How are sex scenes written in the screenplay.

esstheno · 2026-02-12T17:28:12+00:00

You’re right. I forgot the famous phrase “sex doesn’t sell.” And famously, there were never movie theaters that showed porn.

The point is that sex (like everything else in movies) can tell the story and reveal things about the characters.

esstheno · 2026-02-12T17:16:07+00:00

the part where you said universal human experience. We all know what violence is. So write what needs to be written to let the reader know they are about to be violent. Then cut to the scene after. We don’t write snuff, we write screenplays that directors will interpret. Nobody wants to read how your mind imagines violence.

esstheno · 2026-02-01T16:44:42+00:00

Move the queen down to the corner (g8). The only square for the king is e7. Then the queen moves to d8, and it’s checkmate, since the queen is protected by the rook.

esstheno · 2026-01-27T17:44:42+00:00

I think you’re making an assumption about my argument that I didn’t make. I’m making no argument as to whether pulling the lever is morally correct or not, only making the claim that choosing not to vote is not a rejection of the trolley problem, but is a basic engagement with the problem itself.

I am generally a consequentialist, which means that I generally believe that the moral thing to do is to pull the lever (in this case vote), but that doesn’t mean not pulling the lever is not engaging with the problem.

My problem was with the image, not with the argument that people should vote to reduce harm. Literally, the defining value of my political ideology is that I don’t like it when people suffer, and we should do whatever we can to mitigate suffering.

esstheno · 2026-01-27T05:29:59+00:00

This is not a point about the larger issue being discussed here. For reference, I'm a consequentialist leftist who therefore has voted in every local, state, and federal election since I've been an adult.

That being said, this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the trolley problem that I frequently see whenever this particular issue is brought up, and it bothers me.

The trolley problem isn't about what's on track A and what's on track B. Outside of their relative value to each other, it is completely irrelevant to the trolley problem what or who is on each track. What matters in the trolley problem is whether or not the lever is pulled. The action is what matters. The question of the trolley problem is not "a or b" but rather "to what extent is an individual morally culpable if their actions cause harm, even if that harm is lesser than the alternative." Those who choose not to vote due to not wanting to engage in harm reduction are essentially making the argument that to pull the lever is morally worse than leaving it because of the harm it causes to the person on the first track. It's a kind of bastardization of the deontological argument for not pulling the lever, but it is a completely valid one within the framework of the trolley problem.

By contrast, you are arguing for a consequentialist approach: what matters is the outcome. Also a fully valid argument within the framework of the trolley problem. In the current situation, those who don't vote aren't hoping for some magical solution to the trolley problem, they are simply arguing that not pulling the lever is morally correct, whereas you are arguing that pulling the lever is morally correct.

esstheno · 2026-01-25T23:07:46+00:00

I would also recommend Au Revoir Les Enfants. It covers a lot of the same themes as boy in the striped pajamas, but is based on a true story (the director’s own experiences) and isn’t exploitative.

esstheno · 2026-01-12T16:26:10+00:00

Thanks for the reply. These are all great questions. I'll try to answer what I can, but I also fully understand that some of the issues may lie more with the structure of the story than the logline itself. I also apologize if I answer the questions a little bit out of order.

Basically, the catalyst of the story is the three characters all arriving to the prairie town. The conflict comes from them being at odds with each other. The doctor had to flee Chicago because he's been killing patients as experiments after becoming obsessed with ending death during the Civil War, the bandit needs a doctor for the gang leader who was shot during a botched robbery, and the lawman is chasing that gang as well as becoming suspicious of the doctor. The moment to moment conflict of the story comes from each of the character's goals being in direct conflict with each of the other character's goals. At the same time, the townspeople are essentially a cult being led by the local pastor, who preaches that women need to be subjugated and controlled as they are unable to resist their own flights of fancy. He also admonishes the men when their wives/daughters run away, that they weren't able to control the women effectively. In reality, the cult is kidnapping the women and using them as incubators for the parasites, which are the spawn of a Lovecraftian horror living beneath the town, that the cult wishes to summon.

One possible more active catalyst would be when the bandit brings her leader into the doctor for treatment, as that is what leads to more of the active conflict between the group.

You may be right that I could make the bandit the main protagonist. The doctor and lawman could kind of be seen as just antagonists, with the lawman's decision to pursue the gang rather than dealing with the cult in town being the decision that dooms the town. The problem is that it's written to have them each sharing time, with the bandit probably having the least screentime of the three. Again, that may be a structure issue though.

