Angle On

[Centos]

Re: Angle On

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.

I'm sorry, but I think you're making this up as you go. Larry Bird did coach, and won an NBA Coach of the Year award. Last year he won the NBA Executive of the Year award. As far as I know, Magic Johnson coached a total of six games in the NBA -- hardly enough to make any conclusions about his coaching ability. There's no indication, whatsoever, that either could not deal with, or understand, less talented players than themselves. Let's face it, if you're playing in the NBA, you're talented.

I'm pretty sure Mazin and Lowell (and BZD and the others) know that most of us here will never make it as pro screenwriters -- just like most basketball players won't make it into the NBA. I'm also pretty sure they understand that a lot of us just don't have what it takes ... talent, drive ... whatever. I think the reason they post here is to keep those who do have innate talent from getting thrown off the track by really bad advice.

When you compare what most screenplay gurus tell you to do to with what you find in most produced screenplays, there is a definite "disconnect." There are only two conclusions you can come to. Either ...

1) Most screenplay gurus don't know their ass from a hole in the ground, or ...

2) Pros (who at one time were not pros, but still broke in) follow a different set of rules than non-pros, even though they keep telling us they don't.

It seems as though you're going with #2 -- that pros are just so talented that they can "get away" with breaking the (so-called) "rules." I would go with conclusion #1. I used to be in the #2 "camp" but when so many pros said the same thing (ignore these "rules") ... over and over again ... it finally sunk in.

[wks2001]

Re: Angle On

ANGLE ON: while a usable term...is still a directing term. leave it up to the director to decide whether it should be 'angle on'... you just have to describe the shot in a more literal way.

[Centos]

Re: Angle On

ANGLE ON: while a usable term...is still a directing term. leave it up to the director to decide whether it should be 'angle on'... you just have to describe the shot in a more literal way.

No I don't. Not if I don't want to. If I write another script I'm going to try to sell it, not submit to a guru for approval or enter it into a screenplay contest.

[Mac H.]

Re: Angle On

ANGLE ON: while a usable term...is still a directing term. leave it up to the director to decide whether it should be 'angle on'... you just have to describe the shot in a more literal way.

Why do you believe that the writer has do it that way?

Why do you believe that professional writers are wrong on this writing subject?

Mac

[SundownInRetreat]

Re: Angle On

ANGLE ON: while a usable term...is still a directing term. leave it up to the director to decide whether it should be 'angle on'... you just have to describe the shot in a more literal way.

No....please....stop. Just. Stop. Read - not even all 200 pages - just Mazin and Lowell. But please.....stop. This is why threads go on for ever and why pros leave (and you can understand why).

Why so many keen-to-be-pros are resistant to the pros, to the point of banality, is beyond me.

[StoryWriter]

Re: Angle On

I'm sorry, but I think you're making this up as you go. Larry Bird did coach, and won an NBA Coach of the Year award. Last year he won the NBA Executive of the Year award. As far as I know, Magic Johnson coached a total of six games in the NBA -- hardly enough to make any conclusions about his ability to coach. There's no indication, whatsoever, that either could not deal with, or understand, less talented players than themselves. Let's face it, if you're playing in the NBA you're talented.

The basketball analogy isn't being applied correctly.

First off, the "so-called" coaches (gurus) are NOT talented, or they'd be selling screenplays for humungous chunks of money instead of screwing up newbies with their hair-brained "rules".

A better basketball analogy would be: Some coaches (gurus) who never played basketball past the YMCA leagues, or maybe junior college, have decided they have it all figured out and they're dispensing advice at paid basketball camps.

Unfortunately their advice is: "Never dribble, never pass, never jump and don't shoot at the basket unless you're behind the half-court line." Stupid things like that. Things guaranteed to make it impossible for the newbies to compete.

So the poor newbies, who might have had some native basketball talent to begin with, are being cut off at knees with some really terrible "advice".

And when Larry Bird says: "Why are you gurus telling the newbies that they can't pass, or dribble?" The gurus respond with: "Well sure, Larry, you got away with dribbling and passing because you're a pro, but they can't."

