Print Topic

SimplyScripts Screenwriting Discussion Board  /  Screenwriting Class  /  Does a script require clear motivations
Posted by: Warren, April 23rd, 2019, 5:42pm
I thought I'd make a new thread for this or else it will keep hijacking OWC threads and I do think it's a topic that's worth discussing.

I've made a lot of comments this OWC about scripts having a purpose, the characters having clear goals and motivations and thing happening for a reason. I did say in one of my comments that sometimes ambiguity and unanswered questions can help a script, I guess a quick example is the way Inception ends.

The kind of things I'm talking about though are when writers create a certain world and the audience has no understanding of why anything is happening, like monsters that have a goal but there is no understanding of why they do what they do, how they came to be, and why they only operate in certain situations.

Things like adding an antagonist or protagonist that doesnít have a clear goal, they just want to kill someone because... well who knows.

Obviously people can do this if they'd like but it is perfectly acceptable if reader or audience member canít or doesnít want to buy into it.

I think youíll find that, for the most part, no matter how thin a storyline is, things are still happening for a reason, the audience understands why things are happening and to who and because of this they can buy into the story and its characters.

Itís never the audienceís job to Google information they donít understand. That responsibility of conveying understanding is solely on the writer. If you want to make your script really ambiguous with no clear meaning then itís your problem if the reader/audience doesnít understand.
Posted by: Dustin, April 23rd, 2019, 6:01pm; Reply: 1
It depends on the story. Case in point, I was commissioned to write a horror based in and around a manor house, given a few story plots, a tour of the house, 200 acres of its grounds and then told to get to work. I came up with a story that did all of the things you suggest - it's actually the way I prefer to write - but the script was given back to me as they wanted the opposite. They didn't want things explained, they just wanted crazy/freaky shit happening. So I did that, no problem.

That was for a feature which is rare, but for shorts it happens all the time. Didn't you write a one-pager once about a girl on a swing? It's fine to just let loose and allow the action to do the talking. Not everything, or even anything, needs to be explained so long as the viewer is entertained.
Posted by: Mr. Blonde, April 23rd, 2019, 6:05pm; Reply: 2
A writer needs to write their script their way. The reader, however, doesn't need to read that script that way. So, you can make a script however you want it because there's no right or wrong, but you will always risk the wrath of the reader if you neglect to give them what they want or expect.
Posted by: eldave1, April 23rd, 2019, 6:08pm; Reply: 3
It may be a matter of taste - I don't know. But for me personally, I like some kind of context for the actions of the characters.

e.g., if I read a story where a dude is walking down a road and then suddenly a monster (insert your favorite monster) appears and devours him - it is not satisfying for me. I want to know why he was walking down that road. I want to know if he did so knowing that there may be monsters in the woods. Absent that, the actions appear gratuitous for me. I see this most often in horror stories and I often feel the writer thinks that the sheer revulsion of the horror is enough. For me it is not. Others obviously will disagree.
Posted by: Dreamscale, April 23rd, 2019, 6:10pm; Reply: 4

Quoted from Warren
Itís never the audienceís job to Google information they donít understand. That responsibility of conveying understanding is solely on the writer. If you want to make your script really ambiguous with no clear meaning then itís your problem if the reader/audience doesnít understand.


Uhhhh...like when a reader doesn't know what a jump seat is?   ;D ;D ;D

No, you're incorrect.  Just because you don't know certain things, and/or not as intelligent or learned as the writer, you can't blame that on the writer.

C'mon, man...get with the program here, Warren!

Posted by: Warren, April 23rd, 2019, 6:11pm; Reply: 5

Quoted from Dustin
It depends on the story. Case in point, I was commissioned to write a horror based in and around a manor house, given a few story plots, a tour of the house, 200 acres of its grounds and then told to get to work. I came up with a story that did all of the things you suggest - it's actually the way I prefer to write - but the script was given back to me as they wanted the opposite. They didn't want things explained, they just wanted crazy/freaky shit happening. So I did that, no problem.

That was for a feature which is rare, but for shorts it happens all the time. Didn't you write a one-pager once about a girl on a swing? It's fine to just let loose and allow the action to do the talking. Not everything, or even anything, needs to be explained so long as the viewer is entertained.


And in that one pager I felt I had satisfied the requirements for the world I had built. The hope was that people would assume it was a father pushing his daughter on a swing later we learn that she was kidnapped. In my script I also have the guy whistling/singing Hush Little Baby which can tie into the sown lips. So I'm not really sure how the comment ties into that script?

A better example would have been scripts like Evil Karma or Retired, these scripts I was pulled up for the same thing. I've never said it canít be done, I'm saying that the little world you create needs to make some sort of sense or I personally find it hard to be invested.

Posted by: Warren, April 23rd, 2019, 6:12pm; Reply: 6

Quoted from Mr. Blonde
A writer needs to write their script their way. The reader, however, doesn't need to read that script that way. So, you can make a script however you want it because there's no right or wrong, but you will always risk the wrath of the reader if you neglect to give them what they want or expect.


Yes it's as simple as this.
Posted by: Warren, April 23rd, 2019, 6:14pm; Reply: 7

Quoted from Dreamscale


Uhhhh...like when a reader doesn't know what a jump seat is?   ;D ;D ;D

No, you're incorrect.  Just because you don't know certain things, and/or not as intelligent or learned as the writer, you can't blame that on the writer.

C'mon, man...get with the program here, Warren!




Correct I donít know what a jump seat is, I'm not going to stop mid script to Google it either.

Posted by: Zack, April 23rd, 2019, 6:14pm; Reply: 8
I'm personally not a fan of exposition-heavy stories. Sometimes leaving things up for interpretation is more fun. :)
Posted by: Warren, April 23rd, 2019, 6:17pm; Reply: 9

Quoted from Zack
I'm personally not a fan of exposition-heavy stories. Sometimes leaving things up for interpretation is more fun. :)


So donít write an exposition heavy story; that is completely different to building a world where things make sense. Iím talking about when interpretation is almost impossible, like a fair few of the scripts in this OWC.

I think you missed the point, Zack.
Posted by: Mr. Blonde, April 23rd, 2019, 6:17pm; Reply: 10

Quoted from Zack
I'm personally not a fan of exposition-heavy stories. Sometimes leaving things up for interpretation is more fun. :)


It's incredibly easy to do both (give clear motivations and results, while leaving things open to interpretation). Trust me, Zack. =)
Posted by: Dreamscale, April 23rd, 2019, 6:22pm; Reply: 11

Quoted from Warren



Correct I donít know what a jump seat iS, I'm not going to stop mid script to Google it either.



