Introduce Yourself : Re-posting......because I don't have anything else to introduce myself with. by James Kopp

Nice one, James.

Why not cut some of the material from 9 minutes in to 11.5 into your movie much earlier? It's really slow while you are introducing the geeks....

Other James, that pace was done that way for a reason. One of my biggest bitches is that so many movies and TV shows use the same pace formula (start with an action scene, character shows up afterwards, another action scene, plot is told to the audience, and then the biggest action scene). Ever since Raiders, every movie I go see starts with an action scene, then gets to the story. While I love Raiders, our/my goal was to not follow that mold at all. Instead, tell the story the way that makes the most sense. Who, what, where, and why. Since this show is mostly about these 4 guys, I wanted to spend 3-5 (each) minutes seeing them in their normal life, not a quick joke or a one-liner from them and then on to the plot. However, I understand it feeling slow, after all nothing is happening, you are just watching these guys as they are.

The reason that so many movies are made that way is to catch the interest of the audience. If you go on for several minutes without a strong hint that something eye-catching is coming, you are going to lose your audience. I'm not telling you this to hurt your feelings, but to help you realize that you have to capture your audience's attention almost from the start and not let it go. You can also tell your audience a lot about characters by how they handle action. If you lose your audience, what good does it do to have developed your characters so early?

Yeah, that's not the audience I want to get. I'm not really looking for the Transformer crowd, now there's nothing wrong with fans of those films, but I'm not making a show for them. This show is for someone that WANTS to watch 9-20 minutes of character development and plot. And don't worry, my feelings weren't hurt.

Writing is not for the writer, it's for your audience. I'm not a transformer fan, but I had an extremely hard time sticking with it for 12 minutes. I am very big on character development. But it is extremely important to convey information quickly and succinctly. How is your audience going to know they're not wasting their time? If you don't hook them quickly, they will go on to something else that does. That's the marketplace of ideas and entertainment.

Have you ever seen Casablanca? Do they spend a lot of time on character development in that movie?

Casablanca's main focus is the plot, not the characters, but there a bunch of character development in Act 2 of that film. It's a Wonderful Life, Citizen Kane, Godfather, and about a million other movies spend a good amount of time on character. And writing is what tells the story best, if you are writing for an audience that does not exist yet, why are you writing it?

I would completely disagree with you on Casablanca, Wonderful Life, and Godfather I. (I personally don't like Citizen Kane.) Rick's character is thoroughly displayed by his actions. So is George Bailey's and the Godfather's family members. By the way, those are not just my opinions. One of the best screenwriting teachers in the business agrees with me on the above, although I don't know what his opinion is on Citizen Kane (which is really a thinly-disguised biography of WRH). I have no idea what you mean by "writing for an audience that does not exist yet". Are these unborn people?

Of course "writing tells the story best" - but films are a visual medium primarily and just telling rather than showing makes for exceptionally boring material. We can tell some things by "on the nose dialogue" but visuals and subtext are critical elements of any writer's toolbox. Have you entered any of your work in any contests? If so, what feedback did you receive?

"Writing for an audience" only works if you have an audience. Until you have any audience you're just trying to tell the best story you can. Casablanca opens with 2 minutes of voice over, that's never the strongest writing, at least with Kane it was hidden as a news reel. Do you have any writing of your own that you could post, like a video or something so I could see your side of the debate?

Interesting debate. I'd take issue with one point - if you really want to write something of note, I think you have to write for yourself, inasmuch as the material (narrative, character, everything!) has to be something to you. You have to then all the line between that and veering into self-indulgence, but to write aimed at a specific audience and to remove yourself from the equation is to risk a lack of individuality, of spice. However, all that said - I think you both have good points, and I'm sure we can all list films that back our points of view! Keep at it - it's a captivating session!

@David - you always write for an audience. If you don't, you will lose them. People are more interested in what's in it for them than they are what's in it for you. @James - What scene do we first see Rick in the movie in Casablanca? What's he doing and what does that mean as far as his character goes? He says nothing at that moment orally yet he speaks volumes about his character. @James - here are links to two of my loglines that are listed on Stage 32; underneath the loglines are long lists of screenplay competition awards/placements: http://www.stage32.com/profile/176941/Screenplay/DONNA-ROSE-QUEEN-OF-HEARTS http://www.stage32.com/profile/176941/Screenplay/These-Kids-Are-Dangerous I also have completed three episodes of a TV sitcom pilot. All of them have been table-read by Dallas-area professional actors before a live audience. Both the actors and the audience thoroughly enjoyed the scripts. And here are two videos I put together - no live action, but they should give you an idea of my writing voice and my speaking voice: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nT-fqka3IVI The protagonist writes a love letter to his soul mate, but they break up before he delivers the letter to her. He folds the letter up, puts it in his wallet, and forgets about it. Years later, when it looks like they will reunite, he remembers the letter, takes it out, and reads it to himself out loud. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHXtGVbjHAI The above is (I hope!) an inspirational and motivational message. And, by the way, I have received a great deal of feedback about my scripts. Some of it was awful and some of it was very helpful. The key thing I learned is not to be defensive, but to objectively evaluate what helped and what didn't.

