OK, just had a little PM chat with S.R. and I think everything is cool now.

But while composing my thoughts to him, I decided I would like to make part of that message public -- a little insight into the "minds of the mods" (or lack thereof) -- for those who wonder why on Earth we let these trash threads go on like this.

They crop up every now and again -- quite cyclical, actually -- and what you may or may not have noticed is that they linger for a day or two -- but once they have died, they mysteriously disappear into the ether.

Nobody even cares or asks why they are gone, if they even notice.  They know why it's gone. And the boards are no worse for the wear.

We have found that we have to let these threads run their course -- provided they do not get abusive or anything.

If we delete the thread, a new, similar conversation will just pop up somewhere else.

It is like squeezing a balloon.

At least on an existing thread, we can keep track of it, you know?

So now you know.  This one will likely be gone in a day or two also.

Just gonna post to make sure this stays on the portal. To piss off screen. Welp, watched it fifteen times for some reason. But, sadly, I've concluded that that was a butt double.

She's on my laminated list. I keep it in my pocket just in case we run into each other. She's #2. She'd probably ask, "Where's your girlfriend if you have a list?" and I would have no answer.

Anywho... I agree with what she said. Can believe it. This was a bad scene to get Murphy's point across. Sorry Murph. If i had to read "Get off me! Get off me! Get off me you bastard!" In a script it would annoy me. The actors should ad lib a bit.

James

Quoted from jwent6688 This was a bad scene to get Murphy's point across. Sorry Murph. If i had to read "Get off me! Get off me! Get off me you bastard!" In a script it would annoy me. The actors should ad lib a bit.

But don't you see? That was the whole point of the clip. This is what Michael missed as well.

What Alba's saying is: good actors change lines, unless they consider the writing so great it doesn't need changing. Now, the writing in that scene is pretty bad. And yet she didn't change it. So, either she doesn't count herself as a good actor, or she considers the writing so good she's left it as it is, in which case she has poor judgment. So she's damning herself either way.

There. I explained the joke. Unless you already got it and were being ironic, in which case...you got me.

I finally got to see this video and I have to ask:  couldn't they have made the hiney whipping a little bit longer?

Seriously though, I don't think that anyone would consider Jessica Alba a good actress, much less a great actress.  Sure, she's attractive but that's about all she has going for her.  I doubt that any serious director would let her change the script.

You might as well be taking acting tips from Paris Hilton.


Phil

I watched 'The Kids are all right" last night, (it was a great film btw - one of the best of the year.) Beforehand I listened to an interview with Mark Ruffalo, he made some interesting points, one especially that goes against all screenwriting convention and while It does'nt mean that he is right, it is certainly interesting to get actor's perspectives on these things sometimes.

He is a great actor, yet he followed the script, which he called great. But he said what he loved about the film is that the writer/director Lisa Cholodenko was never in a hurry to get out of a scene early. I know we are always told to get into a scene late and leave it early, and understand why this is said, but Ruffalo suggested it is in the final moments of a scene where good actors can just "be actors", when all the dialogue is done, when they have moved all the props they were supposed to, and the director allows them to stay on screen a little bit more. He says it is those moments where good actors can shine.

Watching the film after hearing this I was looking out for examples in the film, and you know what? He is so right. There were numerous occasions where they left a camera running longer than it needed to and this resulted in great little character moments, ad-libs if you will, but not dialogue, proper visual acting, even if just odd facial expressions or movements.

I think that this is where Alba has got it very wrong, as John August said a screenplay is much more than just dialogue, it is about creating a world where actors can say your dialogue but use their skill to make it real, not just changing it because they think they know better. That is not skill really is it? That is just a sign that they are not actually a good enough actor to read your dialogue well in the first place.

So I think she is 100% wrong, Good actors are capable of taking your dialogue and doing something with it. Bad actors feel the need to tinker with it and make changes.

What does this have to do with Jessica Alba?  She's not a great actress.  She hasn't won any great awards.  When her looks fade, so will her career.  Seriously.  What does she have now?



There are actors who can change a script and get away it--even improve it.  She's not one of them.