There you go then.  You blame the writer for writing something you're not familiar with?

Damn, bro, that's some serious narcissistic shit there!  I guess I shouldn't be surprised, as you definitely come across as a total narcissist.

Oh wait..maybe you don't know what that is, either...
Posted by: Warren, April 23rd, 2019, 6:22pm; Reply: 12
Going back to this:


Quoted from Dreamscale


Warren, as you often seem to do, you're missing the point...completely, and if you honestly don't realize that, you have issues.

Clarity was not what was being discussed on the other thread.  It was very clear what was going on, and it was very clear that it was a Lovecraftian tale, and if you personally were unclear, you could easily spend a few minutes and use google.

That is not the case here at all, as there's nothing anyone can google to figure out or understand what's happening.  Totally different situation.

Don't you get that?



This is another example where you are somehow the authority on what is right and wrong. I donít understand a script and I'm wrong, you donít and youíre right.

It was not clear to me what was going on, I donít know the backstory and itís not my job to google it.

It's just plain hypocritical calling me out on it then arguing the same thing on another thread.

Donít you get that?

Posted by: Dreamscale, April 23rd, 2019, 6:24pm; Reply: 13

Quoted from Warren
Going back to this:

This is another example where you are somehow the authority on what is right and wrong. I donít understand a script and I'm wrong, you donít and youíre right.

It was not clear to me what was going on, I donít know the backstory and itís not my job to google it.

It's just plain hypocritical calling me out on it then arguing the same thing on another thread.

Donít you get that?


I get that it's a totally different situation, as I explained.  You don't get that at all, obviously.

Posted by: Zack, April 23rd, 2019, 6:25pm; Reply: 14

Quoted from Warren


I think you missed the point, Zack.


My bad. :P I thought this was a thread about the importance of motivation. Not a whole lot of motivation in the original Halloween. But like you said... I'm just missing the point here.
Posted by: Warren, April 23rd, 2019, 6:25pm; Reply: 15

Quoted from Dreamscale


There you go then.  You blame the writer for writing something you're not familiar with?

Damn, bro, that's some serious narcissistic shit there!  I guess I shouldn't be surprised, as you definitely come across as a total narcissist.

Oh wait..maybe you don't know what that is, either...


Jeff, you are focusing on something that is a non-issue, itís a seat, I get that, I just donít know exactly what a jump seat is.

This is what you do, you change the argument to suit your motives.

And now youíre resorting to name calling, classy.

The issue is the plot points, not an object. The creatureís motivations, the characters motivations.
Posted by: Mr. Blonde, April 23rd, 2019, 6:26pm; Reply: 16

Quoted from Zack
My bad. :P I thought this was a thread about the importance of motivation. Not a whole lot of motivation in the original Halloween. But like you said... I'm missing the point here. Carry on.


Motivation: Fucking evil. Sometimes, it's just as simple as that. Or, my favorite: "Because I can."
Posted by: Zack, April 23rd, 2019, 6:28pm; Reply: 17

Quoted from Mr. Blonde


Motivation: Fucking evil. Sometimes, it's just as simple as that. Or, my favorite: "Because I can."


Ha! I wrote a script once titled "Because I can". People didn't like it because of the lack of motivation.  :P
Posted by: Mr. Blonde, April 23rd, 2019, 6:29pm; Reply: 18

Quoted from Zack
Ha! I wrote a script once titled "Because I can". People didn't like it because of the lack of motivation.  :P


The irony is not lost on me.
Posted by: Warren, April 23rd, 2019, 6:29pm; Reply: 19

Quoted from Zack


My bad. :P I thought this was a thread about the importance of motivation. Not a whole lot of motivation in the original Halloween. But like you said... I'm just missing the point here.


Yes you are missing the point. You are talking about exposition; that was never mentioned. Like Sean said, just because something is clear doesnít mean it needs to be done in an exposition heavy way.

As thin as it may be, Michael still returns to his home town to kill again, heís a psychopath, thatís enough for the audience to get behind.
Posted by: Warren, April 23rd, 2019, 6:30pm; Reply: 20

Quoted from Mr. Blonde


Motivation: Fucking evil. Sometimes, it's just as simple as that. Or, my favorite: "Because I can."


Sean we seem to be on the same page with this.
Posted by: Mr. Blonde, April 23rd, 2019, 6:32pm; Reply: 21

Quoted from Warren
Sean we seem to be on the same page with this.


To an extent. I've been keeping up with the thread thus far. Some of what you said, I agree with. Some of what Jeff said, I agree with. Vice versa.
Posted by: Zack, April 23rd, 2019, 6:35pm; Reply: 22

Quoted from Warren


Yes you are missing the point. You are talking about exposition; that was never mentioned. Like Sean said, just because something is clear doesnít mean it needs to be done in an exposition heavy way.

As thin as it may be, Michael still returns to his home town to kill again, heís a psychopath, thatís enough for the audience to get behind.


Fair enough. But I'd argue that Michael has no motivation what-so-ever in the original film. Like Sean said... He's just pure evil.
Posted by: Dreamscale, April 23rd, 2019, 6:38pm; Reply: 23

Quoted from Warren
Jeff, you are focusing on something that is a non-issue, itís a seat, I get that, I just donít know exactly what a jump seat is.

This is what you do, you change the argument to suit your motives.

And now youíre resorting to name calling, classy.

The issue is the plot points, not an object. The creatureís motivations, the characters motivations.


Warren, 1 of the points here is that you stated very matter of factly that you will not google something you don't understand or know, and made it seem like that was the writer's fault.

Do I have to go back and quote you directly?  C'mon...

I'm not calling you any names.  IO'm simply stating a fact that your attitude is very narcissistic, and this is not the 1st time I've mentioned this.

When it smells like shit several times, it's most likely shit.

You get that?   ;D ;D

Posted by: Mr. Blonde, April 23rd, 2019, 6:38pm; Reply: 24

Quoted from Zack
Fair enough. But I'd argue that Michael has no motivation what-so-ever in the original film. Like Sean said... He's just pure evil.


An unfortunate byproduct of police procedurals. They always find the reason why people do what they do when, in a lot of cases, it's never actually found out why. It's become so prevalent that it's something that has caused juries to acquit people, if the prosecutors can't establish a proper motive, regardless of the evidence.
Posted by: Zack, April 23rd, 2019, 6:41pm; Reply: 25

Quoted from Mr. Blonde


An unfortunate byproduct of police procedurals. They always find the reason why people do what they do when, in a lot of cases, it's never actually found out why. It's become so prevalent that it's something that has caused juries to acquit people, if the prosecutors can't establish a proper motive, regardless of the evidence.


