Brian Koppelman's Vines

Collapse

Announcement

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

  • #31
    Re: Brian Koppelman's Vines

    I don't know how to respond to this other than to repeat that you are describing what worked for you. Other people learn differently.

    I thought the most interesting piece of that video was his implied criticism of the culture around writing that glorifies the autodidact. Not every writer is like Koppelman and bursts from the head of Zeus fully formed. Personally, I have no problem crediting books by former development people or screenwriting teachers at USC/UCLA for making me consider things that I might otherwise have missed. And I think it's really limiting to believe that you can only learn from other writers. There are many, many aspects to screenwriting, and I have found that viewing this profession from another perspective can be extremely helpful.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Brian Koppelman's Vines

      I'm deeply skeptical of the gurus' seminars, public lectures, special consulting fees that run into the hundreds and thousands. Their books can be helpful, in moderation.


      http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2005/10...-sequence.html

      http://letsschmooze.blogspot.com/201...ing-books.html
      If you really like it you can have the rights
      It could make a million for you overnight

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Brian Koppelman's Vines

        Originally posted by Wes Tooke View Post
        I thought the most interesting piece of that video was his implied criticism of the culture around writing that glorifies the autodidact.
        This.

        Harlan Ellison said that writing was the hardest job he ever had, and someone posted that on their FB page or group or whatever and writers were, "YEAH! It's hard, man! Like, really...hard."

        And Ellison's full of sh!t. Writing is not the hardest job in the world, and by saying that I'm not saying writing isn't hard. 'Cause it is. But there seems to be this notion among writers that because we happen to be good with a sentence, that somehow makes us better than those poor fools who can't conjugate or know what an intransitive verb is.

        Writing is hard because it's work. Some work can be enjoyable, like writing. And some work is not so enjoyable, like digging ditches.

        And if any writer finds that buying a book or the services of a teacher can make the work that much easier, more power to him. It might not make you a Hecht or a Mamet or a Faulkner (if prose is your bag), but NOT buying those things won't make you them, either.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Brian Koppelman's Vines

          Hey, he's up to #29 now.

          He also tweeted: "McKee does not teach tricks. I believe there may be some value in his course 4 some people. But any 30 minute course showing u secrets is BS"

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Brian Koppelman's Vines

            Originally posted by hacque View Post
            Hey, he's up to #29 now.

            He also tweeted: "McKee does not teach tricks. I believe there may be some value in his course 4 some people. But any 30 minute course showing u secrets is BS"
            Well that's hella different than:

            #3 The so−called screenwriting guru is the so−called screenwriting con−man.

            considering McKee is one of the gurus with a capital GURU. He's also a bit of pompous ass, but I digress...

            I can't help wondering if a lot of the pros who slam McKee et. al., actually know what's taught in their seminars or if they're going off what they're told by disgruntled writers who took the seminars and didn't "get" what was actually said.

            I have 30+ pages of notes I typed up from McKee's class and 60+ pages of typed up notes from Truby's seminar. Pulling them out again after all these years I don't know what I'm more impressed with − how much valuable information was taught in these seminars or how anal I was about typing the notes. I've got graphs, charts, diagrams − they're truly things of beauty.

            One of the very first things in my McKee notes is this quote:

            There is no formula for storytelling.
            Another quote from McKee:

            A writer needs:

            Literary Talent - Take ordinary language make more expressive.
            Story Talent - Creative Conversion of life itself to a more beautiful literary form.

            You can maximize your storytelling talent with craft
            This flies in the face of the major gripes you hear about "gurus" − that they guarantee success through applying a formula and that they don't take talent into account.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Brian Koppelman's Vines

              Well, I guess I simply can't see how one can "learn screenwriting" by passively listening as someone talks at you (from the pages of a book or from the dais at a seminar) about how another writer wrote a great script 20 years ago.

              To improve your stuff you have to write your stuff and, best scenario, get feedback on your stuff from (ideally) someone with more experience writing who can tell you if you made all the working parts work effectively. I think one's money would be far better spent on one of the recommended story analysts on this site.

              You learn by doing. And doing again. And doing again. Not by listening.

              Screenplay Savant:

              Excuse me if it seems like I'm being a pain in the butt -- I'm really not trying to, apparently it comes to me naturally -- but graphs and charts?

              And notes like ...


              There is no formula for storytelling.

              A writer needs:

              Literary Talent - Take ordinary language make more expressive.

              Story Talent - Creative Conversion of life itself to a more beautiful literary form.

              You can maximize your storytelling talent with craft.
              ... seems like paying far too much to listen to the guru state his keen sense of the obvious.
              Advice from writer, Kelly Sue DeConnick. "Try this: if you can replace your female character with a sexy lamp and the story still basically works, maybe you need another draft.-

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Brian Koppelman's Vines

                Originally posted by sc111 View Post
                To improve your stuff you have to write your stuff
                True. But some of us like or need to understand the stuff that goes into a screenplay or story before we sit down to write any stuff. And even after we have a basic understanding and have written some stuff, some of us like to obtain even more knowledge of the stuff that makes up the stuff we're writing so we can write even more complex and ambitious stuff.

