Note To Gucci: Mazin's Point On "Summing Up Your Characters"

Collapse

Announcement

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

  • Re: Note To Gucci: Mazin's Point On "Summing Up Your Characters"

    Nah... I was saying I WAS NOT offended. Takes way more than that to offend me. Swear!

    I was fine unpacking it all. And still am. I've had people say WAAAAAAY worse sh!t about my writing than to merely question its effectiveness. I think we SHOULD question effectiveness. And then make up our own minds as to what we believe works. Do it OUR way. Then stand behind it... as Hollywood begins loading their machine guns. HA! Those fukkers!

    This is all just chit chat from passionate writers.No big deal.
    Bruh, fukkin *smooches*! Feel me? Ha!

    Comment


    • Re: Note To Gucci: Mazin's Point On "Summing Up Your Characters"

      And to add — none of this is truly important. On here it’s pretty gentle. But I still see writers attacking on twitter Craig Mazin for his views on how the WGA leadership is running things. And I cringe. Because that’s what has changed a lot. These online forum fights will always happen but what disheartens me is the real fights on social media where people that agree 99% about real life issues still will attack each other as people. Over jokes. Over different POV. Over not being PC. So to see writers still attacking Craig in a mean way is sad. Disagree or agree.

      We got to get back to being a country that two people who disagree about everything can still agree on the basic principles of humanity. And break bread together.

      I enjoy the jokes. The ball busting. The fights. The tangents. The different personalities. The rants. The empty threats. But sometimes you gotta step back and realize we may disagree but we’re all writers. We should all be on the same side.

      Comment


      • Re: Note To Gucci: Mazin's Point On "Summing Up Your Characters"

        Originally posted by JoeNYC View Post
        Well, then I apologize.

        For what I'm about to say, finalact4 is gonna accused me of seeking attention, but seriously, all the personal attacks, i.e., I'm seeking attention, my ego is in the way, I'm unprofessional, I post in bad faith, I'm full of bullshit, etc., has been exhausting to deal with, so I'm gonna take a break from Done Deal for a while and concentrate on my writing.

        Good luck with your writing and goals everyone.
        I think I'll speak for myself, if you don't mind, Joe.

        Your apology feels sincere. It was right to do it. I appreciate and respect when a person can admit they're wrong and apologize. It's not easy. Despite what you think, I commend you on your apology.

        Good luck on your writing.
        FA4
        "Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist,- Pablo Picasso

        Comment


        • Re: Note To Gucci: Mazin's Point On "Summing Up Your Characters"

          Dang. Drama! While reading Gucci's character inner monologue, my own voice was saying: "can i survive here?" Lol.

          I think Joe was just trying to help in the end. Maybe I'm wrong but there seems to be a dated feud between him and some members.

          Bono -- I think you should run for some kind of office. You're right we all just need to break bread together. I will be in LA in December at some point if anyone wants to lol.

          Comment


          • Re: Note To Gucci: Mazin's Point On "Summing Up Your Characters"

            I also want to point out that if you were to study some good novelists like Elmore Leonard, you won't find many adverbs in their work. Nonetheless, you can read some of the greatest novels ever written and find that they're loaded with them.

            This is the point I think Joe was trying to make.

            Comment


            • Re: Note To Gucci: Mazin's Point On "Summing Up Your Characters"

              Originally posted by Bono View Post
              And to add - none of this is truly important. On here it's pretty gentle. But I still see writers attacking on twitter Craig Mazin for his views on how the WGA leadership is running things. And I cringe. Because that's what has changed a lot. These online forum fights will always happen but what disheartens me is the real fights on social media where people that agree 99% about real life issues still will attack each other as people. Over jokes. Over different POV. Over not being PC. So to see writers still attacking Craig in a mean way is sad. Disagree or agree.

              We got to get back to being a country that two people who disagree about everything can still agree on the basic principles of humanity. And break bread together.

              I enjoy the jokes. The ball busting. The fights. The tangents. The different personalities. The rants. The empty threats. But sometimes you gotta step back and realize we may disagree but we're all writers. We should all be on the same side.
              100% Agreed!
              Bruh, fukkin *smooches*! Feel me? Ha!

              Comment


              • Re: Note To Gucci: Mazin's Point On "Summing Up Your Characters"

                I only believe what I wrote 87%, but I SEE you Gucci. I see you.

                Comment


                • Re: Note To Gucci: Mazin's Point On "Summing Up Your Characters"

                  Adverbs? I use them all the time. But I do RECOGNIZE when I'm doing it and stop to consider if I NEED it for the narrative to feel right (i.e. POP!)
                  Bruh, fukkin *smooches*! Feel me? Ha!

                  Comment


                  • Re: Note To Gucci: Mazin's Point On "Summing Up Your Characters"

                    Originally posted by GucciGhostXXX View Post
                    Adverbs? I use them all the time. But I do RECOGNIZE when I'm doing it and stop to consider if I NEED it for the narrative to feel right (i.e. POP!)
                    Solid.
                    "Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist,- Pablo Picasso

                    Comment


                    • Re: Note To Gucci: Mazin's Point On "Summing Up Your Characters"

                      Originally posted by Bono View Post
                      I only believe what I wrote 87%, but I SEE you Gucci. I see you.
                      I see you back, bruh!
                      Bruh, fukkin *smooches*! Feel me? Ha!

