Print Topic

SimplyScripts Screenwriting Discussion Board  /  October 2013 One Week Challenge  /  Familiar - OWC
Posted by: Don, October 19th, 2013, 9:37am
Familiar by Sixteen - Horror - A mournful witch faces off against a vengeful spirit in the wake of her coven's dissolution. ( R ) - pdf, format 8)
Posted by: Reef Dreamer, October 19th, 2013, 4:31pm; Reply: 1
Familiar

Spoilers

Logline - not bad, quite dynamic and suggesting of conflict and motivation. Mournful?

Witch on witch action !! Not seen, alas
How do we know it's thistles hand?
Malfiore - at home seem to take a while with lots of noises. Does a witch really get a knife?
A heavy last 4 pages.

Finished

I think within this is a sound story I just found it heavy going and not always clear what was going on. Clarity is so key to keeping the reader.

My best guess is that this is a love triangle, mal loving thistle - yet has her hand in a box, nice - in competition with hemlock. She kills them all but hemlock and thistle were the stronger couple.

I feel we needed to see more of the relationships. Didn't feel very modern day either.

My grade c-
Posted by: Pale Yellow, October 19th, 2013, 4:54pm; Reply: 2
I did like the witch/witch action. There were some confusing parts in this to me. I felt bogged down reading at times. You had mystery ...yet maybe too much IMO. I liked the end though.

Good job completing the owc!!
Posted by: Forgive, October 19th, 2013, 5:05pm; Reply: 3
An assuredly written piece. Spare and rich in equal measure.

SPOILERS****
I'm wondering, did Malfiore rip Hemlock's heart out - therefore the 'exploding scar'?

Abundant use of symbolism, and the props were cleverly dealt with. Again, I'm wondering if Malfiore's tattoo is a reference to Thistle.

I didn't get the sense that the coven had been dissolved as per the logline, but I did get that authority had been questioned and usurped.

I thought the dialogue was well crafted from start to finish. Pacing was good. Looked to me like it was split into three clear acts - the initial exposition between Malfiore and Hemlock; the quiet mid-section, building up the dark aboding; and the bloody conclusion.

I liked that Malfiore checked under the bed at Hemlock's and how this s later referenced.

I don't know if this will win, as it may not appeal to popular taste, and the back-story is cloaked in mystery. But it's very well written and executed.
Posted by: KevinLenihan, October 19th, 2013, 9:40pm; Reply: 4
There's a good story here, and a good concept.

It took me a long, long time to get through this. Maybe I am suffering an attention deficit tonight. Probably not the writer's fault.

The thing is, we're reading through a pile of scripts(and the process is similar with a studio reader sifting through features). That presents a difficult challenge to the writer.

The writer needs to:
-- grab the reader's interest early, and in these shorts, VERY early.
-- make sure the reader is not confused with what is going on in the story.

In hindsight, once one finishes the story, everything is clear. Especially with the title.

During the story I found my attention wandering because I had no sense of what was going on. No sense of the drama, the stakes. Not even really much mystery that intrigued.

And as I said, it's not always the writer's fault. This writer is trying to be subtle so he doesn't give away the game too early. Which is good. But it risks giving the reader nothing to latch onto, nothing to keep him reading. It's a tough dilemma.

On the whole, it's a very decent OWC effort. Very solid quality, with a lot of potential in this revenge by familiar concept. Congrats.
Posted by: stevemiles, October 20th, 2013, 5:54am; Reply: 5
A slow-burn approach it took me a little while to get into this.

Opening paragraph was a touch confusing.  Not badly written, just found it difficult to grasp visually.  Writing was a touch flowery in places and though it gave the story a decent amount of pace and atmosphere, it did take a second read to put everything in place.

One issue for me was the lack of character.  Felt like only Malfiore had any real presence and yet she died leaving two almost unknown characters to complete the pay-off.  Knowing more about who Thistle and Hemlock were and what they meant to each other would have given this a little more substance.

Didn’t dislike this, just can’t say I took much from it.
Posted by: Dreamscale (Guest), October 20th, 2013, 11:50am; Reply: 6
Very dense again and hard to get through.

