Screenwriting : Unfilmables - do you use them? by Craig D Griffiths

I do it and then my editor/agent deletes.

Depends on who’s reading, who you’re submitting to, what’s the endgame here?

Probably the same ballpark as formatting do’s and don’ts. If your people give their stamp of approval, it’s fine.

I’ve done it once or twice, but only when necessary. Like in one script a character we thought was murdered didn’t die, but when we saw him again it wasn’t time for the reveal. So I wrote “It’s Marcus. Don’t tell anybody.” Totally unfilmable, but required for the reader.

Seems pretty visual to me, CJ.

Personally I would write "Grabs her purse. Clear the room." That's just me.

Thank you all.

I heard Goyer talking about his Blade script. He thought he had written a filmable description, The director asked him “what does that look like?”.

I write unfilmables that progress the story, not to show people I am clever. I think a lot of bad unfilmables are there to impress, not as story tools. In many cases good unfilmables go unnoticed as they drive the story.

I would say the biggest mistake is using them to convey information the audience can never know.

Personally I would write: "She grabs her purse, bolts from the room" A little different wording, same idea. I like the action oriented "bolts" as a clear clue for the actor. I prefer not using words like 'grabbING or clearING'.

As to unfilmables, if I can't see it - how the hell can I film it? (That must take special lighting that I don't have.)

To use CJ’s example, the way it was written communicates a beat without the word “beat.” In my mind that’s visual.

I try to avoid them. In my Description Blue Book I have a couple of examples of screenplays filled with unfilmables that became movies filled with confusing scenes because the important information about the scene was an unfilmable. That information never made it to the screen or the audience.

William Martell That is the hard part. Getting a message across that can be filmed is hard.

I never use them to tell the story. Self reflection tells me I use them to set mood and feeling.

I agree with @Doug Re @CJ “Bolts” is a good description. It sounds like she is pissed off about his empty hollow words so my take would be. “Hurt by meaningless bullshit, (or his most obvious lack of empathy) she grabs any money and bolts.” (She might not just grab her purse but any cash lying around eg on mantelpiece cos if you grab anything of value its deeper scenario than just grabbing own purse etc). Thanks to CJ for this little brain teaser

CJ the “said it” followed by “ing” words is a bit of a clunky read.

I use “ing” words when we see something in mid motion, like “trying to get on a horse”. Saying “tries to get in a horse may imply that they have stopped”.

That sentence is in isolation, so I assuming she was hurt by the words. I would say (this is just me).

“His words cut deep, she grabs her purse and leaves”.

To an Aussie “clearing a room” is forcing everyone else to leave.

I love that we take part with craft based threads.

We can share views and hopefully grow. Craft is independent of software used, the city you live in or the format you use. It is the ability to tell a story.

Thank you all.

I used to say no way to unfilmables and still very rarely put them in my screenplays. However, if the writing is great, readers are less apt to be hyper-picky about them. What I don't like is when writers comment on their narrative.

The pilot of Breaking Bad is rife with unfilmables. I don’t think is serves the narrative except to inform the reader that the story doesn’t care how unconventional you think it is.

After reflecting on everyone comments. I think an unfilmables that work is informative but not instructional. It tells the reader how an actor will play the scene for instance.

“Jim is scared” is different to “you can smell

the fear”.

You could use “terrified” or other word. But that unfilmables also hints at the mood and maybe even a shot. Perhaps an extreme close on Jim.

That is a poor example and I would polish it for releasing it into the wild. But I think it shows a use for the unfilmables.

Thanks all.

@Stephen You are right about the pilot of Breaking Bad but it was constructed cleverly. “Walt” a nutter in a gas mask in a car chase with cops BUT it was cooly done so audience want to know more. How did he get like this? A middle class science lecturer ends up cooking chemicals in real life.

“Deep blue sky overhead. Fat, scuddy clouds. Below them, black and white cows graze the rolling hills. This could be one of those California "It's The Cheese" commercials. Except those commercials don't normally focus on cow shit. We do. TILT DOWN to a fat, round PATTY drying olive drab in the sun. Flies buzz. Peaceful and quiet. until...ZOOOM! WHEELS plow right through the shit with a SPLAT.” The intro to Breaking Bad. What does Vince’s commentary communicate visually, and what sense does it give you of the story?

Vince Gilligan was an established TV writer on X-files. He wasn't writing specs to show to Agents and Readers. He wrote Breaking Bad as a paid concept for production, as the creator/Showrunner.

