Quoted from Electric Dreamer I took the theme to be more of a blanket statement than a script centric one. Yes, a character can misunderstand a ghost's intentions, that fits, IMO. Which means a ghost must be a character in the script. And, what few I have read, subscribed to this interpretation. However, I looked at the theme and initially had a more circumspect view. The phenomena of ghosts is not bad, but can be misunderstood. How people use the supernatural for their own purposes, justify behavior.   The ghosts of one's past being used as a crutch for shortcomings, etc. So, I think you can have a story that fits the theme, without a single ghost in it. A protag's obsession with ghost hunting consumes his life/family, etc. He's using ghosts as an excuse for not being a husband/father, etc. Or...A priest's fear/denial of the supernatural prevents personal growth. That to me, is more interesting than characters misinterpreting ghostly activity. Maybe I'm out to lunch on this point, but that's what I got out of the theme. Regards, E.D.

Agreed.

Most people take the initial literal interpretation of a theme...but there's always other ones.

Quoted from bert 38 active threads is alot to keep track of.

Earn your pay byotch.  . Pretty calm waters out there so far, boss. Jeff is trying to boot his sister's kids off the computer so he can get in and leave his colorful comments. Til then, sleep soundly.


James

Quoted from leitskev We're not watching a movie. We shouldn't have to try to visualize too many things. It's a distraction.

That's a matter of interpetation. While we don't have to play set designer, we should be as visual as we can. If I read a script and start seeing the "movie" I don't see a distraction. I  good work .

Challange is much more serious! That's like a duel type challenge. That's like challenge with attitude!

What I mean, Darren, is this: if you watch a film of a man walking into a living room, it takes little work for your mind to perceive what's in the room. In one glance you know there's a TV, a couch, a coffee table, a lamp. But in script form, you have to read and visualize each one of those things. It's more work.

Now, there's no way to avoid some of that. We're painting pictures with words after all. My point is to do no more than necessary to convey the important elements of the story. If you have to read a whole page of described objects it takes too long to get through it. It's too much work for your brain. Certainly for my more limited brain.

There's no way to describe where you should draw the line on how much information to include. But if you think that scripts are supposed to be blueprints, chances are you will include too much descriptive information.

The OWC is probably comparative to what producers reading scripts go through. People reading these scripts are reading several a day, each with its own characters and settings. Producers and agents are in a similar situation, reading numerous scripts. The goal is not a blueprint. The ultimate goal is to get them to see something interesting in your story, something they think will work in film. And the immediate goal is this simple: TTP. Turn the page. Every time the reader turns to the next page of your script, it's an important victory. The quicker you can make the read, the more likely the reader will keep turning. And every time the reader has to stop to reread something, or even worse, go back in the script, your story stands on the precipice of death.

Also, I would consider it a better goal not to get the reader to see the movie, but to see the story, if that makes any sense. Though, yes, you want to create enough powerful images that a producer reading this can imagine it's potential in film format.

Quoted from leitskev There's no way to describe where you should draw the line on how much information to include. But if you think that scripts are supposed to be blueprints, chances are you will include too much descriptive information.

Yes there is...you should draw the line at what isn't important to the story.  To bring up an example from the last OWC - you don't need to tell us the trash bin is overflowing if it's of no value to the story.   Save your words for what's important.  Ignore the rest.

Yes, Mike, and I said pretty much that in a recent review. But there is room for some interpretation. For example, this OWC calls for Gothic, so some description is spent on establishing the appropriate Gothic setting and tone. Also, it's not a bad idea to establish some powerful visuals that appeal to producers. So what's important may be open to some interpretation.

But basically we agree, and you are seconding my point, so thank you. The thing is to have what's important, and no more.

I'm half way through the OWC scripts.
The lion's share of the stories set up ghost characters with a twist.
It's not much of a twist after reading 19 of these.
There's only so many ways you can set that up with a week to work.
I thought many folks would have a less literal interpretation of the theme.
Something a little more introspective with a peripheral supernatural element.
The literal interpretation of the theme leaves little room to surprise a reader.
However, the gothic elements have been fun to read, tasty visuals.

What are other folk's thoughts on how the theme has been utilized?

E.D.

