I have went to some script writing workshops and the speaker handed out this worksheet as a reference for writing Hollywood styled scripts. Figured I would share that with you. Here is the location for the worksheet.


http://ywp.scriptfrenzy.org/files/scriptfrenzy-ywp/sf_ywp_10_wb_hs_hollywood.pdf

Really cool. It was like a complete breakdown of the three acts. Very useful!

Is this OK for you to distribute?

It is actually a link from scriptfrenzy.org that was a public posted link. Just figured I would share it here. They have some more writing resources here http://www.scriptfrenzy.org/eng/overview




.

cool, just making sure - legalities and all that (darn us mods and our stiff collared attitudes and rule following nature).

I don't know if this is borderline plagerism, or just a really big coincidence, but this is basically a less-detailed version of Jake Snyder's "Save the Cat" beat sheet.

This is pretty cool, but if you want the real deal, read "Save the Cat".

I have no idea what saving the cat is but this is just a worksheet I was handed out at a writting workshop. I saw the web address on the paper and decided to share it with you guys. I will look in to finding the save the cat one and check it out. Thanks C.F.

I have no idea what saving the cat is but this is just a worksheet I was handed out at a writting workshop. I saw the web address on the paper and decided to share it with you guys. I will look in to finding the save the cat one and check it out. Thanks C.F.

It's pretty sweet. Not just for the very effective "formula" laid out, but for a number of random and useful screenwriting "tricks", and some very good organizational tools.

http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=save+the+cat&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&oe=&um=1&ie=UTF-8&cid=11106892379880215412&ei=P_lcTNqUJMOB8gbCpZG6DQ&sa=X&oi=product_catalog_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDYQ8wIwAg#

Did you see the other stuff on here for tips on screen writting. Looks like it could be a good resource too.
http://www.scriptfrenzy.org/eng/overview

The "Cameos: Articles by the experts" section looks cool.

I link their formatting page here now and then too.
Makes it way easier for someone to see examples of format.

Check out Filmy's 4 act structure and various info in the other screen writing section here
on Indietalk as well.


-Thanks-

I have went to some script writing workshops and the speaker handed out this worksheet as a reference for writing Hollywood styled scripts. Figured I would share that with you. Here is the location for the worksheet.


http://ywp.scriptfrenzy.org/files/scriptfrenzy-ywp/sf_ywp_10_wb_hs_hollywood.pdf
Thanks for the info ,but the most difficult part is how to apply the yardstick to your script
padma

I don't know if this happened to anyone else, but I tried to go to this website and it took 10 MINUTES to stop it from opening tabs on my PC. I don't have the slightest idea what just got downloaded, but I'm not going back to find out what this is.


-- spinner :cool:

It did not happen to me. But I got a good firewall and anti popup. Sorry that happened no idea why. The first link was just a link to a pdf file. The second link is the link the website.

yea, right, as if there aren't enough numskulls following formula

don't..... add.... to.... the..... tripe

Oh, hi maralyn, nice to meet you! Welcome to the forum. "How to Train Your Dragon" was written using Blake Snyder's methods. A lot of people like that movie. It's not a mathmatical formula. You still have to make it somehow unique. I think "structure" is a better word to describe it.

yea, well, I can name a few movies that were written without that formula .....

don't be so afraid of your own mind.

What an entering statement Maralyn. I'm assuming this is the whole "Hollywood is the man" scenario.

Structure is a must, both in production/planning to distribute to anybody beyond your four walls. The "Tripe" that you're referring to, would be "The Story", and that falls down to only you.

There's no generic link between a template format and the method of storytelling.

Again, I think "formula" is a poor word to describe it. maralyn, do you believe in the three-act structure? Cuz if you do, then you're using, in these terms, a formula. It's just that Snyder's structure is considerably more specific than just three acts, and it can be a really effective way for someone to piece their story together.