There's your basketball analogy.

[Craig Mazin]

Re: Angle On

ANGLE ON: while a usable term...is still a directing term. leave it up to the director to decide whether it should be 'angle on'... you just have to describe the shot in a more literal way.

You just HAVE to!

[JeffLowell]

Re: Angle On

Or else!

[nic.h]

Re: Angle On

I just love it when someone posts an answer to the OP fourteen pages in and demonstrates in an instant that they have not read a single post before theirs. Really. It makes my heart sing.

[JoeNYC]

Re: Angle On

There are members who are amazed that a simple topic such as ANGLE ON could go on for 19 pages. I just want to point out that if you remove all the joke posts, the sarcastic posts, the pleading posts, the complaining posts, the redundant posts telling Ven that it’s not a major no, no, the who has the bigger dick posts, etc., you’ll be left with only 3 pages on the subject of ANGLE ON.

Centos says, “I remember going around and around with a pro writer … about how you could avoid using ‘we see.’ … I finally figured out that my ‘work-arounds’ were more work then they were worth.”

-- Seriously? Heavy work avoiding “we see.” 99% of the time all you have to do is not put them, or just delete them from being in front of the visual. No rewriting or work-around involved: WE SEE that the book is a bible. (The book is a bible.)

Centos says, “But this talk of ANGLE ON being ‘jarring’ hits me as kind of hollow.”

-- It feels false to you because it doesn’t bother you. If I tell you a true fact such as, vanilla is my favorite ice cream. Are you gonna tell me that feels hollow to you because chocolate is your favorite ice cream? You get my point? Technical jargon POPPING UP in the action/description doesn’t bother you -- that’s cool, but please let me have my opinion.

I’m not alone on this and there are others who feel the same way as you do. You can’t accept that?

If I was a professional reader and a script that I was covering looked like a shot list, I would be annoyed and it would distract me from the story, but I wouldn’t judge the story on the writer’s personal taste and style. I would act professional and judge the story on its major elements.

Centos says, “If ANGLE ON is ’jarring,’ so is EXT. LIVING ROOM - DAY.”

-- I covered this in the post that you’ve highlighted.

Centos says, “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.”

-- Well, then I recommend that you don’t read any scripts that don’t use ANGLE ON to highlight/emphasis important visuals because you won’t be able to “see” it without the help of ANGLE ON.

Craig’s ANGLE ON example:

John enters his password. The laptop screen begins scrolling through data.

ANGLE ON: the lamp behind him. PUSH IN to find:

A MICROCAMERA - focused on the laptop screen. The white…

-- In my opinion, in this example ANGLE ON is used in an effective way and with purpose. You can’t just drop ANGLE ON. It wouldn’t flow right and it wouldn’t read right.

This is Craig’s taste and style. This doesn’t mean you have to use ANGLE ON to get the same effect as Craig did if it isn’t your taste and style.

This could easily be written in a way to achieve the same effect without using ANGLE ON:

John enters his password. The laptop screen begins scrolling through data.

A LAMP sits behind him. PUSH IN to find:

A MICROCAMERA - focused on the laptop screen. The white…

-- In my opinion, you don’t lose the expression you wanted to get across to the reader. By breaking up the lines into there own paragraphs, you’ve implied a shift in focus and you have the same reveal.

New Writers, I suggest that you listen to all of the advice from the pros and non-pros and choose a style of writing that feels right for your work. If you feel there are some situations where a camera direction will enhance the read, then use it. Now and then you’ll hear that including camera directions in your scripts is a major no, no. This isn’t true. It’s a legitimate tool to use if you so choose to.

I suggest to use them sparingly, when necessary and with purpose, otherwise, you’ll just dilute the special purpose to enhance the read, where your script could potential end up looking like an unspecial director’s shot list, though this still wouldn't affect a sale.

[SundownInRetreat]

Re: Angle On

-- New writers are always told to use these things sparingly, when neccessary, with purpose, etc.

