Not sure exactly how to word this, but has anything ever turned you off while reading a script?  And I'm not talking about formatting issues...

For example, I recall there was a female member on here who was in the middle of Mark's script Thistles and she told him flat-out that she stopped reading his script because of a specific -- and graphic -- scene that took place.  (I won't spoil it, so just go and read it for yourself if you haven't yet)

Has this ever happened to anyone?

Just asking, 'cause I'm in the process of writing a script that's not for the weak of heart... and I'm a little iffy about posting it.  More along the lines of really, really nervous. haha



-Steve

I don't think you should be worried about what other people are going to think. You're in the business of writing so you're not going to please all of the people all of the time.

If I don't like something and can't continue the read for whatever reason I'll usually stop and not comment. Alternatively I might tell the reader that the subject matter really turned my stomach, much like 'reader' you referred to did with Mark's 'Thistles' That's just the name of the game. It doesn't mean something is not worthy however, or well written just because the subject matter is controversial or not to my liking. And, it certainly doesn't mean censorship should come into play either, imho.

If I had the confidence in what I was writing, I certainly wouldn't hold back for fear of what reaction it might elicit.

Just put a rating-warning on it. In the process you'll probably get you more reads.  ;D

Libby

P.S. What's the significance of the name change btw? At first I had no idea who you were. :)

Go for it. If you're truthful in the storytelling, I think readers will know where you're coming from.

It's clear nothing turns me off to scripts, violence-wise. Now, some types of stories definitely aren't appealing to me -- I've never been a huge fan of the "rape and revenge" subgenre -- but you can't offend me with a screenplay.

In fact I think it's more of a turn off when writers tip toe around the uncomfortable parts rather than just telling the story the way it happens. Too many writers, particularly horror writers, try too hard not to "go too far", when really the most popular films of the genre (TCM, The Exorcist, Last House on the Left) did just that when they were released.

I reckon a photo of Jeff in the nude would do the trick

Plenty of people have been turned off by my scripts and not been able to finish them. Do I care? No. I write what I write because I want to. The few people out there that like my scripts though, seem to really like my type of scripts. So, to me, it's better to have a few people that really dig your stuff than trying to please everyone with something bland. I know Babz doesn't like horror, but that's mostly what I write so I won't let her read my scripts. I'm not changing to please her. I have to stay true to myself and she's cool with that.

Write what you love and your scripts will be better.

Well the biggest turn off for me is when a woman uses her... oh wait, we're talking about turn offs in scripts?  ;D ;D ;D

In that case, the biggest turn off for me is when I am reading something cheesy or cliched, or something written by someone with little to no knowledge about the subject matter which it is that they are writing about (which are normally linked, because those with little subject knowledge are likely to revert to cliches to write about the subject).

Apart from that, there is little that actually turns me off.

I don't mind extreme violence in the films I watch or the scripts I read, as long as it is justified. If I feel that what you are writing is written purely for shock, then I might check out, simply because it will take me out of the read, as I can feel the writer's manipulating presence.

Quoted from stevie I reckon a photo of Jeff in the nude would do the trick

Or an Aussie in a pair of shorts that should've been tossed a decade ago.

I agree with Toby. Anything I've seen before is just plain boring. I'd much prefer to watch/read something that was completely different to anything else, regardless of how 'not for the weak-hearted' it is.

Just out of curiosity, is your script in the 'Antichrist' or the 'Bug' territory?

Quoted from Toby_E ...something written by someone with little to no knowledge about the subject matter...

I couldn't agree more.  I tune out when there is a gaping hole in the story due to inadequate research.  I usually see this with military scripts.  

I'm guessing that the story you've written is of a controversial subject such as rape, incest, pedophilia, bestiality, coprophagia...  

Considering that the movie Chinatown has some of those subjects in it, I think you'll be okay with whatever you've written...unless you wrote a story about a man who rapes his adopted puppy and eats its shit.  Then that would be weird.

Jordan

Quoted from LC P.S. What's the significance of the name change btw? At first I had no idea who you were. :)

I didn't like that there was another member with a similar reaper name, ReaperCreeper.

So I just picked the last name of my favorite actress and used that.

She's in my avatar with Bruce Campbell.  8)

Quoted from jwent6688 Or an Aussie in a pair of shorts that should've been tossed a decade ago.

I would rule Cleveland in these shorts bro.

Then again, even Jeff in the nude could rule Cleveland

:P ;D ;) :B

As far as violence and the like goes, I'm turned off by shock for the sake of shock and content that generally works against what is best for the story at hand or otherwise isn't included for a good reason. What's funny is that for all the over the top slashers and torture porn scripts out there, most of them try so hard to shock that they actually backfire and get more and more tedious and stupid as the gags get grosser, more lurid, more sadistic, more sexually violent, etc. It's self sabotage, really.

Naturally, what's appropriate for one script may not be appropriate for another. Slashers and torture scripts, for example, have a lot more leeway than others and can be quite good if the writes focus more on what's effective than what they think is superficially shocking or disturbing. What is or isn't appropriate is for the writer to figure out. But you can always feel when a given script's trying too hard.

I also agree with Toby. Whoteheartedly.

Other than that, you're really going to shoot yourself in the foot worrying too much about how other people are going to react to your writing. Good art just doesn't come about that way. Do what's right for the script. If you think that's going to require pushing the envelope a little, you should do it. Scaling back and playing it safe can be just as harmful, even more so, than going too far, so to speak.

For me the biggest turn off has to be the cliches that Toby brought up, namely the "pretty" descriptors.  I can't stand the whole "attractive", "beautiful", or "handsome" adjective that people toss in with their character descriptions.  That to me is just done to death and comes off a bit lazy.  It's safe to assume that EVERY protagonist in EVERY script is a Calvin Klein supermodel unless otherwise stated.

I'm not really turned off by any subject matter.  James brought up a good point with the overkill on some horror scripts that are just after shock value.  There was a short that I commented on a little while back that had too many twists near the end that it just ruined the story for me.  It started off nicely but as they gunned for more and more twists, it totally ruined the illusion and rapport for me and thus killed the entire script.

Can't wait to check your script out, Levy.  If the subject matter, as gruesome as it may be, flows well then it shouldn't be much of a problem for a good deal of the peeps on the site.  I agree with Nomad though, adopted puppies should NEVER be victims!

Everything has pretty much been covered here, so yeah I agree I hate cliched stuff and extreme violence just there to shock.  A story needs to be believable, characters need to be believable and then you don't need to write over the top scenes to try and draw the readers attention.

Quoted from RegularJohn For me the biggest turn off has to be the cliches that Toby brought up, namely the "pretty" descriptors.  I can't stand the whole "attractive", "beautiful", or "handsome" adjective that people toss in with their character descriptions.

I agree, but for another reason. A writer doesn't have to worry about those things. H'wood casting will have no trouble at all filling roles with hard, hot bodies.

Storywise what turns me off...?
In no set order...

• 
  "It's all just a dream" or worse it's a movie set This usually shows up in the last few pages. Come to think of it, dreams in the middle of the script are just as bad, unless the story is about a daydreamer or something like A Nightmare On Elm Street
  
  
• "Overgeeking it" I love movies same as you. I may or may not be a bigger movie buff than you. I may like some genre movies same as you. I'm reading your script. Why would I want to read about other film and/or film references? You get me thinking about other movies mentioned in the script, which nine times out of ten has nothing to do with your script it irritates me.
  
  Same thing goes w/ a character's profession - specifically that of a lowly paid screenwriter making it/attempting to make it in H'wood.
  
  
• Writing about a subject regarding history and then proceeding to alter history. I don't mean a few dramatic liberties here and there. Or having a fictitious character be witness to an event. I mean extreme revisionist, and having historical figures doing things they never actually did.
  
  
• In horrors..."red (or yellow) glowing eyes in the shadows"
  
  
• In horrors and action pieces...overuse of the "announcer commentary" narrative. Even if you know your stuff...it gets long winded and boring. There's only so many times where you can write 'hits' 'kicks' 'swings' etc. wiyhout getting repetive. Make it short and sweet. What's that got to do w/ Horror? The four B's - bone, breasts, blood and brains. How many times are you going to write that?  Keep it simple. Treat me like a layman. I'll get the point.
  
  
• Setting up rules in your genre world - and then procedd to break and contradict them.
  
