Thomas Thas It's not bad tbh. From watching videos, you're gaining the experience needed to improve on the screenplays you write. Unless you aren't writing at all. Then it just becomes excess info
Two ideas I take away. Be a storyteller who writes his/her story down in screenwriting format. A new storyteller can't remember all of this advice, so go back and watch these videos from time to time.
Wrong, you can't learn from commentaries alone. Film School prepares you better by taking you through a comprehensive course where you are able to improve and free to fail as well as exchange and learn from like-minded individuals.
@@Michael-jx8iz The discipline that film school will put you through can't be obtained on your own. Furthermore, talking of practice, what type do you propose, because I believe many types exists. The Industry type where you end up being a crew member for hundreds of blockbusters without ever having the possibility to produce your own personal script, the trial and error wannabes whose works you see all over RU-vid and Vimeo, or the practical type that takes books and constant experiments. Of the latter you have two types: The first is the informal school types like Quentin Tarantino and the David F. Sandberg types who didn't go to film school, but neither did they waste their time trying things they didn't know were tryable. Quentin is more read and versed than me in film history and techniques, though I am doing a Doctorate in that. Sandberg learned most of his film from articles on wikipedia and trial and error. The last is the formal film school type like Francis Ford Coppola, Spike Lee, Martin Scorsese and Ryan Coogler. Spielberg is of those who crewed on films for years before having his break, but viewing the configuration of the industry now, I doubt how many have graduated today through that route. I am more a Tarantino/Sandberg type mixed in with Spike/Coppola style since I study film history and analysis in school. It's different from film production study and cheap. And this has considerately shaped my view of international cinema and thus imbued me with a unique sense of film aesthetics which I believe would helpfully contribute when the time comes. The bottom line is that, passion, alone, would not give you enough material to produce good films. The internet clips here alone cannot satisfactorily give you the tools you need. You need to, actually, learn from your errors and, most importantly, other people's experiences, usually embedded in books on the various technical aspects you find yourself interested in.
@@firstblessings8777 I understand what you're saying. When I mean learn on your own I mean by learning from others on your own. Take note of your strengths and weaknesses and perfect your strengths and improve your weaknesses. I'm not in film school yet but I'm signed up to be next year as a sophomore at MSU. I've talked with people who have experience in the business and they recommend certain books and scripts to read and study, as well as story telling advice. I think that the best way to learn is through just writing though. Writing multiple on multiple stories coming up with characters who drive the plot or making a plot that can sometimes lead to the creation of characters. when writing a story you have a lot of freedom but when you focus too much on the "right way to write" you, or at least I know I do, start to drift away from a creative story and Instead into a step by step story that has been done a hundred times over. I've done some studying on Quinton, which is a writer I'd say I'm inspired by a decent amount, he talks about straying away from the norm, which is what's usually taught in film school from what I believe.
No I'm sorry. I just don't buy it. You can call me naive or an amateur all you want but there is a mountain of movies that work fine without a central adversary. I don't know why this guy thinks that's a rule.
I have worked for a production company, as far as I know, there is no secret, permanent database of scripts and notes on which screenwriters to avoid of blacklist, maybe if you get invited to the board of directors this is a secret that gets shared ... JOKE, this guy seems kind of paranoid, I don't know what he's basing this on. Also, most large, reputable production companies only accept scripts that have come through an agent so someone the producer has an existing relationship with. You can't just send scripts in repeatedly under different aliases. Well, you could try, but nobody with any real authority in the company will read it.
this is one of the best of these videos, i have learned the most from this. I like how he describes what is necessary for a main character , adversary, very articulately, expressively.
I def made this mistake Eric mentioned, of sending a script out too soon. Ive been making films since I was a young kid and working in the business below the line for years, and bottling up my own work for too long. So then I was pressuring myself into releasing stuff, thinking people would understand the final script would be revised. Around the same time I made this same mistake with a rough cut/edit of a short film I directed. It was 30+ min long and I knew I could get it down to 15min, but found I had to keep re-explaining that to people who couldn't necessarily comprehend that rough cuts are usually much longer than the final product. Perhaps if someone is really that unreachable, maybe they aren't the best to collaborate with anyway (depending on your aims), but there is certainly something to be said for not releasing your script/work until you are sure it's ready. This video is the first time Ive heard someone else mention this problem. I can see how in both circumstances, I'd been trying to get something out within a certain timeframe instead of continuing to work until it was ready. Unless you've been hired to work on a deadline, you're not doing yourself any favors by releasing stuff as soon as you feel it's ready. Eric offers some good advice when he says to shelf it for a few months. I think the idea is, take your time, get feedback from reliable readers but keep your work to yourself. Dont be too anxious and don't worry if people dont understand the time it's taking, so long as your work ethic isnt the issue, why rush it? I was also maybe letting other ambitious, but lovely, aspiring friends/colleagues make me feel obligated to deliver as they waited to read it in the bleachers. Not really anyone's fault but maybe worth considering the social pressures of the indy scene. Better to generate a feedback loop and keep it private. I think it was John Truby who suggested writing groups. ...Also great advice!
