Writer's Group Misery
StaindCreed07
fail since they haven't sold anything. They never like any script, even the
scripts of an established Hollywood sceenwriter who frequents our group. What
do you do when you write totally different genres from the rest of your group
and they never see positives? Dramas and science fiction are fine genres, but
they see my comedies through those viewpoints. I wrote a teen comedy and one
member keeps tellng me that even the teen sex comedies in Hollywood are
immaculate and the director or story people mess it up. I seriously doubt that
ROAD TRIP, SCARY MOVIE, or DUDE WHERE'S MY CAR were EVER incredible
screenplays. I am sick and tired of people quoting McKee's Story about digging
deep into characterization for a TEEN SEX COMEDY. Where should a comedy
writer's go for feedback? I am starting to feel that they wouldn't know what
commercial writing is it if hit them on the head. Fine for art movies, but not
for feedback on broad comedies. Any suggestions?
Alan Brooks
My experience in writer's groups is that everybody feels obligated to
say something even if nothing about the genre resonates with them. So
if you're the only "American Pie" fan in a group of Artistes, you might
want to find or create another group. Hunt around, see if you can get
enough comedy writers to form a more focused group. Comedy, of all
dramatic broths, benefits most from extra cooks.
On the other hand, maybe you should be listening to the members of your
current group. Nothing sells like great writing, even if your genre is
lightweight and comic. Think what you want but the script for "Dude,
Where's My Car?" was a scream to read. If the group says your script
isn't "immaculate" (whoa, major Art word there), do they mean it's not
really funny enough? In teen comedy funny is all that counts and no
matter what you might be telling yourself if it's not funny on the page
it's not going to be funny on the screen.
Alan Brooks
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A schmuck with an Underwood
-- "I'm intrigued, yeah. You know what might help you, take a look at
the Cylone again, the way a visual fabric is maintained even while the
metaphor plays on different levels." Martin Weir (from "Get Shorty")
Jon Green
wrote:
> This sounds cynical, but I feel that most of our group secretly wants me to
> fail since they haven't sold anything. They never like any script, even the
> scripts of an established Hollywood sceenwriter who frequents our group. What
> do you do when you write totally different genres from the rest of your group
> and they never see positives?
Leave.
Jon
--
SPAM BLOCK IN OPERATION! To mail, swap 'green-lines' for 'deadspam'
Spammers: please die now and improve the mass-average IQ level.
Want a deadspam email auto-responder? Try http://www.deadspam.com/
bonita
wrote:
>This sounds cynical, but I feel that most of our group secretly wants me to
Gee, I don't know. Find another group, maybe?
Bonita
Visit my website at http://www.basicblackprods.com
Douglas...@newman.com
wrote:
>This sounds cynical, but I feel that most of our group secretly wants me to
Perhaps you need to switch groups? Is there such a thing as a Comedy
group in your area?
If so, you may find more support for your genre there.
On the other hand, wether comedy or drama or whatever, all these
genres have a throughline and use structure, but do have different
genre conventions.
Only you can know if you and your work will benefit by changing
writers groups.
Doug
Just a virtual guy... in a virtual world.
La...@la.com
wrote:
>This sounds cynical, but I feel that most of our group secretly wants me to
>fail since they haven't sold anything.
Not secretly, unconsciously. That's the problem with writers groups.
They're the only thing worse than asking another writer for his
opinion.
>They never like any script, even the
>scripts of an established Hollywood sceenwriter who frequents our group. What
>do you do when you write totally different genres from the rest of your group
>and they never see positives?
Leave. As fastas you can.
>Dramas and science fiction are fine genres, but
>they see my comedies through those viewpoints. I wrote a teen comedy and one
>member keeps tellng me that even the teen sex comedies in Hollywood are
>immaculate and the director or story people mess it up. I seriously doubt that
>ROAD TRIP, SCARY MOVIE, or DUDE WHERE'S MY CAR were EVER incredible
>screenplays.
You're probably right.
>I am sick and tired of people quoting McKee's Story about digging
>deep into characterization for a TEEN SEX COMEDY. Where should a comedy
>writer's go for feedback?
