Screenwriting

Joshua Young - Re: first-round reviewer and error-catcher. More of a writing assistant." That's my take.

Re: writing a full story from one prompt - I've never even tried the "Act as a screenwriter" context.

But I did goto Claude with a brain fart one afternoon and told him an idea called DRACONIS and we built it out. Had a great back and forth. However, before I got too far with it - I did the same thing I did with that PRAETOR idea, I ran the numbers as best one can to see where its potential in monetization was.While PRAETOR failed DRACONIS is amazing. It's far from complete, but it is a great story that once it's filled out with nuance and dialogue it has some great potentiality. The best part was not just scribbling down an idea, but taking it right to execution and building out the foundations and stage for the marionettes to dance and speak for the story. So the dialog will be all human built.

As to dialogue - Still not comfortable with the current results, and so all I've done with Claude was to build out a scene based upon the story writ large. Wasn't satisfied, close but not "me".

I did "Please produce some dialogue samples" and he did, but they were "meh". So I have refrained from having AI doing dialogue. Once I do my own dialogue - then I can "Final draft" it and convert it to HSWC.

as i've said, i don't use AI to write scenes or dialog for me--that's an absolute line i won't cross--not just for ethical reasons but because they're so transparently robotic and often hallucinatory. but i will ask AI for pros and cons in moving a scene from act 2 to act 3 in terms of story scaffolding, for example.

i'm gonna be specific now: i'm working on GUNPOWDER, which features two parallel narratives that take place in the same world--on the same day--but don't intersect, until 50 years later, when they briefly touch. spoiler alert one of my main themes is humanity vs post-humanity. when i ran my structural framework past GPT for comments, it responded:

Homo continuus co-exist with Homo sapiens the way we did with Neanderthals:

- briefly

- asymmetrically

- without understanding what was happening

understand: this is the story i was telling, 100%, but i had never framed the effect of my long interlude in those terms--not explicitly in the script, nor even to myself while laying out the plot. in 2.5 seconds, GPT read my underlying intent and wrapped it in a neat package--for me to dive deeper, or use in pitch/ explanatory materials. "to be honest?" i couldn't have put it better myself.

James LO "GPT read my underlying intent and wrapped it in a neat package". This is basic feedback and has value as it identified what you are doing. What you do with that insight is governed by your ability to tell a story. ChatGPT or other AI LLMs shouldn't be relied upon to tell you what to do or how it should be written. Otherwise. what is your contribution that makes it unique to you? The revelation your prompt provided is interesting, but I wonder why you didn't have some cognizance of what inspired in the first place.

Robert Franklin Godwin III you said you wondered why i didn’t have some cognisance of what inspired “it” in the first place. I’m afraid there’s some miscommunication — i wrote the parallel stories (of a human, and a robot which spoilers achieves post-humanity of sorts). these parallel stories don’t intersect except briefly in an epilogue set in the future. my writing was not based on AI suggestions and has not been changed by the AI comment which i quoted in my previous message.

all i was trying to say was that AI, after reading what i had written, explicitly compared my telling of the brief intersection of homo sapiens (us) and homo continuus (our post-human successors) to that of the historically real and likewise brief coexistence of neanderthals and homo sapiens. i hadn’t made that comparison in my script, and i was quite impressed when AI did. i was cognisant of what i myself had written, but i just hadn’t thought of the neanderthals comparison.

i hope this elaboration clarified my earlier statement.

James LO it does.

It depends on the scene and the surrounding scenes, Michael Dzurak. The surrounding scenes might be short, so I might make the scene I'm working on long so it's not a fast-paced script, unless I'm going for fast-paced.

I write the details of an action scene if they’re important. If they aren’t important, I’ll just write something like “They brawl, tearing up the place.”

That's interesting Maurice Vaughan. I found myself including detail in beats of 3 throughout my action scenes with varying levels of detail.

Another interesting case study is the fight scene in Atomic Blonde. The scripted one is just under a page that goes for it a general sense of how savage the brawl is. The filmed version is savage as scripted, but also a whopping 10 minutes and filmed as a one-take. I can't imagine a 10 page fight scene.

I need to check out the Atomic Blonde script and movie, Michael Dzurak. If I wrote a 10 page fight scene, I'd need to put a lot of obstacles, twists, etc. in the scene to keep it gripping.

I don't need personal truth to stay invested, but it can help, Jay Miller. Try to find a personal connection in a concept that you haven’t lived (a character, a relationship, a theme, etc.).

Some executives turn down scripts because of a lot of typos, Roberto Micheletti. I don't know about commas, uppercase issues, and small grammatical mistakes. Those things have to do with writing style in my opinion.

If a script has a lot of typos, an executive, producer, or director might feel like the writer doesn't take screenwriting seriously, think the writer is lazy, and question the quality of the script.

What an executive, producer, or director is looking for is an incredible script with a unique concept, a script that has potential to win an Oscar/etc., a script that can be made for a certain amount, or a script that has a certain theme. And maybe other reasons. They might not care about a lot of typos.

