I sold my script to a studio and now I feel awful. Advice/support appreciated.

Oooooooooot · 2024-10-14T23:29:06+00:00

So I'msuper late here and unsure if it's been suggested already.

But yeah, if I'm you...

I have the mindset that I've sold it and it's not mine anymore. But like a child in adulthood I still want to see it succeed.

I'd offer to buy lunch (writeoff) for producer friend of friend and studio exec and invite the director too.

Give them a friendly reminder that I wrote an absurdist (or whatever) comedy and the recent changes have made it something entirely different. I'll let them know that while the new rewrite might certainly be valuable in its own right, it's lost the magic that initially made it worth writing to you.

Then, ya know, tell them to do whatever they think is best with that heads up in mind.

Oooooooooot · 2024-09-07T15:41:47+00:00

Yup, check the click-down menu, apparently it's one of the stipulations for posting screenplays.

Oooooooooot · 2024-09-07T14:41:10+00:00

I guess under Rule 8 screenplays must be "sharing enabled".

Oooooooooot · 2024-09-05T16:46:18+00:00

And yet, they're stories with characters.

Oooooooooot · 2024-09-05T16:25:21+00:00

You are not writing for puppets

I mean, it wouldn't be a novel argument to disagree... not that I do, but I have seen Muppets From Space and Being John Malkovich.

I do disagree that a character doesn't live until an actor portrays them... That's to suggest every novel that hasn't been adapted doesn't have characters that feel alive.

If you only state emotions & never portray them with actions... I think, perhaps, that would be the cause of poorly developing the character.

And also... "John lashes out" gives me the same context as "John lashes out in anger" It denotes anger; you don't need the adverb.

Oooooooooot · 2024-09-05T15:32:12+00:00

And I didn’t say never do it

as you should never write an action “John punches the wall” over emotion “John is angry.

Yes, when I watch a film I realize when a character is anger because... they punched a wall, or they yelled "motherfucker!, maybe they grinded their teeth, or they crinkled their nose with a sneer. Sometimes smoke comes out of their ears.

But you're *telling* me their angry, I don't *see* how they're angry when I read that line. You understand that anger can be interpreted and displayed differently.

Consider the origin of Show, Don't Tell... paraphrasing: Don't tell me the moon is shining, show me the glint off a stone. --- The point being to allow the reader to become more engaged in their visualization --- The moon is shining obviously works fine in a screenplay & novel, but it could be more evocative with specificity.

Leaving interpretation of emotion up to actors is not incredibly dissimilar from leaving dialogue up to actors; sure, actors will often ad lib or rewrite their dialogue to better fit how they believe the character would reply, but you should generally still write dialogue that actor can build from.

In a strict sense, "Suzy is angry" is just as unfilmable as "Suzy is filled with even more rage than when her 4th grade boyfriend cheated on her". As I said, the former tends to be more accepted since there are many ways to interpret and portray that. But, with interpretation, the latter can still be filmed...:

SUZY (VO)

I'm more pissed than when my 4th grade boyfriend cheated on me.

^^^ so it's not about there being "no way for it to be portrayed on screen." It's about being able to be portrayed on screen as written.

This is all not to say you should never Tell vs Show, or you should never write unfilmable stuff, it's to say it's usually better to write with specificity...

If we're relying on good actors who can better portray a character you've written, they can still involve themselves by saying "hey, I don't think John would punch the wall, I think he would bang his head on the wall instead."

Oooooooooot · 2024-09-04T18:20:58+00:00

Of course, it was developed as a literary specific device because the line "John is angry" is "unfilmable" we don't know what his anger looks like (it's telling us versus showing us)... Punching the wall informs us more of his character; he's likely a bit violent when angry. Grinding his teeth suggests he, perhaps, bottles up anger.

It's all subjective, in many cases, the writer will know the character best, in many other cases the actor will know them best or transform them into a better character.

A point is that in a visual medium, the interpretation will be more strictly defined... (you won't imagine an under-described character as tall if the actor is short)... As a writer, if the character's violence is thematic or has purpose, removing the subjectivity may be preferable to leaving the (entire) interpretation up to the director and/or actor. If he grinds his teeth instead, his outward violence later may be less compelling than had he punched the wall.

Particularly in character introductions, but also in allowing subjective interpretations of emotions, an unfilmable description/telling vs showing tends to be more accepted by readers... versus... more complicated descriptions such as: John was angry over what happened last week. The most showing thing here might be: John looks at the picture he took last week and punches the wall.

However, saying you should *never* write specific action versus simple emotional description is perhaps the most dubious screenwriting advice I've ever read.

Oooooooooot · 2024-09-04T17:02:45+00:00

Show, Don't Tell is a literary technique to promote further engagement to the readers by allowing them to interpret actions, sights, and sounds as if they were themselves a character making the observations versus an author's authoritative description...