Real people.
>I am starting to feel that they wouldn't know what
>commercial writing is it if hit them on the head. Fine for art movies, but not
>for feedback on broad comedies. Any suggestions?
Writers group are horrible for ANY feedback. :)
La...@la.com
wrote:
Stay away from writers groups.
StaindCreed07
if anyone has had a similar experience.
Hollywood Muscle
adults will be able to offer support and constructive critism regardless of
the form of writing. Just double check yourself and make sure you're not
being too sensitive to critism...its always hard to take.
"StaindCreed07" <staind...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011004103728...@mb-bh.aol.com...
Mozeman
news:Dv1v7.1593$wP1.3...@news2.news.adelphia.net...
> Just double check yourself and make sure you're not
> being too sensitive to critism...its always hard to take.
I agree. Do you want praise or true criticism? Perhaps you should ask this
established writer for some one-on-one (if he has time).
While writers in groups may be overly selective or critical, the sad fact is
that the vast majority of screenplays just aren't that good. If you think
production executives or agents are going to be any easier on you, you may
in for quite a surprise.
lfe...@airmail.net
TonyScribe
>>but I feel that most of our group secretly wants me to fail<<
I don't think I've made it a secret. I really do want you to fail.
Peace,
Tony B.
P.S. - why would you give a fuck what anybody on the Internet thinks? Nobody
else does.
ActiveVerb
aimed at teenagers are really hard to evaluate. A friend of mine gave me his
script of this kind to read and I had to tell him, "I can comment on character
and structure but I have no idea if 11 and 13 year old boys will find this
funny." I am not sure where that leaves you. Comedy is subject. Comedy scripts
are even more subjective.
Southern Media
Hi, I've just re-joined this group (as I've been busy working on my
current project) and have missed any of your previous posts.
I am working on a comedy of my own and have had lots of helpfull feed
back from this group when I was starting out.
If you would like my opinion on anything (I'm not an expert or
anything, but I am willing to offer any help I can) just send some
snippets to r...@whitsend-studios.co.uk and I'll take a look.
Yours
Rob @
Southern Media
La...@la.com
<HMSta...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Find another group. Genre shouldn't make a difference. Mature, interested
>adults will be able to offer support and constructive critism regardless of
>the form of writing.
We're talking writers here... :)
La...@la.com
At least they'll evaluate the product according to their real needs
(which does not mean they'll be right of course). A writer's group
evaluates it based on their hangups and jealousies generally. Few
writers have the capacity to get away from the "this is how I'd do it"
and actually try to understand what YOU are trying to do and help you
achieve it.
Mozeman
news:3bbd77a0....@news.pacificnet.net...
I think the problem is less about jealousy and more about ignorance. I've
talked to "writers" who were writers simply by virtue of the fact that they
said they were. Imagine an entire group of these people giving you advice
on what to do with your script.
On the whole, however, feedback from other working professionals is almost
always more constructive --for me anyway. That's why I suggested that he
approach the pro writer for some one-on-one. He might find it a more
rewarding experience UNLESS, as I said, he is looking for someone to like
rather than someone to critique it.
Ovum
>> They tried something in pearl harbour but it feeled
weird. Nice milking of the situation anyway. <<
I wasn't trying to milk the situation. Or trying to be funny, or whatever.
For a lot of people, 9/11 was the most traumatic event of their lives. In
general, one way our culture tries to process deeply disturbing phenomena is to
tell a story about it. Stories (movies) are comforting; we understand them.
They help us deal with tragedy by allowing us to put things in familiar boxes.
Movies are a way of simultaneously externalizing and personally experiencing
tragedy.
I can't believe nobody is touching this. We have amazing conversations in mws,
except for real-life, serious stuff.
------------------------------------------------
In essentials, unity.
In non-essentials, liberty.
In all things, charity.
-- Augustine
Steven J. Weller
ov...@aol.com (Ovum) writes:
> Jean wrote:
>
> >> They tried something in pearl harbour but it feeled
> >> weird. Nice milking of the situation anyway.
