Writing the Movie or a Story

[SuperScribe]

Meh. Whatever.

[TwoBrad Bradley]

Originally Posted by SuperScribe

Meh. Whatever.

By George, I think she's got it.
By George, I think she's got it.

Now once again, where does it rain?

[SuperScribe]

Don't fuck with me right now, 2Brad.

[Rantanplan]

Originally Posted by SuperScribe

Don't fuck with me right now, 2Brad.

He's right about that

Some novels have screenplay-like aspects to them, some scripts have a novel-like quality to them.

But in a very general sense, I would say a novel (at least what is called a literary novel) is written with words, and a script is written with images.

Obviously words and images are used in both, but you catch my drift.

Both are wonderful in their own right.

SS and I are writing a script that starts off with... wait for it.. THREE pages of V.O. from the narrator. And we put it in bold.

A little way to bring prose and script together.

Given the abysmal odds of succeeding either way, nothing wrong with having a little fun with the form.


Hell yeah!!

[SuperScribe]

He's not right, Rant. In any way, shape or form. But I'm tired of arguing.

I'm tired of being on this board.

So tired.

[Rantanplan]

Originally Posted by SuperScribe

He's not right, Rant. In any way, shape or form. But I'm tired of arguing.

I'm tired of being on this board.

So tired.

HE was referring to you silly. As in, don't fvck with SS right now

[Hamboogul]

Originally Posted by TwoBrad Bradley

Seems to me that where anyone stands on screenwriting rules and guidelines depends on if they think a spec screenplay should be
- describing the actual movie playing in their head, or
- writing a visual story that can be made into a movie.

I not saying one way is right or wrong. It's just an observation, something to be considered when reading other people's opinions.

In all my years of mediocre screenwriting, I have never once thought this way.

[jonpiper]

Flame-broiled hamburgers aside, a single picture is worth a thousand (or is it a million?) words.

Even considering the power of some words, there is no way any of us could write the complete movie that is within our heads. How would we describe all the sets and the choreographed actions and the actor's movements and expressions, that we imagine. Screenplays would need to be at least two or three times longer to even attempt such a thing.

The best we can do is write the famous Blueprint For A Movie. A guide for making a movie out of the story. A visual story that can be made into a movie.

In essence I think we write 100% of the story but only--to pick a number--60% of the movie. We suggest shots and describe settings to the extent they clarify the story.

I think we should write only enough and in such a style that we excite and encourage the director, actors, set people, etc. into making the movie that will do our great story justice.

I say this having not sold a script yet. Perhaps a flame-broiled hamburger is in order. Along with a glass of wine.

[FADE IN]

Originally Posted by jonpiper

Flame-broiled hamburgers aside, a single picture is worth a thousand (or is it a million?) words.

Even considering the power of some words, there is no way any of us could write the complete movie that is within our heads. How would we describe all the sets and the choreographed actions and the actor's movements and expressions, that we imagine. Screenplays would need to be at least two or three times longer to even attempt such a thing.

The best we can do is write the famous Blueprint For A Movie. A guide for making a movie out of the story. A visual story that can be made into a movie.

In essence I think we write 100% of the story but only--to pick a number--60% of the movie. We suggest shots and describe settings to the extent they clarify the story.

I think we should write only enough and in such a style that we excite and encourage the director, actors, set people, etc. into making the movie that will do our great story justice.

I say this having not sold a script yet. Perhaps a flame-broiled hamburger is in order. Along with a glass of wine.

Perhaps we need to think about the word a little, "SCREEN-PLAY," a play written for the screen.

The intention is certainly to end up with a film, a feature film.

I think we're writing plays that are intended to be filmed for exhibition on the screen, but we're doing it in a kind of shorthand we call the "master scene form." Fortunately for us, others can break things down and shoot the additional footage that will be needed to fully flesh out our play for best exhibition on the screen.

But directors and cinematographers and actors and editors (and all the rest) cannot work if they don't have what we provide, a script.

Every time I sit down and type "FADE IN:" I imagine myself in a movie theater, getting comfortable to watch a feature, except instead of watching one I'm going to write one. I'm going to write a movie.

Screenplays are movies on the page; I can't even imagine what a "visual story" would be and I don't want to try, although I'd suspect that most treatments would fit the bill.

I've said in the past that writers who conceive of themselves as writing "visual stories" might just as well be writing treatments. But for the rest of us, I think the word itself conveys what we are doing, "screen-play" = a play for the screen, otherwise known as a movie.

I like to hope at least that my screenplays will explode my movie on the mental movie screens of my readers, and they too will SEE what I've seen and written for them.

[DavidK]

Originally Posted by FADE IN

Perhaps we need to think about the word a little, "SCREEN-PLAY," a play written for the screen.

Such astonishing insight, and yet somehow also troubling.

I can't even imagine what a "visual story" would be.

See above. Your best clue is in the word "screenplay", not hyphenated by the way.