writing a two hour movie script
$Zero
two hours.
two hours of character dialogue/development, plot, action, etc.
how would you fill two hours of "screen time"?
two hours.
in other words: one hundred and twenty minutes.
...
do you have two hours worth of an idea for a movie?
two hours.
...
-$Zero...
$Zero
[EXTERIOR, DAY, SUNNY, BLUE-SKY, PARK BY A GORGEOUS RIVER]
[CIRCLE ZOOM IN TO A DEMORALIZED MIDDLE-AGED CREATIVE GENIUS RESTING
ON A PARK BENCH LOOKING UP AT THE SKY AND THEN TO THE RIVER AND THEN
TO THE TREES ETC -- CRUNCHES EYEBROWS, LOWERS HEAD MOMENTARILY TO
SIGH]
[PULLS OUT WRITING PAD AND PENCIL BUT JUST BEFORE WRITING ANYTHING
LETS OUT ANOTHER SIGH AND RUBS HIS FOREHEAD WITH EYES CLOSED, SIGHING
AGAIN]
[RAISES HEAD TO WATCH A PRETTY WOMEN WALK BY AS HIS EYES FOLLOW HER,
THEN REFOCUSES TO SOME BIRDS FLYING BY, THEN TO SOME COLLEGE KIDS
PLAYING FRISBEE]
[LOOKS TOWARD THE RIVER AND WATCHES A COUPLE DUCKS FLOAT BY]
[SHAKES HEAD RAPIDLY AND SIGHS AGAIN AND THEN LOOKS FAR AWAY AT A
GIANT CLOCK IN THE DISTANCE IN THE NEARBY BUSINESS DISTRICT]
[SCRUNCHES EYEBROWS AND THEN RAISES THEM FOR A SECOND]
[RAISES PENCIL TO PAD AND PRINTS OUT THE WORDS: "Two Hours." IN THE
MIDDLE OF THE RUFFLED PAD, BUT THEN TURNS THE PENCIL AROUND AND ERASES
THE PERIOD]
[THEN SUBTITLES USING PARANETHESIS "(writing a movie script)"]
[THEN ERASES THE WORDS "Two Hours" AND WRITES "Two Hundred Minutes"
AND A COUPLE MOMENTS LATER ADDS THREE PERIODS, ACCENTUATING THE LAST
PERIOD]
[THEN ERASES THE "Two Hundred Minutes" AND WRITES "Two Hundred
Writers"]
[LOOKS AT THE PAGE FOR A MINUTE THEN RIPS OUT THE PAGE FROM THE PAD
AND PUTS IT IN HIS JEANES POCKET]
[AFTER SCANNING THE BEAUTIFUL SCENERY AGAIN, PULLS OUT SOME PAGES FROM
HIS POCKET, SHUFFLES THRU ABOUT A DOZEN SCRAPS, FINDS THE LATEST ENTRY
AND CRUMBLES IT UP AND TOSSES IT INTO THE GRASS]
[A PIDGEON SWOOPS DOWN AND NIBBLES AT IT AND THEN WADDLES ON
UNINTERESTED]
[A COP WRITES UP A TICKET FOR LITTERING]
[CREATIVE GENIUS TURNS THE TICKET OVER AND READS ALOUD "punishable by
a $50 Fine and/or two weeks in jail" AND THANKS THE OFFICER POLITELY]
...
[INTERIOR DAY]
[CREATIVE GENIUS QUICKLY FLIPS THRU 500+ CHANNELS WHILE STANDING
DEMORALIZED IN THE CENTER OF THE ROOM AS THE SUNLIGHT FLICKERS THRU
THE LEAVES OUTSIDE ONTO THE WOOD FLOOR BETWEEN HIM AND THE TELEVISION]
[TELEPHONE RINGS]
[CREATIVE GENIUS TURNS HEAD TOWARDS THE ANSWERING MACHINE AND LISTENS
TO THE FIVE RINGS AND THEN THE AUTOMATED ROBOTIC ANNOUNCEMENT
"Voicemail full, please try again later"]
[ANSWERING MACHINE AUTOMATICALLY DISCONNECTS THE CALLER]
[CREATIVE GENIUS THINKS TO HIMSELF FOR A MINUTE AND PULLS OUT HIS PAD
AND PENCIL TO WRITE:]
"Change voicemail message"
[INTERIOR NIGHT, STREETLIGHT AUGMENTED BEDROOM]
[CREATIVE GENIUS LAYS IN A MESSY BED STARING AT THE CEILING]
...
