 and 35 of the script. You certainly can't do it any later than page 35, I mean you could literally, but I wouldn't. It usually never comes before the first few sequences. The writer needs that time to spend on setting, character, and foreshadow the need for change.

              This all changes depending on Genre too. Some Genres like straight dramas, crime dramas, dramedies, mystery, thrillers, they rely on these principles, Action, Horror, Character Pieces, they rely a lot less on these principles.

              Your the plot needs to thicken around your main. Bottom line. How do you do that? IMO, you have big moments, defining moments in your structure. Moments that forever change the course the pot will take.

              Jeff says he doesn't think about any of these principles when in his process. He just wants to write a good (commercial?) piece of fiction, but he also can't deny that things happened in his story at or around the same time they've happened in others. The problem is for the writer, it needs to be fast. The pacing of your storytelling needs to have no wasted movements, being it needs to be that fast, the theorists know the writer must turn/add a new wrinkle/raise the stakes/intro a new character at certain points.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Things I see over and over in amateur writing...

                Originally posted by Cyfress View Post
                Even Jeff admitted that at the end of the day a lot or all of his feature scripts would fit perfectly on any standard structure theorist diagram.
                Here's the problem with your diagram examples -- they come after the fact, not before. Diagramming is an attempt to explain the success of a movie by breaking down its structure after the story is successful. It has nothing to do with the process of writing that particular movie. Using a diagram paradigm as a "paint by number" mechanical process when writing the script is the bass-ackwards way to do it. And it's never going to work.

                It comes down to this. Either you instinctively know what a story is, or you don't. You can't transform a non-story teller into a story teller by teaching him mechanical formulas and diagramming techniques. What you'll end up with is a stilted script that may look like a screenplay, but it won't read like one. And it won't be story that moves you. More than likely it won't be a story at all.

                Art is art. Some people can pick up a musical instrument and just start playing it. Some people can pick up a paint brush and let there talent flow through it on to the canvas. Some people can pick up a pen and write stories. Most can't do it well, and most never will be able to do it well. If you have writing talent you can polish your writing skills and get better. If you don't have talent, no matter how much you try to "polish" your story with the aid of mechanical formulas, it's never going to be a real story.

                I know this is not a popular opinion, but I like to deal in reality.
                Last edited by Centos; 12-25-2017, 11:44 PM.
                STANDARD DISCLAIMER: I'm a wannabe, take whatever I write with a huge grain of salt.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Things I see over and over in amateur writing...

                  Originally posted by Cyfress View Post
                  Honestly, I could probably let a complete Amateur write a script, and get two big name stars to attach, give it the exact same distribution schedule and make two million. That's not even peanuts in the movie biz even though it has a 1.9 million in profit bottom line for the producers.

                  Bottom line is it is not a commercial film, no studio would ever market it to the movie going audience of 16 - 30 year olds. And in no way would that script get past a studio reader. Like most art films they are heavy on imagery and metaphor and light on story.

                  ...

                  I'm pretty sure here the aim of most of us is to be a writer of commercial material. The type of stories that studios and boutique production houses like to push out. I guess there are some that do not care about any of that and just want to write the stuff they wish to.
                  If it's that easy to get a movie with stars made and a distribution deal with A24, then why don't you and everyone do it as a means to build up industry cred and get bigger gigs?

                  I think your reasoning shows a lack of understanding of the industry, what it means to build a career as a writer, and why anyone would be a screenwriter in the first place.

                  It's about getting movies made.

                  Building a career as a writer isn't about writing "commercial" stuff that ticks boxes. It's about writing something you dig that other people (producers, financiers, talent) also dig and willing to get behind. It's about being able to develop said script with producers and talent to a point where everyone is happy and willing to shoot the damn thing. Which is exactly what David Lowery has been doing! A GHOST STORY is no exception!

                  Most of his movies (apart from PETE'S DRAGON) have been indies that nobody has heard of -- and he also has a background as an editor and director. So you can argue that A GHOST STORY only got made because of A, B, and C. But the bottom line is that he's getting sh!t done.

                  Too many writers follow that one path of pandering to reps, hoping to sit at the big table with one blow. And true, while it does happen, it does not reflect the reality of what it takes to build a career as a writer and get a movie made.