Probably need to re-examine unfilmable debate by comparing specs versus assignments, first-timers versus Established writers, Hollywood productions versus writing your own indie movies.

Maybe folks should read "break in' specs - look up Writers and read their specs on the Tracking Board Hot List or annual Black List. The Next wave of up and coming Writers. (Hired by mega Corporations)

I agree with both points Dan MaxXx made. Using a 20-year Hollywood veteran and star show creator/writer like Vince Gilligan is probably not the best example to say "well, he does it!" He certainly has earned it, and could probably use an orange-colored Bodini MT font on his scripts, and nobody is going to say anything to him about it.

On the flip side, I don't think it's wrong to use an occasional unfilmable line in narration - but it better be really good. The last thing I'd want is for a reader to think my style is lame, or my metaphors were amateurish. I'd want it to underscore my style as well as make some strong dramatic emphasis points here and there.

And if I was putting a lot of those unfilmable lines in like that....well....that could add up to a few pages or so in the final page count, too. So I'd try and be aware of that, too.

Best fortunes in your creative and unfilmable endeavors, Dan and all!

I have heard Vince say he was unemployed. He had done 40 rewrites of what would become “Hancock”, he had no employment. He was talking to his friend (I think it was Peter Gould - but I could be wrong) and they joked about middle aged men cooking meth. The birth of Breaking Bad.

Sure they probably pitched the shot out of it and got partners on board etc. But it was far from a hire job.

So when does someone cross a invisible magic line that means they can write what they want? Who makes that call, I’ll add the number to my contacts list so I know not to send them to voice mail.

You can do it from day one, if you have the talent and skills as a writer. Anything other than an acknowledgement that it is an outcome of great writing is an excuse. The belief that it is only used once you “have made it” is a lie people tell themselves because the thought that endless years of toil am be fruitless is too much to contemplate.

By acknowledging that skill/craft/talent is what is needed will drive you to learn and improve. If you suck, keep working till you suck less. If people say your script is crap because it has unfilmables, your script is still crap. The unfilmables are the obvious thing, not the cause.

There is no qualifying period in art. You are great as soon as you are great. Not a moment before.

I had to have a rant against an idea that at its very root stifles experimentation which is the basis for growth and learning especially in art.

Once you have been a drone for 30 years, then you can be original.

I know this is coming across as angry. And everyone is qualifying their statements. But do we really want to give that message. Qualified or otherwise to people want to learn and express themselves.

Kay has said it all. I don't want it on paper if I can't put it on the screen.

One of the biggest differences between an author and a screenwriter is our audience. Their audience sees what the author wrote on paper, so they must describe everything they want the audience to see in their minds. Our audience sees what we wrote on film so we only need to write what will appear on film. Everyone in the business knows that so if you want people think you know the business and how to write for it write it like a screenplay and not like a novel.

CJ. That shouldn't be in a screenplay. The audience can't see what is going on in John's head. If you wanted the audience to know you'd have to write something tangible the audience can see or hear or they would never know what was going on in John's head.

CJ: For your friend of Jane example, there’s enough complexity to that idea I’d find a visual way to communicate it. Maybe a recurring motif? The playtime example feels forced. Surely they do something in response to this revelation, so just describe that.

Dan Guardino I have to (respectfully) disagree for the following.

The Grip can light it.

The DP can film it.

The actor can play it.

A combination of these things is the mood and feeling portrayed in an unfilmable. So a combination can get it on film, in another form.

I have often looked at someone and known exactly what they are thinking. Mostly due to their body language, mood in the room and previous actions.

In Good Fellows they do the famous (push in/Zoom out). So they move the camera in while zooming out. The characters stay the same. But the background changes. As a viewer we knew the world was changing. If Ray Liotta had of played it like he knew Rob Dinero was lying. Rob would have seen it just like the audience. So they found a way of getting an unfilmable across.

Now consider the comments if I said it was okay to put “15-70mm Zoom and do a Push-in/zoom-out” shot in my script. Or a ultra closeup using a fisheye.

Film is as visual medium - if I can't see it; I can't film it.

Craig. You are talking about filming a movie and I was talking about writing a spec screenplay.

