Angle On

[goldmund]

Re: Angle On

Angle on and full thrust ahead!

[ATB]

Re: Angle On

Sighhhh. I don't blame anyone for quitting this place.

The resistance to advice is mind boggling. You do not know more than a seasoned professional who does what you dream to do.

You're not gonna tell Kobe Bryant to shove his opinion because your AAU coach said something stupid that stuck with you.

You're not gonna tell Brian Williams to fvck off because your high school Public Speaking instructor didn't know WTF she was talking about.

You're not gonna tell Craig Mazin or Jeff Lowell to kick rocks cause there are fvcking idiots in this and every other business who pretend to know sh|t they really don't and you just happened to find a few who offered you their ludicrously uninformed advice...

Oh, wait. You already did.

[Centos]

Re: Angle On

Think about it. Does a reader really need a camera direction, such as, ANGLE ON in front of every intense or important visual to get the effect that the reader wants?

There are some writers/readers, such as in this thread, that’ll say they like how it reads with the camera direction. That’s cool. If this is the best way for them, then certainly use it.

Some writers/readers, like myself, feel the story flows more easily without being weighted down by technical jargon, interrupting the flow. One expects to see technical jargon such as Master Scene Headings, Character Cues, etc. in their expected locations, but when it suddenly POPS up in the action/description narrative it’s jarring. It distracts from the story and slows the read down for the reader.

A reader wants to be immersed in a powerful and a compelling story, but when those technical terms POP up, it reminds the reader he’s holding a screenplay.

I understand what your saying, I used to make the same arguments. I remember going around and around with a pro writer on the newsgroup misc.writing.screenplays about how you could avoid using "we see." But, by the end of the debate, I finally figured out that my "work-arounds" were more work then they were worth. "We see" just worked better in the examples he was giving.

And, until reading this thread, I would have never used ANGLE ON: because, quite bluntly, I didn't really understand it. I've long gotten past trying to argue with pros about their craft. I come to learn now.

But this talk of ANGLE ON being "jarring" hits me as kind of hollow. (I used to argue the same about "we see.") Screenplays are not straight prose. If ANGLE ON is "jarring," so is EXT. LIVING ROOM - DAY. A screenplay is not meant to be read as a smoothly flowing short story or novel -- it's meant to allow the reader to "see" the movie playing as he reads the script. The combination of ANGLE ON: PUSH IN immediately forces me to focus on the lamp and I "see" the camera there recording the computer screen. As far as I can tell, there is no more effective and immediate way to do this.

And the argument that only pros can use all the tools of screenplay writing is absurd. I was a phone tech. If I was teaching someone how to punch down cable I would teach them how to use a punch down tool. I wouldn't tell them that, since it's possible to punch too hard and ruin the block, you probably should try to "make do" with a pocket knife for a while, even though half the time it probably won't work right. If they honestly couldn't get the "feel" of punching down with the right pressure, they probably weren't going to work out as a phone tech anyhow.

Do you have to use ANGLE ON:? No, of course not. Should you avoid using it because some find it "jarring?" Of course not. If the use of ANGLE ON: is common in the industry -- obviously it's not that "jarring" to the people who actually buy scripts.

[Ven]

Re: Angle On

You're not gonna tell Craig Mazin or Jeff Lowell to kick rocks cause there are fvcking idiots in this and every other business who pretend to know sh|t they really don't and you just happened to find a few who offered you their ludicrously uninformed advice...

Oh, wait. You already did.

But that's the problem with this post of yours and most of Sundown's ... nobody said those things. Can you guys not misconstrue what I actually said?

Nobody said Craig or Jeff are idiots who don't know what they are doing.

What happened was that for 15 pages nobody could explain why they thought one type of description worked best.

When asked for explanation ... the responses ranged from "go look at scripts and figure it out for yourself" to "just because I can't or won't give you an example doesn't mean it's a mistake".

There was no "ANGLE ON works better than _____ and here is why ...."

FINALLY, after 15 pages ... that discussion finally started to take place.

-------

And then, just as the thread started to become informative, some wanted to resort to personal attacks.

One of the pros had already taken that route many pages earlier, the other joined him.

Nobody took issue with their knowledge. The offense was taken at their dismissive, condescending, how dare you don't just accept what I say at face value attitude.

Nobody has any responsibility to post here and give examples to others.

But, assuming they post here because they want to do exactly that ....

I'm grateful when someone takes their time to offer insightful advice.
Like "do this because _____"
And not "do this because I'm a pro and I say so"

And then when you tell them that's not a sufficient response and they start replying to you in a mocking, condescending manner,
you really think anyone should be grateful for that just because of their status?

No thank you.

--------

And, for the record, I already did a mea culpa on my first "major no-no" post. What more do you want?
I gave the response I should have given .... and said that DavidK gave the definitive response in the "Inner Thoughts" thread.