                  All of your advice is all akin to guru bollox -- where you purport to know what appeals to studios, reps, readers -- without definitive proof that you can do it yourself. Why the hell would anyone listen to you over someone who HAS gotten movies made?
                  Last edited by Why One; 12-26-2017, 02:31 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Things I see over and over in amateur writing...

                    Centos, show me where I used phrases like 'paint by numbers' and 'Mechanical Process'. I never recommended to hang a diagram of the three act structure above your keyboard to any one. When writing you have to be entertaining, how do you do that? What does be entertaining mean? You might get 100 definitions of what that means. None would be to follow a cookie cutter diagram. I hate when writers who argue against knowing and learning as much as they can about pacing say owe' they are just telling you to use a cookie cutter blueprint and it will never work'. I've never read a book that said that, they all say the opposite. Its an art, these are principles, not rules. Rules mean do this and it will work, principles mean do this well and it will work.

                    So do you instinctively know story Centos? You've been around a while. By this time, if you had the instincts of a great writer, wouldn't you be making a living as a writer? Let's assume you do not have the instincts of a great writer, can you improve your instincts? Can you become more knowledgeable in craft? I'm saying yes. You're saying no I take it.

                    Well, if everyone who read a screenwriting book was able to write a great script that would make the process a whole lot easier. You can't teach someone to be a carpenter by showing them a hammer. It will take a whole lot of practice using that hammer and really understanding its design and function. Of course not, some avg. writer can not say to themselves ;I'm gonna turn the story at the 1/4, 1/2, 3/4, and 4/4 points and be able to write a great script even they made an 'attempt' and that's the key word, made an attempt to turn the story at those moments. The script may very well will be sh!t because these are principles, not rules. The theorists only know the points in time because stories are fast and screenplays may be the fastest paced format of fiction writing . There's no time to waste and the writer can't put reveals, characters, motivations, on delay. They have to get to it and fast. Scenes have to have more than one function. It reveals character, intros a key new character, offers a reveal. It needs to be layered, timed perfectly. It doesn't matter what you know about on the Macro side of things which is what the 3 act structure. It is a Macro look at the pacing of successful movies. If you think that has nothing to offer your development process when analyzing your stories then good for you, but just like people resort to telling me when they know they can not debate or do not want to debate me any longer, why should we listen to you Centos. You're no pro writer. What you say does not matter.

                    Talent does matter, of course it does, education does too and building a gut feeling for the timing of story matters too, To me. If it doesn't to you then great. Stories turn. Casablanca does and so does the New Star Wars and every story in between. These turns are predictable to an outsider who is studying film cause stories have to get to it. Nothing can be delayed. Your scenes need a point and that point needs to be evident starting from the first one. So, if you waste no time in a standard 2 hour screenplay, the moments that turn the story become predictable to anyone who studies it. It doesn't mean you can write a great script though. It will help your analytic eye when in your development stages though. I read scripts all the time that lack the key cornerstones of a good commercial piece of fiction. The writer probably isn't even aware what these cornerstones are. In the NBA right now there are pure talents, my 76ers have two of them in Joel Embiid and Ben Simmons. They were ready for the NBA at a very young age and they have all the tools needed to be a great player, but then there are other players on the 76ers like Robert Covington. He was a 6'9 center at a tiny college. He's now transformed into a forward who shoots 3s in the NBA. He worked his tail off to get where he right now. He practiced, refined, watched tape, sat through lectures, practiced more.

                    Why One -

                    It's not easy to get a movie made and a distribution deal. That's my point. It's dam hard to get a movie made and get a movie made with big name stars in the two starring roles. If you wrote a movie called My Shining Light, and it starred Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lawrence, it wouldn't make 2 Mill at the box office? Of course it would, even if it wasn't a commercial success and a bad movie. That's not what I've been saying at all.

                    A very minute few here will have a career as a writer, 90% of us do not even live in LA. It's not about industry, we are talking about craft. What are you talking about? The line to become a screenwriter is a million miles long. Why would anyone become a screenwriter? Why wouldn't they if they could. That doesn't even make sense.