Strange names and long winded descriptions.

Are Malfiore and Hemlock really nude in the opening scene?  Malfiore is described as having a tatoo on her breast and Hemlock is described as having a big scar on her breast - if they're clothed, we wouldn't be seeing what's on their breasts.  Odd, to say the least.

I continued on and gave it up after Page 4, as the action is almost nonexistent and the detail way too heavy.

Sorry, not for me.

Congrats on entering this OWC.  
Posted by: ReneC, October 20th, 2013, 6:14pm; Reply: 7
This is very well written and visual. I didn't find it over-written, just too dense. The descriptions should be broken up more to let the visuals sink in, to read down the page and let it breathe.

Great opening scene between Hemlock and Malfiore. It's odd to jump to after Hemlock's death, it seems like moments later and it interrupted the flow, and robbed an opportunity for final words or looks which can be the most effective. It sputters a bit after that, the pace slows down way too much trying to build up suspense and tension for Malfiore. It gets confusing towards the end, not clear enough about what's going on with actions and the geography. The battle works for me, good job with it, but the motives for everything were a bit vague so the ending doesn't have the impact it should have.

There's a need to understand what a familiar is before reading this as it's never really explained, only hinted at. There's no reason not to show the cat under the bed after Hemlock's death, I was expecting something cooler or more sinister because it was set up like a big reveal. I'm not sure why Malfiore's last words are spoken as voice-over, I'm assuming it's a mistake. And how do we see that it's Hemlock's skeleton at the end? Simple to say that in the script but how does that translate visuallly for an audience?

Not a bad entry, and it hit the marks for the challenge, but a few too many problems for me. Good job finishing, this does have potential with a rewrite.
Posted by: Forgive, October 20th, 2013, 6:22pm; Reply: 8
Some good pints there, Rene.

familiar
adjective

1.
a demon supposedly attending and obeying a witch, often said to assume the form of an animal.
Posted by: oJOHNNYoNUTSo, October 20th, 2013, 7:09pm; Reply: 9
I had to read this twice to grasp what was up. I was upset at myself that I didn't get it the first time, but the way this story is told is at the writer's advantage.

Good use of symbols, you pretty much killed three birds with one stone with the tattoo.  Even though the last couple of pages were stacked with ink, they where less cryptic and I was able to read it quickly.  Dig the dialogue.

I like the ending, ties it together.  But I kinda feel like I have to read it again.

Good one,

Johnny
Posted by: EWall433, October 22nd, 2013, 4:25pm; Reply: 10
Abigor’s intro should be upper case, even if it is just a bird.

Pg. 5 I kind of like that you specified “valerian root”, but I don’t think it would show onscreen.

This is one of the more interesting entries.  Whether it comes off as slow or deliberate will largely depend on the reader’s mind set, I think. I could easily see this working better on film than on page as it seems like a piece meant to be ‘felt’ rather than ‘understood’. The events didn’t feel real, they felt surreal and I could easily see a director having some fun in trying to create all that.

This may have shorted itself on the ‘modern’ aspect of the challenge, but it was a nice change of pace that I enjoyed greatly.

Thanks and Congrats!
Posted by: SAC, October 23rd, 2013, 8:06am; Reply: 11
Hey,

Not a bad story here at all. It's your typical revenge tale. It read fairly well, but in the end it comes out a bit contrived, but that's not to say it didn't have a general creepiness to it. It did. However, exposition was way over the top, and this ran on for way too long, I feel. It could have def been chopped down some. In the end, that's what turned me away from this.

But still a fine effort. Congrats on getting this in!

Steve
Posted by: PrussianMosby, October 25th, 2013, 11:52am; Reply: 12
No comments read before.
Non-native speaker – take it or leave it.


Familiar

Ok. Read it through. The script relates mostly to Fantasy-Relationship-concept so far.

Nothing horrible to me, affiliated to the concept of course.

There's a love triangle between two witch sisters and a guy. Every witch has got a special animal that protects them. I believe so.  It's a lot of abilities and moves of this pets.