Dan Guardino I know. I was attempting to get to the idea, that unless we include unfilmable, Filmables will never result. Our work will be instructional, not emotive. If I never write that Ray Liotta knows Robert Dinero I’d lying. We never have to do a Push/Zoom shot. If I describe it all visually with no mention of the thoughts (the unfilmable) that shot would never have been done. They would just follow the writers instructions (for the sake of debate).

And the other type of unfilmable, my personal favour, is the mood unfilmable. That small phrase that lets everyone know exactly what they would be seeing and feeling. Shane Black’s description of an opulent house in the ‘Lethal Weapon’ script “this house would be great to have sex in”.

Kubrick said “if it can be felt, it can be filmed”. So he makes us all wrong. According to Kubrick everything can be filmed.

I can always do better at reducing these, but I have often debated with people as to what is “seen”. For example, I might say the character is “worried” but some might argue I need to show that as in the physical characteristics. Whereas, I would say the actor will show what this looks like, everybody knows what worried looks like, and that if I break it down to “creased brow” kind of stuff, it’s cliche and lacks depth. What do others think?

Matthew Barker for the reason you state I try to give a feel or mood.

Sara yells at Steve (again).

The again let everyone know. It is the 100th time they have had the same argument.

Worried. Is also variable. From “I can’t my keys” to “we have to test your son for leukaemia”. Both have happened to me. He is fine 28 years old now 6’5” monster of a man.

So what to do? I have seen a few things like ‘The most fear you can imagine”. This makes the read imagine their own worst fear and transpose it into the story.

Craig D Griffiths every example - Shane Black, Kurbrick, Scorsese, Gilligan, Mamet- they are the best of the field - 30 to 40 year careers working with top talent and employed by mega corporations. They are unicorns in this field.

If someone is good at their craft, they would have steady jobs, and if they are better than the field , they would be paid more money. Nobody (employers) is gonna care if a writer uses unfilmables sentences, weird formatting. People care about execution. Stephen Floyd's example of "Breaking Bad" - the opening sentence of pilot script - all that unfilmable stuff- Vince Gilligan directed it differently. The opening shot of Breaking Bad is a pair of pants floating in the air.

There's no such thing as "unfilmable".

What you put on the page helps the actor or the director, keeps the reader keen or moves the story forwards, but it always has a meaning.

Let's create a line for argument's sake:

JANET, 46, has short pink hair because she likes to confuse men as to her sexuality more than punk still having an influence on her. She's average in every sense of the word but she thinks she's ugly.

Okay, so what we SEE on camera is: Janet, average height, weight, build, looks, pink hair, mid-to-late 40s.

What the actress knows about the character and can use to create the portrayal: Janet is insecure, she's kind of awkward physically and even though she likes men, she tries to scare them away so that she doesn't have to face rejection.

Now that's a LOT from two sentences.

Please, I know this is the internet, but spare me the LGBT s**t - it was just a damn example.

C. D-Broughton. A character descriptions are used to hire actors and is the only place where it is considered okay to write what we can't see on film.

And a little scene/site description to help the location scout.

Dan MaxXx Lethal Weapon was his first film (I think).

Plus that after xxx years, is a bullshit argument. Come on. You know better

Craig D Griffiths Yes, Craig, I read Lethal Weapon screenplay like 30x. Black was 21-22 years old, fresh out of college, walked into CAA agency on Friday, sold script on Sunday. So how many Shane Black's are there in Hollywood?

In “Hell and Highwater” is the best.

‘She thought it was normal. He hated her for it”.

You now know how he will act when talking about his mother. The buried resentment, the guilt for hating his dead mother.

All gold for an actor.

Unfilmables still have to have meaning for someone. Otherwise they are just filler.

Dan MaxXx How many? I don’t know.

But what I do know is this. By telling people not to experiment until they are x years in. Guarantees we will not find another Shane Black.

Every time an example of great work is found. There is a swarm waiting to say “you can do that when you’re xxxx”.

You know what. I am xxxx.

Craig D Griffiths where did I say not to experiment? I simply pointed out all the people you used for your theory are the best of the best in their field. Shane Black didn’t need decades of training. He was on the job at age 21-22. Same for LeBron James. He was the best player at age 18 on a pro team.

They’re unicorns and there is rest of the field.

So it is better to get them out of the herd as quick as possible and get them into the sun.

Encouraging everyone to try and be great is far better than the “you’ll be sabotaging yourself” or “that screams amateur” comments that are common and an obvious extension of the “you can do that after xxx years”.