  
• The script is part of a five part series all of which are 130 pages in length, and "I'm still writing the last two. This is part two. To understand this, you have to read part one. When you read part one, please ignore the dream sequences, the flashbacks and ...
  
  blah blah bleh
  
  

Quoted from Toby_E “In that case, the biggest turn off for me is when I am reading something cheesy or cliched, or something written by someone with little to no knowledge about the subject matter which it is that they are writing about”

This is true. This is a bigger turn off then how graphic the script/film is. A lot of horror movies are written with little to no knowledge about the subject matter which kills the realism and makes the violence a complete bore. If I am not immersed then I’m fully aware of the special effects.

But I also believe you have to really deserve to show us something graphic. It’s harder to put into words what that might be, since it’ll be different for every story, but I always think, could this be shown without the graphic parts, and if so, why not do that instead. For example, it may be deserving in cases where you want to make a tragic scene even more tragic by revealing the graphic corpse of a relative, since that would get us closer to what the character sees and feels.

Graphic scenes for horror purposes, I’m not a fan honestly. I much prefer my horror without graphic scenes. Maybe, unless the character is in a hurry to sever all the body parts of someone in the motel room while the maid is making her way down the hall, and so this would be a manner of suspense, then yeah, I could buy that.

-J.S.

As far as content goes, sometimes penning a script takes the writer into some dark places.  Some readers will embrace it, and others won't.

I will say that there is a weird phenomenon where scripts tend to start focused on the weather.  I've read tons of feature scripts where the writer mentions the weather in the opening passage, and that's it.  And weather never changed...

On the flip side, I like when a writer breaks rules that make complete sense.  If done right, it can take the read to another level.

Quoted from stevie I would rule Cleveland in these shorts bro.

Have at it! and here's some carols about our beloved local football team. Spread the cheer...

Had a couple of people turned off by my Birth of a Psycho script, as the protag allowed his wife to be raped in front of him. Also one female reader turned off by my Adm & Eiv script calling it misogynistic.

The only thing that turns me off other people's scripts are when kids are messed with. If kids are getting hurt or I feel it sends out the wrong message, like one script on here I read that sexualised a 14-year-old girl, then I will be put off by that instantly.

Ha! Classic stuff, James!

I forgot there's always someone worse off...Cleveland Browns...nudge, nudge...

Although this season that mantle has been handed over to the Texans.  A Niner fan pointed out that this time last year, Houston were 11-1!  Just like the Seahags now!  And we all know what happened in the playoffs lol.

Sorry to hijack the thread guys. Carry on!

Quoted from Guest I didn't like that there was another member with a similar reaper name, ReaperCreeper. So I just picked the last name of my favorite actress and used that. She's in my avatar with Bruce Campbell.  8)

Wow that's Mr. Campbell. I thought it looked like Pauly from the Sopranos.

Turnoffs?  Well, other than overwriting, typos and format errors?

Honestly, the only time I'd stop reading a script due to violent content is if it's *gratuitious*.   You could write the most evil, graphic and gritty scene...and if it's organic to the story, that's absolutely neat for me.  But if it's torture porn for shock value (or if I feel that it is, anyway), well then...  That would be a huge turnoff for me.

Boring is a turnoff too, of course.  Though that's not really what we're discussing here...  :)

Hey Steve,

I'm not afraid to out myself here - Mark warned me beforehand that Thistles probably wasnt going to be a script I was into, but I promised him I'd give it a go so I did. Before the 'graphic' scene I was actually getting very into Thistles. Mark's a good writer and he knows it too. He also realises that the scene was pretty full on and has no regrets in writing it that way - which is fine. Some will like it and some wont.

Thinking about it and the way you've asked this question, I think you're better concluding that every person is very different, as in: for me, giving birth to 4 kids and then reading about a baby having it's head smashed in the way it is in Thistles, as I said: for me, is the worst scene I, personally, could have read.

That said; I can handle reading pretty much every other horror scene there could possibly be thrown at me. Some things I find icky and I'll tell the writer that, but it generally wont stop me reading, Thistles just hit my weak spot. It's a good script, just not for me.

I guess the point here, like others have stated, is to write what you want. Go for it and don't worry if someone can't get through it, you will always have fans.

Renee

P.S: One of my fav movies is Texas Chainsaw Massacre - some sick shit in that, but loved it.

Plus Hunger Games is pretty brutal, but a good movie none the less. :)

Thanks, guys, for all the responses  :)

Quoted from Neighbour Wow that's Mr. Campbell. I thought it looked like Pauly from the Sopranos.

haha, no that's Bruce Campbell with Jane Levy.  8)

Quoted from RJ Hey Steve, I'm not afraid to out myself here - Mark warned me beforehand that Thistles probably wasnt going to be a script I was into, but I promised him I'd give it a go so I did. Before the 'graphic' scene I was actually getting very into Thistles. Mark's a good writer and he knows it too. He also realises that the scene was pretty full on and has no regrets in writing it that way - which is fine. Some will like it and some wont.

This - and Dustin's comment before - goes to show that "turn-offs" can be a very personalized issue.  Hey, I love Mark to death (seriously, Mark - much *kudos* re Thistles!)  But I do believe I know which scene Bflywings is referring to.  And honestly...I had the same reaction.  For me, that particular scene was too over the top.  (Of course, in that case it was also that I felt that the character just wouldn't have gone that far... So it fell into the category of me feeling that it was a scene that went into the 'shock value for its own sake' area.  Which isn't to say that I don't appreciate Mark's work for what it is.  *Hugs* to Mark and Thistles.  :P

And with Dustin - I happen to be very familiar with the script that turned him off.  Yet, I found that aspect of the script perfectly fine (because, for me, the age of the character was irrelevant, since it was a 1,000 year old demon that happened to be in the form of a fourteen year old.)  

So - to each their own.  Though I do stand by my personal turnoffs as stated in a previous post.  Whatever one writes - PLEASE make sure it's organic to the story!  Otherwise, it won't work.  Shocking, or not.

Cheers,

--Wonka (J)

Quoted from wonkavite This - and Dustin's comment before - goes to show that "turn-offs" can be a very personalized issue.  Hey, I love Mark to death (seriously, Mark - much *kudos* re Thistles!)  But I do believe I know which scene Bflywings is referring to.  And honestly...I had the same reaction.  For me, that particular scene was too over the top.  (Of course, in that case it was also that I felt that the character just wouldn't have gone that far... So it fell into the category of me feeling that it was a scene that went into the 'shock value for its own sake' area.  Which isn't to say that I don't appreciate Mark's work for what it is.  *Hugs* to Mark and Thistles.  :P

As 'shocking' as that scene is, I would argue that there is another scene earlier in the script that tops it.

Quoted from wonkavite And with Dustin - I happen to be very familiar with the script that turned him off.  Yet, I found that aspect of the script perfectly fine (because, for me, the age of the character was irrelevant, since it was a 1,000 year old demon that happened to be in the form of a fourteen year old.)

I agree, the age is irrelevant.

The scariest idea behind Hannah, though, is that a demon WOULD take the form of a slutty 14 year old girl.  That's scary, menacing, twisted, and badass, all rolled into one.

I personally thought it was a great character.



--Steve

Quoted from wonkavite And with Dustin - I happen to be very familiar with the script that turned him off.  Yet, I found that aspect of the script perfectly fine (because, for me, the age of the character was irrelevant, since it was a 1,000 year old demon that happened to be in the form of a fourteen year old.)

Yeah, well you could have just left it alone. But, as you haven't...

If the age of the character was irrelevant then what is the point in making it a 14-year-old girl? That has since been changed to, 16... by the way. Which was actually the minimum I suggested in the first place.

If it isn't bad, then why change the age at all?

Obviously I'm not the only one uncomfortable with it. Indeed, I read the review by Carson on this where it had been changed to 16... and even still it needed to be mentioned that this was excusable because the demon is actually 1000 or whatever.

To my mind there is something wrong with a 30+ year old man that hangs around 14-year-old girls. There's no way that would fly with the majority of people I know.

Personally, I'd have made her at least 21. I don't see how that would have hurt this script at all. Unless her being young is what the author considers a puller.

Hey Dustin -

Well, I could have left it alone.  As you could have, as well.  

But since you specificially mentioned the script in your post, I felt it a prime example of how some script details can rub some people the wrong way, but not affect others at all.  It's like a personal "hot button" that just sets some people off.  I'm not singling *you* out.  I'm sure I have them, as well.

