Nicholl 2009

Collapse

Announcement

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

  • Re: Nicholl 2009

    Originally posted by Jules View Post
    Hi, Greg. I am sure you have plenty of people submitting from all over the world. I wondered if when the scripts are being judge if you take into consideration that english may not be the writers first language.
    Not in any instructions that we provide to the readers.

    We expect entrants to be able to communicate well in English.

    Comment


    • Re: Nicholl 2009

      Hi, I'm currently working on my final revision for the Nicholl competition. (First time entry. First screenplay - though I'm already a published author.)

      A screenwriting professor read my script and said it was "full-bodied,- in that it includes a fair amount of detail. (Not wrylies, but setting, some basic wardrobe as it seemed pertinent, etc.) He loved the story and said it would do well in competitions "like the Nicholl, that value good writing that addresses serious subjects- but that it was not as likely to sell in Hollywood, which he says likes scripts written in a style he calls "Hollywood spare.- He suggested I try to sell it to a production company that would be more open to a full-bodied treatment (he suggested the BBC). So now I'm really confused. I'd like to pare it back and make it a more marketable script, but I also want it to do well in competition. Am I looking at creating two versions: one for competition and one to potentially sell?

      Also, my screenplay is based on historical events and I've drawn from 5-6 different sources (none of which was written primarily about my protagonist or told from my protagonist's POV). There are specific details that appeared only in specific books, but I've pieced together a wide range of historical facts, details, and events, and have created a storyline that pulls them all together. So, if any one of these books didn't exist, then certain details in my screenplay wouldn't either. But no one book contains everything in my screenplay. Does that make sense? So, this wouldn't be considered an adaptation, would it?

      Thanks so much for your input!

      Comment


      • Re: Nicholl 2009

        I'm in. PDF staying green this year.

        Comment


        • Re: Nicholl 2009

          me too...

          Comment


          • Re: Nicholl 2009

            Originally posted by ShariMacD View Post
            A screenwriting professor read my script and said it was "full-bodied,- in that it includes a fair amount of detail. (Not wrylies, but setting, some basic wardrobe as it seemed pertinent, etc.) He loved the story and said it would do well in competitions "like the Nicholl, that value good writing that addresses serious subjects- but that it was not as likely to sell in Hollywood, which he says likes scripts written in a style he calls "Hollywood spare.- He suggested I try to sell it to a production company that would be more open to a full-bodied treatment (he suggested the BBC). So now I'm really confused. I'd like to pare it back and make it a more marketable script, but I also want it to do well in competition. Am I looking at creating two versions: one for competition and one to potentially sell?

            Also, my screenplay is based on historical events and I've drawn from 5-6 different sources (none of which was written primarily about my protagonist or told from my protagonist's POV).
            Research with multiple sources = original. Sole source = adaptation.

            Full-bodied versus spare. Yes, one can overwrite description and a balance should be the goal. But there is too spare, where the life has been taken out of the writing and the story.

            The goal should be to create a good story and to tell it well.

            As to scripts doing well in competitions and not in the real world:

            In the real world, scripts by new writers seldom sell and even more rarely are produced.

            New writers should worry about writing the best possible script, and then another best possible script and then another best possible script . . .

            Comment


            • Re: Nicholl 2009

              What is the main thing missing in a new writers script? Just curious....very, actually.....

              Comment


              • Re: Nicholl 2009

                Originally posted by trapped in france View Post
                What is the main thing missing in a new writers script? Just curious....very, actually.....
                This is from a reader that posted on this forum sometime ago:

                1. Lack of character development - Most writers simply forget to give their characters an arc, whether they're the leads or the supporters. This is the one I struggle with most, because in my own head, the characters have changed dramatically as the story has progressed. The trick is to make sure the audience can see that as well.

                2. Bad structure - I'm less of a stickler on this than most, as I think most scripts are too paint-by-numbers in their approach to certain genres. When you're a reader, all the romcoms, all the horrors, all the sci-fi scripts meld into the same thing. It's OK to break formula, and for me, it's preferable. But some writers just don't understand how to balance out the action or moderate three act structure, and then you end up with something that's woefully disjointed. There has to be SOME sembalnce of order and balance for a story to come off.

                3. Bad dialogue - This should be self-explanatory. We've all seen it. You can forgive less-than-stellar dialogue in a script that's really, really good otherwise, but talk that's lower than pedestrian kills most scripts.

                4. Character psychology in scene description - In other words, the writer reveals intimate details about the character to the script reader via the scene exposition, but not to the potential viewer. This one drives me up a friggin' wall. When you tell rather than show, it becomes a nightmare.

                5. Cliche/LAck of Originality - This one relates to structure in some ways, but more in that you can tell when a writer simply doesn't have an original thought in their head. There's nothing worse than reading a script that goes over well-tread ground for 100+ pages. An absolute epidemic in the Romantic Comedy and Serial Killer Thriller genres.

