SimplyScripts Discussion Board
Blog Home - Produced Movie Script Library - TV Scripts - Unproduced Scripts - Contact - Site Map
ScriptSearch
Welcome, Guest.
It is March 28th, 2024, 11:22am
Please login or register.
Was Portal Recent Posts Home Help Calendar Search Register Login
Please do read the guidelines that govern behavior on the discussion board. It will make for a much more pleasant experience for everyone. A word about SimplyScripts and Censorship


Produced Script Database (Updated!)
One Week Challenge - Who Wrote What and Writers' Choice.


Scripts studios are posting for award consideration

Short Script of the Day | Featured Script of the Month | Featured Short Scripts Available for Production
Submit Your Script

How do I get my film's link and banner here?
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.
Forum Login
Username: Create a new Account
Password:     Forgot Password

SimplyScripts Screenwriting Discussion Board    Screenwriting Discussion    Screenwriting Class  ›  Script Club XV Moderators: George Willson
Users Browsing Forum
No Members and 5 Guests

 Pages: « 1, 2, 3, 4 » : All
Recommend Print
  Author    Script Club XV  (currently 5153 views)
DustinBowcot
Posted: July 6th, 2015, 2:11am Report to Moderator
Guest User




Quoted from PrussianMosby
Okay, I just vaguely skipped through some comments, yet I got the feeling I'm going to be in the opposition here

I don't watch the series btw.

Overall thoughts:
Because of this script I don't watch many series. I didn't like, can't even remember the trailers; then there's that production design which doesn't look high end when I zap around for a second. The story mirrors that whole impression.

What do you want to highlight?
At page 7 I'd almost laid it down. Gruesome introduction of characters, scene after scene. Most of them had even been introduced off screen within dialogues by characters that I only just had discovered. I don't know.  

It felt like five times a TV Voice or whoever on TV repeated Oliver had vanished at sea for 5 years.  Methodically treated like an idiot I guess. V.O. and flashback alert too.

The whole characterization was **** - Here an example I want to highlight: The detective being the father of both sisters is a good plot ( p58 ) – it is, no doubt—BUT then, after five years, the writers want to tell us, that for the first time the detective describes Laurel, what he did the day her sister, his daughter, got lost at sea; he explains everything in detail, just to tell us stupid folks an emotional journey. No, it's just cheating for plotting emotions in there.

What did you like the most:
I think it's interesting to experience how the protagonist's senses and wits have sharpened during his island stay; realistic or not but that's interesting. I think Diggle and the Detective are the only interesting characters to build up on story wise.

what did you dislike the most?
It all felt like a mix of Batman Begins, a bit of Spiderman and what else is on the market. The characters are cardboard stereotypes, developed weak and treated superficial just to force and manipulate the viewers' emotions when needed.


When I read the writers credits so far, it has matched with my personal taste to dislike this pilot. Still I respect them for being successful with other viewers of course. So, that's my first impression. Now I read what you thought exactly and will interact if possible.


Sounds like your average TV series to me. They're all the same, IMO.
Logged
e-mail Reply: 30 - 55
Scar Tissue Films
Posted: July 6th, 2015, 3:27am Report to Moderator
Of The Ancients


Posts
3382
Posts Per Day
0.63
Agreed. It's a TV show.

If you approach it expecting Hitchcock at his finest, you'll be disappointed.

It's for people to watch after a day at work. It's not even a Breaking Bad type affair...it's like Stargate or something like that. You watch it whilst eating pizza.

Arrow is very successful and popular. It's not trying to be hugely emotional or deep, but it clearly "works" on some level...so what is it that is working?


What, outside of our own subjective likes and dislikes does the script do well that helps it find an audience?

I find it helps to get the most out of Script Club to focus on why something works for the audience it is intended for...and to identify the techniques they used to hit that target audience.

You are then adding to your own arsenal as a writer. You don't need to employ every tool for every script, but you are aware of how the different tools work so you can utilise them for specific effect when you need them.

For instance: Prussian makes a good point about the way the backstory with the Detective, Oliver, Laurel and Sarah was handled. For him it was too artificial. He's right, it is. But it works on one level...which is to instantly create a square of conflict between four major characters, and allows for multiple story-lines, past,  present and future. If you are writing a story that relies more heavily on plot than it does on deep emotion, clearly that kind of thing has its uses...even if it's something subjectively you don't think is actually very good writing.

