All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
as some of you might know, I'm trying to produce my own feature. Finders Keepers. A thriller (I hope). Quite a few people here read it and provided great input on the first draft. It is now on it's fourth draft and has changed dramatically. Thanks everyone!! I brought on a second writer too.
Anyway, we had a script meeting this morning that was very productive and I'm feeling good about this. My problem happened when one of the partners said the script read more like a story and not visually. Really? I didn't know I had a problem in that area. I read a lot of scripts and I don't think I write much different than other people.
What do you guys think? Anyone have any examples of a very visually written script? Anyone have any suggestions how to improve?
I have always felt that was a pretty lightweight criticism. It's a script. It's all visual.
If you ask me, "make it more visual" is the sort of cliche that people offer when they are supposed to offer feedback -- but really have nothing to add -- but still want to sound like they are bringing something to the table.
What's works for some people as visual doesn't always work for others. For example there's a well known writer (I can't remember his name atm) who said visual is this.
INT. APARTMENT
Shitty.
CHARACTER Dialogue...
Now I don't personally think that is visual but a lot of people do and he sold the script so....
More than likely what this person is saying to you is that your script reads like a spec script rather than a shooting script. In other words they couldn't get a clear view of exactly what you intended to have on screen.
The less you say the better. The more you say the more you're directing the reader to understand what your feeling and conveying.
Everyone has a brain and they all think differently. If I said "I went to the store the other day and had a crazy ass trip" you'd draw your own conclusions as to what happen. Probably even better than what the story really was. But If I told you every little detail of my story you'd walk away underwhelmed because what you were hoping for was a better resolve.
The less someone says, the better. Always. Pick out 3 key elements of a scene and bring them to light. Leave everything else at the door.
P.S. I'm reading your script "Daddy is Home" today, by the way. I'll let ya know how visual it was.
I've read your work and never considered them story-like. I think if a script works, then it works. At this point, since you have people on board, then obviously something clicks as people are willing to spend time on it.
The director will have their own interpretation and ideas on each scene and sequence. They would bring the visual element to the story through suggestions and ideas.
To write visually, is basically the crux of all screenplays. Succinct descriptions of settings, mood and placements within scenes. Nothing internalized, everything shown.
It's an odd comment for sure. Especially at this stage.
I've never had a problem writing visually. I think the key is having a wide vocabulary, not so much using a lot of words. Be selective about your word choices and language. Use a thesaurus. Succinct doesn't have to mean sparse.
Good luck, Pia. I can't tell you how happy it makes me to see writers take their art into their own hands. I'm in the process of doing so myself. I wish you the greatest success.
For me, it's summed up in that Hitchcock quote Babz referenced in one of her podcasts:
"A lot writers think they're filling a page with words, when in fact they're filling a screen with images."
I think visual writing is where you can literally see the film playing out before your mind's eye - not just engaging characters, or good tone, but literally the shots shimmering in front of you. Check out the opening of 'Long Shadow Woman' by Craig Clyde, which went up in Drama the other day:
BTW: I can easily recall the opening of Christmas at St. Mary's - the track back from a red candle in a wreath. So I don't think you're not visual.
Just Murdered by Sean Elwood (Zombie Sean) and Gabriel Moronta (Mr. Ripley) - (Dark Comedy, Horror) All is fair in love and war. A hopeless romantic gay man resorts to bloodshed to win the coveted position of Bridesmaid. 99 pages. https://www.simplyscripts.net/cgi-bin/Blah/Blah.pl?b-comedy/m-1624410571/
When I hear something like that, i try to find out what really didn't work for them. It's so vague it could mean a gazillion things. They could be trying to impress the room or have a legitimate gripe or in between.
The note itself seems inconsistent. Typically, novel like description is overly visual and detailed. This criticism implies the complete opposite.
Perhaps its a crude criticism in reference to pacing? They felt the plot moved more like a novel than a movie?
Sounds like a crock o' caca. Nod, smile and say you'll find that iconic imagery ripe for a trailer.
Regards, E.D.
LATEST NEWS CineVita Films is producing a short based on my new feature!
I thought about this all day as it really bugged me. I think in my particular case he just wasn't used to reading this type of script, but rather a shooting script with camera directions and stuff. He's actually going to be the director...
JohnnyBoy, cool that you remembered the candle part!
The question was in general too though, not just my writing. What comes to mind to me as visual even though I absolutely hated it was "The Killing On Carnival Row".
Well Pia, I'm going to give feedback here that comes from an inexperienced place as far as screenwriting goes, but I hope it gives you insight.
I have the feeling that the spectrum of writing is so vast that "It's not very visual" might be construed as just a blatant negative comment.
In my opinion, a damn good story is a damn good story (no matter how re-packaged it might be) and all of the dynamic visuals that embellish it might possibly come into play through the input of others during the evolution of the story's development. In other words, the writer might lay ground in some instances, and then others run with it.