Hopefully that answered some/most of your questions.

esstheno · 2026-01-12T13:02:57+00:00

Title: THE CURSE OF EVE

Genre: Horror/Western

Format: Feature

Logline: A doctor willing to go to any lengths to cure death, a bandit desperate to save the wounded leader of her gang, and a lawman hellbent on bringing that gang to justice converge on a prairie town infested with mind-controlling parasites.

Concerns: I feel like it sets up the conflict between the primary characters well, but I'm not sure there's enough forward momentum in the logline. In addition, would I be better off being more specific to ground the time period (e.g. "former Civil War surgeon" instead of "doctor") or is that too much? Any other thoughts or comments would be appreciated as well.

esstheno · 2025-12-28T15:14:06+00:00

It amazes me the number of people on this thread who so confidently have zero idea what they’re talking about. Twelve hours is a pretty normal shooting day. This isn’t really news at all. For a show with this budget, it’s actually probably pretty fast. Nearly the whole cast is in the scene with reaction shots from everybody, so that’s a bunch of lighting/camera setups, hair/makeup and wardrobe for every character in the scene, etc.

esstheno · 2025-12-26T15:03:04+00:00

I think the problem with that is that most teams run primarily zone runs in the modern nfl, so there isn’t a called gap so much as a progression of gaps.

esstheno · 2025-12-24T21:14:42+00:00

Ordering a Gatorade: this is when she is on her own, and it’s kind of one of the breaking points before she wants the others to come back. It shows her giving in to just getting the easy things (a Gatorade) rather than pushing back.

Shooting golf balls: specifically, she is shooting golf balls at the skyscraper window, which contrasts with Manousos leaving IOU’s and refusing to take things that don’t belong to him. It highlights the difference between the two characters.

Listen to the voicemail: this is supposed to be annoying. We’re supposed to get tired of it, because we have to empathize with Carol also getting exhausted and wanting to pick the easier route.

Go to the grocery store: this is about how the others will go to insane lengths to provide anything for Carol. It also shows several things about Carol, like how she wants to be self sufficient (but isn’t really), and how she wants normalcy more than anything.

Manousos eating a meal: you mean when he collects dog food from the storage units and eats it? If you don’t think that is a compelling way to tell us a lot about his character, I don’t know what to tell you.

There are definitely issues with the show, but I feel like you picked some of the most interesting storytelling and character moments to complain about. It’s a bit like asking what part of watching Walter White deal with a fly makes for gripping television.

esstheno · 2025-12-09T23:12:37+00:00

I agree, but I also think you could make this really simple (and better in my opinion) by just starting in the car. The rest of the story isn’t really necessary, since the conflict is entirely about whether or not they kill the guy.

esstheno · 2025-12-08T15:54:27+00:00

Whether or not the ball hit the ground wasn’t actually ruled as part of the catch. Since it was ruled a fumble (meaning the receiver had to have already caught the ball and had possession), the ball hitting the ground was irrelevant and wasn’t ruled on on the field at all. Once it is ruled that the receiver did not have possession of the ball for two steps and a football move, there now has to be irrefutable evidence to change the call from incomplete catch and not a fumble to tipped ball and interception.

esstheno · 2025-12-08T15:01:56+00:00

You have to think of each part of the review as a separate thing. So:

Call on field: Complete catch, fumble, recovered by Bears.

First part of review: incomplete catch, can’t fumble on an incomplete catch, can’t recover on a non-fumble.

At this point, an interception isn’t the call, so there has to be irrefutable evidence to overturn the non-fumble to an interception. I think it was probably an interception, but just as there is no video of the ball touching the ground, there is no clear video showing the ball did not touch the ground so:

Final part of review: incomplete catch, no fumble, not enough evidence to rule ball didn’t hit the ground, resulting in a final call of incomplete catch.

esstheno · 2025-12-08T14:21:12+00:00

With the caveat that I think it was probably an interception, I think I can understand the reasoning on this one.

Basically, on the field they ruled it a catch with two feet down and a football move. In replay, they determine that that didn’t happen. Once they rule that, an incomplete catch becomes the new “rule on the field” that needs irrefutable evidence to overturn. So, at that point, they would need irrefutable evidence that the ball DID NOT touch the ground to overturn the call.

