/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.5000743]

Any of you guys into screenwriting? I'm someone who's looking to become a filmmaker and screenwriting is something that I've been teaching myself for the last little while, what do you guys usually enjoy writing? I know there's varients of films, the concept of the Archplot, the Miniplot, and the antiplot.

Now I find archplot's hard to write, those very deliberate 3 act structure, something about the connections, I feel like they're more harder to make than they actually are and I'm over thinking it.

I guess what I'm asking for is just everyone elses experience with archtypical writing, like making the plot points run together, making the scenes run fluent with eachother, trying to avoid that jaunted non-sequitar like venture from scene to scene.

[Anonymous No.5000747]

>>5000743
>you are now awar Blade Runner (1982) had no written dialouge

[Anonymous No.5000751]

>>5000747
interesting, was it intended for the film to be that way or did they write in where to adlib?

[Anonymous No.5000779]

>>5000751
http://youtu.be/Jg0WKH-29og?t=9m33s

[Anonymous No.5001326]

>>5000747
Wait so it was all improvised?
What the actual fuck

Fairly sure this can't be true because the tanhauser gate line etc the tears in rain part was thrown in on the spurr of the moment but the rest was there

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT

[Anonymous No.5002406]

>>5000743
I'm in the process of writing a couple films(One black comedy, one animated), and I've found it's easier to start with an ending. Like any good writing, ALWAYS start with an ending. Having an ending gives you leeway to steer previous scenes to an end goal, rather than having a fuckton of tangents.

As for writing the transitions between acts, well, that shit fucking blows. If you can figure out what you want each act to be about, you can usually find a way to link them together.

Act I is all about character introduction and conflict demonstration.
Act II can serve as the beginning of a temporary resolution which ultimately becomes the main conflict.
Act III is the end-all resolution.

I will admit that writing the small shit that moves things between scenes is the worst part because you know what you're writing, because how does one effectively display the best traits that keep things relevant. The best way to do this is to stick with the genre you're writing. If it's about some cubicle jockey who hates his job, and you're working with comedy, give him some struggles that aren't funny to him, but funny to the viewer. It helps to have characters sorted out so you can easily draw on your own ideas for progression.

[Anonymous No.5002410]

Guy who wrote Taxi Driver didn't watch a movie until he was 16/17

Richard Linklater didn't get into movies until he was 20

[Anonymous No.5003242]

>>5002406
That's pretty helpful info thanks anon.
I read Syd Field's book on screenwriting and he talked of a screenwriter who did something similar, he always wrote his movies around an action setpeice or a really intense event, and then building the third act after, and the first and second act leading up to. Yeah I've always had trouble keeping everything relevant in theme and making those connections.

But what do you feel about a scene that produces information on a character and not the story, or a scene that shows story and not information on the character? Would one who writes the scene to be both story and character exposition at the same time be better or sometimes it's good to break away for either conveying both story and character and sometimes focus on a scene that specifically shows character and no story?
Like in an intimate moments when the third act is about to start and we haven't seen the main bad guy at all vulnerable, so it's just a scene with him

[Anonymous No.5005415]

bump

[Anonymous No.5005475]

>>5002406
>TFW have no idea how to end my screenplay

It all builds up into an anti climax. I have no idea what to do.

[Anonymous No.5005485]

>>5005475
At it's climax, cut to a kid daydreaming.

Kid wakes up to the teacher slapping a ruler on him.

Before focusing on his teacher, he looks over to the audience and says "imagine that" with a wink.

[Anonymous No.5005491]

>>5005485
Then it does the looney tunes shrinking hole ending transition.

But it pops back up to the old guy from robocop to say I'D BUY THAT FOR A DOLLAR!

Before ending normally.

[Anonymous No.5005492]

>>5005485
>Kid wakes up to the teacher slapping a ruler on him.

What year is this supposed to be set because today that would get any teacher hauled off to prison for 5-10 years.

[Ehhh? >.< Nani, Satan-kun? v.v(...) No.5005497]

>>5000743
I like writing things in play format, or at least I've tried to do it a few times. One of them was about a slutty/debauched Roman Emperor, and the other was an attempt at comedy, and was basically a satire of the art-going crowd in the bay area.

