Quoted from J.S. No, it certainly isn't the case. So why do you believe it would necessitate that?

Here is what I responded to again...

Quoted from J.S. Anyway, on the Stephen King thing. Wasn't he, and maybe Pia can confirm this since its been a long time since I read it, who said in On Writing that you should read both the good and the bad? So shouldn't this apply to Pro scripts and amateur scripts?

Your point here suggests that good and bad are pro and amateur... unless it's just down to poor grammar and what you actually meant was the good and bad in both pro and amateur scripts... which doesn't really make any sense within that context. Whether you meant it or not... what you've said here necessitates that pro scripts are good while amateur are bad.

Most amateurs are bad is the simple truth... most of the scripts listed at this site are bad to mediocre. Most pro scripts are good because they go through a million drafts (exaggeration, it's more like 2 million) with input from everyone, directors, producers, story consultants...

Most amateur scripts are one or two drafts all from the mind of one writer. Stories take time to build and they need input from others interested in the script... writers of screenplays can't do it on their own... what we see as possible in our mind's eye may not be so when it comes time to film... and we have to write around those obstacles... and plot holes that can appear from nowhere. I've got a few scripts that I'm working towards production on and I'm always amazed at how invaluable input from other is.

So even with all that... the idiots revered here as THE PRO'S (all pHucking hail) still manage to pHuck it all up. How does that happen? how do two writers, along with story consultants and all the experience of Sly and Arnie pHuck up a perfectly good concept like the one from Escape Plan?

I don't care what anyone at this site says... I would tear apart a concept like the one from Escape Plan and make the last writers look like they just walked out of film school.

Quoted from Dustin Your point here suggests that good and bad are pro and amateur... unless it's just down to poor grammar and what you actually meant was the good and bad in both pro and amateur scripts... which doesn't really make any sense within that context.

No, Dustin. It's not down to poor grammar. It's down to poor reading comprehension.

To explain:

"So shouldn't this ("you should read both the good and the bad") apply to Pro scripts and amateur scripts?"

What else could the "this" be referring to in my previous sentence? I don't understand.

What do you mean it doesn't make sense within that context? What context would that be? I'm curious to know.

-J.S.

Of all the King books I've read and own, I actually still have not read his book on writing yet.  

I think this discussion here seems to be going around in circles. I'm guessing that when most of us refer to amateur scripts, we think of scripts we've read that were written by friends or posted here at SS. Those same scripts, were also most likely earlier drafts. Maybe even first drafts. We post scripts here in hope to get feedback so we can rewrite our scripts into something better. Same thing when friends send us scripts and ask us to read them. They are not the final drafts. Therefore, what most of us think of when we think amateur scripts are not completed polished last drafts. The pro scripts we read are the final drafts or at least VERY polished and rewritten drafts. That is IMHO why the difference between a Blackilist script for example and a script here at SS vary so much in quality.

For me personally, I must have read maybe a thousand amateur scripts by now. At least if I factor in shorts. I wish now that I had spent some more time reading pro scripts. Maybe I would be further along with my own writing.

Good stuff, peeps.  I almost hate to say it -- double dash -- but I have to agree with much of what Dustin has to say.  BUT, obviously, there are out there comments as well.

BUT, the guy is making some sense for sure...with me, at least.

Quoted from Grandma Bear Of all the King books I've read and own, I actually still have not read his book on writing yet.

Pia, you should pick up a copy - it's terrific reading. I read it when it first came out, have since passed it on to hubby, and also bought a copy for my neph (an aspiring writer) for Christmas.

It's essential and really enjoyable reading imh, not necessarily aimed at screenwriters, but at writers in general and true to form contains a lot of King's life experiences, his childhood, that almost fatal accident (he added that experience to the book) and how writing helped him come back from the brink.

"If you want to be a writer, you must do two things above all others: read a lot and write a lot."

Lots of great stuff to be had in the book, and at the very least it's inspiring stuff and will likely get your fingers tapping.

Well since we're mostly off topic and not really talking about the subject at hand -- the double dashes -- I think I'll take us further off topic with a quick, simple question.  If you show a main character in a picture/photo before he is actually shown as a real person, does his name still get all caps for the picture/photo introduction or no?  Help please.  Thanks.


--Steve

Quoted from Guest Well since we're mostly off topic and not really talking about the subject at hand -- the double dashes -- I think I'll take us further off topic with a quick, simple question.  If you show a main character in a picture/photo before he is actually shown as a real person, does his name still get all caps for the picture/photo introduction or no?  Help please.  Thanks. --Steve

I would.

I would too, Deadite, especially since we're going to meet him. And depending on the circumstances, nothing wrong with saying..."Who we'll meet later"...or something like that. Clarity is king.

Thanks guys.  Big help.