Accusing us of being scared to use our own minds might not be your best introduction to these threads. You wanna back up and try that again? There are lots of very creative people here.

blah blah blah blah

brainwashing

:)

Oh, well. Thanks for the laugh.

Wow.

So, Cracker, tea?

It's not a story unless it has its own structure

So the millions of novels are less becoming because their structure is one? The screenplays that have lead to such colossal inspiration worldwide, for generations, these are not partnered with the art of storytelling?

Beginning. Middle. End.

That's not just a structure, that's life.

yea, well, but, maybe its ok to decide for yourself where the beginning,. and the end and the middle are, in relation to each other.

If it's structured to formula it's not a story.

It's... um.... tripe,

Interesting, really.

So, Cracker, about that tea.

yea, about that tea.

What's happened to this place.

Indietalk is now encouraging the following of hollywood formula.

Oh, that's just great.

Yea, let's dum down indie as well.

I think you got to consider what hollywood considers a good formula. You don't have to follow it. But obviously it is successful because a lot of hollywood movies have a similar arc it seems to me.

I think it just puts a lot of destructive noise between your ears.

And all of this rubbish about "what hollywood wants", it's just the internet feeding your insecurities.

And new writers are gullible, and vulnerable, and they listen to that crap.

Every story should have it's own process.

Or it's not relevant.

It's, er, how'd ya say.... tripe.

It's like asking a child what they want to be when they grow up. It's not the reality of who they become.

Uh, yeah.....

And your idea of a story that is not formulaic is......:hmm:

btw, we don't try to insult people here, especially if you can't back up what your point is....whichi you have yet to do.


-- spinner :cool:

oh, man, the scribosphere is overrun by unsold and aggressive save the cat devotees.

That's all there is to it.

I think it's because they've gone down that road, and failed, and now have no way to return.

I don't know, I haven't seen that dragon movie. Was it a kids movie, cos they can get away with being a bit simple.

yea, well, I can name a few movies that were written without that formula .....

don't be so afraid of your own mind.

Hey I'd love to see some good original stuff.

What movies do you recommend?

There IS a fundamental *structure* to storytelling underlying all human world experience, and that is the hero journey, or, as already noted: beginning, middle, and end. Campbell and Jung spent their lifetimes studying comparative literatures and mythologies to find that, indeed, the monomyth underlies all human storytelling, that it's the local variants of cultures and individual contexts which make this (our human) *story*, contemporary. It's been said before, you need a common denominator (the monomyth) in order for an audience to start this journey with you, but it's up to the artist/filmmaker to make it relevent for their audience....and that means gleaning, and mirroring, the culture the artist lives in...that's where the real creativity comes in. You cannot make a work of art in a conceptual vacuum, you need some remnant of reference.

And, I do agree there are many works made outside this formula. But if you were to dig deeply into them, I bet you could easily classify those pieces as deconstructive...they most probably work with some element of the monomyth, even the most abstract examples.

I've never even heard of a Blake Snyder film, so, it seems a bit unnatural that he should be a guru to thousands of developing writers.

I would have thought that was obvious.

This is some book that's gone viral. I wonder how films were written before he wrote his book.

And the tactics they employ.

Punishment by alienation. I'm not invited for tea.

And then I'm challenged to tell them my three wishes so they can twist me into believing what they're saying can make them come true.

Oh look, and there's a clever one, she's pretending to accept what I'm saying so I'll confide in her.

wow

What the hell happened to independent thought.

I've never even heard of a Blake Snyder film, so, it seems a bit unnatural that he should be a guru to thousands of developing writers.

I would have thought that was obvious.

This is some book that's gone viral. I wonder how films were written before he wrote his book.

And the tactics they employ.

Punishment by alienation. I'm not invited for tea.

And then I'm challenged to tell them my three wishes so they can twist me into believing what they're saying can make them come true.

Oh look, and there's a clever one, she's pretending to accept what I'm saying so I'll confide in her.

wow

What the hell happened to independent thought.

