Trending Lounge Discussions

hello, I just wanna introduce myself, and I am open to connect with different filmmakers and directors, I am a professional animator and a storyboard artist, and I wish to work with different people

Sam, this is a great insight and definitely an exciting move for indie filmmakers, having a label focused on theatrical releases could open meaningful doors for distinct voices. For creatives here, this is a strong reminder to keep developing bold, original work and leveraging Stage 32 pitch sessions to get in front of the right eyes, and we’re always here to support and guide that journey!

Though We Can Handle Editing related Stuff for you , But before all of this , Can You tell Us more about your documentary ??

We'll proceed to send you a few of OUR PAST WORK after this....

Laura, this is an exciting opportunity with a strong vision and built-in distribution strategy—perfect for collaborators looking to expand their reach in the science storytelling space. We’d recommend also exploring Stage 32’s job board and networking lounges to find aligned creatives, and as always, we’re here to support and guide you throughout the process!

That's a smart strategy—putting the budget into distribution and marketing rather than just production is often the smarter play for a niche doc. The science communication space is hungry for cinematic storytelling. Wishing you luck finding the right partner. What's the core scientific concept the film will explore?

Sandra Isabel Yes. So true. And who gets the recognition no matter how little they contributed to the end result? The director. And you can thank the French Nouvelle Vague (New Wave) with their auteur "theory" for that. So... In my view, writers are, in particular, and most especially, the first directors.

Andrew Sarris, in his Introduction to INTERVIEWS WITH FILM DIRECTORS, Avon Books, 1967, p. 12, wrote:

“...screenwriting involves more than mere dialogue and plot. The choice between a close-up and a long-shot, for example, may quite often transcend the plot. If the story of LITTLE RED RIDING HOOD is told with the Wolf in close-up and Little Red Riding Hood in long-shot, the director is concerned primarily with the emotional problems of a wolf with a compulsion to eat little girls. If Little Red Riding Hood is in close-up and the wolf in long–shot, the emphasis is shifted to the emotional problems of vestigial virginity in a wicked world. Thus, two different stories are being told with the same basic anecdotal material. What is at stake in the two different versions of LITTLE RED RIDING HOOD are two contrasting directorial attitudes toward life. One director identifies more with the Wolf—the male, the compulsive, the corrupted, even evil itself. The second director identifies with the little girl - the innocence, the illusion, the ideal and hope of the race.”

Okay, wait a minute. Did he say “two contrasting directorial attitudes toward life”? So, if you make a film it isn’t about the story in the film, it’s actually your take on LIFE? This may have more to do with Sarris’s personal predilections than any interpretations of the story. After all, there is an interpretation in between his two examples that has to do with a hungry and wily predator trying to hunt and eat defenseless prey as is its nature. This, rather than some kind of twisted and corrupt expression of pure, yet sexually perverse evil, or contrarily, some innocent expression of racial hope. You know he is over-thinking this when he employs P.C. buzz terms like “sexually perverse” and “racial hope.” It’s all too politically self-conscious, pandering as it does, to his “choir” full of cineastes, for my taste. Perhaps Sarris has been reading too much Freud. Perhaps it’s the ‘60’s. And perhaps, as are we all,

He gets it, but he doesn't stop there. Where a film's story is a reflection of a particular view, the writer's came first. So, in exalting the director while ignoring the writer, "auteurists" fall into the cineaste's version of the cult of personality. Sarris is a product of his times. The trick is to recognize it and transcend them.

But the reality is that before there can be a close-up or a long-shot, there must be a subject to be shot. And the assumption that the narrative left an interpretation of the subject to some neutral medium-shot until a director could come along and take a position one way or another is actually ignorance of an emphasis that is almost always already present in the narrative, placed there by the writer, and ignored by the director in favor of wresting control of the narrative for his own reasons.

For example, one can describe an action in several ways: as pure and focused (close-up), as within its immediate location (medium-shot), or as within and against its surroundings or environment (long-shot). It can even be described in such a way as to evoke a mind’s-eye view suggesting an up-angle to yield a powerful or dominating subject, a straight-on angle to yield a power-neutral subject, or a downward angle, suggesting a subordinate and helpless subject. The lighting influencing that mind’s-eye view can be (and often is) adjusted in the writing. When a writer describes characters and action in any of these ways, the writer is influencing the reader’s interpretation of the story in service to a vision that precedes the coming collaboration. This is to specify that vision toward production of a film that serves it. The fact that the director comes along and changes it doesn’t necessarily indicate a superior vision, it merely indicates, a superior control of the result.

