Spreading erroneous screenwriting myths

Collapse

Announcement

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

  • Re: Spreading erroneous screenwriting myths

    Bottom line: it is OKAY to use "we see".

    Comment


    • Re: Spreading erroneous screenwriting myths

      I thought the census was on: WHOOMP! THERE IT IS! Instead of: WE SEE.

      Comment


      • Re: Spreading erroneous screenwriting myths

        Originally posted by FoxHound View Post
        I was actually contacted by a few DD Pro members commenting on how they liked my alternate story.
        How did they let you know? Did they line up outside your house and salute in unison?

        Originally posted by FoxHound View Post
        Their obviously wasn't enough time to go into every story detail / clear up ambiguities. So I'll do that now.
        Eager!

        a) We need a logical explanation for why the US Navy would bring back battleships. China's a growing superpower. their Naval power has begun to eclipse ours. Battleships are thus brought back into service. This can't happen overnight. Six years seems like a good number.

        b) As for the cost, nothing would dramatically need to change in terms of setting. San Francisco, Honk Kong, even warships will look the same in 6 years, and very similar in 20.
        Yes, very little has changed much in the last 26 years. If you wanted to film a movie set in 1988, you could just go film it with the current clothing, music, technology, cars, hairstyles, slang, etc, etc, etc, and be unable to tell the difference.

        That seems much better than Battleship's way of dealing with bringing back battleships. "Fuck, we need a battleship. Luckily, we've got them in mothballs and can bring them back online in a day."

        c) Even the greatest tacticians fail. MISERABLY FAIL. Look at Napoleon.
        Yes, look at Napoleon. They didn't fire him immediately after a few losses. Of course, the fact that he was the Emperor of France might have had something to do with that. Finally, they did exile him, and he came back to give his country Waterloo.

        a) Naval weapons technology won't change much in 20 years. We won't be fighting with lasers.
        There've been successful tests with laser weapons already. Not to mention drones, improvements in stealth, robotics, computers...

        As for the future aspect, this is a "haunted by his past" type protag, so we need to skip a little bit further into the future to allow for this. Again, simply trying to explain why a battleship would need to be in service requires a lot of effort. If this wasn't about a board game whose title was a (rightfully) out of service warship, I'd've considered a present day setting.
        Yes, because of course the audience is a) aware that battleships have been retired, and b) would never believe that they could be brought back on line.

        But look, you want to be logical about this. So let's step through it:

        1. Battleships were decommissioned because they became obsolete. (Smaller, cheaper weapons could take them out easily.)
        2. The Chinese decided to become the greatest naval military power by... building a whole bunch of obsolete battleships.
        3. ????
        4. Profit!

        b) A large spaceship landed in the ocean and deployed the alien navy. It then returns to orbit. The alien naval weapons are on par with ours but their ships definitely look out of this world. Black, jagged, predatory.
        So this isn't battleships fighting battleships. This is battleships fighting black jagged battleships.

        c) First rule of alien invasion films: don't reveal the aliens faces/identities at the beginning. There's no mystery/suspense. Even the original film didn't do this.
        Yes, but the original film didn't wait until late in the third act to introduce the single alien, who sat on a bridge with a laptop, pressing buttons.

        a) The US Navy monitored the alien battle with the Chinese using satellites. That's how they were aware of their superior tactics. The US NAVY HAS NOT ENGAGED THE ALIEN FLEET YET.
        Okay, good. They studied their tactics and went back to an alcoholic who hadn't captained a ship in 20 years, and whose last battle was an embarrassing failure. Not one other person in 20 years of naval history could measure up to his prowess.

        b) So because Napoleon lost at Waterloo, you wouldn't want him to lead your 1820's army? You'd choose some lesser shmuck instead?
        Wait, is this a joke? I wouldn't want Napoleon to lead my army because he ended his military career with a string of ruinous losses.

        c) Just the CASING of the laptop looks like an Electronic-talking Battleship game. You gotta include a reference somewhere.
        So... his laptop says "Battleship!" on the case? Because...?

        a) They get to know each other. He reminded him of his younger self. Brave, bold, perhaps a bit naive. He had a soft spot for him.
        "I like the way you open your Battleship laptop. I'm coming back."

        b) The Rocky reference was a bit of a joke. He's still in fairly good shape. He just needs a crash course in some of the new holographic interface command. Kitsch is the tech nerd strategist, Neeson is more of an old-world guy. Kinda like the relationship between Justin Long and Bruce Willis in Die hard 4.
        In two days, this old wreck is brought up to speed on 20 years of military advancement. Impressive, but he is Liam Neeson.