So if we are looking for unicorns. We should encourage this diversity. See the great ones and banish the rest. But that would force us all to assess our abilities. Which is scary. It is better to hold on to a hope fed by formula and conformity.

Call me the unicorn whisperer. I want to be there when one is discovered.

I think "unfilmables" is a generic term that is not well defined so is often applied to things the term does not apply to. Usually it means referring to some interior element that cannot be filmed, but this is misinterpreted a lot. For example, if I say, Maisie thinks about that time when she was three years old and her parents had a fight and then she thinks maybe she would like some ice cream now," that is definitely UNFILMABLE. But, if I say, Masie stares at her reflection in the dressing room mirror: Sweet Jesus, When did her hips get this big? That is not "unfilmable." That is an emotional response linked directly to a visual, it's really clear what the reaction is to and how to interpret it, and it can be portrayed on film. There's a lot being discussed and tossed about as "unfilmables" that isn't, there are purposes in tone, character, story, pacing, and reader impression that really count talking about things on the page that strictly speaking cannot be "on camera" filmed yet, they can -- if they're linked to solid visuals. And I think these get grouped in incorrectly with statements like "then she remembered the way things went down at this other time in her life and detail detail detail" about internal thoughts. That's not the same thing. And interior thought impression linked to visual in reaction in scene description is also a very piece of voice. And voice sells.

I know this is probably an unpopular opinion, but I think it's important to keep in mind that the script is just one piece of the puzzle. From development to distribution, it's just one step in the process. It's a very, very important step, but it's still just one step. The goal isn't to write a script. The goal is to write a script that becomes a film that is seen by an audience.

When it comes to unfilmables, if your intention is to help the director and the actors find THEIR SUBTEXT, then I think it's okay. But if your intention is to be cute and fancy with your words, then I don't think it's okay.

Write a script that sparks the imaginations and creativity of the director, actors, DP, art department, editor, etc.... Then trust them do their thing.

There are some long-established rules when it comes to formatting a screenplay. Since nobody is paying someone to write a spec screenplay it is entirely up to them if they want to follow them or not.

When I started out I chose to follow them. When I got a little more established I would sometimes write something that might not appear on film but I wouldn't over do it. This screenwriting business is a crap shoot and the odds of someone making any money doing it is about 1 in 4,000 so people have to decide for themselves what will give them the best chance if their goal is to make some money doing it. Obviously this is just my own personal opinion based on my own experience.

CJ there are many here from a delusional land.

I also love the unprovable claims and fan photos as proof of industry connections. Logic and truth has no place with these people.

The indicator is their inability to see an opposing view. When shown proof they say something like “when you’re xxx you can do that”. I consider these people background noise when trying to speak to real writers.

Craig. I am a self-taught hack. If you want proof I can start posting all my rejection letters but that would take a year to post them all here.

Dan Guardino just like myself. You give insight, you don’t scare people to make your argument. You use fact and well thought opinion.

Plot twist thread :)

Luv me some CJ! My man. that last post is smokin', bro. Way to put the knowledge out there. Happy Holidays, bro

CJ: While at least myself and a couple other posters here could smell your bait lines from a mile away (you never ask questions about lines from "your" scripts), I think you're way off-base on your thinly-veiled jab at Beth. You're peeved because she did what she always does in her mod role - try to diffuse volatile situations - and probably also because she stated her beliefs about IMDB pages that are contrary to your own.

And Jonathan Wolf pretty much countered and clarified Kay Luke's AFM views anyway, you know?

You've complimented Beth many times here, so I was a bit surprised when you made your "human shield" statement. I was also a bit surprised when you made your comment about integrity in these forums. Since I've been here, there has always been at least one poster whose claims could be questioned. That's kinda par for the course on Internet websites - at least in my experiences. If you think "due diligence" is the answer, then maybe you should take that up with Stage32 management. I don't think a moderator - and especially a volunteer moderator at that - should be responsible for performing those types of activities.

Beth has probably put in thousands of hours of voluntary moderator time here. That's like a full year or two of work. I hope you'll reconsider your "human shield" statement towards her, and maybe your integrity statement too.

Best continued fortunes in your creative endeavors, CJ!

Bill Costantini CJ is correct. I haven’t noticed the mods on here. But that is probably my failing. But he is correct. I am fatigued by the same comments on every thread regardless the topic. These come from the same people that have little credibility (in my eyes).