Sometimes tell and not show, does work.

Rick

Revision History (1 edits)
Scar Tissue Films  -  July 6th, 2015, 7:34am
Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 31 - 55
DustinBowcot
Posted: July 6th, 2015, 7:17am Report to Moderator
Guest User



I think it's down to wanting to know what comes next. People are too easy. That's why we have soaps. Same story lines over and over again, usually with the same characters too, yet people watch time and time again. It's easy watching, I suppose. Not too taxing on the mind.

I'm the same with novels... there was a time where I would read sometimes three at once (but not all at the same time, obviously). I'd have an easy reading novel (I'd class Stephen King here), then something a little more taxing (usually modern fiction) and also a biography or something historical. These days I can't do easy reading at all which is also why I can't watch the average TV series.

The last TV series I enjoyed was The Wrong Mans, but that was a comedy. I also liked, Utopia. A thriller, but British. It takes a lot for me to get into a US TV show. I went off the US shows when Friends came out. Before that though, I liked Cheers and Frasier et al.
Logged
e-mail Reply: 32 - 55
Grandma Bear
Posted: July 6th, 2015, 8:05am Report to Moderator
Administrator



Location
The Swamp...
Posts
7961
Posts Per Day
1.36
Received an email from Leitskev about this SC. He told me I could add this to the discussion.  

"From Leitskev

I've been following the discussion and wanted to make a small contribution.

Arrow was not the best script to choose for this because it's pretty far from a spec script, I think. This looks like a late draft produced by Warner Bros and it was no doubt worked on by teams of writers through a long process. That's hard to compare to the spec scripts we work on.

There are a lot of TV pilots on the Tracking Board if you can get on there. Many of these have more of a spec feel, though I can't say for sure what production went into the drafts. I think these are better models to inspire or learn from. I'll post one below.

Another problem for me with the selection of Arrow is that I had seen much of the pilot last year on Netflix, and I hated it. I really don't care for these simplified views of the world where all rich people are completely cold hearted and oppressive and all poor people are pure and saintly. I prefer my evil to be a little more nuanced, I mean at least a little. In general I found the whole thing silly, though it's been a while so I can't remember all the reasons.

For 20 years I didn't watch TV and shows like this were part of the reason(the other was I was never home at night). This is the kind of stuff you find on network TV and I just don't care for it. It's very dumbed down. In the last year I've begun watching TV again, but not network stuff. HBO, Showtime, Netflix, BBC...those shows work better for me.

I opened the script and read about 10 pages. I echo Rick's opinion that the writing itself is purposeful and effective...though that should be a given since this was worked on by teams of writers.

Some things to note for the rules people:

Something climbing its way up

Leaves and vines and green rushing past.

A QUIVER FULL OF ARROWS
slung around his back

we FLY WITH THE ARROW

For the first time in months, Mrs. DiDio feels a smile blossom
on her face

The "rules" are broken in virtually every action description.

Now, one can take the position that many amateur writers for some reason take on this rule breaking: that the pros break it because they can, but that doesn't mean they should.

That's always been a strange and illogical position considering that literally every pro script breaks these so called rules. Every...single...one.

So a wiser approach is to realize that these "rules" are being broken purposely, not to be a fly in someone's ointment, but because it allows techniques which are more effective.

If you take that approach, you ask yourself why the writers use something climbing its way up over something climbs up.

Or let's look at the aside: For the first time in months, Mrs. DiDio feels a smile blossom on her face

I mean we have no way of knowing she hasn't smiled in months, right? But it's a way of describing the kind of smile.

I have loaded a TV pilot here for people to check out: Penny Dreadful

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzy0LIsk-c2ca3c1Ni14eUZLZzQ/view?usp=sharing

I enjoy this series so I checked out the script recently. I found it to be very effective. But it's loaded with unfilmables, I mean the kind even I don't usually recommend, such as ones that describe a character's past or specific things that are on his mind. The whole script reads like a very efficient and concise little novel. Are there advantages to using this technique? And if so, who among us doesn't need advantages? Check out the script.