[EXTERIOR, DAY, LIGHT DRIZZLE, PARK BY A GORGEOUS RIVER]
[CIRCLE ZOOM IN TO A DEMORALIZED MIDDLE-AGED CREATIVE GENIUS RESTING
ON A PARK BENCH IN A SLIGHTLY WET T-SHIRT LOOKING UP AT THE SKY AND
THEN TO THE RIVER AND THEN TO THE TREES ETC -- CRUNCHES DAMP EYEBROWS,
LOWERS HEAD MOMENTARILY TO SIGH]
[ASKS HIMSELF "So, I wonder how many minutes all of that was. With
enough artsy camera work, I could probably stretch it out to at least
ten."]
[CREATIVE GENIUS LAUGHS OUTLOUD ON THE PARK BENCH AT THIS LATEST
THOUGHT]
[LIGHT DRIZZLE SUDDENLY BECOMES A HARD DOWNPOUR]
[CREATIVE GENIUS RUNS TO THE NEAREST GAZEBO]
[AFTER DRYING OFF HIS HANDS ON THE TUCKED IN PART OF HIS T-SHIRT, HE
PULLS OUT THE WRITING PAD AND PENCIL AND PRINTS OUT THE WORDS: "Two
Hundred Writers" AGAIN]
[THEN SUBTITLES AGAIN USING PARANETHESIS "(writing a movie script)"]
[THEN ERASES THE WORDS "Two Hundred Writers" AND WRITES "Two Hundred
Thousand Writers"]
[THINKS FOR A MINUTE AND THEN ADDS THESE WORDS TO THE END OF THE TITLE
"On Strike"]
-$Zero...
Skipper
$Zero <zero...@gmail.com> wrote:
No. 110 minutes. Any longer and it'll get disregarded, most likely.
And right now it'll get disregarded most assuredly.
$Zero
> In article <1194492193.711336.190...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> $Zero <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > writing a two hour movie script
>
> > two hours.
>
> > two hours of character dialogue/development, plot, action, etc.
>
> > how would you fill two hours of "screen time"?
>
> > two hours.
>
> > in other words: one hundred and twenty minutes.
>
> > ...
>
> > do you have two hours worth of an idea for a movie?
>
> > two hours.
>
> No. 110 minutes. Any longer and it'll get disregarded, most likely.
so that's ten minutes less to have to write.
cool.
> And right now it'll get disregarded most assuredly
well, there's always usenet.
or blogging.
yippee!
-$Zero...
$Zero
[AS THE COP WALKS AWAY THE CREATIVE GENIUS YELLS OUT: "Do they have
HBO?"]
scribb...@googlemail.com
Bill Penrose
People write novels all the time, and most have to be drastically cut
to fit them into two hours. It can't be that hard.
DB
Bill Penrose
> [CIRCLE ZOOM IN TO A DEMORALIZED MIDDLE-AGED CREATIVE GENIUS RESTING
> ON A PARK BENCH LOOKING UP AT THE SKY AND THEN TO THE RIVER AND THEN
> TO THE TREES ETC --
Woody Allen got there first.
DB
$Zero
only to find Shakespear hogging the bench.
-$Zero...
$Zero
starting from scratch, it's got to be far easier to write a screenplay
than a novel.
it's a cinch that the result will be far more marketable, no matter
what the quality.
-$Zero...
Skipper
$Zero <zero...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 8, 3:13?pm, Bill Penrose <penr...@iit.edu> wrote:
> > On Nov 7, 8:23 pm, $Zero <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > writing a two hour movie script
> >
> > > two hours.
> >
> > People write novels all the time, and most have to be drastically cut
> > to fit them into two hours. It can't be that hard.
>
> starting from scratch, it's got to be far easier to write a screenplay
> than a novel.
Not so. It's easier to write A screenplay.
One you can sell is a far different story.
>
> it's a cinch that the result will be far more marketable, no matter
> what the quality.
Not really. The book and novel manuscript to publication ratio is far
more favorable to writers than the script to screen ratio. I've written
about it in many books.
>
> -$Zero...