No point putting @James - you're both James! JDS - I disagree! But I think we're possibly nearly on the same page (pun intended): NB - please read "you" as third person singular! - if you pander to formulaic tropes, you may well get an audience - you may well get a HUGE audience, but you also may have written vacuous twaddle. If you want bums on seats and give no thought to artistic, ethical or complex content - then yes: the audience is king. But here's where I doubt we're on a different page: I doubt you (2nd as in "you"!) write something that will please an audience, but which you deem crass or vapid. If that is the case - you can see what I mean by saying you write for yourself. I write for me: I want to enjoy the characters' various rides; I want to laugh (where appropriate); I want to be amused, engrossed, captivated. I used to write for corporate films and events, and I wrote purely for the audience, and I thought it was drivel, and they loved it. I made a lot of money, but I eventually twigged that MY creative/artistic/call-it-what-you-will satisfaction; my pride in my work was worth more than the cash! I wholeheartedly agree that Aristotle had a very good point, and I take issue with the burgeoning movement that says 3-act structure is redundant. There is a way to structure a narrative - be it film, TV or theatre (dance, opera etc take no offence - if you're not in the list, consider yourself included by default!). That being said, there are many exception to disprove the rule, and I think it is fine to break the mould of received wisdom - but THAT is where I think (as I said above) one must be self-aware and be able to be detached and self-critical, otherwise the piece risks descending into self-indulgence. All that said - I'd also say that rules should not be absolute, that way lies mediocrity. As Mozart said: "The rules of composition were laid by actions of great composers; they are there purely as a guide, as a conduit to expansion. They are used in absolute exclusivity by the mediocre and the talentless" - *It's good to know the rules, but not to follow them at the cost of creativity. :-)

Other James, I think what David and I are both saying is: I don't really have an audience yet, sure I've had plays go up and sell out, and some views of this video, but nothing as large that I would call an audience. The idea that I would write something for someone elses audience is a common thought, and not a bad one. But not what I want to do. If everyone did the same thing we wouldn't have Wes Anderson, or Orson Welles, or a million other great writers/directors. Writing your story the best way you can, and seeing if anyone else is into it I think is the way to go. Again, I could be wrong. Taking my video posted above here: I wrote it about geeks, because I am one and I wanted to write what I know (that old rule). BUT looking at pop culture, the biggest show/movie about geeks is The Big Bang Theory (number one comedy on TV). I don't care for that show, nor would I ever write anything like it. So rather than play to their audience, I wrote one of our "heroes" to bash it in the first 3 minutes of the show. Again, I don't want to attack people that like that show (even though I hate that show) but I don't want their audience to think this is going to be just like Big Bang or made for them because they like that show.

@David - What does your second paragraph have to do with the discussion in progress? Who was talking about 3-act structures in this thread? Did I miss something? And what's the point of your third paragraph? If someone is writing solely for him or herself, why post it in a public forum? I think your logic breaks down there. But if you prefer to do this that way, more power to you. That's the beauty of a free society.

@David, I recently expanded my vocabulary. I learned the word "Namaste" - it means "I bow to the divine in you." Namaste!

@Other James - I don't like "The Big Bang Theory" either, but lots of people do. (In one show, they posted an s-p-d-f electron shell chart as something at the Ph.D. level, when in fact it's basic high school chemistry.) But a lot of people love that show, and that's their right. In any kind of artistic endeavor, you are competing for eyeballs. To use a fishing analogy, if someone has better bait than you do, they're going to catch the fish. Taking into account your audience's needs and wants is not selling out - it's just a very good way to build your audience. If you don't care about your audience, they won't care about you or your creative work. And rather than bash another show, why not produce something that is more interesting, more entertaining, more enlightening, more inspiring than whatever your competition is? Audiences are smart enough to figure things out for themselves - if you give them a chance. If you really want to find your audience without compromise, why use English as your communication language? Make up a language and see it someone else can figure out what you mean. My point is that you are already making some reasonable accommodations to communicate with your audience (that is, whoever watches your shows). Why make like other conventions used by the producing community are "selling out" rather than what they truly are - common agreements about presentation format and style? I'm not saying all the conventions are carved in stone, but some make a lot of sense in terms of attracting and holding an audience's attention. PS: Thanks for the compliment about my voice. Voice -over professionals aren't always so kind to me, but they know a lot more about that than I do.