The age was modified to potentially prevent more reactions such as yours.  And - as you mention Carson's review - you'll also note that it did find the fact that the character is a 1,000 year old demon to be a legitimate mitigitating factor.  How would making her 21 have hurt the script?  A younger character is automatically more evil on a gut emotional level - would the girls in the Shining been as scary if they'd been adults?  Would Damien?  And Hannah's past death in the Crusades - also more horrific, due to her age.  'Nuff said there.

All this is fine - you have every right to react strongly to a script, however you wish to.  As do we all - and that's the purpose of this thread.  Explaining what really gets to us on a base level...  for good and bad!

But it's always important to remember that *our* reaction is not necessarily the intent of the script, the writer - or how it's seen by any other readers.  

You said as much yourself, Dustin, when you responded to my review of The Neighbor.  I had stated that the writer's tastes obviously ran toward torture porn (a view that I stand by, incidentally.)  The details were too lovingly rendered in that script. Which doesn't mean that the writer wishes to do such things themselves...just that they have an interest in depicting sadistic acts that - for me - *is* a turnoff.  IE: depiction of violence for its own sake, beyond the needs of the script. I'm not fond of a lot of modern horror for that very reason.  Despite appreciating the FX involved.

Yet, your reaction to my review of the Neighbor was that it was "an ignorant opinion."  And that just because a writer chooses to write about something doesn't mean that's the way their tastes run.  I therefore submit to you that this holds true for Devil's Jokebook as well.  Just because there's a 14 or 16 year old female character in it doesn't mean that pedophilia is involved, implied or intended.  That's only one aspect of a much more complex character.  Does it push your personal hot button?  Certainly.  (Much as The Neighbor hit mine.  Though I didn't continue to be upset about it afterwards.) But that's not the fault of either script.  It's how WE react to THEM.

Cheers,

Wonka (J)

I didn't accuse the author of being into 14-year-old girls... although I may have done at one point when things got nasty, I certainly didn't mean it. My only issue with sexualising a young girl is the message it sends out. It wasn't done in a way that shows it as wrong, it was done in a way that we should just accept as normal.

I wouldn't watch a film where a 14-year-old girl was sexually active, but I wouldn't have any issues with that film if it showed that her being sexually active (particularly around much older men) is a bad thing. I'm happy to say that I don't know any guys that would find that acceptable.

I've written things before purely to shock people. I was much younger then and I think every writer goes through a stage where they want to shock. There isn't anything wrong with that and it certainly doesn't mean that because they write about it that that is what they're into or fantasise about.

The message has to be right. That's not exactly a personal thing. If we are going to portray children in a sexual manner then in the very least we are charged with ensuring that we show it in a bad light.

I agree.  A film that shows pedophilia in a positive light is absolutely wrong.

A film or script that depicts a 1,000 year old demon in the form of a 14 or 16 year old girl does not do that.  It's two completely different situations.  That's like arguing that Voldemort and Harry Potter are essentially the same character because they're both wizards! And I can assure you, the character of Hanna was not created for shock value.  It was part of a carefully constructed personna (which yes, does have shocking elements - but that's not the raison d'etre.) And obviously - many other readers didn't take it that way.

Which doesn't mean you can't dislike it - for whatever reason you choose.  But I can - and will continue - to respectfully correct anyone who argues that the script *does* espouse pedophilia, or send a pro-exploitation message.  It doesn't.  The character is simply not a child.  

I don't actually get turned off in a script. 99% of the time, if I spend the time to open it, I read it through, regardless of how bad. Content never bothers me. My issues are more about the fundamental bits; grammar and spelling above all. Wooden dialogue also bothers me when I read it, but it's hard to make dialogue sound good when you're just reading it and don't have the luxury of hearing the lines spoken in the way they should be. Beyond that, I'm cool with anything else, so long as the read is relatively quick.

I agree, a 30+ year old man "hanging around" a 14 year old girl (or, 16, whatever) is pretty disgusting.

If this was a more realistic script, Michael would be kind of hard to like as a protagonist...

I mean, what normal person doesn't hate a man who takes advantage of a teenage girl?

But, this teenage girl?  Well...

Quoted from wonkavite The character is simply not a child.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Hannah is not a child... or a teenage girl.  Hannah is evil incarnate.

An ancient demon with such a warped personality that it chose to take the form, shape, and outward appearance of a teen girl.

It's exactly what a demon would do.  

Would we expect anything less from a thing that comes from the pits of Hell, of all places?

I imagine a demon -- a real demon -- to be twisted, perverse, wicked, vicious, with a complete disregard for anything.

When Hannah is being flirtatious with Michael, or trying to kiss him, it's sick and twisted and makes me want to take a shower.

And it's not because she's 14 or 16, but because she's a 1,000 year old demon.

And this outer appearance of hers is nothing compared to her true form... which is probably 10x more revolting.  

You know?  Because... "she's" sort of an evil entity. haha




--Steve

Quoted from wonkavite A film or script that depicts a 1,000 year old demon in the form of a 14 or 16 year old girl does not do that.

It is not visually a demon... it is specifically a 14-year-old girl. Or was. It was changed to 16. Why was it changed? I might as well ask you, you know it all.

Quoted from wonkavite It's two completely different situations.  That's like arguing that Voldemort and Harry Potter are essentially the same character because they're both wizards!

It isn't anything like arguing that at all!

Quoted from wonkavite And I can assure you, the character of Hanna was not created for shock value.

That isn't what the author said. It obviously was done for shock value.

Quoted from wonkavite It was part of a carefully constructed personna (which yes, does have shocking elements - but that's not the raison d'etre.)

Maybe sexualising a 14-year-old girl is fine with you. Where I'm from it's quite shocking.

Quoted from wonkavite And obviously - many other readers didn't take it that way.

Many? What do you know of many? You mean reviewers? Anyone that considers the image of a 14-year-old girl dressed in hardly anything fawning over a 30-year-old man is a good image to see on film then good for them. To me, it isn't right.

Quoted from wonkavite Which doesn't mean you can't dislike it - for whatever reason you choose.

Why thank you... much appreciated.

  

Quoted from wonkavite But I can - and will continue - to respectfully correct anyone who argues that the script *does* espouse pedophilia, or send a pro-exploitation message.

You're not correcting. You are stating your opinion... which is wrong.

Quoted from wonkavite The character is simply not a child.

Yes she simply is.

Quoted from Guest I agree, a 30+ year old man "hanging around" a 14 year old girl (or, 16, whatever) is pretty disgusting.

Thank you.

Quoted from Guest If this was a more realistic script, Michael would be kind of hard to like as a protagonist...

I think he is difficult to like as a consequence of this choice.

Quoted from Guest An ancient demon with such a warped personality that it chose to take the form, shape, and outward appearance of a teen girl. It's exactly what a demon would do.

Why?

Quoted from Guest When Hannah is being flirtatious with Michael, or trying to kiss him, it's sick and twisted and makes me want to take a shower. And it's not because she's 14 or 16, but because she's a 1,000 year old demon.

So let's get this straight. You actually block out the image of 14-year-old Hannah altogether and just see the demon? You're not seeing a scantily dressed little girl... you're seeing the ugly demon she really is.

Gotcha.

Responses to Dustin:

It is not visually a demon... it is specifically a 14-year-old girl. Or was. It was changed to 16. Why was it changed? I might as well ask you, you know it all.

- I already answered this in a recent post. Didn't you read it?  It was changed to prevent any other readers who might react similar to you.  While you have been to date the only one to feel this way, that doesn't mean you'll necessarily be the last.

It isn't anything like arguing that at all!

- Yes, it is.  You're cherry picking facts about the character.  IE: the physical form of a teen girl - and ignoring other salient facts.  IE: that the character's clearly defined as a 1,000 year old demon - and therefore not capable of being exploited or taken advantage of.  I'm sure 1,000 year old demons are far beyond the age of consent!

That isn't what the author said. It obviously was done for shock value.

- Then you read Phil's quote wrong.  What I said was that the character wasn't written for shock value as it's raison d'etre.  And Hannah wasn't.  She has shocking elements, yes.  But the character herself is actually extremely sympathetic.  Imagine being a young fourteen year old - killed in the middle of the Crusades due to her faith - then spending 1,000 years in hell.  Frankly, *I* find that a pretty emotionally gripping situation. One of the reasons I love the character.