        The crew are aware of his legendary career and service to the US Navy. He's a naval Napoleon to them. Their faith is just slipping. Also, this is a MOVIE ABOUT A FUC*ING PEN AND PAPER BOARDGAME. I think we can dispense with the qualms about uber-realism. Besides, a group salute looks good cinematically.
        Pen and paper boardgame? Have you ever actually played Battleship? And look, you can't have it both ways - you can't crap on the one that got made, and then defend the holes in yours by saying it's okay to be lazy because it's just an adaptation of a game.

        He's failed ONCE so far in his new command. And it's a BIG victory, not a mild one. It's not just about numbers, but TYPE of ships lost.
        They sunk 1/3rd of his fleet. He sunk a third of their fleet. But clearly that wasn't a crippling blow or amazing victory, because on the heels of it, they busted through the entire fleet and crippled the command ship that the Admiral was on.

        I'm also not sure about where he's inactive. He CHOSE to come back. He CHOSE a naval strategy. Besides, active/passive is overrated. Look at Indiana Jones. If Indy had never existed, the Germans would've eventually found the Ark, taken it to Berlin, opened it up -- killing Hitler, stopping the Holocaust and World War II.
        He AGREED to come back when someone else asked him to. And yes, he chose a naval strategy... that cost him a third of his fleet and then ended up with him being captured.

        And you're very off base about Indiana Jones. He was an incredibly active protagonist who wins. I've read that fan theory before - that if Indy had done nothing, Hitler would have opened the arc and died.

        Maybe? Or maybe someone else would have opened it? Or maybe Hitler would have harnessed it? And even if it's true, you have to remember that no one, not the Nazis, not Indy, knew what would happen when the arc was opened. He set out to capture a super weapon before it fell into Nazi hands. You don't not go after a super weapon because maybe if the enemy gets it, they'll misuse it and blow themselves up.

        Again, the alien naval ships look VERY DIFFERENT.
        Black, jagged battleships. With all the same weapons as our battleships. Got it.

        Yup. One alien controls it all remotely. Neeson is able to determine by sat data, radio transmission, and maneuvering quickness that he's dealing with one, or maybe a few aliens aboard a command ship.
        I'm not sure this is a positive. Again, you've got a movie where the alien does two things: play a computer game, and win a fistfight with an old man.

        Again, battleships aren't in service. If I didn't have to write about a fuc*ing boardgame, I'd probably have it set in the present day with a carrier in its place.
        So, if you ignored the idea of recommissioning ships, you'd have a movie about carrier fighting black jagged alien carriers. Not sure it would solve the problems with your story.

        a) Intercepted radio communication led the US to believe the Chinese fleet commander was invited aboard the alien command ship during their engagement. So Neeson concocts his plan. But he can't just ASK to come aboard -- too fishy. He fake cripples his own ship and the aliens surround him, prompting the invitation. (The alien likes to meet his foes face to face).
        Wait, what? The plan was to let the aliens surround the lead ship, pretend it's broken, waiting for an invitation? This on the heels of your big victory where he just gained the upper hand?

        If he knew all this ahead of time, why didn't he do that right off the bat, rather than losing a third of his fleet, and tens of thousands of lives? His plan was to lose a battle, win a battle, get surrounded... I'm lost.

        b) The SECOND sub was attached to the hull of the skiff Neeson used to sail in all along. The skiff hid it from view / sonar signals. The other sub was meant to (not obviously) fail on purpose. leading the alien to believe Neeson's plan had failed.
        So... a nuke will take out the alien's battleship. They can sneak TWO subs right up to the ship. If that's the case, why doesn't the sub just hang back a bit and fire torpedoes at it? If a slow moving submarine can sneak up on the ship, I promise you missiles can.

        c) A bomb would be intercepted by an anti-ballistic missile.
        But subs approach it unmolested. Okay.

        It wasn't a coincidence -- Neeson planned it all along (see above). As for the fistfight, by using such a simple tactic, I think it adds a bit of irony to the whole story. You know, the big bad powerful technological alien strategist with an IQ of 5000 fell for the oldest trick in the universe.
        I'm not sure "my third act twist is the oldest trick in the universe" is a solid bit of writing.