I have made it my mission to try and start craft based threads that will, I hope, start debate and help us all open our eyes to new ways and get us to grow.

But on every thread there will be the same comments. (In some form)

“You are an amateur if you do that”

“You will be labelled as bad”

“You are sabotaging yourself”

“Move to LA”

None of which are on topic. Then there is the bullshit credibility statements.

“My friend the executive said..”

“My am a secret...” (which is the NDA lie repackaged)

You know how they all go. We can sing along.

I will continue to pose craft based questions in a hope of sparking grow in the community. My fear is that the “crap generating machine” may have more reserves than I do.

I am happy for anyone to Google me. Go to linkedin, there you will see my Government career. I don’t hide the fact that I have two careers. One pays me heaps of money (thank you intelligence industry). The other is a love.

The due diligence part is important. People shouldn’t have to see some advice and then go research every advice giver. If this forum is meant to help. We need to act as mods for the quality and leave the other Mods for behaviour.

C.J. I think maybe he missed his meds this morning - he's just trollin' for a squabble. Stick to the high ground.

CJ: that's kinda funny, since you commented on it before (after Beth's intervention before), and you're bringing it up again.

You and I might butt heads at times, and you know how I feel about you and your successes. But it really looks like that comment was aimed at Beth, since she is, for all practical purposes, the only mod here. And that's a not a dig at you, Shawn! :)

Best fortunes to you, CJ!

Doug Nelson: I'm pretty well-grounded.. But let's not forget your whole past here. Nobody has made more negative (and false) comments than you - about the industry; about paying-to-pitch; about the current state of cinema; about Stage32 when it had some site issues; about writing schools. Etc. Etc.

But the worst thing you did - at least in my eyes - was when you plagiarized that whole philosophy comment from that dude's website last year - word for word - and didn't even have the decency to cite your source. If I ever did something like that at any of my past jobs, I would have been fired on the spot, and with no questions asked. And you even told me to "mind my own business" when I mentioned it to you in an email.

Some "integrity", eh, pal? You're like the last person here who should ever try to make nasty comments about someone.

Craig: You, CJ and myself have been here for a pretty long time. I think between the three of us we have probably started a few hundred topics about actual screenwriting.

I think we butt heads at times, too, but there is nothing wrong with that on its face.

I've certainly seen - as we all have - how a topic can get divisive, and how it can get blown out of proportion. Case in point: a few people in the past (that I personally know as a result of our Stage32 interactions) started posts about Save the Cat. Some comments were positive, and some comments were negative. Some of the negative comments made the assumption that these persons were following Save the Cat "page for page", and as if it stifles the creativity of individuals. They have never posted since then.

They might be a little more thin-skinned than you and I, and also weren't seeking/or seek "confrontation" or "validation". But we both know how a topic can turn into something like that - as if some people feel like "if you don't follow my way...then you're wrong. And you're personally insulting me, too!"

And the same with all of those "Hollywood Sucks", "Don't-Pay-to-Pitch", "Contests-Are-A-Ripoff" types of posts. Some people have made blanket statements that aren't true. They take a sliver of something; they distort it; and they fail to take an "all-things-considered" type-of approach.

I don't hold anything personal against anyone if we have different views, but I know from the people that I talk to that those are the types of comments here that have stopped a lot of people from posting.

Maybe in 2020 things will be better. I'm certainly not against the "due diligence" suggestion, but don't think that should fall into the roles of voluntarily moderators.

Best fortunes to you in your creative endeavors, Craig and all (and even Doug Nelson)!

And oh yeah....no IMDB page for me, since I don't have any produced credits (but I would make one if I did have credits). No plagiarizing from me. No "off his meds" comments from me. No exaggerating/lying about my status from me. I'm just a guy who was contracted to write one script, optioned a couple others; produced his own comedy group; and who works full-time at non-creative writing. I also love cinema; am writing a musical and a TV pilot; and am trying to once again film my own content. And I always root for everybody, and want everybody to win - and even if we butt heads once in a while.

CJ: No emotions from me, CJ. I certainly haven't brought anything up that should potentially "kill my reputation here." I'm not worried about people who might feel I've said anything remotely untrue. Maybe those are the people who Craig refers to as "the delusional people?"

I'm just simply replying with rational thought to some of the comments that have been made here. Some of that stuff is downright nasty, false and sour-grapes stuff. And I'm sure you'd agree - just like you have before - on any of those individual and specific matters. And I doubt you'd be okay with plagiarism - and especially if it was your own work - even if Doug Nelson is okay with that. And your comment about "shielding people" could only be directed at Beth, since she was the only one involved in those interactions.