>
$Zero
> In article <1194559864.277051.140...@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
>
> $Zero <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 8, 3:13?pm, Bill Penrose <penr...@iit.edu> wrote:
> > > On Nov 7, 8:23 pm, $Zero <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > writing a two hour movie script
>
> > > > two hours.
>
> > > People write novels all the time, and most have to be drastically cut
> > > to fit them into two hours. It can't be that hard.
>
> > starting from scratch, it's got to be far easier to write a screenplay
> > than a novel.
>
> Not so. It's easier to write A screenplay.
point mine.
> One you can sell is a far different story.
that depends only on your agent.
> > it's a cinch that the result will be far more marketable, no matter
> > what the quality.
>
> Not really.
did you catch that last part?
> The book and novel manuscript to publication ratio is far
> more favorable to writers than the script to screen ratio.
i'll bet you won't share the stats on that here.
for the writer, effort for effort, dollar for dollar, screenplays are
far more marketable than novels.
> I've written about it in many books.
ba'dum, chsh!
-$Zero...
Skipper
$Zero <zero...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 8, 6:24?pm, Skipper <skipspaml...@charter.not> wrote:
> > In article <1194559864.277051.140...@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > $Zero <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 8, 3:13?pm, Bill Penrose <penr...@iit.edu> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 7, 8:23 pm, $Zero <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > writing a two hour movie script
> >
> > > > > two hours.
> >
> > > > People write novels all the time, and most have to be drastically cut
> > > > to fit them into two hours. It can't be that hard.
> >
> > > starting from scratch, it's got to be far easier to write a screenplay
> > > than a novel.
> >
> > Not so. It's easier to write A screenplay.
>
> point mine.
>
> > One you can sell is a far different story.
>
> that depends only on your agent.
No, it depends on the quality of the script and market needs at the
moment.
>
>
> > > it's a cinch that the result will be far more marketable, no matter
> > > what the quality.
> >
> > Not really.
>
> did you catch that last part?
>
>
> > The book and novel manuscript to publication ratio is far
> > more favorable to writers than the script to screen ratio.
>
> i'll bet you won't share the stats on that here.
Why sure, I just love to provide information to jerks named Zero on a
newsgroup who don't know what they're talking about but love to argue
to feel better.
>
> for the writer, effort for effort, dollar for dollar, screenplays are
> far more marketable than novels.
Completely untrue.
Bill Penrose
> starting from scratch, it's got to be far easier to write a screenplay
> than a novel.
> it's a cinch that the result will be far more marketable, no matter
> what the quality.
No personal experience, but I've spoken with people who say that it's
not. Partly because, like novels, there are a lot more of them out
there, more than the market can absorb, and because so much of TV and
movie writing is done by insiders, or at least people known within the
business.
DB
boots
Screenplays have to be all solid. You can't get away with drifting
off into wittering description. You can't get away with fifty page
ponders about the meaning of life. Something concrete has to happen
all the time. It needs to be, if not realistically believable, at
least very engaging. I'd think that would make it tough.
--
The sane answer, to madness, is insanity.
John Ashby
> Bill Penrose <pen...@iit.edu> wrote:
>
>>On Nov 8, 3:11 pm, $Zero <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> starting from scratch, it's got to be far easier to write a
>>> screenplay than a novel.
>>> it's a cinch that the result will be far more marketable, no matter
>>> what the quality.
>>
>>No personal experience, but I've spoken with people who say that it's
>>not. Partly because, like novels, there are a lot more of them out
>>there, more than the market can absorb, and because so much of TV and
>>movie writing is done by insiders, or at least people known within the
>>business.
>>
>>DB
>
> Screenplays have to be all solid. You can't get away with drifting
> off into wittering description. You can't get away with fifty page
> ponders about the meaning of life. Something concrete has to happen
> all the time.
Really? Read the first part of this review which argues against that.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/nov/05/television1
john
boots
Are they broadcasting a blank screen or still shots that go on for
long periods? Or is perhaps something concrete happening? Are you
reading "something concrete" in my post to mean "something
astoundingly meaningful"? The point which apparently I didn't make is
that if the viewer goes off to fix a snack because he's not engaged,
he'll miss the commercials and may change the channel when returning.