What I think might be the case is this: a pilot is setting up a series, and it has to pitch it in such a way that we get a fuller sense of the character...where the character has been and where it can go in the rest of the series. It's hard to do this in the pilot merely with the action and exposition. So it's worth giving people a little taste. It was done very effectively here. I have no idea if this was a spec script...but I CAN say this: if producers read a script like this they would be eager to buy it. And isn't that the point? Or would you rather get a good review from a rules person who has never and will never ever be anywhere near the production of a film or tv show? I don't say this to flame...I say this because I think as writers we need to examine what works best to sell a work and why. When you read this script(Penny), it's enjoyable and it really sets up the series in a way that intrigues and entertains, and makes clear its potential as a series. Unless I'm wrong, that's what a pilot script should do. Any tool useful in doing that is worth keeping in your toolbox.

Last thing I'd like to contribute is also off topic. Unless Bert knows where I live, I should be safe!

I was a big fan of True Detective last year. And having watched episode one of TD2 I am extremely disappointed. I think it's illustrative of some problems in storytelling.

TD 1 used a strange technique of telling the story in two timelines, I think about 15 years apart. This was not to be cool or innovative. It was done for a very simple reason: to set up the main story engine.

There are two big questions established in TD 1
- one is the mystery of the weird cult doing ritualistic killings, a cult which has connections to powerful people
- two, and this is the main story engine, is the central relationship of Rust and Marty, the two detectives. By telling the story in two timelines, we know that they become close partners, and we know they have a falling out so that they have not seen each other in many years. So we get to watch their partnership and friendship grow from the beginning, at the same time we wonder what went wrong, and a great anticipation is made of seeing that bond repaired. That drives the story.

And of course we also have two very unforgettable characters in Rust and Marty.

TD2 took a different approach(and the same problem occurred in Netflix's Sense . TD2 has decided that "character is everything"...so they've put plotting so far in the background you almost can't see it. But they don't understand a) that character should reveal itself through plotting, and b) plotting is needed to hold our interest while we get to know those characters.

What they do is introduce us the characters assembly line style. And they go through a checklist. Character flaw, check. Character quirk, check. Tormented by demons, check. Meanwhile, there are no larger questions created, things we need to see answered.

The only plot engine is the disappearance of some city manager we never met. Who cares? He turns up dead at the end, and this brings many of the characters into a connected story line...but again, who cares? This nothing compelling about the death of a guy we never met. Meanwhile there are no relationships set up between the main characters that we care about. So nothing compelling anywhere as far as the eye can see. That's shit poor storytelling.

And the characters are boring. In TD 1, you could watch those scenes over and over. In TD2, there is not one scene in the pilot you would ever watch again. They try to put in conflict, but it's empty and the dialogue is stale and boring. Is it organic and real? Maybe, I don't know, who cares. It's not interesting. I can give you a video tape of my family having breakfast and talking about the weather. There will be conflict and subtlety and it will be organic and "real". But you'll be bored to death, I promise.

There's a scene where the female detective confronts her new age father about her sister. It's so uninteresting you'll wish HBO had commercials. I mean there is literally not one interesting word of dialogue, and you have 2 characters that you have no emotional investment in whatsoever. That's not good story telling. Try watching this with your hand on the remote. It takes and act of will to not change the channel. When it comes down to it, the only rule that matters is to grab and hold an audience's attention. That's all storytelling is. If that fails, it's not working.

Rust in TD 1 was not "real". No one talks like that. But you can't take your eyes off him. You listen to every dark word he utters. It's captivating.

Back to Arrow:

Do people care about any of these characters? I can't say. I found it hard. You get the kid who is found on an island and it turns out he was a rich scumbag girlfriend cheater. He has been given a chance to change through this. But do I care? Does it even make sense? Is there something interesting about the bad guys that makes them worth defeating? Or are they just more comic book cliches about evil rich people setting out to destroy the environment, oppress the poor, and pile up nickels?

Script club is an interesting exercise because it makes me realize, in asking these questions, that I have examples of this in my own work. So I have to work at weeding them out in the future.

If anyone actually read this whole post, I owe them a beer and a shot!

I wanted to contribute, unfortunately this was all I could come up with. Not a very good analysis of the script. "


Logged
Private Message Reply: 33 - 55
khamanna
Posted: July 6th, 2015, 3:09pm Report to Moderator
January Project Group



Posts
4194
Posts Per Day
0.79
Thanks, Kevin, for your review - I read it in full, only the part about True Detective went over my head as I haven't watched/read it.
I'm going to read your Penny and see what's it about.