Maybe sexualising a 14-year-old girl is fine with you. Where I'm from it's quite shocking.

- Sexualizing a 14 year old girl is horrible.  Sexualizing a 1,000 year old demon is absolutely fine with me. Depending what they look like.  :P

Many? What do you know of many? You mean reviewers? Anyone that considers the image of a 14-year-old girl dressed in hardly anything fawning over a 30-year-old man is a good image to see on film then good for them. To me, it isn't right.

- Translation of "many": of all the reviewers who read the script - you are the only one who reacted this way to the character.  What that says to me is that other reviewers don't interpret the character as a human girl.  But rather, as the centuries old demon that she is.

Why thank you... much appreciated.

- You're welcome.

You're not correcting. You are stating your opinion... which is wrong. Yes she simply is.

- No, actually... i"m right. In what possible world would a 1,000 old sentient entity be considered a child?

Dustin, you have every right to feel however you want.  And obviously - child welfare issues is a major hot button emotional topic for you.  I doubt there's anyone on this board who would disagree with you about the need to protect children from exploitation. But in this case, it's causing you to read a lot of things into a script that just aren't there.  But if you can't see the difference between romanticizing pedophilia - and a fantasy script where a centuries old soul plays mind games in her previously human form...  Well, then there's nothing more than I can say.  Other than that you're too emotionally involved to see the difference.

Cheers,

--Wonka (J)

Quoted from DustinBowcot Why?

Like I said, I imagine a demon to be twisted, perverse, wicked, vicious, with a complete disregard for anything.

It's what I said in my previous post.

For all those reasons, that's why.

Quoted from DustinBowcot So let's get this straight. You actually block out the image of 14-year-old Hannah altogether and just see the demon? You're not seeing a scantily dressed little girl... you're seeing the ugly demon she really is. Gotcha.

A scantily dressed little girl, yeah... who is really a demon.  An evil spirit.

An agent of evil.  Pure evil.  An entity that revels in ruin and sick shit.

That's what Hannah really is.

This isn't Thistles, where the underage girl wants to bang her 40 year old teacher -- a way more realistic script by Mark Lyons (not saying its better, just more realistic... for obvious reasons).

TDJ is a fantasy thriller or whatever... crazy shit is going to go down, of course.

You mentioned, what would be wrong changing her age to 21?  The more I think about it, I'm kinda disappointed that Phil even changed the age from 14 to 16 (ha, as if it's much of a difference).  I already think Phil writes too "safe" as it is and he made a change to play it safe just for the sake of avoiding backlash like this.  The individual character isn't really 16 years old to begin with.  "It" is 1,000 years old.  I forget exactly how Phil described Hannah as a character, but maybe it should have been something along the lines of "an ancient demon thousands of years old in the form of a 16-year-old sexy temptress."

Hypothetically, instead of making her 21, would you be OK with a barely legal 18?  That would end this whole debate pretty quick.



--Steve

Speaking of shock value...

The Exorcist, a classic horror film, goes for absolute shock value (while still being pretty scary, IMO)

The devil possesses a little girl and makes her scream obscenities ("Your mother sucks cocks in Hell") while masturbating with a crucifix.  Who doesn't expect that from a demon (or the devil)?  They have no conscience.  No moral value.  They are evil.  Shocking.  Hell, they aren't even of this world.  It's why the Hannah character is so badass, IMO, but I know you disagree on that one, sooo....

In fact, in most horror movies it is almost always a female that feels the wrath of a demon or the devil the most.  

There are notable references (The Exorcist), mediocre references (Stigmata), and forgettable ones too...

Some really great exceptions with DeNiro (Angel Heart), Pacino (The Devil's Advocate), and Gabriel Byrne (End of Days) as male leads.  Also, maybe not a lead but Brad Dourif was phenomenal in his small role as the possessed in The Exorcist III.



---Steve

Quoted from wonkavite - I already answered this in a recent post. Didn't you read it?  It was changed to prevent any other readers who might react similar to you.  While you have been to date the only one to feel this way, that doesn't mean you'll necessarily be the last.

I'm not the only one to date that feels this way. I'm the only one that has voiced that opinion... that is a far cry from being the only person to feel that way. If I'm in such a small minority then there wouldn't be any need to change it. There is such a thing as the silent majority. Many people will have been disturbed by what they read, as it is always followed with the excuse that although it may look like a 14-year-old girl, she actually has the mind of a much older woman so it's OK. She may only be 14, but she acts like she's 21. LOL. Yeah, heard that one before.

I'm happy to say that I don't know anybody that would find this acceptable. In fact I may make a post about it somewhere later and get some impartial opinions.

Quoted from wonkavite - Yes, it is.  You're cherry picking facts about the character.  IE: the physical form of a teen girl - and ignoring other salient facts.  IE: that the character's clearly defined as a 1,000 year old demon - and therefore not capable of being exploited or taken advantage of.  I'm sure 1,000 year old demons are far beyond the age of consent!

But 14-year-old girls are not. I'm not cherry picking anything. I've taken all the facts on board. She has the body of a 14-year-old girl for no other reason than to shock people. Something you claim to hate. Your biased opinion prevents you from accepting the truth.

Quoted from wonkavite - Then you read Phil's quote wrong.

No I didn't.

Quoted from wonkavite What I said was that the character wasn't written for shock value as it's raison d'etre.  And Hannah wasn't.  She has shocking elements, yes.  But the character herself is actually extremely sympathetic.  Imagine being a young fourteen year old - killed in the middle of the Crusades due to her faith - then spending 1,000 years in hell.  Frankly, *I* find that a pretty emotionally gripping situation. One of the reasons I love the character.

Making her bitter and twisted, not flirtatious and sexualised. That didn't read as a horror script to me. It was buffy fantasy. Which is not horror. I can't imagine things the way the author has. It's too soft for me. If I wrote that same thing, a 14-year-old/1000 year old demon after 1000 years of wisdom, she wouldn't be interested in sex. Nor would she be interested in what people thought about her, ie making her wear revealing clothes.

It'd be far more horrifying if she came across as demure until she needed to. No need for the sexualisation, none at all.

The protag in the story has no other romantic interest. If he did, then that could work. As it stands with he being a single man and she being a young girl dressing the way she does, the flirtatiousness, etc... it's the only romantic link in the script. That's not good.

Quoted from wonkavite - Sexualizing a 14 year old girl is horrible.

That is what is visible on the screen. Deliberately so.

Quoted from wonkavite - Translation of "many": of all the reviewers who read the script - you are the only one who reacted this way to the character.  What that says to me is that other reviewers don't interpret the character as a human girl.  But rather, as the centuries old demon that she is.

OK, so you did mean reviewers. You actually stated that you knew what all the readers were thinking. Reviewers/friends don't count. You know that. That's a huge issue with the objectivity of this forum as a whole. People make relationships and form biased opinions. It's unstoppable. As an outsider looking in, I can see that more than anyone. Maybe that's a little much. I believe you see it too, you just choose to ignore it.

Quoted from wonkavite - No, actually... i"m right. In what possible world would a 1,000 old sentient entity be considered a child?

When, for all intents and purposes, the thing on the screen is actually a 14-year-old girl.

Quoted from wonkavite Dustin, you have every right to feel however you want.

Why, thank you. I must say it is such a relief having permission from you to feel how I want.

Quoted from wonkavite And obviously - child welfare issues is a major hot button emotional topic for you.  I doubt there's anyone on this board who would disagree with you about the need to protect children from exploitation. But in this case, it's causing you to read a lot of things into a script that just aren't there.  But if you can't see the difference between romanticizing pedophilia - and a fantasy script where a centuries old soul plays mind games in her previously human form...  Well, then there's nothing more than I can say.  Other than that you're too emotionally involved to see the difference.

What you're doing here is called 'projection'. The emotional involvement is yours with Phil, the author, and your need to protect your friend's feelings. I don't even know his name. Well, I do now, obviously. The point is, I can tell him the truth without fear of hurting his feelings. You will butter things over and lie.

I don't have any emotional involvement whatsoever. I'm merely stating an opinion. I don't have anything to gain. I don't care. In fact, I'd actually have the courage to tell one of my friends it was wrong too. Of course I would. I'd be an arsehole if I didn't.

