Cross-Forum Pollination

I'm aware of these conventions, and normally adhere to them myself. I am stating my opinion that there are few actual 'rules' in screenwriting. Reading pro scripts illustrates just how frequently the 'rules' of screenwriting are disregarded by professional writers in their most celebrated scripts. This was simply an example that came to mind in this instance.
 
Here's a "writing" tip that took me a while to learn: if someone's critique of your writing is based on subjective interpretations of rules of grammar, you can usually safely ignore them, because they're just fishing for something to be critical of – because if they can't find THAT, then you're BETTER than they are... and they can't have that!

I have absolutely no problem with a night light being brave, although personally I would have written "bravely illuminates the room" rather than what you have. Likewise, I have no problem reading the occasional camera direction in a script. It's a tool that allows you to focus the storytelling. It may be thrown out later but as long as its used sparingly and with purpose, that sort of thing can certainly be used to your benefit.

Generally, I think you're a fine writer. Scenes flow swiftly, with the right mix of technical narration and emotion, and the characters have some life to them. You write action very well. I do see you have a tendency to give characters names that are just confusing to the reader. Why is the Taco Bell Chihuahua GIDGET and not just a self-explanatory CHIHUAHUA? Why is Dad HENRY and not just DAD? Stuff like that makes the reader work harder than they should have to.

As far as the story goes, I think it's an interesting take on something we've seen before. I think your characters are pretty well-realized and likeable, except - EXCEPT! - when our Dad tell his 9-year-old son that he's killing his mother?? You can think that, you can suggest it, but saying something like that on the nose? That's harsh, and in my opinion pretty unforgivable unless you're able to dedicate dozens of pages to rebuilding that characters moral authority. Since I don't think that you mean for me to dislike Ethan's dad, I think you need to figure out another way to get this information across - or at the very least substantially change the tone of this dialogue, make it subtext instead of text, etc.

My other main note would be that you should spend a little more time (maybe another page or so, that's all) on your denouement. I feel like this is one of those cases where you wrote 90% of it and then rushed through the remaining 10% just to have it done. Understandable, but go back and fix that 10%!

Solid work, man.
 
Long day, so forgive me if I keep my responses short.

I think I mentioned that I've trended towards bombast in the past, so the risk of overwriting is very real to me. I think your personal reaction to the scene provides valuable information. However, quips like "ugh", "less than expert", and hyperbole like "way too much" do eat into the strength of your feedback.

Ted Spencer said:
The first sentence adverb stopped me too, but not just because it was an adverb. It was because it referred to an inanimate object, a flashlight, as being "brave". Ugh...

Then I read the rest of part 1, a little of part 2 and stopped. Here's a couple thoughts on why:

#1 - Way too much description. For example, the opening scene, up to the first "CUT TO" could have been, well, cut to, this:
Click to expand...
 
Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your perspective, I'm used to a wide variety of feedback. It's amazing how vicious criticism can be, even when people are right in the room with you in a seminar. Nevertheless, I think the feedback here has been valuable, though occasionally light on more substantive insight.

I suspect you've struck a very valid concern with the father character. I'll need to think about what strategies I could employ to smooth that over while preserving the valuable nuggets in the scene.

As for the little Taco Bell dog, toss that one up for a writer's indulgence. "Gidget" was the name of main dog used for those old Taco Bell commercials and died some time before I wrote this. However, I fear that 99% of other readers won't catch that, so it should probably be replaced with "dog" or "chihuahua."

And you've definitely nailed me on the denouement. I'll blame it on creative fatigue, though I probably should contemplate ideas for extending the falling action a page or so. With so many questions left unanswered, it's a pretty daunting challenge.

Thank you for taking the time to write your response. I'd be happy to return the favor in the future. I think you'll find that my feedback style is similar to yours.


dougspice said:
Here's a "writing" tip that took me a while to learn: if someone's critique of your writing is based on subjective interpretations of rules of grammar, you can usually safely ignore them, because they're just fishing for something to be critical of – because if they can't find THAT, then you're BETTER than they are... and they can't have that!

I have absolutely no problem with a night light being brave, although personally I would have written "bravely illuminates the room" rather than what you have. Likewise, I have no problem reading the occasional camera direction in a script. It's a tool that allows you to focus the storytelling. It may be thrown out later but as long as its used sparingly and with purpose, that sort of thing can certainly be used to your benefit.

Generally, I think you're a fine writer. Scenes flow swiftly, with the right mix of technical narration and emotion, and the characters have some life to them. You write action very well. I do see you have a tendency to give characters names that are just confusing to the reader. Why is the Taco Bell Chihuahua GIDGET and not just a self-explanatory CHIHUAHUA? Why is Dad HENRY and not just DAD? Stuff like that makes the reader work harder than they should have to.