About the Arrow again:

I very much agree with Rick when he says:

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films
It's a TV show.

If you approach it expecting Hitchcock at his finest, you'll be disappointed.

It's for people to watch after a day at work. It's not even a Breaking Bad type affair...it's like Stargate or something like that. You watch it whilst eating pizza.

Arrow is very successful and popular. It's not trying to be hugely emotional or deep, but it clearly "works" on some level...

It's a popcorn TV show that works. They took cliche plot, added nice turns and twists to it, made us come up with questions at the right bits, gave their characters nice lines. Oliver is still in a shadow for me, but I'm interested to see what's he about.



Quoted from Scar Tissue Films
Prussian makes a good point about the way the backstory with the Detective, Oliver, Laurel and Sarah was handled. For him it was too artificial. He's right, it is. But it works on one level...

Rick

True that. That adds to the melodramatism, makes it almost a soap, but a superman soap is a new area for me. THe main thing here is not to deteriorate to a simple soap. Once Upon A Time was fresh and fun but I had to stop at season 3 - so soapy it became.

Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 34 - 55
DS
Posted: July 7th, 2015, 5:34am Report to Moderator
New


Posts
359
Posts Per Day
0.10

Quoted from PrussianMosby
It felt like five times a TV Voice or whoever on TV repeated Oliver had vanished at sea for 5 years.  Methodically treated like an idiot I guess. V.O. and flashback alert too.


Technically, it was just two different news networks that were reporting it and it only lasted about a page. I wouldn't say it was spoon-feeding or anything. It showed that this was important enough to be broadcast on a serious network... and also topical enough to be broadcast on a gossipy one. Both broadcasts gave the viewer information that stayed true to what they would normally broadcast and gave out a different side of the story. This has also been done a fair amount of times in the US version of House of Cards, show different networks discussing the same thing. I've always liked it there, too.


Cheers for dropping in, leitskev. You make some interesting points. I agree that a script that was closer to a spec could have been better, I blame democracy. Although, I think there's still plenty to take from this script.

I finally got around to trying to watch the episode and hell, I didn't enjoy it half as much as I enjoyed the script.

What makes Arrow popular is a great question and probably one hard to answer without having seen further episodes. I think Khamanna brought out a great description with "Popcorn TV". It's fun and light viewing where you automatically suspend disbelief. From what I've gathered so far, the hook is largely the plot and not so much the characters.

I think leitskev brought out a good question to move on to characters from.


Quoted from leitskev
Do people care about any of these characters? I can't say. I found it hard. You get the kid who is found on an island and it turns out he was a rich scumbag girlfriend cheater. He has been given a chance to change through this. But do I care? Does it even make sense? Is there something interesting about the bad guys that makes them worth defeating? Or are they just more comic book cliches about evil rich people setting out to destroy the environment, oppress the poor, and pile up nickels?
Logged
Private Message Reply: 35 - 55
Scar Tissue Films
Posted: July 7th, 2015, 6:59am Report to Moderator
Of The Ancients


Posts
3382
Posts Per Day
0.63
People make a big deal about caring for characters.

It's one of those things that every screen writing book tells you is so important.

I think I've cared about characters in only a handful of films.


Shawshank Redemption
Jaws
Avatar.
Requiem for a Dream.
Aliens
Terminator.
The Abyss.
Legends of the Fall

And I was a bit gutted when Arnie got killed of in T2.


Which tells me something I didn't really know before: That James Cameron is pretty much the only director who actually makes me give a shit about characters...and I haven't cared much about anyone in a film in decades.

It's great if you can make people care, but I almost never do and the usual scenario is that scripts and films spend 30 minutes trying to make me care...and I still don't, so it's all a waste of time. And a very boring one.

So...Do I care? Not based on the Pilot script, though I cared a little about certain characters in the Tv show itself. Usually minor characters. And it's usually always because the acting is good and I'm drawn to realistic human emotion, not because the writing is especially good.

I do find him interesting. I like superhero stories. Always have. The idea of someone taking on this shitty world by themselves appeals to me.

The villain in the first series, is excellent and like many film/TV adaptations overshadows the main guy: See also Wilson Fisk in Daredevil and the Joker in Dark Knight. That is something that often happens with Superhero adaptations, that NEVER happens in the comic books.