[ATB]

Re: Angle On

Nobody said Craig or Jeff are idiots who don't know what they are doing.

You apparently don't understand my post. The idiots who don't know what they are doing are the misinformed industry whoevers that told you angle-on is a major no-no.

The idiots are the AAU coach, the high school Public Speaking instructor. Not Kobe or Brian Williams or Mazin and Lowell.

You're not getting the point.

[Centos]

Re: Angle On

What happened was that for 15 pages nobody could explain why they thought one type of description worked best.

When asked for explanation ... the responses ranged from "go look at scripts and figure it out for yourself" to "just because I can't or won't give you an example doesn't mean it's a mistake".

There was no "ANGLE ON works better than _____ and here is why ...."

FINALLY, after 15 pages ... that discussion finally started to take place.

But the first the question in the thread wasn't "how do I use ANGLE ON?" -- it was, "should I use ANGLE ON?" Personally I'm thankful Craig Mazin took the time (with examples) to explain how to use it. But that was a bonus.

[TwoBrad Bradley]

Re: Angle On

So, a blue Orange is okay?

[ChadStrohl]

Re: Angle On

So, a blue Orange is okay?

You better have a d@mn good reason to make an orange blue.

Just sayin'.

[Craig Mazin]

Re: Angle On

I'm grateful when someone takes their time to offer insightful advice.
Like "do this because _____"
And not "do this because I'm a pro and I say so"

And then when you tell them that's not a sufficient response and they start replying to you in a mocking, condescending manner,
you really think anyone should be grateful for that just because of their status?

YES. Yes I do!

Dude, let me explain something.

You said something stupid and wrong, and you said it with all the assured confidence of a seasoned professional. Your tone alone fooled at least one reader here by his own admission.

We said, "No. You're wrong."

You had two choices.

1. Argue, deny, and then issues challenges with demands of proof.

2. Say, "Okay, it's likely you're right. For my own benefit, can you show me how you use ANGLE ON so I can see where you're coming from?"

See, here's the thing. I'm not your paid tutor. I have two reasons to be here. I want to help educate writers who wish to be educated, and I want to dismiss and delegitimize uninformed, unqualified voices from distracting and misleading people.

I don't OWE YOU a "sufficient response." If you ASK NICELY for one, maybe you'll get it.

Either way, saying dumb, wrong crap in a self-assured tone is going to get you smacked in here, at work, in your house, on the street, in a bar and in the sack.

There. Free lesson on being an effectively social human being.

That aside, "I'm a 16-year veteran screenwriter, and I write ANGLE ON, so yes, you too can write ANGLE ON" *is*, in fact, good enough! Of course it's good enough!

What's wrong with you?

[JeffLowell]

Re: Angle On

Still waiting on your offer, Ven.

[Conrad]

Re: Angle On

What's wrong with you?

Good question. I've seen two things play out over and over on various screenwriting-related boards that mystify me.

1. People that ask for a critique of their work, and then get upset when people are critical of their work. WTF?

2. People that get upset when someone is critical of their work in an "unkind" way and then become combative. If a person is going to get that upset over something said on the Internet by someone they have no relationship with (professional or otherwise), how are they going to handle Hollywood?

I can only imagine what such a person would do if an exec or director came back with notes that tore their screenplay's guts out.

[StoryWriter]

Re: Angle On

I can only imagine what such a person would do if an exec or director came back with notes that tore their screenplay's guts out.

Many of them would insist that the exec or director was a hack and they would go on to point out all of their "perceived" failures. They would then proclaim their own writing "too good" for Hollywood.

I've been coming up on screenwriting forums and newsgroups for over ten years and I've watched this happen over and over again.

But some want to learn and do learn, so it's always nice when a pro does stay and teach. It's appreciated.

[mgwriter]

Re: Angle On

Sighhhh. I don't blame anyone for quitting this place.

The resistance to advice is mind boggling. You do not know more than a seasoned professional who does what you dream to do.

You're not gonna tell Kobe Bryant to shove his opinion because your AAU coach said something stupid that stuck with you.

You're not gonna tell Brian Williams to fvck off because your high school Public Speaking instructor didn't know WTF she was talking about.

You're not gonna tell Craig Mazin or Jeff Lowell to kick rocks cause there are fvcking idiots in this and every other business who pretend to know sh|t they really don't and you just happened to find a few who offered you their ludicrously uninformed advice...

Oh, wait. You already did.

I tried to avoid posting in this thread, but I love the basketball/Kobe Bryant part of your analogy and I think there is even more insight there into the pro/authority dilemma.

Kobe has been a pro for many years but sometimes he still makes bad/wrong decisions about basketball. Kobe takes too many tough shots and people learning the game would be incorrect following Kobe's style. Why is it valid for Kobe and not for others? Because of Kobe's inherent talent, he makes tough shots, period. But most other ball players, pros included don't have Kobe's intangible talents and those talents can't be learned by Kobe posting some list of do's and don'ts.