>
> I wasn't trying to milk the situation. Or trying to be funny, or whatever.
> For a lot of people, 9/11 was the most traumatic event of their lives. In
> general, one way our culture tries to process deeply disturbing phenomena
> is to tell a story about it. Stories (movies) are comforting; we understand
> them. They help us deal with tragedy by allowing us to put things in familiar
> boxes. Movies are a way of simultaneously externalizing and personally
> experiencing tragedy.
>
> I can't believe nobody is touching this. We have amazing conversations in
> mws, except for real-life, serious stuff.
l think the reason no one's about to do a WTC movie just yet is because
so far, it isn't a story. At least, not the kind of story we like to
tell about ourselves.
We like to see ourselves as the heros, not as the victims, and until we
have some response to the events of 9/11, we're pretty much just ending
on the carnage. As a call to arms, a film like that could be very
powerful, but as yet we're not even sure that we're going to have a
traditional military response, and there's a lot of official (and
unofficial) effort at keeping us _from_ taking up arms just yet.
The kinds of small, personal stories that end with death in the
destruction of the towers are going to be horrible downers, which isn't
really likely to sell a lot of tickets right now. Likewise small,
personal stories about miraculous survival are going to be problematic;
the all-too-recent backdrop of the thousands who didn't get the miracle
will make watching lucky survivors seem unappealing.
Time and distance will make such stories more palatable, but unlike a
natural disaster or an act of arrogance or stupidity (like the sinking
of the Titanic), this cataclysm is the result of an act of specific and
premeditated violence, committed by a recognizable villain against the
nation as a whole. Any story you tell is going to either cry out for
justice, or will be more notable in failing to do so. Until we have
some sort of response (or a notable lack of response, if that's how it
works out) you only have a first act. Terrorists attack the WTC towers
and the Pentagon, killing thousands.
And _then_ what happens?
--
Life Continues, Despite
Evidence to the Contrary
Steven
Ovum
be right. But I do like Carnak's idea about all the studios getting together
and doing a film.
And I think they could pull it off tastefully and artfully. I mean, who here
wasn't amazed at the tribute Hollywood pulled off on Friday, September 21?
Thirty-Five networks donated time to air it live. It was tasteful, it was
artful, it was as sincere as people could make it. Miles above any live TV I
can ever remember seeing in my lifetime.
I don't know why a WTC film couldn't tell a stand-alone story, regardless of
what does or does not happen next in terms of national retaliation. Why can't
the film simply be a story about the common people who became heroes that day?
Why can't there be a WTC film about a Joe Schmoe, an archetype of every cubicle
drone who ever felt like his life had no particular meaning, his job wasn't
going anywhere and his marriage was just so-so? An ordinary person who drove
his ordinary kid to daycare one extraordinary morning, and, against all odds,
reunites with her that night as an American hero?
Joe's boss is the tyrannical, abusive jerk who, in the end, holds the hand of
the secretary he never thanked or appreciated, and jumps with her to their
deaths. Joe's brother-in-law is a fireman who gets buried in the rubble, but
who, until the very end, offers aid and comfort to those dying in the darkness.
Composite characters to tell composite stories.
And you never have to show the crashes or news footage of the buildings
falling. Suggest it. We've all seen it.
This story has been told and will be told at memorials around the world. Why
not tell one big story on film?
Lois
Alan Brooks
Ovum wrote:
> This story has been told and will be told at memorials around the world. Why
> not tell one big story on film?
Because -- in my humble opinion, of course -- setting out to film The
Big Story of the World Trade Center Bombings isn't a very good idea.
It's like setting out to paint The Great Seascape, instead of painting
what's in your heart and soul. You can get a lot of paint on canvas but
people look at it and never feel a thing. Just because an event looms
large in the public conciousness doesn't mean anybody has a great
dramatic throughline for it yet, or that the artistic rendition of the
event can evoke the emotions of the event itself.
In real life the bombing was a tragedy of immense size, especially to
those standing on the streets of New York, watching their city burn.