Well, with a theme as spelled out like this, one can hardly be surprised when similarities crop up. I have to say that I did find the September challenge to be more rewarding as a reader because it allowed for such wonderful variety of genre and theme.

Especially theme, because I find the most intriguing question about any unfolding story to be "What is it about?" And when that question, if not entirely then to a large degree, has already been answered.

I do hope you don't hold the repetition against the individual author, since they had no way of knowing how many people would enter and what their particular approach might be.

As I discussed with Kev through PM's.  My interpretation is that the theme "ghosts aren't always bad, just misunderstood" kind of means that because ghosts are assumed to be bad, when they're not, they will be misunderstood, if that makes sesnse.

People are scared of ghosts, just like they're scared of aliens.  Aliens aren't neccessarily bad, but the vast majority would say they're scared of them.

As for the quality of the entries?  Well, let's put it this way...of the 10 or so I've opened up, I've only completely read 1 script, gotten to page 8 on 1, page 5 on another, and less than 2 pages fro the rest.

I decided that since I didn't enter a script, what I read and how much I read, was completely up to me.  So, once the script either loses me, or I realize it's not well written, I'm out.  I'm trying to be nice in my feedback and will continue that way.

The only thing confused me, Jeff, was that you thought this was any different interpretation than mine. It's pretty much the same if not exactly the same.

It seems to me the that since the idea behind the challenge is to write something new in a week, the idea is to give instructions that make it unlikely that someone already has a script lying around they can use. That means the definition has to be somewhat narrow. A side effect of that is that the scripts will end up being very similar to a degree. There's really no avoiding that.

Most stories, with instructions like the present ones, will indeed be ghosts with a twist. It's almost called for with parameters like that. To someone reading here, who knows the parameters and is therefore looking for the twist, things become predictable.

But there are things you can do. You can have a twist that involves something other than the ghost. You can have more than one ghost or supernatural element. It's a challenge, but you can still pull off surprises.

It's hard to surprise a writer anyway. We're all looking for the twist from the start of a story. And especially here where we know the ghost is misunderstood and not so bad in the end, we already have a hint what the twist will be. It is what it is.

So far to me the phrase of the OWC is... Over grown weeds.

Not sure how many times I have read about those naughty weeds.

If that is you trying to be nice, I don't want to see you being mean. Quite frankly your short posts saying that you have given up and that what you've managed to read was unsatisfactory are discouraging, unhelpful, mean and damned unproductive in anything except inflating your post count.

As I've understood it, the point of the challenge is to teach, learn and to gain experience. Your posts do nothing but discourage upcoming writers from trying to receive the peer reviews and support they need  and alienate them from the community.

Thank you, Henrik.  Sorry you feel that way.

My post count doesn't mean shit, BTW.  Are my posts really shorter than everyone elses?  I don't think so.

By posting, I'm letting the writer know that I attempted to read their script, and if I "gave up", it will hopefully let them know that something or many things turned me off to the point where I stopped reading.

Not sure how that could be interpretted as mean.  That's not my intent at all.

I'm sorry I don't have the time I usually do to go into great detail on what's wrong and why, Heinrik...maybe you can do that wih all 38 of these for me?  That would be really sweet of you.

As for alienating new writers or new SS board members...again, not my intent at all, but IMO, unskilled or new writers should not be jumping in on a One Week Challenge, as the results will rarely if ever be anythign other than poor.  Plenty of opportunities to post scrpits on SS and ask for help all year long.

We all know that many of these new writers wil not read or provide feedback on any other entries.  Any feedback at all is a gift, and if you think sugarcoated false priase is the way to go..well, you go then, dude.

I can appreciate that your intentions aren't as mischievous as I might have suggested in my annoyance, but I hope that you can understand how you might be giving that appearance.

No, I don't pretend that I have the time for detailed critique of 38 scripts. I don't even pretend that I read or finish them all. But if I don't think I have anything constructive to say, I remain silent.  My review might be negative but I try to be balanced. I offer suggestions that might lead to improvement. I try to find at least something positive.

Now, since I'm very new back in here, I'd never suggest that you don't give that kind of excellent and constructive critique as well. I'm just saying that this time around your blunt condemnation based often on little more than a glance is honestly quite aggravating.