The problem I got here is – Malfire is too passive. There is a point where I had doubts about her strength. There's a long passage in the middle part, when it seems like she's just waiting for her death. She's the protagonist, she's a witch, she shouldn't cook tea or go to bed and all that.

I appreciate the fact that you stayed in the concept to the ending. Also I liked, that you've tried in any time to let the characters act in action, not in dialogue. In my eyes, It's a positive opposite to some other scripts, which did not so.
Posted by: DarrenJamesSeeley, October 25th, 2013, 10:44pm; Reply: 13
I read this., twice. I wanted to be sure on my thoughts. I wanted to find something, anything, that would make me not like this. It may be futile, because from what I can gather, I really can't say anything negative about the script. I might throw in a little bit of good ol' white space....but this is right on target.

Again, as with another OWC script, some of the names were "cute" to me, but in this case, it's not as noticable.

I don't believe in a voting system. That said, the work here is great. I'd pick you as one of the SS vets. Well done.
Posted by: rendevous, October 25th, 2013, 11:55pm; Reply: 14
This was well done and I can't fault too much with it. It's a pretty straight forward story that would probably work a lot better on screen than on paper.
There's something that makes this slow to read, hard to put my finger on as it's not overwritten. I think it just needs something a long the way that would make the reader invest more care for the character(s).
Posted by: RJ, October 26th, 2013, 1:17am; Reply: 15
I agree with others about this being dense. it was a little hard to get through at times.

I liked the symbolisms in this though and how the end played out with Thistle and Hemlock.

I think where this picked up for me was halfway down page 6 - when Malfiore finds Abigore in the living room. Before this, at times, the writing was a tad confusing, but after this is when it got clearer.

All in all - I liked parts of this, but not sure I liked it as a whole. There is something niggling me about it, but I can't quite put my finger on what it is.

Good effort:)  

Renee
Posted by: Grandma Bear, October 27th, 2013, 1:42pm; Reply: 16
Everyone seems to think the writing is great, so it probably is. To me, it was a chore to get through, to be honest. Heavy reading that felt too wordy. My mind wandered a few times. Like Jeff, I was wondering if they were nude when you mentioned the tattoos on the breasts. I was also confused at times.

Someone mentioned something about symbolism and such and I felt this script was full of them even if I didn't recognize them. I think that's great and I try to use things like that in my scripts too. It gets very frustrating when the filmmakers don't get those at all or even the theme.

I do agree that this probably would work out fine as a film, it was just a tough read. I would suggest tightening your writing. Get to the point and be clear. Make it more reader friendly. A lot of filmmakers hate to read scripts. Make it easier for them.  :)
Posted by: RadioShea89, October 27th, 2013, 4:33pm; Reply: 17
Not bad, but the large blocks of description really held me back from enjoying this.
Posted by: RayW, October 29th, 2013, 4:21pm; Reply: 18
Weighted Matrix: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AsBznn8D13zOdGJValQtbHU1LUNPVWQzY0gzajRTTUE&usp=sharing

Producer's Notes: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NNGaVlrrpkjIfp-BRGjpTE03W1e5lZuRceJ3wQECYaI/edit?usp=sharing

23. Familiar by Sixteen - Horror - A mournful witch faces off against a vengeful spirit in the wake of her coven's dissolution.
Brief - An older bitch witch kills a younger witch, and there's a crow, and a huge cat...

Location(s)  - Bedroom, house exterior and interior
Cast -
Protagonist(s)  -  
MOTHER MALFIORE, 50s, tattooed
ABIGOR (and handler)
SISTER HEMLOCK, 20s, a veritable skeleton with skin
Genre & Marketability -
Comments  -  Great. A flying crow. No, wait!: A trained flying crow. (sigh... ) Would it be cheaper to CGI that crow or to find and schedule a live one? (OR FIND A LESS COSTLY STORY?!) This reads much more like a classic Judeo-Christian demonized witch story set in modern times than a modern witch story. Set design's gonna be a costly bitch for this. Pg6:
INT. LIVING ROOM - NIGHT
Malfiore enters. The room has returned to normal. She opens
a nearby window and exits.
Malifore exits through the window? Or, which would make more sense, Abigor? Done at pg7: "A huge cat as black as Abigor bursts out..." Too costly to produce. Extensive use of animals in shorts is exactly how you begin to understand the difference between writing pie-in-the-sky stories and stories that are budget minded = likely to be produced. I do appreciate your attention to detail, though.
Script format - fair. Action lines are a bit too detailed.
Final word - Can't afford to produce.