Huh? Pretend for a second I'm not very bright.  ;D

Joking aside, I'd say the original Halloween is a great example of a script where the antagonist doesn't have any real motivation. Another being the original Black Christmas. And let's not forget the Spielberg classic, Duel.
Posted by: Warren, April 23rd, 2019, 6:46pm; Reply: 26

Quoted from Mr. Blonde


To an extent. I've been keeping up with the thread thus far. Some of what you said, I agree with. Some of what Jeff said, I agree with. Vice versa.



Love to know what part of Jeff's comments you agree with, for the purpose of this conversation. After all that why I started the thread.

Like you said people can write what they want but risk the readerís interpretation. Providing clarity and motivation would then only help a story as far as interpretation goes.

Jeff thinks everything I say is wrong and because I hold a certain belief I'm a narcissist.

I'm saying he can have his belief but once again risk the reader not understanding, and this in never the readers fault. The audience is paying to see your film or using their time to veiw it, they donít owe you anything other than that. If itís not clear to them for any reason itís not their responsibly to look into it, sure they can if they want. But also back to issues with plot points and motivation, an audience member potentially canít look that up, and it is completely fair to say that the audience my not be satisfied by things that donít make sense.

Posted by: eldave1, April 23rd, 2019, 6:49pm; Reply: 27

Quoted from Dreamscale


Uhhhh...like when a reader doesn't know what a jump seat is?   ;D ;D ;D

No, you're incorrect.  Just because you don't know certain things, and/or not as intelligent or learned as the writer, you can't blame that on the writer.

C'mon, man...get with the program here, Warren!



Tabling the issue of jump-seat for a moment (i.e., I don't want to debate whether or not that is a common enough term), I think your general advice here Jeff is off the mark - or at least incomplete.

This from an article I read early on when I first started writing.

While you want your characters to use the right terminology that their knowledge-base would dictate, you donít want to use overly specific technical terminology in your scene description.

Write tactical machine gun instead of Beretta Mx4 Storm. Write Special Forces Helicopter instead of Boeing A/MH-6M Little Bird. If you need to be more or less specific, do so. Just donít try to dazzle the reader with your specific research. And yes, it also points to the fact that youíre not in charge of what specific weapons and vehicles will be used in the eventual film.

Consider it a courtesy to whoever is reading your script. They may not know what the heck a Beretta Mx4 Storm is, but theyíll likely be able to envision a tactical machine gun pretty quickly.


I considered the above sound advice. If you are referring to the use of  technical terms in dialogue, I would agree with you (they are needed for authenticity). If you are referring to  action/description, I think a writer is better off using terms  that are broad  based and commonly understood.

Posted by: Zack, April 23rd, 2019, 6:57pm; Reply: 28

Quoted from eldave1


While you want your characters to use the right terminology that their knowledge-base would dictate, you donÔŅĹt want to use overly specific technical terminology in your scene description.

Write tactical machine gun instead of Beretta Mx4 Storm. Write Special Forces Helicopter instead of Boeing A/MH-6M Little Bird. If you need to be more or less specific, do so. Just donÔŅĹt try to dazzle the reader with your specific research. And yes, it also points to the fact that youÔŅĹre not in charge of what specific weapons and vehicles will be used in the eventual film.

Consider it a courtesy to whoever is reading your script. They may not know what the heck a Beretta Mx4 Storm is, but theyÔŅĹll likely be able to envision a tactical machine gun pretty quickly.




Thanks for sharing, Dave. That actually clarified quite a bit for me. Just ignore all my previous blabbering. :P I'm heading back to the OWC thread to dive into the scripts.
Posted by: Dreamscale, April 23rd, 2019, 6:57pm; Reply: 29

Quoted from eldave1
Tabling the issue of jump-seat for a moment (i.e., I don't want to debate whether or not that is a common enough term), I think your general advice here Jeff is off the mark - or at least incomplete.

This from an article I read early on when I first started writing.

While you want your characters to use the right terminology that their knowledge-base would dictate, you donít want to use overly specific technical terminology in your scene description.

Write tactical machine gun instead of Beretta Mx4 Storm. Write Special Forces Helicopter instead of Boeing A/MH-6M Little Bird. If you need to be more or less specific, do so. Just donít try to dazzle the reader with your specific research. And yes, it also points to the fact that youíre not in charge of what specific weapons and vehicles will be used in the eventual film.

Consider it a courtesy to whoever is reading your script. They may not know what the heck a Beretta Mx4 Storm is, but theyíll likely be able to envision a tactical machine gun pretty quickly.


I considered the above sound advice. If you are referring to the use of  technical terms in dialogue, I would agree with you (they are needed for authenticity). If you are referring to  action/description, I think a writer is better off using terms  that are broad  based and commonly understood.


I agree with everything you're saying here, Dave.  I really do, and I try not to write terms/words/descriptions that peeps won't understand.

There are many geographical terms that some not familiar with that region won't get, but I don't think it's remotely wrong to use such terms.  In a script, we all have the ability at our fingertips to google a word that we are not familiar with.

In fact, if anyone has been following my feedback, I've done a bunch of googling and I've learned some pretty cool shit.  I've also googled some things when I feel like what's being written isn't correct...or maybe should be explained a little better for the visual aspect of reading a script.

Posted by: Warren, April 23rd, 2019, 7:00pm; Reply: 30

Quoted from Dreamscale


Warren, 1 of the points here is that you stated very matter of factly that you will not google something you don't understand or know, and made it seem like that was the writer's fault.

Do I have to go back and quote you directly?  C'mon...

I'm not calling you any names.  IO'm simply stating a fact that your attitude is very narcissistic, and this is not the 1st time I've mentioned this.

When it smells like shit several times, it's most likely shit.

You get that?   ;D ;D



And I'm telling you once again that you are focusing on a non-issue, A seat is not going to lose you any points, the fact that I donít know exactly what that seat is makes no difference to the story. But yes a plot point like some Lovecraftian backstory I donít know, that is the writer's 'fault' as itís their story, itís not my responsibility to know that or look into it. The seat makes no difference whatsoever. If the seat was vital to the plot and I didnít understand, different story altogether.

Try stay on topic.

You do very well insulting me as subtlety as possible, well not that subtle. It doesnít really worry me . All I'm interested in is peopleís thoughts on this subject.

Iíve voiced mine as clearly as I can. I donít mind if people disagree, thatís the point of discussion. But you take that too far.
Posted by: Dreamscale, April 23rd, 2019, 7:01pm; Reply: 31

Quoted from Warren
Love to know what part of Jeff's comments you agree with, for the purpose of this conversation. After all that why I started the thread.