So what movies do you like that don't follow what you call tripe?

I've never even heard of a Blake Snyder film, so, it seems a bit unnatural that he should be a guru to thousands of developing writers.

I would have thought that was obvious.

This is some book that's gone viral. I wonder how films were written before he wrote his book.

And the tactics they employ.

Punishment by alienation. I'm not invited for tea.

And then I'm challenged to tell them my three wishes so they can twist me into believing what they're saying can make them come true.

Oh look, and there's a clever one, she's pretending to accept what I'm saying so I'll confide in her.

wow

What the hell happened to independent thought.


The "formula" is as old as the bi-cameral mind, and was given a tangible voice with Aristotle's poetics. Plato managed to speak volumes before that.

The rest of your post sounds self-absorbed and trolling. :(

And now they're resorting to calling me a troll.

Intimidation tactics. All because I'm not a believer.

Devo-tea anyone. Man. You know, to the sane screenwriter, these templates are like a straightjacket.

Thats awesome

And now they're resorting to calling me a troll.

Intimidation tactics. All because I'm not a believer.

Devo-tea anyone. Man. You know, to the sane screenwriter, these templates are like a straightjacket.

First, no one but myself implied you were a troll. Singular, no "they".

Your stream of consciousness confessional is definitely self-absorbed.

Please, direct me to some examples of successful movies/scripts which in no way deal with the monomyth, either as a construct or elements, used, thereof, decontructively...and I will apologize for my troll namecalling.

BTW, I'm not trying to convert you to anything.

Who cares? The Hollywood film industry and its evil formulas aren’t there to appease anyone’s creative sensibilities or shine like a beacon that guides anyone’s artistic integrity into safe harbor, it’s a business just like McDonalds, and both use formulas to create a product that sells. If someone doesn’t like that product, they shouldn’t eat it.

Yes you can make a better hamburger at home -all day long, but let’s see you sell over a billion of them to the masses without doing the same thing over and over until at some point a trend or a formula emerges.

Is that formula good? It is if you want to run that kind of business, but no one says anyone has to run that kind of business or create that kind of product. Do they? And why would anyone listen if they did?

As far as the books go, Snyder, Mckee whoever the hell else is the theory of the moment, again who cares? Do they claim their way is the only way? I don’t think so.

They are simply selling their take on things just like you are trying to sell your take on things, and anyone fool enough to accept everything is one way or everything isn’t or can’t be many ways gets exactly what they pay for.


-Thanks-

Oh, right, you'll stop the name calling when I surrender.

How to make a screenwriter feel sick. By Blake Snyder.

And, how to enforce this sickness, by Anonymous Internetties.

I'm not a big fan of Snyder myself, and I've seen that most of the movies use the traditional 3 act structure.

I've seen some great movies which follow 3 act structure and many shitty ones which follow the same structure.

So, if they follow the same structure and methods, what's the difference between them? Story is the answer.

If you don't have a good story, no structure can save you.

lol

Imposing a structure template will only ever be to the detriment of a story.

A good story already has its own structure. The way it needs to be told.

I mean, I could tell you the story about the 12 year old boy who got drunk at a party and vomited up three act structure, but that would be the end, and you want the beginning first.

Anyone adult in the western world has spent over a million hours being brainwashed by three act structure, we get it already.

The challenge is to resist it.

I’m sad that this has turned into an argument between bird and
marlyn. I sure hope that we can get past the name calling and get
back to the interesting topic marlyn brought up.

I’ll make my attempt:

maralyn, your first post on this thread called people following
formula “numskulls”. I know that you can see now that starting off
name calling raises a defensive response. Then you said
yea, well, I can name a few movies that were written without that formula .....

But so far you have not named these movies.

It’s easy to call structure and formula “crap” and “tripe” and
“destructive noise” and to state that writers following any
structure or formula are brainwashed.