Now of course, that's not always the case, but I think that again, we're in the kind of territory where it's very gray, indeed.
My opinion is that most of your scripts are so very rich in tone that I'd love to have the technical expertise to be able to just fly with what you've laid down.
The thing is, that a writer needs to be careful not to be "overwriting" to the point where they're writing every flicker of a candle. That's not to say you don't write the dainty flicker of a candle if it's relevant to the story in a very appreciable way. (That's a whole writing book in itself on that topic.) I'll try and give an example here:
If you begin a story where a candle flickers with sharp edges and within the mythology of that universe it means "Death to the first born", then whenever you see another candle, you're going to be paying attention to the particular visuals and of course it's going to be important.
On the other hand, if you're just simply writing about a lowly but pretty candle on the table that doesn't hold any significance, then why write scads about it? Waste of the readers' time.
Pia, use your own good judgment is my advice. I'm not an expert, but I've mostly had good visuals in my head with your writing. Sometimes I've felt you could work the character aspect more, but I think that we all have that problem.
Maybe you need to develop a question. "Can you give an example of my lack of visuals?"
I think that as we critique each others' work, it's best if we can give examples. For instance:
Example Critique:
(Not related to Pia's script.)
You described them sitting at a table.
What kind of table? A puny coffee table? A grand rectangular oak dining room table for twelve? A card table? A polished glass table where their reflections bounce erratically back at us? A picnic table because the protagonist is cheap and stole it from a neighbor two blocks down?
**
So what I'm saying, is that a criticism is super if you can decipher it. The fact that you need to post the question here tells me that "The Critique Dude or Dudette" as brilliant as they might be, didn't do you justice because they didn't explain themselves. Bad form, I say. But maybe they just felt burned out and weren't on their game. That happens too.
I have always felt that was a pretty lightweight criticism. It's a script. It's all visual.
If you ask me, "make it more visual" is the sort of cliche that people offer when they are supposed to offer feedback -- but really have nothing to add -- but still want to sound like they are bringing something to the table.
Do you suspect that might be the case here?
Wow and wow! I didn't read the thread before I posted because, "What do I know" is what I think and if I write a comment without being swayed by someone previous to me with, (hopefully more weight) I think it's better for me to learn from when I study comments after the fact and better for the writer asking for feedback because even if it's from someone who's green, it might potentially be very useful.
In this case, my comment that you can read at the end of this thread jives with Bert's comment here and that makes me feel good because I respect his opinion.
In studying Kabbalah, I've come to know a saying, "A word is a rock; Silence is two."
This means that if you have a priceless word whose worth is one rock, know that not saying it is worth two rocks. This refers to those uttering needless words without pertinent content or use except to decorate the tongue in the eyes of the beholders.
**But the point extends beyond the words, be they flowery of pointed to a technical fault.
As Bert elucidates in a very toned down fashion:
Some criticism isn't really criticism at all, but a kind of "filling of space" because they can't tolerate to leave the room without offering "some*thing".
I must say, there are so many ways to answer this question. No answer at all being one of them.
Bert touched on a valid point when he said...
If you ask me, "make it more visual" is the sort of cliche that people offer when they are supposed to offer feedback -- but really have nothing to add -- but still want to sound like they are bringing something to the table.
Pretty brilliant actually.
Your writing has always been very descriptive and visual. Perhaps, going back to this person and tweeking him / her a bit on this will expose the fact they were simply puffing up to try and wrangle you in without having any input themselves.
After all, it's your script, your ideas, and your imigination on paper that has gotten the project this far. Put the mirror back on them.
1. Writing so that the script plays out like a movie in your head whilst you read it. This is a particular skill that a lot of pro-writers don't even have in my opinion.
One of the better writers I've come across at doing this is a woman called Diana Kemp Jones.
Her stuff always plays out very visually IMO. Ask her for one of her scripts and see what you think.
2. Giving your man the benefit of the doubt and assuming that he's not just saying something for the sake of it (he is the Director!). I would imagine what he means more than anything is that he feels that some of the information presented through dialogue could be revealed through action.
Go through all the exchanges in your script and see if any line could be replaced with a look or action.
For instance in any scenario where somebody is denying something...it's always possible to replace anything they say with silence and a visual representation of their true feelings.
EG Somebody is grilling somebody about whether they are having an affair. The interviewee is making a cup of coffee. As the accuser reels off names they continue to make their coffee. When the one particular name comes up, they subtly clatter the side of the cup as they are stirring it. So without them saying a word, you've got the whole story.
Also, do you have any explanational, expositional scenes that could be replaced by action?
Also late to the party, but I see it's still in full swing.
So, this "Director" made this comment after his first read of your script?
How was this Director chosen for the project? Did you seek him out and are you paying him? Or did he somehow come across the script and show interest?
