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.
Darren could comment on his own script for sure without revealing he's the author. I don't like doing it cause I'm too obvious, but I notice some people are pretty canny.
That's always backfired in the past. Not that folks figured out it was me who wrote it, but in order to"throw people off" I'd throw in a few criticisms of my own work which others missed. Then other folks chime in, and in 'agreeing' with me, the reviews take a bigger nose dive
The bit that I've noticed with this one is the theme seems to have confused people... people are looking for anti-heroes or goodies who reveal themselves to be bad later, and that's not what Sean initially said.
To quote Sean "This week, your job is to play the proverbial bad guy and, in your scripts, have your protagonist be the villain. It's just that simple."
So protag* = main character... has to be a villain.
I think the further discussion in the thread has then confused things.
*Protags don't have to be good as far as any definition I can find.
The bit that I've noticed with this one is the theme seems to have confused people... people are looking for anti-heroes or goodies who reveal themselves to be bad later, and that's not what Sean initially said.
To quote Sean "This week, your job is to play the proverbial bad guy and, in your scripts, have your protagonist be the villain. It's just that simple."
So protag* = main character... has to be a villain.
I think the further discussion in the thread has then confused things.
*Protags don't have to be good as far as any definition I can find.
That's how I understood Sean as well - your main character is a bad guy. This is actually simple, I agree with him on the fact that it's simple to understand. Unless i totally misunderstood what he said and "your protag" doesn't mean "your main character"
@Darren, I think you just need to forget about it. I wanted to respond to you on mine last time. No one suggested the thing you said, you totally mixed up things there, cos you studied history and mixed up the names. But I took ahold of myself. Now it's your turn I guess.
The bit that I've noticed with this one is the theme seems to have confused people... people are looking for anti-heroes or goodies who reveal themselves to be bad later, and that's not what Sean initially said.
To quote Sean "This week, your job is to play the proverbial bad guy and, in your scripts, have your protagonist be the villain. It's just that simple."
So protag* = main character... has to be a villain.
I think the further discussion in the thread has then confused things.
*Protags don't have to be good as far as any definition I can find.
Agreed. I've also noticed if the villain has a reason for being the bad guy, some folks seem to think that makes them not a true villain as it is understandable why they are being bad, but that is not correct. Most villains see themselves as the hero and have reasons for their villany.
It's bloody tough coming up with anything with the criteria we have left so I just think we should cut each other some slack.
For more of my scripts, stories, produced movies and the ocassional blog, check out my new website. CLICK
The bit that I've noticed with this one is the theme seems to have confused people... people are looking for anti-heroes or goodies who reveal themselves to be bad later, and that's not what Sean initially said.
To quote Sean "This week, your job is to play the proverbial bad guy and, in your scripts, have your protagonist be the villain. It's just that simple."
So protag* = main character... has to be a villain.
I think the further discussion in the thread has then confused things.
*Protags don't have to be good as far as any definition I can find.
It's bloody tough coming up with anything with the criteria we have left so I just think we should cut each other some slack.
It is, and I agree.
Having said that, I've been around these parts awhile now, and though some people are kinder in their reviews than others, overall there's no cutting of the slack in anon challenges. It's dog eat dog just as Blondie intended it to be.
Having said that, I've been around these parts awhile now, and though some people are kinder in their reviews than others, overall there's no cutting of the slack in anon challenges. It's dog eat dog just as Blondie intended it to be.
Having said that, I've been around these parts awhile now, and though some people are kinder in their reviews than others, overall there's no cutting of the slack in anon challenges. It's dog eat dog just as Blondie intended it to be.
Very true. I'm being more lenient with reviews and not disqualifying anyone if they have at least attempted to include the parameters, but my score is still based on how much I enjoyed the story, the characters and if they have put an original spin on it.
For more of my scripts, stories, produced movies and the ocassional blog, check out my new website. CLICK
That's me read, commented and voted. Personally I think there was a lot of creativity, imagination and very decent scripts this week. I didn't read one bad story, just different levels of good.
If at first you don't succeed........bribe someone.
Pages: 
Author
Week 4 Discussion Thread.
Logged
Locked Board