                I understand that you personally can not learn the stuff you need to write good stuff by learning the stuff in a classroom setting. But have a little respect for those of us who have learned stuff in that way and the people who teach the stuff we learned that way.

                Originally posted by sc111 View Post
                Excuse me if it seems like I'm being a pain in the butt -- I'm really not trying to, apparently it comes to me naturally -- but graphs and charts?
                As I said, I'm anal and I write very fast. My notes are way more detailed then they needed to be as are my diagrams. But that's one of the ways I learn best by writing down what I hear and see in class. By repeating in my head and then through my fingers and then reading it on the screen or page.

                I'm curious to know how you learn because I find it hard to believe that you really can't see how other people can learn by sitting in a class with someone lecturing and explaining things and writing things on a white board and answering questions. I find it hard to believe that you really don't think there is anything to learn about character, theme, genre, dialogue, conflict, etc. in a classroom environment.

                Learning by doing and learning by learning are not mutually exclusive. You may have to practice your golf swing thousands of times to perfect it, but hiring a golf pro to teach you the proper stance and point out what you're doing wrong can help you improve your swing faster. My niece is a very talented singer, Amazing voice. AMAZING. She could outsing anyone she ever met. But she still took voice lessons. As much natural talent as she had, learning how to use her diaphragm, control her tone etc. made her an even better singer. She wouldn't have learned how do that on her own no matter how long she sang. And no, her vocal teacher was not a successful singer.

                Originally posted by sc111 View Post
                And notes like ...

                Quote:

                There is no formula for storytelling.

                A writer needs:

                Literary Talent - Take ordinary language make more expressive.

                Story Talent - Creative Conversion of life itself to a more beautiful literary form.

                You can maximize your storytelling talent with craft.
                ... seems like paying far too much to listen to the guru state his keen sense of the obvious.
                I think you missed my point for pulling those quotes. Obviously those are not the things I got out of a class. I have 30 plus pages of information on structure, character, genre, etc. I think if you walked into that seminar knowing nothing about screenwriting or story, you'd walk out with a decent grasp of the basic elements. Would you write a good screenplay? probably not, even if you have talent. Would you write a better screenplay than someone who knew nothing about screenwriting or story but didn't take the class. Absolutely. And I believe that by having a conscious understanding of the elements, you'd get to a place where you would be writing a good script faster than if you didn't have that conscious understanding.

                Ironically I pulled that quote in particular, because you in particular have expressed your frustration with gurus making writers think that if they follow a particular formula they'll have success regardless of whether or not they have talent.

                Two of the first things out of McKee's mouth was that there is no formula and that you need talent to succeed but that craft can make you a better writer. I was trying to show you that you were wrong in this case, but clearly even with your keen sense of the obvious, you missed it.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Brian Koppelman's Vines

                  Originally posted by Screenplay Savant View Post
                  I'm curious to know how you learn because I find it hard to believe that you really can't see how other people can learn by sitting in a class with someone lecturing and explaining things and writing things on a white board and answering questions. I find it hard to believe that you really don't think there is anything to learn about character, theme, genre, dialogue, conflict, etc. in a classroom environment.
                  It's a fair enough question. As I shared earlier, I had a minor in education. There's a lot of great stuff out there about more successful education techniques. I won't get into it here but suffice to say -- studies show the traditional classroom setting as you described is not the most effective. Some researchers in this arena make a compelling point as to why it can prevent learning.

                  Students learn best when you teach them how to think not what to think. This is especially true in the age of the net when basic information about virtually anything is out there. And this is in relation to elementary school -- where kids are learning the 3Rs from scratch.

                  I think an adult aspiring writer can learn all they need to know about character, theme, genre, dialogue, conflict, etc., by reading well-written screenplays. They don't need to be told what these elements are.

                  Originally posted by Screenplay Savant View Post
                  I think you missed my point for pulling those quotes. Obviously those are not the things I got out of a class. I have 30 plus pages of information on structure, character, genre, etc. I think if you walked into that seminar knowing nothing about screenwriting or story, you'd walk out with a decent grasp of the basic elements. Would you write a good screenplay? probably not, even if you have talent. Would you write a better screenplay than someone who knew nothing about screenwriting or story but didn't take the class. Absolutely. And I believe that by having a conscious understanding of the elements, you'd get to a place where you would be writing a good script faster than if you didn't have that conscious understanding.

                  Ironically I pulled that quote in particular, because you in particular have expressed your frustration with gurus making writers think that if they follow a particular formula they'll have success regardless of whether or not they have talent.

                  Two of the first things out of McKee's mouth was that there is no formula and that you need talent to succeed but that craft can make you a better writer. I was trying to show you that you were wrong in this case, but clearly even with your keen sense of the obvious, you missed it.
                  I did indeed realize the point you were making. 100%. I just don't think opening a class with a disclaimer of sorts doesn't mean a formula is not being taught. I believe it is.
                  Last edited by sc111; 10-02-2013, 05:58 AM.
                  Advice from writer, Kelly Sue DeConnick. "Try this: if you can replace your female character with a sexy lamp and the story still basically works, maybe you need another draft.-

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Brian Koppelman's Vines

                    Originally posted by sc111 View Post
                    There's a lot of great stuff out there about more successful education techniques.

