A problem of writing what you see

I am a big fan of the movie APOCALYPSE NOW. I have a copy of the screenplay and the DVD of the movie. I watch it over and over again and read the screenplay over and over again. Don’t feel bored.

I noticed, that the screenplay although written by F.F. Coppola himself is not direct to screen. i.e. the screenplay is different at many places. I don’t understand what was the need for that? I know Coppola is not on our board but we can discuss.

Same with SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION, I had memorized that script but could not get the DVD now it is being aired on TV and I watched it more than 4 times. There are changes at certain places. Again written by director FRANK DARABONT himself.

Now I take screenplays from the net and start practicing the shot selection on them. (No, I don’t shoot as I don’t have the rights and the budgets.) I watch the movie and see how mine differs from their vision. I think this has contributed to the problem of writing the script like a movie. I do remember the proof reader saying my scripts read like I was directing them myself without camera angles. I think this is creating a GAP with readers and I am ending up blaming them for being lazy. are the screenplays supposed to read different than the movie?

ACE.INC1
 
That's just the nature of getting from the script to the screen. Things change in pre-production, on the day, and in post. It would be extremely unusual to read a script of a movie that follows the movie exactly.
 
I think every film has scenes written in the script, but didn't make the cut. The closest exception that I've seen (in my limited knowledge of reading scripts) would be The Dark Knight, but even that had a few scenes and lines that were cut.

There's many reasons why film makers cut scenes: timing/pacing, ran out of time to shoot, lack of budget, negative response from test audiences, etc..

That's why you have the directors cuts and deleted scenes on dvds and such.
 
Back
Top