Musings on details

Collapse

Announcement

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

  • #16
    Re: Musings on details

    Originally posted by StoryWriter View Post
    Foreshadowing isn't a synonym for boring or clumsy. You still have to draw the reader in, even if you need a more detailed set up...
    Course not. I was talking about a Rosebud type of thing. Admittedly, that was was pretty cool because of all the other stuff the magnificent Orson was doing on-screen (or in the script). But I'm saying that foreshadowing makes a good scene even better, and eminently re-watchable, but can in itself seem pretty mundane.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Musings on details

      Originally posted by catcon View Post
      Course not. I was talking about a Rosebud type of thing. Admittedly, that was was pretty cool because of all the other stuff the magnificent Orson was doing on-screen (or in the script). But I'm saying that foreshadowing makes a good scene even better, and eminently re-watchable, but can in itself seem pretty mundane.
      Foreshadowing has to have some kind of "edge" to it, or it's not foreshadowing. You have to "feel" instinctively that something is coming up.

      Definition: (adjective: "indistinctly prophetic") or (noun: "the act of providing vague advance indications" -- "representing beforehand")

      Nothing in either example is "foreshadowing." They're both just establishing a norm (base line). The first example does it in a non-descriptive (boring) way, the second example gives you some "flavor."
      STANDARD DISCLAIMER: I'm a wannabe, take whatever I write with a huge grain of salt.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Musings on details

        Usually we get a brief synopsis about the script (filled out by the writer). Though many needed work on their premise, some of the ideas are actually pretty good, yet somehow didn't live up to it for one reason or another. The way I suspect most readers work is this:

        They make a judgment within the first 10 pages and spend the rest of the script justifying their decision. Truthfully, you could tell within just the first page if the writer knew what they were doing. Though I don't necessarily disagree, I try to be more lenient and give it up to 5 even though experience has shown me that 3 is really the threshold. If those 3 pages were amazing, it doesn't mean the rest of the script is any good - I have to keep reading - but if those 3 aren't, I have yet to come across a script that got better.

        The bottom line is, if you can entertain on a macro level and keep things interesting from moment to moment, you're already heads above the competition.

        Originally posted by catcon View Post
        Two pages. Three pages. Used to be 10 pages.

        I've heard that readers often don't even get the original pitch, or a synopsis, from the executive who took the pitch.

        It's just, "here's a 110 page script; read it and give us your report."

        This true, from the experience of the past two posters?

        If so, this is a bad idea and I further empathize with your task. Were you to have a synopsis (or at least the pitch) to accompany the script, you might be spared some crappy reads but you might also avoid losing out on some good reads.

        It's difficult to measure the significance of subtext, but foreshadowing? You can't even see it until you're well into the script or movie.

        It's that small stuff that makes you want to watch a movie over and over. It's where those irrelevant-seeming, obscure or insignificant things early on become "so cool" in subsequent viewings because you alone, and not your characters, know what's coming.

        Imagine your favorite movie that used some of this technique, and imagine not having finished watching it because "the first 10 minutes was boring" (let alone the first 2-3 minutes). I'm not talking Bergman or Polanski material here, either; I'd say most movies have a little of it, if they're any good.

        Sorry, if I've hired someone to be a reader, I'd expect them to read the whole thing - even if it's just a scan read. Otherwise? Out the door.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Musings on details

          Agreed. I definitely read the entire script because I had to write up a report on it to the contest judges. The compelling scripts that keep you interested from moment to moment were the gems. The god-awful ones are also sometimes very fun too if they kept you engaged enough by their awfulness. But it's the bland ones that are just so hard to get through.

          Originally posted by StoryWriter View Post
          I agree that if you are paying someone to read and critique your script, they should read the whole thing.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Musings on details

            "Read, read, read is probably the best advice anybody ever gave me."

            Yes. Reading is how one learns. But I'm confused.

            David Trotter, in The Screenwriter's Bible, notes that movies begin with a spec script, which - if bought - will become a shooting script. Then: "Virtually every script you buy from a script service, or view in a script library, is a shooting script..." And "...the shooting script is not a joy to read for agents, executives, and readers..."

            So I need to read, but almost everything I can find at IMSDB or other places on the Internet, seems to be shooting scripts. Or not even scripts, but rather transcripts written after the movie was made. Where can I find good examples of spec scripts?