                    Let's calm down for a second with the pumping of the chest and saying it's about getting movies made. No one here except a very elite few are anywhere near getting movies made. I mean, you've been here a long time Why_One, how much closer are you to getting a movie made? For The overwhelming majority it has nothing to do with getting movies made. They are not even close to that step yet. They are still knee deep in sh!t wrestling with the craft. Hopefully trying to learn as much as they can as to why films work and why they don't. There's nothing wrong with breaking down story after the fact. They do it all day long in MFA programs all over the world.

                    Show me where I said commercial = ticking boxes. It's not if your story turns it is how it turns. There's no ifs in screenwriting just hows.

                    'Building a career as a writer isn't about writing "commercial" stuff that ticks boxes. It's about writing something you dig that other people (producers, financiers, talent) also dig and willing to get behind. It's about being able to develop said script with producers and talent to a point where everyone is happy and willing to shoot the damn thing. Which is exactly what David Lowery has been doing! A GHOST STORY is no exception!'

                    You are talking about working professionals. I am talking to people who have little to no grasp on how fast stories need to move. David Lowery, I'm sure, is way past that. I hope David Lowery isn't upset I picked on his film. He's getting sh!t done cause he's a working professional. He's not coming home after a dreadful 9 - 5 trying to fiddle with some script.

                    So, let's no one post here, if they have no sales. I agree, Why one, the only ones who should post should be those who have a career in writing. Let's see if we can get that done.

                    Jeff mention Billy Wilder in an earlier post. I had a Billy Wilder phase when I first started reading about the craft because the books would always reference Some Like It Hot and Sunset Boulevard so I read those scripts and I looked for any interviews he gave where he talked about writing. About his process he said, 'Once I finally find out what the theme to the script is, I write it on notecards and tape them all around the room. Then I make sure that theme appears in some way in every scene.'

                    There's writers, working writers, who have come on here and say they lay no weight to theme, and theme never crosses their mind when writing. Who is right? Billy Wilder or them?

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Things I see over and over in amateur writing...

                      Originally posted by Cyfress View Post
                      The problem is for the writer, it needs to be fast. The pacing of your storytelling needs to have no wasted movements, being it needs to be that fast...
                      No, no, no, no. Look at what you wrote. It's a contradiction. You're too in love with absolutes.

                      "Pacing" is not a synonym for "pedal-to-the-metal". You use the word "pacing", then make the word meaningless by saying (twice) that the storytelling needs to be fast. Pacing is the speed your story needs to be, to most effectively tell the story. That can be slow or fast or somewhere in between.

                      I work to tell the best story I can. Occasionally I'm successful. Some of my favorite comments are when someone, I respect, tells me I got the pacing right.

                      If you want to tell stories (or critique them) you've got to know what pacing means.

                      This is a pretty good, short explanation/introduction to story pacing:
                      "The importance of pacing -- by Jo Linsdell
                      "I just couldn't live in a world without me."

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Things I see over and over in amateur writing...

                        Cyfress, my point is that you so cling to your guidelines and signposts and percentages and whatever, that you would have trashed a script that was made into a film that met with universal critical acclaim.

                        If you were just a guy with an opinion, great! We all have different taste!

                        But you're someone who advertises here as a guru with the secret to writing great scripts.

                        Yes, A Ghost Story was an indie. (Thank god we live in a world where indies still get made and distributed.) But I promise you on all that's holy that if a new writer wrote a film like that - a film that could be made for 100k that landed on top 10 lists and made 20 times its budget back in theaters - that person would be offered the huge commercial jobs you so revere.

                        And yes, I'm sure you can jam most everything I've written into some kind of template. Centos is right though - you're talking about movies being squeezed into some kind of paradigm after the fact. I've yet to find a guru who says "yep, that breaks all the rules and I can't explain why it works. You never could have written it with my patented system."

                        It's harmless mental masturbation to analyze movies according to whatever bullshit theory a guru "discovers". Where it's harmful is where people let formulas dictate how to write, or even worse, when they pay someone clueless to tell them how a script should work.

                        To return to my initial point on this thread: that you read 20 scripts and diagnosed them as all having the exact same problem and exact same fix should be a warning sign to you that you're doing this wrong. Since it isn't, hopefully it's a warning sign to anyone thinking of following your advice.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Things I see over and over in amateur writing...