Every person that reads that script will have to wrestle with the rights and wrongs of it. Simple as that.

Quoted from Guest Speaking of shock value... The Exorcist, a classic horror film, goes for absolute shock value (while still being pretty scary, IMO) The devil possesses a little girl and makes her scream obscenities ("Your mother sucks cocks in Hell") while masturbating with a crucifix.  Who doesn't expect that from a demon (or the devil)?  They have no conscience.  No moral value.  They are evil.  Shocking.  Hell, they aren't even of this world.  It's why the Hannah character is so badass, IMO, but I know you disagree on that one, sooo.... In fact, in most horror movies it is almost always a female that feels the wrath of a demon or the devil the most.   There are notable references (The Exorcist), mediocre references (Stigmata), and forgettable ones too... Some really great exceptions with DeNiro (Angel Heart), Pacino (The Devil's Advocate), and Gabriel Byrne (End of Days) as male leads.  Also, maybe not a lead but Brad Dourif was phenomenal in his small role as the possessed in The Exorcist III. ---Steve

That script was not a horror script. Read like a 12 to me. That means young girls would be able to see it. That sends out the wrong message.

Indeed, because she is 14, the classification board may have a hard time placing it. Could even bump up the classification to a 15. Which doesn't really suit the flow of the script. Viewers will go in expecting more and feel let down when it isn't there - aside from the sexualisation of a 14-year-old girl, which probably isn't what they went to see.

Up the age and this will make for a much better script. Even Carson in his review had to excuse the fact that she was even 16 with the fact that in her mind she's really a 1000-year-old demon. Everyone will have to turn that over in their minds and arrive at a moral conclusion. Why do that to people you want to enjoy your script?

Personally, I'd rather they concentrated on the story and not devices planted there in an attempt to shock.

Dustin.

I think at this point, we're talking in circles.  You obviously have your opinion.  I have mine.  And I think continuing the discussion at this point is counter productive.  You're offended by the concept of Hannah.  I (and others on the board that have also stated their opinion) see nothing wrong with it - for the reasons already discussed.  

Once more... just for the record... I would be 100% against a character or script that promoted pedophilia.  I see no way that Devil's Jokebook does that.  You do.  We'll agree to disagree, and unhijack this thread for the rest of the board! :P

Incidentally - you're off-base on my reasons for defending this script.  I've told (and will continue to tell dogglebe/Phil whenever I feel his writing is off-base or less than quality.) I have absolutely no compuctions about that, trust me.  Much to his chagrin. :P  But I happen to feel that Devil's Jokebook is a terrific fantasy script.  Deep characters, a complex theme, really nice FX set pieces...and an undercurrent of humor that really works for me.  And Hannah?  Probably the best character of them all.  And part of that is her 14...or 16 year old form.  It creates a pathos for the character with a sinister edge - one that would be destroyed by making her older.

Peace and out!  :P

Wonka (J)

Hmmm..

Other turnoffs of mine?  

Guys who leave the seat up.  
Boring conversationalists.
Sports fans.


Oh.  Wait.  Scripts?  Okay - formatting problems.  Non organic characters.  Rehashed plot ideas. That's my top three!  :)

Quoted from DustinBowcot That script was not a horror script. Read like a 12 to me. That means young girls would be able to see it. That sends out the wrong message.

I'm assuming you're talking about TDJ and not The Exorcist, right?  

Exorcist was rated R for "strong language and disturbing images."

Quoted from DustinBowcot Up the age and this will make for a much better script.

Ok.  Hypothetically, would it be alright if Hannah was a barely legal 18?  Would that make for a much better script?

I mean, after all, when a girl turns 18, she's allowed to get fucked 12 ways from Sunday in a porno flick -- and it's all legal.

And there's no moral conclusion about that one -- regarding age, anyway.

I just want to point out one thing regarding the discussion on TDJ:

Michael wasn't hanging out with Hannah; she was hanging out with him.  Through out the script, she pursued him.  It wasn't the other way around.

Now let it friggin' go.


Phil

Quoted from Guest Ok.  Hypothetically, would it be alright if Hannah was a barely legal 18?  Would that make for a much better script? I mean, after all, when a girl turns 18, she's allowed to get fucked 12 ways from Sunday in a porno flick -- and it's all legal. And there's no moral conclusion about that one -- regarding age, anyway.

From this it's almost as though you are saying there isn't much difference between a 14 and 18-year-old.

It wouldn't have made the script any better, but from a moral point of view there couldn't be any question, no debate. Yes, she's a little young, but it's legal and he's resisting. All good.

The best thing to do though really is for Michael to have another romantic interest. That would solve the problem. As a viewer we look for that, and the one between Michael and Hannah, leaves a bad taste.

Or it could stay the way it is and we could all realize that some people are the target demographic (people who can get their head around that fact) and some people who aren't the target demographic (people who can't). That solves the problem pretty easily as well, by admitting there isn't one.

I remember a film called The Little Girl Who Lives Down The Lane.  Great movie. It had Martin Sheen in it as a pedophile. It also had a 13 year old Jodi Foster shown completely nude and having sex. Just thought I would throw that in there.  :P

Quoted from Mr. Blonde Or it could stay the way it is and we could all realize that some people are the target demographic (people who can get their head around that fact) and some people who aren't the target demographic (people who can't). That solves the problem pretty easily as well, by admitting there isn't one.

Agreed

Quoted from Grandma Bear I remember a film called The Little Girl Who Lives Down The Lane.  Great movie. It had Martin Sheen in it as a pedophile. It also had a 13 year old Jodi Foster shown completely nude and having sex. Just thought I would throw that in there.  :P

Can't go wrong with Martin Sheen.   ;D

And let's not forget Jodie Foster playing a child prostitute in Taxi Driver, or 13yr old Linda Blair simulating masturbation with a crucifix in The Exorcist.

All of those films are from the 1970's.

In the 1960's Dr Who killed people. That was shown to kids. Also, British Carry On films often depicted much older men chasing after school girls. Similar thing with St Trinians. Even Hollywood movies would depict much older male stars with younger female stars as a normal thing. Today it would be the basis for the whole film, ie the problems a much older guy has dating a younger woman, etc. It's not treated as normal today. Precisely because it sends out the wrong message. If somebody can think of another reason we don't show middle-aged men chasing after school girls like it's a normal thing any more, I'd be happy to hear it.

Let's not forget Jodi Foster almost got Reagan assassinated.

Quoted from DustinBowcot All of those films are from the 1970's.

American Beauty  (1999)
The Crush (1993)
Lolita (1997)
An Education (2009)

You seem to be very fixated on this subject, Dustin.  More than anything my script should have made you.  I strongly suggest you step away from the topic.


Phil

Quoted from dogglebe American Beauty  (1999) The Crush (1993) Lolita (1997) An Education (2009) You seem to be very fixated on this subject, Dustin.  More than anything my script should have made you.  I strongly suggest you step away from the topic. Phil

So it is me that is fixated on this subject? Interesting conclusion. My original post was pertinent to the thread, and I wasn't the only one to refer to a script at this site as an example of something 'off-putting' or a 'turn off' to reading. I didn't refer to your script by name, nor did I mention you. That was done by other members that want to argue against my reasons for not liking it and for some reason felt the need to mention both you and your script.

The argument could have easily stayed within context of the rights and wrongs of showing school girls fawning over much older men and the changing attitude of the film industry in regards to this. It's no longer acceptable for schoolgirls to be dating older men in films. Although child exploitation has played a huge role in Film throughout the years, it has certainly toned down in the 21st Century, and whenever done is handled responsibly.

I understand that I should just sit back and listen to what I'm told... unfortunately, I cannot do that.

Com'on everybody.  
How could you possibly find anything wrong with this?



The word "creepy" doesn't even come to mind.

Jordan

Quoted from Nomad Com'on everybody.   How could you possibly find anything wrong with this? The word "creepy" doesn't even come to mind. Jordan

Posing with grandpa. How cute.  ;D

Ben Affleck definitely had sexuals with a 15-year-old in Mallrats.

Quoted from wonkavite This (Mark's Thistles scene)- and Dustin's comment before - goes to show that "turn-offs" can be a very personalized issue.

Gee - all I did that apparently triggered this flame-war was quote Blywings and Dustin to make the point that turnoffs can be very subjective.  Emotional hot-button issues for some can be non-issues for others.