        A portrait of him standing on the deck with his new crew saluting him during his time of need.
        Ah, got it. So will we hand out fliers to the audience so they understand?

        Actually, that knock was a joke. I actually like their writing, and respect them. But it was the creative process as a WHOLE that made Battleship a turd.
        That, in my opinion, you have not even come close to the level of beating.

        I'm also not hating/disrespecting Adam Sandler. Happy Gilmore is my all-time fav comedy. All I'm saying is Jack & Jill was terrible.
        Well, no. You're also saying, but not demonstrating, that you can do better.

        And I appreciate you for your critique. Now critique the actual Battleship script in the exact same way, so we can have ACTUAL quality control.
        Don't feel like I need to. Those writers aren't saying "we can come up with a better story than FoxHound did."

        Comment


        • Re: Spreading erroneous screenwriting myths

          Originally posted by Why One View Post
          I posted my thoughts on Foxhound's pitch a few weeks ago but later deleted it -- twice. But now that Jeff has made it fair game....

          A number of the problems Jeff pointed were issues I had too:

          But I'm not the one making ridiculous assertions that I can do better than the Hoeber Brothers.

          To sum up, in this movie, Liam Neeson gets drunk and feels sorry for himself, Taylor Kitsch's naval prowess includes making him shed a tear. Liam Neeson boards the alien ship and "I win motrher******"s his ass. It's a game of battleship that pretends to be a game of chess but has the cleverness of a game of tic-tac-toe.
          First, The Hoeber brothers weren't the only ones working on this. It was a collaborative process. It's that collaborative process which I was critical of, and prompted my story. And I only told the story in 300 worlds. There's obviously more depth to it than that. (Please don't make me write a 30-page treatment.) And besides, what would battleship's version be?

          "A generic bunch of aliens who possess the superior intelligence and the technological/engineering capacity to conquer the stars accidently run into a Comcast satellite, foiling their own plan. But before they can setup a replacement beacon, a Museum, led by a ragtag band of geezers and a hotshot, unempathetic young Lieutenant blows it to pieces. How you ask? Because our hyper-intelligent aliens wisely let it sail close enough to get into firing range -- again, foiling their OWN PLAN."

          Originally posted by Why One View Post
          Your pitch has nothing but a medley of bad cliches and corny moments. There is little story and no good ideas other than the concept of aliens fighting naval vessels -- which you didn't come up with!
          And battleship didn't have clichés? It was a Transformers ripoff. And the idea of an alien commander going from planet to planet playing war-games is actually an interesting idea. Battleship's aliens, on the other hand, had ZERO BACKSTORY. In the theatre I was practically screaming "tell me who they are!" In fact, a lot of my ranting is the result of a very poor moviegoing experience. I love these types of films -- Pacific Rim was awesome! -- but battleship just infused a sense of emptiness into my soul when I left the theatre.

          Originally posted by Why One View Post
          BATTLESHIP may not have been the greatest movie ever, but it tries a few things: the idea of Japanese and American sportsmanship at modern day Pearl Harbor; turning the page over Pacific War wounds and establishing a new enemy; a strong headed protag that has to learn humility; a polarizing character in the form of a brother; emotional loss to drive the protag; the tragedy that the brother went out butting heads with his younger bro and never seeing his potential (which is dramatic unlike a self-pity Neeson); the imagery of bringing a retired WW2 vessel back into action and having Japanese sailors co-operating with Americans; amputee soldiers learning to overcome their situation etc.

          When you think about it, BATTLESHIP is pretty rich with ideas when you compare it to your drunk Neeson and wet cardboard Kitsch version.

          The biggest naval battles in US history occurred in the Pacific (and probably an influence for the Battleship board game) and the Hoeber Bros uses WW2 Pacific imagery to echo that. Your pitch doesn't even attempt any kind of theme or imagery other than a weepy and drunk Neeson.

          IMO your pitch feels like the typical "Hollywood sucks, I can do better" BS. I doubt even Asylum would use this for their Battleship rip-off. I understand that this is just something you rattled off the top of your head. But IMO there isn't a single decent idea here. Are you really sure that your pitch is better than the BATTLESHIP movie?
          Maybe we should send out the pitch to managers/producers and see what they have to say? Yes Battleship had some good elements, but I think my basic story is more engaging. It does a better job of capturing the essence of the board game in cinematic form: Two commanders, two equal sized navies, one ocean. The original movie made no attempt at this whatsoever.
          I'm never wrong. Reality is just stubborn.