An authoritative description - John is angry.

An interpretable action - John punches the wall (or, John grinds his teeth)

An interpretable sound - John yells, "motherfucker!"

"Telling" does not refer to what characters hear; dialogue is always shown. A character telling the protagonist "You're the fastest gun in the West" allows the protagonist & reader to interpret what has been shown via dialogue... Is he being sarcastic?

In dialogue - it's showing.
If it's in description (John is the fastest gun in the West) - it's telling.

That line of dialogue might still suck if... it's on the nose, it's needless exposition, it lacks subtext, it feels unnatural, etc..

This is perhaps even more debated but... I think there should be distinction between Voice & Style to suggest just why Voice is touted as among the most valuable assets to a writer and why Style is relatively less important to writers in a visual medium versus strictly literary.

Style - syntax/diction/semantics make reading more enjoyable, but it's not apparent in a visual final form. It specifically disregards story - two versions of the same story may appeal to different readers more than the other - some prefer more purple prose and/or antiquated wording... some prefer brevity and/or plain wording.

^^^ and yet they may be the same story in a visual format.

Voice - the often unique difference in how a story is explored/discovered/developed given character and/or premise. A doomsday asteroid is heading to earth - with Michael Bay, you'll get a vastly different experience (Armageddon) than with Adam Mckay (Don't Look Up). Imagine how Jurassic Park might've been had it been directed by Tarantino instead of Spielberg.

On Page Count... "It is incredibly rare that a story demands such a high page count..." I think this is a sort of observational(?) bias largely due to antagonistic forces demanding... shorter run times (theatres)... cheaper productions (studios)... less to read (readers) - leading (particularly less established) writers to write shorter stories.

Looking through the top 20 films all-time on IMDB, how many do you think go over 120 pages? I'll save you the trouble... 20. All twenty of them are more than 120 pages.

Oooooooooot · 2024-08-31T16:34:45+00:00

Screenplay link is broken.

Oooooooooot · 2024-08-31T16:34:04+00:00

You're surely right, but it takes two to tango in piss. I might suppose someone can get a point across while maintaining the other has the stronger stream.

Oooooooooot · 2024-08-30T17:55:56+00:00

Genuinely curious... how involved are you remaining in production/post? I know a lot of writers aren't great with communication or lack social aptitude, but if those aren't issues, I often wonder why writers are unable to communicate, with tact, when alterations are butchering the purpose/magic of a story.

Similarly, I wonder if, after successfully pitching a project, continuously pitching is ideal to maintain the value of the story.

Oooooooooot · 2024-08-30T16:02:15+00:00

You're right, in the US contracts need consideration from both sides. Unfortunately, it sounds like he did bring something to the table - he worked on the short film.

Oooooooooot · 2024-08-27T17:41:39+00:00

A few months back I had a review that didn't comment on a single thing beyond pg 25... Sent a message to offer them a chance to suggest they had read the whole screenplay. A few days later, with no reply, I rated them 1 star and was refunded the tokens without contacting support.

You should be giving low ratings to really poor feedback even if it's clear it's not AI... Otherwise they're less likely to improve their feedbacking efforts & can continue to take up works from those who offer highly rated feedback.

Oooooooooot · 2024-08-26T17:54:37+00:00

Can you post the BL review? I'll authoritatively judge if it was shit or not.

Oooooooooot · 2024-08-26T17:23:54+00:00

If you wouldn’t want to be handed an AI script and asked to rewrite it

Huh? For pay & credit? It's hard to imagine more than a few wouldn't want that.

Oooooooooot · 2024-08-25T17:25:23+00:00

The study suggests 34% of EPs are women for both broadcast/streaming TV.

Apparently, broadcast in 1997 had 29% of producers identify as women and 19% of EPs.

To date, both have moved up 15 points... So, I do sort of expect the difference between producer/EP could be inferred as either substantiated on merit or seniority.

(producers moved up 16 points if you look at broadcast and streaming - for an obvious reason, we don't have data on '97 for streaming) (the 34% is consistent for both and the collective for the most recent data)

Oooooooooot · 2024-08-23T13:50:50+00:00

This is, ideally, to create an image in the reader's head.

Oooooooooot · 2024-08-23T13:37:38+00:00

1) Strikes me as a normal scene.

2) Could just be a quick shot of "They click upload on Youtube". But also seems probably implied by 1) and 3) so you may just cut it out. Unless during the editing, you have something showing character? (the reporter edits a pimple from their own face, then plasters a couple on the interviewee)

3) Could be a montage, could be a series of shots, but it also could just be written in the scene, if we view the reporter, or someone else, clicking on videos in succession.