                      Comment


                      • Re: Note To Gucci: Mazin's Point On "Summing Up Your Characters"

                        Originally posted by JoeNYC View Post
                        In the script pages forum, Gucci posted some pages to a potential TV series. The majority of Gucci's style of writing for character introductions is TELLING, not SHOWING. He SHOWS on screen what he TELLS after the character introductions.

                        When it comes to character introductions, I believe a discussion on SHOWING and TELLING should be done publicly, so this is why I'm posting here and not in Gucci's private thread.

                        Please, don't reveal any details about Gucci's pages without permission from Gucci.

                        There are some writers pro and non-pro who don't like the style of TELLING. They believe it's stronger to reveal character through action, which I agree with, but if TELLING and/or the use of unfilmables is the writer's taste and style, I don't have a problem with it -- if it's done well.

                        There are some writers who are dogmatic about TELLING, but when it comes to creativity, I believe a writer should be allowed leeway.
                        I got to here and had a brain-fart. It went like this...

                        Used in a SPEC script which is also designed to attract interest from ACTORS who might like to know what kind of character they're playing, seems cool to me.

                        So yeah. There's my brain-fart.

                        Now, should I bother to read the entire thread? Or should I it? Are there any good fights?

                        Mark
                        sigpic

                        Comment


                        • Re: Note To Gucci: Mazin's Point On "Summing Up Your Characters"

                          Meh... I'd skip it.
                          Bruh, fukkin *smooches*! Feel me? Ha!

                          Comment


                          • Re: Note To Gucci: Mazin's Point On "Summing Up Your Characters"

                            what did I miss?
                            Ricky Slade: Listen to me, I intentionally make this gun look that way because I am smart.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Note To Gucci: Mazin's Point On "Summing Up Your Characters"

                              This is a great drama thread between JoeNYC and Gucci, flashbacks of Craig Mazin and Jeff Lowell added to the drama... they heighten the response of the protagonist

                              it does get compelling and Gucci does push the thread forward by double posting to keep the drama going. The phrase, "not good craft" is repeated too much and loses it's power after a page or two... the twist of using an Affleck movie as an example of worse telling, was a good twist. Pointing out how Affleck already know who he is and doesn't need an introduction

                              Just outside Philly, 30-something Jack Cunningham works construction, lives alone, and drinks on the daily. We get a good idea of what this man's life is like when he strolls into a bar after work... on Thanksgiving. Problem with booze? Check.
                              this genius level of writing allows the Affleck to not shave for the production and "act like he's drunk" ... very smart

                              I know I'm into the 2nd act on this one, but do wonder what reveals we have for JoeNYC's script pages or if Gucci is actually dating his manager and that why they love his work... so many questions,, I can't wait

                              Ricky Slade: Listen to me, I intentionally make this gun look that way because I am smart.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Note To Gucci: Mazin's Point On "Summing Up Your Characters"

                                Anyone who finds themselves constantly summing up their characters needs to be asking themselves why they're doing that.

                                Quentin Tarantino does it because over-writing, over-explaining is built into his DNA. That's why his first draft of Django was like 300 pages or whatever it was. He's an overly generous writer. It's mischaracterizing Tarantino's character summations to call them "cheating," because he doesn't rely solely on the summations to define his characters, he does that through action and dialogue as good as anyone has ever done it.

                                So if you're Quentin Tarantino and you sum up your characters as a symptom of having a very fertile, creative, generous mind, then you're in good shape, because it means you probably do everything else in the script with a level of mastery that will garner you sales, recognition, awards and millions of dollars.

                                But I'd venture a guess that most people sum up their characters as a crutch, because they feel insecure about readers seeing the characters the way the writer wants them to.

                                So let's go back to the first post for a minute and take a look at what's actually wrong with the example that got passed around:

                                Tess makes a beeline for the only EMPTY STOOL, but --

                                REX VARNER (40s, as*hole to the core) plops his ass down on it before she can get there... and then SMIRKS as he raises his Budweiser in a fake toast to her.

                                REX: Next time, sweetheart.”


                                To analyze just these few sentences as a litmus test for bad screenwriting is bad practice. If that's all we're allowing ourselves here, then these are my thoughts.

                                The problem here isn't really that Rex is summarized, it's that he's and this scene are dull cliches. If Rex is an important enough character to have a name then he should either be more than "an as*hole to the core", or he should do enough as*hole stuff that you don't need to summarize him in his character intro.

                                If Rex actually is going to have role of value as an "as*hole to the core," in the script then his introductory action needs to paint him as more of an as*hole than taking another character's seat at a public bar as well. That action doesn't even live up to the "as*hole to the core," tag; that's using it as a crutch. So when a script like the one this moment exists in gets rejected, it won't be because the summary exists, it'll be because of the greater problems that this particular summary symptomizes.

                                It's as simple as that.
                                Last edited by SteveD; 01-26-2020, 08:20 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X