But in a movie, an art form, how do you get people to feel something
about a couple buildings falling down? The only tried and true method
is to make them feel something for some people in those buildings, and
that means concentrating on a single hero or a small set of heroes we
can cheer for. The size and currency of the event will never make up
for the lack of a great story idea.
What's the greatest story ever told about the burning of Atlanta? It's
certainly "Gone With The Wind", and it's a great story because of the
individual lives it focuses on, not *primarily* because of the drama of
what was once the most horrific war event Americans knew.
Why were movies of the sinking of the Titanic or the bombing of Pearl
Harbor successful? Because they focused on a small set of characters
that we cared deeply about (er... okay, for Pearl Harbor I'm talking
about "From Here To Eternity", not the recent attempt to diddle our
heart strings...)
I don't think the WTC bombings are taboo even now if you have a great
story that could wring tears from the eyes of hardened Hollywood script
readers. But you can't just shoot a movie of the bombing itself without
some meaningful backstory. And you've only got two hours to establish
the backstory and make us *love* somebody enough to hope and fear for
them, which means you hae to focus.
You have to do something intimate and let the grand event stand on its
own.
You could, if you wanted to, write a story about a famous squad of NYC
fireman who specialize in extreme rescues. No rescue is too difficult
for them. They're the ones the city calls on for all the tough stuff.
Then I'd focus on a new, young recruit, and his trials at breaking into
the squad. Maybe, after all this time, there's a race barrier and he's
the first black or Puerto Rican to get in, or maybe he's just brash and
unproven. Maybe it's the first woman on the squad. Whatever, you put
this character through the wringer. You ask him to sacrifice to get on
this squad, you make him prove himself under unreasonable duress, etc.
Then, when he's won the respect of the elder members and the love of a
good woman, you have him answer that call on September 11th, and the
last thing we see is him leading the crew up the stairs of Tower 2.
That's how they did "Gallipoli", which I thought was great. They didn't
try to show you too much of the horrible fate in story for the thousands
who were slaughtered. Instead they showed two men, and let the death of
one of them stand for the deaths of all.
Ron Drake
ov...@aol.com (Ovum) wrote:
I think that producers are already commissioning clandestine treatments
of the subject as we speak. The critical moment will be the anniversary.
There's no reason to doubt that there won't be a national day of remem-
brance--enacted into law in perpetuity, unless I miss my guess--and
that event will allow producers to quietly begin "jockeying" for posi-
tion. That's why I wouldn't be surprised if someone's already on it.
There will be more than one film. That's the nature of events like this.
Some studios might throw in for the sake of economy, but people are go-
ing to want a dramatization of this; it's catharsis. It just remains to
be seen how an industry not known for its altruism or tact will make a
non-exploitive, respectful showing.
Also, there is a lot of stories that hinge on that day. I won't be writ-
ing this, but here's my idea:
It bothers me that there were only nineteen hijackers. Four planes. Four
five man teams. Where is--you ready for the title?--"The Twentieth Man"?
I like to think that something "woke him up," so to speak. He decides
not to go through with the obscenity...but he also knows that the FBI
is hot on his trail after it happens. What does he do? How does he cope
with what he's been a part of? He can't get out of the country and he
wouldn't be welcome almost anywhere else if he did. Does he deserve any
measure of redemption for NOT doing it? It'd be told from the point of
view of the FBI agent tracking him down and these are the questions the
agent would be stumbling across in the course of pursuit.
I don't think Harrison Ford and Tommy Lee Jones would care to reverse
roles for it, though...
=======================================================================
http://www.coffeemac.com
=======================================================================
Paula
wrote:
>It bothers me that there were only nineteen hijackers. Four planes. Four
>five man teams. Where is--you ready for the title?--"The Twentieth Man"?
>I like to think that something "woke him up," so to speak. He decides
>not to go through with the obscenity...but he also knows that the FBI
>is hot on his trail after it happens. What does he do? How does he cope
>with what he's been a part of? He can't get out of the country and he
>wouldn't be welcome almost anywhere else if he did. Does he deserve any
>measure of redemption for NOT doing it? It'd be told from the point of
>view of the FBI agent tracking him down and these are the questions the
>agent would be stumbling across in the course of pursuit.