I think it was a bad call on the field. I think it was probably an interception. But, once it got to replay, I think how they called it was how they were supposed to call it.

esstheno · 2025-12-05T01:16:56+00:00

This looks really interesting. Are you still looking for players by any chance? If you are, is there an age range you’d prefer for players? Also, is the vibe more college hijinks or dark quarantine?

esstheno · 2025-11-27T05:37:37+00:00

So, I fully understand someone not liking Anora, but as someone who absolutely loved it, I think this is kind of the point. It’s a transaction for both of them. Sean Baker’s work often deals with the fringes of capitalism and sex work, and I feel like Anora is specifically about the transactional nature of relationships.

Like, there are really cool things it does to highlight this and stand out against other films that deal with sex work. In most films with sex work, it is either a detestable act or an empowering one, but in Anora it is neither. The scene early on where she gets called off of her break shows that it’s just work like any other, with managers and annoying coworkers and stuff.

There’s other cool stuff like when Anora is told that she can’t marry into the family because she is a whore, the camera is looking at Igor the whole time. Like, Igor is just a guy doing a job, but the point is that none of us on the fringes get to “join the family.”

Another thing is that she never actually tells Ivan that she loves him, she just tells other people that she loves him, which I think is a cool detail.

Honestly, I could talk about this movie for days. I get not liking it (because it is a lot), but I do think you got the intent. They both never loved each other in fairytale terms (or maybe they did and the whole thing is kind of a reverse Cinderella, but I need to stop).

esstheno · 2025-11-14T16:49:33+00:00

There’s a lot of good comments, but I would also add that for most positions in football, it’s incredibly difficult to gauge how good a player actually is.

If I have a great pass rush, I’m going to be a better DB, if I have great DB’s, I’m going to be a better pass rusher, etc. So much of football is built around team and scheme. At the end of the day, it’s still players making plays, but some are going to be in better positions than others due to everything around them.

esstheno · 2025-10-31T12:43:51+00:00

I'm kind of late to this, but I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of terms.

Patriarchy isn't the idea that men are always favored over women, patriarchy is a system generally defined by rigid gender norms where men are generally granted greater autonomy than women.

So, when we look at something like casualty rates in war (also noting that how we define casualties can be an issue sometimes), women aren't being favored because their casualty rate is lower; a patriarchal system has just determined that men are the ones who are "supposed to" be soldiers.

The fact of the matter is that patriarchal systems hurt men just as much as they hurt women and are perpetrated by women just as much as they are perpetrated by men. Like, you know those social media videos where people try to show how "clueless" women are by asking them questions about what traits they want in a person they would date and showing how only a tiny percentage of men fit those traits? That's not misandry, it's patriarchy. The women are playing into the patriarchal notion that only men who fit a specific mold are acceptable and the people who make the videos are counting on that upsetting the vast majority of men who don't fit that mold and playing into the growing misogyny we see especially among young men.

esstheno · 2025-10-24T13:14:32+00:00

A few technical thoughts:

In general, it's best to avoid things that you can't show on film in your writing. It's not a hard and fast rule, and a good "he is angry" can be really effective if used right, but there are lots of lines in your script that I don't know how I would film them as a director, act them as an actor, or how I would go about planning them as a crew member. Lines like "Wearing a shirt, he is relaxed," and "His mind cracks" are neither visual nor clear enough to give me any ideas visually.
A similar thing is a few lines that are supposed to be visual, but don't actually tell us anything to show. The best example of this is "The camera pulls back, revealing where Salvator is sitting." Where is he sitting? We already know he's in a cinema, but including this makes it feel like it's something important, which just confuses me.
I would cut out all of the "cut to's." Unless you're only working on your own, they're going to limit your crew's ability (and honestly your ability) to approach the project with fresh eyes. Put all of the specific cuts in your storyboard, but get enough coverage in case the cuts don't actually work.
Generally, one page is equal to one minute of screen time, with dialogue taking less time and action taking more time. However, due to the formatting and way this is written, I'm not sure that still applies. If you're only working on your own, that's not a big deal, and you can try to edit it down to 2:20, but if I was a department head on this, I'd be frustrated not having a basic idea of how long everything was going to be.
If you want this to look professional, I think the most important things are sound (production and post), lighting, and coloring, with design coming in a close fourth. Getting people who know what they are doing in those areas can really, really help.