Sarris, again, p. 14:

“It is fashionable to say that the screen is a director’s medium and the stage is a writer’s medium, but it is difficult to say that a Broadway-to-Hollywood-and-back director like Elia Kazan is any less in command in one medium than in another.”

Why is it difficult? It’s because every production, stage and film, both, is a unique case when it comes to collaboration involving who did what, and how much. Sorting out film credit is worse than herding cats. It’s closer to herding herds of cats after particularly difficult negotiations with each of the various and sundry Cat Guilds. Better to accept the collaboration for its own strengths and dispense with what amounts to aesthetic idolatry at the expense of facts. Produced narrative works don’t demand some kind of religious “leap of faith” to enable one’s deepest appreciation.

The stage is a writer’s medium because plays are re-produced, and survive any given director. Therefore, the writer’s vision is the only constant. Meanwhile, films are rarely re-produced, so the director’s version is generally the sole version. Add to that the writer exits the thing, willingly or not, early. The implication, then, is that the writer will lose control of his/her vision because, he/she is not the “last man standing.” The director is.

Director Arthur Penn has gone on record in THE DIRECTOR’S EVENT, by Eric Sherman & Martin Rubin, Atheneum, 1970, p. 120 – 1, taking an unabashed writer-be-damned view:

“In the theater, the script is embalmed. It is The Text, a revered work. A man’s written it, and it’s meant to be delivered as such. In the cinema, the dialogue is only a guide. My writer friends are often offended by the literary level of the scripts of my films. On the other hand, I keep thinking it doesn’t matter a great deal, and I’m sort of offended sometimes by the look of their plays.

“An awful lot of vanity is inherent in the movie-making event. It’s a seductive event. Seldom in one’s fantasies can one achieve the kind of power that you have on a movie set. Power corrupts; movie power corrupts absolutely. Dialogue in the cinema only serves as a guide to a kind of visualization, and if this be megalomania, so be it. There is only one event in making movies, and that’s the director’s event. It’s not anybody else’s. I don’t care how well written the script is. You can get into a motel room in Texas, and the dialogue can be exquisite, but what you choose to look at and how you look at it is everything.”

Now, don’t get me wrong, I like a number of Penn’s films. His “writer friends” must be novelists or those exalted playwrights, because they surely aren’t screenwriters. Penn, though, has become “hoist by his own petard.” He admits to the corrupting influence of the role of the director, and then exercises that corruption when he says, “...what you choose to look at and how you look at it is everything.” The key word there, however, is “what.” Without the script, there is no “what.”

This ain’t a small thing, folks.

And by its presence, script having been read, that “what” has been “viewed,” so a view-point is established: the writer’s viewpoint.

The maximum that the director can bring to the film is an interpretation of what was already there or a forced re-write to that director’s specification. In his “corruption,” and because of his theater-based notion of screenwriting as merely dialogue, and “suggested” dialogue, at that, he believes direction is ‘The Text.’

Perhaps this is all really sour grapes, and, like his single screenwriting experience trying to make a two-hour movie from a twenty minute song (ALICE’S RESTAURANT) it’s based on his experience directing those playwrights’ untouchable words for the stage. With his elevation of the “what” and “how” one chooses to “look” with the camera, he implies that all screenwriting only exhibits a neutral point-of-view; that, other than scene transitions, it implies no cutting; that screenwriting is actually mis-named and really amounts to just suggestive dialogue-writing, the action ignored; and that dialogue doesn’t compare to camera placement, the use of which is “everything.”

Let him shoot that motel room in Texas with no script: with just the improvising actors, without those characters saying those written lines; and without that story (in fact, without that motel room or even Texas!). He’d find himself without that audience. I wonder how different it would be from the Penn family’s home movies. “Slick sh*t,” to borrow a phrase. And...

WritERS aren't the most important thing in filmmaking, writING is.

For me, the main concerns are the structure and the writing. That is exactly why I booked the 30-minute session: I want to know how I can strengthen the script and make it market-ready.

This is one of the most underrated truths in this business. The writer decides what is possible before anyone else shows up. Every choice about the world and the setting and the rules of the story are production decisions disguised as creative ones. When you write a scene that needs a specific location or a system that behaves a certain way you just committed someone else's budget and schedule without them being in the room. That gap between creative freedom and downstream reality is what makes the writing phase so consequential. The writers who feel that tension and work inside it instead of ignoring it are the ones producers actually trust.