And boy - did the ensuing thread prove that right!!  :P

And so, peeps - can't we all just... get along? *Sob*.

Let's move on to something less divisive.  Y'know, like everyone's thoughts on Kim Kardasian? :P

Quoted from DustinBowcot My original post was pertinent to the thread, and I wasn't the only one to refer to a script at this site as an example of something 'off-putting' or a 'turn off' to reading. I didn't refer to your script by name, nor did I mention you. That was done by other members that want to argue against my reasons for not liking it and for some reason felt the need to mention both you and your script.

Let's go back to the original topic of the thread, then:  What turns you off?

You know what turns me off?  When people review a script and criticize things that aren't in the script.  You did it here and back in The Devil's Jokebook script thread.

In the script's thread, you claimed that Michael and Hannah had sex.  You're the only one who says this.  In this thread, you state that Michael is hanging out with Hannah.  She is following him around like a lovesick puppy; he's pushing her away for most of the story.

You're seeing things that aren't there... maybe because you want to.


Phil

I think the more interesting question would be, is there any way to “fix it” without changing her age, or adding a completely superfluous character that would likely be thin and two dimensional as a result. Because that seems to be the main issue of the thread, is there a way to justify the use of a controversial element, or is it just flat out, no questions asked, always unacceptable?

Regarding the 14/1000yr old in question; what if her entire demonic purpose was to seduce, ensnare and obliterate sex predators? Would the concept of her being an avenger justify the sexualized image of a 14yr old? What if we could infer that the older protagonist definitely didn’t harbor sexual feelings towards her because if he did, he would’ve been eviscerated by now? Would that do the trick in sanitizing the relationship?

Bare in mind I haven’t read the script in question, and these aren’t notes, more of a thought experiment.

As for things that turn me off, I believe almost anything can be justified as a story element, and I’m very forgiving of scripts that fall short of the justification. Very rarely is the decision to include a controversial issue immediately justified upon inception. The writing and rewriting process is a gradual attempt to justify all story elements, both controversial and mundane (Do you really need that scene of your main character brushing their teeth? What happens when you take it out?)

Produced works I’m less forgiving about, but only because they’ve been labored over extensively. For instance, The Virgin Spring I regard as a classic. Last House on the Left (1972) I believe handled itself well enough to justify the hard to stomach material. Last House on the Left (2009), however felt like it was mainly green-lit on monetary grounds, overproduced sequences that should’ve remained grounded, and made changes to the story that substantially undermined its supposed themes.

I regard the first two films with respect. The third I was turned off by.

Quoted from dogglebe In the script's thread, you claimed that Michael and Hannah had sex.  You're the only one who says this.

That's because Hannah was attempting to kiss Michael and then there was a cut without he pushing her away. When the screen come back on them, they were each engaged in their usual bad habits, the proverbial cigarette. I didn't actually say they had sex, I said that's how you made it look with the way it was written.

See, how the truth is completely different to your preferred version?

Quoted from dogglebe In this thread, you state that Michael is hanging out with Hannah.  She is following him around like a lovesick puppy; he's pushing her away for most of the story.

Poor choice of words. That is all.

Quoted from dogglebe You're seeing things that aren't there... maybe because you want to.

Interesting that you'd want to go there considering what you wrote. According to Wonka's logic, you writing about a 14-year-old the way you did would mean that that is what you are into. I prefer to believe that a writer does what they think will shock in an attempt to hook readers into the plot. Often though, such devices can take one out completely.

When I analyse one's reasons for making a 1000-year-old demon a provocatively dressed, sexually suggestive, 14-year-old in a buffy-type fantasy film, the only conclusion I can arrive at is that it was done for shock value. How shocking! A 14-year-old, sexually suggestive (but really 1000-year-old demon) that isn't very threatening at all, really. The only relationship in the film is that one. That is the one viewers are forced to concentrate on. The explanation that she is really a 1000-year-old demon is something I constantly had to wrestle with throughout the script... and for me it seemed to get worse and worse as their 'relationship' grew.

The fact that she is in a 14-year-old's body is never dealt with, because it can't be as she is really a 1000-year-old demon that for some unfathomable reason dresses like a lap dancer (at work) and an innate need to fawn over a 30-year-old man. Is that what a demon would do? Really?

I admit I generally have difficulty with this whole vampire, demon fantasy-type crap. I know it has its fans, I just think it's a crap genre. Horror should be horror.

However, the whole character of Hannah could be changed, make her demure. Sure, it will change the tone of the script, but that is what's needed in my opinion (am I allowed one of those, or do I have to drop it?).

Try it. Write a draft with her being demure and see where the story goes. I personally would find the prospect of a 1000-year-old demon inside the body of a 14-year-old quite scary if she was demure and only pulled out the demon when necessary... obviously she'd get more and more demonic as the story goes on. If you don't have anything to lose by it, it could be worth a shot.

You then, of course, lose the romantic interest altogether though. So your script is still missing that important factor. Unless you believe your script doesn't need one. I think it does though.

Actually... it could even work if Michael was gay, but still she'd need to be older and indeed could be if Michael was gay.

*edit* Obviously what I mean by that is the comedic value their relationship will afford, taking away the need for the shock value of Hannah being 14, and I don't think it's been done before within this context. Big deal at the moment with getting gays accepted by kids so they are pre-programmed into adulthood not to hate. This type of film will always attract young teenagers and it would send out the right message. Which is a selling point, in the very least.

Quoted from DustinBowcot According to Wonka's logic, you writing about a 14-year-old the way you did would mean that that is what you are into.

Dustin, don't put words in my mouth.  

Up until now, I've respected your opinion and your feelings on this.  I've repeatedly stated that "you have a right to your view" - which you certainly do, as does everyone here.  To which, incidentally, your reaction was consistent sarcasm (ie: oh, gee - thank you for that grandiose nod.).  Yet, you haven't afforded the slightest reciprocation - ie: acknowledging the valid arguments that have been made here on this thread.  For instance, that there's a meaningful difference between a 1,000 year old character and a true 14 year old.  (To use a minor example - I used to be a naive 14 year old girl myself.  If - someday - someone were to come along with a magic wand and restore my youthful perkiness, that wouldn't make me any less adult inside.  And that's just the issue of a few decades.  Not 1,000 years!)

Which doesn't mean that you can't still feel that this script impacts you emotionally and - from your viewpoint - is unacceptable for whatever reason.

But part of an adult, rational conversation is acknowledging legitimate points made by the "other side."  Which you seem incapable, in this instance, of affording. I hope that's a case of you just not wanting to, vs. being constitutionally incapable.  Though, I'm not quite sure which is actually worse.

My logic with the Neighbor - was and is that the detail put into the torture scene was lovingly precise - and the only conceivable purpose for it, given the story, was to focus on the violence.  I stand by that.  And if you're even slightly honest and perceptive - and actually finished that script - you'll agree with me.

That is not the case with DJB.  The reasons for the character are pretty complex.  We're discussing a character that was killed at a young age in the Crusades.  As I've stated previously - making her older takes away the tragedy and pathos of her character.  Having spent 1,000 years in Hell, the character is twisted and psychologically tortured at this stage.  Acting out in seductive ways is part of what she does.  None of this is for pure "shock" value.  If you are a perceptive writer in *any* sense, you do know that.  Unless you're too blinded by your "hot button topic" to deal.

Take these things out, and you've gutted the character and the emotional development.  As dogglebe has pointed out repeatedly, many of the things that you object to in the script are projections on your part.  Michael and Hannah don't have sex in that scene.  And Hannah pursues Michael throughout the script.  Not the other way around.  

Every "suggestion" you've come up with - Michael being gay, making Hannah older, or Michael having a love interest, are ways of dancing around an issue that makes *you* personally uncomfortable.  And all of these workarounds are cop outs which dilute the story and the characters - ie: would worsen the script and the character depth that it accomplishes. This script may have some Buffy type attributes - but the issues it concerns itself with (faith, redemption, the danger of blind hatred towards a cause in any form) are adult.  Despite your assessment, this script is not directly marketed at kids. Dumbing down and sanitizing movies is one of the worst things about the industry today.  To do that to an intelligent script is IMO criminal.

It's funny - there are alot of scripts on this site that are much "realer" and graphically deal with child issues that I would think should grate on you far worse.  Mark's Thistles, Shawn's What Doesn't Kill You (both decent scripts, BTW.)  But you're obsessed here.