     Lo/Hi Estimated Budget Range
/      Screenplay Pages
= $      Estimated Cost Per Screen Minute

Adherence to Given Criteria:
Modern Witches and/or Warlocks - Nope. Classic witches in modern setting.
Horror - Yep
Posted by: James McClung, October 31st, 2013, 5:00pm; Reply: 19
Well, if I needed a reason to drink in excess these past few weeks, this was it. Definitely didn't go over as I'd hoped. That's okay though.

A few things I'd like to address. I think most of the reviews are spot on in certain areas but personally I think my biggest shortcoming was clarity. There's a lot of allusions to backstory in this one, which I opted to infer rather than spell out for the audience in an overly expository fashion. As Kevin aptly pointed out, that runs the risk of the audience not getting enough to go on, a risk that was met on my part. I think a decent amount of the backstory came across but clearly there were still some issues for some people.

I initially had another idea for the OWC, which did not involve a backstory. In hindsight, I think I should have gone with that one. I'm not a fan of shorts and tend to conceive stories in feature terms. But when you've only got ten pages and a week to write something, it's definitely better to go with something simple so as your focus can go to more important things.

I also think I never really decided on whether to make Malfiore a hero or villain. I don't always think of those terms but when you have a character being stalked by something, I think you need to pick one and stick with it. In the end, I think I made her both, which yielded some interesting themes, I think, but again, those were sort of lost given the lack of context.

The dense writing... yeah. Sorry guys. I've always tended to overwrite, at least a little. In this case, I came in sort of rusty in terms of writing in general and ended up compacting a lot of paragraphs so as to meet the page limit. I hit the limit the first time then widdled it down to eight. I think I could've gone over it once more and tightened it up even further but I'd run out of time by then.

As for not being modern... eh. I suppose I could argue but I'll concede. The term seems to have been left up to at least some interpretation. I basically put the characters in a contemporary setting and wrote the script as is. I didn't try to cram in references to Facebook or anything like that. So in that sense, I wouldn't say it's "unmodern" but at the same time, you could set this in 2013 or, say, the 60s and it'd probably come out the same, which in a sense makes it unmodern.

Regardless, I did this for the challenge first and foremost. I tend to leave these up as is so people can see what I can do within the time constraints. That's the pleasure for me. And I definitely worked hard on this one. My deadline was earlier than midnight given work and things and I wrote all the way up until that point.

Thanks everyone for the feedback (Ray, I'm getting to you next).
Posted by: James McClung, October 31st, 2013, 5:21pm; Reply: 20

Quoted from RayW
Great. A flying crow. No, wait!: A trained flying crow. (sigh... ) Would it be cheaper to CGI that crow or to find and schedule a live one? (OR FIND A LESS COSTLY STORY?!) This reads much more like a classic Judeo-Christian demonized witch story set in modern times than a modern witch story. Set design's gonna be a costly bitch for this.


As I said, I wanted to have a little chat.

My initial idea was to pit a witch against a familiar. Simple as that. The next step is thinking about what kind of familiar. You think cats, dogs, rats, toads, birds, etc.

I'm not without experience in filmmaking so my next thought is... wait a minute. No animals, no children. Pain in the ass.

So, what I did... or rather tried to come up with creatures that could be done within a budget but could still be versions of cats or crows. So I came up with familiars that basically look like living shadows or silhouettes of cats and crows (as referenced in Abigor's first description, which was NOT intended to be flowery writing but rather taken literally). Make them so dark that they don't have any detail or sheen (the light just disappears into them). Almost like creatures made of ink.

That way, you can just create them with CGI and given the nature of the creatures, you don't have to go overboard with textures and whatnot, just some work on the outlines and two green eyes. In another film, you might have a crappy-looking CGI crow that is NOT supernatural but here, you could have something that looks strange and otherworldly as a result of how simply it's rendered.

