Here’s to 2008, a year when the strike should no doubt end. Just for that it’s worth celebrating the New Year with a little more spirit, I think.

All the best.

Sláinte.

Sorry, I know this is not the place but I can’t find a “contact” link. Is there any chance that you can put the script for “god” online? And maybe even the film itself?

Thanks!

I’m new to the johnaugust.com comments board, but would like to put up a link to my review of ‘The Nines’ that I wrote for a website:

http://www.hecklerspray.com/movie-review-the-nines/200711388.php

Some feedback would be great.

Thanks,

Dave

In these examples John is using “we” to convey critical information not readily apparent from mere description. The writer could say “Use medium shots here, lingering on the faces of JOHN and ELAN so that the audience will remember them later in the diner scene”. Which is probably how you’d shoot it, but that’s directing from the page.

I think “we” is a very natural way of writing. Not intimate, exactly, more like the writer is the guy in the room. Talking like they might in a pitch session. That can be hamfisted, but it can sell a moment without a lot of stilted language.

If its the way to convey a certain feeling, or is simply the more economical way to write a moment, use “we”. Say everything you need to say, and no more.

Does that mean we should all stop using dialogue?

Bad scripts have characters in them.

Does that mean all scripts with characters in them are bad?

Bad scripts have, therein, many uses of the word “the”.

Does that mean those of us not yet established should avoid the word “the”?

Good scripts also have words, characters and dialogues, just like the bad ones do.

I’m hijacking the thread and for that I apologize – after this, I’ll refrain and let others discuss at will.

The point is, someone wrote in to ask John a question about the proper way to write a character description. John complied, supplied a sample using “we see.”

I asked John about it, bearing in mind a post earlier on the subject. A reader / producer responded which not only rewrote John’s sample, but advised us all “Never do it”.

If good scripts use “we see”, ergo “we see” then is not indicative of bad or amateurish writer, by dint of logic, right?

Thanks.

But your basic argument is that once a writer makes enough money, they can be as amateurish as that want . . . I disagree, I don’t think that they are being amateurish, actually.

I’m not arguing that a writer trying to establish themselves should DO something amateurish, not at all . . . I think one should act as professionally as possible (see John’s post on professionalism) . . . my argument is that the use of “we see”, used by John (who used to be a reader, I believe) and others IS NOT amateurish but for some reason has gotten that unfortunate tag . . . and I’ve yet to hear an argument of substance of why it is . . .

As I mentioned earlier, John’s use of it in this very post counter-acts any argument that “we see” is bad writing amateurish itself, as that John is neither a bad writer nor an amateur and the fact he’s established himself to do what he wants doesn’t, in my mind, mean he’s immediately going to stop being professional. Far from it, in fact, it’s the opposite.