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.
I have pretty thick skin at this point. In fact two of the most helpful reviews were from people who didn't really like my story. To me a DB review is one that spews out negative without being at all specific. That's not helpful or constructive...that's just douche-baggy.
Most of the reviews were very helpful though. One in particular really made me think about something I don't normally pay attention to.
Also, keep in mind that it's a fact that all feedback is not "correct" in what it says or recommends. It's each writer's responsibility to weed through everything and decide on their own whether the poster knows what they're saying or not. It always amazes me how often I see feedback that is downright incorrect. There are obvious areas where personal choice and opinion rule, but when it comes to the technical aspects of screenwriting and writing in general, facts are facts.
I have no idea what you're referencing here, Jeff.
Aren't technical standards formed when personal choices and opinions become cemented over time?
In any case, I stand by what I said, whether you think I know what I'm talking about or not. I was advocating the happy medium when it comes to writing descriptions--not too much, not too little. I felt that particular script came down on the 'too much' side of things.
What's it matter how 'visual' a description is, as long as the reader knows something happened? It's not like the director and editor are going to include every single adverb, adjective or snippet of description in the finished product. Most of it goes without saying. In some cases, a lot of description is great to build emphasis or tone, but when every little thing is emphasized, it's maddening.
Clearly, I'm no acknowledged expert on this topic, but I feel like this is the way to err on the side of caution. That's my approach to descriptions anyhow.
"I remember a time of chaos. Ruined dreams. This wasted land. But most of all, I remember The Road Warrior. The man we called 'Max'."
I have no idea what you're referencing here, Jeff.
Aren't technical standards formed when personal choices and opinions become cemented over time?
In any case, I stand by what I said, whether you think I know what I'm talking about or not. I was advocating the happy medium when it comes to writing descriptions--not too much, not too little. I felt that particular script came down on the 'too much' side of things.
What's it matter how 'visual' a description is, as long as the reader knows something happened? It's not like the director and editor are going to include every single adverb, adjective or snippet of description in the finished product. Most of it goes without saying. In some cases, a lot of description is great to build emphasis or tone, but when every little thing is emphasized, it's maddening.
Clearly, I'm no acknowledged expert on this topic, but I feel like this is the way to err on the side of caution. That's my approach to descriptions anyhow.
Dan, what you quoted from me was in response to Marnie's earlier post. It has nothing to do with you or what you posted earlier.
Technical standards and aspects of writing are not based on opinions and personal choices...at least they shouldn't be.
What matters about visual writing and visual descriptions is what sets good writing apart from not so good writing. Keep in mind, that if you're dealing with which scripts have a chance to become "real" movies, visual writing is key.
You always want your readers to be able to see what it is you're actually writing. It's not easy and few can actually do it. Anyone can write a line like you suggested - "Joe kills Mike." "The lion kills an Indian." Never going to work.
Sure, of course there's a happy medium between too much and to little and the script you referenced may well have been overwritten in places, but the answer isn't a nonvisual simple sentence.
I've read all the scripts, but stopped commenting because I felt drained and didn't want my thoughts to be watered down...I will post the rest of my reviews tonight.
This OWC has been the most quality learning I have received since I decided I want to try and write. I've heard the same comments on my previous works so far, but it was great to get down to the bottom of the barrel, and really find out where I can make drastic improvements.
Great stuff to all the writers! I am in good company for sure.
Dan, what you quoted from me was in response to Marnie's earlier post. It has nothing to do with you or what you posted earlier.
Oops. Well, you phrased it almost identically to your reply on the other thread.
Quoted Text
Technical standards and aspects of writing are not based on opinions and personal choices...at least they shouldn't be.
Well, they had to come from the personal choices and opinions of someone who knew what they were talking about, right?
Quoted Text
What matters about visual writing and visual descriptions is what sets good writing apart from not so good writing. Keep in mind, that if you're dealing with which scripts have a chance to become "real" movies, visual writing is key.
You always want your readers to be able to see what it is you're actually writing. It's not easy and few can actually do it. Anyone can write a line like you suggested - "Joe kills Mike." "The lion kills an Indian." Never going to work.
To me, this seems to contradict the idea that you shouldn't do the director's job for them. If it's not an outright contradiction, at the least it seems like a moderate infringement. I mean, the idea behind what we're doing is providing a detailed suggestion for a movie, not the novelization or the camera-ready instructions for how to make it, right? My assumption has always been that you should write only the amount you need to communicate your idea in the way it should be communicated.
"I remember a time of chaos. Ruined dreams. This wasted land. But most of all, I remember The Road Warrior. The man we called 'Max'."
Well, they had to come from the personal choices and opinions of someone who knew what they were talking about, right?
Dan, I'm not following your logic here. There's a way to write scripts and if you deviate from that too far, anyone who knows what he or she's talking about, will bring it up and point it out.
To me, this seems to contradict the idea that you shouldn't do the director's job for them. If it's not an outright contradiction, at the least it seems like a moderate infringement. I mean, the idea behind what we're doing is providing a detailed suggestion for a movie, not the novelization or the camera-ready instructions for how to make it, right? My assumption has always been that you should write only the amount you need to communicate your idea in the way it should be communicated.
Why do you think some scripts get read and others don't? And, I'm talking on a Pro basis and a non Pro basis.
You have to engage your reader. You want your reader to be able to see what's going on. The more visual that is, the better the writing is.
That's pretty standard stuff.
I think you're confusing overwriting with visual writing.
Overwriting contains meaningless details.
Visual writing contains "visuals" that draw a reader into the world you've created. They make your script jump off the page and into the reader's mind.
Just noticed all the writers have been posted! which slightly changes the discussion
I wanted to have a few guesses first.
Anyway, as Mo also said, apologies if any of my comments offended i still suffer from being too eager to read and review and probably with that lack some finesse to the comments.
My conclusion of this OWC are;
1] more difficult than at first appeared, but a decent challenge
2] despite [1] A good variety were entered with little in common to each other - even the adam and eve duo.
3] no script really nailed it, mine included, but a handful had good concepts with potential
Not sure whether there will be voting but i am happy to put my preferences forward, excluding mine. A condition for voting if you ask me.
The Elevator Most Belonging To Alice - Semi Final Bluecat, Runner Up Nashville Inner Journey - Page Awards Finalist - Bluecat semi final Grieving Spell - winner - London Film Awards. Third - Honolulu Ultimate Weapon - Fresh Voices - second place IMDb link... http://www.imdb.com/name/nm7062725/?ref_=tt_ov_wr
Yeah - the reveal was so quick?? But I think this was a mistake? Last time there were cries of 'reveal the kracken!' before we got any where near the writers. I could still vote, but I've only read half - so would it still be legit?
Pages: 
Author
July 2013 OWC Theme and Genre
Logged
Locked Board