[quote=“Col. Crazy Kenneth”]
Then turn to books. The power of motion pictures comes from the combination of visuals and audio to create all kinds of emotions. Can’t do that shit with books. A good story is nothing cinematic, it’s just a good story.
[/quote]
Preach it.
[quote=“Lt. BioBasterd”]
Great writer/directors and actors. That’s what film is all about.
[/quote]
and editors, and DPs, and camera operators, and sound people (so many of them), and composers, and the costume people, and the set people…
[quote=“Lt. BioBasterd”]
You guys pay too much attention to names. I just look for a good story, plain and simple. If it’s good - it’s good. No matter who the person behind it is. And no, I’m not saying Transformers 2 was good - I never even saw it. I personally find the following actresses incredibly savvy on choosing great screenplays to act in: Bette Davis, Joan Crawford, Greta Garbo, Barbara Stanwyck, Cate Blanchett, Marion Cotillard, Kate Winslet, and whole bunch of others. Some classic stars may be dead, but their films live on forever. tear drop here
Great writer/directors and actors. That’s what film is all about.
[/quote]
You’re so full of yourself. I’m seriously convinced you’re a Sacha Baron Cohen character.
[quote=“Col. Crazy Kenneth”]
That is a remark I am not familiar with. Not a native speaker, as you maybe know. Are you agreeing with me or making a little joke?
[/quote]
lol. It better not be, I am not revolting against my great country. I said it look like it was heading that way. No Mr. Government, I’ll be a good boy.
I wouldn’t mind seeing rioting in the streets. It’d be something at least. I’d like to see a little passion out of Americans, North Americans for that matter since I’m up here in the great white north. Jesus, what I wouldn’t kill for some articulation.
[quote=“Col. Crazy Kenneth”]
How would that be beneficial?
[/quote]
it wouldn’t but I’d just like to see some sort of fire underneath peoples bellies. I just see so much ambivalence out there at a time when there’s so much injustice.
[quote=“Col. Crazy Kenneth”]
Then turn to books. The power of motion pictures comes from the combination of visuals and audio to create all kinds of emotions. Can’t do that shit with books. A good story is nothing cinematic, it’s just a good story.
[/quote]
I don’t really agree with that. Good stories are full of visuals and audio. The only difference is a good storyteller plants those things directly into your brain without the filter created by a director. With nothing but a pure story, how cinematic it is or isn’t is completely up to the person digesting it. If you read a book and don’t see or hear things in your head that’s kinda sad.
Most directors take those brilliant stories and attempt to get you to interpret the story the way they do. Just look at books dedicated to teaching the business of film making. They’re basically teaching you how to brainwash the audience into seeing things the way you want them to.
Most directors don’t tell a story, they simply present their interpretation of it. Which is a pretty shitty way to run things when the director didn’t write the story. This is part of why I’ve reverted to television. In TV the guy who came up with the concept runs shit. He directs the directors. In movies the guy who created the story is usually considered less important than the boom mic operator once filming begins.
[quote=“Dex”]
I don’t really agree with that. Good stories are full of visuals and audio. The only difference is a good storyteller plants those things directly into your brain without the filter created by a director. With nothing but a pure story, how cinematic it is or isn’t is completely up to the person digesting it. If you read a book and don’t see or hear things in your head that’s kinda sad.
Most directors take those brilliant stories and attempt to get you to interpret the story the way they do. Just look at books dedicated to teaching the business of film making. They’re basically teaching you how to brainwash the audience into seeing things the way you want them to.
Most directors don’t tell a story, they simply present their interpretation of it. Which is a pretty shitty way to run things when the director didn’t write the story. This is part of why I’ve reverted to television. In TV the guy who came up with the concept runs shit. He directs the directors. In movies the guy who created the story is usually considered less important than the boom mic operator once filming begins.
[/quote]
The writer does his job. The director interprets it. Not for you or anybody else, but as they see it. If they didn’t then anybody could do it and no one would know the difference and that ain’t cinema. At least not what it’s supposed to be.
Re-stating the bullshit way the system works in a simplified manner doesn’t really justify it.
How does giving the writer more control imply that anybody could do it? Are you saying anybody could write a good movie and present it to the world? And why would people not be able to tell the difference? Different writers have different styles. A shit movie would still be a shit movie the same way a shit play is still a shit play or a shit TV show is still a shit TV show.