As a writer, I have realized that I cannot do it alone!

There are four elements or groups of people involved: The story, written by the writer (this is the person who ignites the fire); the actors who give life to the characters; the director who brings magic and essential elements to the story; and finally, the editing team that puts all the pieces together.

Therefore, as a writer, my main issue is bringing everyone who shares the same vision together.

I love this post Sandra Isabel. I think I'm going to print it out and attach it to every contract I sign from here on out. My biggest challenge right now? Time. I'm grateful for the source of income that provides for my family. I just wish I could focus on what I love and provide at the same time.

that is very true, having the understanding of the characters emotions and acting on those emotions can bring to light a better acting performance.

making things more natural and having a better flow with the performance.

I've always thought the best way to act was to make sense of what the character is feeling in a given situation. Understand motives to understand reactions.

How do you find your emotional truth Ana Cristina Rodrigues ?

Leonardo Ramirez That’s a great way to reset — I like that.

It’s interesting how stepping away into something completely different, like music or just walking, actually brings you closer to the solution. Almost like your mind keeps working in the background without forcing it.

I’ve been realizing that some of the best ideas don’t come when I’m trying to solve the problem directly, but when I give it space to breathe.

Do you find that those “fresh ideas” usually change the direction of the scene, or just refine what was already there?

One of my screenplays is featured at the current Beverly Hills Film festival. I've never attended a festival. Any suggestions on what types of events are the most worthwhile to attend?

Hey my amazing friend Sandra Isabel - yes it is! Will definitely see you there!! Hope you're doing well.

Definitely enhance what's already there Tomás Daniel - there's always a nuance to it that I'm missing that adds so much. It's rare that it changes it.

That's great Daniel Broderick! Congratulations! I would look into the Austin Film Festival for one. Also depends on budget. Our head of community and friend lives there so my hope is to visit there at some point.

Looks great! Is it a series or a feature?

I am intrigued.

Do you have a summary? It sounds fun.

Very cool!

Achmad, this is a fun and highly marketable concept—strong character dynamics and global humor are a great foundation for animation IP. As you continue developing, consider using Stage 32 pitch sessions and animation-focused networking to connect with buyers and partners, and we’re always here to support you!

Thank you, Laquan! Really glad the concept resonates with you. I've been developing this 'Wildan Universe' for a long time, and I'm excited to finally share the vision!

viVijay Anand Appreciate the clarity, Vijay. Thanks for taking time to respond. Wishing you well too.

The part that never gets talked about is that most evaluation systems are designed to reduce risk for the person making the decision not to find the best material. Coverage exists so someone can point to a document when a project fails. Comps exist so someone can explain their bet in language a room full of executives already understands. The actual quality of the writing becomes almost secondary at that point. The scripts that break through usually do it because someone with enough authority decided to trust their own read over the process. That is the gap no evaluation system has figured out how to close.

Eric Charran Bingo.

The gap you are describing is not between good material and bad evaluation. It is between the person who can see what a script is doing and the room that needs a shared language to discuss it.

Structural data does not replace the read. It gives the person who trusts their read something to point to that the room can engage with without it being purely subjective.

That does not solve the political problem you are describing. But it changes what the conversation in the room looks like. Here's hoping fingers crossed

TL:DR

E Langley TLDR Version : Folks try to pitch "success" before getting the structure of the story right.

I have many loglines/spec scripts/outlines. Right my friend Damian Melcher is helping to write one idea Black Dragon into a script.

In the news today, Disney lays off 1000 workers. Their plan is to utilize AI to a greater degree.

We need to find balance with AI.

Disney doesn't believe so.

Leonardo, do you know of any agents who would represent me or work with me? I have tried to find someone but have hit only dead ends.

Abhijeet Aade I really appreciate that — and I’m glad that came through.

That balance between idea and human experience is something I’m constantly trying to stay aware of. It’s easy to get lost in the concept, especially with themes like power, but without the emotional core, it doesn’t truly connect.

For me, the challenge is making sure the system never overshadows the people inside it — but instead reveals them.

Thanks again for the encouragement, and I’d love to follow your work as well.

Kristia Nakhoul Thank you, I really appreciate your interest — that means a lot.

I’m still in the development stage, focusing on refining the story and characters, but it’s great to know the project resonates with you in that way.

