The Disciple Program...

Collapse

Announcement

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

  • #76
    Re: The Disciple Program...

    Originally posted by iggy View Post
    The use of the word masticating was one of the things that seemed forced and out of place to me, too. Because what exactly is he going for? Does he really want to emphasize the sounds of chewing? Will there be a close up of the jaw? All of a sudden there's an image more suited to Animal House.
    I liked the use of masticate actually. It's the ten thousand other unnecessary words in the descriptions that slowed the read to a slog for me. And the big fluffy speeches by the bad guys. It's a decent script but there are many others in semifinal levels of contests that exceed it.

    Hey, I'm down with writers succeeding, but perhaps I'm seeing this thread differently than others. I thought we were here to talk about scripts, not just mindlessly cheerlead as if someone with any say-so is hovering over this thread with a button to destroy the chances of this script selling. This is just us writers talking shop and IMO, many better scripts are out there that deserve to get sold.
    Last edited by AlexNoa; 02-29-2012, 05:05 PM.

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: The Disciple Program...

      The only time I've ever liked the word masticate was when some late night host (Leno or O'Brien - not sure which) did man on the street interviews and asked passersby if it was appropriate for high school kids to masticate during lunch.

      Judging by the looks on their faces, not too many people have any idea what that word means.

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: The Disciple Program...

        This script was pretty decent. I stopped reading after a while but got the gist of it.

        It felt like the writer mulled over every action line and tried to make it the most super interesting version of that line. Almost like there was a disregard for the thing as a whole.

        It felt a bit like I was consuming empty calories. Like when I read something by David Guggenheim.

        Still, this new writer certainly has talent.

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: The Disciple Program...

          Originally posted by Recreant View Post
          This script was pretty decent. I stopped reading after a while but got the gist of it.
          LOL.

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: The Disciple Program...

            So I read this and I have to say it's a very good script. The ninja linguistic skills of this writer defy most writers and most thesaurus's (atleast my own).

            It's very similar tonally to "The Manchurian Candidate" - the original and remake, and say The Bourne Identity.

            Infact, my own script has the same themes - mind control. My script is set in the 70's and is more of a Manchurian Candidate/ Rambo mashup, but there are definite similarities.

            So I'll follow this one, hope they get a good director and cast.

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: The Disciple Program...

              I think there's a bit of everything going on. Some are going to be genuinely underwhelmed because they expected the greatest script of all time whilst others just want to deride so as to bring the writer down to their level (instead of raising their game to reach his level).

              The latter are just sore and bitter and the former need a bit of operspective. The rave reviews were't because his script was revolutionary but simply that he was onf oe the .01% of wannabes who can actually write to a pro level.

              My gripe with anyone who criticises, in good faith or bad, is that seeing as this guy is in that 0.01% who are we to judge when 99.99% can't write to that level? Seems that pretty much everyone can learn from the script, rather than act like they're better with "it needs work" and "it's not bad".

              Originally posted by ChadStrohl View Post
              Words like eviscerated (disemboweled) and masticating (chewing) impress less than they derail. These types lofty words appear sporadically so I get the sense that it's not exactly a stylistic choice over thesaurus abuse - especially when the dumbed down versions of these words work equally as well, and (presumably) carry more weight with the majority of potential readers. To be blunt... it's showing off - WORD BLING - and it shows.
              I don't think eviscerated and masticating are lofty or result in people reaching for the dictionary. I find the bold worrying, though. It's advocating a limited vocabulary and saying all are equal when it's not the case. Certain words are more evocative, wondrous and carry more weight and should be championed or else what do we have - 'good' and 'double good'?

              Does anyone really think 'deceitful' carries the same weight as 'insidious'? 'Lying' as evocative as 'mendacious'? 'Lustful' as weighty as 'lecherous' or 'salacious'? 'Humid' as resonant as 'sultry'? 'Defamatory' as expressive as 'scurrilous'?

              IMO there's a big difference between a varied vocabulary and pretentiously using words that next to no one has used in the past 100 years.
              M.A.G.A.

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: The Disciple Program...

                Originally posted by SundownInRetreat View Post

                Does anyone really think 'deceitful' carries the same weight as 'insidious'? 'Lying' as evocative as 'mendacious'? 'Lustful' as weighty as 'lecherous' or even 'salacious'? 'Humid' as 'sultry'?
                Wait, let me get the dictionary and then I'll answer your question.

                But seriously. Deceitful, lying, lustful and humid all work.

                Insidious, mendacious, lecherous and sultry are just unnecessary.

                I think it's a good rule of thumb to try to make the reading experience as easy as possible for the reader.

                If he has to read a sentence twice to understand it, you're not doing your job.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: The Disciple Program...

                  Originally posted by ATB View Post
                  But seriously. Deceitful, lying, lustful and humid all work.

                  Insidious, mendacious, lecherous and sultry are just unnecessary.

                  I think it's a good rule of thumb to try to make the reading experience as easy as possible for the reader.

                  If he has to read a sentence twice to understand it, you're not doing your job.
                  Of course they all work. That was never in doubt. Only do they work as good? Are they equal? No, they're not equal as for working just as good - that all depends on the content and context.

                  As for the other words being unnecessary - the short answer is no. No one words is more necessary than another. The longer answer is it depends, as I mentioned. Lecherous, for example, is far more evocative than lustful. It implies a far more dirty, creepy and seedy angle than lustful which simply means aroused and amorous. Just like insidious is far more damning than lying. A child who tries to evade being told off by telling a porky is lying - not insidious. And a salacious headline in a newspaper is not simply lustful, sleazy or sensationalism. It achieves so much more than any of the alternatives.