It’s harder to have a respectful discussion (and bird isn’t
helping) and point out examples to support your statements.

Others have asked and I, too am asking. What are the few movies
you can name that were written without that formula?

I’m sad that this has turned into an argument between bird and
marlyn. I sure hope that we can get past the name calling and get
back to the interesting topic marlyn brought up.

I’ll make my attempt:

maralyn, your first post on this thread called people following
formula “numskulls”. I know that you can see now that starting off
name calling raises a defensive response. Then you said


But so far you have not named these movies.

It’s easy to call structure and formula “crap” and “tripe” and
“destructive noise” and to state that writers following any
structure or formula are brainwashed.

It’s harder to have a respectful discussion (and bird isn’t
helping) and point out examples to support your statements.

Others have asked and I, too am asking. What are the few movies
you can name that were written without that formula?

I take exception, Rick. I am not arguing for the sake of argument. Where have I been disrespectful? I've seen far worse on this site during my tenure, in fact very recently. I've stated my opinion and stand by my posts. I'll not be scolded by another member.

I take exception, Rick. I am not arguing for the sake of argument. Where have I been disrespectful? I've seen far worse on this site during my tenure, in fact very recently. I've stated my opinion and stand by my posts. I'll not be scolded by another member.
I've stated my opinion and I stand by my post.

But now that I know your requirements I will no longer "scold" you.

lol, okay

wow, they're pulling out the big guns.

I can name a ton of movies not written to that formula.

How about, uhm, hang on, I'm going to draw from great American Indie for this, Eraserhead.

And I should be allowed to ask, has anyone here been to film school?

wow, they're pulling out the big guns.

I can name a ton of movies not written to that formula.

How about, uhm, hang on, I'm going to draw from great American Indie for this, Eraserhead.

And I should be allowed to ask, has anyone here been to film school?
I feel the way about films school as you do about formula.

Interesting you should mention "Eraserhead". That films follows the
very formula mentioned in that work sheet. I had the opportunity to
speak at length with the writer/director several years ago about that
film. He spoke a lot about structure and formula and Henry's journey.

I'm eagerly awaiting the tone of movies you can name. Despite what
you seem to imply, I am not a "big gun" - I'm a fellow independent
filmmaker and writer who enjoys discussing writing and am passionate
about the structure and formula of a compelling story.

I hope to learn for you.

See. The typical response of the devotee. And I didn't say "structure" was crap. I said formula was crap. You seem to be suggesting that all stucture is formula.

And now, look, see, you got what you wanted, to suck me in as an example of why Snyder is so great.

This is intenet madness.

And there's absolutely no sanity to dumping on film school.

All of the masters went to film school.

You make a hell of an assumption that I am a devotee.
But I know now that we can never have a respectful
conversation. Closed minded comes in many flavors.


All of the masters went to film school.
Not all.

Hitchcock didn't.
Ford didn't
John Sayles
Peter Jackson
Richard Linklater
Luc Besson
Martin McDonagh
Terry Gilliam
Clint Eastwood
Ridley Scott
David Fincher
Luc Besson
John Waters
Woody Allen
Peter Bogdanovich
David Cronenberg
John Cassavetes
Paul Haggis
Wes Craven
George Romero
Alfinso Cuaron

and Orson Welles is considered by some a master. He didn't go to films school.

Coppola, Spielberg, Lynch, Lucas, Wenders, Antonioni, Bieniex, Tarkovsky, Tati, Greenaway, you know, uhm, the masters.

Coppola, Spielberg, Lynch, Lucas, Wenders, Antonioni, Bieniex, Tarkovsky, Tati, Greenaway, you know, uhm, the masters.

Tati? Jacques Tati? What film school did he attend?

Greenaway went to art school not film school.

Wenders studied medicine and then philosophy but never went to
film school.

Antonioni got a degree in economics but never went to film school.

I’ve never heard of Bieniex. Care to point me in the right
direction of a master I’ve never seen a film by?