                    Students learn best when you teach them how to think not what to think.
                    How can you possibly gauge the success of any of the education techniques used in this seminar? You haven't taken it. You have no idea of either the techniques nor the content. I'd be happy to show you my notes so you can actually see what's taught in these classes.

                    Knowing how to think is great, but it helps to have a grasp of what it is you're thinking about. Field's and McKee don't teach you what to think, they teach you WHAT the elements of story are so that when you sit down to write a script you'll have an f−ing clue of what you're doing. They do teach you how to think, because they give you the framework you will be working in when you create, you have to have a grasp of the framework of any subject in order to know how to think within it.

                    I think continuing this conversation is futile. I sense that you are firmly entrenched in your desire to demonize McKee, Fields, et. al. and have no desire to give even an inch.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Brian Koppelman's Vines

                      Originally posted by Screenplay Savant View Post

                      I think continuing this conversation is futile. I sense that you are firmly entrenched in your desire to demonize McKee, Fields, et. al. and have no desire to give even an inch.
                      Demonize is not the word I'd choose at all. I prefer Koppelman's choice: con-men, because I think it's highly accurate.

                      As in the root phrase "confidence men." And all the reasons why confidence men can get one over on their mark. Certain types of marks. There's a ton of research on that topic. Essentially, it's human to want shortcuts, to want the easier path, to want to be handed the golden bullet, to want something for far less it takes to obtain it otherwise.

                      I do believe they're exploiting this human tendency. And, you're right, I'm not going to give an inch on it.
                      Advice from writer, Kelly Sue DeConnick. "Try this: if you can replace your female character with a sexy lamp and the story still basically works, maybe you need another draft.-

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Brian Koppelman's Vines

                        Originally posted by Screenplay Savant View Post
                        I think continuing this conversation is futile. I sense that you are firmly entrenched in your desire to demonize McKee, Fields, et. al. and have no desire to give even an inch.
                        On the other hand I think that we should all pause to admire the chutzpah of arguing that the way someone else learned didn't work for them.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Brian Koppelman's Vines

                          Originally posted by Wes Tooke View Post
                          On the other hand I think that we should all pause to admire the chutzpah of arguing that the way someone else learned didn't work for them.
                          I think I said a lot more to support my position than, "It's bad 'cause it didn't work for me." But I'll take chutzpah. I always liked that word.
                          Advice from writer, Kelly Sue DeConnick. "Try this: if you can replace your female character with a sexy lamp and the story still basically works, maybe you need another draft.-

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Brian Koppelman's Vines

                            Originally posted by sc111 View Post
                            I think I said a lot more to support my position than, "It's bad 'cause it didn't work for me." But I'll take chutzpah. I always liked that word.
                            There's a substantial difference between these two statements:

                            1) It's bad because it didn't work for me.

                            2) It's bad and it won't work for you.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Brian Koppelman's Vines

                              Originally posted by Wes Tooke View Post
                              There's a substantial difference between these two statements:

                              1) It's bad because it didn't work for me.

                              2) It's bad and it won't work for you.
                              Look, you tried to argue this point with me earlier and I refused to -- rephrasing it won't make it more likely for me to do so.

                              I get it. You're of the opinion my POV is too stringently absolute and doesn't leave room for exceptions. Fine. That's your opinion. I'm cool with it.

                              EDITED TO ADD: You also indicate it's ludicrous for me to tell anyone they didn't learn something when they claim they did. BUT I never said that to anyone.

                              However, you seem to want me to see the light and adjust my stance to align more with yours. Sorry. I won't.

                              And, yes, I see Koppelman did indeed back-step a bit on his absolute statements. Fine, that's his prerogative.
                              Advice from writer, Kelly Sue DeConnick. "Try this: if you can replace your female character with a sexy lamp and the story still basically works, maybe you need another draft.-

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Brian Koppelman's Vines

                                Originally posted by sc111 View Post
                                Look, you tried to argue this point with me earlier and I refused to -- rephrasing it won't make it more likely for me to do so.

                                I get it. You're of the opinion my POV is too stringently absolute and doesn't leave room for exceptions. Fine. That's your opinion. I'm cool with it.

                                EDITED TO ADD: You also indicate it's ludicrous for me to tell anyone they didn't learn something when they claim they did. BUT I never said that to anyone.

                                However, you seem to want me to see the light and adjust my stance to align more with yours. Sorry. I won't.

                                And, yes, I see Koppelman did indeed back-step a bit on his absolute statements. Fine, that's his prerogative.
                                Frankly, I don't care what you think of gurus or books or anything else. All I'm saying is that I learned valuable things about the craft of screenwriting from books, therefore books can help people who learn the way I learn. The only way to argue against that statement is by telling me that I am wrong--that I have unwittingly harmed my own process--which is a breathtakingly arrogant thing to say to someone who does this for a living.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X