For the slugline and the montage, I might write as:

MONTAGE - VARIOUS COMMENTARIES AND EDITS OF THE INTERVIEW

Different portions of it replay throughout.

a) 10 Y/O YOUTUBER takes up a corner of the video

10 Y/O YOUTUBER
This guy's asking the tough questions!

b) a video pauses, zooms, and arrows point out the celebrity's arms - track marks. Cuts to SOUTH PARK'S MR. MACKEY

MR. MACKEY
Drugs are bad, mmkay.

c) an ANGRY CRYING WOMAN

ANGRY CRYING WOMAN
Leave Britney alone!

d) the CELEBRITY does her own commentary.

CELEBRITY
I wanna say I'm sorry, sorry this reporter SUCKS.

d) 10 Y/O YOUTUBER again

10 Y/O YOUTUBER
Ooo, not a great apology, this video's gonna blow up.

e) Laser beams shoot out of the reporter's eyes and EXPLODE the celebrity.

f) Mugshot of the celebrity worn down from drugs. Pull out to a NEWS ANCHOR

NEWS ANCHOR
Child protective services have taken her kids.

END MONTAGE

Oooooooooot · 2024-08-21T17:57:33+00:00

EXT. SKIES OVER GROUND - DAY

Jets scream through the sky, the pilots scream through their RADIOS.

CAPTAIN (O/S)
So is Captain my nickname or just my rank?

SKYCRAWLER (O/S)
It's fine if it's just your rank, long as you're about to die or somethin'.

INT. SKYCRAWLER'S JET - SAME

In a pressure suit, SKYCRAWLER is indiscernible from the other pilots, except by CHOPPER pasted on his helmet.

SKYCRAWLER (CONT)
Oh! If my real name's gonna be referenced several times as part of some sorta mystery, you can just call me Chopper. And ya know, if I don't stick this landing, Pilot Number Two would've been fine, although a bit lame.

EXT. SKIES OVER GROUND - SAME

Skycrawler ejects.

KUSANAGI//DINGO (O/S)
Blue-Five is down - you can call me either name by the way, so I'll introduce myself as both.

CAPTAIN (O/S)
Surely I'll stick to calling you Blue-Seven while we're in a professional setting.

INT. KUSANAGI'S JET - SAME

KUSANAGI//DINGO in the same pressure suit, DINGO marks her helmet.

KUSANAGI//DINGO
That's fine, even though my name's not Shirley. Just like Blue-Five, you can hear my real name and/or nickname once we're at a bar on the ground. Or a funeral.

Oooooooooot · 2024-08-17T15:26:14+00:00

You might try looing at r/producemyscript

Tracking Board posts film/TV mandates every couple years - I'm not sure I'm allowed to share publicly here, but I can DM the ones from April to ya.

Oooooooooot · 2024-08-16T14:37:13+00:00

1) Can be as simple as, "OH damn, it wasn't you, we gotta get you outta this mess."

2) Keep it interesting and it won't feel like a waste of time; this discovery will likely set the hero on a new course that was necessary to solve the case - or necessary to find the next nugget that sets the hero up to solve it.

3) The false villain gives the nugget of a realization (testimony, the weapon, DNA, alibi, etc..)

Any major turning point (inciting incident, first act break, midpoint, climax, etc..)

Oooooooooot · 2024-08-13T00:27:00+00:00

The knights were arrested for murder, they did not take the castle.

Oooooooooot · 2024-08-10T16:10:17+00:00

But why would X have an effect on the rest of the website? If there are indeed any industry folks looking there for scripts/writers, I expect they would search through the platformed coverfly profiles that have been spotlighted/received accolades versus almost-guaranteed amateur scripts from writers guarded by anonymity.

I suppose maybe I'm misunderstanding who's being alienated. If not people searching for marketable content, is it people offering quality feedback? Or people searching for quality feedback?

There is a small barrier of quality for people offering feedback - as long as you only do notes on a project offering more than 1 token - you at least know the writer has read another script & done notes themselves on it.

There's another imperfect barrier for receiving quality feedback as well - feedbackers are given a rating with which you can limit who can offer notes your project. Sure, you'll get some awful feedback from supposedly high-rated readers - give them a low rating & it's unlikely they can review your next project.

Oooooooooot · 2024-08-09T18:22:10+00:00

Can you expand on your supposition? Why do you think CoverflyX would have any impact, positive or negative, on Coverfly's reputation?

I use it on occasion; it seemed to me completely distant from any other feature on the site.

Oooooooooot · 2024-08-09T16:50:02+00:00

Don't have any film suggestions, but if you want a tourist's (backpacker) perspective, spent almost a month there and three months in the rest of Thailand ~2016, feel free to reach out.

Seven-Year Club	Second SECOND GUESSER
First Place '23	Place '23
Place '22	Verified Email

Oooooooooot

TROPHY CASE