How do I write a movie script if I only can come up with set pieces and one liners?

Steal, steal, steal.

Two quotes to live your creative life by:

Neal Adams: "An amateur borrows. A professional steals"

Anon: "To steal from one source is called plagiarism. To steal from many sources is called research"

So, let me introduce you to the Fine Art of Stealing

What Neal Adams meant was that everyone is influenced by those that came before them. However, those influences are really obvious in the work of the amateur but a professional makes them so much a part of their work that people don't see the original source.

That's your job.

The best way to do that is to steal from many sources.

Take parts from various sources, mix them all up and make them so much your own that people will think that it's original.

OK. Here's how it's done.

1. Sort out your set piece

For example, you may conceive of a scene where the antagonist and some goons have jumped from an aircraft with a kidnap victim and the protagonist leaps after them and must overpower the goons and the antagonist, rescue the kidnap victim and get a parachute before becoming a red splatter painting on the ground.

2. Now pick the characters

Who is the antagonist? Who is the protagonist?

Pick your favourite antagonist and favourite protagonist. Go back to your favourite movies and pick the best bad guy (or girl) and the best good guy (or girl)

For the antagonist, I always like Hans Gruber from "Die Hard".

For the protagonist, how about picking a lady and one of advanced years at that? American women are always complaining that there aren't enough good roles for older women - with some justification. So, how about Helen Mirren's character from "RED"?

3. Now rewind the action

How did they get on the plane? Why the plane? Was the protagonist there by design or accident? I prefer accident because there are so many more options for stories.

Why is the antagonist kidnapping the victim from a plane? Well, it's a good way of not getting followed which is why our protagonist has to pursue them without a parachute.

But kidnapping someone from a plane is crazy with all of that security? What if that's the whole idea? The kidnap victim's bodyguards won't have side arms so if the antagonist is prepared with (say) plastic guns or the like, then the fight is one-sided. Hmm, plastic guns are a little silly. Or how about they're blackmailing the Air Marshall and he simply hands his gun onto them. Suddenly, they're armed and no one else is.

Do you see how the story is forming from a single set piece? And we haven't even talked about the kidnap victim yet. What if it's a young girl whose father is a bio-weapons specialist and the ransom will be that he gives up a dangerous bio-weapon? I "researched" that character and storyline stright from "Resident Evil: Apocalypse".

Now, let's give the protagonist the ability to win. She is a retired military intelligence officer who worked during the end of the cold war and the Afghanistan war in the 80s who is now retired. She was one of the many back-room people who keep operations going. So she has basic weapons training and some martial arts training like aikido where age isn't an issue. But what she still has is the mind to win.

OK. So now we have a retired intelligence officer on her way home from visiting the grand kids who gets caught in the middle of a kidnapping and must use her wits and whatever is freely available inside an airplane to foil it to save the girl and an awful lot of potential victims.

You could also mix and match elements from "Air Force One", "Passenger 57", "Executive Decision", "Non-Stop", etc.

All from a set piece.

Is it a good story?

I don't know. I made it up on the fly (pun intended) to show you how it could be done.

And it doesn't matter if it is rubbish because it's given you something that you can re-work. What do you think Hollywood gets it right first time every time? Yeah, right

Some Of Your Favorite Characters Were Almost Terrible

Why aren't movies' writers given more prominence?

Because only writers have an overinflated opinion of their contribution.

If you think writing is so wonderful, don't ever bother to go to see a film, just read the screenplay. That's all you need, right?

It's true that there's no movie is useless without a story. But the prescence or absence of story has little to do with the writing for the following reasons:

1. Writing is writing, it isn't storytelling.

Stringing words into sentences doesn't automatically make a story. This is the problem whenever a book is adapted for movies - sometimes, there's not much of a story underneath all of the ramblings. Take "Interview With A Vampire". Some self-obsessed loser becomes a vampire and then wanders around for centuries never ageing or getting ill but spends the entire time moaning about the loss of the colour blue. Now in the book, that doesn't matter because you have the pleasure of the words. But on the screen, it becomes a real problem. Take "Nanny McPhee". According to Emma Thompson, it took 7 years of development to get a film script out of it because, as she says at 30:03, there's no story.

2. Any storytelling in the writing is put there by the reader.

I know many people who like Stephen King. Personally, he leaves me cold and I'm sure that he doesn't lose any sleep over my opinion nor should he. I feel the same way about JK Rowling (although I thought her description of the Riddle's gardener was wonderfully touching). Now I'm not alone. So what does that tell us? Are they great storytellers or aren't they? The answer is that they are only great story tellers insofar as they spark the imagination of their readers.

3. Writing isn't the best way of telling a story (part 1).

Writing, as in the emphasis on words, is only as old as the Gutenberg Press. Prior to that, words were only ways of getting to the older and more authentic arts like performance, painting and sculpture. The idea that there is nothing between the unadorned, standardised word and you has only been around for 600 years or thereabout. So, how did writers get the pretension that their skill is so bloody marvellous and that all other art forms are somehow subservient to them? Yes, good writers are artists in exactly the same way that good pop songs are art. But in both cases, the vast majority of it is rubbish that is quickly forgotten. Recently, I read a claim from a screenwriter that the written words of a play will last long after the performance is forgotten. Bullshine. How many plays could an average person recall from the last 50 years let alone the last 200? Written plays fade unless they're performed. It's true, one or two scholars may remember it in 100 years time but so what? And even if it were to survive, would the words mean anything? There is much discussion over whether the true meaning of Shakespeare has been severely eroded because we don't see it performed in the Original Pronunciation.

3. Writing isn't the best way of telling a story (part 2).

You've no doubt heard that a picture is worth a thousand words. This is wrong. A picture is worth 10 million words and if it moves, its worth 10 billion words. So where is the word in the story telling mix? Emma Thompson at 24:02 talks of an occasion where a pivotal end scene in the screenplay was cut because it was actually no use in the movie.