[quote=“Dex”]
Re-stating the bullshit way the system works in a simplified manner doesn’t really justify it.
How does giving the writer more control imply that anybody could do it? Are you saying anybody could write a good movie and present it to the world? And why would people not be able to tell the difference? Different writers have different styles. A shit movie would still be a shit movie the same way a shit play is still a shit play or a shit TV show is still a shit TV show.
[/quote]
For example, you could give an Akiva Goldsman script to Werner Herzog or P.T. Anderson or Terrence Malick and it’d still be a shitty film. Because Akiva Goldman is literally writes the first cliche that pops into his head.
“A dog that talks in iambic pentameter? Brilliant, Akiva, you’re brilliant!” - from the notes of Akiva Goldman.
Counter-point: Eric Roth is a terribly shitty writer and Curious Case of Benjamin Button would’ve blown if David Fincher didn’t make the visual, artistic decisions he did.
Counter-point: Eric Roth is a terribly shitty writer and Curious Case of Benjamin Button would’ve blown if David Fincher didn’t make the visual, artistic decisions he did.
[/quote]
Yeah, I guess I haven’t read the Benjamin Button script so I don’t know if he employs this technique but screenwriters have kind of had to adopt the director philosophy of brainwashing the audience into interpreting things the way they want them to. The only difference is writers are trying to brainwash the director. Visual ques, transitions and even the way actors portray their characters can and should be dictated in the script without anybody really noticing, if it’s done correctly.
Who would have thought that fuckin’ Transformers 2 would spark this kind of intelligent conversation on film?
[quote=“Dex”]
Yeah, I guess I haven’t read the Benjamin Button script so I don’t know if he employs this technique but screenwriters have kind of had to adopt the director philosophy of brainwashing the audience into interpreting things the way they want them to. The only difference is writers are trying to brainwash the director. Visual ques, transitions and even the way actors portray their characters can and should be dictated in the script without anybody really noticing, if it’s done correctly.
Who would have thought that fuckin’ Transformers 2 would spark this kind of intelligent conversation on film?
[/quote]
That’s why when I write a script, I leave it the bare minimum: character movements/descripts, brief scenery descriptions and dialogue. Sometimes I give it flare by throwing shit in there like my colorful words but I like to keep it as raw as possible because I know the director will add meat to it. That doesn’t mean the script is empty and soulless though and doesn’t take some talent (which I fully believe I have ) to write. Because some of the best films have been because of the writer: Rudy Wurlitzer is a fine example of a man who wrote films that were brilliant on paper and on screen.
CK, Ordell, you 2 were the 2 that saw my messed up sig on here, but I am glad to report that is wasn’t me, I searched about it and apparently Imageshack got hacked and that was a letter from them.
[quote=“F.W.”]
That’s why when I write a script, I leave it the bare minimum: character movements/descripts, brief scenery descriptions and dialogue. Sometimes I give it flare by throwing shit in there like my colorful words but I like to keep it as raw as possible because I know the director will add meat to it. That doesn’t mean the script is empty and soulless though and doesn’t take some talent (which I fully believe I have ) to write. Because some of the best films have been because of the writer: Rudy Wurlitzer is a fine example of a man who wrote films that were brilliant on paper and on screen.
[/quote]
Yeah, I like to think I stay true to that style as well but lately (because what I’m writing these days is more meant to be read than seen) I’ve been sort of breaking the rules in a sense. I very rarely describe the location in any sort of detail simply because most of the time it’s not that important to the story I’m trying to tell. I add subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) camera direction, I bluntly describe a characters emotions a little more than I should, and I’ve kinda strayed away from conforming to the typical act structure/character arch. Most of those things are considered a “no-no when trying to break into the business”.
If you’re interested in having your work viewed and critiqued I highly recommend checking out the Virtual Series world. We mostly deal in TV shows but I’m co-president of a network and I’m totally looking to acquire more movies. If you’re afraid of somebody stealing your work you can always register it with the copyright office or the WGA first but just publishing it somewhere gives you documented proof that you did it first and you’ll have plenty of witnesses who can vouch for that.
) to write. Because some of the best films have been because of the writer: Rudy Wurlitzer is a fine example of a man who wrote films that were brilliant on paper and on screen.