There's often an interesting political reason for that. In the comic books the hero is always trying to change something... usually a crooked, corrupt Political system. In the TV adaptations he is often trying to protect the status quo.

For example in Daredevil comics Hell's Kitchen has been ruined by Kingpin and Daredevil is trying to fix it. In the TV show Hell's Kitchen is already ruined and Kingpin wants to fix it and Daredevil spends his time trying to stop him.

In the comics Superheroes are generally revolutionary in spirit, on TV they are often little more than security for the powers that be.


Rick
Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 36 - 55
Grandma Bear
Posted: July 7th, 2015, 7:15am Report to Moderator
Administrator



Location
The Swamp...
Posts
7961
Posts Per Day
1.36

Quoted from DS

I think leitskev brought out a good question to move on to characters from.

I think, after reading the pilot, I'm still more interested in the story itself. I can't say any of the characters have got me hooked yet.

Maybe Rick is right. Maybe we don't necessarily need to like the characters even if they save a cat or two. When I was watching Sons of Anarchy, I found myself liking Jax and Jimmy Smits. I loved the show, but I honestly hated all the other characters. As the final season came along, I asked myself, why the hell am I even watching this? None of these people are any good. They are all bad people and if this was real life, I wouldn't want any of them even near me. So, maybe the characters don't have to be that likable? Maybe the actors themselves can make us like the characters even when the character is written as a bad person?


Logged
Private Message Reply: 37 - 55
DustinBowcot
Posted: July 7th, 2015, 8:24am Report to Moderator
Guest User



I'm with Rick on the character thing. Does my head in when people bang on about needing to like the character or feel something for the character. Just cobblers they've read on the web or in self help books and feel the need to regurgitate. For me, the story is king. The message the story delivers overrides all of the characters. Else it's just a boring bunch of bullshit. Might as well watch a soap.
Logged
e-mail Reply: 38 - 55
Grandma Bear
Posted: July 7th, 2015, 9:36am Report to Moderator
Administrator



Location
The Swamp...
Posts
7961
Posts Per Day
1.36
From Leitskev

It's not about caring for characters. We all use that word, but it's the wrong word.

The objective of story is to grab and hold the audience's attention. Without that, exploring theme or human nature or whatever noble purpose the story may have is meaningless. Because no one is paying attention.

There are, of course, different ways to hold an audience's attention. In sci fi or fantasy, or in period pieces, world building is a high priority. In any story, plotting is important to create questions we need to see answered, or mystery, or tension, or strong story goals, such as with a rom com where we create in the audience a desire to see the destined couple, well, couple.

Character is part of that objective of trying to hold and grab an audience's attention. That can be achieved through making us "care" about a character, but all that is really required is that we want to FOLLOW that character on his journey.

In True Detective season 1, Rust is a dark philosophy spewing cynical character. Eventually we start to care about him as we learn more about what he's gone through, but initially he is compelling for other reasons. One, he is good at what he does. Two, he resists authority. He goes his own way to solve a case and he doesn't care who he offends. We like that. Three, this dude is sooo dark and his dialogue is so interesting and unique that we want to see more of him. The main interest is in watching him interact with his partner, as they have very conflicting views of things. That dynamic is very effective. But Rust is interesting in whatever scene he's in, whether it's being interviewed by the cops or whether it's with Marty's wife. We sense he's a tinderbox waiting to go off. We do start to care for him. His darkness reveals him to be vulnerable. He lives by himself in an apartment without furniture. His flaws and weaknesses make him a character in danger, and we worry about him.

Let's compare him to the Colin Farrel cop in TD 2. This guy was once a straight cop. We learn through flashback that his wife was raped, the boy he treats as his son is actually the son of the rapist, but he treats him like his own, even though he is divorced. And the kid grows up to be picked on in school, while Farrel has turned into an alcoholic and corrupt cop. He's changed for the worst.

These seem like good traits to create some sympathy. With me, they didn't create any interest to want to follow this character however. Why?

He doesn't say much, certainly nothing interesting. There's no reason to think he's particularly good at his job before his wife was raped. We learn he was a normal cop through flash, so we don't really know anything about him before he became the corrupt and drunk cop he is. So we did not go through a process of connecting to him in any way. That's important. Therefore his corruption does not engage us. So there really is no reason to want to follow him into future scenes.

