critique Exposition feedback

[Spike]

I posted this once before, had second thoughts and deleted, and now have second second thoughts and am posting it again, because I would really appreciate some feedback. It's from a screenplay adaptation of a novel that I want try to get in front of the intellectual property owner, to see if it might be of value to anyone considering a thoughtful PKD (Philip K.Dick) movie. It is unlikely that anyone will read it, for fear of IP issues, but I should at least try.

In this scene--5.5 pages--amid the plot points that need to be made, and along with introducing a main character, I get the major exposition out of the way--just enough to understand how these colonists came to be, and who it is that they share the planet with. It's efficient, I think, but could easily be too amateurish, which, obviously, is not what I want.

It might be something I would be tempted to apologize for in advance, in any introductory notes, something like: I know--something here, like this, only better.

But it might be OK. There might be a degree to which this expository stuff is unavoidably a little clunky. Anyway, this specifically is what I'm asking about. Basically, how does it read? How do you think it would watch? And do you think it's too much?

I'm not worried, by the way, about the setup itself. It doesn't matter if it isn't realistic; it's not that kind of science fiction. Although most of the bits here are of my invention, as is all the dialogue with the exception of a few sentences, it follows the novel pretty closely. My intention would be to write a PKD movie, his story, his concerns, and if that doesn't work it's fine. I wouldn't want to try to do anything else with the material

So: we are on Mars, have seen it is sparsely populated but is livable (terriformed), have seen a little of the landscape ("dry and dismal, with scrub bushes and patches of mossy grass") and have briefly met Arnie, a wealthy wheeler-dealer, a boss, and his number one, Scott.

https://www.keepandshare.com/doc30/114713/expo2-pdf-71k?da=y

 

[mlesemann]

I like it but it can be trimmed A LOT while still communicating the essential information. But there are some points of information that seem to be missing.

A few examples:

Arnie only has to tell Scott to get the elevator fixed - no need to say that he's serious.

Scott only has to say "yes sir" or the equivalent. He's clearly not the maintenance guy.

Then Arnie merely needs to say "Just get it done." That fully conveys his impatience.

BUT why does Arnie tell Miss Sharp to call him by his first name but continue to use "Miss" for her? That's odd and should be (very) briefly explained if you mean it.

I think you can cut the end of that page re smile and Arnie moving on. You don't have to move a character OUT of a scene.

You don't need the line on page 2 about rustling up some goodies.

Cut the "good coffee honey" as it adds nothing.

Then you get into the exposition - and yeah, I think you should cut much of it.

Cut "Ha" and "We could have used those bikes."

You can cut "Bleekman were not found in a cave" and just keep "that is incorrect"

I'd cut Arnie's lines beginning with "Whatever" to just:
Two arms. Two legs. Evidently we have a common ancestor.

On page 3, I'd keep "It is a mystery of space and time" and cut that rest of his lines there.

Arnie's lines:
Anyway, how about some breakfast? Eggs and whatever else you got that looks good. And slice some of those
New England-type melons. Everyone likes a nice melon with breakfast.

I would cut "anyway." Then:
"Eggs and maybe some nice New England-type melons?"

If you indicate that mountains are visible out the windows, I don't see a need for the mountains on the map.

Arnie on the top of page 5, I'd cut
"Look, it says, 'coming soon.' I know. But we've got to do something. "
And keep:
"I’m ready to house, and entertain, and care for, all of them. But they gotta come!"

Scott's reply - keep ONLY "It's a tough sell."

Cut Arnie's speech WAY down to about 1/3.
They lost focus. Spend too damn much on the Bleekman and fake culture. I did this - hell, we NEED this.
But now what?

Get rid of Arnie's speech about the mountains.

Cut the earlier reference to the transportation editorial and incorporate that into the line about Anne Esterhazy and the Anomalous Children of Mars.

And simplify the ending. Consider having Arnie just grab a piece of melon (get rid of "dampening") and eat it as he leaves.
He can simply say that he's going to see her himself.


Just my thoughts. I like it.

 

[Spike]

Thanks, Mara. This is what I was looking for, and it is helpful.

Some of this makes more sense with what precedes and what follows. There are a few little plants, Arnie's little flirtation, Sharp's little shy smile, which will be revisited.