Dustin - the honest, adult, rational way that you *should* have dealt with this from the beginning is to say - 'I acknowledge that all the plot points you've mentioned have validity. But emotionally, and from my personal viewpoint of what I consider socially ideal, I don't find it palatable.'

If you'd done that - as opposed to creating straw man arguments like an imaginary sex scene between Hannah and Michael - I would respect you.  After these arguments, I sadly can't say that I can.  At least on a writing or intellectual level. I hope someday that will change.  If so, I look forward to discussions with you in the future.  If not - that's a shame.

Peace and out.  

--Wonka (Janet)

Quoted from wonkavite I've repeatedly stated that "you have a right to your view" - which you certainly do, as does everyone here.

I'm so glad you pointed that out, yet again.

Quoted from wonkavite To which, incidentally, your reaction was consistant sarcasm (ie: oh, gee - thank you for that grandiose nod.).

Do you understand the reason for the sarcasm? I'm sure if you did you would only make the mistake once. As this is the third time I feel that I should explain that I neither need your permission nor do I need my freedoms pointed out to me. I perfectly understand that I have the 'right to my view'.

Quoted from wonkavite Yet, you haven't afforded the slightest reciprocation - ie: acknowledging the valid arguments that have been made here on this thread.  For instance, that there's a meaningful difference between a 1,000 year old character and a true 14 year old.  (To use a minor example - I used to be a naive 14 year old girl myself.  If - someday - someone were to come along with a magic wand and restore my youthful perkiness, that wouldn't make me any less adult inside.  And that's just the issue of a few decades.  Not 1,000 years!)

I have provided every reciprocation. I have taken each one of your points and countered them. If you go through the posts you will find that I have countered every one of your points while you have ignored many of mine. Let's go with your analogy this time:

Quoted from wonkavite (To use a minor example - I used to be a naive 14 year old girl myself.  If - someday - someone were to come along with a magic wand and restore my youthful perkiness, that wouldn't make me any less adult inside.  And that's just the issue of a few decades.  Not 1,000 years!)

So, with you back looking like a 14-year-old. You start dressing like you work in a strip club, because that's... how you dress now? Also you'd immediately begin fawning over thirty-year-old men, despite knowing how weird it would look to anyone looking in. At 1000-years-old wouldn't you be a bit wiser? Do you still dress like perhaps you shouldn't? Or maybe it's a case of hey, the cellulite's gone, get the pins out! Is it that? I imagine after 1000 years one could be quite wrinkly, to find oneself in the body of a 14-year-old girl, maybe you would want to run around naked and throwing yourself at 30-year-old men.

Quoted from wonkavite Which doesn't mean that you can't still feel that this script impacts you emotionally and - from your viewpoint - is unacceptable for whatever reason.

Thanks again for allowing me to feel what I want. I must say, you can do the same. You're allowed to feel what you want too... how about that? I know... but it is Christmas, and I'm feeling overly generous today, so I'm going to allow you, just for tonight, mind, to feel however you want too. There's also isn't any need to thank me, you've allowed me to feel how I want several times already, it's only fair that I pay you back. Obviously, it's about receiving more than giving, so you get a little less... or what's the point?

Quoted from wonkavite But part of an adult, rational conversation is acknowledging legitimate points made by the "other side."  Which you seem incapable, in this instance, of affording. I hope that's a case of you just not wanting to, vs. being constitutionally incapable.  Though, I'm not quite sure which is actually worse.

I've already dealt with this... you've now mentioned it twice in this post alone. No wonder you imagine I don't tackle your points as you are wont to repeat them regardless. Please note, I am tackling each of your 'points' in turn... yet again.

My initial point in this thread was merely what I find a turn off, and then your following post was a post designed to tell me that I'm actually wrong to feel the way I do because of such and such a reason, even though the script doesn't have anything to do with you. I find it most strange that you would leap to the defence of a script like that despite these constant assertions of yours that I am free to feel how I want.

In regards to your quandary, I would say being constitutionally incapable is always far worse.

Quoted from wonkavite My logic with the Neighbor - was and is that the detail put into the torture scene was lovingly precise - and the only conceivable purpose for it, given the story, was to focus on the violence.  I stand by that.  And if you're even slightly honest and perceptive - and actually finished that script - you'll agree with me.

I didn't read that script, it was too badly written and I also don't like gore for gore's sake. I don't agree with you in that because he wrote it that is what he is into. It was lovingly done, no doubt, for shock value. The writer imagining other people's emotions rather than giving rise to his/her own fantasies.

Quoted from wonkavite That is not the case with DJB.  The reasons for the character are pretty complex.  We're discussing a character that was killed at a young age in the Crusades.  As I've stated previously - making her older takes away the tragedy and pathos of her character.  Having spent 1,000 years in Hell, the character is twisted and psychologically tortured at this stage. Acting out in seductive ways is part of what she does.  None of this is for pure "shock" value.  If you are a perceptive writer in *any* sense, you do know that.  Unless you're too blinded by your "hot button topic" to deal.

I know acting out in seductive ways is part of what she does. I also know she spent 1000 years in Hell. I know she's a demon... blah, blah, blah. Nothing to counter here, you're merely pointing out the obvious. Then your conclusion after pointing out the obvious is completely flawed. I don't agree that a 1000-year-old demon, after 1000 years in hell, would dress like a stripper in the middle of a shift and then fawn all over a 30-year-old man... if she was that way inclined in the first place, which I highly doubt, then she would just rape him and have done with it.

Quoted from wonkavite Take these things out, and you've gutted the character and the emotional development.  As dogglebe has pointed out repeatedly, many of the things that you object to in the script are projections on your part.  Michael and Hannah don't have sex in that scene.  And Hannah pursues Michael throughout the script.  Not the other way around.

I only object to one thing... the sexualisation of a 14-year-old girl for no other purpose than just because that's what demons do, apparently.
I also, yet again need to say, that I originally stated the scene was suggested, not that it actually happened. I also said that Michael hanging around Hannah was a poor choice of words. I certainly have never once said that he was pursuing her, which is you projecting again. Within context I've already pointed out many times that he resists her advances. When it comes to children, one naturally blames the adult no matter what, because they should know better. However, as I have already admitted it was a poor choice of words in this case.

Quoted from wonkavite Every "suggestion" you've come up with - Michael being gay, making Hannah older, or Michael having a love interest, are ways of dancing around an issue that makes *you* personally uncomfortable.

Correct. Thanks again for pointing out the obvious without making a single valid point.

Quoted from wonkavite And all of these workarounds are cop outs which dilute the story and the characters - ie: would worsen the script and the character depth that it accomplishes.

And where are the arguments against those workarounds? Simply stating that making Michael gay, for example, would dilute his character and the story is not enough.

Quoted from wonkavite This script may have some Buffy type attributes - but the issues it concerns itself with (faith, redemption, the danger of blind hatred towards a cause in any form) are adult.  Despite your assessment, this script is not directly marketed at kids. Dumbing down and sanitizing movies is one of the worst things about the industry today.  To do that to an intelligent script is IMO criminal.

An intelligent script? Come on. It's a Buffy fantasy. I'm not saying I write intelligent scripts either, but this is a far cry from what I would term an intelligent script.

I know it's not marketed at kids, it's marketed at young adults. Middle class white, rock fan, teenagers going through their Goth stages. Teen Horror... is a great way of looking at it. I only consider certain themes as being adult, horror, murder, rape, gore, severe torture. This script doesn't hit any of those, aside from a 14-year-old girl dancing around in next to nothing.

Quoted from wonkavite It's funny - there are alot of scripts on this site that are much "realer" and graphically deal with child issues that I would think should grate on you far worse.  Mark's Thistles, Shawn's What Doesn't Kill You (both decent scripts, BTW.)  But you're obsessed here.

I'm simply exercising my right to believe what I want and you are countering my reasons for that belief. I have every right to answer you. The obsession is clearly yours. It's that projection thing again.

The 14-year-old in this script isn't handled right. In my opinion. It comes off as wrong. You can argue against my reasons for that until one day you hopefully make sense. I fear though that that will only come once you agree with me. So far your arguments are fallacious.