As for comic book characters, I am not against making characters unrealistic. We all love Heath Ledger's Joker...because he's entertaining! Because he's intellectual! Because he reminds Batman that they are two sides of the same coin. Because he recognizes himself for what he is! He's not motivated by greed...God, that motive is so sickenly cliche now. He's motivated by an internal need to create the mayhem and suffering that reflects his own inner world. And he's quite self conscious about it. Whereas Batman has channeled his inner turmoil on beating up bad guys, and is completely un-selfaware.  

The Colonel in Inglorious Bastards is interesting because he's not a cliche Nazi, he comes of as a gentleman, but one who actually enjoys his killing work. And he says interesting things. To a certain degree he is unpredictable. We're happy to follow him anywhere just to witness the encounter.

I discussed in my post Penny Dreadful. And I have watched all of season 1. None of those characters do I "care" about in the sense of it would bother me if the character was killed. But most of the characters are interesting enough to want to see what happens to them, what they do, what secrets are revealed. The pilot does a great job of setting that up. The characters are all flawed, tormented by their past and by deep and mysterious problems. But also, and this is important to me, they all say interesting things. Do they talk like real people? Not much. But their dialogue is perfectly consistent with the world that is created, a version of 1890s London. They quote poets and authors and cite artists and they fill their dialogue with passion.

And I'm not saying a character has to have great dialogue or even any dialogue to interest me. That's just one way. But there has to be something that makes me want to spend time with this character, because I am way behind on my reading, and there are many channels online, so that character has to earn my time.

Check out Penny Dreadful. Through a friend I have access to Tracking Board, so if you want a pilot from there just message me and I'll grab it for you.

Netflix has the goal of releasing a complete series every 2 weeks! How many writers does a series employ for a season? A lot I expect. And HBO wants to compete with Netflix. And every channel now produces their own tv series. The need for writers is growing exponentially in TV. Sensible to at least try to jump on that.


Logged
Private Message Reply: 39 - 55
DS
Posted: July 7th, 2015, 9:56am Report to Moderator
New


Posts
359
Posts Per Day
0.10

Quoted from Angry Bear
Maybe Rick is right. Maybe we don't necessarily need to like the characters even if they save a cat or two. When I was watching Sons of Anarchy, I found myself liking Jax and Jimmy Smits. I loved the show, but I honestly hated all the other characters. As the final season came along, I asked myself, why the hell am I even watching this? None of these people are any good. They are all bad people and if this was real life, I wouldn't want any of them even near me. So, maybe the characters don't have to be that likable? Maybe the actors themselves can make us like the characters even when the character is written as a bad person?


Hmp, makes me wonder how to define a "likable" character. Particularly for writing, as the biggest part is the actor's performance. I suppose one way is to give them Hollywood hero/good guy traits, add positive features, and steer them clear from anything big that could change that image -- but doesn't that usually lead to repetitive and uninteresting characters? Another is making the viewer understand the character, their backstory, their reasons, their struggles and the reason for those struggles, actually see them make mistakes, and experience problems that have consequences, which don't magically get fixed by a save the cat moment or a ex machina in the final act.

Maybe a likable character is just a well written one and the reason we can still root for them even after they cheat, lie and/or even murder is because they've been explored properly and we can see why they are who they are, plus why they do what they do.

Although, maybe in some cases a likable character is just mistaken for an interesting character.

Revision History (2 edits; 1 reasons shown)
DS  -  July 7th, 2015, 10:48am
Logged
Private Message Reply: 40 - 55
PrussianMosby
Posted: July 7th, 2015, 10:16am Report to Moderator
Old Timer


Posts
1399
Posts Per Day
0.37

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films
If you are writing a story that relies more heavily on plot than it does on deep emotion, clearly that kind of thing has its uses...Rick

Yes. I agree on that this is what they do. At any time I zap to Arrow, this guy is jumping around through darkness. And I believe all those missions need high intensive emotional "tricks" to get some conflicts about people into the runtime - to keep going a minimum of story. The compression of constructed conflict just serves to achieve the scenario. It works.

But for myself I prefer it different. I think what Dustin says about series also takes its way into genre pieces. Nowadays we have a daily soap composition around any treated subject.