1. they are told this by the idiots whose advice resulted in The Myths.

2. Anything should only ever be used when necessary and with purpose - descriptions, dialogue, scenes, characters. There should be a point and necessity to everything. No redundant dialogue, no pointless scenes, no fat, no hindering of the story.


Don't advise noobs to listen to amateurs as if their opinion is equal to the professionals. You've seen how messed up us amateurs are and what bad info we've been fed (and from this thread, a lot of them still believe that trash). Listen to the ones actually doing the job. You wouldn't listen to a wannabe surgeon, mechanic or butcher.


Posts like this are why these threads never die. You've had conclusive evidence from Craig, BDZ, DavidK and Jeff. And yet this thread still isn't done. People still trying to keep it alive with these "aahh, but..." posts (and that is what they are).

I've really gotta stop with this thread. I've got more productive things to do - like counting the flowers on the bedroom wallpaper.

[ChadStrohl]

Re: Angle On

It's funny how so many throw their hands up in disgust and say, "That's it. I'm done with this sh*t," only to check back in a day or two. I wonder if there's a rehab for that?

1) Some people truly don't get it.
2) Some people do get it, but don't want to get it.
3) Some people get it, but like to be argumentative.
4) Some people just plain out like to be argumentative (or right).
5) Some people like to sit back and watch, then swoop in when they feel like they have something to add to the nonsense (which usually turns out to be more nonsense) -- This one's me, I think.
6) Some people are know-it-alls with no experience.
7) Some people are know-it-alls with some experience.
8) Some people are know-it-alls with a lot of experience.
9) Some people want to watch the world burn.
10) And some people simply don't care enough to be any of the above.

This whole business about "the pros are gonna leave if this nonsense keeps going" is downright pathetic. I hate to use such a strong word, but that's exactly what it is. It's a passive agressive threat that has no place anywhere in life - message board or not.

If the pros leave it's not gonna be because somebody posts something in a forum that any one of us can ignore any time we choose. At least, I'd seriously hope not, since that belies a whole set of issues that would make me question not only validity as writers, but validity as people. It's that whole kindergarten thing... "If you don't play what I want to play, I'm not gonna be your friend."

On the other side, it does seem quite odd that anybody would intentionally provoke these people that have given us their advice and guidance - or why anybody who happens to disagree with that advice would feel the need to keep doing so when both sides have adequately expressed their opinions.

Another thing I see a lot on here is "calculate less".

Seems that might apply to the forums as well.

Just some more nonsense to add to the nonsense.

[SundownInRetreat]

Re: Angle On

It's funny how so many throw their hands up in disgust and say, "That's it. I'm done with this sh*t," only to check back in a day or two. I wonder if there's a rehab for that?

I'll answer this as it's aimed at me. You're right - I get sucked back in. Often because I see something that echoed what I said - and, admittedly, I want to be seen to be talking sense. But usually because I see something that is clearly wrong and I feel the need to try again. To help. I shouldn't - especially if they didn't get it the first time round. But like I said, I often have a lot of time on my hands.

So in this case I'm option 11 - "someone who tries to help someone see sense when their current MO is hindering them" - and I'm particularly passionate about debunking the myths - hence my keenness to get through to Ven. But again, it's not my place, doesn't affect me, and he probably won't listen. So I've spent about 11 hours on this for no benefit!

This whole business about "the pros are gonna leave if this nonsense keeps going" is downright pathetic. I hate to use such a strong word, but that's exactly what it is. It's a passive agreesive threat that has no place anywhere in life - message board or not.

Don't apologise for speaking your mind. However I don't think I've ever said they will leave - just that I wouldn't be surprised if they do. I don't think it's pathetic because it's just going round and round, no pertinent questions are being asked and their words are falling on deaf ears. There's been hints that Derek left because of similar as well. And, from my side anyway, it's not passive aggression - simply polemic.