--Steve

Quoted from J.S. No, Dustin. It's not down to poor grammar. It's down to poor reading comprehension. To explain: "So shouldn't this ("you should read both the good and the bad") apply to Pro scripts and amateur scripts?" What else could the "this" be referring to in my previous sentence? I don't understand. What do you mean it doesn't make sense within that context? What context would that be? I'm curious to know. -J.S.

My comprehension is just fine. I even gave you the alternative... that lacks cohesion. here's your sentence again... the important part:

Quoted from J.S. ... you should read both the good and the bad? So shouldn't this apply to Pro scripts and amateur scripts?

If you really did mean the good and bad in both pro and amateur scripts then why didn't you write that? You could have written it like this:

...you should read the good and bad in both pro and amateur scripts?


There.... now that reads how you want it to.

The way you've written it suggests that amateur is bad and pro is good. Believe whatever you want to though... by all means.

Quoted from Guest Well since we're mostly off topic and not really talking about the subject at hand -- the double dashes -- I think I'll take us further off topic with a quick, simple question.  If you show a main character in a picture/photo before he is actually shown as a real person, does his name still get all caps for the picture/photo introduction or no?  Help please.  Thanks. --Steve

How old is the photo? Nobody is going to give a pHuck whatever you do. Be a little weird intro'ing a character that's twenty in a photo and sixty when they come on screen though.

I recently tackled this in a short I'm going to be co-producing... and I added some fluff, like photo's and shite to early description... and I left it at that. The photo's are from times gone by... but if they were recent photo's, then I might intro them through the photo... that's actually a cool way to intro someone I think.

I think a photo is a pretty lame way to introduce somebody, personally, but that's the route I took.  

However, I think the immediate scene that follows -- with that character -- is memorable enough so I'll deal with it.

--Steve

Quoted from LC "If you want to be a writer, you must do two things above all others: read a lot and write a lot."

That's true. I have and continue to read a lot. My tastes have simply changed from reading fiction to fact. I had a lot of time on my hands during my wayward youth and have read more novels than most. 83 books a year is nothing. Try 300, and more if you count little westerns of which I could easily manage 4 per day. There are even books I've read up to three times, and not through choice either. I'm also a fast reader, can devour a 3-400 page novel in seven hours or so. I read The Stand in three days. I used to call fiction like that easy reading. I left school aged around thirteen... ended up in care, youth prison, then starred up at twenty-one. Don't get me wrong though, I always read books, right from a young age... Frank Baum, CS Lewis, Roald Dahl... I loved reading. I also loved writing and actually did really well at school while I was there.

When I started getting into trouble and put away, it was easy for me to read and write to kill the time, which consisted of 23 hours per day bang up, with no TV's in those days... and man, did I read. With nothing else to do my appetite became voracious. I had to fill every waking hour reading or writing. I would write around seven A4 sides per day... 2-3000 words... all by hand of course. Screenplays too. Poorly formatted screenplays, but I'd written several before I finally decided that I was going to get myself out there.

I'm sick of reading. I've read every story there is time and time again. Now I read fiction with a critical eye only, even if you're a pro, I will be looking at the flaws in your writing. King doesn't interest me... nobody does anymore. I like Tarantino's films... but I couldn't give a flying about his script. I read a couple of pages of Hateful 8. All I needed to read to know he's a good writer. Then I clicked it off. He's only going to tell me a story I've heard before, yes in an entertaining way... but I can do that myself... and to be really honest, I don't want to be polluted with his ideas. I'm my own writer.

All I'm interested in now are facts and translating those facts through my writing. I've always been a writer. Even as a kid, I knew that one day I would be a professional writer... which is partly why I went out seeking adventure... the other part is because I was just pHucking crazy. Was is an operative word there. Different person these days.

Obviously not everybody here will have had the opportunity to read fiction as much as I have... but, in my opinion, there are only so many stories one needs to read... the rest comes down to talent. Writer's voice.

In the olden days storytellers around a campfire used their voice... and we still use it today. Whether to connect with producers or the viewing public. The voice provides the vibe. Let's take King and The Stand. I read straight through without any issues... and his imagination was running wild with that story... what carried me through 1300 and more pages (I think it was around that) was his voice. The guy could be in the room with me, talking right into my head... when I wasn't reading it, I was thinking about it. You can't learn that. No matter how much you read. It's something you either have or you don't, IMO.

Quoted from Guest I think a photo is a pretty lame way to introduce somebody, personally, but that's the route I took.

If you think that... then you should change it. I'd never do something I considered lame, just because somebody else suggested it.

Photos are generally the go to trope that a lot of writers seem to use to show events through visuals rather than dialogue. It can definitely get jarring if there's too much of it, although I think it's pretty obvious anyway if you're trying to reveal a past event through a picture, basically taking the effect away. Doesn't really work for me but depends on the context of the scene I guess.