Roberto Micheletti Hi Roberto, I have heard not just a few, but many agents, producers, and executives says that the one thing they really find amateurish, and lowers the level of the script right away, are typos, spelling errors, grammatical errors, and a sloppy presentation. Think of the script as a presentation as well, not just the story and the structure. Always triple check, pass through a spelling corrector program if you have it, and make sure it is a polished and professional as it can be. Remember, it's also your calling card.

Both.

Screenwriting is craft. When a reader makes a pass the least that's expected is respect for it. If sloppy, typo-ridden text is encountered, many times the reader immediately discounts the script, and will not get to the core. A generality: when the writing is incorrect as described the story is most likely not sound.

Is it really an issue to assure the mechanical aspect is spot on.

You're welcome, Stephen Marinaccio. The Your Stage Lounge is really busy. A lot of members see the posts in it. And when someone likes or comments on your posts, the people in their networks will see your posts.

The more you grow your network, more members will see your posts. Here's a blog that'll help you connect with creatives and industry professionals: www.stage32.com/blog/the-importance-of-community-and-collaboration-in-th...

And Stage 32's next free Community Open House is Dec 29th (http://www.stage32.com/education/products/stage-32-s-december-community-...). It'll also help you make connections.

OK, so to reach the most people.. the recommendation would be to post on my "Your Lounge" area. Can do. Thank you.

You're welcome, Stephen Marinaccio. Yeah, the Your Stage Lounge. Happy Holidays!

I would suggest asking for permission from the Stage 32 CEO RB first.

is this the actual call for submissions?

Hi, Sanja Zivic. What draws me to antagonist characters who evolve into reluctant allies is I'm always trying to guess if they have secret agendas or not, until they do something that proves they're really allies.

"How do you approach the balance between villainy and humanity in complex roles?" I make my villain character feel human. I give them a personality, strengths, flaws, fears, history, goals, etc.

DÉJÀ VU sounds intriguing and thrilling, Sanja Zivic! I don't have a lot of experience with Psychological Thrillers, and I haven't written that kind of role, but I'm looking forward to the discussion!

I'll give you my example of what I did. My protagonist has had her eye on this guy through like episode 7. She's into him, but nothing ever happens, and he keeps trying to help her out with her situation... and she keeps rejecting his help (for reasons important to the plot)... so finally, one day he comes over to her place and reiterates his desire to help her, and she's like "No, you can't do that." Why? "Because you can't do that if you're f*cking me." She kisses him, and the scene ends. The producers and directors are going to take your script and change it all kinds of ways, so that kinda lets them decide what happens, even though you've laid (hah - laid) out what's about to happen.

So... you don't have to write it, but you're giving creative license to the director to figure out what they want to do with the scene. I think it's a good compromise.

(Note, I've just started writing and have no experience with this, but I feel comfortable leaving it open-ended like that so I can focus on the storylines I really care about.)

Just my two cents!

But yeah, I'd love to hear how other people deal with this kind of thing.

@Bana that's... Touching as heck. Seriously.

Martin Graham Patrick Bateman flexing in the mirror is the complete opposite of sex, lol. But holy crap, what a great scene. Chilling.

Matt Dycus Absolutely the opposite haha.

Excellent, inspiring article, Pink Matzke! It's a must-read!

"There’s a quiet audacity in deciding to pursue screenwriting later in life, especially if you’re a woman from Utah. It means you’ve already been told, directly or indirectly, that your moment has passed. That your geography worked against you. That the industry prefers its storytellers young, unencumbered, and easy to brand." I'm glad you chose to ignore that!

Hope you have an incredible career!

Thank you so much!

You're welcome, Pink Matzke. I followed you on Medium. Looking forward to reading more of your articles!

The more I've been reading about the Netflix/Warner Brothers deal, I don't like it, Anthony McBride. I think Paramount Skydance buying WBD is better than Netflix buying WBD. One reason is the possibility of more theatrical release movies, and hopefully longer release windows. And I think Netflix is trying to become a monopoly.

Maurice - a big issue is that it could be said that Paramount is not ‘Paramount’, it’s a billionaire called Larry Ellison. Having said that, you are correct in the assumption it should lead to theatrical releases - but would it?

I think that any deal with an eye toward original IP is a good thing. No one wants 67 Marvel movies in development.

Wait until the future becomes the present - then you'll know.

Anthony McBride David Taylor This is becoming a highly sensitive and emotional topic.

On paper, Paramount seems to be the best offer for shareholders (though I don't advise saying this openly is you intend to sell any content to Netflix). It does not appear that WBD’s board wants to sell to Paramoun despite what is nest for shareholders as it would deprive them about $3 per share; unless of couse Netflix matches Paramount’s offer, which might then trigger a counter from Paramount and drive the WBD stock price to $40 per share or higher.

As it stands, there may be several complications with this deal. WBD executives are walking away with almost $1.5 billion in combined exit-related compensation, while shareholders (some who are already disgruntled) are being asked to sell their shares for less. Not to mention, Netflix’s streaming business could become too large. The same could be said for Paramount’s studio business, and it appears Paramount wants the entire “pizza,” not just two slices (studio and streaming).

If Paramount presses the issue, I don’t see how WBD can convince a court or regulators that an all-cash deal is inferior to a lower-value cash-plus-equity deal.