4. Because screenwriting isn't writing.

Screenwriting is a much older form of writing. It is the form whereby most of the actual words on the page will be lost in the translation process to another art form. The only things that will survive are the dialogue and any words that might appear on the screen like a location title. The rest is there to guide someone to do something else other than speak. This has led to much heated discussion over whether a screenplay is complete in and of itself. To those who say it is, I say that it is about as complete as a recipe for a cake or a blueprint for a bridge - they are complete in the word forms but if they remain in their word forms, they are incomplete in their purpose. The screenwriter doesn't write their masterpiece for it to sit in a drawer in word form. They write it to inspire action - to get people onto their feet and creating art in their chosen disciplines. It is either a cry to battle or it is nothing.

5. Because 99.99% of the English language is non verbal.

That is both the strength and weakness of English. it means that English is easy to learn but takes a lifetime to master. Take a simple this simple sentence:

"Good morning and what a beautiful morning it is"

What's the meaning? In English, it depends utterly and totally on the context:

• If the sun is shining, it is likely to be honestly meant
• If it's raining cats and dogs, it could be sarcastic or an indication that the person is in a horribly good mood and the weather isn't going to change that
• If the receiver has just been through a bad break up, it may mean that life goes on
• If the person saying it has just won a massive bet at the expense of the listener, he may be rubbing that in

Yes, it's true that you can convey some of that by description.

"Good morning and what a beautiful morning it is" sarcasm dripped off every word along with the rain.

Don't believe me. Just listen to a conversation by a group of girls on whether the way some guy said "Hi" means he likes one of them or not.

5.Because writing isn't performing.

Take this sequence in Hellboy:

In the screenplay, it would have been

"She took his picture. She took his picture. She took his picture. She took his picture."

Like that, it isn't very inspiring because it gives no clue about how it will be said. So, perhaps the author may have to deign to move into the world of typography (shudder) and use italics (eek). Then you might get something like this

"She took his picture. She took his picture. She took his picture. She took his picture."

Even then, it still doesn't get close to how it was performed.

6. Because sometimes the words get in the way.

My favourite scenes in film are where people don't speak. The classic is "Zulu" where Stanley Baxter and Michael Caine just stand there trying to work out why they can hear a train until it slowly dawns on them that it is the war cries of the approaching Zulu army. Or the grand entrance of Omar Sharif in "Lawrence of Arabia" Or the opening of "Up" where an entire life is told without a single word.

Having torn apart the need for a screenwriter, I shall tell you why they're valuable. For the great dialogue and the line that defines the movie.

"You were only supposed to blow the bloody doors off"

"You can't handle the truth"

"You're going to need a bigger boat" (unscripted, sorry)

"All of these things will be lost like tears in rain. Time to die" (also unscripted, sorry)

Yes, sorry, it's true: sometimes even the actors come up with great material (shock! horror!)

How Do I Retain Control When Selling My Sript?

Film making is a team sport

If you're not prepared to be part of the team, then just become a writer and stop wasting everyone's time, including yours. Believe me, it's far easier just to write.

If the idea of someone else touching your precious little masterpiece fills you with dread, then don't punish yourself, and the rest of the human race along with you, by writing movie scripts. Write books. It's not like there's anything stopping you. You can start now and self-publish with Amazon, or anyone else, when you're ready. You don't even need the intervention of a book editor any more.

Take a case in point: Stephen King's "The Shining"

Stephen was so unhappy with Stanley Kubrick's changes that he re-made it later. So we got to see Stephen's original artistic vision and it was mediocre and all the worse when you compare it with Kubrick's work. 

Credit: The header image is available as wallpaper from Wall.alphacoders.com

 
 

Soap Operas: How Did The Routine Use Of DNA Testing Change The Trope Of "Who is the biological father"?

This is an incredible tool that is just so under-used.

Imagine the scenario:

An 18 year old son suddenly collapses. At the hospital it is discovered that his kidneys are shutting down and he needs a transplant to save his life. The wife's in a wheelchair and can't help. The father immediately steps forward and offers one of his because he loves his son. However, during the routine tissue typing, they discover that he isn't the real father. It is revealed that 18 years and 9 months ago, the husband and wife had an enormous row and she stormed out. She went to a trucker's bar, got drunk and laid the first stranger she could find as "revenge" against her husband. The next morning, she awoke in a cheap hotel room all alone, realised that she had been stupid, went home and patched it up with her husband but never told him what happened because of her shame. She never even thought that she might have become pregnant from that night. Now, in order to save the "son" he loves, the husband has to track down a complete stranger from almost 20 years ago and persuade him to give up a kidney for a son he has never known. But the clock is ticking and time is running out for the son

Isn't that a storyline you'd like to see? What is the possible fall-out of that - the newly discovered father wants more access to the son afterwards; both the husband and the son have to deal with the wife's infidelity and their new relationship; what if the husband finds out that the story is a lie and that his wife has had a long list of infidelities before and since?

Imagine another scenario:

2 men argue over who is the father of a particular child. They do a paternity test and neither is the father. In fact, the child doesn't even belong to the mother. The child was accidentally swapped at the hospital and they've raised someone else's child.

Here's another:

This one actually happened: during a routine DNA test, it was discovered that the two children of a particular mother went related to her although they were related to the husband and the children were taken away. She had to go to court to get them back. Her defence team proved that the children were related to their maternal grandmother and so had to be related to their mother. It turned out that the mother was two twins who had fused back to become one baby. So her ovaries belonged to one twin and her saliva-producing cells to the other, thus the confusion.

The possibilities are endless.

Credit: The header image is available as wallpaper from Wall.AlphaCoders.com