I generally found it easier to keep the plot moving and in-focus than I do when just writing regular prose.

[Anonymous No.5005510]

>>5005492
Just think David Lynch.

[Anonymous No.5005752]

Every scene should have a few purposes. Think of scenes as 'functioning' to forward the story rather than merely entertainment.

A scene should; show character, relationships, include conflict, evince a question / mystery, forward the story.


>>5003242
>we haven't seen the main bad guy at all vulnerable, so it's just a scene with him

That's fine but to make it functional, the bad guy's vulnerability should cause his downfall at the end, (which would be the reason you'd show it to begin with).

[L.R. No.5006024]

>>5003242
The first reply to your post wasn't mine, but I'm back now, and this is my take on your question: I'm marking my name with L.R. just to separate myself from the anonymous name posts.

Any kind of character introduction can further a plot on its own, as well as an unfolding plot further a character. like a character who realizes he's in love with someone might motivate them to take a risk in being vulnerable by bearing their feelings, or it could darken the character by having them shy away, becoming more reclusive and less reactive to situations. I know it's obvious when I say this, but unless characters are frozen in time the entirety of the movie, the only progression you'll get is passing time. Now, if you focus on absolutely benign and unnecessary bullshit like showing the character cry over something stupid or have an overreaction to something that is hardly relative to the overall story, you can ruin both a movie and a character this way.

Now, by having the plot unfold without feeling like you're developing the character, progress always creates a reaction from the characters, which might corner the character to reveal something or make them do something drastic. Having a gun held to someone's head could force a character to reveal information by putting them into a tight spot, or you find out that they're careless and their true colors show in times of suspense/drama.

To sum it up, plot and character development come from progression, but to sum it up in a pic related way, micromanaging irrelevancy will create zero progress.

[Anonymous No.5006130]

>>5006024
Hey thanks for the reply, so like in Drive, the way the beginning sequence furthers the plot of a heist and a getaway in the LA skyline while conveying how much of a cold disconnected individual the Drive is?
I don't know if you've seen it.

But to use that movie as a further example, he falls in love with his neighbor Irene, and then he finds out her BF is out of jail and owe loan sharks, so since he loves her and to protect her son, he decides to help her BF out in an ill-fated robbery.

Leading to bad people coming after them, and literally leaving him and the woman he loves in a tight spot in the elevator and he viciously attacks and shows to her how fucked in the head he truly is. The nature of the scorpion revolting the nature of the frog sorta thing.

PS here's a script I just wrote today with a friend, it's a horror script. Mind taking a look? I'm not a literal person, my main focus is films.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6kS9Yj1oaVWS3VMQlV5RV9wXzQ/edit

[Anonymous No.5006146]

>>5006130
Wow, OP here this contains a lot of spelling errors and grammer.

Apologize, early draft.

[L.R. No.5006196]

>>5006130
To state, I have yet to watch Drive, even though I get bombarded with it on Netflix a lot and by friends, but I just focus on my writing more than anything.

Now onto your script, I found it to be written in a "B-Horror" sort of style, which is decent if that's what you were going for. The imagery is all there, but the descriptiveness feels bloated. Removing descriptors that give reason in a "just because" way steer the writing into less professional writing.

The scenes where the moon interchanges back during the torture threw me off, and I guess in a "one in a million" sort of way, I saw what was being alluded to.

Another piece of advice that I would only consider would be tightening up the descriptiveness. When reading this, it felt as if though you wanted to convey some of the confusion that the character felt. That would be fine if it were a novel or short story, but with a spec script, you're working directly with visual. If it can't be seen, it can't be know. If I may, rewrite a small portion of it to explain. I'll use the torture scene where the hammer comes into contact with the body.
---
The sadistic stranger slides his finger upon the handle of a hammer; its metallic sheen accompanied by moonlight. He places it in his hand and draws his arm back. The hammer strikes her skull. A few more solid swings create a mist which stands out brilliantly against the lamp-lit window. Her screams are few and far between as the sound dwindles to a simple exhale. Dazed by brutality, her head falls back against the chair. Facing the window, the moonlight caresses the visibly distraught look she gazes with. The stranger admires the blood on the hammer as he lies it back down in its place.
---

While my description isn't by any means better, it's merely to demonstrate the effectiveness of direct visualization. Since it's a script, what you want the viewers to see is what your characters see. It all depends on who's being used at the moment to convey something. When the killer looks at the hammer, the audience is the sadist for a moment, looking at the hammer to bear witness to the blood. In a visual, final director written script, imagine the sadist looking at the hammer from a non-first person view. We see the killer in focus, staring at the hammer while the girl is blurred in the background. The blur could loosely translate that he knows the person is behind him, he just isn't looking at the moment.