5:00 I couldn't agree more with this statement. The first draft for me is usually sloppy, the pacing is off, the dialogue is choppy and descriptions are vague. Going through to touch of the first draft is basically like rewriting the whole thing.
See they always say screenwriting is really hard and I obviously agree, but right when he starts talking about the adversary being “tougher” than the hero, I lose interest. This creates the exact same movie/show that we’ve all watched a thousand times! I feel like being taught by people who have used this mold (mostly all writers) is just breeding the same experience in television. Have a movie where in the end the bad guy wins, or he was actually the good guy the whole time or better yet, make neither of them “bad.” In war, as in life itself, usually people don’t think they’re the bad guy. It’s them against them. Let US chose the side, make them both good and bad; most people are.
I agree! While these are some good things to keep in mind, the whole time I was thinking that this is just how to write the stereotypical Hollywood movie that makes the big bucks, but not necessarily telling a story as it well as it can be told.
Can the "hero" or "heroine" unwittingly be their own adversary, leading them self down a path of destruction completely unaware of the consequences of their own actions?
muzikmanner - this is a great question. Yes. Falling Down is a great example of this. I am Legend is another: the alternate (original) ending shows this quite brilliantly. The Bad Lieutenant, Scarface, Menace II Society are others notable films.
What do I take away from this? I now realise my wonderful script is dead in the water! I am guilty of almost everything he says in the first 3 minutes😬 Having said that he's probably saved me £5,000! Time to re-write....
I feel like those three mistakes are more centered on traditional storytelling, and don't really encompass art house filmmaking or other types of modern writing. These don't particularly seem like rules, they seem like guidelines you COULD follow depending on what story you're trying to tell.
No, these rules are universal. Think of story telling as a programme, or a code, that unlocks part of the human psyche. It doesn't matter what medium is used, the 'rules' are the same.
script is a similar rehash of a previous one you wrote? simple, convert it to a novel. A LOT! of writers, have the same story told over and over again with different cover art. Dean Koontz and Dan Brown immediately spring to mind.
0:15 "not enough story" Mel Gibson: I'm going to make a movie about a tribe member trying to survive to rescue his pregnant wife and infant son He's going to be chased by Mayans who are trying to kill him pretty much thorough the whole movie and that's about it
Wasn't Howie Blitzer in "L.I.E." a passive central character? (2001) Starring Paul Dano. Nominated for "Best First Screenplay" at the Independent Spirit Awards, Grand Jury Prize at Sundance, 55 awards throughout the world, LA Times #1 best film of the year, NY Times Ten Best, etc. etc. Dano played a 14 year-old boy who was a passive victim of circumstance from the opening shot - and through one unmitigated disaster after another throughout the entire movie. Loses his mother, father, best friend, mentor - everything except his virginity. Does nothing except suffer and lose - and the story was a critical success and box office winner.
In the first 3 minutes of this interview, he just described The Dude in The Big Lebowski... and that movie was great! Yes, in general, what he says is absolutely true, but just remember you can break the rules. That's the difference between art and paint by numbers.
Just to make it clear, The Big Lebowski received mixed critical reception at the time, and brought back a modest box office return, dwarfed by their previous film Fargo and their next film O Brother Where Art Tho?. The Big Lebowski became culturally significant in retrospect, as a cult classic. It's important to consider exceptions, but please, when you're making a name for yourself, do NOT try to break a rule like "passive central character" without REALLY knowing what you're doing.