Based on what I'm reading, it sounds to me like he wasn't impressed with the script, sorry to say. Is it a visual script IYO? Do you want me to read the first few pages and see what my comments are?
1. Writing so that the script plays out like a movie in your head whilst you read it. This is a particular skill that a lot of pro-writers don't even have in my opinion.
One of the better writers I've come across at doing this is a woman called Diana Kemp Jones.
Her stuff always plays out very visually IMO. Ask her for one of her scripts and see what you think.
2. Giving your man the benefit of the doubt and assuming that he's not just saying something for the sake of it (he is the Director!). I would imagine what he means more than anything is that he feels that some of the information presented through dialogue could be revealed through action.
Go through all the exchanges in your script and see if any line could be replaced with a look or action.
For instance in any scenario where somebody is denying something...it's always possible to replace anything they say with silence and a visual representation of their true feelings.
EG Somebody is grilling somebody about whether they are having an affair. The interviewee is making a cup of coffee. As the accuser reels off names they continue to make their coffee. When the one particular name comes up, they subtly clatter the side of the cup as they are stirring it. So without them saying a word, you've got the whole story.
Also, do you have any explanational, expositional scenes that could be replaced by action?
This is all very good advice. Especially, after all, the first inclination of the writer is to fill up a page; afterwards, it's about reduction, deletion, and sharpening the expressions.
Sometimes it happens that I read someone's script and I know something's wrong with it big time, but I'm not sure exactly what it is. It takes time to go back over it to figure it out and sometimes, I just don't figure it out until someone else nails the problem and then it's pretty exciting.
Anyways, I'll be interested to hear "the discovery" as you move forward.
Um... your director scares me. Sorry. Any one of us could/should be able to shoot FINDERS KEEPERS. (Hey, James! Wanna... offer back-up services? HA!)
Two couples in a truck driving down the highway. They stop at a gas station, yabber, yabber. They drive out into East Bumblef@ck Okeefanokee. (Thatsajoke!) Hike, jump in the river nekid. Sidestep punji pit, pee in the bushes. Find a blue bag w/cash Blah blah blah... Run around at night. Blah blah blah... AFU by morning. Bagged and tagged. What's the problem?
I dunno what else your "director" wants, visually.
Speaking of such, and I apologize if I can't help but keep thinking about how much of the story's events take place at night and my likely unwarranted concern (I hope you find it more "sweet & thoughtful" than "rude and annoying"), last night I watched DYING BREED and thought they did a pretty decent job of shooting a night sequence about midway through the film. (The movie sucked, FWIW. $3.5M went where, exactly?) Just thought you might wanna scam whatever reverse-engineering lighting set-up you can from whatever resources.
The Dying Breed in Tasmania? If so, it didn't suck outright. IMO, it was pretty decent.
Ray, seriously though. You say many times about "someone" or "anyone" shooting a movie. I think if you ever attempted it or watched what "someone" did with any script, who is not a film maker, it would be clear that it's not as easy as one would think. Not even close.
Yep, the Tasmania one. I thought the camera work was pretty good, actually. The "Let's drive out to the boonies, slash a tire, punch a peeping-tom, then skoot down the river on a zodiac!" was pretty ridiculous.
I'll give you the benefit of a doubt Mr. 8% geek that most things in life you can do. Yeah, your first cinematic piece or two is gonna suck. Big whoopteedoo. But after a few of them, your technique is gonna improve. A lot.
You can't tell me for all of the movies you watch, and likely the DVD features, that you can't recognize a steadicam shot from a dolly, when they're on track, where supplemental lighting is placed in a set, how SFX and practical are created.
When you're doing your technical editing, suppose we wanted to make the world's most exciting short of that. Establishing shot of you in your office. Close up of the red marker hacking off wrong this and that with a V.O. of you mumbling and swearing. Close up of you mumbling and swearing. Shoot the stack of sh!t you gotta dig through. Your reference materials. One more $@#&ing phone call interruption. The weather channel on mute. Whatever you've got on the 'puter. FINALLY! You're done with that POS. Onto the next little gem... Depart from scene.
How are these done? Are we panning or tracking? Pedestal or hand-held camera? How's the lighting in your work area? Does it need supplemental? Color gels? Gonna mix fluorescent with tungsten? Audio: Lavalier or shotgun? Do you know how to not make your background music play right over your voice? To compete with it? How's your editing for time? Do you know when a shot lingers... a weeee... long... ?
It's all just figuring out HOW to do stuff.
I think you know cinema sh!te when you see it. I believe that you could do it just fine.
I've tried to film a short I wrote with some friends... Keep in mind I have extensive background in editing, animation, art and light rigging too.
(Lighting as I set up stage lights and sound boards for my band and other bands in the area. Hey, it pays.)