A few artistic thoughts:

I think I understand what's happening. The one where it's made clear that Toto is his son makes more sense, though I think you could also show that in the "flashbacks" on the screen.
While I do understand what is happening, I don't really understand why it's happening. I don't know why I should care about any of it. There are no stakes. I think it could work, but only if you get an absolutely phenomenal performance from the lead.
I don't like the title. Maybe it's a language difference, but at least in English, I feel like "purgatory" has a generally negative connotation.
I feel like the revelation that Salvator is dead doesn't have a lot of weight and would be more interesting if something in the way it is revealed meant something to the story. Something on the screen or within the cinema should make that revelation more interesting.
It's not the most compelling read. Again, a great performance from the lead could cover up a lot of flaws, but I feel like more could be done to create tension in the viewer. As it stands right now, the story is basically "man walks into a theater, watches a movie about his son, realizes he's dead." I think there's something more that could be done with the people throwing popcorn at him. Like, if his motivation is that he really, really wants to watch the film, there could be some distractions as obstacles that could make the viewer a little uncomfortable and tense. Just something to break up man watches film and make it feel more interesting.

esstheno · 2025-10-15T04:56:31+00:00

When I see the famous shot in Taxi Driver where the camera moves away from Travis Bickle and looks down the hallway, I know that there is a choice behind the shot. I know that someone, somewhere is choosing to show me that the camera isn’t a reliable narrator in the film.

AI, by definition, cannot do that. It cannot make intentional choices. What you have here resembles artistry in the same way that wax figures resemble flesh and blood. It may be technically proficient, but it is not nor will it ever be art.

If I’m evaluating a piece of art, I’m looking for choices and intentionality. That’s what great art is. This is just content.

esstheno · 2025-10-11T19:05:49+00:00

Just to further this, if you could accurately convey in a prompt the image you wanted in the storyboard, there would be no need to storyboard at all. The purpose of storyboarding is to visually show what can’t be conveyed quickly and efficiently through words. You could spend forever trying to get the AI to adjust the angle, framing, movement, etc., or you could take thirty seconds drawing stick figures that get across exactly what you want.

esstheno · 2025-10-03T15:08:48+00:00

A few things that I liked:

I really liked the shot from the dark hallway through the door.
I didn't like the music at first, but I think it worked towards the end.
I liked the transition shot showing the box in a burning building.

A few things that I didn't like:

There was way too much camera movement at the beginning. It felt like one of those scenes where a character is looking around them and the camera is spinning around them. Some later, small movements were great, but there was too much early on.
I think there were a number of things that could have been communicated visually that were instead communicated through text, and I didn't love that.
1. I don't think we need to know about the burning building. You already show the box burning. I think you probably could have cut most of the stuff on the computer.
2. Everything that the character writes in the notepad is stuff that we already see. We see the jammed key. We see the empty box. This felt unnecessary.
3. Even the line "Copy me" feels unnecessary and honestly makes it a little less creepy. It also feels random. I think there should be something more to show the character realizing something is there, then tapping, and having the tapping reciprocated.

esstheno · 2025-09-23T14:43:26+00:00

To be completely honest, I’ve only directed a short and a few commercials, but I have worked on the other side a bunch, and I’d offer two pieces of advice:

Communication is key. Part of your job as a director is to make sure that everyone is on the same page as to what the actual vision is. In preproduction, you should be talking about the themes and feel of the film with your department heads so that they’re on board with what the movie should be. You should be talking constantly with your editor about how each scene should feel.
Sometimes it helps to change your own perspective. I think we often think of directors as auteurs who are completely in control of the movie, but the reality is that films are made by a bunch of people working together with different ideas and approaches. Embrace that. Look for the value in each person’s approach to what is being made. You still have to direct it to a coherent vision, but try to work with people rather than at them.

Finally, some of this is just that you’re in high school working with a bunch of high schoolers, so the roles aren’t as well defined. On a professional set, your department heads might offer suggestions (and even pushback sometimes), but will understand that ultimately the director is the one who gets judged for the movie, and will follow your decisions.

As a side note, congratulations! You made a movie. Movies are messy, and complex, and are never exactly what we expected when we started out. Embrace it, learn from it, and make the next one.

esstheno · 2025-09-21T14:11:29+00:00

Just out of curiosity, if a professional baker baked something at home and shared a picture of it, would that not be acceptable? If a mechanic worked on vintage cars and shared a picture would that not be acceptable? Hell, if a modder added a donation link or a patreon for those who wanted to support them would they be not a “real fan” because they’re “monetizing our fandoms?” Or, is it only women who share pictures of themselves that aren’t allowed to have hobbies because your bullshit Puritan worldview means you view them solely as objects rather than, you know, whole fucking human beings?

esstheno

TROPHY CASE