Quoted from wonkavite Dustin - the honest, adult, rational way that you *should* have dealt with this from the beginning is to say - 'I acknowledge that all the plot points you've mentioned have validity. But emotionally, and from my personal viewpoint of what I consider socially ideal, I don't find it palatable.'

But the whole point of it is that I don't agree with the use of a 14-year-old girl without addressing how wrong the situation appears to be within the script. I don't agree that the only romantic link in the entire script should be between a demon in a 14-year-old's body and a 30-year-old single man. I have also tried to simply state my opinion and leave it at that, you then counter my opinion with fallacious argument.

Quoted from wonkavite If you'd done that - as opposed to creating straw man arguments like an imaginary sex scene between Hannah and Michael - I would respect you.  After these arguments, I sadly can't say that I can.  At least on a writing or intellectual level. I hope someday that will change.  If so, I look forward to discussions with you in the future.  If not - that's a shame.

Again.... I have never said there was a sex scene, merely that the way the script was written it is suggested, and I gave reasons for that. My dislike of the script stems from the fact a 14-year-old girl is sexualised without anything to show how bad something like that is. That's my argument, not the one you are projecting here.

I know you may find this difficult to believe, but your respect is worth zero to me. So, you can keep it. I think I'll be able to just about live without it.

This is me trying to divert the topic somewhere else.  haha

Quoted from EWall433 Produced works I’m less forgiving about, but only because they’ve been labored over extensively. For instance, The Virgin Spring I regard as a classic. Last House on the Left (1972) I believe handled itself well enough to justify the hard to stomach material. Last House on the Left (2009), however felt like it was mainly green-lit on monetary grounds, overproduced sequences that should’ve remained grounded, and made changes to the story that substantially undermined its supposed themes. I regard the first two films with respect. The third I was turned off by.

I have to disagree here... I think Last House on the Left's 2009 version is far superior to the original in every way.  8)

Quoted from DustinBowcot I didn't actually say they had sex, I said that's how you made it look with the way it was written.

That is exactly what you said!!!

Post 89 on The Devil's Jokebook thread:

Quoted from DustinBowcot The protag sleeps with a 14 year old girl... and lusts after her throughout the film.

Quoted from DustinBowcott See, how the truth is completely different to your preferred version?

Oh, I totally see that.


Phil

Quoted from dogglebe That is exactly what you said!!! Post 89 on The Devil's Jokebook thread: Oh, I totally see that. Phil

I then went on to explain what I meant by that post... that the scene was implied, here's another quote from Mr Ripley in regards to this, from the same thread as it appears my posts have been deleted... however your quotes pertaining to those posts haven't.

Quoted from Mr Ripley I'll disagree. It shows that Michael has some feelings for her to not kill her. And after the LATER, they go back to being normal. It's not like their in bed. She's drinking coffee while, he's organizing. Both have their clothes on. lol. I will admit though that Phil could probably take out the Later. Most likely show that he shoves her away and go to organizing. Gabe

And that's a guy sticking up for you.

You wrote the scene where they shared a passionate kiss, he had a crucifix in his hands that, as they kissed, he dropped. So she was kissing him, he was going to defend himself, then thought better fo it while they were sharing a passionate kiss. The symbolism is undeniable.

Then, even worse, it cut to a LATER where they were both indulging in their relative bad habit.

In any other film, if that happened one would assume that they had sex. When I naturally assumed this is what had occurred, you denied it. I then pointed out that the scene was implied and not a real life physical scene.

Based on Dustin's reaction to my post, I believe my point is made.

No reason to continue this discussion.  That would require not necessarily agreement, but at least rational give and take - which is obviously not possible for him.  
Sorry - my time (and the space on this thread) is too valuable to rehash points ad nauseum.

So....how's about them Kardashians!!!  :P  Isn't Kim cuuuuutttteeee?

Quoted from wonkavite Based on Dustin's reaction to my post, I believe my point is made.

My reaction to your post was to counter every point you made... after you accusing me of ignoring them. Exactly what you're now doing... again.

Quoted from wonkavite No reason to continue this discussion.  That would require not necessarily agreement, but at least rational give and take - which is obviously not possible for him.

I'm not going to cooperate with you on my principles. They're mine and mine alone. You don't have any in this regard. I do. Just as I am not prepared to move on mine, neither are you on yours, which is that I haven't any logical basis to feel the way I do. Even though you fail at explaining why not.
  

Quoted from wonkavite So....how's about them Kardashians!!!  :P  Isn't Kim cuuuuutttteeee?

Never watched it. Never would.

8)

I do think the 2009 version is better executed in a lot of technical ways. It looks better, the performances are strong, and I even think it balances tone and tension better. My main bone of contention comes from….





SPOILERS FOR ALL 3 MOVIES TO FOLLOW






The decision to keep the daughter alive and bring her back to the house. This definitely helped amp up the tension, but I thought it did damage to the theme. In the original the parents chose to enact revenge when there were clearly other options. In the 2009 version their options are limited. They are out in the middle of nowhere and still have a daughter to protect, so their actions come a lot closer to self-defense.

Now in the end they definitely do things they didn’t need to, but what’s the cost? At the end of Virgin Springs the father begs God’s forgiveness for what he’s done while cradling his daughter. In 1972 the father also breaks down as the police prepare to arrest him. In 2009 they just get in a boat and leave. There doesn’t seem to be any additional penalty for choosing revenge (not only is the daughter still alive, but even one of the criminals comes around).

I’m not saying theme should always trump pacing and tension, but (on a personal level) if I’m going to be asked to endure a graphic rape scene, I’m going to want something in exchange. Preferably something I could not get otherwise. It felt like all the 2009 version was offering in exchange was a well-executed thriller, and I could find that in less demanding movies.

I guess I was just dissatisfied with that exchange. Although I pass no judgment on those who weren’t.  8)

Quoted from wonkavite So....how's about them Kardashians!!!  :P  Isn't Kim cuuuuutttteeee?

Meh, I think Kourtney's cuter... Er... I mean....whose that? An obscure character from Siddhartha?

^^ Agreed. The new film was morally irresponsible in that it attempted to make the vengeance more palatable by adding a suspense/defense element to the third act, and also that it, as you note, therefore employed a horrific sequence of torture and rape as what turned out to be, basically, arbitrary "entertainment," the setup for a fun, suspenseful showdown at the end.

Also, for me the slicker production made the film less effective, but ah well. The best part of the '09 version was that trailer, with the Taken By Trees cover of Sweet Child of Mine…great choice there.

That's basically the only thing I find offputting in a script: moral irresponsibility, which I guess has been discussed already. Writers play a major part in shaping cultural perspective, and they need to treat that power responsibly. If I get the sense that a writer is directly or indirectly pushing an irresponsible viewpoint, or that their adherence to a dangerous value/set of values is uncritical, that might be enough to convince me to stop reading.

Has anyone seen the Unrated Cut of the 2009 remake?  I've been trying to find it on BD.

Hey - would you guys recommend Last House on the Left at all, for someone not into torture porn movies per se?  I'm not adverse to gore... but it's got to have something more to recommend it to be my cup of tea (ie: suspenseful, quasi fresh concept, good characters, etc...)  :)

No.

Heh.  That's succinct!  :P

Haha.  Watch it anyway.

I mean... couldn't hurt, I guess.

I've only seen the original, for the record. I appreciate it for what it is but I'm a horror fan. If you're not the kind of person who would, say, open a Fangoria magazine whilst browsing at Borders, chances are it's probably not for you.

The new one seems much more accessible. I think that was kind of the point. I can't vouch for it though. Haven't seen it. Won't, if I can help it.

I mean, I haven't seen it again since theaters, but I remember really liking it.

Besides the silly microwave ending.

Quoted from Guest I mean, I haven't seen it again since theaters, but I remember really liking it. Besides the silly microwave ending.

Ahhhhhhh!  Now you've ruined it all for me!  Spoiler alert, spoiler alert! :)

Okay - for what it's worth, I used to love Fangoria.  But that was when I was fourteen or so.  Now my horror taste runs to films like Jacob's Ladder and the Changeling...   :P

This thread gave me an amazing idea for a new script. One of those scripts that makes me want to stay up all night writing it. I won't of course... many a time I've stayed awake into the small hours only to delete everything I'd written the next day.

I'm dropping all ideas for this one, so it's something I'm excited about.

Ah, man, 11 pages into a proof read of my script and I don't even want to post it anymore! hahaha