It's not easy... We got 2 days in and have about 5 or 6 hours of raw footage laying on a harddrive unedited. I can write a movie, but there is no way in hell I'm capable of editing or shooting one. It takes a special person to do that. More over, it takes a special "group" of someones. Writing and filmmaking are completely different. It takes order, organization, dedication and a collaboration effort where everyone is on the same page. Any Anal leak can do a Youtube show (see below), but that's a spec of dust on the lens of a major production.
Sometimes I wonder about two different "projects" for the halibut or for a challenge.
One - take a well known scene or sequence from a movie available to everyone on youtube or whatever, and rewrite it as those pages of screenplay. At the end of the challenge, or whatever, see how we did compared to the real screenplay pages. See how near or far fetched we are to it.
Second - take a commonly available poor scene or sequence and group nitpick WTH went wrong with it? Was it the screenplay, the actors, the delivery, the camerawork, the director, what? By better understanding how things go wrong maybe we can make sure to not-do-that in our screenplays.
Ray, I'm with Balt, here. I would NEVER in a million years be able to shoot a film of any kind. I have zero knowledge of anything film making...except screenwriting.
I'm the guy that every time I get a new girlfriend, I give them a $400 (or whatever) camera, cause I can't and won't be the responsible for taking pictures. I can't and won't even deal with loading digital pictures into a computer...and cropping , editing etc? No way. I can't even send them out!
Now, I understand others are much more adept at this sort of thing, but the bottom line is that "knowing" how to do it in your head, and actually doing it on location are 2 completely different things.
Jeff, Balt's already shot his first - which no one reasonable thinks it's gonna be Aronofsky - and just hasn't found the time to edit it. Surely with five, six hours of raw he can put together his short.
And while he's watching it his brain's gonna be rolling over and over how he did what and how he could do it better - next time! Five bucks says his second shot will be closer on target.
Here's the first 'gem' I watched last night: AUTOPSY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxsrKgcbGXQ&feature=related Yeah, I fast forwarded through most of it. But the camera work is simple enough. (Note to Pia: Jessica Lowndes is a pretty girl to look at, but the shot of her backside running down the hallways is not kind. ["Do you know the muffin man? The muffin man? The muffin man?"] Be careful keeping too much of your camera below the waist!) Tripod this, track that, hand held the other. Before you know it - $15,000,000 down the toilet.
DYING BREED finished out last night's/this morning's horror trilogy. (I gotta get at least three hours of sleep a day. Okay. Maybe two hours, really.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtnPGuvmnug Camera work improved a great deal.
Stories all sucked for fundamental reasons of stupidity
Jeff, you can do a Blair Witch parody. And then you could try a Autopsy. Captivity might be pushing it. Then... you go find an old abandoned castlelike structure on a craggy outcropping of rock, surrounded by dense woods, a white van, a backpack and a girl and you're GOLD!
Ray, as I said a few days ago, you are amazing. You seriously only sleep a few hours each day? You’ve got a wife and kids, right? How do you do it?
OK, so…Autopsy, yeah, saw it, was not impressed at all. Written and directed by Adam Gierasch, $15 Million budget. Adam’s not going to be bringing home any awards soon, but he is a seasoned Pro, any way you look at it. Quite a resume, actually.
Captivity, yeah, saw it at the theater, actually. A Hostel knockoff, written by Larry Cohen (huge resume – definite Pro), and directed by Roland Joffe, another HUGE Pro. $17 Million budget. Crappy movie.
Wow, 3 flicks in 1 night…impressive!
But, my point is this. You and I can say this movie sucked, that movie sucked, blah, blah, blah. We can be right about what we say. Maybe the script just sucked. Whatever. But, dude, these two films for instance are $15 and $17 Million Professional productions, with Professionals working in all facets. Amateurs can’t do this. If you think you can, you need to stop writing posts, stop watching movies, and put together a 5 minute example of what you can do on the fly with an extremely limited budget.
$5 says it will be unwatchable for the most part.
You know what I’m saying? These Pros are capable of fucking up just like everyone else is, but they do know what they are doing when it comes to making a film. This is where Pros and Non Pros are a different breed, unlike screenwriting, where a Non Pro can write as good or a better script than a Pro, any day of the week.
PS Send that girl over and I'll do a screen Test with her.
Ha! That's hilarious! That is my girl..damn, she looks good. Funny, she's now moved from Destination Truth to Fact or Faked, both on SyFy. I think she's recently gotten a boob job as well. That's a great pic of her!
You're right in that making films isn't rocket science. Orson Welles once said that you can learn everything you need to know about filmmaking in 3 days. He's not wrong tbh.
Every shot possible is laid out on the Hollywood Camera Work DVD's.
Any book on Cinemtography will show you how to do three or four point lighting.
Directing Actors by Judith Weston is enough to get performances from actors....all you ned to do is write speakable, actable lines and cast people who can actually act (which seems beyond most indie filmmakers for some reason).