          Comment


          • Re: Spreading erroneous screenwriting myths

            Originally posted by JeffLowell View Post
            Yes, very little has changed much in the last 26 years. If you wanted to film a movie set in 1988, you could just go film it with the current clothing, music, technology, cars, hairstyles, slang, etc, etc, etc, and be unable to tell the difference.
            Looper's budget: $30 million. It wouldn't be difficult to a set a film 26 years in the future.

            Originally posted by JeffLowell View Post
            That seems much better than Battleship's way of dealing with bringing back battleships. "Fuck, we need a battleship. Luckily, we've got them in mothballs and can bring them back online in a day."
            All 8 surviving battleships are now museums.

            Originally posted by JeffLowell View Post
            Yes, look at Napoleon. They didn't fire him immediately after a few losses. Of course, the fact that he was the Emperor of France might have had something to do with that. Finally, they did exile him, and he came back to give his country Waterloo.
            I've gone into further detail about his failure. See a few posts below.

            Originally posted by JeffLowell View Post
            There've been successful tests with laser weapons already. Not to mention drones, improvements in stealth, robotics, computers...
            The potency of future weapons are highly exaggerated in films. Directed energy weapons are very big and highly impractical. Why dump $80 billion into a laser system, when you can just blow an incoming missile out of the sky with an already-mounted Phalynx cannon?

            I should also mention, there's an imagination gap when it comes to technology. In the 60's folks were talking about enormous space stations and colonizing the Moon/Mars by the year 2000. Economic reality dictates that this won't happen for hundreds of years. The same could be said for particle beam weapons mounted on destoryers in 20 years.

            Originally posted by JeffLowell View Post
            Yes, because of course the audience is a) aware that battleships have been retired, and b) would never believe that they could be brought back on line.

            But look, you want to be logical about this. So let's step through it:

            1. Battleships were decommissioned because they became obsolete. (Smaller, cheaper weapons could take them out easily.)
            2. The Chinese decided to become the greatest naval military power by... building a whole bunch of obsolete battleships.
            3. ????
            4. Profit!
            They'd be state of the art with EXTREME range.

            Originally posted by JeffLowell View Post
            So this isn't battleships fighting battleships. This is battleships fighting black jagged battleships.
            Maybe this will help better visualize the alien ships http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZAGYv8MniE

            Originally posted by JeffLowell View Post
            Yes, but the original film didn't wait until late in the third act to introduce the single alien, who sat on a bridge with a laptop, pressing buttons.
            I think the mystery is vital. Maybe during the movie we can cut to a shady figure sitting in a chair, bathed in darkness, aboard an alien bridge. At least get some glimpse of who we're dealing with. And besides, what in hell were the alien commanders in Battleship doing? I believe War of the Worlds (2005) waited 'till the third act to reveal the little tripods.

            Originally posted by JeffLowell View Post
            Okay, good. They studied their tactics and went back to an alcoholic who hadn't captained a ship in 20 years, and whose last battle was an embarrassing failure. Not one other person in 20 years of naval history could measure up to his prowess.
            I should clear up something. He didn't actually lose the battle. The Chinese launched an invasion of Taiwan, and ran into an American blockade. A huge battle ensued. The Chinese were getting the upper hand, so Nesson, desperate for victory -- he's like the lawyer that will do ANYTHING FOR A WIN -- engaed in a risky tactical maneuver that put his ship in jeopardy. By doing so, he won the battle of Taiwan, but lost his crew. So In Blake Snyder like fashion, we have a question posed on page 5 "Is risking/sacrificing your entire ship/crew worth winning the battle?" Further, though risky, it wasn't a suicide maneuver, so he still failed to protect his crew.

            Originally posted by JeffLowell View Post
            Wait, is this a joke? I wouldn't want Napoleon to lead my army because he ended his military career with a string of ruinous losses.
            Isn't that like saying you wouldn't want Lebron James on your basketball team because his last playoff appearance was a disaster?

            Originally posted by JeffLowell View Post
            So... his laptop says "Battleship!" on the case? Because...?

            "I like the way you open your Battleship laptop. I'm coming back."
            It looks similar to but is in no way an Electronic-talking Battleship game.

            Originally posted by JeffLowell View Post
            In two days, this old wreck is brought up to speed on 20 years of military advancement. Impressive, but he is Liam Neeson.
            Indeed he is.