A Burton Batman or the one from the Adam West series connected things different; with humor, colorful settings, perhaps some art, and a unique approach. Lost goes with mystery all the way. Breaking Bad goes deep character etc.



Logged
Private Message Reply: 41 - 55
PrussianMosby
Posted: July 7th, 2015, 10:44am Report to Moderator
Old Timer


Posts
1399
Posts Per Day
0.37
Okay, I made my point about the personal side, so I write a second post about why I think it works to give some constructive input too.

Quoted from DS
What makes Arrow popular is a great question and probably one hard to answer

Easy to answer; it's successful because they didn't sell it to the typical superhero comic supporters only. There's a huge target audience here concerning fantasy, medieval flair, gothic styles, and also several video games of those themes do well. Just imagine the huge overlap of different genres and trends.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films
What, outside of our own subjective likes and dislikes does the script do well that helps it find an audience?Rick

As said above, I think it was clever to develop a dark mood and tone and make it attractive for the groups I describe above. Just compare the shiny Green Arrow comic hero with this show's protagonist.

Further I'm going to talk about the raised questions of this pilot?

The most emotional ones:  

Did he eat or drink his father at the lifeboat? Honestly?
What is his goal now? What does he try to change in the END?
Why does his mother track him?
Detective, Laurel, Oliver triangle.

Fun questions:

How does he place his Oliver Queen character within society?
How does he expand his superhero infrastructure?

Personally I liked Diggle. I found it interesting that Oliver saved him when his mother wanted to fire Diggle. A sequence before Oliver knocked him out but he seems to like him.



Logged
Private Message Reply: 42 - 55
DS
Posted: July 7th, 2015, 10:57am Report to Moderator
New


Posts
359
Posts Per Day
0.10
Good post, Prussian, but I'd say we could discuss those questions later and see where the character topic leads us. If there is still interest in that topic, of course. I also liked Diggle, but I don't think Oliver liking him had anything to do with stopping him getting fired. Rather, he found him easy to control and gained an upper hand over him, because Diggle's job was now in his hands.


Quoted from Arrow Script
OLIVER
Besides,I think Dig and I understand each
other. Don't we?

Very pointed. Diggle takes a beat, then nods.

DIGGLE
Yes... sir.


Then, he could go on being Arrow with less difficulties than being assigned a different, better, distracting bodyguard.
Logged
Private Message Reply: 43 - 55
PrussianMosby
Posted: July 7th, 2015, 11:08am Report to Moderator
Old Timer


Posts
1399
Posts Per Day
0.37

Quoted from DS
Good post, Prussian, but I'd say we could discuss those questions later and see where the character topic leads us. If there is still interest in that topic, of course.


Please just go on. I only wanted to give some input, man, since I ripped it to pieces in my overall first post. I wanted to show that I'm open for discussion other than only shredding Arrow, what I needed to do when you ask for first impression.


Quoted from DS
I also liked Diggle, but I don't think Oliver liking him had anything to do with stopping him getting fired. Rather, he found him easy to control and gained an upper hand over him, because Diggle's job was now in his hands. Then, he could go on being Arrow with less difficulties than being assigned a different, better, distracting bodyguard


I don't think it's that complicated. Those "might" be some minor thoughts of Oliver.
Still with regards to Diggle's skills Navy and all that, who else do they want to hire? Oliver is a killing machine, he doesn't have to fear.

Maybe the word "like" is wrong. I mean that he can imagine to get along with Diggle. Oliver has to choose wisely who he can trust from a human sight now.

For me Diggle is more stable to his new ego    than Tommy is imo.

Sure, he can't blame Diggle for doing his job BUT HE RESPECTS HOW DIGGLE DOES IT imo, and that ethical behaviour Oliver LIKES. Diggle did nothin wrong, he's authentic to him.




Revision History (4 edits; 1 reasons shown)
PrussianMosby  -  July 7th, 2015, 11:33am
Logged
Private Message Reply: 44 - 55
 Pages: « 1, 2, 3, 4 » : All
Recommend Print

Locked Board Board Index    Screenwriting Class  [ previous | next ] Switch to:
Was Portal Recent Posts Home Help Calendar Search Register Login

Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post polls
You may not post attachments
HTML is on
Blah Code is on
Smilies are on


Powered by E-Blah Platinum 9.71B © 2001-2006