Lol, George.

As soon as I get someone to grammar proof read it I'll submit my Reality/Fiction sequel entitled The Filmmaker. I should be able to submit it in a day or two. I hope you'll all read it and give me your opinion (especially you Phil. You're a hard guy to please) on it.

Look for it in the Shorts section (I think in the same place where you find Reality/Fiction)

In response to the original post, I don't think there's anything wrong in trying to be like someone else or being a "wanna be."  If that's what gets you into writing, I'm all for it.  Eventually you'll find your own "voice" or "style."  

I'm also a huge Tarantino fan, and don't be hard on yourself if you find yourself wanting to emulate him.  Tarantino himself has said (I can't remember the quote ver batim so I'll just give you the jist) that filmmaking is a medium full of rip-off artists.  His films borrow shots, scenes, characters and even entire plotlines from films he's seen, loved and wants to emulate.  Reservoir Dogs was "inspired" by the Chow Yun Fat flick City on Fire.  True Romance was nothing but a mid-70s Italian exploitation flick done in America.  And everything in the Kill Bill films have been seen before, from Uma Thurman's yellow biker outfit, to knocking the blood off her sword during her fight with the Crazy 88s, to the tune Daryll Hannah whistles as she's walking through the hospital in her nurse uniform.  And Pai Mei, the kung fu master, was actually a character in another series of Kung Fu flicks.  There's rarely a moment in any Tarantino flick that isn't borrowed from some other movie.

But the difference between Tarantino and a hack is that Tarantino, for all the borrowing or homaging or referencing he does, doesn't just mimick.  He takes his inspirations and one-ups them.  He gives you something you've never seen before, even if you've seen it a hundred times before.  There's nothing new under the sun; all you can do is try to make it seem new.  And that's where Tarantino succeeds.

So I say if you're a "wanna be," "wanna be" all you want.  Just try to add something different to what you're trying to emulate.

Quoted from Steve-Dave The thing I don't get, is that there's always so much talk about sticking to a formula when writing. Like Kevan's post above where everything has to be done this way within these amount of page numbers. and producers put so much emphasis on staying within thee strict guidelines.

When you are first starting out, you should stick to the rules.  Once you've made a name for yourself and become a highly in-demand writer in Hollywood, then you can write your scripts on toilet paper using baby's blood.  

Producers, directors, agents, etc.  get hundreds of scripts a week from newbies like us.  They look for a reason to toss scripts in the garbage.  Formatting is one of them.

Quoted from Steve-Dave I think that it's the complete opposite of what Alfred Hitchcock has said (even though I'm a big fan Mr. Hitchcock ) But I think we need more sriters like Tarantino, who aren't necessarily copying him, but break from this mold that we're supposed to be such slaves to. I think more people who write similar to Tarantino, and prefer that style of writing, should get more opportunities.

There are enough writers like Tarantino out there.  Hollywood doesn't need more.  Also, Hollywood does things in waves.  If you write a script of ae genre that's currently popular in Hollywood, the wave will have passed before you can do something with it.  And the powers-that-be won't be interested in it.

Quoted from Steve-Dave I was just watching Pulp Fiction a couple days ago, and it occured to me that Tarantino doesn't have much story in ANY of his screenplays. It's more of just a combination of essentially a bunch of short films put together. Pulp Fiction has absolutely no story. There's just minutes and minutes of conversation. ie the foot massage scene, Jackson talking about why he doesn't eat pork, hell he made a whole scene on just accidentally shooting someone's head. And Butch's story is just thrown into the mix, and would seem "out of place" to someone reading it for the first time. All his elements have NOTHING to do with any particular story, and anyone who would read his script around here would've probably said that he should just cut the conversation out or he has too much dialogue. Yet Pulp Fiction is my favorite movie though. Same with Reservoir Dogs, when he starts off the movie with them just chit chatting for minutes about essentially nothing. And Kill Bill is TWO films about just getting revenge on people. But I'm not knocking him for this, because I love his films.

In addition to writing the best violence in Hollywood, Taratino (IMHO) is also great at character development and conversation.  Jackson talks about why he doesn't eat pork.  Walken talks about the watch.  My favorite scene in Reservior Dogs is where Steve Buscemi argues why he doesn't tip.  All of his movies have these scenes in it where he has great conversations going.


Phil

^ Hey, there's that "When you're new..." speech. I knew Phil would have to bring it out at some point.

And on Tarantino's talking, chatter is one thing that builds character. Characters talk about themselves and this information makes them more like real people which makes you want to invest in them more. Why is the Nightly News so hard-hitting? You know the stories are about real people so the mother and infant in the car crash hits hard because they're real. Movies have to convince you that they are about real people and to do this, they have to build real characters. All of Tarantino's chatter among his characters do this. Too many newer scripts lack this.