And I'm pretty sure that Shawn Speake does a great job, too, and was referring to the recent situation in the forum posts between you and Beth. And you're the one who made that statement, and nobody else. I think you need to reconsider it, as I had previously suggested.

Best fortunes to you in your continuing endeavors, CJ!

From someone who is a moderator: This thread has been reported to management for them to review.

Crag and CJ. Thanks for the kind words.

Beth Fox Heisinger thank you. It will be interesting to see the outcome. That is a serious thank you. Not a passive aggressive anything, or a sarcastic dig.

I am interested to see the outcome.

Beth: I'm interested, too. I appreciate when people are sincere in the forums here, and also appreciate when they are able to admit when they're wrong - and without denial, spins or ridiculousness. It says a lot about their integrity.

Best fortunes in your creative endeavors, Beth!

I bet you all put down some good stuff to write in this forum

Bill B - I too would like to see this disruptive behavior drought to an end - once and for all; it's counter productive. I've been with S32 pretty much since its early days. I watched it grow and expand over the years to become one of the premier film forums. It saddens me to see it become infected by counter-productive trolls and self acclaimed arbitrators. It has so much good to offer.

I note that you appreciate it when folks admit that they are 'wrong'. My question is; wrong in whose eyes? Since you appreciate it; the right or wrongness must be through your eyes - who granted you that authority?

My continued participation on S32 is wearing a bit thin now that it appears that some self ascribed control.freak is running amok. It's RB's forum - not mine. Unfortunately I think that he has been pushed into a corner. I think he's been forced into making a hard decision. I only hope he's open to us all - I will gladly abide by his decision.

@ALL Hey guys and Gals CHILL! WE ARE STAGE 32.

Again, this thread has been reported to management to review. So let's please refrain from name-calling, hostility, and accusations, and allow the forum to get back to its topic of screenwriting.

@ALL I think we should all start with a fresh slate in this thread because as Artists we can all suffer from heightened emotion. I think this misunderstanding came about NOT because we want to be rude to each other BUT we just stand by our emotions. That is cool. We can all have a dumb nice talk civvy street but in this case, in this particular thread, emotion is heightened so Mods have stepped in. ITS BEEN EMOTIONAL! (Doug don’t you dare leave) D

There was once an episode of the old G.I.Joe cartoon when the characters were in a desert in one shot and inexplicably in a river in the next shot. This is because the screenwriting described one character "putting his oar in the water," a colloquialism for sharing one's opinion. The animator however was unfamiliar with this and thought the scene changed, for whatever reason, to a river scene and drew accordingly. This metaphor was "unfilmable" because, if the character wanted to share his opinion, it should just be a line of dialogue. So that's why you should not depend on unfilmables. Flowery prose thought they may produce, a lot more people work on a movie than the director or produce you're wanting to impress. It's a team effort and scripts should be straightforward enough to cross cultural and language barriers.

Cool share @Stephen. You are right, shooting should require minimum expletives from crew, the end product should do the talking.

Doug: I don't understand why you are now calling me a "control freak." And your comment about "counter-productive trolls and self acclaimed arbitrators" might be aimed at me, too. That makes no sense, and maybe you can help me understand why you feel that way. I put a lot of thought and effort in creating constructive forum topics and in giving what I think is good advice about writing and about cinema - past and present. To answer your direct question to me about "authority," which seems to be related to your comment about "right and wrong perceptions," please read the following.:

I think we ("all of us posters") share some similar beliefs on some matters, and I think we have different beliefs on some matters, too. Sometimes I make it known in my replies to those posts that I feel are not accurate. Over the years that I have been posting here, some posters (including you) have made statements like "writing schools are a waste of money," "contests are a waste of money," "paying to pitch on Stage32 is a ripoff," "Hollywood is a sewie (sic) hole," ""(A Stage32 member) is a shill for (a specific service provider), "don't let the guru's scare you," etc. etc. And those are all direct quotes from posts, by the way, and not exaggerated or contrived statements. Nor are they taken out of context. I did omit the names of the service provider and the Stage32 member who was called a "shill" for that service provider, though.