Probably all of them!   ;D ;D ;D


Quoted from Warren
Jeff thinks everything I say is wrong and because I hold a certain belief I'm a narcissist.


Noooo...I hold the belief that you're a narcissist, not you...you'd never admit it, and you may not even know what one is.

I don't think everything you say is wrong.  I've gone on file many times, saying I think you're a good writer.  You're a crappy reviewer, but that alone doesn't make you a bad person or wrong all the time.

Posted by: Warren, April 23rd, 2019, 7:11pm; Reply: 32

Quoted from Dreamscale


Probably all of them!   ;D ;D ;D



Noooo...I hold the belief that you're a narcissist, not you...you'd never admit it, and you may not even know what one is.

I don't think everything you say is wrong.  I've gone on file many times, saying I think you're a good writer.  You're a crappy reviewer, but that alone doesn't make you a bad person or wrong all the time.



Again, a post that is completely off the topic of the thread.

I don't need your validation on my writing or my reviewing.

Posted by: Dreamscale, April 23rd, 2019, 7:18pm; Reply: 33

Quoted from Warren


Again, a post that is completely off the topic of the thread.

I don't need your validation on my writing or my reviewing.



No you don't.  That, I agree with.
Posted by: eldave1, April 23rd, 2019, 7:28pm; Reply: 34

Quoted from Zack


Thanks for sharing, Dave. That actually clarified quite a bit for me. Just ignore all my previous blabbering. :P I'm heading back to the OWC thread to dive into the scripts.


My pleasure, Zack
Posted by: stevie, April 23rd, 2019, 7:33pm; Reply: 35
Not taking sides lol, but Jeff, buddy, in one of the war scripts you didnít know what a Lancaster was!  
Posted by: LC, April 23rd, 2019, 7:42pm; Reply: 36
I thought there were two or even three parts to the discussion you (Warren) and Jeff were discussing, but I might have missed something?

Motivation and understanding of what and why characters act as they do? You only need watch Lynch films to know interpretation is widely diverse and imho as long as it's intriguing and entertaining and holds an audience, who cares. Go too wide of the mark and obscure and people might stop watching, but then someone like Lynch has a whole cult following

As for the other point I assumed it was about using terminology (unknown to some) and Dave's points are spot on in relation to this. Too highfalutin and you'll lose the reader and possibly bore them.

There's also that matter of using words e.g. jumpseat from different cultures - Brit, Aussie, U.S., we all know we have different vernacular even though we three speak English, and so different colloquialisms come from that 'mother language'.

Then there's jargon, which holds specifically to a particular trade or profession. I love reading or hearing stuff I had no prior knowledge of and it often spurs me to look it up. Broadens education as a writer.

I remember one of Dustin's first scripts posted and Jeff, you were not familiar with a couple of terms he used, and questioned their use.

Finally the Lovecraftian references in a particular OWC script.
I haven't read any HP,  but maybe now I'll seek it out.
Does the script hold up to the unitiated regardless of those references? That'd be the main takeaway for me.

We all have gaps in our inter-cultural knowledge.
It's no big deal but as a writer I say: look it up.
It broadens your general knowledge and repertoire.
Posted by: Warren, April 23rd, 2019, 7:48pm; Reply: 37

Quoted from stevie
Not taking sides lol, but Jeff, buddy, in one of the war scripts you didnít know what a Lancaster was!  


While that is funny, I donít think itís a case of sides in terms of the actual thread. I have an opinion and I've thoroughly explained why I believe it.

Itís worth pointing out that I have written scripts like this, quite a few, and people did have questions, thatís on me, not the reader.

What would be great if there was an opposing opinion with logic that can be explained?

Like I've said several times now, people can disagree, people can also write script where the motivations arenít clear; my issue is that it doesnít then become the readerís/audience's problem if it isnít clear.

This discussion was never about a seat, itís a seat who cares. Itís about motivations like the thread title says.

I did actually google the seat when reading the script and it just looked like a van seat, so the fact that it was called a jump seat only served to pull me out of the story. If the writer had just written seat would it change the story, of course not. But when it comes to the whole purpose of a story, a backstory I donít know, potentially why characters are acting in a certain way, I'm sorry but I donít think a reader should be expected to know that, or google it if they donít.
Posted by: stevie, April 23rd, 2019, 7:57pm; Reply: 38
Yeah Waz as I just posted on the Owc main thread - and as Libby pointed out (the three Aussies lol) sometimes itís just a culture/nationality thing as well as how much general knowledge the average perp knows   Over the years Iíve had to google a couple of things mid script but I think they were modern references to  a band or movie or what have you.

Naturally if I wrote a script about the Beatles - hmm thereís an idea, canít believe Iíve never done that ::) - and someone didnít know what was the tenth song on Revolver or who designed the cover of The White Album, then I would be forced to track them down and punish them ;D
Posted by: Warren, April 23rd, 2019, 7:58pm; Reply: 39

Quoted from LC
I thought there were two or even three parts to the discussion you (Warren) and Jeff were discussing, but I might have missed something?

Motivation and understanding of what and why characters act as they do? You only need watch Lynch films to know interpretation is widely diverse and imho as long as it's intriguing and entertaining and holds an audience, who cares. Go too wide of the mark and obscure and people might stop watching, but then someone like Lynch has a whole cult following

As for the other point I assumed it was about using terminology (unknown to some) and Dave's points are spot on in relation to this. Too highfalutin and you'll lose the reader and possibly bore them.

There's also that matter of using words e.g. jumpseat from different cultures - Brit, Aussie, U.S., we all know we have different vernacular even though we three speak English, and so different colloquialisms come from that 'mother language'.

Then there's jargon, which holds specifically to a particular trade or profession. I love reading or hearing stuff I had no prior knowledge of and it often spurs me to look it up. Broadens education as a writer.

I remember one of Dustin's first scripts posted and Jeff, you were not familiar with a couple of terms he used, and questioned their use.

Finally the Lovecraftian references in a particular OWC script.
I haven't read any HP,  but maybe now I'll seek it out.
Does the script hold up to the unitiated regardless of those references? That'd be the main takeaway for me.

We all have gaps in our inter-cultural knowledge.
It's no big deal but as a writer I say: look it up.
It broadens your general knowledge and repertoire.


My only point was motivation that leads to understanding. Couldnít care less about an object that doesnít affect the plot.