With written material, perhaps a 10-page description of how some
flower smells will be skipped over but the rest of the book, or story,
or whatever, is there beyond it. I guess what I'm saying is that it
seems the risk of losing a viewer entirely is higher than the risk of
losing a reader entirely. All other things being equal. Which they
never are. With a book, the reader has to at least toss the book
toward a trashbin, I think people will try paging past a bad spot
before going to the effort; with a television show, all they have to
do is push a button and some new show will appear, no tossing toward a
trashbin is required.
Maybe I have it all wrong, I'm no expert. At least it's a writing
subject to talk about, one never knows when something can be learned.
John Ashby
No to all of those. What Poliakoff writes is often the televisual
equivalent of "wittering description" or "fifty page ponders", and
therein lies its value. The drama is at its weakest when the
conventionally concrete happens - the suicide attempt, the attack by
the homeless person (though the build up to that was a fine Pinter
homage), and strongest when it documents the ordinary, the quotidian
(though for how many of us does the quotidian include cabinet ministers
and billionaires?).
> The point which apparently I didn't make is
> that if the viewer goes off to fix a snack because he's not engaged,
> he'll miss the commercials and may change the channel when returning.
> With written material, perhaps a 10-page description of how some
> flower smells will be skipped over but the rest of the book, or story,
> or whatever, is there beyond it.
No, with well-written material a 10 page description of the scent of a
flower will engage the reader, it will be relevant to the story and it
will be presented in such a way that the reader will read it, not skip
over it. That is virtually a truism about the meaning of
"well-written". And it is as true of drama as it is of literature.
john
Skipper
<n...@no.no> wrote:
You're right. Don't pay any attention to what someone English says. I
write for a UK screenwriting mag on occasion and they're always
desperate for American input because our movies make a lot of money.
And before some Limey chimes in here, the Harry Potter movies were made
by an American studio, which is why they were so good.
Alan Hope
And do you know why?
>And before some Limey chimes in here, the Harry Potter movies were made
>by an American studio, which is why they were so good.
You're a fuckwit.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
boots
> the Harry Potter movies were made
>by an American studio, which is why they were so good.
Isn't Rowling an Englishwoman?
Start with a good story and it's easier to make a good movie from it
I'd think, regardless of nationality.
$Zero
> In article <1194565782.202060.128...@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
> $Zero <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 8, 6:24?pm, Skipper <skipspaml...@charter.not> wrote:
> > > In article <1194559864.277051.140...@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
> > > $Zero <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 8, 3:13?pm, Bill Penrose <penr...@iit.edu> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 7, 8:23 pm, $Zero <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > writing a two hour movie script
>
> > > > > > two hours.
>
> > > > > People write novels all the time, and most have to be drastically cut
> > > > > to fit them into two hours. It can't be that hard.
>
> > > > starting from scratch, it's got to be far easier to write a screenplay
> > > > than a novel.
>
> > > Not so. It's easier to write A screenplay.
>
> > point mine.
>
> > > One you can sell is a far different story.
>
> > that depends only on your agent.
>
> No, it depends on the quality of the script and market needs at the
> moment.
point mine.
> > > > it's a cinch that the result will be far more marketable, no matter
> > > > what the quality.
>
> > > Not really.
>
> > did you catch that last part?
>
> > > The book and novel manuscript to publication ratio is far
> > > more favorable to writers than the script to screen ratio.
>
> > i'll bet you won't share the stats on that here.
>
> Why sure, I just love to provide information to jerks named Zero on a
> newsgroup who don't know what they're talking about but love to argue
> to feel better.
translation: you won't share the stats here
> > for the writer, effort for effort, dollar for dollar, screenplays are
> > far more marketable than novels.
>
> Completely untrue.
you're suggesting that there's more money per paid novelist than there
is per paid screenwriter compared to how many people strive to be
same (per effort made by all).
that's bullshit.
$Zero
but since there's a much bigger paying market for screenplays than
novels...
and there's many more people trying to get their novels bought than
those trying to get their screenplays bought...
and the quality demands of novels is much higher than screenplays...
and the insider factor applies pretty much equally to both markets...
the math isn't very hard to do, even without all of the missing data.
ba'dum, chsh!
-$Zero...
$Zero
> Bill Penrose <penr...@iit.edu> wrote:
> >On Nov 8, 3:11 pm, $Zero <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> starting from scratch, it's got to be far easier to write a screenplay
> >> than a novel.
> >> it's a cinch that the result will be far more marketable, no matter
> >> what the quality.