This is great, I've finally found a board where I'm not ashamed to be a Tarantino fan!

Quoted from dogglebe When you are first starting out, you should stick to the rules.  Once you've made a name for yourself and become a highly in-demand writer in Hollywood, then you can write your scripts on toilet paper using baby's blood.   Producers, directors, agents, etc.  get hundreds of scripts a week from newbies like us.  They look for a reason to toss scripts in the garbage.  Formatting is one of them.

I was more reffering to the 3 act structure, and having "this" turning point happening within "these" five pages and all that crap. And having the happy hollywood ending and always having the bad guys lose. That's just not interesting to me. I think that's why I don't like too many action movies, because you always know the good guy's gonna come out on top, so there's not much excitement in that to me when you already know what's gonna happen.

I'm more understanding about bad formatting more. I've been turned off by really bad formatting before. But I don't think it's bad for reading because of the story, and don't think it should be that big of a priority when it's just a little bad formatting or throwing in pieces of the writer's personality.

I think bad formatting is more a showcase of how serious the writer is, and how much respect he has for the reader. And if it looks to me like some jack off is just writing some piece of crap to make money, or obviously hasn't at least TRIED to research the correct way to write, to me that reflects that he's not really serious, so I won't read. But not because I have a grudge against bad formatting, but because I think that's a character flaw in the writer, and they don't care and aren't really professional or serious about making themselves the best writer as possible.

Quoted from dogglebe There are enough writers like Tarantino out there.  Hollywood doesn't need more.

Really? Where? lol. Evertime I see a trailer it's just more crap. Either a remake, or a sequel, or another comic book movie, or some dumb piece of crap like you got served or just my luck. The only movies that are even close to Tarantino are independent movies, which is how Tarantino started too. I'm just saying hollywood should be more about quality than making a buck.

Quoted from George Willson ^ Hey, there's that "When you're new..." speech. I knew Phil would have to bring it out at some point.

Thank you George.  Just so you know, I gave my penguin a cocktail fork and your photo.

The little guy's on his way.


Phil

I've got a lot of respect for Tarantino. The fact that he didn't waste a lot time reading "how-to" books is obvious -- and I say "god damn!" He changed everything.

I think too many of us are caught up in the rules; "no this, no that." Fuck it. It's all a crap shoot. Do what you want to do -- if you don't, who will?

Seth  

Ps ... Why is an innocent word like "damn" censored?

Not to worry, Seth. Not everyone here is caught up in the "rules." Some use the rules as absolutes, but I don't really see tham as such. I've posted a lot of writing, and these rules (with the exception of formatting, which does have to be followed), are guidelines. They are stepping stones to help you when you get stuck. If you write yourself into a corner, and wonder where you went wrong, have a look at the rules and see what might help you out. If you are on page 70 and stuck, maybe your character needs to make a crucial decision. If you're done and only have 70 pages, maybe you need to fill out the middle. Are your characters developed? Could a subplot use more time? The rules work as a framework to get you started or get you jump-started when you get stuck. Don't read into these as the end-all of writing because they're not. If you can start something and continue it to a satisfying conclusion (that is over 90 pages; we've gotta be firm on something), then congratulations, you don't need the guide. But if you're getting frustrated, then turn to the guide or "the rules." There's bound to be something to help you move forward and find that voice. Knowing the rules helps me write, but I don't write by them.

PS: Damn is a pretty heavy duty word, but is considered innocent because of its religious associations that make it profane. Crap on the other hand is one I don't quite understand the censorship of. Personally, I turned off the censoring on my perferences so I see everything. Hence, your PS looks pretty funny to me, but since I know about the censoring, I understood it. To me, you entire last sentence, complete with F word, is intact.

The thing I don't get about word censorship...is words with the same meaning, some are accepted and some aren't?

you could say poo, poo poo, poopy, pooperella, poopzilla, poop the magic dragon, excrement, dump, dookie, and fecal matter, but not crap or shit? But It all means the same thing. WTF?

i think we all know the answer to that one Sryknows

Quoted from George Willson Personally, I turned off the censoring on my perferences so I see everything. Hence, your PS looks pretty funny to me, but since I know about the censoring, I understood it. To me, you entire last sentence, complete with F word, is intact.

I didn't know you could do that. Thanks, George!

Quoted from Seth I've got a lot of respect for Tarantino. The fact that he didn't waste a lot time reading "how-to" books is obvious -- and I say "god damn!" He changed everything. I think too many of us are caught up in the rules; "no this, no that." Fuck it. It's all a crap shoot. Do what you want to do -- if you don't, who will? Seth   Ps ... Why is an innocent word like "damn" censored?