Quoted from LC
Motivation and understanding of what and why characters act as they do? You only need watch Lynch films to know interpretation is widely diverse and imho as long as it's intriguing and entertaining and holds an audience, who cares. Go too wide of the mark and obscure and people might stop watching, but then someone like Lynch has a whole cult following


I completely agree with this, Iíve said it several times. Do what you want, but itís not the audiences fault if they donít understand. Thatís been my point the whole time. My PERSONAL PREFERANCE is a story with clear motivations as I find them more engaging

Everything else was added to distract form the actual discussion


Quoted from LC
Finally the Lovecraftian references in a particular OWC script.
I haven't read any HP,  but maybe now I'll seek it out.
Does the script hold up to the unitiated regardless of those references? That'd be the main takeaway for me.


And thatís great that you want to do that, but is it expected? Of course not. If the script or film isnít clear itís not the readerís job to look into it. Sure you can write for a particular audience, an audience that knows Lovecraftís work, but in an OWC you might not hit that audience.
Posted by: Dreamscale, April 23rd, 2019, 8:03pm; Reply: 40

Quoted from stevie
Not taking sides lol, but Jeff, buddy, in one of the war scripts you didnít know what a Lancaster was!  


Exactly.  And I'm pretty sure I said, "is it a plane?"

A writer shouldn't expect a reader to have to continually look things up.  Like everything...and especially another back and forth thread...there are limits, there are lines, and there are certain expectations.

If someone has never seen a mountain before, and they're reading something that talks about mountains, that reader needs to find out what a mountain is.

If a writer is talking about the gestation period of certain ancient mammals, chances are good no one is going to give a fuck about finding out - they'll just buy in and move on.

Bottom line, as I've said several times, if you don't know what something is, fucking spend 25 seconds and google it.  Like Libby said, you may be amazed at all you can learn.

How many peeps knew what/who Janet Horne was?  I fucking googled it and learned alot I had no clue about.  "Alot", Warren....an awful lot!

Posted by: Warren, April 23rd, 2019, 8:05pm; Reply: 41

Quoted from stevie
Yeah Waz as I just posted on the Owc main thread - and as Libby pointed out (the three Aussies lol) sometimes itís just a culture/nationality thing as well as how much general knowledge the average perp knows   Over the years Iíve had to google a couple of things mid script but I think they were modern references to  a band or movie or what have you.


Completely understand, Iíve google things in the past, and I did this time as well. This discussion isnít about things. Itís about motivations. If the thing doesnít affect the plot and I have a rough understanding itís all good.

Jeff had just blown the whole 'Warren wont google if he doesnít understand' thing way out of proportion, which is his way in most disagreements. I'm not going to look into an entire backstory or authorís past works to gain understanding, Well I might if Iím interested enough, but again it should not expected of me.
Posted by: Warren, April 23rd, 2019, 8:12pm; Reply: 42

Quoted from Dreamscale


Exactly.  And I'm pretty sure I said, "is it a plane?"

A writer shouldn't expect a reader to have to continually look things up.  Like everything...and especially another back and forth thread...there are limits, there are lines, and there are certain expectations.

If someone has never seen a mountain before, and they're reading something that talks about mountains, that reader needs to find out what a mountain is.

If a writer is talking about the gestation period of certain ancient mammals, chances are good no one is going to give a fuck about finding out - they'll just buy in and move on.

Bottom line, as I've said several times, if you don't know what something is, fucking spend 25 seconds and google it.  Like Libby said, you may be amazed at all you can learn.

How many peeps knew what/who Janet Horne was?  I fucking googled it and learned alot I had no clue about.  "Alot", Warren....an awful lot!



25 seconds to learn all there is to know about Lovecraft and be able to place the story into some kind of perspective? Come on.

Like Iíve said itís not my job to google, if I want to know more I will, if I donít thatís not expected.

And yet again we are talking about things not motivations.

Jeff, we are talking about motivations, do you get that????? Not things, motivations. One more time, motivations! Read the title of the thread.

Itís only a reflection on you if you keep using "alot". A quick 25 second google search will show that that you are using it incorrectly.
Posted by: Dreamscale, April 23rd, 2019, 8:27pm; Reply: 43

Quoted from Warren
25 seconds to learn all there is to know about Lovecraft and be able to place the story into some kind of perspective? Come on.

Like Iíve said itís not my job to google, if I want to know more I will, if I donít thatís not expected.

And yet again we are talking about things not motivations.

Jeff, we are talking about motivations, do you get that????? Not things, motivations. One more time, motivations! Read the title of the thread.

Itís only a reflection on you if you keep using "alot". A quick 25 second google search will show that that you are using it incorrectly.


Warren, c'mon, man.  You started this thread based on remarks in the OWC threads.

The things I have brought up are basically quotes from you on certain OWC threads.

Character motivations is a completely different topic...but since you seem to want to zero in on this, let's have at it.

As Zack correctly pointed out, Halloween is a fantastic example of a character motivation that you either get, or you don't.  Peps do things fore the strangest reasons, and many times, for no reason at all.

I honestly think you're grasping at straws here.

Sure, as i always say, with everything, there are lines and there are acceptabilities (how's that for a word?).  You always wish to push the boundaries, and that, in itself, is just fine - sometimes you'll get away with it, sometimes, you won't.

Let it rest.  Go back to your 4 line reviews and bitch about things you don't know.  It's gotta be someone else's fault, right?

Posted by: Warren, April 23rd, 2019, 9:05pm; Reply: 44

Quoted from Dreamscale


Warren, c'mon, man.  You started this thread based on remarks in the OWC threads.



Yes my points about motivation and understanding, not what an object is. Again, read the thread title. Also go back and read my comments if you like. Nothing from me about a seat other than in the actual thread of the script.


Quoted from Dreamscale
Character motivations is a completely different topic...but since you seem to want to zero in on this, let's have at it.


This is the entire topic!!!! Ha-ha. READ THE THREAD TITLE!!!!!!

If you go back to the Lovecraft script I was talking about why things happened, if you go back to the body swopping script, some thing. The fact that I mentioned a seat was never brought up by me in terms of this conversation, that's all you.

Yes use Zack example, I didnít say the example was incorrect (I said Zack's understanding about what we were talking about was wrong, just like yours). I've only ever said that if I donít understand then thatís on the writer not me (as far as motivations go). It was enough of a motivation for me that Micheal was nuts and wanted to return to his hometown to kill again. There are scripts in this OWC with ideas and motivations that you literally canít try to begin to understand, for me PERSONALLY, that is an issue.

Iím telling you that you are off topic, I'm telling you that you can have your opinion on the subject, I'm telling you that it is the writer's problem if there script's motivations arenít clear (Unless, like Libby said, that was their intention, but again I donít have to like it). You are telling me that itís my problem, you are just flat out wrong here.