And I'm trying to show that Arnie has a kind of quirky verbosity, a fundamentally insincere good-cheer, which we begin to see here. He imagines himself, in spite of his opulent life, as a common-man populist, which is why wants to be called Arnie. It's a line he will repeat until he, pointedly, doesn't. But since some of this dialogue sounds, to you, off, I will look closely at what speaks to his character and what doesn't.

"Good Coffee" was me trying to be funny. This is the first time we see that Mars is indeed populated with LGMs, little green men. And Arnie, calling his little green man-servant, incongruously, "Honey," is him doing a parody of this kind of thing:

So I imagined the Martian's sardonic reveal to be amusing, kind of a trailer moment. I would be sad to see it go.

But yea, I'll look for things to just cut out, some of what you suggest. Especially, as you said, Arnie's question about the Bleekmen and his speech about the UN. It's a little too much "as you well know," but I can't think of how to fix it. One strategy is to have someone else in the scene that knows as little as the audience does, who can be explained to. But I don't want to make it more complicated. Another is this "pope in the pool" nonsense, having a bit or an image that is so unusual the audience is distracted enough to not notice they are being lectured at. But yes. I think you may be right. The answer might be just making it shorter. I see that just a few sentences gone could make a big difference.

Thanks again, as always, for your thought and time

 

[mlesemann]

Keep in mind that not everything has to be explained immediately. More info can be dribbled out in subsequent conversations, with (hopefully) opportunities to show more than tell.

 

[Nate North]

It reminds me of Heinlein, which is a good thing, and a bad thing. I should preface this by saying that he is one of my all time favorite writers.

This is just an excerpt of course, so it's hard to make any judgements on the story yet. Seems interesting, my kind of plot obviously.

I think Mara summed it up pretty well in the last post. Some stories require a good bit of exposition. Generally, the more of that exposition you can make non verbal, the better.

To me this feels like golden age sci fi writing, which I've always liked, so it's hard to be critical, but I'll give it a shot.

1. If this is a book, I think it's fine. If it's a movie, you should accelerate the pace a bit and add more conflict. That's a difference you'll notice in books and movies. In film you need a bit of conflict in almost every scene. In books people can agree and act normal for slightly longer periods. In RAH's books, people frequently got along and agreed with each other in low stress situations for great lengths of time, such as 5 pages. Travolta's Swordfish, while a lesser work, never really went 30 consecutive seconds without pinging the tension, but as a movie, it worked better than Stranger in a Strange land would have.

2. There's no actual hard rules to fiction writing, do whatever you want, it is what it is. If you're looking to make it "commercially viable" then the advice I can add is maybe viable. There's nothing really wrong here, and I'd need more context to really say anything intelligent. Is this Mad Men in space, or is this Mad Max in space? Makes a lot of difference, even in terms of critiquing this one scene.

3. I like it overall. You are doing some core things that I think are important, and get sidelined by a lot of indie writers, though sometimes intentionally over budget concerns. World building, establishing scope, innovating details, these are all foundational techniques when writing Sci Fi specifically. It's what those readers are there for. They want to explore a larger universe than the one they're used to, and it's significant to telegraph that you intend to do that early on, which is what you're doing here.

So, basically, it seems good. Interested to see where it's going.

 

[mlesemann]

In film you need a bit of conflict in almost every scene.

Great point.

 

[Spike]

Thanks Nate. I was looking forward to your, and to Mara's, thoughts (and of course to anyone else's who wants to bother). I think you both found it too slow (but not badly written, which means a lot). While this is a little disappointing it is certainly understandable, and I take it to heart.

I'm exhausted, right now, and so will put off some larger thoughts on technical issues around exposition, on conflict, on being entertaining, on art v commercial viability, and on, I guess, life the universe and everything.

But I wanted to drop a note, now, of appreciation for some great ideas, and for your thoughtful, well crafted, efforts. It's a quick little scene, but one I don't feel comfortable with, that i think needs some work, and so thiese are helpful.

 

[Spike]

To me this feels like golden age sci fi writing, which I've always liked,

I like this a lot. It should have that feel. It's Philip K. Dick, part of that generation but as unique, and I think as important, as Kafka, reifying dense philosophical and existential concerns in pulpy SF. Heinlein liked him (probably felt sorry for him, as a kind of troubled nut) but found his writing "too neurotic" lol. There is a whole PKD feel of a world that is extravagant, but on its surface fragile, is filled with Phildickian quirky detail, and that may be only apparently real. I don't think it has been successfully captured yet.