            Originally posted by JeffLowell View Post
            Pen and paper boardgame? Have you ever actually played Battleship? And look, you can't have it both ways - you can't crap on the one that got made, and then defend the holes in yours by saying it's okay to be lazy because it's just an adaptation of a game.
            LOL. Have you? It's basically a simple guessing game on a grid. You can use pencil and paper or the traditional plastic cases. I've played them all, including Electronic-talking Battleship, which I got Christmas 1990.

            Originally posted by JeffLowell View Post
            They sunk 1/3rd of his fleet. He sunk a third of their fleet. But clearly that wasn't a crippling blow or amazing victory, because on the heels of it, they busted through the entire fleet and crippled the command ship that the Admiral was on.
            Intentionally getting captured as a strategic maneuver seems to be a trend in blockbusters nowadays.

            Originally posted by JeffLowell View Post
            He AGREED to come back when someone else asked him to. And yes, he chose a naval strategy... that cost him a third of his fleet and then ended up with him being captured.

            And you're very off base about Indiana Jones. He was an incredibly active protagonist who wins. I've read that fan theory before - that if Indy had done nothing, Hitler would have opened the arc and died.

            Maybe? Or maybe someone else would have opened it? Or maybe Hitler would have harnessed it? And even if it's true, you have to remember that no one, not the Nazis, not Indy, knew what would happen when the arc was opened. He set out to capture a super weapon before it fell into Nazi hands. You don't not go after a super weapon because maybe if the enemy gets it, they'll misuse it and blow themselves up.
            Didn't Indy also AGREE to go on HIS mission as well? Is that not passive? Look, don't get me wrong, I'm a HUGE fan of the film. And Indy's lack of arc, which is probably the biggest criticism of the story, is one I reject for two reasons: a) He DID arc. In the beginning of the movie he believed the Ark was hocus pocus -- had no faith. By the end of the film he believed every word -- gained faith and b) You don't need to arc to have a good film.

            As for the active/passive, I also agree. He obviously was driving the plot with his actions. Had he not journeyed to Nepal, the medallion would never have been found. And if he didn't destroy the Flying Wing, the Ark would've escaped to Berlin. But from a BROAD scope, the story feels a bit more inevitable than let's say The Matrix.

            Originally posted by JeffLowell View Post
            Black, jagged battleships. With all the same weapons as our battleships. Got it.
            Perhaps "functionally equivalent" is a better term.

            Originally posted by JeffLowell View Post
            I'm not sure this is a positive. Again, you've got a movie where the alien does two things: play a computer game, and win a fistfight with an old man.
            Not sure the aliens in War of The Worlds (2005), Independence Day or Battleship did anything worthwhile either. At least mine will talk, maybe make a cool speech.

            Originally posted by JeffLowell View Post
            So, if you ignored the idea of recommissioning ships, you'd have a movie about carrier fighting black jagged alien carriers. Not sure it would solve the problems with your story.
            I should point out the American naval fleet would be comprised of Carriers, Battleships, Destroyers, Cruisers etc.

            Originally posted by JeffLowell View Post
            Wait, what? The plan was to let the aliens surround the lead ship, pretend it's broken, waiting for an invitation? This on the heels of your big victory where he just gained the upper hand?

            If he knew all this ahead of time, why didn't he do that right off the bat, rather than losing a third of his fleet, and tens of thousands of lives? His plan was to lose a battle, win a battle, get surrounded... I'm lost.
            He couldn't fake cripple his ship without a battle ensuing. Besides, like most real-time battle decisions, the "Intentionally get captured" plan was a spur of the moment thing, and again, very popular in modern blockbusters.

            Originally posted by JeffLowell View Post
            So... a nuke will take out the alien's battleship. They can sneak TWO subs right up to the ship. If that's the case, why doesn't the sub just hang back a bit and fire torpedoes at it? If a slow moving submarine can sneak up on the ship, I promise you missiles can.

            But subs approach it unmolested. Okay.
            It's a small sub, think ABYSS. Something that can hide under the skiff. A 500-foot sub would be spotted miles out by sonar.