You are flat out wrong on a lot of the rubbish you preach. Your reviews are flat out brutal to the point of being malicious. Half the crap you preach isnít even an actual issue. If you want to help a writer read their whole script and help them. I provide honest feedback, I ask questions of the writer in the hopes that it will generate thoughts on an issue, I donít go out of my way to be harsh, but I also donít sugar-coat. If anyone is completely unsatisfied which the reviews I give, Iíll be happy to issue a refund. SS members would do well to not take your opinion as fact.

Like you said a while back in another thread about old dog/new tricks. All your tricks are outdated. Youíre right, you canít teach an old dog new tricks, and youíre over the hill in terms of screenwriting.

You still havenít addressed the actual issue.

It done with you now. I will only address issues that are on topic.

Iíve tried several times to pull the discussion back to the core issue. I still think this is an interesting topic, Iíd love to hear from more people that disagree with me and why.

Posted by: TheUsualSuspect, April 23rd, 2019, 9:13pm; Reply: 45
If I read a book and I don't understand the word or place, I'll look it up to see what the author means/intends. Just to make things clearer. If I'm doing that every ten pages or so, sure I'll drop out of it because it's probably a book that is beyond my intelligence level.

As for the Lovecraft entry, I don't think you need to know Lovecraft to enjoy it. There are obvious hidden nods for Lovecraft readers, but the gist of it is on the page. You complained about not knowing what the hell R'lyeh was, but one of those quick "google" searches is enough for anyone to get it.

Character motivations, the clearer the better of course. But again, going back to the Lovecraft entry, I feel like you're asking WAY too much for a OWC entry.

"What infection? What caused it, why now, who is the ancient one? What is going on???"

His sister has gils, she obviously didn't before. Francis is mutating as well. They are infected with something, but this is just a character saying this, this is his interpretation of it. Why now? Is that really a question, you can say that about literally any story ever written. A boat went somewhere it wasn't suppose to and another went looking for it. Simple enough to me.

Ancient One...again, if you googled R'lyeh, the answer I think is right there.

Enough on that entry though...

The doppelganger entry is one that I think fits the bill as to what the hell is going on. Needs to be fleshed out more with why? Who? When How?  etc.
Posted by: Zack, April 23rd, 2019, 9:18pm; Reply: 46

Quoted from TheUsualSuspect


The doppelganger entry is one that I think fits the bill as to what the hell is going on. Needs to be fleshed out more with why? Who? When How?  etc.


Gonna throw Protocol 25 in there as well. It could certainly use a bit of exposition/motivation.
Posted by: Dreamscale, April 23rd, 2019, 9:25pm; Reply: 47

Quoted from TheUsualSuspect
If I read a book and I don't understand the word or place, I'll look it up to see what the author means/intends. Just to make things clearer. If I'm doing that every ten pages or so, sure I'll drop out of it because it's probably a book that is beyond my intelligence level.

As for the Lovecraft entry, I don't think you need to know Lovecraft to enjoy it. There are obvious hidden nods for Lovecraft readers, but the gist of it is on the page. You complained about not knowing what the hell R'lyeh was, but one of those quick "google" searches is enough for anyone to get it.

Character motivations, the clearer the better of course. But again, going back to the Lovecraft entry, I feel like you're asking WAY too much for a OWC entry.

"What infection? What caused it, why now, who is the ancient one? What is going on???"

His sister has gils, she obviously didn't before. Francis is mutating as well. They are infected with something, but this is just a character saying this, this is his interpretation of it. Why now? Is that really a question, you can say that about literally any story ever written. A boat went somewhere it wasn't suppose to and another went looking for it. Simple enough to me.

Ancient One...again, if you googled R'lyeh, the answer I think is right there.

Enough on that entry though...

The doppelganger entry is one that I think fits the bill as to what the hell is going on. Needs to be fleshed out more with why? Who? When How?  etc.


Very well put and spot on.

I can't wait till Warren addresses this, but my bet is that he doesn't...because he knows he can't.

Posted by: Dreamscale, April 23rd, 2019, 9:25pm; Reply: 48

Quoted from Zack


Gonna throw Protocol 25 in there as well. It could certainly use a bit of exposition/motivation.


Yep, right on again!

Posted by: Warren, April 23rd, 2019, 9:26pm; Reply: 49

Quoted from TheUsualSuspect
If I read a book and I don't understand the word or place, I'll look it up to see what the author means/intends. Just to make things clearer. If I'm doing that every ten pages or so, sure I'll drop out of it because it's probably a book that is beyond my intelligence level.


Just to reiterate, this has nothing to do with a word.


Quoted from TheUsualSuspect
As for the Lovecraft entry, I don't think you need to know Lovecraft to enjoy it. There are obvious hidden nods for Lovecraft readers, but the gist of it is on the page. You complained about not knowing what the hell R'lyeh was, but one of those quick "google" searches is enough for anyone to get it.


So the enjoyment part is subjective and a personal preference thing, so yes I completely agree. For me however not havening an understanding made it less enjoyable. Again itís not my job to google what that is.


Quoted from TheUsualSuspect
Character motivations, the clearer the better of course. But again, going back to the Lovecraft entry, I feel like you're asking WAY too much for a OWC entry.


Maybe, or the writer could have picked a different topic? One in which the whole audience would understand without google. The writer consciously chose a subject that some wouldnít get, my only point is that itís not my problem if I donít understand it, and not my job to look into it. It also canít just be assumed that I will get it the way you or the writer gets it.


Quoted from TheUsualSuspect
"What infection? What caused it, why now, who is the ancient one? What is going on???"

His sister has gils, she obviously didn't before. Francis is mutating as well. They are infected with something, but this is just a character saying this, this is his interpretation of it. Why now? Is that really a question, you can say that about literally any story ever written. A boat went somewhere it wasn't suppose to and another went looking for it. Simple enough to me.

Ancient One...again, if you googled R'lyeh, the answer I think is right there.

Enough on that entry though...

[quote=TheUsualSuspect]The doppelganger entry is one that I think fits the bill as to what the hell is going on. Needs to be fleshed out more with why? Who? When How?  etc.


So who decides what is fleshed out enough or not, seems like a personal issue? I think this addresses all your comments on my questions about the Lovecraft script.


Posted by: Warren, April 23rd, 2019, 9:27pm; Reply: 50

Quoted from Dreamscale


Very well put and spot on.

I can't wait till Warren addresses this, but my bet is that he doesn't...because he knows he can't.



All addressed.
Posted by: Warren, April 23rd, 2019, 9:41pm; Reply: 51

Quoted from Zack


Gonna throw Protocol 25 in there as well. It could certainly use a bit of exposition/motivation.