Phil

Quoted from Murphy I watched 'The Kids are all right" last night, (it was a great film btw - one of the best of the year.) Beforehand I listened to an interview with Mark Ruffalo, he made some interesting points, one especially that goes against all screenwriting convention and while It does'nt mean that he is right, it is certainly interesting to get actor's perspectives on these things sometimes. He is a great actor, yet he followed the script, which he called great. But he said what he loved about the film is that the writer/director Lisa Cholodenko was never in a hurry to get out of a scene early. I know we are always told to get into a scene late and leave it early, and understand why this is said, but Ruffalo suggested it is in the final moments of a scene where good actors can just "be actors", when all the dialogue is done, when they have moved all the props they were supposed to, and the director allows them to stay on screen a little bit more. He says it is those moments where good actors can shine. Watching the film after hearing this I was looking out for examples in the film, and you know what? He is so right. There were numerous occasions where they left a camera running longer than it needed to and this resulted in great little character moments, ad-libs if you will, but not dialogue, proper visual acting, even if just odd facial expressions or movements. I think that this is where Alba has got it very wrong, as John August said a screenplay is much more than just dialogue, it is about creating a world where actors can say your dialogue but use their skill to make it real, not just changing it because they think they know better. That is not skill really is it? That is just a sign that they are not actually a good enough actor to read your dialogue well in the first place. So I think she is 100% wrong, Good actors are capable of taking your dialogue and doing something with it. Bad actors feel the need to tinker with it and make changes.

Dear Murphy, I wanted to quote your whole post because I think it's essential for reading together with my response.

(Before I respond on that though, I think you and Screenrider should shake hands and not worry about "the shit". The oppositions are good things. We are all mirrors for each other so that we actually "can" exist. "Opposites". As a reflection is.)

Now, the response:

We're discussing the question of:

If any actor tinkers with script-- or says anything they want to say, are they a bad actor?

We can't answer this strictly in a "yes" or "no" fashion. As always, it depends upon the context of the situation. As always, there will be situations that prove right on either side of the story.

The most important point I want to contribute here is the importance of "collaboration".

I think that the opportunities for creative developments don't end on "the written page". If, something happens while filming, that turns out to be "the perfect accident" or "spontaneity" then I don't think we should dismiss it out of "rules" or "conventions" that we are accustomed to believing in as a kind of "false god" if you will.

Although I do hear what you are saying, it always boils down to the truth that--

Rules are often meant to be broken. But! The qualifier is: You need to first learn the rules. So yes, poor acting is no excuse to mess around with what was written well on the page, but a darn good actor who respects a darn good writer and a darn good group of people on the set all working together-- you know it and can feel the magic.

As Babz has stated with Table Reads that there's a kind of magic that happens. You find things-- opportunities, expressions when you actually "perform". This is good and positive.

With regard to collaboration: I think it's the greatest thing in the world. It makes happy to give you this little bit of info:

"I am proud to say that twenty-three people contributed to a script called A Fish Called Wanda"

John Cleese

Myself, I'm not going to be quick to reject something just because it isn't the way it was planned.

Sandra

To be honest Sandra, My comments were really only to highlight how stupid Jessica Alba's were. Of course it is not black and white, It is impossible to pigeon hole and decide how good an actor is on whether or not they stick to the script.

I know it is entirely possible, that an actor that has done his job correctly, will actually know more about that character than even the writer. I don't think it has got anything to do with acting skills though, I suspect that it is how big a name you are that determines how much leeway you will be given. Seen as Jessica Alba no doubt confuses being a good actor with being a big celebrity then what she probably was trying to say was that big names, with lots of clout can say whatever they bloody like and get away with it. Very different from being a good actor.

If an actor has put some work into preparing for a role and comes to the director one day suggesting that the character would not say such a thing and provides an alternative line then I think that is by no means a bad thing. If the aim is to improve the film, and the reasons are sound then that is probably a great thing, and the sign of a good actor one might say. But does that mean that all good actors get to ignore the script? No, of course it doesn't. Only in the mind of pea-brained starlets.

As a screenwriter it seems if you are lucky enough to write a film starring Tom Cruise you are pretty screwed. By all accounts (I don't know this is true, but I am inclined to believe it) Tom Cruise has his own personal screenwriter who he brings onto his projects to re-write dialogue for him, and he is not the only one I think. Now does that make him a good actor? No way, my view is that this is all about ego.

Collaboration is one way to describe it, I am not sure it really correct though, not when it comes to screenwriting that is. Unless you are lucky enough to direct your own script, or you were christened Aaron Sorkin then you are never going to be part of any collaboration. Once you finish your final draft and bank the cheque it is unlikely you will be called upon again. I bet most screenwriters don't even find out that their dialogue has been changed until they watch the finished film in the cinema.

Screenwriting is more about giving away your babies and letting other people collaborate on them. You have just got to hope that you get the right combination of Producers, Director and Actors who allow your original vision to stand, or at least if they make changes that they are changes you agree with and you are still able to call it your film. You rarely will get a say in the matter though, you have just got to hope for the best.