Obviously you feel differently - and that's cool

If the pros leave it's not gonna be because somebody posts something in a forum that any one of us can ignore any time we choose. At least, I'd seriously hope not, since that belies a whole set of issues that would make me question not only validity as writers, but validity as people. It's that whole kindergarten thing... "If you don't play what I want to play, I'm not gonna be your friend."

See above about what the pros have had to put up with. Have you noticed we repeatedly get these "surface level" issues about formatting and myths - the pros repeatedly say this is not the stuff that sinks your script - and yet "deep level" issues are rarely raised- the things that will get your script jettisoned?

I'm sure there's a host of things we should be focussing on, character, plot, theme, dialogue nuances and aspects that separate the can bes from the pretenders - that the pros are eager to divulge their knowledge on.....but no one asks.

[ChadStrohl]

Re: Angle On

I didn't mean to specifically appear to target you Sundown, but your post was the catalyst. I think I must have woken on the wrong side of the bed this morning. I don't typically get riled up, and while you are absolutely right - you didn't say they would leave - I was targeting the notion, not so much the vocabulary, and no one person, pro or nonpro, in particular (so I nobody sees it as that).

I've seen what the pros have had to put up with. I can't say I always agree with the way they've handled it, but to each his own. I'd be a hypocrite to suggest that I don't get p*ssed off when someone questions something I feel is an expertise I've earned.

As far as the surface level issues, I have a theory. Those are the things we can see. (Oh sh*t, I said WE SEE, lol). When something under the surface isn't working, we tend (and I see WE as a general term) to look at the surface. Relationships in all walks of life unravel because of this. It's quite hard to get introspective as to why something does or doesn't work. Taoist monks spend a lifetime trying to interpret the mysteries of self.

Things like character, plot, theme, etc. are definitely things that we would like to address, but I think many of us (pros included) aren't even totally aware of how we do it, much less how to tell someone else - especially in a free-for-all environment such as this when only one dissenting opinion can derail the process.

[JoeNYC]

Re: Angle On

SundownInRetreat, you've got a severe case of diarrhea of the mouth. You’ve made 23 posts in a thread called ANGLE ON and not one of your posts addressed this topic in a way that would give a new writer an understanding on what it is, what’s its purpose, or an example on how it’s used in a script.

When you posted…

“I’ve even used it on the opening pages of scripts. In conjunction with pull back or push in it becomes extremely powerful and evocative.”

…I politely asked you to give us an example. Don’t you think an example would have been a great contribution to this topic in giving a practical understanding on its use? Sure it would have, but for some unknown reason, you decided to give a lame excuse why you refuse to do so, which is baffling considering how you’ve made 23 posts in this thread championing its use to anyone who wants to use it.

Thankfully, later, Craig gave an example of its use.

SundownInRetreat, the majority of your 23 posts were to just bitch at someone, be it: Ven, TwoBrad, gridlock, me -- and oh yeah, there was a couple that were pathetically ironic where you bitched at members for dragging this thread out when the fact is it’s you who’s dragging this thread out.

You’ve made the most posts in this thread with TWENTY-THREE!!!!

Most of your other posts were redundant, non-helpful “The pros do it, so it’s okay.”

SundownInRetreat says, “they are told by the idiots whose advise resulted in The Myths.”

-- Is it your opinion that it’s bad advice to suggest to new writers to use some things sparingly, when necessary and with purpose?

SundownInRetreat says, “Like I said, you don’t feel it necessary to warn noobies or overdoing dialogue and to keep it special. Or a/d. Or whatever. Yet you do for angle on. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander so if you feel compelled to warn noobs over angle on then you should for every other aspect of a script.”

-- I have.

Look at the “Don’t Sum Up Your Characters” thread. I pointed out special situations with the Tom Hanks example. I’ve done the same in past posts with action/description, dialogue, characters, parenthesis, we see, etc.

I’ve stayed unmarried so I wouldn’t have to put up with a nagging wife. Who knew I would run into one on a message board. Mr. SundownInRetreat, you can have the last word. I’m done with your nonsense.