You're obviously really into internet arguing.

Anyway, the fact is, neither of us has Blake Snyder on our lists.

So, it's a mystery to me why anyone would listen to what he's got to say over what real filmmakers have got to say.

And I bet no one on either of those lists has ever even heard of Blake Snyder.

The save the cat craze is an internet wannabee thing.

I don't know if this is borderline plagerism, or just a really big coincidence, but this is basically a less-detailed version of Jake Snyder's "Save the Cat" beat sheet.

This is pretty cool, but if you want the real deal, read "Save the Cat".

This isn't plagiarism. This systematic structure has been preached from many people over and over again. It's a very cookie cutter approach. You have this PDF, you have Blake Snyder's approach, there is Gulino's sequence approach... and yadda yadda yadda.

I used to follow these steps religiously until it turned out to have more of a negative effect than a positive one. In my opinion I think people should use these as nothing more than mere guides. But hey, that's just my opinion. Then again, I don't have any interest trying to fit my CIRCLE story into a SQUARE format.

*Well, after actually reading the thread I seem to be a tad late.

And just to explain myself a little better. I have nothing against structure or formula.

I do however have a vendetta against trying to squeeze a story to meet the standards written in a book. I may be naive when saying this but every Tom, Dick and Harry should know that a story has a beginning, middle and end. Just as everyone should know there is always an "Event" or "Catalyst/Inciting Incident" as some reference it as that tosses the main character into the mix of the story. There's always a turning point and some form of resolution in one way or another. If you watch any movie you will see this. It's practically common knowledge in my opinion and you don't need a book to teach you this...

I just don't agree that we have to hit the marks on specific pages in order for it to be effective.

You're obviously really into internet arguing.

As are you. It's fun, isn't it?

So, it's a mystery to me why anyone would listen to what he's got to say over what real filmmakers have got to say.
It's a mystery to me too. I have no idea who Blake Snyder is.

But you are avoiding the questions several people have asked.
What are the films (tons of the them) that you know that do
not follow formula? Eraserhead follows the standard formula
quite closely and that's the only one you have mentioned.

I hope your information is more accurate then your list of
directors who went to films school.

Or is bird right and I owe him an apology?

Well, seeing as most of the people on your list have just been copying the people on my list, I think you owe everyone an apology.

http://artfulwriter.com/?p=1062

Oh, God, this is too fun! I can't believe the madness that went down while I was at work. L!O!L!

You know I gotta weigh in. But first, I must shower, and relax, after a very long day of work.

In the meantime, first, I have to step in and correct a horrible wrong. Blake Snyder, rest in peace, was a spec writer. Spec writers don't get their names in the credits -- they just get a very fulfilling lifetime career, doing what they love.

Oh, and directorik, you forgot James Cameron. Yeah, I know, not many people would call him a master, but he seems to be doing pretty well, and a lot of people seem to enjoy his movies. He never went to film school.

Scorsese went to film school

Tarantino went to film school. Jim Jarmusch went to film school. Andrew Dominik went to film school.

So let's not dump on film school.

maralyn, you need to check your "facts".

Tarantino did not attend film school. Spielberg did not attend film school. I'm not going to bother fact-checking the rest of your blather, cuz those are a couple of big ones.

Here's a few others you might've heard of that never attended film school:

Steven Soderbergh, Robert Rodriguez, Quentin Tarantino, Richard Linklater, Spike Jonze, Christopher Nolan, James Cameron, David Fincher, Peter Jackson, Ridley Scott, Stanley Kubrick, Sam Raimi, David Mamet, Frank Durabont...

You know. The masters.

So who have we got.

Lynch, Lucas, Scorsese, Jarmusch, Dominik and Coppola.

And Blake Snyder's save the cat is still trifling tripe.

Who cares?