Quoted from Sandra Elstree. "I am proud to say that twenty-three people contributed to a script called A Fish Called Wanda"

Same thing with Hudson Hawk.


Phil

Quoted from dogglebe Same thing with Hudson Hawk. Phil

I haven't seen the movie, but now that I know, I will watch it. Thank you.

Sandra

Jeez, Murph, if people are getting offended by the Affleck-spanks-Alba scene aren't you lucky you didn't post the subsequent Affleck-Pulverises-Alba scene, nasty stuff.

Quoted from Colkurtz8 Jeez, Murph, if people are getting offended by the Affleck-spanks-Alba scene aren't you lucky you didn't post the subsequent Affleck-Pulverises-Alba scene, nasty stuff.

Very nasty stuff, to be honest I don't really think it needed to be so nasty either. It might have been easier to take had it been a better film, but I don't think the violence really served the plot here.

Quoted from James McClung And for the record, who cares what John August thinks? This (unlike above) is a serious question. I honestly don't hate Charlie's Angels enough to discredit the guy but when did he become such an authority on screenwriting (as opposed to someone like David Koepp, for example)? I see him name-dropped like crazy around here.

Well, there was Big Fish, Corpse Bride...and I did find myself impressed with Prince Of Persia to some extent...but I think August is quoted about as much as Eossio & Elliot -- because the writers have a site where they just don't talk about an upcoming project or two, but the nuts and bolts of writing itself. (of course, Rossio & Elliot are more entertaining at Wordplay) I could be wrong, but that's my thoughts on the matter.

As for Alba...?

I'm not offended by her comment at all. Her foot is so far down her mouth she's practically swallowed herself. Taken her statement at face value, that means that Good Luck Chuck was a terrible script, and she,and Dane Cook (now there's a good actor for you! *snicker-snicker*) knowingly signed on to the movie. She also appeared in the hit comedy Never Been Kissed but hardly spoke a word. Wondeer why  

Do actors "knowingly" sign on bad projects? I don't think so. Perhaps Awake was an outstanding script, messed up during production. But when I think about the issues I had with that film, I think about how bland the two leads - Alba and Hayden Christensen (another "good" thespian   ) were.

Alba was miscast in The Fantastic Four but I'll cut her some slack on the first film because it did, in fact, seem that the Sue Storm character was written like an airhead. No excuse her it on Rise of Silver Surfer though. I'm pretty sure she ad-libbed most of her dialog. "Ya Think!?" Better sounds comes from nails on a chalkboard. Only thing worse than her was a storm cloud

To be fair though, I used to like The Eye. Then a friend of mine showed me the Pang bros. original. Now I don't care for ...

Well anyway...one thing is for sure. I'm taking Alba at her word.
She isn't a good actress.

Quoted from Murphy Very nasty stuff, to be honest I don't really think it needed to be so nasty either. It might have been easier to take had it been a better film, but I don't think the violence really served the plot here.

Well, the book is quite violent and detailed in its description of the scene so I dunno, I thought it was well acted and directed. The film was a little uneven alright but then again so is the book, great but scattered in parts. Affleck was brilliant and even though this is an Alba bashing thread (pardon the pun) I thought she done a good job too in what I can see as her only half decent role outside of skinny Nancy Callahan

So to come into this conversation very late, and to make it on the original topic of script-changing, here's something you may or may not find interesting. On my own movie, I told the actors that I was well aware that I sucked at dialogue. "Your dialogue is wooden" is a common comment for me. Hence, I told the actors that they could make the dialogue sound how they felt their character would speak. Here's what happened.

I had two extremes with two of them, and everyone else fell somewhere in between. One actor changed probably 90% of his lines, and most of them worked very well. I think some were done on purpose, but others were done because he just forgot the precise wording and just said something similar, which didn't bother me at all. Now, who it did bother was the newb acting opposite him who had trouble remembering his lines anyway. The change in lines created a situation to where this new guy never got any of his queues and just had to try and remember the order of his own lines without the page-written conversation. Did it turn out ok? Sure. The worst part of my movie is the sound that I can't fix because my actors have moved all over the country.

The polar opposite of the line changer was the woman who changed few, if any, of her lines. She knew the script word for word, and actually did a great job of delivering exactly what I had written. She was actually more of a joy to work with than the other guy because she knew the script so well.

Couldn't tell you which is better. I've been on stage when an actor skipped past the end of a scene, missing the cue that signaled a set change, and then had to backtrack for the stage crew to to their job when he turned and did not find the person he was supposed to be talking to at that point. At the same time, how many of us wish that Lucas had allowed his dialogue to be changed in the Star Wars prequels?