You can make most films with a wide angle lense, a standard (50MM) lens and a long lens..80-120MM or so.
Money is the main problem. Once you have to start making compromises all over the place it gets more and more difficult.
Even low fi stuff like top notch horror make-up...an absolute must for a horror film...that's going to cost you to get in someone who can do a professional job.
So your films start to get less complicated...one location perhaps?. Maybe a cabin in the woods for instance (woods look cool..just throw up a 5K light, everyone can stay in the cabin). That's why cabin in the woods horrors are such a staple. But then you've suddenly got to come up with a new story thats not already been told a million times...it starts to get harder and harder.
It is more than possible, but it's far from easy. There's a reason hundreds of people work on pro films and none of them are redundant in any way (apart from a handful of exec Producers probably).
It's also important to remember the pressures of finance on a lot of these films...you don't know the specifics of what the Producers are pushing onto the writers and Directors. It's not uncommon that the studio gets Final Cut and you don;t have to go far to find stories of scripts being completely re-written. Captivity may have started life as a tense, psychological thriller with deep themes...a few re-writes later and it's an exploitation film made to try and cash in on the success of Hostel.
So your films start to get less complicated...one location perhaps?. Maybe a cabin in the woods for instance (woods look cool..just throw up a 5K light, everyone can stay in the cabin). That's why cabin in the woods horrors are such a staple. But then you've suddenly got to come up with a new story that's not already been told a million times...it starts to get harder and harder.
They might be staple but, at best (and if you're lucky), it's a straight-to-DVD movie. Unfortunately, too many people take this staple and lower the bar to the ground by going the horror route.
Thanks for all the replies. I was sort of hoping some people would post good samples of good and not so good visual writing.
I got flustered because I have been told in the past a few times that I should try to write more visually and I thought I had improved in this area. I really appreciate the comments about my writing not having a problem in regards to that.
I'm now convinced that he was thinking a script with camera directions and such. He had a paper copy of Apocalypse Now.....
Ray, he doesn't scare me at all. I know him. He likes the script.
I'm surprised you think making quality film is as simple as having a camera and a script. Telling a great story is a gift. I'm not one of those. Lighting is an ART. Cinematogrophy is an ART. Editing is an ART. Sound design is an ART and so on and so on. I know you didn't care for the script, but I tried to write something with very limited parameters. This has to be done on the cheap. As "simple" as this project is, it's far from just grabbing a few people, going out in the woods with a camera and shoot some stuff...
Here's the situation. We were originally four people in our first meeting. One older guy in his 60s with 4 decades in the film industry left after he read the first draft. He was the one insisting on reading a first draft and said he totally understood it would need to be rewritten 10-12 times. We had decided to make a PG-13 film that was very close to R and aimed at 16-28 year olds. He said he didn't connect with the story and therefore didn't want to work for free on this. This had me worried as some of you know. The other 2 partners however liked it and thought it could definitely be turned into something good. One of those guys is a little older than me. He has had a film business for years and years. He's made documentaries that has run on satellite channels for years and of course the standard corporate videos and such. He has a lot of gear and knowledge. The other guy is freelance, but works on big productions. Right now for Nat-Geo on a show about Pythons. He also was in El Salvador the first 10 days of this month working on 19 Kids and Growing or whatever it's called, which some may be familiar with. He is young and energetic and has a TON of GREAT contacts plus lots of experience in production. Between the three of us, I have no doubt that we can pull off a film that does not look cheap, sound or feel cheap despite the budget. The only area that might cost some money is getting actors that fit the roles and can actually act.
Rick, if you read this, do you have any suggestions for shooting four people in a car talking without having to do things over and over. I have never thought of this when writing myself, but in our meeting it we discussed how time consuming it would be to do this. We have 4 cameras, but it would be hard to use more than 1 at the time in a car and not have the other cameras show.
Rick, if you read this, do you have any suggestions for shooting four people in a car talking without having to do things over and over. I have never thought of this when writing myself, but in our meeting it we discussed how time consuming it would be to do this. We have 4 cameras, but it would be hard to use more than 1 at the time in a car and not have the other cameras show.
Well, I'm not Rick, , but just as a shot in the dark for the fun of it:
Would you film the shots individually with one camera? Like for instance, a person in the back seat is "pretending to listen to the driver doing their dialogue, but the driver isn't in the car. (Well, hopefully someone's driving). But I mean the shot reaches across at an angle to the back of the vehicle and captures the reaction shots...
But that would only work if the said driver is giving a more of a lengthy spiel. Otherwise, it would be a nightmare, I think. "Now you pretend you're listening to so and so say this. Now react to that there on page 16...
How would you film a fast interchange of conversation from different angles in the tight quarters of a vehicle? The only answer I have besides chopping it up and doing it separately, is buying those new miniature cameras. When I was perusing those cool airline catalogs on the trip to Europe, I saw these cool "James Bond" like pens with min-cams in them. That would work!