So can can happily say this but when I say I don't understand the Lovecraft one that is an issue? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

If you have enough prior knowledge of the subject matter to make it work or are happy just to go along that's completely fine. I've only ever said that that same expectation can't be put on anyone else, and if the writer fails to get their intentions across that is not the reader's problem.

I'm not saying your thinking is incorrect as far as being able to enjoy the story. I'm saying that you can't decide that if I don't get it or enjoy it that the issue lies solely with me.
Posted by: Zack, April 23rd, 2019, 9:50pm; Reply: 52

Quoted from Warren


So can can happily say this but when I say I don't understand the Lovecraft one that is an issue? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

If you have enough prior knowledge of the subject matter to make it work or are happy just to go along that's completely fine. I've only ever said that that same expectation can't be put on anyone else, and if the writer fails to get their intentions across that is not the reader's problem.

I'm not saying your thinking is incorrect as far as being able to enjoy the story. I'm saying that you can't decide that if I don't get it or enjoy it that the issue lies solely with me.


My knowledge of Lovecraft is extremely limited. It's basically zero. I think I played a Lovecraft video game on the Playstation 2 way back when I was a kid.

That said, I wasn't really "lost" when reading Beyond The Sea. I didn't understand everything, but I was able to more or less work it out. The big monster at the end is some sort of "God?" that the gilled creatures worship. Or at least I think that's what was going on. Could be WAY off, so take that with a grain of salt.

Protocol 25, however... the body-swapping came out of nowhere and there didn't seem to be any hints to foreshadow it. Again, maybe it's just me.
Posted by: Warren, April 23rd, 2019, 9:53pm; Reply: 53

Quoted from Zack


My knowledge of Lovecraft is extremely limited. It's basically zero. I think I played a Lovecraft video game on the Playstation 2 way back when I was a kid.

That said, I wasn't really "lost" when reading Beyond The Sea. I didn't understand everything, but I was able to more or less work it out. The big monster at the end is some sort of "God?" that the gilled creatures worship. Or at least I think that's what was going on. Could be WAY off, so take that with a grain of salt.

Protocol 25, however... the body-swapping came out of nowhere and there didn't seem to be any hints to foreshadow it. Again, maybe it's just me.


Not sure what I'm meant to do with this. You kind of just proved my point.
Posted by: Zack, April 23rd, 2019, 9:54pm; Reply: 54

Quoted from Warren


Not sure what I'm meant to do with this. You kind of just proved my point.


How so?

Despite me not having knowledge about Lovecraft, I more or less understood the story of Beyond the Sea.

But I don't see how anyone can fully understand Protocol 25. There's not enough information given.

Really not sure how any of this proves your point.
Posted by: Warren, April 23rd, 2019, 10:05pm; Reply: 55

Quoted from Zack


My knowledge of Lovecraft is extremely limited. It's basically zero. I think I played a Lovecraft video game on the Playstation 2 way back when I was a kid.

That said, I wasn't really "lost" when reading Beyond The Sea. I didn't understand everything, but I was able to more or less work it out. The big monster at the end is some sort of "God?" that the gilled creatures worship. Or at least I think that's what was going on. Could be WAY off, so take that with a grain of salt.

Protocol 25, however... the body-swapping came out of nowhere and there didn't seem to be any hints to foreshadow it. Again, maybe it's just me.


You are saying you don't know Lovecraft but are happy to go with the story because you understand it, but then you say you're not really sure if you do. "at least I think".

The body-swapping you don't understand either but you have decided that it needs clarification.

I'm saying you can think what ever you want about both those stories, but why are you happy to go with one but not the other when you clearly state "Or at least I think that's what was going on", for the Lovecraft one? Why can't you just make an assumption again?

Also why can't I decide that both don't fulfil my needs to tell an engaging story?

You seem to be telling me that because I didn't get it or at least buy into it that I'm somehow incorrect in my assessment of the story, sorry but that just isn't the case.

Posted by: Zack, April 23rd, 2019, 10:15pm; Reply: 56

Quoted from Warren


Also why can't I decide that both don't fulfil my needs to tell an engaging story?

You seem to be telling me that because I didn't get it or at least buy into it that I'm somehow incorrect in my assessment of the story, sorry but that just isn't the case.



I'm confused. Are you trolling? Is this one of those internet troll traps I've been warned about?

I never once said you were incorrect for not understanding Beyond the Sea. I just stated that I have practically no knowledge of Lovecraft myself, and I was still able enjoy the story presented. I never really felt lost.

With Protocol 25, I feel like there should have been some sort of foreshadowing to hint at the body-swapping twist. It has nothing to do with me not understanding what body-swapping is. I've watched Jason Goes To Hell multiple times. ;D The issue is that the body-swapping thing comes out of absolutely nowhere.
Posted by: Warren, April 23rd, 2019, 10:21pm; Reply: 57

Quoted from Zack
I'm personally not a fan of exposition-heavy stories. Sometimes leaving things up for interpretation is more fun. :)


Zack, here you say you are happy just to go along with things. My whole point is that I'm not and that it's not my issue if I don't want to or don't get it.

Maybe I'm still struggling to get your point, as you initially had no idea what we were talking about.

Posted by: Zack, April 23rd, 2019, 10:23pm; Reply: 58

Quoted from Warren


Maybe I'm still struggling to get your point, as you initially had no idea what we were talking about.



Oh, I think I understand now. ;)
Posted by: Warren, April 23rd, 2019, 10:24pm; Reply: 59

Quoted from Zack


I'm confused. Are you trolling? Is this one of those internet troll traps I've been warned about?

I never once said you were incorrect for not understanding Beyond the Sea. I just stated that I have practically no knowledge of Lovecraft myself, and I was still able enjoy the story presented. I never really felt lost.

With Protocol 25, I feel like there should have been some sort of foreshadowing to hint at the body-swapping twist. It has nothing to do with me not understanding what body-swapping is. I've watched Jason Goes To Hell multiple times. ;D The issue is that the body-swapping thing comes out of absolutely nowhere.


No need to call me a troll, I feel as a mod you should be above that. I'm clearly not, I've presented my points, and reiterated them several times.

I'm saying that I also have no knowledge of Lovecraft and because of that I didn't enjoy it.

Posted by: Mr. Blonde, April 23rd, 2019, 10:27pm; Reply: 60
I was waiting patiently for this argument (not the thread itself, but the arguing) to die down. It hasn't.
Posted by: Warren, April 23rd, 2019, 10:29pm; Reply: 61

Quoted from Mr. Blonde
I was waiting patiently for this argument (not the thread itself, but the arguing) to die down. It hasn't.


I've tried my best to keep this on topic.
Posted by: Zack, April 23rd, 2019, 10:32pm; Reply: 62

Quoted from Warren


No need to call me a troll, I feel as a mod you should be above that. I'm clearly not, I've presented my points, and reiterated them several times.

