I have purchased/read just about every screen writing book out and after much thought, I have decided that most of them are bullshit. I have cherry picked the best advice out of them, but most of the advice is about following the established norm. However, if one looks at the great films of the past fifty years one will find that the best films are the films that break the conventions of the day.
Take for example, Star Wars. Lucas rips off the best bits of his favorite movies and does it really well. However, in Star Wars nothing really happens till 30 min. into the movie, aside from the hard to top opening. Star Wars does not fit easily into the “beat sheet” paradigm that is currently popular in Hollywood; it’s a slower paced movie that what is being put out today. If there is one thing all three (original) Star Wars movies suffer from is the that they are slow as molasses in some parts. In “A new hope” it’s in the beginning. In Empire it’s the whole Yoda training thing, thankfully dispersed with Han and company running away from the Empire in the asteroid field. In Jedi it’s the whole damned Ewok thing.
I do understand that modern audiences have the attention span of a titsi fly so getting to the point a.s.a.p. is now absolutely necessary, but there is one thing I did learn from the third Pirates of the Carribean movie; You really don’t have to follow any conventions with modern audiences so long as you keep shit moving and preferably blowing shit up along the way. This held true for the new Transformer movie as well. There was practically no plot, and even during the main showdown between Optimus Prime and Megatron the idiot screenwriter (or the director) decided to pan away from the uber battle royal to concentrate on the secondary characters that I could have cared less about. What Transformers did do well is that it is kept shit moving forward and blowing shit up real good.
BUT, Transformers is a “throw away” movie. Nobody really gives a shit about any of the main characters (the human ones anyway) and they should just write out -all- of the human characters for the sequel(s); they don’t need them anyway. I say Transformers is a “throw away” movie because in ten years will you want to watch it again? No. In ten years will I want to watch Terminator 2 again for the hundredth time? Hell Yeah!There has been much said that movies have lost their magic, despite all of the incredible advances in special effects and sound in the past thirty years and it’s pretty much true. What has happened is not that movies today are bad, (which they mostly are) but there is just so much competition to the movies. I personally spent WAY too much time playing Halo 1/2/3 online, time I would have been at the movies ten years ago. The studios know that they don’t have to have great characters or even a plausible plot anymore. All that needs to be done is to “entertain” the audience for the duration of the movie and then hopefully make up the money on dvd/t.v. sales. There is no real quest or drive to make original content anymore. It’s so bad that sequels are being made for franchises long since dead, like “The Mummy,” rather than make new material. Come on, it’s 2008! Does anyone -really- want to see a new Mummy movie? It’s so bad that there is actually a movie being made about the board game Monopoly. How/why would anyone want to see a movie based on a board game?This brings me to my concern. Vagueland does not fit into any particular category easily. It’s a horror movie at it’s core, but has a lot of sci-fi elements and on top of everything it’s a comedy. It is going to realistic, yet absurd at times. The creatures in all three movies are going be plausible extentions/enhancements of what has already walked the earth in the past and present and not crazy killing machines, like in Starship troopers. In Starship Troopers the warrior bugs could stand on one “leg” and kill like five people, at different angles, simultaneously; a little too efficient for a “bug,” let alone a solider bug.
In the end my screenplay may be “unsellable,” but it certainly won’t be boring, or the norm and hey, I’ve got some hope in that Hollywood actually made a movie about girl with teeth in her vagina, so whatever I come up with can’t be that off the wall! 
Sweetles Said:
March 8th, 2008 at 1:35 am
“Now I’m finding truth is a ruin…nauseous end that nobody is pursuing…”
A truer statement can’t be applied to the absolute DRECK that is being passed off as film these days. I could not agree with you more about “Transformers” — quite honetly, it was an hour too long. Tits McWhoever will be masturbation material, enshrined forever as a Z-grade actress in an ultimately forgettable flick. She joins legions of other one-hit wonders in this regard. Shia, on the other hand, has been in actual movies, though I did see one of his that blew worse: “A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints.”