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Musings on details

              Originally posted by Merlin View Post
              "David Trotter, in The Screenwriter's Bible, notes that movies begin with a spec script, which - if bought - will become a shooting script. Then: "Virtually every script you buy from a script service, or view in a script library, is a shooting script..." And "...the shooting script is not a joy to read for agents, executives, and readers..."

              So I need to read, but almost everything I can find at IMSDB or other places on the Internet, seems to be shooting scripts. Or not even scripts, but rather transcripts written after the movie was made. Where can I find good examples of spec scripts?
              i disagree that all shooting scripts are not a joy to read. read scripts by good writers. even their shooting scripts (or at least whatever drafts i've culled from the web over the years) are usually pretty great reads.

              Coen Bros, Mamet, Shane Black are just three off the top of my head whose scripts not only match the shots as they appear onscreen but are actually fun and occasionally even funny to read. but you still have to find your own voice in the end and choose how economical to be with your scene/action descriptions.

              personally i always go for "less is more" and if the description starts creeping into more than two lines i usually hit the brakes and try to cut it down

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Musings on details

                Originally posted by JoeBanks View Post
                personally i always go for "less is more" and if the description starts creeping into more than two lines i usually hit the brakes and try to cut it down
                But even two lines can be too much if they're too generic and don't paint a clear picture. I think it's best to try to focus on some detail that quickly gives the flavor of the scene without bogging it down, like the Cuisinart reference in the second example. Also, if you're setting the scene, I think you're allowed a little more leeway for description than you would have once the action is rolling.
                STANDARD DISCLAIMER: I'm a wannabe, take whatever I write with a huge grain of salt.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Musings on details

                  Originally posted by Merlin View Post
                  "Read, read, read is probably the best advice anybody ever gave me."

                  ... So I need to read, but almost everything I can find at IMSDB or other places on the Internet, seems to be shooting scripts. Or not even scripts, but rather transcripts written after the movie was made. Where can I find good examples of spec scripts?
                  You don't have to limit yourself to reading spec scripts. Personally, I find I've learned more from produced film scripts. I've also made a point to read several produced scripts from the same writer.

                  (Google 'download film movie scripts" and you'll find all sorts of resources. Also -- studios with films up for awards sometimes provide the scripts for the contenders.)

                  Now, the example you used in your original post was written by William Goldman and it's an adaptation of a novel. I'd suggest reading other Goldman scripts to see how he tackles different stories, different types of scenes. Then move on to another writer and read a couple of his/her produced scripts.

                  The read-read-read advice is solid. I would add read other forms of excellent writing -- classic literature, contemporary novels, essays, poetry.

                  I was filling in my reading of Norman Mailer and came across a line where he was describing the NY politician, Bella Abzug:

                  "She had a voice that could boil the fat off a cab driver's neck."

                  And I thought to myself that would be a great way to introduce a character. Of course, nitpickers might say it's not a "film-able" description. But I say screw that -- it communicates something important about the character and would let the reader "hear" that voice in every line of dialogue.

                  Also -- practice writing descriptions of things you witness that you find memorable. It helps builds those writing muscles and, since it's not intended for a script, you won't be self conscious about every word.

                  The other thing to mentally embrace is that screenwriting is challenging.

                  I think many newbies -- including me when I took my first shot at screenwriting -- have a tendency to think it's easier than other forms of written storytelling.

                  I soon realized the screenwriter has to have the skills of a novelist, the abilities of the poet (especially the ability to crystallize), plus a skill set entirely exclusive to screenwriting -- the ability to tell an intriguing, screen-worthy story with compelling characters that elicits an emotional response in 120+/- pages with an average of 60 scenes.

                  It ain't easy.
                  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


                  • #24
                    Re: Musings on details

                    Originally posted by catcon View Post
                    Similarly, I had some notes from somebody once who gagged at my use of (SCOPE MATTE). He said that some readers may not know what that is, so I shouldn't have used it.

                    I have never responded to notes, especially silly ones, because I can't be bothered with useless debates. But if a reader sees something and doesn't know what it is, wouldn't it be expected that s/he would look it up? When most of us read something and come across a word that's unfamiliar, don't we look it up? Or, is this asking too much?
                    IMO -- nope, no, and not at all. A reader doesn't have time to to the writer's work for them. Something like this is a huge hiccup to an otherwise smooth reading experience.