:D :D :D 1. Not enough story: What about Boyhood and the Before series, A Ghost Story, On Golden Pond, ... 2a. Passive central characters: What about Little Big Man, Forrest Gump, American Beauty, Norman's character in A River Runs Throuth It, A Ghost Story ...? Actually, passive characters are the audience's eyes in the story world and they set the POV over the story (genre). 2b. No strong adversary non flawed heroes: What about the cartoons from the 40s and 50s (Drooppy, Bugs Bunny, ...) Mary Poppins, Wall-E, Forrest Gump, Little Big man, Out Of Africa, The Right Stuff, many James Bond Movies in which the antagonist IS the flawed one,... At least 50% of great movies. 2c. not enough action: Boyhood and the Before series, A Ghost Story, Out Of Africa, On Golden Pond, A River Runs Through It, Eyes Wide Shut, The Bridges Of Madison County, Brokeback Mountain, Mystic River, The Danish Girl ... 3. Get you screenplay out too soon: That's the ONLY statement I totally agree with. 4.Horrible coverage: see Thunder Road below. 5. Executives just read readers' notes: Their fault because most of readers are unqualified. 6. Bad reports are filled and disseminated: 1st lie about the industry practices. Filled yes, shared no. Only recommended scripts are shared (1 out of 5000?) and only with very few people. There is NO sharing application in Hollywood. And there are so many scripts floating over there that it would be as hard as NSA's work to deal with that. 7. Not changing the name of a script: Absolutely of NO IMPORTANCE. 2nd lie about the Industry practices. As stated before, executives DO NOT read either bad rated scripts or their reports/synopses,... and readers turnover is probably what runs the fastest in Hollywood. 8. Dommage to your career and waiting months, years...: 3rd lie. The most important thing is to make your script compelling and matching what your prospect is looking for before resubmitting, and possibly change it's title, characters' names, opening, and take a pen name. If so, you can do that at any time. By keeping the same infos, you just tell them where to search in their database. 9. Do honestly: 4th lie. Absolutely NO unless you feel confident with them, but be smart. The great majority of them ARE NOT honest . 10. What's the reason people are scared to be upfront: That's just intimidation. 11. Most of people in the industry are skilled and mean well: another intimidation. Most of them would not find a gem just in front of their feet (see Thunder Road below). 12. They make mistakes and amazingly they have long memory too. Yes! But they are such a huge flock that it's of no importance. Points 1 and 2 are just an apology of poor screenwriting , Points 4 to 12 are just ways to make writers doubtful and vulnerable. Be smart, be strong, write well and be persuasive. Your chance of success will dramatically increase (let's say up to the same level as breaking the bank at the casino). And if you're still unsuccessful, produce your movie by yourself. www.rottentomatoes.com/m/thunder_road_2018 Although it's based on the Winning short at Sundance 2016 and Jim Cummings wasted 9 months pitching it to these "skilled" people, its screenplay got horrible coverage and a 3 at the Blacklist. So Jim made it himself: It won SXSW 2018, it premiered in France at Cannes 2018 in the Acid selection and was rated the 3rd best movie of the festival by critics before the Palme d'Or, and it won the American Film Festival 2018 at Deauville. Go figure...
I came here for some solid advice on writing. And now, a hypothetical scene continuously haunts me - Eric Edson starring as, "screenwriting professor who doesn't believe in handing out A's." Here's the scene... Final grades are in for the senior-thesis screenplays. Two weeks from now, I graduate film school and head to LA to pursue the big dream. Professor Edson called me into his office for an accumulative evaluation on my script, 80% based on content and 20% based on effort. Strict, but fair. The night before, I felt proud of my work. After submitting my screenplay (three minutes before the deadline at midnight) I leaned back in my chair, smiling with a smug sense of satisfaction. I fantasized about my life months from now. I'd move to Hollywood and occupy a quaint, English Tudor apartment off of Hollywood and Vine. I'd run into Quentin Tarantino grabbing coffee at the Bourgeois Pig in Franklin Village and pitch him my best story. It's "The Matrix meets Inception," I'd explain. The fantasy ended, and I regained consciousness; back in Professor Edson's office, hands and feet strapped to a thin wooden chair. I'm nervous... terrified. He brought his cat, Mr. Skittles, to work that day. Mr. Skittles sat comfortably in his lap, glaring at me. Professor Edson took a deep breath before he spoke. We're already off to a poor start. I mean, no one ever takes a deep breath and has something positive to say. Silent frustration weighed heavy in his eyes, a disappointed look that read, "did this kid listen to anything I said all semester?" He returned the remains of my screenplay, blown to pieces by his opinion - an expert opinion worth years of hard labor in the golden age of Hollywood. A fat "D+" proudly presented itself on the title page, as if it were 20th Century Fox's intro logo, drums beating and trumpets blaring. I stared at it, emotionless. Christ this guy was relentless! Professor Edson carved red ink into each page, enough to create bloody scars. It felt like brail against my fingers. This guy was the academic version of Heath Ledger's Joker. Question marks of various sizes littered each page, most of the dialogue was blocked off by giant X's, and a note read, "why so many parentheticals??" I looked up and met his disapproving eyes (Mr. Skittles was still glaring at me.) Finally, he spoke, verbatim to the words mentioned in this video, specifically 0:17-0:32. "Again, it's that old thiiinggg..." Fade out.
Bless you 😄 You wish to be submitted to such skill building torture that is gold. So do I. I know about parentheticals. Useful, though, as aide memoirs for a complete novice’s draft 0, to remind myself what I was thinking of in the first place 😂
I noticed sometimes on some of these videos they give a numbers figure of what to do or not to do. I seen a video from here about 42 ways to not do this or that. Come on man. You have to have imagination first and foremost. Without it your education is zero. I'm not knocking education but in songwriting I have a little but developed the craft mostly without an education. I do study music theory for my songwriting but the foundation is still imagination. That to me is the basic tool to reach an audience.