I’d be happy to stay connected and keep you in mind as things progress. Feel free to share any of your work as well — I’d love to see it.

Best,

Tomás

Tomás, this sounds like a compelling and timely concept, especially with that blend of political drama and sci-fi grounded in character. As you move into this next phase, we recommend leveraging Stage 32 pitch sessions and networking opportunities to connect directly with producers aligned with this space, and we’re always here to help guide you every step of the way!

Tucker Briggs Thank you for sharing this — I really like your approach, especially the focus on refining without losing the writer’s voice.

That “almost there” stage is exactly where I am with my current project, so I understand how important it is to have the right kind of feedback at that point.

I’m currently doing a lot of internal refinement, but I’d definitely be interested in learning more about your process and how you usually work with writers.

Let’s stay connected.

Laquan Copeland Thank you, I really appreciate the support and guidance.

That’s exactly the direction I’m aiming for — continuing to refine the project while building the right connections around it. I agree that finding producers who align with the tone and scope of the story is key.

I’ll definitely be exploring the pitch sessions as I move forward. In the meantime, I’m focused on making sure the project is as strong and clear as possible before presenting it.

Thanks again — looking forward to being more active here.

Luke Collings Welcome to Stage 32! It’s great to see you hitting the ground running and actively networking.

I highly recommend reaching out to the Success Team, they’ll be able to support you throughout your journey. I’ve also included a link to help you get familiar with navigating the platform and making the most of everything it has to offer.

https://www.stage32.com/blog/how-to-successfully-navigate-the-stage-32-p...

I’d love to learn more about your project so I can assist you in the best way possible. Could you please share a few details about what you’re working on? For example, the type of project, the length, and what kind of help you need.

Once I understand your goals, I’ll be happy to suggest the best way we can move forward together

Hi Luke,

Welcome to Stage 32 and thanks for sharing your project. Congrats for having a unique story!

I’m on the Education Team here at Stage 32, and I actually think we have a perfect fit for what you’re looking to do. We’re currently running a new 8-Part Screenwriting Lab: Write Your Animation Feature or TV Script, where you can take an idea just like yours and develop it step-by-step into a fully structured, market-ready script with guidance from a seasoned industry professional.

You can check it out here:

https://www.stage32.com/education/products/stage-32-8-part-screenwriting...

In the lab, you’ll work through concept development, story structure, character building, and animation-specific storytelling tools, with live feedback and hands-on support throughout the process.

If you have any questions about whether it’s the right fit for your project, feel free to reach out - I’m happy to help point you in the right direction, just email me at edu@stage32.com

Hello, I am a professional animator, and I would love to discuss this with you and know how we can work together

Sorry you're feeling that way. we all get like that sometimes. I've been trying a new thing to keep my spirits up. I listen to positive affirmation videos from YouTube as I sleep. they supposedly tap into the subconscious mind and rewire your thinking to manifest good things in life.

Indeed, the motivation follows the work and not the other way around. Well said, Geoffroy Faugerolas!

Anthony McBride I get this more than I’d like to admit. I dealt with imposter syndrome every single day on the teams — and the wild part is, most of us did. You’re surrounded by high performers, constant criticism, and zero room for error, so you learn to live with that voice in your head telling you you’re not enough.

Then I jumped into writing, which is the complete opposite: almost no feedback, no immediate read on whether you’re doing anything right, just you and the page. And that same voice shows up again, just in a different uniform.

But here’s the thing I’ve learned in both worlds: the only thing that cuts through imposter syndrome is showing up. One foot in front of the other. Doing the work even when your brain is screaming “what the hell am I doing.”

If you’re still writing — even slowly, even reluctantly — you’re not an imposter. You’re a writer. The doubt is part of the job, not a sign you don’t belong.

Anthony McBride I'm in a constant state of doom and gloom. Maybe it comes from being too self-aware of ourselves. I know I may never be great. I know I may not WOW someone in a pitch. But, I keep trying to be really good at it. The hope is that effort is recognized. We just need one person to believe and hopefully tell another. Then another. Until then, try to be a little better today than you were yesterday.

Anthony McBride, I don’t think this is imposter syndrome as much as it is creative burnout. It happens when you’ve been pushing your brain in one direction for too long. Everything starts to feel flat, even things you usually enjoy.

For me, taking a bit of distance from the work for a day or two usually helps more than forcing it. It resets how I'm seeing things.