 

[Spike]

In film you need a bit of conflict in almost every scene.

I'll take y'all's word for it, but is this really true? Probably for commercial viability it is, but I don't care about that, It's not my primary motivating thing. It's somebody else's decision. I just want to do what I can, do what seems correct for the thing, whatever that thing is,

I subscribe to this Master Class thing. It's a little pricy, but I think worth it. The lineup of "instructors" is almost comical in it's quality, indisputible greats and some outright GOATs--Wayne Gretzky, Simone Biles, Lewis Hamilton, Serena Williams, etc.

Anyway, in his thing, David Mamet talks about every scene driving toward a goal, everything contributing to the plot, but I don't see this, exclusively, in Glengarry Glenross. Aaron Sorkin goes on and on about every scene and character driven by what he calls "intention and obstical," but there are lots of bits in the West Wing that seem to function on some other level.

I'm not trying to debate, to make any point, but just thinking out loud. It's, I know, a balance.

The other hand: In the absence of these kinds of things, what remains is not fiction, not drama, not interesting, but is something else. I do have a feeling for the drama and the conflict in the story as a whole, but if its constituent parts, the scenes, are themselves boring, then the whole thing will probably, transparently, fail. I think I tend to get infatuated with something I write and refine, just because it, finally, exists.

Anyway, In short, in conclusion, I think I have (ah god, unfortunately) things to learn.

 

[mlesemann]

Instead of conflict, think of it as the characters each do/should want something in each scene.

When those things are different, you have conflict. When they're the same, you have people working toward a common goal.

I DO think that every scene/sentence needs to be essential to the screenplay, otherwise it should be cut.

But yeah, everyone does it differently. And the fact that I say it's so doesn't make it so

 

[Spike]

If this is a book, I think it's fine. If it's a movie, you should accelerate the pace a bit.

Yes! Good. I think this was what Mara was suggesting, in dropping lines, subtracting rather than adding, a shift in perspective, from the writer to the audience.

 

[Nate North]

I'll take y'all's word for it, but is this really true? Probably for commercial viability it is, but I don't care about that, It's not my primary motivating thing. It's somebody else's decision. I just want to do what I can, do what seems correct for the thing, whatever that thing is,

I subscribe to this Master Class thing. It's a little pricy, but I think worth it. The lineup of "instructors" is almost comical in it's quality, indisputible greats and some outright GOATs--Wayne Gretzky, Simone Biles, Lewis Hamilton, Serena Williams, etc.

Anyway, in his thing, David Mamet talks about every scene driving toward a goal, everything contributing to the plot, but I don't see this, exclusively, in Glengarry Glenross. Aaron Sorkin goes on and on about every scene and character driven by what he calls "intention and obstical," but there are lots of bits in the West Wing that seem to function on some other level.

I'm not trying to debate, to make any point, but just thinking out loud. It's, I know, a balance.

The other hand: In the absence of these kinds of things, what remains is not fiction, not drama, not interesting, but is something else. I do have a feeling for the drama and the conflict in the story as a whole, but if its constituent parts, the scenes, are themselves boring, then the whole thing will probably, transparently, fail. I think I tend to get infatuated with something I write and refine, just because it, finally, exists.

Anyway, In short, in conclusion, I think I have (ah god, unfortunately) things to learn.

I thought the Sorkin class was good. The Scorcese course is good. The negotiation course is good. James Patterson is kind of an idiot. Masterclass is a good subscription, but, lol, you'll have to temper expectations as many of the "courses" reveal that a number of the celebrities aren't actually good at anything.

I think my favorite example was the Deadmouse audio mixing class. lol.

I'm the highest paid music producer, this is my masterclass. So, Uh, it's like they bought me this grand piano, but I don't know what all the keys do. I wish I could play this. Duh. Anyway, this knob here makes the beat go louder. Make sure you don't push that button over there though, that mutes the sound. Then people can't hear it.