                          Sorry, missed this in the logorrhea.

                          Originally posted by Cyfress View Post
                          There's writers, working writers, who have come on here and say they lay no weight to theme, and theme never crosses their mind when writing. Who is right? Billy Wilder or them?
                          THEY ARE BOTH RIGHT. Some writers (myself included!) give a lot of importance to theme. But there are writers I admire, writers with better careers - commercially and critically - who don't consciously think about theme when they write.

                          There is not one path to success or quality. There is no set of dictums that you can apply to the process to create a hit.

                          The number of people who believe that there is an answer, and fail miserably, should prove that that's true.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Things I see over and over in amateur writing...

                            Pacing equals the timing of events that unfold to tell a story. It doesn't mean action scenes. Pacing needs to be succinct and have no waste, that's why it is fast. Cause there's nothing better than a nice slow paced movie right? But I'll offer you Story the same challenge as I offered Jeff, which he declined. We can both read the same amateur script and offer our take on what doesn't work and why then the writer can tell us which notes impressed them more. Or we can both enter a script into the Nichol this year and have a friendly wager to see who goes further in the contest. You're convinced that I do not know what I am talking about, and I'm convinced that you don't.

                            Jeff, say what you will about Ghost Story. But any movie with bankable actors will make 2 million. The film was made for. 100k only cause they didn't give Affleck his quote and they didn't give Mara hers. If those actors received their regular fees, the movie loses millions of dollars. I'll bet their fees combined would be 25 million or more. So now, of Ghost Story cost 25.1 million to make and made 2 million, would it still be a success?

                            You're just making stuff up Jeff about recipes, templates and what have. No one offers such things as a way to be a success. You just keep going to that point cause you have nothing.

                            Ed Fury, who is a working writer, said the scripts he read for a contest all had a lot of the same issues too. No one discovered a theory Jeff, film enthusiasts, professors made observations about films throughout time. You're just trying so hard to make it sound like I'm saying something that I am not.

                            I advertise as a guru? Really. I'd love to see that ad. What I do is offer writers development help as they try to approach to write a script.

                            And I read a whole lot more than 20 scripts in my life. That's what I did this year but you keep bringing that up like it proves a point about something.

                            You said Ghost Story got a 90 on RT, Ferris Bueler only got an 81 on RT. You let 100 random movie goers view both and ask them which one is better.

                            No one ever advised a writer to use a template or diagram for their story. That's stupid. It's not about if you have something in your script or not, it's how it's used in the script.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Things I see over and over in amateur writing...

                              Originally posted by Cyfress View Post
                              Pacing equals the timing of events that unfold to tell a story. It doesn't mean action scenes. Pacing needs to be succinct and have no waste, that's why it is fast.
                              First sentence: "Pacing equals the timing of events that unfold to tell a story."

                              The full quote you found with your Google search is:

                              "Pacing is a tool that controls the speed and rhythm at which a story is told and the readers are pulled through the events. It refers to how fast or slow events in a piece unfold and how much time elapses in a scene or story. Pacing can also be used to show characters aging and the effects of time on story events. Apr 24, 2012"

                              You lost a lot when you tried to condense it.

                              Second sentence: "It doesn't mean action scenes."

                              The Straw Man objects. He didn't say pacing "means action scenes" and neither did I. Although -- hey look at me, not at the straw man -- generally, action scenes are fast paced. In fact slow paced action scenes are probably pretty rare. Only one I can name off the the top of my head is the scene with the sloths in Zootopia.

                              Third sentence: "Pacing needs to be succinct and have no waste, that's why it is fast."

                              This is the sentence that proves, once again, that you have no clue what you're talking about. "Pacing" is not a synonym for "fast". Every form of writing has pacing.

                              Ironically, most of your posts are very s l o w p a c e d. Why? Because your paragraphs are really d e n s e. Long, dense paragraphs slow down pacing. I try to speed the pacing up when I read your posts by skimming.

                              (A lot of my posts are pretty dense too. I don't intentionally do it to slow the pace -- I just love to hear myself drone on and on.)

                              But just to be clear most screenplays aren't fast paced all the way or slow paced all the way. There's usually a mix, depending on what the scene has to accomplish.