>
> >No personal experience, but I've spoken with people who say that it's
> >not. Partly because, like novels, there are a lot more of them out
> >there, more than the market can absorb, and because so much of TV and
> >movie writing is done by insiders, or at least people known within the
> >business.
>
> >DB
>
> Screenplays have to be all solid.
that's a strange characterization.
no pun intended.
> You can't get away with drifting
> off into wittering description.
why not?
> You can't get away with fifty page
> ponders about the meaning of life.
you can if it's dialogue heavy.
but why do you need fifty pages to ponder the meaning of life?
> Something concrete has to happen all the time.
solid.
> It needs to be, if not realistically believable, at
> least very engaging.
so do novels.
so do Usenet posts.
> I'd think that would make it tough.
have you ever tried to write one?
screenplays are the ultimate in "show, don't tell".
that makes them easier by default.
because once you get into that mode, your writing ability
automatically improves.
-$Zero...
$Zero
> On Nov 9, 2:25?am, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Bill Penrose <penr...@iit.edu> wrote:
> > >On Nov 8, 3:11 pm, $Zero <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> starting from scratch, it's got to be far easier to write a screenplay
> > >> than a novel.
> > >> it's a cinch that the result will be far more marketable, no matter
> > >> what the quality.
>
> > >No personal experience, but I've spoken with people who say that it's
> > >not. Partly because, like novels, there are a lot more of them out
> > >there, more than the market can absorb, and because so much of TV and
> > >movie writing is done by insiders, or at least people known within the
> > >business.
>
> > >DB
>
> > Screenplays have to be all solid.
>
> that's a strange characterization.
>
> no pun intended.
>
> > You can't get away with drifting
> > off into wittering description.
>
> why not?
>
> > You can't get away with fifty page
> > ponders about the meaning of life.
>
> you can if it's dialogue heavy.
>
> but why do you need fifty pages to ponder the meaning of life?
besides, you can ponder life in that way using camera angles and many
things other than spoken or written words.
boots
>> I'd think that would make it tough.
>
>have you ever tried to write one?
Never.
>screenplays are the ultimate in "show, don't tell".
>
>that makes them easier by default.
>
>because once you get into that mode, your writing ability
>automatically improves.
Well-written prose tells without getting lost in the telling.
$Zero
> $Zero <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I'd think that would make it tough.
>
> >have you ever tried to write one?
>
> Never.
why not?
try writing one today.
...
seriously.
take a crack at it.
i tried writing one a few days ago for the first time.
add a post to the thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/f5e6080b4b4d8655
> >screenplays are the ultimate in "show, don't tell".
>
> >that makes them easier by default.
>
> >because once you get into that mode, your writing ability
> >automatically improves.
>
> Well-written prose tells without getting lost in the telling.
say what?
-$Zero...
boots
>On Nov 10, 7:29?am, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
>> $Zero <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> I'd think that would make it tough.
>>
>> >have you ever tried to write one?
>>
>> Never.
>
>why not?
I could offer lots of made-up reasons, but the real answer is that it
hasn't come to the top of my to-do list yet and it probably never
will.
>try writing one today.
>
>...
>
>seriously.
>
>take a crack at it.
>
>i tried writing one a few days ago for the first time.
>
>add a post to the thread:
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/f5e6080b4b4d8655
>
>
>> >screenplays are the ultimate in "show, don't tell".
>>
>> >that makes them easier by default.
>>
>> >because once you get into that mode, your writing ability
>> >automatically improves.
>>
>> Well-written prose tells without getting lost in the telling.
>
>say what?
Well-written prose shows, the telling is invisible.
Skipper
$Zero <zero...@gmail.com> wrote:
> but since there's a much bigger paying market for screenplays than
> novels...
>
> and there's many more people trying to get their novels bought than
> those trying to get their screenplays bought...
>
> and the quality demands of novels is much higher than screenplays...
>
> and the insider factor applies pretty much equally to both markets...
>
> the math isn't very hard to do, even without all of the missing data.
You're astonishingly full of shit. Approximately 60,000 books and
novels are published by substantial houses in the US each year.
Approximately 500 movies are made by studios, and that includes TV
movies and small companies. Disney last year cut their number of movies
in half. Most aspiring writers these days want to write scripts and
sell them for a million, not books or novels.