                    Plus, do google Scope Matte. Were you really talking about rifle scopes? Even searching "Scope matte" with quotes -- still more rifle scopes. "Scope matte film"? Nothing obvious (oh look -- more rifle scopes). If you really were talking about a rifle scope, what's wrong with "rifle scope"?

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Musings on details

                      Originally posted by JoeBanks View Post
                      i disagree that all shooting scripts are not a joy to read. read scripts by good writers. even their shooting scripts (or at least whatever drafts i've culled from the web over the years) are usually pretty great reads.

                      Coen Bros, Mamet, Shane Black are just three off the top of my head whose scripts not only match the shots as they appear onscreen but are actually fun and occasionally even funny to read. but you still have to find your own voice in the end and choose how economical to be with your scene/action descriptions.

                      personally i always go for "less is more" and if the description starts creeping into more than two lines i usually hit the brakes and try to cut it down

                      Again, I think there may be some confusion here.

                      After a motion picture is finished, a transcript of the finished film is made, that mostly consists of someone writing down the dialogue and, sometimes going back and picking out some text from the actual shooting script, but sometimes not -- but at any rate there has to be some brief description of the on-screen action.

                      That document is submitted to the LOC as the final copyright document, because the studio (or whomever) has to have final copyright not only of the motion picture but also of the screenplay.

                      That thing exists only for copyright purposes. Nobody ever refers to it. It doesn't even exist prior to the completion of the motion picture.

                      I actually think I have one of those things for the original King Kong and it's virtually nothing but dialogue -- and from reading it, it's obvious that it was made by somebody listening to the original soundtrack.

                      Those things, which do sometimes get copied, and lets of people end up buying -- have nothing to do with "production" scripts or "shooting" scripts.

                      Nobody on a set ever refers to them.

                      NMS

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Musings on details

                        Originally posted by MoviePen View Post
                        IMO -- nope, no, and not at all. A reader doesn't have time to to the writer's work for them. Something like this is a huge hiccup to an otherwise smooth reading experience.

                        Plus, do google Scope Matte. Were you really talking about rifle scopes? Even searching "Scope matte" with quotes -- still more rifle scopes. "Scope matte film"? Nothing obvious (oh look -- more rifle scopes). If you really were talking about a rifle scope, what's wrong with "rifle scope"?

                        I would have put something like

                        POV - Through a rifle scope

                        or POV -- Through binoculars

                        Or whatever. Because believe me -- nobody is looking up anything. If somebody's going to be sitting up and tossing a script aside, the next thing that's going to happen is that they'll be picking up the next script in the stack.

                        NMS

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Musings on details

                          Originally posted by catcon View Post

                          Similarly, I had some notes from somebody once who gagged at my use of (SCOPE MATTE). He said that some readers may not know what that is, so I shouldn't have used it.
                          Well F-me, I didn't know what SCOPE MATTE meant when I read your post. I knew what other shots were that said MATTE (for backgrounds, etc.) but for some reason I thought it meant a zoomed in look or just another way to say C.U. but I think you mean this:

                          https://goo.gl/images/DR816R
                          You know Jill you remind me of my mother. She was the biggest whore in Alameda and the finest woman that ever lived. Whoever my father was, for an hour or for a month, he must have been a happy man.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Musings on details

                            It's not that complicated. What is a matte? Anybody do animation? How about blue/green screen technologies, and the color mattes there?

                            So, when we've all seen these in films, "scope matte" ought to be understandable as a script term. It's a p.o.v. through a scope, making a matte of the scene.

                            I didn't make it up. I "learned" it by asking how such scenes are written, and by seeing it in scripts I read. But I've been doing this for a decade, and my sources come from material and notes consultants based more in the 90s, so that might explain it.

                            In my take-it-or-leave-it value as an adviser with no sales, I tell new writers who're confused by it all to select one formatting system that covers all the bases, and just stick with it. Become an expert in it till it only takes 1% of your thinking when you write, and won't distract you as you spend 99% on the creative part.

                            But you know what? I do like:

                            Originally posted by nmstevens View Post
                            ...POV - Through a rifle scope

                            or POV -- Through binoculars...
                            I've seen those and similar methods before, and I do recognize how a contest reading employee gleaned from Craig's List may find it easier to grasp.

                            I'd even consider doing it that way myself, though I'm always nervous about new techniques that take me out of the creative process. I've learned my way of writing and am happy to dedicate a mere 1% of my writing effort and time to it.