Film-school vs. Non-film-school is a moot point. This discussion is structure vs. non-structure.

maralyn, surely your fancy film-school has talked about the three-act structure. That's pretty well-established, accross the board. How about character arc? That's also pretty well-established.

That's just two examples of structure that are completely entrenched -- even your "masters" employ three-acts and makes sure that the character has a strong arc. Snyder, and other screenwriters like him, are simply offering a little more structure. And you know what? Once you understand the structure that Snyder lays out, you begin to see it in pretty much every movie that is made.

That's because structure doesn't define content. A creative screenwrite can jam whatever they want into the structure that has already been pretty clearly established. They're just finding creative ways to deliver original stories in a format that audiences seem to have taken to. I don't see anything wrong with that.

See, this is the madness. Anyone who doesn't believe in save the cat must therefore be a non-structuralist.

This is where you are wrong.

Structure does not automatically equate to formula.

Marilyn your elitism is making my eyes water.

Tarantino did not go to film school not that it matters. Nearly all of the greats that did go to film school also say that they learned nothing about story telling and it was very helpful for their careers by NETWORKING.

The "formulas" are not the enemy. They are merely a tool to teach new writers the general ebb and flow of filmic structure. Once you master the natural movement of a film, you develop your own take on the process. This is when the writer finds their own voice. The more you develop as a writer the less you care about the "formulas".

I am confident in my knowledge of the craft, I am confident in my abilities as a story teller, and I also learned the formulas. They are not meant to be adhered to 100 percent. That is what new writers don't understand untill they fullly complete a screenplay or two.

I am not one who usually makes judgement calls, but your obvious hatred of anything you deem to be formulaic tripe leads me to think that you lack the practical experience. I honestly doubt that you have written anything, your posts reek of an a faux artist who just regurgitates what other people say.

You have been bashing people for being too hollywood and close minded, when ironically you are doing the exact same thing just on the otherside of the coin.

So don't be afraid to use your mind and realize that Hollywood does not equal Uninspired tripe. Bad filmmaking is bad filmmaking, regardless if its studio, indie, foriegn, student, or arthouse. I have seen more vomit inducing art films about nothing than I care to remember.


There are two types of people in this world, creators and destroyers. I prefer to align myself with creators, even if what they create is bad. And talking about creating does not make you a creator, it just makes you a wannabe.

So who have we got.

Lynch, Lucas, Scorsese, Jarmusch, Dominik.

I'll take my list over yours, anyday.

And Blake Snyder's save the cat is still trifling tripe.

You have no idea how uneducated you make yourself sound when you talk so poorly about something that you know nothing of. You don't know who Blake Snyder is; you don't know who his followers are; you don't know a darned thing about his book(s). But, somehow, you know that he is "trifling tripe".

Is narrow-mindedness what they are teaching in film school, these days?

As I mentioned earlier, Snyder was a very successful spec writer. "Save the Cat" isn't necessarily an instructional piece on how to write the best screenplay ever. Really, it's an instructional book on how to make a career out of being a spec writer. Snyders' most devoted followers all intend to be professional spec writers.

Me? I don't fit that category. Personally, I have no interest in being a spec writer. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it -- it's just not for me. Nevertheless, I did find a lot of value in Snyders' teachings. Because of the fact that I'm not trying to sell a script, I didn't feel any pressure to strictly follow his rules; I broke quite a few of them. But that doesn't mean that my screenplay didn't benefit immensely from a lot of the wisdom that is in his writing. maralyn, how do you know his teachings have nothing to offer? You don't. And, unfortunately for you, you probably never will.

Structure does not automatically equate to formula.

Exactly. I've been trying to tell you that "formula" is the wrong word to describe Snyder's structure!

In your laziness, you've just bundled the two together.

You actually think formula ..... IS structure.

And you couldn't be further from the truth.

But I'm not a self proclaimed guru like dictator rik here. So it's not my job to teach you the fundamentals of film.

I just think you should stop pushing this nonsense like you and Blake know it all.