I'm now convinced that he was thinking a script with camera directions and such. He had a paper copy of Apocalypse Now.....
Ray, he doesn't scare me at all. I know him. He likes the script.
I'm surprised you think making quality film is as simple as having a camera and a script.
Did he want a visual shooting script or just a "juicier" spec script?
Umm... I don't know how to reply to your surprise.
On the one hand nothing is as easy as it looks. On the other hand some things that are complex to some are okay for others and a breeze for a few. Sometimes I'll patiently watch someone get all boggled over something that seems simple to me, so I'll wait until they quit and then just "do it" myself.
I don't see what's so complicated, but I've a problem solving mind (My wife's the executive director. I'm the executive do-er.) I often tackle projects I have no business fooling with and do just fine. I dunno. I'll just shut up, maybe.
I think I was misunderstood here. No biggie, I always have a hard time making myself clear.
What I meant was that the camera has to film whoever is talking at the time. In other words, you have to have the camera pointing at one person for his/her dialogue. You probably want to do this a few times at least then move the camera and record all the dialogue from another character and so on and so on. While this will take a long time to cover all character's parts you also have to make sure the scenery outside fits. It can be very time consuming which means it adds cost. I wasn't looking for camera angles or camera mounts. Thank you though.
Pia
PS. I'm a doer too which is why I left my other production partners after 2,5 years. I just wanted to get shit done. Not sit in meetings forever in order to finetune Hollywood quality TV shows. I did learn from that experience though that it takes a lot more to do a good job on a film than what most people think.
Thanks for all the replies. I was sort of hoping some people would post good samples of good and not so good visual writing.
I attended a writer's group where one member is retired Art Director. Sitting and listening to him provide feedback was a whole new world for me as far as scripts go. Besides the art directing part, he would talk about the whole collaberation effort, and he worked with the best talent from directors to actors, granted the best from 20 years ago.
So when I read your short (the Misery type that was recently shot), Pia, it told a story, gave the right props, the right direction, rooms, dialogue, all that, it was fine. Getting more visual? WTF?
Your work always has enough visual in it. It's a blue print for Pete's sake. A blue print for other industry trades to work from. Quite frankly this person sounds like a moron, but that's just me talking.
I attended a writer's group where one member is retired Art Director. Sitting and listening to him provide feedback was a whole new world for me as far as scripts go. Besides the art directing part, he would talk about the whole collaberation effort, and he worked with the best talent from directors to actors, granted the best from 20 years ago.
So when I read your short (the Misery type that was recently shot), Pia, it told a story, gave the right props, the right direction, rooms, dialogue, all that, it was fine. Getting more visual? WTF?
Your work always has enough visual in it. It's a blue print for Pete's sake. A blue print for other industry trades to work from. Quite frankly this person sounds like a moron, but that's just me talking.
Thank you, Clorox,
You always give so much inspirational help to all of us. We need to create an award around here to give to souls like you. Thank you so much!!! Sometimes, perspective is the hardest thing to get when you're battling intellect, emotions and ego. I really appreciate you and many others here at Simply. Simply God's Greatest.
Pia, without knowing the ins and outs of the script it's hard to say...
First thing to do would be to question whether it's absolutely imperative that you get CU's of all the characters.
Ray has posted numerous workable scenes. The two shot from the passengers side to the drivers side seems to be the standard car driving shot. You can see both front seat actors at once.
Get a wide two shot encompassing the two on the back seat from between the two front seats and you can see every line of dialogue delivered in two set ups...one if you can hide the second camera between the seats which should be possible.
With those two shots you'll have a master of all the action.
Also think about the blocking or movement of the characters. IE if you really want a CU for a particular segment maybe you can have them move more into the shot. So a guy on the back seat leans forward or whatever.
Other than that, I think you'll just have to shoot the CU's one at a time.
It's something to consider. I just have never when writing taken in consideration the amount of work it takes to film four people having a conversation in a car.
I'm rewriting it to have some of it be in V.O. while the car is going down the various roads.
You’re not directing? I thought you were helming it.
At this point, I don’t believe there’s anything that can’t be visual. I’ve seen dramas that have nothing especially visual about them but are still compelling to watch. Everything is a drama at its core and anything with enough tension can be adapted into a film as far as I’m concerned.
Your story is about as visual as any film taking place almost entirely in the woods is going to get unless you add a shit-ton of gore or something. A lot of a film like yours is going to depend on the actors’ performances and the pacing. I would focus on the characters, developing them, creating more tension between them, and look for more interesting visuals stylistically.
I see this as a joint effort though. I know what I want to see and he does not have free reign. Maybe that sounds like a bad idea to some, but so far we seem to be working good together.
Maybe I'd feel more confident in the next project. If there ever is one.