                              Read the scripts for: "Cast Away", "Big Fish" and "Pan's Labyrinth", if you still think pacing equals fast.
                              "I just couldn't live in a world without me."

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Things I see over and over in amateur writing...

                                Cyfress, I appreciate your passion for the craft, but I must agree with Jeff's opinion where he said you were expressing "absolutes" to the DD community.

                                I understand, later, you tried to clarify to Jeff that you never mentioned "absolute," but the word you actually said, "needs" gives off the same meaning.

                                For example, Cyfress says, "Traditional storytelling says you need an event like this at the 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% of your script." (100%? I suggest in the future you adjust the percentage guideline for the climax marker.)

                                I understand in screenwriting books they give these percentages, where an event/moment/plot point/turning point, or whatever you, the writer, want to call it, will happen and drive the story forward, say for example, the beginning part (Act 1) into the middle part (Act 2).

                                This would usually happen at the 25% marker, but it doesn't -- need -- to happen at the 25% mark for a story to work. It could happen at 20%, 30%, or 35%.

                                Yes, if this particular moment occurred at the 75% mark of a writer's story, then this might be a sign that the writer has a structural issue.

                                The point is Cyfress that when you say "needs", it gives the impression that you're expressing an unbreakable rule where if it's not at the 25% marker, the writer's story will fail.

                                Also, you mention a story "needs" a midpoint moment happening at the 50% marker. There are successful stories that don't have a midpoint moment.

                                Another problem I had is that you identified these defining moments for the story and character as "tentpole moments."

                                Tentpole, to me, sounds like a huge, awesome happening in the story. Again, you give the impression that these moments "need" to be of tentpole caliber. There are successful stories where some of these moments have been subtle.

                                By the way, why isn't the Inciting Incident mentioned in your structural guideline? I would think that's an important defining moment also for story and character. (Rhetorical question. You do not need to answer.)

                                One last comment: You say, "Stories are about change."

                                As Jeff pointed out, there are stories where the hero/protagonist doesn't change.

                                Stories are about emotion. You want the audience to relate and feel. To be moved by your story.

                                Originally posted by Centos View Post
                                Either you instinctively know what a story is, or you don't. You can't transform a non-story teller into a story teller by teaching him mechanical formulas and diagramming techniques. What you'll end up with is a stilted script that may look like a screenplay, but it won't read like one. ... Art is art.
                                You are confusing the craft and the art elements of a story. Craft you can say are tools. Structure is a tool to build your story, the creative art aspect of the story.

                                For example, a writer has a thriller story and he decides to open his story with the climax: It's pouring rain. A man lies in the middle of the street, clutching a gun, staring aimlessly up at the night sky. Blood oozes from bullet holes in his chest and abdomen. He says, "How the f#ck did this happen," and then the story cuts to the beginning to take the audience on the journey to show how the f#ck that incident happened.

                                Centos, in the above example, can you see the difference between the craft elements and the art elements?

                                The craft aspect of a story could be taught. The creative art aspect of a story can not be taught because it's the unique voice of a writer.

                                The traditional Three Act Structure (Beginning, Middle, and End) is used in the majority of Major Studio films.

                                When discussing the Three Act Structure, some writers take offense once percentages are mentioned, i.e., Beginning (Act 1) is 25% of your story, Middle (Act 2) is 50% of your story, and End (Act 3) is 25% of your story.

                                They fear a new writer would take this as an absolute rule, such as in a 100 page screenplay a new writer would believe that the first act MUST end on page 25 (25% mark), or his screenplay will fail.

                                These percentages should be taken as a guideline and, yes, it would be better if these books would actually point out that its just a guideline and not a rule, where specific events MUST happen on a specific page number.

                                Like it, or not these percentages are not made up. For the majority of produced Major Studio films, you'll find the Beginning of a story consisting of 25%, or at least in the ballpark.

                                How do I know these percentages are accurate?

                                People have been analyzing stories and films from 2,000 years ago with Aristotle to people in the present day and found how consistently these percentages fall in a story.

                                The use of this structural guideline is not to stifle a new writer's creativity/natural instincts, or write a formulaic story (paint by numbers).

                                It's to help a new writer get an understanding on how to move a story forward and to help outline a solid story foundation.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X