                6. Low Concept - I mean this in the worst way - when someone writes an entire script about something that no one could possibly care about, or if they pick a concept that's just totally absurd. Case in point: I once read a script that seemed very familiar at the beginning...the names...the places...the situation...and then there was one line of dialogue that snapped my brain into realization. Someone had actually taken the time to write a screenplay based on the song HAZARD by Richard Marx. I mean...I couldn't make that up if I tried. Essentially, this is a euphemistic way of describing a script that's just flat-out boring.
                The best way out is always through. - Robert Frost

                Comment


                • Re: Nicholl 2009

                  Thanks so much, Greg.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Nicholl 2009

                    Originally posted by trapped in france View Post
                    What is the main thing missing in a new writers script? Just curious....very, actually.....
                    The points made in Zenplato's re-post are ALL so true...I've been guilty of them myself and spotted them more times than not as a reader for a competition. I'll add my two cents with a more general point to consider.

                    The best advice I got when I started screenwriting years ago was that films are larger than life. Many aspiring screenwriters don't write "big" enough. I try to remember that as I write -- usually it's when I'm rewriting or outlining. I think to myself, "yes, in real life, CHARACTER A may react that way when faced with SITUATION X and it would be quite dramatic or funny in real life, but is it big enough to translate to the big screen?"

                    Often, the answer is no and I have to punch it up or rewrite it altogether. Of course there are independent films or even blockbusters that break this rule, but I still think it's an important rule for new writers to keep in mind. Hope this helps!

                    Comment


                    • Re: Nicholl 2009

                      Thanks zenplato - good points - obvious and true. Thanks for the reply.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Nicholl 2009

                        I believe that redwriter - Any great movie is written BIG. Thanks for reminding me - it does help!

                        Comment


                        • Re: Nicholl 2009

                          Originally posted by trapped in france View Post
                          What is the main thing missing in a new writers script? Just curious....very, actually.....
                          In scripts that many readers would agree were well written and crafted, were populated with intriguing characters who spoke appropriate dialogue, and had what seemed to be engaging and interesting stories, I find them too often to be lacking conflict and not to have high enough stakes.

                          Obstacles need to be placed in the paths of characters, and those obstacles most often should increase in difficulty over the length of a script. And those obstacles need to matter to the characters. The current obstacle must be overcome in order for the character to move closer to his goal.

                          Not every action needs to be life or death for a character, but they have to matter.

                          If the obstacles and stakes don't matter to the characters, why will they matter to the audience?

                          Comment


                          • Re: Nicholl 2009

                            Originally posted by zenplato View Post
                            4. Character psychology in scene description - In other words, the writer reveals intimate details about the character to the script reader via the scene exposition, but not to the potential viewer. This one drives me up a friggin' wall. When you tell rather than show, it becomes a nightmare.
                            I've never agreed with this.

                            You're not showing or telling the potential audience. You're telling a potential actor, since he's the one who actually has to portray the character with that psychology. If you come up with some bit of shtick to demonstrate every little internal character trait, then the actor isn't acting. You've got him indicating. To my mind that's no better than directing camera movements on every page.

                            If you think you've come up with a great, subtle way to show something about a character (someone recently mentioned the cigarette scene at the hospital in The Godfather), then by all means use it, but I see no major issue with revealing emotional or psychological traits in the description from time to time. On the page, the reader can apply it to his reading of the character. On the screen, it can come through in the actor's performance. The audience isn't missing anything whether they're reading the script or, god willing, watching the movie.

                            Granted, using scene description to tell us that the character has a pilot's license when that fact will be important to the plot later, that's a problem. An actor can't play "has a pilot's license" and the audience needs to be given the information somehow. That's where showing-not-telling comes into play, I think, more than in regards to character psychology.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Nicholl 2009

                              Originally posted by Sinnycal View Post
                              I've never agreed with this.

                              You're not showing or telling the potential audience. You're telling a potential actor, since he's the one who actually has to portray the character with that psychology. If you come up with some bit of shtick to demonstrate every little internal character trait, then the actor isn't acting. You've got him indicating. To my mind that's no better than directing camera movements on every page.

                              If you think you've come up with a great, subtle way to show something about a character (someone recently mentioned the cigarette scene at the hospital in The Godfather), then by all means use it, but I see no major issue with revealing emotional or psychological traits in the description from time to time. On the page, the reader can apply it to his reading of the character. On the screen, it can come through in the actor's performance. The audience isn't missing anything whether they're reading the script or, god willing, watching the movie.

                              Granted, using scene description to tell us that the character has a pilot's license when that fact will be important to the plot later, that's a problem. An actor can't play "has a pilot's license" and the audience needs to be given the information somehow. That's where showing-not-telling comes into play, I think, more than in regards to character psychology.
                              I think it all depends on context.

                              However, I think the spirit of the issue the original author mentioned is that it's a repeatable offense. Constantly telling instead of showing.

                              But hey, to each their own cuz I definitely see what you're saying.
                              The best way out is always through. - Robert Frost

                              Comment


                              • Re: Nicholl 2009

                                Originally posted by zenplato View Post
                                I think it all depends on context.

                                However, I think the spirit of the issue the original author mentioned is that it's a repeatable offense. Constantly telling instead of showing.

                                But hey, to each their own cuz I definitely see what you're saying.
                                I agree. It's a great rule to always have in the back of your mind, especially when you're just starting out. Eventually then you can learn how inject little tidbits much more effectively. I think many writers use it as either a crutch, or they just don't know any better.

                                It's important to realize that almost everyone who reads the script (in competitions and in the business world) won't have time to read it. They'll be blowing through it so they can move on to the next one. A subtle action by a character that carries loads of subtext may be overlooked if the writer doesn't, essentially, give the reader a little nudge.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X