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.
My bad. I thought this was a thread about the importance of motivation. Not a whole lot of motivation in the original Halloween. But like you said... I'm missing the point here. Carry on.
Motivation: Fucking evil. Sometimes, it's just as simple as that. Or, my favorite: "Because I can."
My bad. I thought this was a thread about the importance of motivation. Not a whole lot of motivation in the original Halloween. But like you said... I'm just missing the point here.
Yes you are missing the point. You are talking about exposition; that was never mentioned. Like Sean said, just because something is clear doesn’t mean it needs to be done in an exposition heavy way.
As thin as it may be, Michael still returns to his home town to kill again, he’s a psychopath, that’s enough for the audience to get behind.
Yes you are missing the point. You are talking about exposition; that was never mentioned. Like Sean said, just because something is clear doesn’t mean it needs to be done in an exposition heavy way.
As thin as it may be, Michael still returns to his home town to kill again, he’s a psychopath, that’s enough for the audience to get behind.
Fair enough. But I'd argue that Michael has no motivation what-so-ever in the original film. Like Sean said... He's just pure evil.
Jeff, you are focusing on something that is a non-issue, it’s a seat, I get that, I just don’t know exactly what a jump seat is.
This is what you do, you change the argument to suit your motives.
And now you’re resorting to name calling, classy.
The issue is the plot points, not an object. The creature’s motivations, the characters motivations.
Warren, 1 of the points here is that you stated very matter of factly that you will not google something you don't understand or know, and made it seem like that was the writer's fault.
Do I have to go back and quote you directly? C'mon...
I'm not calling you any names. IO'm simply stating a fact that your attitude is very narcissistic, and this is not the 1st time I've mentioned this.
When it smells like shit several times, it's most likely shit.
Fair enough. But I'd argue that Michael has no motivation what-so-ever in the original film. Like Sean said... He's just pure evil.
An unfortunate byproduct of police procedurals. They always find the reason why people do what they do when, in a lot of cases, it's never actually found out why. It's become so prevalent that it's something that has caused juries to acquit people, if the prosecutors can't establish a proper motive, regardless of the evidence.
An unfortunate byproduct of police procedurals. They always find the reason why people do what they do when, in a lot of cases, it's never actually found out why. It's become so prevalent that it's something that has caused juries to acquit people, if the prosecutors can't establish a proper motive, regardless of the evidence.
Huh? Pretend for a second I'm not very bright.
Joking aside, I'd say the original Halloween is a great example of a script where the antagonist doesn't have any real motivation. Another being the original Black Christmas. And let's not forget the Spielberg classic, Duel.
To an extent. I've been keeping up with the thread thus far. Some of what you said, I agree with. Some of what Jeff said, I agree with. Vice versa.
Love to know what part of Jeff's comments you agree with, for the purpose of this conversation. After all that why I started the thread.
Like you said people can write what they want but risk the reader’s interpretation. Providing clarity and motivation would then only help a story as far as interpretation goes.
Jeff thinks everything I say is wrong and because I hold a certain belief I'm a narcissist.
I'm saying he can have his belief but once again risk the reader not understanding, and this in never the readers fault. The audience is paying to see your film or using their time to veiw it, they don’t owe you anything other than that. If it’s not clear to them for any reason it’s not their responsibly to look into it, sure they can if they want. But also back to issues with plot points and motivation, an audience member potentially can’t look that up, and it is completely fair to say that the audience my not be satisfied by things that don’t make sense.
Uhhhh...like when a reader doesn't know what a jump seat is?
No, you're incorrect. Just because you don't know certain things, and/or not as intelligent or learned as the writer, you can't blame that on the writer.
C'mon, man...get with the program here, Warren!
Tabling the issue of jump-seat for a moment (i.e., I don't want to debate whether or not that is a common enough term), I think your general advice here Jeff is off the mark - or at least incomplete.
This from an article I read early on when I first started writing.
While you want your characters to use the right terminology that their knowledge-base would dictate, you don’t want to use overly specific technical terminology in your scene description.
Write tactical machine gun instead of Beretta Mx4 Storm. Write Special Forces Helicopter instead of Boeing A/MH-6M Little Bird. If you need to be more or less specific, do so. Just don’t try to dazzle the reader with your specific research. And yes, it also points to the fact that you’re not in charge of what specific weapons and vehicles will be used in the eventual film.
Consider it a courtesy to whoever is reading your script. They may not know what the heck a Beretta Mx4 Storm is, but they’ll likely be able to envision a tactical machine gun pretty quickly.
I considered the above sound advice. If you are referring to the use of technical terms in dialogue, I would agree with you (they are needed for authenticity). If you are referring to action/description, I think a writer is better off using terms that are broad based and commonly understood.
While you want your characters to use the right terminology that their knowledge-base would dictate, you don�t want to use overly specific technical terminology in your scene description.
Write tactical machine gun instead of Beretta Mx4 Storm. Write Special Forces Helicopter instead of Boeing A/MH-6M Little Bird. If you need to be more or less specific, do so. Just don�t try to dazzle the reader with your specific research. And yes, it also points to the fact that you�re not in charge of what specific weapons and vehicles will be used in the eventual film.
Consider it a courtesy to whoever is reading your script. They may not know what the heck a Beretta Mx4 Storm is, but they�ll likely be able to envision a tactical machine gun pretty quickly.
Thanks for sharing, Dave. That actually clarified quite a bit for me. Just ignore all my previous blabbering. I'm heading back to the OWC thread to dive into the scripts.
Tabling the issue of jump-seat for a moment (i.e., I don't want to debate whether or not that is a common enough term), I think your general advice here Jeff is off the mark - or at least incomplete.
This from an article I read early on when I first started writing.
While you want your characters to use the right terminology that their knowledge-base would dictate, you don’t want to use overly specific technical terminology in your scene description.
Write tactical machine gun instead of Beretta Mx4 Storm. Write Special Forces Helicopter instead of Boeing A/MH-6M Little Bird. If you need to be more or less specific, do so. Just don’t try to dazzle the reader with your specific research. And yes, it also points to the fact that you’re not in charge of what specific weapons and vehicles will be used in the eventual film.
Consider it a courtesy to whoever is reading your script. They may not know what the heck a Beretta Mx4 Storm is, but they’ll likely be able to envision a tactical machine gun pretty quickly.
I considered the above sound advice. If you are referring to the use of technical terms in dialogue, I would agree with you (they are needed for authenticity). If you are referring to action/description, I think a writer is better off using terms that are broad based and commonly understood.
I agree with everything you're saying here, Dave. I really do, and I try not to write terms/words/descriptions that peeps won't understand.
There are many geographical terms that some not familiar with that region won't get, but I don't think it's remotely wrong to use such terms. In a script, we all have the ability at our fingertips to google a word that we are not familiar with.
In fact, if anyone has been following my feedback, I've done a bunch of googling and I've learned some pretty cool shit. I've also googled some things when I feel like what's being written isn't correct...or maybe should be explained a little better for the visual aspect of reading a script.