Here's an example of how full of it you are. Eric Garcia, author of
Anonymous Rex, was an insider in Hollywood working for producer Al
Ruddy at one point (look them up, you might learn something for once).
When he wrote his novel (which didn't have that title) he found an
agent in Florida on the Net who sold the book for him. He ended up with
three books and a TV series out of it. He had NO insider anything in
the novel realm, and his Hollywood connections didn't help with the TV
series, the book sales did.
Now, since you don't have any specific ANYTHING except your dummy
opinion which you can't stand to be wrong about, you'll probably come
back with some goofy "point mine" rejoinder, but you'll still be wrong.
Alan Hope
>screenplays are the ultimate in "show, don't tell".
>
>that makes them easier by default.
>
>because once you get into that mode, your writing ability
>automatically improves.
What a blithering halfwit you are.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
$Zero
> In article <1194694695.915773.292...@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> $Zero <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > but since there's a much bigger paying market for screenplays than
> > novels...
>
> > and there's many more people trying to get their novels bought than
> > those trying to get their screenplays bought...
>
> > and the quality demands of novels is much higher than screenplays...
>
> > and the insider factor applies pretty much equally to both markets...
>
> > the math isn't very hard to do, even without all of the missing data.
>
> You're astonishingly full of shit.
[bowing]
> Approximately 60,000 books and novels are published by substantial houses
> in the US each year. Approximately 500 movies are made by studios, and that
> includes TV movies and small companies.
what a surprise to see an intellect such as yours compare apples and
oranges using numbers that have no source other than your own book.
you try to compare "books and novels" vs "movies made by studios"
in the former you include photography books, childrens books, how-to
books, tech manuals, cookbooks, and God knows what else.
in the latter you exclude tv episodes, documentaries, talk shows,
independent films, and the zillion screenplays that are bought but not
produced.
but to top it all off, you don't compare the number of aspiring
novelists to the number of aspiring screenwriters, nor do you compare
the amount of effort of each, nor the average cash made per effort.
i must say, as a researcher, your conclusions on the matter must
surely be golden.
but let's see if you can trott out some irrelevant fact to try to
sound credible:
> Disney last year cut their number of movies in half.
because the market for movies is shrinking, right?
Gawd.
must be all those new cable channels and DVD players popping up all
over the place.
> Most aspiring writers these days want to write scripts and
> sell them for a million, not books or novels.
and your source for this utter nonsense?
> Here's an example of how full of it you are.
oh goodie.
> Eric Garcia, author of
> Anonymous Rex, was an insider in Hollywood working for producer Al
> Ruddy at one point (look them up, you might learn something for once).
learn something about what?
yikes.
> When he wrote his novel (which didn't have that title) he found an
> agent in Florida on the Net who sold the book for him.
presumably, the agent was an insider, no?
> He ended up with three books and a TV series out of it.
i'll bet his relationship with Ruddy and/or others in the industry had
absolutely nothing to do with that at all.
> He had NO insider anything in the novel realm,
nor did his agent for the novel, right?
> and his Hollywood connections didn't help with the TV
> series, the book sales did.
what a moronic conclusion.
OF COURSE the book sales helped.
duh.
but wait, i'll bet Eric didn't benefit at all from any of his
Hollywood connections in that, right?
it's only logical that he didn't.
> Now, since you don't have any specific ANYTHING except your dummy
> opinion which you can't stand to be wrong about,
can you spell "projection"?
> you'll probably come back with some goofy "point mine" rejoinder,
"goofy".
translation: your "point mine" rejoinders scored in the sublime zone.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/a65843facf9e60e6
> but you'll still be wrong.
well, sure. in the apples and oranges game, i'm always wrong.
-$Zero...
Skipper
right. I live here, work here, have been providing advice for over a
decade on this stuff. You, meanwhile, are a bullshit spewer on Usenet.
Point mine, you lose, end of idiocy, you're outa here.
In article <1194733636.4...@o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
$Zero
> You're an idiot, appropriately named "Zero". At least you got that
> right. I live here, work here, have been providing advice for over a
> decade on this stuff. You, meanwhile, are a bullshit spewer on Usenet.
> Point mine, you lose, end of idiocy, you're outa here.
translation unnecessary.
the bloodied white flags says it all.
(the bonus flashing of your "credentials" is merely frosting on the
cake)
obligatory recap:
> In article <1194733636.419297.214...@o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,