Shelley Stuart
Adventures in Hollywood
411748 Curiosities served
The difference between contests and reality
Previous Entry :: Next Entry
Mood:
Unsurprised
I received my ding letter from Slamdance with regards to Fork-Tailed Devil. Enclosed was a reader feedback as well, which affirmed why I don't like entering contests. While the contests always say "we're just looking for a good movie," the contest script is not the same as the script that can be a good movie. Here's a highlight of the feedback I received.
(By the way, I'm actually pleased by most of the feedback, so please don't think this is a "they just didn't understand me" wail.)
Very engaging. Story is great, dialog is crisp, script flows well, solid WWII story. Don't have too many complaints other than a few structual issues. Granted I am a WWII freak. But this also makes me very critical of attempts at the genre and I consider this script a successful one.
Too much description that is not visual in nature. Proper screenplay structure dictates that you only describe what is in front of the camera in very brief and to-the-point phrases. Avoid flowery language.
In the "how can it be improved" category, there are no acutal story comments, only suggestions to be less descriptive in the action sequences.
I'm definitely operating with a different definition of "structure." Structure to me means plot progression, hooks, act structure -- the scaffolding of the story that the characters clamber about on.
As for the flowery language and non-visual elements, that was a conscious decision on my part, and I'm stickin' to it. I've got good reason to, IMO. The producers who've read it really love to read the script. It's a fast enjoyable read, and the language and non-visuals are a part of that fast read. I think that positive impression is a very vaulable one, and I don't think I've overdone it. I'd rather have an engaging read than a dry one. I would not be unhappy to have a reputation for making scripts that are enjoyable to read!
As Ken put it, the readers need a reason to say "no" to any particular piece, and this is why they said no to mine. The important information to me is that the story is good, the dialog is good, and it appealed quite nicely to a self-proclaimed WWII freak.
(By the way, I'm actually pleased by most of the feedback, so please don't think this is a "they just didn't understand me" wail.)
Very engaging. Story is great, dialog is crisp, script flows well, solid WWII story. Don't have too many complaints other than a few structual issues. Granted I am a WWII freak. But this also makes me very critical of attempts at the genre and I consider this script a successful one.
Too much description that is not visual in nature. Proper screenplay structure dictates that you only describe what is in front of the camera in very brief and to-the-point phrases. Avoid flowery language.
In the "how can it be improved" category, there are no acutal story comments, only suggestions to be less descriptive in the action sequences.
I'm definitely operating with a different definition of "structure." Structure to me means plot progression, hooks, act structure -- the scaffolding of the story that the characters clamber about on.
As for the flowery language and non-visual elements, that was a conscious decision on my part, and I'm stickin' to it. I've got good reason to, IMO. The producers who've read it really love to read the script. It's a fast enjoyable read, and the language and non-visuals are a part of that fast read. I think that positive impression is a very vaulable one, and I don't think I've overdone it. I'd rather have an engaging read than a dry one. I would not be unhappy to have a reputation for making scripts that are enjoyable to read!
As Ken put it, the readers need a reason to say "no" to any particular piece, and this is why they said no to mine. The important information to me is that the story is good, the dialog is good, and it appealed quite nicely to a self-proclaimed WWII freak.
Previous Entry :: Next Entry
Back to Top