If this sounds like I'm just throwing another crazy expenditure out there, let me know. And please explain. Personally, I think CGI is a lot more accessible than it used to be. Here in DC, there's shorts and features that are made for dirt cheap (four figures) and are still able to pull off some at least decent CGI work. I think if communicated properly in the script, these creatures could been recognized as not needing that much CG work done on them but still able to be rendered for full effect.

As for set design, I don't know. If there's mention of masks and tapestries, maybe cut that down to one tapestry. A wooden box with some flowers and a framed photo. Is that really that hard to deliver? I mean, if I can get away with some, great. But if something needs to be trimmed, it's only a matter of tweaking the script. If there's an ornate mask somewhere that's expensive or hard to find, it's not set in stone as far as the script goes. You can just write it out.

There's some gore effects down the line and perhaps the rune effects might need a little work but those are lovelies I decided to keep. I try to write as budget conscious as I can. I am NOT a pie-in-the-sky type of guy. I've been on 12+ hour sets and know how hard it can be to make the simplest things happen even with a script that's not particularly demanding. I write what I consider to be small, intimate stories where the benefit is that they can be done for less money. But I still try to find a balance, I think, so the script is actually worth making. Not everything with two actors and one room can be Clerks or Slacker. Sometimes, it'll just be boring and not worth a bunch of crew members smoking, guzzling energy drinks, losing sleep, and stressing out on set.

Mainly, I wanted to address the animal issue though. That's the most important thing.

Let me know what you think.
Posted by: KevinLenihan, October 31st, 2013, 7:23pm; Reply: 21
This script is kind of an interesting case study for me, James, and it highlights some of the problems for unknowns breaking through. The thing is, if I read this any other time other than an OWC, my experience would have been very different. In fact, if I knew going into it that it was a veteran writer, it would have been very different.

Because here's what happens: we're reading a bunch of OWCs, going though the pile, and some of them are by pretty new writers. Under those circumstances, a script has to earn our interest very quickly.

It's very similar to what happens with unknown writers in the spec market. A pro script gets the benefit of the doubt, so the reader reads on patiently waiting for the good stuff to happen. An unknown writer has to earn things pretty darn quick.

So as I'm reading this story, because I don't know it's a veteran writer, when things are unclear in the early going I don't give the writer a lot of rope. It's human nature.

I distinctly remember as things came together near the end thinking this was a good story. I just had trouble enjoying the whole journey because I wasn't sure things would come together. It's not the writer's fault. But then we will face this disadvantage everywhere as unknowns, so we have to be cognizant of it.

So it was good work.
Posted by: stevie, October 31st, 2013, 9:24pm; Reply: 22
Yo James, here's the read I promised!

I gotta agree with most of the reviewers - when there's lots of action lines, sometimes - even if the imagery is good, which it was in this very visual script - it can make for heavy reading. When there's not much white space or dialogue, the eye tends to skim down the page and vital bits can be missed.

This was a very ambitious story. I didn't read it originally and James pmed me for a read which I was happy to do. I think if I had've read it without knowing the author, I would've pegged it for someone who knew their stuff. And James does.

It was well writte but I couldnt really get into it, which sounds like a contradiction but people will know what I'm talking about.  
Posted by: James McClung, October 31st, 2013, 10:31pm; Reply: 23
Thanks man! More of the same means I've got some work to do.

Indeed, I am working on the writing. I've already broken up a lot of the paragraphs and increased the script's length by about half a page. It's the same text (minus a few touchups to the opening; no more "naked people") but I think it reads faster psychologically speaking. Nevertheless, I'm still going to go through it once again and see if I can't whittle it back something close to its original length so it reads even smoother.
Posted by: RayW, November 2nd, 2013, 9:25am; Reply: 24

Quoted from James McClung
So, what I did... or rather tried to come up with creatures that could be done within a budget but could still be versions of cats or crows. So I came up with familiars that basically look like living shadows or silhouettes of cats and crows (as referenced in Abigor's first description, which was NOT intended to be flowery writing but rather taken literally). Make them so dark that they don't have any detail or sheen (the light just disappears into them). Almost like creatures made of ink.