You wanna talk SLOW pacing? Dude, I had time to paint walls, watch Heaven’s Gate, and get another degree in the time it took for this limburger-laced disaster to achieve a single ounce of anything. I hated every one of the kids, wished they’d have all met untimely ends within the first 30 minutes of the run time, and really hated life while this was plaguing my DVD player. What was supposed to be an “artsy, powerful. coming-of-age” story was completely the opposite. I was supposed to feel bad for the main character, and I didn’t feel a damn thing. I don’t think it was necessarily just the performance facet, but the story was so awful that I just didn’t care.
They say truth is stranger than fiction, and this film is based on a true story. A truly BORING story and as un-strange and un-avant-garde and unmoving as watching a brick of cheddar grow mold. There were no surprises. The characters moved in the most predictable and stereotypical of patterns. If Hollywood makes another “poignant story about a boy coming of age,” I will shun theaters for a good five years. Add it to the list of films no one should see more than once, yet alone watch again in ten years.
You’re deaaaad right that your everyday moviegoer has a negative attention span. Proof? Angelina Craplie movies. Broad can’t act, but because she has the right eye makeup and looks “intense” whenever a camera is on her, she gets roles. Her movies demand nothing of you in terms of intelligence or ability to follow a plot. Mr. and Mrs. Smith–I saw it on a plane but didn’t pay for the headset, AND I DIDN’T NEED TO. That’s sad…there was nothing they could have said that I couldn’t determine from what I was seeing. Now, someone might read that and think, “Hey, the whole wordless communication thing…that means it was great writing!”
NO. It means it sucked so bad that you’d have been grateful to be deaf if you weren’t cheap like me and opted not to purchase the headset. Anyone could have followed the–AHEM–story without ever hearing what the actors were saying. Why? Because it didn’t matter! Brad Pitt (another useless actor, IMHO, good only in about 3 films) and Broadlina could have been swapping banana bread recipes, and fuck if the audience would have noticed. The movie did blow up a fair amount of props, so it did adhere to one of the major tenents you discuss. It didn’t move fast–I know because I later had this film INFLICTED ON ME WITH THE AUDIO–because the actors kept stopping to toss out the stupidest, most banal lines every written in history.
And the clown who gave us this cinematic triumph has also unleashed “Jumper” on us. What did we ever do to him? Can someone suspend his movie-making license already? That new film looks incredibly stupid, but, if what you say is true, it will be a hit: stuff blows up, it purports itself to be action; ergo, box-office smash.
Movies with plot and depth are being forgotten because the public is too stupid to pay attention. It’s amazing we even remember trailers. I rented “Reign Over Me,” and before you’re quick to judge, Adam Sandler and Don Cheadle were actually a great pairing. The movie isn’t funny a damn bit, though it may have a funny line here and there, and it’s a shame that Adam Sandler has effectively boxed himself in as a goofball because he pulled off his role with surprising interest and talent. I was hesitant to rent it but was very glad I did. This movie didn’t do great at the box office, and that’s a shame.
It may not go down in history as one of the best films ever, but it was memorable and certainly worth recommending to others. That’s not something I get to do often, as I am with someone who has the ability to rent the most categorically awful films ever made. When I do see a good movie, it’s a shock. I would even be happy with mediocre!
Books about writing (of any kind) all have one thing in common: they disagree. Everyone has his own pre-set rules and thoughts on the topic, all shaped by the teachers and professors responsible. I have read countless books about writing and honing style, but you know, while they might have good pieces to offer…it’s as you say–you fritter out the best portions and disregard the rest.
And that’s what good writing really is–the skill to know what to edit and what not to edit. I don’t doubt that Vagueland will be waaaay out there, but I also don’t doubt that it’ll stick with you long after it’s viewed.
I’m ready to buy my ticket.