I highly doubt Tarantino didn't "waste his time" learning the rules of screenwriting. I mean, he had to. That's why he's good at what he does. I wouldn't even call him a "rule breaker" exactly. I think he's just more experimental. Despite the nonlinear storytelling in films like Reservoir Dogs and Kill Bill, they still stick to the three act structure relatively well. Take Kill Bill for example. In the first act, you learn about Bill and why the Bride wants him dead, in the second, you watch the Bride slaughter her way through assassins to get to Bill, and in the final act, you get the big payoff. Sounds like a three act film to me. Information is just presented in a nonconventional way. Same goes for his other films. Granted Tarantino does take a few liberties with dialogue and tone, but I'd say that's more rule bending than breaking.

Rules are there for a reason and not just to be annoying. These rules are there to make sure your script doesn't end up an incoherent mess that no one wants to read, let alone, watch. Come to think of it, I'm going to agree with George and say they're more guidelines than anything else. Formatting as well. The format's there so your script is easy to read and doesn't look like is was written by a twelve-year old. It's painful to read a screenplay by something who has no idea what they're doing. As a matter of fact, the draft of Kill Bill posted on the site wasn't exactly fun to read either. It's the same movie, sure (well... sort of), but it's a pain to read considering the amount of liberties Tarantino has taken with formatting. Other times, it just seems like he's stroking his ego.

I do agree that it's a little silly to blindly follow rules but if you understand why they're there, you'll actually want to follow them. I do, however, disagree with the further breakdown of the three act structure (Act I, Part A, B, C, etc.). That's a little too rigid for my taste not to mention it takes no skill to write like that. Any idiot can write a movie if the entire plot is spelled out for them by someone else.

In short, it shouldn't hurt to bend or break the rules of screenwriting every once and a while (I know I have) but I think it's important to remember the rules are there for a reason and that, ultimately, they're for your benefit.

My two cents.

Quoted from James McClung In short, it shouldn't hurt to bend or break the rules of screenwriting every once and a while (I know I have) but I think it's important to remember the rules are there for a reason and that, ultimately, they're for your benefit.

I agree. I just, sometimes, let frustration get the best of me.

Quoted from George Not to worry, Seth. Not everyone here is caught up in the "rules." Some use the rules as absolutes, but I don't really see tham as such. I've posted a lot of writing, and these rules (with the exception of formatting, which does have to be followed), are guidelines. They are stepping stones to help you when you get stuck. If you write yourself into a corner, and wonder where you went wrong, have a look at the rules and see what might help you out. If you are on page 70 and stuck, maybe your character needs to make a crucial decision. If you're done and only have 70 pages, maybe you need to fill out the middle. Are your characters developed? Could a subplot use more time? The rules work as a framework to get you started or get you jump-started when you get stuck. Don't read into these as the end-all of writing because they're not. If you can start something and continue it to a satisfying conclusion (that is over 90 pages; we've gotta be firm on something), then congratulations, you don't need the guide. But if you're getting frustrated, then turn to the guide or "the rules." There's bound to be something to help you move forward and find that voice. Knowing the rules helps me write, but I don't write by them.

Good advice.

About the word "damn" ... You're right. If you think about it it is a heavy duty word. It's used so often, though, that its meaning, it seems, has almost been lost. That's a good reason in itself not to over use it -- it loses its punch.

Anyway, I think I was just blowin' off steam.

Seth  

Quoted from James McClung I do agree that it's a little silly to blindly follow rules but if you understand why they're there, you'll actually want to follow them. I do, however, disagree with the further breakdown of the three act structure (Act I, Part A, B, C, etc.). That's a little too rigid for my taste not to mention it takes no skill to write like that. Any idiot can write a movie if the entire plot is spelled out for them by someone else.

The further breakdown that Kevan gave has its uses, especially to beginners of the craft. If you want to tell a story, but don't know how to do it yet, follow that structure in creating your plot and script. It will still be yours; it will still be original; but it will follow an established structure, and be impressive for a first-time script. No one has to know you followed a rigid structure. The beginner can then use what they learn to write something, this time with the knowledge of the structure, but more free because they aren't using a template.

Screenwriting programs are essentially templates of the same variety. They allow you to select what portion of the script you're writing and the program formats it for you. This allows someone to write a script without an explicit study of formatting. Once you progress from formatting beginner to formatting expert, you no longer need a program to tell you how to do it, because it is second nature. This allows you more freedom to write on any computer anywhere (or even -- gasp! -- a typewriter) without worrying about the program.

I'll tell ya something George. I've never used software and I never will. and look at my scripts! The format is flawless!