Just to let you know, I don't mean to offend you if I'm too direct. You asked and I gave it to ya.

[L.R. No.5006212]

Just another rule of thumb when writing scenes that feel they need lots of description: Imagine how the scene takes place. What actions, movements and things need to occur in order for the scenes to progress. Someone taking a few whacks to the skull with a hammer would take more time than the reader needs to read the lines. The old rule that each page should be a minute long isn't a concrete one, and should never be an absolute guideline. There is no mechanical rule set when it comes to writing. If there were, stories would be boring and predictable.

Also, I like the idea that of your story where a simple bashing might've subdued a normal person, but the transformation takes it to an entirely new level of fuckedupness, and clearly the tables have been turned. If I think of anything else(and the thread is still up in a few hours), I'll check this thread and try to get back with you.

[Anonymous No.5006479]

Back in 5th grade me and my friend wrote a screen play, we wrote this thing just for the hell of it because it was the end of the school year and we were doing nothing in the class, it was kind of like open season. A year or so ago I really took a liking to documentaries. I started hating most hollywood films around this time also, because I felt they were just trying to get money and did not care about anything other then can they make another one for more money.

So a couple months ago, before going to sleep at night I wrote, in my head a movie, after two or three nights doing this, I thought this seems pretty good. So I kept working on it, now I have no ending. I think I am just going to kill off the main character. I also wrote it like me and a couple friends could go out and spend $500 and it be done in a weekend. I wrote it like you would read a play I guess, for example camera zoom here. I'm sorry if this did not make any sense, I have not slept all night.

[Anonymous No.5006485]

>>5006196
how do u get bombarded by a single movie on netflix

[L.R. No.5006493]

>>5006479
If you have no plans to attempt to sell the script to Hollywood, writing the movie as if you were directing it works entirely, especially if you're funding and producing it solo or indie. If you're not happy with the ending, I wouldn't necessarily jump to an ending immediately. Step away from the writing process for a bit and come back later. If in the event you've got another idea that hasn't really taken off, you could always strip the good parts about it and apply them to the current, more successful title.

>>5006485
It shows up constantly as a suggestion in emails. It's the first thing I see when I open Netflix on my Xbox. People on /b/ think it's a wonderful movie. Just the other night, there was a "Drive" wallpaper thread on /b/. It's everywhere. Ryan Josling is everywhere. It's like "fuck me. Can't I just NOT watch this right now?"

[Anonymous No.5006526]

>>5006493
The only way I would sell it, is if they agree for me watch them like a hawk while writing/making it. But yeah I think I am going to back away from it for a few more months. That is a good idea of taking out the best parts and putting it into something else.

[Anonymous No.5006654]

>>5006493

Oi. LR. Who are you?

Your advice is coherent and correct. Have you been published/ commissioned?

Fellow writer here, unusual to see someone on /lit/ not talking drivel.

[Anonymous No.5006659]

>>5006130

Also, kid, name you characters. Girl, man. Give them names. Their identity doesn't need to be a secret in practical terms, even if it isn't known on screen.

The audience doesn't know anyone's name until it's spoken anyway.

[Anonymous No.5006668]

>>5006196
>The sadistic stranger slides his finger upon the handle of a hammer; its metallic sheen accompanied by moonlight. He places it in his hand and draws his arm back. The hammer strikes her skull. A few more solid swings create a mist which stands out brilliantly against the lamp-lit window. Her screams are few and far between as the sound dwindles to a simple exhale. Dazed by brutality, her head falls back against the chair. Facing the window, the moonlight caresses the visibly distraught look she gazes with. The stranger admires the blood on the hammer as he lies it back down in its place.