Great advice, that I'm definitely going to use..but I can't stop thinking if The Shining defies this passive main character rule. The closest thing to an active protagonist in that is Danny, and that's only because of what he does at the end. Every other main characters actions are being totally controlled by their circumstances and other exterior forces. The only other active character is the cook/other psychic played by Scatman Crothers, and he's a secondary character.
The Big Lebowski, Adaptation, Fantastic planet this guy is talking out of his ass. Screenplays can be anything you want it to be, the execution is the most important part.
@@ethancenteno6928 I think those stories are about reluctant heros, but they end up being very active. also, the fact that theyre so reluctant is a source of comedy, which I think is what makes it work (idk about fantastic planet). I think that if a movie is devoid of comedy and you just gotta take the hero seriously, a passive hero will absolutely ruin your movie, because the audience won't respect it
@7:30 I'm guessing here, but I would think making them re-read something they flagged a "no" would really make them angry because of the volume those readers have to read. Yeah, I can see that being a major bridge burner if not career killer.
Umm… ‘cute’ and ‘sweet’ are not the words that come to my mind. I bet he’s got iron fists under those velvet gloves. I imagine him being ruthlessly fair in giving feedback to his students (lucky bastards 😄).
You don't change your name, because your story is weak, you focus on learning your craft. Write a play, a novel, focus on getting better. Not tricking someone into reading a script that is weak and unprofessional.
I will! Thanks again for posting all of these insightful videos, I recommended this channel to everyone in my novel writing group tonight since I've been learning a lot.
I think that the audience now does not trust any hero of the story, but they are satisfied with the characters and enjoy the dialogues, after the repeated disappointments with the heroes of the story.
why does all this sound like bullshit to me? Tarantino was shitted on and insulted by readers and he still became a somebody. Call producers straight up and pay a script reader.
roger8654 the issue is the screenplay doesn't feel like it doesn't know what it's story is, I think a "flat" story can work as long as the filmmakers seem like they know what they're doing and they have the right kinds of fluff that makes it a strong film and I think young scriptors don't know enough about story, plot, and storytelling and the differences between those three terms, passive main character can work as long as you understand their character and the right way to fulfill that character, pretty sure Fight Club's main character is mostly passive through much of the film, it's Tyler who actually does stuff and the other side can't remember his name waits to follow Tyler's lead up until the end, passive characters are probably tough to watch especially when one wants a strict film structure, but I think it can be done with the right storytelling, story, and plot
jblue1622 passive characters can be interesting artistically me thinks. I think once your start talking popcorn commercial blockbuster movies, that's when formulaec and structural discipline is more a factor. The really talented studios like MCU however find ways to mix formula with passivity and circumstantial storytelling to make great movies like GOTG II, where the main characters don't really have goals. I mean there's Star Lord with his mundane goal of playing catch with his dad. Personally I prefer unconventional movies. They're risky, and logic dictates that the greater the risk, the greater the reward. That is to say, when they're good, boy are they good.
What part is BS? Tarantino has no passive characters, all of his scenes push the story forward, he works on his scripts for years, literally Tarantino doesn't do any of this. Don't get what you're trying to say.
you sound clueless.. Tarantino is a genius when it comes to writing scripts.. just because you're too dumb to realize he was doing something different doesn't mean others will go the same route.. moron.. most new ideas are rejected at first.. but there are a million bad writers for every 1 Tarantino
Stand back everyone, I have a translation of OP... "Tarantino clearly shows scriptwriting is easy. One draft is easier than rewriting 5 times. Therefore, Tarantino must have written his masterpieces in one draft. And since I don't want to work hard, I'm calling this B.S. and will stick to cocktail napkin drafts." And the rest of us have that much less competition. :D
Story and life happening to your mc might not automatically translate to an inactive character. As long as the mc can be reactive. That is to say, there's nothing wrong with story and life merely happening to the hero(ine) or them not being proactive... as long as they're constantly reacting in some way to their circumstances. In fact, I consider a character getting after things and dictating their curcumstances a structural weakness (unless there is a payoff ending where the hero(ine) can no longer do so and fails - a tragedy). List of greats where life just happens to the hero(ine): Sarah Connor - The Terminator Phil - Groundhog Day Misc. - The Breakfast Club Andy Walsh - Pretty in Pink
Interesting point about the Adversary. I have my first short film complete and I have one adversary that Kind of disappears from the film. Hard to explain but this makes me think if I should bring him back somewhere... Maybe in part 2 of the short film:)
Gary Tao The day Nolan's soulless, imagination challenged writing is worthy to lick Tarantino's boots, I'll eat mine. And call me when the so called genius learns how to write dialogue that sounds like people talking or execute theme with an ounce of subtlety.