I think I advised you to start the story at the gas station where the four characters picking up gas. That'll take care of the beginning.
As for the next one where the characters go to their destination, why not start the scene at their destination? There are certain things that can be done, can't be done, and mixed. I say mix.
Hope this helps.
Just Murdered by Sean Elwood (Zombie Sean) and Gabriel Moronta (Mr. Ripley) - (Dark Comedy, Horror) All is fair in love and war. A hopeless romantic gay man resorts to bloodshed to win the coveted position of Bridesmaid. 99 pages. https://www.simplyscripts.net/cgi-bin/Blah/Blah.pl?b-comedy/m-1624410571/
You could visit a site like http://www.conceptart.org, http://www.cgtalk.org, or something of that nature and put an ad up for an artist with mad skills to storyboard your script. I have no idea what concept artists charge these days, but it could be very helpful. Many of the people there are animators and have a pretty solid grasp of filmmaking.
It's a great tool for blocking your scenes and you can see the story play out visually and assess technical difficulties before you set up your cameras and lights.
yes, I remember. Thanks for that. I might have done it that way if this was a short, but for a feature, I feel we need a little more "visuals" before they end up in the store.
PS. Don't forget to send me The Obscure!
Jonathan,
great suggestion. We're doing them ourselves though. Most likely not me unless they are satisfied with stick figures.
Still working on it. Hope everything turns out well. Keep us posted on development.
Just Murdered by Sean Elwood (Zombie Sean) and Gabriel Moronta (Mr. Ripley) - (Dark Comedy, Horror) All is fair in love and war. A hopeless romantic gay man resorts to bloodshed to win the coveted position of Bridesmaid. 99 pages. https://www.simplyscripts.net/cgi-bin/Blah/Blah.pl?b-comedy/m-1624410571/
Pia, check out ToonBoom Storyboard pro. It's very sharp and user friendly... you can animate a panel in no time with it and most of the key ins are drag and drop templates.
I've used it many times over the years. While it's not ToonBoom Studio Pro deep, it serves its purpose effectively. You can also drag and drop place holder characters inside the panels too (in case you can't draw very well). You can even vector pictures using it... Like, say, you got a picture off the net and wanted to use it inside your panel -- Simply save it to your desktop, import it into Toonboom Storyboard pro and it can vector it down to the most basic shapes and lines.
I drew my own storyboards. It was more than stick figures but stick figures will work. Storyboards are most handy when you’re trying to get your vision across to cast and crew.
I also made a quick reference shot list in the order I needed the shots. I kept my shot list on my shooting schedule where I could cross reference it with my equipment list. This helped make sure I didn’t miss any shots.
But, no, storyboards don’t have to be anything special. I can send you the ones I used in pm if you’d like.
While reading through this particular message board, started because of Pia's Script question "Writing visually" I went through everybody's suggestions and really have learned a lot myself, in doing that. However, as every aspirant Screenwriter might want, I would like to contribute here -- from whatever little I know about "Screenwriting" and Story-telling.
As far as Storytelling is concerned, each individual has his/her own style. As far Screenwriting is concerned there definitely are plenty of rules if one understands "Why these rules really are there, for a Film script, that every Director would want to make into a Feature length film"
Sandra's points are very good too. But, I would like to add further that, "While writing a Screenplay, one has to bear in mind several key elements, apart from the Format alignment issues"
Those elements are around 22 generally speaking: A) Is your Script closely familiar with an already produced concept, idea or a movie? This should always be the first question. If the answer is YES, change it immediately without any further waste of time, energy and paper. B) Whatever cannot be shown "Visually on the screen" shouldn't be on the SCRIPT (Specially Spec Script, because by the time, the script is close to becoming a Shooting script, it has already moved through several stages of the creative process and experts have already seen it. So, we need not worry about Art direction and Studio sets, background score etc. C) "Whatever is NOT going to drive the PLOT forward, should be removed from the Screenplay --- it can remain in the back story or footnotes which only the Writer, Co-writers and Editors might understand all through the process.
Example: A huge Meteor/Asteroid hits earth and "Splits it into two pieces" We see "Earth A and Earth B" hanging in thin air, on Screen. It can't be shown, easily. So, such stuff shouldn't be in a Screenplay. (It is for the Director to decide how to SHOW it)
D) Coincidences -- Avoid any coincidences with already produced Movies/Screenplays. E) Flashbacks -- having any or too many Flashback scenes is a drawback in writing the Spec Script. F) Avoid colorful language, colorful writing patterns, because in all probabilities if and when your Script is going to be read by an Exec or his assistant they are going to throw many worthy Scripts into the bin, without even reading more than ten pages. Flowery, colorful language is not needed, it is better for writing a Book or a Novel. G) The best example to tell the story is, 'Find that 30 Seconds window to ZAP a kid, who is about to fall asleep and you have to catch them in that small attention span with your key plot and three act story" H) Writing Visually means, one need to "SEE the images in their head as it plays in front of them on Screen while writing the Film story" I) One very key element for a Good script is -- ENTER each scene late and leave quickly. No need to describe the "Goodbyes" -- same way, NO NEED to place descriptions of "How each actor is seen by us, while they act and choose to use mannerisms, choice of words, phrases, styles and of course attire" Let the ACTORS do a little work, with their own intelligence too. Aren't they supposed to be our PILOTS? They drive the Film home.
