Comments on: A Screenwriting Revolution!

By: Lee Matthias

Lee Matthias — Thu, 06 May 2010 00:24:55 +0000

In reply to David Nerlich.

I have a 9 part series of posts beginning with this one:

https://thelastreveal.blogspot.com/2009/11/for-unfamiliar-reveal-in-screenwriting_23.html

and running consecutively through 8 more.

Check them out!

By: Andrew M

Andrew M — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 23:53:02 +0000

In reply to Dean Spleen.

Hey Dean,

Make some great points. Would be interested to see if you’re writing stacks up. Always looking for like-minded and talented writers in NSW. Email me, for a no strings chat about your genre/experience.
andrew@prorevolutionfilms.com

By: scriptlarva

scriptlarva — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 13:42:08 +0000

I have written about this obsession with rules here.https://scriptlarva.wordpress.com/2010/03/11/reviewing-screenplays-the-way-of-the-east-and-the-west-2/

By: Andy

Andy — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 13:24:24 +0000

I think you do McKee a disservice. Having sat through 4 long days of listening to him, I didn’t feel bullied at all. He was an amazing guy to listen to.

He was clear and upfront about what he was trying to do. His book and lecture are about condensing down the elements of story down to some basic concepts. And they work. No question about it.

He was also totally clear about the following point. Once you know these rules and you’ve mastered the craft, go out and break the hell out of them.

Funny really that you should be trying to shoot McKee down, as you both seem to be saying exactly the same thing. McKee would be the first to admit that there are successful exceptions to the rules.

By: SimAlex2000

SimAlex2000 — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 08:46:27 +0000

experimenting with structure is a good thing. a screenplay without a structure or a story without a structure is a waste of everyone’s time.

By: Jack Brislee

Jack Brislee — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 03:05:43 +0000

I agree with MM’s assessment of character arcs. Many great film characters don’t have an arc, and that is what makes them great. Colonel Nicholson (Alec Guinness)in “The Bridge on the River Kwai” does not change. Neither does Patton (George C. Scott) evolve from a blood and guts general into a peace loving hippie. And we follow Burt Munroe’s journey in “The World’s Fastest Indian” because he has one aim and one aim only – to win a motorbike speed record. This one aim makes him a changeless character, and we admire him for his tenancity.

There must be somewhere some erudite literature on character arcs in American films and the belief in redemption and self improvement. This quasi-religous concept is in contrast to the European tradition of a more rigid society that places less emphasis on the individual.

By: Lee

Lee — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 09:36:14 +0000

In reply to Mac.

Mac, I believe the issue is that film makers in Australia wish to be know as artists rather than commercial artists (that in their eyes are sell outs). Being in the arts industry for some time now I know that there is a lot of bickering about independent artists selling out to become commercial and being driven by greed than truly providing thought provoking pieces to stimulate the mind than the economy.

The thing is with the arts world, we need to make a commercial product to prove to the powers at be that we have a name that attracts. Once we’ve made that point in our career, we’re free to do whatever we like. Musicians are the perfect example of this. They release albums that provide commercial success to their name and as more albums are released the styles and personality of the band evolve in to their own – rather than what the studio wants. We as film makers must do the same, build our reputation for breeding success and then we’ll be free to do as we please.

By: David Nerlich

David Nerlich — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 01:03:37 +0000

In reply to Lee Matthias. Lee, Can you link us to the particular article on your blog?

By: David Di Muro

David Di Muro — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 03:10:38 +0000

Wow this post has people fired up. As they say, “everyone’s an expert”.
My 2 cents are this:
A film is about how it makes you feel. Excited, happy, bored etc… The most successful films are the ones that have feeling, even if that feeling is gratuitous. In the end the structure is only a piece of the puzzle for manipulating feeling. A good writer will use structure (plot) together with character, setting and mood to manipulate the viewer’s emotions.
If the viewer likes the way their emotions were manipulated, they will like the experience. If not they will not like the experience. Regardless of how it is done; even by large transforming robots or blue faced aliens.

By the way that’s patented theory by me, so don’t forget to cite :)

By: Karel Segers

Karel Segers — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 06:23:38 +0000

In reply to Jack McCallum. Thanks Jack. I hadn't picked that up. Now corrected.