            Originally posted by JeffLowell View Post
            I'm not sure "my third act twist is the oldest trick in the universe" is a solid bit of writing.
            Again, it's irony. On purpose. And what was Star Wars' 3rd act twist? A ghost tells our hero to shoot a torpedo blind? But, I admit, we could replace this with something more clever. Give me a day to figure it out Besides, most blockbusters end up with the protag and antag in a confrontation. We need some kind of "final duel." Hell maybe they could play one game of chess for all the marbles, But the Queen blows up in the alien's face. Neeson wins.

            Originally posted by JeffLowell View Post
            Ah, got it. So will we hand out fliers to the audience so they understand?
            We saw them place it into casket before they closed it.

            Originally posted by JeffLowell View Post
            That, in my opinion, you have not even come close to the level of beating.
            Obviously, a STORY has hundreds of plot elements, dozens of rich characters, 15 structural beats, dozens of characters arcs etc. I can't write that in 300 words. Let's just say I think my premise has more potential than Battleship's because of its tormented hero and how closely it mirrors the board game's structure.

            Originally posted by JeffLowell View Post
            Well, no. You're also saying, but not demonstrating, that you can do better.
            Do you really want me spend the next year writing a comedy script as good as Jack & Jill? And if so, will you promise to get me in touch with a good producer?

            Originally posted by JeffLowell View Post
            Don't feel like I need to. Those writers aren't saying "we can come up with a better story than FoxHound did."
            Again, it was more than the writers. It was the collaborative process. But said process DID cause millions of moviegoers who paid to see a good film go home very disappointed.

            In conclusion, since I guarantee you, I WILL GO ON FOREVER, let's just end it here with me saying this: I won't ever say I got a better story than someone else unless I post a full 30-page treatment to back up my words.
            I'm never wrong. Reality is just stubborn.

            Comment


            • Re: Spreading erroneous screenwriting myths

              Originally posted by FoxHound View Post
              But said process DID cause millions of moviegoers who paid to see a good film go home very disappointed.
              Actually, from Box Office Mojo:

              [Audiences] awarded the movie a fine "B" CinemaScore.
              In conclusion, since I guarantee you, I WILL GO ON FOREVER, let's just end it here with me saying this: I won't ever say I got a better story than someone else unless I post a full 30-page treatment to back up my words.
              IMO, it's not the lack of specificity that makes your story come up short. Your niggling at the edges of the criticism, but you're missing the main point: you have a movie where all of the action is two different looking navies firing at each other for 90 minutes, then meet one alien with a laptop who has a fistfight. When your one sentence pitch isn't compelling, a thousand pages of detail don't help.

              Am I saying Battleship is perfect? No. But I think writers in general would be better turning their gimlet eye on their own work with the same enthusiasm they do when criticizing others.

              Comment


              • Re: Spreading erroneous screenwriting myths

                Originally posted by FoxHound View Post
                (Please don't make me write a 30-page treatment.

                Please don't let this happen.

                Comment


                • Re: Spreading erroneous screenwriting myths

                  Originally posted by FoxHound View Post
                  (Please don't make me write a 30-page treatment.)
                  Don't.. Just don't.

                  NO ONE is forcing you write anything. You attempted to pitch a better version of Battleship. You failed. Jeff made it very clear exactly why your version didn't work--and he's right. No amount of explanation will save it.

                  Foxhound, ask yourself WHY you're dragging this out. Why do you need so badly for everyone on this board to agree with you (newsflash: they won't)? Let it go.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Spreading erroneous screenwriting myths

                    Originally posted by Craig Mazin View Post
                    I believe that 99% of people who are trying to write screenplays are incapable of writing a script as good as Jack and Jill.

                    Don't believe me?

                    Try it.

                    I know, it's not your cup of tea. But hey... it won't take much time, right? Prove me wrong. If you do, you'll sell it for sure, so the experiment is totally worth it to your bottom line.
                    Hey Craig or Jeff,
                    Do you know, or can you give details on how J&J was pitched/developed? I haven't seen the movie so I can't comment on quality but I feel like there are things that can occur in Sandler movies because he gets involved in development (specific jokes, one-liners) that others would have cut. In other words, maybe you do write something better but since Sandler isn't involved, people don't get it.
                    Again, I love Sandler and haven't seen J&J, just curious about it.
                    SL35
                    Potent dreamer. Newb disclaimer.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Spreading erroneous screenwriting myths

                      Originally posted by JeffLowell View Post
                      How did they let you know? Did they line up outside your house and salute in unison?
                      Genuinely laughed out loud. Best line I can remember.