That way, you can just create them with CGI and given the nature of the creatures, you don't have to go overboard with textures and whatnot, just some work on the outlines and two green eyes. In another film, you might have a crappy-looking CGI crow that is NOT supernatural but here, you could have something that looks strange and otherworldly as a result of how simply it's rendered.

If this sounds like I'm just throwing another crazy expenditure out there, let me know. And please explain. Personally, I think CGI is a lot more accessible than it used to be. Here in DC, there's shorts and features that are made for dirt cheap (four figures) and are still able to pull off some at least decent CGI work. I think if communicated properly in the script, these creatures could been recognized as not needing that much CG work done on them but still able to be rendered for full effect.

As for set design, I don't know. If there's mention of masks and tapestries, maybe cut that down to one tapestry. A wooden box with some flowers and a framed photo. Is that really that hard to deliver? I mean, if I can get away with some, great. But if something needs to be trimmed, it's only a matter of tweaking the script. If there's an ornate mask somewhere that's expensive or hard to find, it's not set in stone as far as the script goes. You can just write it out.

There's some gore effects down the line and perhaps the rune effects might need a little work but those are lovelies I decided to keep. I try to write as budget conscious as I can. I am NOT a pie-in-the-sky type of guy. I've been on 12+ hour sets and know how hard it can be to make the simplest things happen even with a script that's not particularly demanding. I write what I consider to be small, intimate stories where the benefit is that they can be done for less money. But I still try to find a balance, I think, so the script is actually worth making. Not everything with two actors and one room can be Clerks or Slacker. Sometimes, it'll just be boring and not worth a bunch of crew members smoking, guzzling energy drinks, losing sleep, and stressing out on set.

Mainly, I wanted to address the animal issue though. That's the most important thing.

Let me know what you think.

I just wanted you to know that I DID remember this item from the other thread, I don't have the time right now to provide a well thought out reply, but didn't want you to see that I was blabbin' to some folks and blowing you/this off.

I'll get back to this later; today/tomorrow, but soon-ish.
Cool?
Posted by: RayW, November 4th, 2013, 2:13pm; Reply: 25

Quoted from James McClung
So I came up with familiars that basically look like living shadows or silhouettes of cats and crows (as referenced in Abigor's first description, which was NOT intended to be flowery writing but rather taken literally). Make them so dark that they don't have any detail or sheen (the light just disappears into them). Almost like creatures made of ink.

That way, you can just create them with CGI and given the nature of the creatures, you don't have to go overboard with textures and whatnot, just some work on the outlines and two green eyes. In another film, you might have a crappy-looking CGI crow that is NOT supernatural but here, you could have something that looks strange and otherworldly as a result of how simply it's rendered.
Fair enough.
But this clarification idea expressed above only saves a little PITA in post


From the screenplay:
Code

Abigor, a raven the size of a hawk, swoops in from behind 
her and perches at the foot of a bed. His feathers are so 
dark, he resembles a living shadow. His green eyes glow. 


If you really want this to be a shadow then straight out state so.

Code

ABIGOR, a raven's solid otherworldly shadow, swoops in from behind 
her and perches at the foot of a bed.


Skip all the cake walking about feathers and resembling. And the green eyes.
Screwwit.
If it looks like a bird call it a bird.
But if it looks like a solid shadow call it a solid shadow.


If this sounds like I'm just throwing another crazy expenditure out there, let me know. And please explain.
Although not crazy, it is a genuine expense.
Someone's gotta be paid to do the actual work, or likely will.

Google your local DC CG artists and start calling them.
See what their rates are for what you describe.
Don't at all be surprised if it's north of $100/hr of work which'll render a few seconds of finished effects.

So, do the math on the numbers of CGI SFX shots the story has and multiply that by $50/second, (30frames/sec for most digital film shown on computers.)
Rate X Time = Cost.
Easy as


Personally, I think CGI is a lot more accessible than it used to be.
True. But it still has an expense, even just hunting down someone to do it.