This is really too much for a screenplay. Scripts are meant to be tight and only necessary information. We don't need to know about the sheen of a knife, or how the blood stands out, or how the Moonlight glitters -- it's implied there's Moonlight when you establish the time of the scene.

The sadistic-stranger grabs a hammer and bludgeons her head, creating a grotesque shower of blood. There, done. That's it.

[L.R. No.5006677]

>>5006654
With all of my knowledge, it is all self learned. I've been writing since high school, which is almost 8 years now, but didn't get heavily into writing to the point of wanting to make a career out of it. My writing is strictly "avid hobby". Unfortunately, I haven't had the opportunity to have anything published because life outside of my writing leaves me with a lot less time to effectively work on stuff. Not to mention personal life stuff and all.

>>5006668
And yes, I know that it was lengthy. As I said, it was to demonstrate that descriptiveness can and should be intriguing. Rather than focus on a few sentences, I chose an excerpt of his writing. No one wants to read a script where someone says "The sadist picks up a hammer and bashes her skull in." The descriptiveness gives the writer the opportunity to not rely on lengthy speech to fill in unnecessary gunk.

[L.R. No.5006679]

>>5006677
Make a career out of it until late 2010* >>5006659

[L.R. No.5006683]

>>5006679
Ah fuck. I need sleep. I meant to refer to the guy who referred to me. LOL My day off, and I can't shut my eyes for any longer than a blink.

[Anonymous No.5007236]

>>5006196
hey sorry man, went to sleep right after I posted, but thanks for the comments. I agree the thing I find most annoying about my writing is that it has a tendency to be barebones and thin as hell on the descriptions in scenes with dialog, but in action sequences with no dialog, I have trouble with the bloated descriptions, I notice it looks like a directions to cook a burrito on one page, then the holy bible on the other.

But yeah I'll keep in mind in terms of visual perspective, writing in terms of perspective, switching it up to "hammer" it home lol.

But I may have mistyped this, but the part you're thinking about is off screen or I imagine it to be off screen, which is why I only typed sounds, I forgot to say it was OS sorry about that.

[L.R. No.5008410]

>>5007236
Sounds good. The anon who quoted my rewrite is correct. The explanation doesn't have to be extravagant or over the top, just precise.

As for the Offscreen stuff, this usually applies to voice, but it can be tricky when applying it to a spec script, which is what you're writing. A spec script doesn't employ camera work of any kind, and given the scene, it's kind of hard to do this without including camera directions. It would work if the characters went to the basement and the sadist and girl were being listened to through the door. This would, however, most likely create issues with consistency and pacing, unless the bashing started immediately in a Texas Chainsaw Massacre way. You could however allude to the blood running down onto the floor under the chair as the wet smacks echo throughout the room.

May I ask what writing software you're using?

[Anonymous No.5009817]

>>5000747
Is that even possible?

[Anonymous No.5009885]

So no one here has sold a script? So this thread is just filled with people that are afraid to fail types. Also this L.R guy sounds like one of those types that still think the script is god. He is how it works now. If your script has screen direction it will be thrown out, if it is over 120 pages it will be thrown out, there is no such thing as an indie film, YOU WILL BE REWRITTEN, YOU WILL BE FIRED OFF OF EVERY JOB.

[L.R. No.5010376]

>>5009885
Seeing as they have names for spec and shooting scripts, I'd say there's a reason for it. You don't pitch a script in front of people explaining to them how the camera is going to move, or at what angle. As a writer, that's not your decision. You come to them with an idea(Which you've copyrighted, or they won't even give you the time of day), and from there, they either meet with you again.

Now, there is a formula for most movies. The 3-act, 90 minute rule is loose advice, but honestly, who wants to sit through 2 hours of comedy? It has its plot, its characters, and my attention. What reason do I need to write a book for when its going on the screen? There is a reason most films have a "theatrical cut" and an original cut. Director's cut is how THEY see it. Not yours.

Also, just because none of us haven't had something published or sold doesn't mean anything. People write for fun. If you're a troll trying to get a rise out of me, then 1/10 for responding. Beyond this, you'll get no response. I jumped into this thread to assist.

[Anonymous No.5010411]

I work in script development for a independent film company. I've helped out before on here so maybe I can offer some advice.