As far as the story goes, I think it's an interesting take on something we've seen before. I think your characters are pretty well-realized and likeable, except - EXCEPT! - when our Dad tell his 9-year-old son that he's killing his mother?? You can think that, you can suggest it, but saying something like that on the nose? That's harsh, and in my opinion pretty unforgivable unless you're able to dedicate dozens of pages to rebuilding that characters moral authority. Since I don't think that you mean for me to dislike Ethan's dad, I think you need to figure out another way to get this information across - or at the very least substantially change the tone of this dialogue, make it subtext instead of text, etc.

My other main note would be that you should spend a little more time (maybe another page or so, that's all) on your denouement. I feel like this is one of those cases where you wrote 90% of it and then rushed through the remaining 10% just to have it done. Understandable, but go back and fix that 10%!

Solid work, man.
Click to expand...
 
Eximious said:
Long day, so forgive me if I keep my responses short.

I think I mentioned that I've trended towards bombast in the past, so the risk of overwriting is very real to me. I think your personal reaction to the scene provides valuable information. However, quips like "ugh", "less than expert", and hyperbole like "way too much" do eat into the strength of your feedback.
Click to expand...

Well, I consider myself a less than expert writer too (as I inferred in the post), even though I've completed two features, a short, many other scripts in various states of development and partial completion, have published numerous articles in a major pro-audio industry magazine, and usually receive very strong praise for my writing in general. My standards for "expert writer" are thus pretty darn high. It was not my intention to be insulting.

Re: "ugh". Sorry - that was my literal reaction. I've been critiqued that way many, many a time, and far harsher. My years as a graphic design major made me very thick-skinned about it, which I think artists are behooved to become. The department head's weekly tear-down of our design projects would make "ugh" sound like a love-tap.

Re: "way too much". I stand firmly by that. There *was* way too much "black" (descriptive text), in my humble opinion. Have you read "Screenwriter's Bible" or anything like it? This is a fundamental rule mentioned repeatedly in numerous well respected books on the subject.

Otherwise, if ya ask for criticism, ya gotta be willing to take it, bro.
 
Ok...I made a second attempt at reading part 2, and - I'm really, really sorry to say this - but I couldn't get further than about a quarter of the way through it. The problem for me, again, is just way, way too much (geez - I doubled the 'insult' this time) descriptive text that isn't serving to advance the story. Maybe it's just me, but I simply don't have the patience to wade through it. It reads as writer's indulgence to me - like you're too in love with the sound of your own voice (you probably hate me now). If you edited about half, or possibly even more, of the descriptions out, to where you convey *only what is needed to tell the story well* and nothing more, I'd certainly not have stopped when I did. The story itself may have stopped me later, but I never got far enough into it this time to find out. Sorry, again, to be so hard on you, but it's the simple truth, and I really do mean to offer it in the spirit of constructiveness.

As I and others have noted before, you clearly have plenty of talent, which can't be learned or taught, and that should save you in the end. But if you haven't done so yet, I urge you to get a copy of "Screenwriter's Bible" or "How Not To Write A Screenplay" or "Good Script/Bad Script" (or other similar books) and read advice from full-time professional writers and readers (which I am not) on economical descriptions. You will only get better at screenwriting if you do. Fundamentally, it's key to note the enormous difference between screenplays and novels where this is concerned.

My sincere best wishes to you on your future efforts, and I hope that what I've said has been more helpful than hurtful.
 
Last edited:
Ted, it's difficult for me to gauge your personality through text alone, so it's nigh impossible for me to choose a surefire response that will satisfy you. I mentioned that I thought your feedback was valuable. If you'd like to continue this discussion, feel free to PM me. Otherwise, I won't bog down this thread with banter.
 
Nathan.Buxton said:
It can be argued that this piece is ALL style. It is clearly an exercise in stylistic writing [...] I don't think it's going to be an award-winning piece, it is well written, interesting and has an element of suspense to it.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid that you've discovered the little man behind the curtain. :dankk2:
 
Last edited:
Eximious said:
Ted, it's difficult for me to gauge your personality through text alone, so it's nigh impossible for me to choose a surefire response that will satisfy you. I mentioned that I thought your feedback was valuable. If you'd like to continue this discussion, feel free to PM me. Otherwise, I won't bog down this thread with banter.
Click to expand...

I have no idea whatsoever what this means...
 
Anyone have any thoughts on Ethan's arc? Is it logical / reasonable? Too fast or too slow to play out?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top