Not so noble in real life, apparently.
http://www.dallasnews.com/attack_on_america/investigation/stories/489657_zac_06nat.ART.html
Paula
BrickRage
>From: Ron Drake rdr...@ix.netcom.com
> I won't be writ-
>ing this, but here's my idea:
Yoo-hoo Ron, you just wrote it. And wrote it good.
>"The Twentieth Man"
>I like to think that something "woke him up," so to speak. He decides
>not to go through with the obscenity...but he also knows that the FBI
>is hot on his trail after it happens. What does he do? How does he cope
>with what he's been a part of? He can't get out of the country and he
>wouldn't be welcome almost anywhere else if he did. Does he deserve any
>measure of redemption for NOT doing it? It'd be told from the point of
>view of the FBI agent tracking him down and these are the questions the
>agent would be stumbling across in the course of pursuit.
That is a pitch I would love to sink cash into. Not only as something that's
pertinent, but a good godamned thriller story.
Nesci
"You're nobody if you don't get booed sometime." -- Dylan
The FAQ for m.w.s is http://www.communicator.com/faqs.html
Ovum
>The former -- the real question isn't whether
>Afhganistan-based anti-Taliban stories will sell, but rather, what
>major American star of Hispanic descent are they going to try to get
>to play this Arabic Woman?
There are a couple of actresses of Middle-Eastern descent I can think of right
off the top of my head. Don't laugh, but what about Paula Abdul?
Hey, I asked you not to laugh!
OK, she's no Meryl Streep, but the woman has "acted" in a number of vehicles,
and is of Jewish and Middle-Eastern descent. (Trivia: she also choreographed
the cheerleading scene in American Beauty.)
There's also Fairuza Balk, who was in The Waterboy with Adam Sandler and played
the human-feline hybrid in The Island of Doctor Moreau. Fairuza means "blue"
in Persian.
About the "Untitled Shah" pic:
>(From Done Deal at scriptsales.com)
>
>Title: Untitled Shah Pic
>Log Line: Memoir of former war correspondent Saira Shah, whose parents
>emigrated from Afghanistan.
>Writer: Saira Shah
>Logged: 10/3/01
>More: Shah recently made the documentary "Beneath the Veil" in which
>the horrible treatment of women under the Taliban government was revealed.
Apparently this film deal was made at the same time last week that Shah sold
her story to Knopf for $650,000. Is it unusual for a book and movie to be
sold at the same time like that?
Lois
Carnak
>
>There's also Fairuza Balk, who was in The Waterboy with Adam Sandler and played
>the human-feline hybrid in The Island of Doctor Moreau. Fairuza means "blue"
>in Persian.
oH how I love this Fairuza! Did you see her in Denver When You're
Dead? Light-speed actress. Beautiful woman. Must be cast in major
lead role soon.
Fairuza means "turquoise" in Persian [Farsi?], according to Sandra
Brennan @allmovie.com.
StarCrushGuy.
[we're attacking Afgan right now with major missile & bomb strikes!]
Ron Drake
bric...@aol.com (BrickRage) wrote:
> That is a pitch I would love to sink cash into. Not only as something that's
> pertinent, but a good godamned thriller story.
Thank you, Brick. I appreciate it.
=======================================================================
http://www.coffeemac.com
=======================================================================
Ron Drake
rub...@att.net (Paula) wrote:
> Not so noble in real life, apparently.
>
> http://www.dallasnews.com/attack_on_america/investigation/stories/489657_zac_0
> 6nat.ART.html
I'm not imputing nobility to anyone. The minute we cease to think
of those who perpetrated the atrocity of 9-11 as anything other than
human beings, we lose. They are human beings who did monstrous things;
not monsters.
=======================================================================
http://www.coffeemac.com
=======================================================================
Maj. Bushteaser
they attempt it.
--
Steve Richer
http://www3.sympatico.ca/sricher/
Moral Pervert
"Ovum" <ov...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011006202516...@nso-cv.aol.com...