So okay. I get that "people have opinions." Some opinions are based in fact, and some are not. Facts are supported by evidence. False blanket-statement generalizations like the ones above are supported by sour grapes, false reasonings, intentional fallacies, sophisms, fear mongering, personal and displaced angers, or other types of faulty and less-than critical thinking methods.

So yeah...when I see those types of questionable statements....I get a bit troubled. It troubles me that a poster would think that writing schools are a waste of money, or that paying to pitch on Stage32 is a ripoff. It troubles me that a poster would try to make people (particularly novice writers) feel that well-regarded people like Robert McKee (who I believe has a webinar here on Stage32, if I recall correctly) is trying to "scare writers."

All of those types of statements trouble me. Because they're wrong. Flat-out wrong, and not supported by any shred of evidence whatsoever.

And even if they are "your opinion," or the opinion of another poster.

So nobody granted me "any authority," nor do I feel that I have "any authority" here. Nor do I expect "any authority" here I like when people are able, upon further reflection, to be rational/honest/courageous enough to admit that they are wrong after they have made wrong blanket-statement generalizations. And at least two of them actually did delete all of those wrong blanket-statement generalizations - dozens and dozens of them - that they made in the first place, thankfully. :)

I don't think Stage32 expects us to all agree on all matters all of the time. I would never agree to those inaccurate blanket-statement generalizations stated above, and those are just a handful or so of the many that have been "opined" since I've been here. I don't think I've ever personally called people names like the ones you've called me thus far in this post. If disagreeing on the validity of statements compels you to call me names or to make offensive insinuations about me, then so be it. Personally, it has no effect on me, but it taints the very hopes that you state that you have for these forums That's a bit confusing, too, wouldn't you agree?

I hope that answers your question and makes sense to you.

Best fortunes in your creative endeavors, Doug!

REST IN PEACE, DANNY AIELLO (June 20, 1933 - December 12, 2019)

Stephen Floyd I think that is a function of language not unfilmables. My sister was in Egypt and asked for “half a cooked chicken”, they gave her an entire chicken half cooked.

There is also the famous chicken canon story. Boeing would shoot supermarket chicken at their planes during testing as a bird strike test. The airforce did it and smashed the windows, they forgot to thaw the chickens. Boeing thought that was obvious, a bit like putting your oar in.

I think of unfilmables as the words used to get a person to an emotion or understanding that an image or performance may be able to get the audience to, without having to direct or be too descriptive.

But I am just restating my position again. Feel free to yawn.... even I am getting bored with me.

Well, this thread went to shit pretty quickly...

Insert PURGE Commencement Announcement here...

Bill. Really? Even after the moderator asked for this kind of behavior to stop you feel the need to keep it up. Please stop hijacking this thread so the rest of us can discus screenwriting.

Dan G: Doug asked me a question, and I answered it. You just made a comment to me, and I'm replying to it.

If you guys have a need to keep making comments to me, or asking me direct questions, I suggest you do it privately. Then you can refrain from doing from what you are accusing me of doing - and so can Doug and anyone else. I hope that makes sense to you.

Best fortunes in your creative endeavors, Dan!

Report through "Contact Us" found in the bottom menu bar or reach out to a moderator. Again, I have already posted three times now that this thread has been reported to management, and CJ, you are an affiliate of S32 so I assume you have direct access as well and can express your grievances personally. Plus, it's the holidays and, sorry, but we all need to be patient.

Bill. Not to argue with you but I just thought it was a little strange someone would continue posting off topic after the moderator asked people to stop doing that. I wasn't trying to attack you and since I am not a moderator I really don't care what you do.

There are a few people on here I expect to have polar opposite opinions to me on many topics.

Dan Guardino

Bill Costantini

come to mind. These guys when holding an opposing opinion come to the argument with reason and their belief and facts.

They don’t accuse people of being amateur for not agreeing or tell people that their work will be thrown across a room. To have an opposing view and debating with reason is the corner stone of democracy.

Some people try to make this their channel to get hero worship from less experienced writers. This is their dictatorship.

I hope the adults in the room can act as an example to the child. If you are insulted by that comment you are self selecting, adults will be fine with it.

Craig: Thanks, I appreciate that. I truly want everybody to win, and even if we butt heads at times.

And please stop telling people that I put ketchup on my hot dogs. That was a one-time thing and will never happen again.

Best fortunes your creative endeavors, Craig and all!

I'm starting to remember why I quit following the Stage 32 Screenwriting Lounge. I think I need to quit again.

Pamela: Amen!