Because the reality of it is, it looks a lot like neither of you have got a clue how to actually write a script.

What is your version of structure Marilyn? Honestly, you bash Snyder as being formulaic, then you say that structure doesn't mean formulaic.

A film does need a vision of the characters real world, then an event that trusts them into the new problem world, then they need to be fully invested in this new world, then they have to try defeat the problem this new world pushes on them, the problem eventually has to get worse be fore the final conflict, then comes the resollution.

That is all that Blake Snyder says, that is what Joeseph Campbell said with his mythic structure/ hero's journey over 60 years ago and thats the bassics of what Aristotle said over 2000 years ago. This is storytelling. call it what you want. It's just terminology.

Don't listen to the save the cat devotees. Don't buy into it. It's just internet hype.

Real practitioners don't promote it.

Nobody on any list of filmmakers promotes it.

That should tell you something.

In your laziness, you've just bundled the two together.

You actually think formula ..... IS structure.

And you couldn't be further from the truth.

But I'm not a self proclaimed guru like dictator rik here. So it's not my job to teach you the fundamentals of film.

I just think you should stop pushing this nonsense like you and Blake know it all.

Because the reality of it is, it looks a lot like neither of you have got a clue how to actually write a script.

Wow. You sure are good at figuring people out. Directorik's "guru" stamp is not self-appointed. And I have never claimed to be anything of a screenwriting expert on these forums. Just the opposite, on the screenwriting forums I've explained how much of a screenwriting rookie I am; I've asked for advice, and I've been quite receptive to some very harsh criticism. I wonder if you could do the same.

What I have said numerous times is that I found "Save the Cat" to be very helpful to my personal learning process. What's wrong with that?

This isn't fun anymore. Buh-bye now.

where do you get your information? It's just inaccurate. There are a lot of screenwriting "gurus" that are a scam, but Snyder just took what was already a well accepted approach to story telling and updated the wording and terminology for a new generation of film maker.

You're arguements have been nothing more than "you are dumber than me" with no evidence to back up what you are saying, half of the "facts" you have posted are flat out wrong. So that means you are just making things up to fit your own elite opinion. That doesn't make you look smarter than anyone, it makes you look like just another member of the artshool confidential herd.

It's funny that you firmly believe that you are right and every other person is wrong. It's either baffling arrogance or sheer ignorance, either way it's not an admirable quality. To form a valid opinion you need to look at both sides with an unbiased eye, then make a decision. I used to be just like you, I hated everything that wasn't what I perceived to be enlightened. Then I actually wrote a couple screenplays, I got over myself and realized that I didn't even like the stuff I pretended to, just so I could seem like I was a true film connoisseur. Now I realize that story telling is story telling, regardless of pretension level.

Enjoy life with your head in the sand.

This was never fun, deary.

Theories are bought only by those who feel they have no talent.

This was never fun, deary.

Theories are bought only by those who feel they have no talent.

So what does structure and formula in the grand scheme of script writing mean to you?

Why the hell do you care WHAT I think?

You are asking me questions only you can answer for yourself.

All of the rest is just clutter. Even me.

Why the hell do you care WHAT I think?

You are asking me questions only you can answer for yourself.

All of the rest is just clutter. Even me.


That is far from a question only I can answer since I do not understand your way of thinking.

Because you have a different view point than almost everyone on this board it would seem and I like to understand peoples ideas and thoughts.

I am always impressed about this site. There is always people helping each other
and the camaderie is very friendly.
What happenned ? Pl let us bury the hatchet and be friends Lol
padma

"Spec writers don't get their names in the credits -- they just get a very fulfilling lifetime career, doing what they love."

Cracker, this isn't true at all... just sayin.

I am always impressed about this site. There is always people helping each other
and the camaderie is very friendly.
What happenned ? Pl let us bury the hatchet and be friends Lol
padma
And sometimes an argument can be helpful.