Here in DC, there's shorts and features that are made for dirt cheap (four figures) and are still able to pull off some at least decent CGI work. I think if communicated properly in the script, these creatures could been recognized as not needing that much CG work done on them but still able to be rendered for full effect.
Agreed.
Now the tough part is to either A) produce and direct this yourself, or B) find a producer/director that has the equipment & financing but none of their own ideas to pursue and let them spend their money on it.
Hitting a bullet with a bullet. Yep.

That option B. also means your screenplay is likely competing with other screenplays, which brings this perspective back to my comment in my director's notes.


Quoted Text
Would it be cheaper to CGI that crow or to find and schedule a live one? (OR FIND A LESS COSTLY STORY?!)


As for set design, I don't know. If there's mention of masks and tapestries, maybe cut that down to one tapestry. A wooden box with some flowers and a framed photo. Is that really that hard to deliver? I mean, if I can get away with some, great. But if something needs to be trimmed, it's only a matter of tweaking the script. If there's an ornate mask somewhere that's expensive or hard to find, it's not set in stone as far as the script goes. You can just write it out.
Well... a director/producer's NOT going to follow any script literally word by word, I assure you, no matter the budget.
The producer's going to fiddle-f#ck with the screenplay on rewrite.
The director's going to fiddle-f#ck with the screenplay on rewrite.
The actor's going to fiddle-f#ck with the screenplay on set.
The actual locations secured are going to change the story.
The editor's going to fiddle-f#ck with the best shots and audio received from the DoP & audio engineer.
And then the producer and director are going to fiddle-f#ck with the fat cut down to the final cut.

So, don't get too wrapped up in tapestries, wood boxes, and vials of blood hanging from gold vs. silver necklaces.

So much goes out of the writer's hand once the screenplay's rights to produce are released.

Ask Pia for confirmation.
It's a sore subject for her, I imagine.


There's some gore effects down the line and perhaps the rune effects might need a little work but those are lovelies I decided to keep. I try to write as budget conscious as I can. I am NOT a pie-in-the-sky type of guy. I've been on 12+ hour sets and know how hard it can be to make the simplest things happen even with a script that's not particularly demanding. I write what I consider to be small, intimate stories where the benefit is that they can be done for less money. But I still try to find a balance, I think, so the script is actually worth making. Not everything with two actors and one room can be Clerks or Slacker. Sometimes, it'll just be boring and not worth a bunch of crew members smoking, guzzling energy drinks, losing sleep, and stressing out on set.
Yup.
It'll all get changed. All the details. Some will remain.
In the final days of my being a regular around here I'd chant "Write good bones to your stories!" because the fundamental story is all that's guaranteed to have any vestigial recognition after a screenplay has gone into the actual production sausage machine.

Pretty much expect to be upset over what-the-f#ck?! was done to your screenplay. LOL!

Did that confirm or clarify some of what you wondered about? :)
Posted by: James McClung, November 5th, 2013, 3:46pm; Reply: 26

Quoted from RayW
Did that confirm or clarify some of what you wondered about? :)


It does, namely what needs to be communicated about the creatures needs to be said outright, not implied.

That said, I anticipated a similar response in regards to the cost of CGI and the fact that screenplays get inevitably rewritten to the point where they might not have any semblance of how they started out. The latter, I know all too well. It's been drilled into me for years and I think I've finally come to accept it in my own way.

The cost of CGI, I'm not as familiar with so I appreciate some of the info you've provided. I just knew that it's cheaper and more accessible than it used to be and is so even at the micro-budget level. Still, perhaps it's important to consider that it's not something you can fall back on at all times.

I'll see if I can't tweak the script and make a little easier on producer eyes. Honestly, getting produced wasn't my primary goal with this one; it was to write *something* after a long period of not writing. I've always participated in the OWC for the challenge and never expected my entries to be good enough to even care whether they'd be produced or not. This one, I kinda like though, despite its lukewarm response, and I did try to write it at least somewhat in the realm of possible production, even if it didn't turn out great.

Thanks, man!
Print page generated: March 29th, 2024, 4:57am