Kinda ranted there but just my two cents.

There was pedophile character in the show that had nothing to do with the plot. AT one point he’s on a blind date with a pretty neurotic, and she actually starts to fall for him, and he is an ugly psychotic. That made me mad. So unbelievable, of course she saw through him when he started behaving MOST inappropriately in her car.
Then there was the voice-over. Never have I seen anything like it, it descended sporadically, not to cover gaps in time but to describe what the characters onscreen were feeling! Because we weren’t bright enough to figure out that those tears meant sadness!

And then the guy who’s leaving his beautiful wife to join his beautiful mistress, decides to stop on the street (suitcase & goodbye honey letter in hand) for a little skateboarding with the local punks and he bangs his head and has an epiphany and goes back to his wife!

Truly unbelievable.

There I’m done. Phew.

If the writers of that show are listening, I’m sorry for being so negative, but really what were you thinking?

Is this the type of negative review that is bad for creative spirits everywhere? Tell me.

P.S. I hate hearing about any spoilers of movies before seeing it, I got mad at the person who told me about Blood Diamond and that’s why I put off watching it for so long, was hoping I would forget of something.

But the other thing is that starting a story with a scene from later in the story can seem like a cheap way of avoiding having to come up with a proper opening. It’s seeming more and more like an empty and over used device to me these days. Never quite sure what’s wrong with telling the story in normal, linear order. He said. Sounding rather old fashioned.

I’m not sure if I agree with you entirely on that one. Example: I recently saw Blood Diamond but when it had just came out, I overheard how it ends. Now when I saw it I had on my mind what was going to happen throughout the whole movie. But I still loved it. Not sure if that fits perfectly, but I think you get my point. If it’s well done, it could possibly not matter if you know the outcome. Just my two cents.
(P.S. I tried to make this comment as spoiler-proof as possible)

I suppose that we as screenwriters have to avoid the pitfall that this movie fell into like the plague. If you’re done with a screenplay or even writing it, make sure none of your story critical characters are 2-D characters. It’ll make the difference from a great screenplay that gets made and a good screenplay that doesn’t get made.
Also in this case, it may get made even if it isn’t good, but really, who wants to say that that terrible movie was made by you?

Regards.

Basic!
Could you believe it, never heard of the movie.
I’ll try to rent it in the near future.
What is Basic, all about? on a screenwriting level?

Regards
Benjamin

Regards.

I agree, if we look at Saturday Night Fever, the movie, its one of the darkest movie in the history of hollywood. Lots of people did not realize that. But we all love the main character. He’s self-destructive at times(without realizing it), but he has a good heart and knows how to break his weaknesses.

This is what I call a good “artist” movie.

Regards

I think every character has to have their own moral by the end of the script because life and people are like that. Even when we don’t really notice, every good movie ends up with all of the characters having a moral component that comes with him/her.

And absolutely we need to write with a moral compass. One question that is worth asking yourself is ‘is there a character in this story who is the moral centre of this story’? Ie, who is the one whose judgement on the events of the story we feel to be Good. If you haven’t got one of those characters then they are always worth considering. Not least because they’re often a way in for the audience.

I’m not sure exactly what you mean. I was referring to what Philip said when I was talking about “switching between modes”. You have a fair point, but I believe it depends on the individual writer. Some writers can develop a script, take a break, and then go back and critically edit it while others might work better simply writing from the heart and be more concerned with thematics than critical editing. All writers work in different ways, and I think that’s why there is so much diversity in how stories are told.

As screenwriters we cannot switch from one mode to another — we have to be honest to our emotions and manage it with a moral compass.

I write from my heart. Just like what Gandhi said “you must become the change you wish to see in the world”.

Though my scripts are gritty, they must and will always have a moral premise. We cannot give up in life and play the blaming game.

Regards
Benjamin

Actually I’m still processing my reactions to Gangster #1, which I saw late last night on TV. Fascinating movie – so much wrong with it, yet so affecting too. Terribly violent, problems with the ending, some great acting, (and some not so great), but mainly a powerful vision at its centre that was very hard to resist.

Amz/Ben – I think the battle is having the skill to remain aloof from your subject and assess it critically as you write, yet retaining the ability to immerse yourself in it so wholeheartedly you can mine your own deepest emotions in an uncritical way. The control you need to switch between modes is hard to achieve. The only real way I can find to do it is to somehow factor in a cooling off period between drafts.

I think I understand what you’re saying…Is it that a lot of artists are so wrapped up liking what they do that they don’t consider the potential audience?

“Control” is yet to be released here, and I’m curious to see it now just to know what it is like. From your comments it sounds like it doesn’t address the struggle/s an artist can face in any real depth. Is that right?

It seems like quite a lot of film/tv/theatre/novels tend to romanticise certain occupations (particularly, I think, any form of artist). Is that something you’ve explored in your scripts?