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.
Sometimes I can't understand how writers see stories. Why criticize James Cameron? He served for any possible target audience a story they liked (maybe except of very old people). Yes he has good marketing, but that's what most of them have.
Titanic – he arrived at his audience Terminator – he arrived at his audience Avatar ... Aliens... ...
What I mean. Why are any of his stories bad? If I'm not always in his target audience why should I blame him his film has to be cleverer, fulfill my expectations and my standards? He had the youth and the kids, young families who liked Avatar. And the technique freaks. That was his target audience. They liked his story.
Same with Titanic and the couples watching it. Are there so many couples who said Titanic isn't good? Even the men? I don't think so. He received world famous with the help of exact his target audience.
It seems as we writers want high quality hybrid films for everybody. We should know better how difficult that is. Impossible.
Some look back and say: yeah, Star Wars. It's for any age. Pure classic.
Anybody really believes back in the seventies a forty year old men or women watched Star Wars. So, now they must be around 80 years old. Not seen a fan base of 80 years old Star Wars fans. It's a youth movie. And what disturbs us now when we listen to Jar Jar Bings is what disturbed the audience back in time with C3PO and BEEP BEEP R2D2.
Just my two cents. Those perfect hybrid movies for kids, adults, and also any kind of taste. I don't know if they exist, maybe rarely they do...
It's like somebody writes a children movie and those writers say, boring, it's not thrilling me. They think the writer and director have to fulfill their expectations too. Wrong. If it's children movie-it's a movie for children - And only they are the critics.
Sometimes I can't understand how writers see stories.
Many don't. You can write all you like, but unless you've got a story you'll go nowhere.
And story has been analysed since Aristotle. 10 Things I Hate About You is a modern retelling of WS's work - same story for a modern audience.
It's as much about what you want to tell as it's about what the audience wants to hear.
While way too many writers here and elsewhere want to write about horror, way too many people want to go see Twilight remakes such as Hunger games where no real blood's drawn and it's really all about who likes (loves) who. That's what your target audience wants (a majority female audience attends the screen).
Some all time classics can be a personal cinematic disaster I guess. I was falling asleep when I watched LOTR 2. Slept like a baby. Maybe it's worth the bucks to have such a deep sleep in our hectic times. My cinematic nightmare is if I would have to watch the whole trilogy... awake.
It's as much about what you want to tell as it's about what the audience wants to hear.
Yes. That's the way I think too. Perhaps I would even change the sentence that way:
It's more about what the audience wants to hear than what you want to tell. (That said: you have to be honestly involved in your own stuff or it doesn't work.)
Sorry Dreamscale, great stories are not 'totally' subjective in my view. I don't see how because some producers think a story is good and it ends up being 'crap' proves that stories are totally subjective.
And how do you know the story was bad from the start? It's notorious for people within the industry to talk how much changes a story or script goes through.
There are formulas to writing good stories to a degree, in terms of structure, plot and characters. I accept it is subjective to a degree as well. I just don't think it's 'totally' of either.
Sorry Dreamscale, great stories are not 'totally' subjective in my view. I don't see how because some producers think a story is good and it ends up being 'crap' proves that stories are totally subjective.
And how do you know the story was bad from the start? It's notorious for people within the industry to talk how much changes a story or script goes through.
Well, the words "totally", "never", "always", etc. are rarely correct, obviously, but I think you'll find that no matter what film you're talking about, there will be at least 1 person who disagrees with the masses. So, I'll use one of the above words for the Hell of it - Great stories will never be agreed on to be great by everyone, which to me, makes them totally subjective.
How do I know the story sucked ass from the start? Well, I don't know that all the time, but if a story is extremely dull, cliche, stupid, moronic, senseless, foolish, or just downright not good, then, I know it was the writer's fault originally for writing a shit script, and then secondly whoever financed it and championed it and turned it into a shitass film.
There are formulas to writing good stories to a degree, in terms of structure, plot and characters. I accept it is subjective to a degree as well. I just don't think it's 'totally' of either.
There sure are and the vast majority of writers who follow those boring, old formulas are doomed to write boring, old, cliche, shitass scripts, which will be turned into shiutass movies - wash, rinse, repeat - the cycle seems to go on forever.