In this case we have all seen that our new member is
unfamiliar with the background and history of storytelling
and directors. Some of us love an internet argument (or
discussion) and there's nothing wrong with that. maralyn
isn't concerned with facts, cannot back up arguments which
leads to the repetitive nature of this one and has chosen to
call names.

But clearly we are enjoying this or we would stop.

We're all still friends here, padma. I'm out of this conversation,
others are too. It will blow over as all of these arguments, do.

An appropriate analogy, IMO, and with this, I'm out of this discussion as well.



Structure

http://i815.photobucket.com/albums/zz78/sistercoen/structure.jpg
Story
http://i815.photobucket.com/albums/zz78/sistercoen/wiz1.jpg
Structure
http://i815.photobucket.com/albums/zz78/sistercoen/structure.jpg
Story
http://i815.photobucket.com/albums/zz78/sistercoen/mermaid1.jpg

I'm female, Rik. I know it's a hard assumption to break in this industry. :)

"Spec writers don't get their names in the credits -- they just get a very fulfilling lifetime career, doing what they love."

Cracker, this isn't true at all... just sayin.

Okay, professional spec writers...

I kinda thought that much would be implied in the context of the statement.

Early on I tried to get you to elaborate on your post and give us an example of formula or structure or whatever so we could understand your standpoint. You have refused for a couple of days now. What we have here is a person who would rather argue than support his own statements.

For the record, there are people here who have gone to film school and those who have not. I have yet to see anyone "dump" on film school, but many have said that film school is not a necessity and they are right. The 'masters' that you name are masters, but as Rik pointed out, not all of them went to film school. How elitist to imply film school is all important when so many of the Masters did not go to or finish film school. It would help here if your examples were accurate. I find it interesting that you refuse to respond to any direct question and wonder whether he went to film school because if he did, his examples would be better or at least accurate.

You're right. This thread is enough to make your eyes water. The post is the equivalent to saying Your Film Sucks and walking away. Pretty pointless to say the least. Certainly not constructive or educational.

-- spinner :cool:

Also, bird's analogy is PERFECT!!!

OH give him a brake her had a .02 post ratio per day before this thread.

Spec writers don't get their names in the credits -- they just get a very fulfilling lifetime career, doing what they love.

Not correct. If your spec is made into a film, the worst that happens is you get a Story By credit (there are some exceptions). Two two guys who wrote NOTTINGHAM (spec) which was completely rewritten into ROBIN HOOD got a Story By credit because the film began with their spec. My spec TREACHEROUS was run through the big sausage machine and the film is nothing at all like the script... but I got a Story By credit (and an apology from the producer at Fox).

Marilyn used to post insanity on the Done Deal message boards... and now she's here.

- Bill

Okay, professional spec writers...

I kinda thought that much would be implied in the context of the statement.

As Bill Said, not correct.

Also, It's easy to list spec scripts that were made into a movie and the writer did get a credit.

Spec Script just means that the script is being written without any speculation of the story being purchased/sold. That's it. Nothing magical or mysterious about it.

You are either writing a story on SPEC or you are writing on ASSIGNMENT. A SPEC usually brings assignments but writers go back to doing SPECS, Pet Projects, ideas they had. Yadda Yadda Yadda.

Bill, I enjoyed your company on the DD boards. Glad you are here. Although, it seems like the DD boards had a bit more structure... Errrr, I mean....

Opus -- I misunderstood which part of my statement you were correcting, originally. Now I gotcha. Correction noted.

Bill -- that's both hilarious and sad that they sent you an apology. Pretty awesome that you sold a script, though.

Also, bird's analogy is PERFECT!!!

Should have added this as well...Last Year at Marienbad. :D

Structure
http://i815.photobucket.com/albums/zz78/sistercoen/IMG_4112.jpg

Story
http://i815.photobucket.com/albums/zz78/sistercoen/IMG_4114.jpg