10 questions for a story concept

Capt Quirk said:
Yes, but I only write to kill time, not as an aspiration ;)

Nice try, Bub!
Click to expand...

Well, the writing I do in postings on forums and in emails is usually chock full of typing and grammar errors (anybody else? or am i the only sinner on this issue?); but I assure you I would never send anything to an agent or producer without three passes of spelling and grammar checking. Quite different beasts, writing for forums and writing polished scripts or query letters.
=) r
 
Awake-In-Anamorphic said:
... I think these books have ultimately done a disservice to filmmaking, convincing people they can "learn" to write. You can't learn it. It's not like operating a camera or NLE. If you are unable to write something right now that shows some brilliance, you never will be able to. If you can write something that shows some brilliance, then you just have to keep writing a lot, and skip the reading of these books entirely.
Click to expand...

Today I picked up a copy of Stephen King's book "On Writing", which you mentioned in another of your postings on this discussion thread. King's book looks to be very good. I will come back with more on this after I read the book tomorrow, but from the brief perusal of it while in the bookstore I seemed to pick up from King that except for the worst of writers, writing can be learned-- including through the use of how-to books and style guide books and other "tools" in the writer's "toolbox" that he speaks of in his book-- plus of course lots of reading and lots of writing.

King speaks of the population of writers as being like a pyramid. Those on the bottom are the bad writers who will never improve no matter what books or seminars or self-learning they try. The next level up on the pyramid are the competent writers, who King goes on to explain can learn to become better writers. The next level up are the really good writers. Lastly at the apex of the pyramid are the genius writers inherently gifted to be fortunate freaks (Kings words not mine).

Using King's pyramid analogy, one could conclude that most people (general population) have little writing talent. However, for those who have some writing talent and aspire to become good writers, perhaps 30-40% by volume (any math whizzes want to crunch the numbers?) are in the "unteachable" group at the bottom of the pyramid, but that still puts 60-70% of aspiring writers in the other part of the pyramid who are either genius or very good or who can learn. King states that the competent writers can learn to become good writers.

I agree for the most part with King's pyramid analogy, it seems to fit with what I see in the general population and in aspiring writers, what few I have encountered, and it fits with the statistics quoted in so many places about the incredible preponderance of poorly formatted scripts with thin plots and such that are submitted to agents and producers. That makes me feel just fine because I know my scripts will easily be in the 95th percentile just by being formatted correctly and having a high concept story well told and well structured.

But to recap, it seems to me that even King believes that for most writers (except for those at the bottom of the pyramid) writing can be learned, writers can get better, and by using a variety of resources including books. But I need to read his book over tomorrow in more detail.
~randall
 
Capt Quirk said:
Just keep in mind, King writes novels, and has somebody else do the screenplay version. Apples and Oranges.
Click to expand...

Exactly, very important point. I also read in King's book On Writing that he does not believe in plotting, he just let's the story go where it goes. Well, that is great if you can let a story and characters go where it goes, until you have a 1000 page novel, because a novel can be read a bit, put down, read the next day in the bath tub, etc. But you can come into a movie theater and watch and bit, then come back a few hours later and have the projectionist pick up where you left the story. Apples and oranges to some extent as you say. But still, fiction writing whether in novel form or scripts involves stories, characters, protagonist, conflict, all that good stuff. I do respect King for the massive amount of literature he has pumped out; though personally I have never read any of his books, their thickness usually scares the you know what out of me, and I have a hard time reading fiction novels except for a few selected authors.
~randall
 
Last edited:
That is why they not only made LOTR a trilogy, but then on top of that, added extra hours of "Director's Material". Geez, it would take a full day to watch the special editions, including potty breaks.
 
Randall_Oelerich said:
Well, that is great if you can let a story and characters go where it goes, until you have a 1000 page novel, because a novel can be read a bit, put down, read the next day in the bath tub, etc. But you can come into a movie theater and watch and bit, then come back a few hours later and have the projectionist pick up where you left the story. Apples and oranges as you say.
Click to expand...

Most novels are not 1000 pages though. A starting novelist would be wise to not do 1000 page bullet stopper. From what I've seen at Borders and B&N, most novels are 300 to 450 pages. You are right about the way people experience the two mediums though.

King may not plot, but as I recall from reading On Writing he stated that he used to plot when he was younger. I think that for a lot of experienced writers that maybe they have plotting, structure, and overall pacing down to where it is more unconscious now than when starting out, where they had to think about it in detail to get the pieces to fit before the first draft.

Great book though, I think you'll dig it. There are a lot of things that he talks about that can apply towards any kind of writing and not just novels.
 
Nektonic said:
Most novels are not 1000 pages though...
Click to expand...

I was exaggerating. Or not. I honestly do not how many pages his novels are, only that King's novels scare the crap out of me but not because of the stories but rather because of their thickness! I can handle an occasional 300-400 page novel, Michael Crichton, F. Paul Wilson, one of Anne Rice's novels I liked. But I will read King's book On Writing, I can handle that.
 
Randall_Oelerich said:
I was exaggerating. Or not. I honestly do not how many pages his novels are, only that King's novels scare the crap out of me but not because of the stories but rather because of their thickness!
Click to expand...
I read Carrie over the course of an evening, and turned in a book report the next morning. I was in 4th grade at the time, and the teacher didn't want to allow it because of the material.
 
Capt Quirk said:
I read Carrie over the course of an evening, and turned in a book report the next morning. I was in 4th grade at the time, and the teacher didn't want to allow it because of the material.
Click to expand...

I am envious. I just do not have my brain wired to read novels so fast. Just a few titles were page turners for me (Sphere, Eaters of the Dead (The 13th Warrior), Digital Fortress, Vittorio the Vampire, a few others).
 
Randall_Oelerich said:
I am envious. I just do not have my brain wired to read novels so fast.
Click to expand...

Same here. Of course some are easier than others. I also like to read a sizable chunk at a time instead of a chapter a day. I really like to be able to immerse myself in the book's fictional world.
 
Nektonic said:
An explosion with meaning behind it is that much sweeter. How about in T2, when Miles Dyson blows up his lab, his life's work thrown out the windows of the Cyberdyne building in a massive fireball?
Click to expand...

I find it interesting that you found this particular aspect of the scene to be the highlight.

It's true that Dyson is destroying his greatest work, but what made it viscerally compelling for me was the fact that he's sacrificing his life to cover the others' escape, while wounded and terrified and gasping for his last breath to just buy them a few more seconds. Sure, the work is blown out the window but more important Dyson's at the heart of it.

Anyway, I guess it's an example of how different viewers can find entirely different focal points in the same scene.
 
Sad Max said:
I find it interesting that you found this particular aspect of the scene to be the highlight.

It's true that Dyson is destroying his greatest work, but what made it viscerally compelling for me was the fact that he's sacrificing his life to cover the others' escape, while wounded and terrified and gasping for his last breath to just buy them a few more seconds. Sure, the work is blown out the window but more important Dyson's at the heart of it.

Anyway, I guess it's an example of how different viewers can find entirely different focal points in the same scene.
Click to expand...

Yes, you're right. There is that element to the scene as well. I don't think you would have to pick one over the other, because it is both about Dyson buying some time for the others and the final blow in the effort to end all the work done at Cyberdyne.

Also, he uses a piece of the big black terminator CPU mock-up to set off the detonator. While the SWAT guys creep closer to Dyson, he is holding it over the detonation switch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top