Chapter 2. How to get signed. I was like living next door to this guy who inherited a record company, and one day I was just trying out a preset on my drum machine, and he was like, did you make that.

Chapter 3. the true story of how Ferrari asked me to sell them my car back when I put Tokyo drift vinyls all over a 325k car.

The fashion designers are some of the dumbest on there. Your mind will recoil in horror as you watch a smirking billionaire in a Manhattan townhouse spend 3 hours congratulating themselves for deciding that a curtain should be orange.

Then there are some on there where the person is mega talented, but has a skill that can't be taught, and those are pointless. "Shaq teaches slam dunk" Chapter 1: be 9 feet tall, and just walk up to the basket and drop the ball in.

anyway, there is plenty of value to be gotten out of that subscription, I think you'll find plenty of great stuff amongst the duds.

 

[Spike]

I'm the highest paid music producer, this is my masterclass. So, Uh, it's like they bought me this grand piano, but I don't know what all the keys do. I wish I could play this. Duh. Anyway, this knob here makes the beat go louder. Make sure you don't push that button over there though, that mutes the sound. Then people can't hear it.

Yup, lol. I liked those brothers who made Stranger Things. For the first time we are offered an unprecedented look at their notebooks, in which we see that they made . . . notes! Also we learn the secret to success: imitate, as much as you can, the greatest movie ever made--Goonies!

But yea, as I said, it's almost ridiculous: Simone Biles teaches gymnastics--Lesson one: become some other species. I imagine, Johan Sebastian Bach teaches composition, with a special section on keyboard technique.

Of course they're mostly not really classes. In a lot of them, I think the "instructor" just sits in front of a camera and talks, and then afterwords the material is arranged into lessons. David Lynch, for example, has a lesson titled Breaking the Rules, where he tells a story of how he once didn't get a permit he was supposed to get, and filmed anyway. But, he teaches, you should probably do the required paperwork.

But it's David Lynch. Vastly entertaining. I think what you can learn, is just an idea of what goes on with these kinds of guys. They're like long interviews, where they answer questions they think someone should ask.

With the sports people, where actual GOAT status can be objectively determined, like Wayne Gretzky, it is insightful and somewhat inspiring to get an idea of where it comes from. Mostly, it's what you would expect: work harder than anyone else, have a positive mental attitude, etc.

I liked the Penn and Teller one (Teller, somewhat philosophical and soft-spoken, speaks!). And you actually learn a few tricks.

And some of the cooking guys are fun. Dominik Ansell was, to me, just fascinating. The guy invented a donut-croissant hybrid and people wait in line every day, for hours, to buy one. And his how-to-make-a-croissant blew my mind. Spoiler: it is way more complicated and time-consuming than you you would have imagined. And it was charming to watch him as he reviews and critiques photographs of croissants made by his people, around the world--too flat, the holes aren't big enough, etc. The little Italian guy, Massimo Boturra, was funny, with his assistant doing all the chopping and mixing, Gordon Ramsey is Gordon Ramsey, Thomas Keller is surprisingly fussy, etc.

And I liked James Patterson. If sales are the criteria, he is indeed the greatest of all time. The guy has sold more books, I believe, then any human that has ever walked the planet. He is a joke to some of his fellow best-seller writers, Seven King for example, because he doesn't actually write the books, but rather hires someone to write them and get second billing under his name. On the surface it seems contemptible, but I ended up liking the guy. He is transparent and modest about it, explains his process, (he writes outlines) and I ended up thinking: more power to him.

And the writer's lineup is impressive. Some top genre guys, David Baldacci, Dan Brown, and some literary giants: Joyce Carol Oates, Salmon Rushdie, Margaret Atwood. Again, entertaining, and you cant help but pick up a few things.

Anyway. I do like my Master Class. I had been watching my bank account closely, had a few hundred bucks that I thought were disposable, and had made some plans: finally a hair cut (last one was pre-pandemic, pre-trump), new shoes, an installment in the fix-the-leaky-power-steering-tube-on-my-car fund, etc. So I was disappointed when they just disappeared. The Master Class auto-renew had come up. If I had known it was coming, I probably would have canceled. But I wasn't that disappointed. I didn't have to choose, have it for another year, and I think it would have been a shame to lose the hair anyway. It's a little wild, but, I have to admit, is just too god dammed pretty.