More to share later. By the way, I am posting my short synopsis of a new Horror Script that I have finished about a week ago.
Tulsa -- fighting the possession. -- Is a horror-thriller set in the 1970's in a small town of India. A daring cop investigates a murder case near a Catholic school. He meets with a young woman at a hospital, who is possessed by a nasty Tulsa spirit, that has the ability to spread very quickly in the city. He tries to help her out of the possession, only allowing the Tulsa to latch on to himself and he falls in love with the young woman, while she gets pregnant. When the entire town is threatened with such a possession, he finds a clue about conquering the menace inside his unborn child. Would he allow for the child to be born or not?
Currently, I am also working on another story about the "UFOs are real vs NOT real" paradigm.
While reading through this particular message board, started because of Pia's Script question "Writing visually" I went through everybody's suggestions and really have learned a lot myself, in doing that. However, as every aspirant Screenwriter might want, I would like to contribute here -- from whatever little I know about "Screenwriting" and Story-telling.
As far as Storytelling is concerned, each individual has his/her own style. As far Screenwriting is concerned there definitely are plenty of rules if one understands "Why these rules really are there, for a Film script, that every Director would want to make into a Feature length film"
Sandra's points are very good too. But, I would like to add further that, "While writing a Screenplay, one has to bear in mind several key elements, apart from the Format alignment issues"
Those elements are around 22 generally speaking: A) Is your Script closely familiar with an already produced concept, idea or a movie? This should always be the first question. If the answer is YES, change it immediately without any further waste of time, energy and paper. B) Whatever cannot be shown "Visually on the screen" shouldn't be on the SCRIPT (Specially Spec Script, because by the time, the script is close to becoming a Shooting script, it has already moved through several stages of the creative process and experts have already seen it. So, we need not worry about Art direction and Studio sets, background score etc. C) "Whatever is NOT going to drive the PLOT forward, should be removed from the Screenplay --- it can remain in the back story or footnotes which only the Writer, Co-writers and Editors might understand all through the process.
Example: A huge Meteor/Asteroid hits earth and "Splits it into two pieces" We see "Earth A and Earth B" hanging in thin air, on Screen. It can't be shown, easily. So, such stuff shouldn't be in a Screenplay. (It is for the Director to decide how to SHOW it)
D) Coincidences -- Avoid any coincidences with already produced Movies/Screenplays. E) Flashbacks -- having any or too many Flashback scenes is a drawback in writing the Spec Script. F) Avoid colorful language, colorful writing patterns, because in all probabilities if and when your Script is going to be read by an Exec or his assistant they are going to throw many worthy Scripts into the bin, without even reading more than ten pages. Flowery, colorful language is not needed, it is better for writing a Book or a Novel. G) The best example to tell the story is, 'Find that 30 Seconds window to ZAP a kid, who is about to fall asleep and you have to catch them in that small attention span with your key plot and three act story" H) Writing Visually means, one need to "SEE the images in their head as it plays in front of them on Screen while writing the Film story" I) One very key element for a Good script is -- ENTER each scene late and leave quickly. No need to describe the "Goodbyes" -- same way, NO NEED to place descriptions of "How each actor is seen by us, while they act and choose to use mannerisms, choice of words, phrases, styles and of course attire" Let the ACTORS do a little work, with their own intelligence too. Aren't they supposed to be our PILOTS? They drive the Film home.
More to share later. By the way, I am posting my short synopsis of a new Horror Script that I have finished about a week ago.
Tulsa -- fighting the possession. -- Is a horror-thriller set in the 1970's in a small town of India. A daring cop investigates a murder case near a Catholic school. He meets with a young woman at a hospital, who is possessed by a nasty Tulsa spirit, that has the ability to spread very quickly in the city. He tries to help her out of the possession, only allowing the Tulsa to latch on to himself and he falls in love with the young woman, while she gets pregnant. When the entire town is threatened with such a possession, he finds a clue about conquering the menace inside his unborn child. Would he allow for the child to be born or not?
Currently, I am also working on another story about the "UFOs are real vs NOT real" paradigm.
Best Wishes. Jagan Ramamoorthy
My god, it's almost as if Ray got bored and had so much time on his hands that he created another account to radiate an influx of information overload.
Pages: 
Author
How do you write visually?
Logged
Locked Board