I think we should all be thankful to have the pro screenwriters on this board, but they are pro screenwriters, not pro teachers of screenwriting. The best thing we can learn from them is when they share their actual industry experience. But I think it's safe to say that people like Lowell and Mazin have that inherent, intangible talent, a gift for screenwriting that cannot be learned nor taught. Even they may have trouble realizing why everyone else can't write as well as they can. those talents are natural to them and there are some things they probably assume others can learn but they really cannot.

Everyone can learn to play basketball, but there will never be another Bird or Magic. The best players often make not-so-great coaches, like both Bird and Magic did after their playing careers. If they were great pros, how can they not be great coaches/teachers of basketball? Simple. Inherent, intangible talent levels that are off the charts. Even when teaching other pros, Bird and Magic were both frustrated as coaches because they wanted the players to do it the way a Bird or Magic did it. It was hard for them to understand the limitations of those who weren't born with such a high talent level. Often times the better coaches are former players with only so-so talent and had to work hard at being pro. (Phil Jackson) They learn how to do the best they can with limited talent and thus how to teach others of limited ability how to do the best they can with what they've got.

As I peruse these never ending threads where people argue with pros, I realize that guys like Mazin and Lowell have Bird/Magic level inherent talent when it comes to screenwriting. Don't agree? Look at the impossible odds they've overcome to reach the levels their at. No offense, but when people have that talent level, they often are not the best at coaching/teaching others, who have a much lesser talent level because they have no frame of reference for that. That doesn't mean they have nothing of value to offer. On the contrary, their opinions, advice and experience is super valuable, the same way Magic Johnson is a valuable commentator and his knowledge and insight of the game is unmatched.

The problem that causes these never ending threads imo is that some people around here are looking for the rules and specific formula that will make them just like Mazin/Lowell. It ain't gonna happen. The value is when pros share their knowledge and experience and rather than argue over the validity, simply absorb what is useful to you and will make you a better writer. I bet there are some techniques Mazin uses that even other pro writers don't use because they aren't gifted in that way. But those techniques are still valid for Mazin because he uses them as a veteran pro. No amount of arguing or trying to show counter examples is going invalidate what professionals like Mazin/Lowell say works for them.

If you go out and learn all the techniques and rules Magic Johnson used as a point guard and then trying to imitate all of those, you will fail miserably especially if you're not 6'9" tall. No amount of books, rules or learning is going to make a person who is not inherently gifted with height suddenly grow to 6'9". Does that mean Magic therefore has nothing of value to offer? No, because his knowledge of the game is so broad and his professional experience vast. One takes in what Magic says when he shares his knowledge and doesn't argue with him over whether it's valid or not because someone like a John Stockton, also a great point guard, played the game differently from Magic. Both Magic and Stockton had great fundamentals and that's the thing we can best learn from the pros on this board, fundamentals. Does 'ANGLE ON' fall under fundamentals? I don't know, but some writers don't use it at all. The real question is does it work for you?

So my long winded point is maybe we should stop trying to emulate or imitate the pros here and instead listen to what they have to share and definitely stop trying to argue that a professional's real life experience is somehow invalid because of something you read in a book, or heard from another pro. I think it's safe to say that pros like Mazin/Lowell have an inherent talent level in screenwriting that most of us will never reach, some might, but most won't. That doesn't mean we can't learn from their 'game' and become better writers in our 'own style' using techniques we can handle and that work for us.

Pros do not always make the best coaches/educators, often because of their inherent, intangible talents they may assume are present in others, when in fact they are not. However we can still LEARN A TON from pros if we stop arguing and start trying to absorb and understand the knowledge and experiences they're sharing.

Just one person's opinion. We can disagree without being disagreeable.

[Bobby Dazzler]

Re: Angle On

I could handle being Byron Scott.

Not A.C. Green though...

[MrZero]

Re: Angle On

The last seventeen pages has to be the biggest pile of self-contradictory nonsense in history of screenwriting.

Mind you, I have not actually read the last seventeen pages. I read the first page and skipped all the way here. But I've been here long enough to know how these things play out.

This is why people get so obsessed with gurus. Anyone claiming to have the Answer is going to appeal to a lot of people who get worn out by eighteen pages of argument about ANGLE ON. I can't take it.

For the record, I've been putting ANGLE ONs in my scripts. I don't want to know if I'm doing the right thing or not. I don't care anymore. Just show me where the @#*#&@ goalposts are so I can do my best to kick to ball in that direction. What I don't want to do is sit around arguing about the nature of goalposts.

I'm not saying this to be a wiseguy. I can't get my new script off the ground because I have so much self-doubt and Internet wisdom in my head that I feel like the Son of Sam with all these voices nagging at me.

Carry on. Or ANGLE ON. Whatever.