                  Apart from differing shades of definition, different nuances, they all have different strengths (ie: some are weaker/stronger than others). You want to tip toe around someone being deceitful and avoid imflammatory language - you say fib.

                  I think it's a good rule of thumb to paint the best picture possible, using whatever words you feel serves best. Yes that means making it as easy a read as possible but that doesn't necessarily mean using simple words. And part of your job in making it an easy read as possible is to use the right word, at the right time, to paint the right picture and evoke the requisite response.
                  Last edited by SundownInRetreat; 03-02-2012, 03:15 PM.
                  M.A.G.A.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: The Disciple Program...

                    Originally posted by ATB View Post
                    Wait, let me get the dictionary and then I'll answer your question.

                    But seriously. Deceitful, lying, lustful and humid all work.

                    Insidious, mendacious, lecherous and sultry are just unnecessary.

                    I think it's a good rule of thumb to try to make the reading experience as easy as possible for the reader.

                    If he has to read a sentence twice to understand it, you're not doing your job.
                    Not trying to start anything, but do you think EVERYONE understood every line of Adaptation. the first time they read it? I read the script (when the movie was on DVD) and I had to re-read a few things to make sure what I was understanding. That could be my failing, though. I think most would argue that Kaufman did his job on that one, despite some people reading it a few times to understand it completely.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: The Disciple Program...

                      Originally posted by ATB View Post
                      I think it's a good rule of thumb to try to make the reading experience as easy as possible for the reader.

                      If he has to read a sentence twice to understand it, you're not doing your job.
                      I agree with this. The words are supposed to flow, and a script's content should be the focal point -- not the writer's large vocabulary.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: The Disciple Program...

                        Originally posted by SCanfieldfilms View Post
                        ... but do you think EVERYONE understood Adaptation. the first time they read it? I think most would argue that Kaufman did his job on that one, despite people reading it a few times to understand it completely.

                        Of course, I'm sure many understood it first run.
                        Good point. But do you think that's easily overlooked though, because Adaptation was so out there?

                        Whereas a straight up action or thriller has a different feel to the world it lives in, one that is supposed to be sleek or streamlined, and therefore you shouldn't trip over the language, the language should match the content? I dunno...

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: The Disciple Program...

                          Originally posted by figment View Post
                          Good point. But do you think that's easily overlooked though, because Adaptation was so out there?

                          Whereas a straight up action or thriller has a different feel to the world it lives in, one that is supposed to be sleek or streamlined, and therefore you shouldn't trip over the language, the language should match the content? I dunno...
                          I agree completely, but on the same token, everyone seemed to love 'L.A. Rex' and that was one of the most disjointed scripts I ever read. Very unique action lines, double dialogue, etc.

                          I would say it depends on the script. If you don't have good content though, nothing will change that.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: The Disciple Program...

                            Originally posted by SCanfieldfilms View Post
                            Not trying to start anything, but do you think EVERYONE understood every line of Adaptation. the first time they read it? I read the script (when the movie was on DVD) and I had to re-read a few things to make sure what I was understanding. That could be my failing, though. I think most would argue that Kaufman did his job on that one, despite some people reading it a few times to understand it completely.
                            I can't really say. I haven't read it. Did you have to re-read because of the story or because of the language used to tell the story?

                            Originally posted by SundownInRetreat View Post
                            I think it's a good rule of thumb to paint the best picture possible, using whatever words you feel serves best. Yes that means making it as easy a read as possible but that doesn't necessarily mean using simple words.
                            There's a vast difference between using "simple words" and using language that doesn't pull the reader out of the story...

                            Originally posted by SundownInRetreat View Post
                            And any reader thrown off by any of the words discussed shouldn't be a reader.
                            There are a LOT of readers that would balk at some of those words. I have a Bachelor's in English and seeing "mendacious" in a script would throw me out of the story.

                            Originally posted by SundownInRetreat View Post
                            And part of your job in making it an easy read as possible is to use the right word, at the right time, to paint the right picture and evoke the required response.
                            And the intended response should not be to send your reader to dictionary.com ...

                            I feel like if you need these "big words" to paint your picture, then you need some more practice.

                            Don't get in the way of your story. You're just the medium.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: The Disciple Program...

                              Originally posted by ATB View Post
                              I can't really say. I haven't read it. Did you have to re-read because of the story or because of the language used to tell the story?
                              Both. But again, it's a unique story, so knowing nothing about orchid hunting (or that it even existed) it was all new territory to me.

                              The other thing I'd like to consider is most reps these days are MBA's, and if they have a horribly limited vocabulary, something might be wrong. I find language usage gets most tedious in novels, novels that people RAVE about.

                              Like Nueromancer, I know that threw a lot of people for a loop when they read it on recommendation in the middle 80's, because it's just so different, and most people had no clue what computer hacking even was at the time. I realize it's just one example, but it's a well known example.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: The Disciple Program...

                                SCanfield,

                                Sounds like you're talking more about content though. I think it's okay to tell a story that's a little difficult to follow... Like the script we're talking about, The Disciple Program.

                                But it's using unnecessary language that I think we should stay away from. Especially if your story isn't straight-forward or easy to follow.

                                Also, reps might have MBA's but I don't think producers or execs would love to read a sentence describing a "mendacious" tabloid.

                                I'm not saying never use "big" words, but if people have to read your stuff with a dictionary by their side then you need to switch up your game.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X