                      As for the rest of the deconstruction.........is it wrong to experience so much schadenfreude?

                      If it was a BL review, what's the score?
                      Last edited by SundownInRetreat; 02-24-2014, 03:42 PM.
                      M.A.G.A.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Spreading erroneous screenwriting myths

                        I said it before, and I'll say it again: I LOVE Battleship. I'm not saying it's a great movie, but it's a FUN movie. I can watch it over and over and enjoy myself. That's not as easy as it looks.

                        We've gone very far off topic though. I suppose I should remind everybody to remember the subject of the thread. Or perhaps today's myth is that it's easy to write a fun big budget movie based on a board game.
                        Chicks Who Script podcast

                        Comment


                        • Re: Spreading erroneous screenwriting myths

                          “It's easy to attack and destroy an act of creation. It's a lot more difficult to perform one.” - Chuck Palahniuk

                          ... this thread is proof.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Spreading erroneous screenwriting myths

                            Originally posted by celticbeauty View Post
                            Don't.. Just don't.

                            NO ONE is forcing you write anything. You attempted to pitch a better version of Battleship. You failed. Jeff made it very clear exactly why your version didn't work--and he's right. No amount of explanation will save it.

                            Foxhound, ask yourself WHY you're dragging this out. Why do you need so badly for everyone on this board to agree with you (newsflash: they won't)? Let it go.
                            Actually, judging by the messages I've received, many people DID like my pitch, and THIS is the reason I'm dragging this out. To be perfectly honest, the regular Battleship's hook was weak.

                            Original: When aliens land in the Pacific and the US Navy is no match, only a hothead Lieutenant (and the retired USS Missouri) can thwart their invasion plans and save the Earth.

                            My logline: Deep in the Pacific, a US Navy Fleet Commander, haunted by a past defeat, must wargame with the greatest military mind in the universe with the fate of humanity on the line.

                            Which premise sounds more intriguing?

                            PS. The Last Airbender had a C on Cinemascore.
                            I'm never wrong. Reality is just stubborn.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Spreading erroneous screenwriting myths

                              Actually, judging by the messages I've received, many people DID like my pitch, and THIS is the reason I'm dragging this out. To be perfectly honest, the regular Battleship's hook was weak.

                              Original: When aliens land in the Pacific and the US Navy is no match, only a hothead Lieutenant (and the retired USS Missouri) can thwart their invasion plans and save the Earth.

                              My logline: Deep in the Pacific, a US Navy Fleet Commander, haunted by a past defeat, must wargame with the greatest military mind in the universe with the fate of humanity on the line.

                              Which premise sounds more intriguing?

                              PS. The Last Airbender had a C on Cinemascore.

                              Wow. Talk about not knowing when to take a hint. The other posters here and I are trying to do you a favor by suggesting that you move on. You're not coming off well here. You get that, right? The more defensive you get--and the more you drag this discussion on--the more you showing, very publicly I might add, how poorly you take critique/notes, and how difficult you would be to work with. There are managers and professional writers (Jeff is one of them) on these boards. Is that the impression you really want to make?

                              Do yourself a favor. Move on. Let us direct the thread back to its original topic.

                              Erroneous screenwriting myths, anyone?

                              Comment


                              • Re: Spreading erroneous screenwriting myths

                                Originally posted by FoxHound View Post
                                Actually, judging by the messages I've received, many people DID like my pitch, and THIS is the reason I'm dragging this out. To be perfectly honest, the regular Battleship's hook was weak.

                                Original: When aliens land in the Pacific and the US Navy is no match, only a hothead Lieutenant (and the retired USS Missouri) can thwart their invasion plans and save the Earth.

                                My logline: Deep in the Pacific, a US Navy Fleet Commander, haunted by a past defeat, must wargame with the greatest military mind in the universe with the fate of humanity on the line.

                                Which premise sounds more intriguing?
                                Neither sounds very interesting. Of course, you wrote theirs. It's like saying "Jaws sucks. Seriously, does this logline sound good? Some guys try to kill a big shark."

                                How's this for a hook for Battleship that sounds more interesting: "Scientists finally succeed in their decades long search for extraterrestrial life - but the civilization they reach is technologically advanced and hostile, and we've just given them directions to Earth. Now our outgunned military has to rely on a mothballed battleship and its retired crew to destroy the aliens before they can call for reinforcements."

                                God damn! I'd see that movie.

                                Oh wait. I did.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X