                            Funnily, here's an inconsistency: For a couple of years (oh the sacrilege of it all!) I've been avoiding b.g., f.g., o.s. etc. in description, on occasion. Of course, they still form the bulk of such references, but doesn't "...behind Sam..." look "cleaner" than "...Sam, the b.g." or however it might normally be written?

                            Maybe it's because I'm beyond that point where I write such abbreviations and think "Hey Ma, look at these cool short-cuts. I'm a screenwriter!"

                            Mmm, nah. All that matters is the story.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Musings on details

                              Originally posted by catcon View Post
                              It's not that complicated. What is a matte? Anybody do animation? How about blue/green screen technologies, and the color mattes there?

                              So, when we've all seen these in films, "scope matte" ought to be understandable as a script term. It's a p.o.v. through a scope, making a matte of the scene.

                              I didn't make it up. I "learned" it by asking how such scenes are written, and by seeing it in scripts I read. But I've been doing this for a decade, and my sources come from material and notes consultants based more in the 90s, so that might explain it.

                              In my take-it-or-leave-it value as an adviser with no sales, I tell new writers who're confused by it all to select one formatting system that covers all the bases, and just stick with it. Become an expert in it till it only takes 1% of your thinking when you write, and won't distract you as you spend 99% on the creative part.

                              But you know what? I do like:

                              I've seen those and similar methods before, and I do recognize how a contest reading employee gleaned from Craig's List may find it easier to grasp.

                              I'd even consider doing it that way myself, though I'm always nervous about new techniques that take me out of the creative process. I've learned my way of writing and am happy to dedicate a mere 1% of my writing effort and time to it.

                              Funnily, here's an inconsistency: For a couple of years (oh the sacrilege of it all!) I've been avoiding b.g., f.g., o.s. etc. in description, on occasion. Of course, they still form the bulk of such references, but doesn't "...behind Sam..." look "cleaner" than "...Sam, the b.g." or however it might normally be written?

                              Maybe it's because I'm beyond that point where I write such abbreviations and think "Hey Ma, look at these cool short-cuts. I'm a screenwriter!"

                              Mmm, nah. All that matters is the story.
                              POV RIFLE SCOPE

                              ... seems the most straight-forward.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Musings on details

                                Originally posted by catcon View Post
                                It's not that complicated. What is a matte? Anybody do animation? How about blue/green screen technologies, and the color mattes there?

                                So, when we've all seen these in films, "scope matte" ought to be understandable as a script term. It's a p.o.v. through a scope, making a matte of the scene.

                                I didn't make it up. I "learned" it by asking how such scenes are written, and by seeing it in scripts I read. But I've been doing this for a decade, and my sources come from material and notes consultants based more in the 90s, so that might explain it.

                                In my take-it-or-leave-it value as an adviser with no sales, I tell new writers who're confused by it all to select one formatting system that covers all the bases, and just stick with it. Become an expert in it till it only takes 1% of your thinking when you write, and won't distract you as you spend 99% on the creative part.

                                But you know what? I do like:

                                I've seen those and similar methods before, and I do recognize how a contest reading employee gleaned from Craig's List may find it easier to grasp.

                                I'd even consider doing it that way myself, though I'm always nervous about new techniques that take me out of the creative process. I've learned my way of writing and am happy to dedicate a mere 1% of my writing effort and time to it.

                                Funnily, here's an inconsistency: For a couple of years (oh the sacrilege of it all!) I've been avoiding b.g., f.g., o.s. etc. in description, on occasion. Of course, they still form the bulk of such references, but doesn't "...behind Sam..." look "cleaner" than "...Sam, the b.g." or however it might normally be written?

                                Maybe it's because I'm beyond that point where I write such abbreviations and think "Hey Ma, look at these cool short-cuts. I'm a screenwriter!"

                                Mmm, nah. All that matters is the story.
                                Oh I didn't mean to imply you made it up or that you were in any way wrong. Sorry if it came through sounding like that. I posted more in a "Dang, you learn something new everyday and stupid me couldn't figure it out." sort of way.

                                It makes sense and I think the other suggestions people gave as well worked well.
                                You know Jill you remind me of my mother. She was the biggest whore in Alameda and the finest woman that ever lived. Whoever my father was, for an hour or for a month, he must have been a happy man.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X