I'm saying that I also have no knowledge of Lovecraft and because of that I didn't enjoy it.



No, I didn't call you a troll. I asked if you were trolling.

And, no. I'm not a mod. I'm just hosting the OWC. Also, you'd be surprised what I'm not above doing. ;D


Quoted from Mr. Blonde
I was waiting patiently for this argument (not the thread itself, but the arguing) to die down. It hasn't.


Really wasn't my intention to argue. Sorry about that.
Posted by: Warren, April 23rd, 2019, 10:38pm; Reply: 63

I think it's also worth pointing out that the ambiguous route with no explanation is the far easier one. How convenient it is if stuff just happens in your story to drive your plot forward. Itís much harder giving your characters purpose, giving them motivations, and tying up why things happen. I donít think that can be argued.

The Lovecraft script obviously doesnít fall into this category. The writer knew what they were doing and some got the references, thatís different. But again, just because I didnít get it, doesnít make my thoughts about the script any less valid.
Posted by: Warren, April 23rd, 2019, 10:42pm; Reply: 64

Quoted from Zack


No, I didn't call you a troll. I asked if you were trolling.

And, no. I'm not a mod. I'm just hosting the OWC. Also, you'd be surprised what I'm not above doing. ;D




And who does trolling... trolls?

Good to know.

Please stay on topic.
Posted by: AlsoBen, April 23rd, 2019, 10:45pm; Reply: 65
Can someone link to the OWC script that inspired this topic, if we are to engage thoughtfully?
Posted by: Zack, April 23rd, 2019, 10:47pm; Reply: 66

Quoted from Warren


And who does trolling... trolls?



Angry people with keyboards. ;) I'm done.

Here ya go, Ben.
Posted by: Dreamscale, April 23rd, 2019, 10:58pm; Reply: 67
Oh man, Warren...sad.  Seriously sad.  You just can't stop, even though it's so fucking obvious you're wrong, your a narcissist, and you continually try to turn peeps' words around.

Bottom line - if you don't see the difference in the 2 scripts being discussed and why one is the writer's fault and the other is your fault, it's a mute point.

Unbelievable!!!
Posted by: AlsoBen, April 23rd, 2019, 10:59pm; Reply: 68
I skimmed it. I know what Lovecraftian mean/is, and it's still a bad script (sorry writer), and not really Lovecraft-like except in the manner of having a mysterious and unimaginable creature. I don't give a shit about this girl on a boat so it's not suspenseful when the Cthculu (Sp)-like creature does whatever to her.

Is the argument over now? Gotta say, this thread reached 4chan-like levels of hostility. Where's Don? Lock this shit. I'm the captain now.
Posted by: AlsoBen, April 23rd, 2019, 11:03pm; Reply: 69

Quoted from Dreamscale
it's a mute point.


Do you mean "moot point" or is that a joke? When you say "moot point" IRL are you actually pronouncing it as "mute", cause I love that.
Posted by: Warren, April 23rd, 2019, 11:04pm; Reply: 70

Quoted from AlsoBen
Can someone link to the OWC script that inspired this topic, if we are to engage thoughtfully?


Hey Ben, this was never about a particular script. It was about an idea, as discussed in the initial post. An idea that I think a story is better when motivations are clear.
Posted by: AlsoBen, April 23rd, 2019, 11:05pm; Reply: 71
But who was disagreeing with you on that? Isn't that like screenwriting 101? Your characters have to have "motivations"? I don't get it.
Posted by: TheUsualSuspect, April 23rd, 2019, 11:36pm; Reply: 72

Quoted from AlsoBen


Do you mean "moot point" or is that a joke? When you say "moot point" IRL are you actually pronouncing it as "mute", cause I love that.


Itís pronounced moo. You know, like a cowís opinion. Itís moo.

Posted by: Warren, April 23rd, 2019, 11:37pm; Reply: 73

Quoted from AlsoBen
But who was disagreeing with you on that? Isn't that like screenwriting 101? Your characters have to have "motivations"? I don't get it.


I felt I couldnít get invested in a certain script because I didnít understand why things were happing (something Iíve said in one way or another about several scripts in this particular OWC).

Somehow it was then argued that it was my issue that I didnít get it, and that I should just use google to fill in the blanks. I disagree with this.

So I'm saying that if from the script/movie I canít see any clear motivations that itís the writerís issue not mine. Some disagree.

Itís also been said that there donít need to be motivations at all, things can just happen. I didnít disagree, I just said I canít guarantee I'll enjoy your story if I donít know why stuff is happening.

Itís really as simple as that. Unfortunately itís been pulled in serval directions regarding seats and my ability to give a good review.

Iíve since been told Iím narcissistic, my intellect has been brought into question, Iíve been asked if I was trolling, and the funniest one of all that I turn peoples words around, WTF? A seat was brought into a discussion about motivations Ha-ha.
Posted by: TheUsualSuspect, April 23rd, 2019, 11:37pm; Reply: 74

Quoted from AlsoBen
I skimmed it. I know what Lovecraftian mean/is, and it's still a bad script (sorry writer), and not really Lovecraft-like except in the manner of having a mysterious and unimaginable creature. I don't give a shit about this girl on a boat so it's not suspenseful when the Cthculu (Sp)-like creature does whatever to her.

Is the argument over now? Gotta say, this thread reached 4chan-like levels of hostility. Where's Don? Lock this shit. I'm the captain now.


I love when people ‚Äúskim‚ÄĚ scripts then try to give an informed opinion. It‚Äôs funny because the opinion becomes pointless.
Posted by: Warren, April 23rd, 2019, 11:38pm; Reply: 75

Quoted from TheUsualSuspect


Itís pronounced moo. You know, like a cowís opinion. Itís moo.



That is literally what he's saying.
Posted by: Warren, April 23rd, 2019, 11:39pm; Reply: 76

Quoted from TheUsualSuspect


I live when people ďskimĒ scripts then try to give an informed opinion. Itís funny because the opinion becomes pointless.



Is it almost the same as when people comment on a post they didnít read correctly? See above.

This is literally impossible to keep on topic.
Posted by: TheUsualSuspect, April 23rd, 2019, 11:43pm; Reply: 77

Quoted from Warren


That is literally what he's saying.


A simple google search would reveal I was making a joke. ;)

Posted by: Warren, April 23rd, 2019, 11:48pm; Reply: 78

Quoted from TheUsualSuspect


A simple google search would reveal I was making a joke. ;)



Of course, I'll get right onto that.
Print page generated: August 23rd, 2019, 5:00am