Hope Tim's having a spectacular time.

Edited by author 06-09-2003 01:28 PM
Me and you both, Greg. I'll try to have a Quick Topic set up before I leave for Sycamore Hill and maybe folks can move this over there. Do they have to be tied to a journal?

Edited by author 06-09-2003 01:40 PM
Nick, give me a break.

Sorry if your use of "heteronormative" was misconstrued. I still think it's a reductive term that has all sorts of implications to it -- but I guess I'm not allowed to read into the implications of things. Those leaps of logic should be reserved for others who can infer the silent messages that may or may not be there.

At any rate, I can assure you that your reading of Christopher's comment is wrong, but that doesn't seem to matter to you. So, whatever. I doubt either of us has ever used the word "faggot" in our lives, because it's an ugly word meant to make something that's perfectly normal and natural sound like it's not. It's one of those words that only means derision and hate, much like your use of the word "Hillbilly" to describe Christopher because we happen to be southern.

And actually, I think I did post an argument initially (and have received several emails in support of it), in which I explained why I thought it was despicable to think of screenwriting as low. (That's different, btw, than calling _you_ despicable.) Sure, I didn't go into much depth -- but then, neither had you at that point. But my argument was that calling screenwriting low seems to be based on a misunderstanding of what it actually is. Something I still believe to be true. This meets that and getting meetings doesn't cut it in the real world.

It really does seem to me though, that the things you keep criticizing me and others for doing, is being done by yourself. It's okay to call me Shrieky the Nitwit because you can justify it through a very obtuse statement on my blog? It's okay to call Christopher names and to repeatedly accuse people of not being able to read, but not to disagree with you or attack you? We shouldn't doubt your expertise and knowledge, but someone who's actually a produced screenwriter gets dismissed as a troll? (Someone who did make posts with arguments, beyond the ones directed at you that you keep bringing up.)

Maybe if we were all playing by the same rules, I could see the point to this. So, please, when I make future posts, don't reply to them. They aren't for you. They are for the people here who have honestly voiced an interesting in screenwriting, and not in just dismissing screenwriting and screenwriters out of hand because you've made some decision about the limits of a form which is barely 100 years old.

Christopher, Quick Topic topics do not have to be tied to a journal. Setting them up is easy as cake. In fact, it's preposterously easy.

Hope you have a great time at Sycamore Hill. I will confess that, when I jotted down my professional writing goals a few years ago, among them was getting invited to a workshop like Sycamore Hill or Rio Hondo.

Hmm. I feel reduced to responding to specific points. Perhaps I'm running out of steam.

A movie has to clear three times their budget to make money? Uh huh. God bless Hollywood and its creative accounting. Seems more likely that's the studio paying for everything else that tanked, as well as all the other stuff (personnel, work space, Evian, whatever).

Studios keep large numbers of rewriters on staff to fix "problems" with scripts, while publishers do not. Agreed. However, if a book fails, how much is a publisher out? The advance & the cost of producing, saying 10,000 copies. Let's call it fifty thousand (we can even double that). And if a movie fails, how much is the studio out? A lot more. Now then. Considering how much money is involved, I can't say I'm surprised that the studio is going to try and hedge its bets by "improving" things. But this is a problem with the studios being paranoid, not with the form of screenwriting. I'll bet you good money that if every book published cost the publisher say, a minimum of five million for a nobody and say eighty million for a new Stephen King, I think they'd be doing all sorts of idiotic things like that (you'd also see a lot fewer books published). Again, that's a problem with the studios trying to insure the uninsurable, not with the form of screenwriting.

Otherwise, Greg's right; I do hope Tim is having a smashing time.

I've created a new quick topic linked from my blog Shaken and Stirred at http://bondgirl.blogspot.com -- I'd been meaning to anyway.

Point well taken that we need to stop using Tim's blog to yell at each other, especially since he's away.

So, I invite everybody to mosey over to http://www.quicktopic.com/22/H/e4cWqNPMJYt6 and post your thoughts. Perhaps we can start over again and be civil this time. I know there are some people here who honestly want to discuss movies and screenwriting and whatever else.

I'll try and get the ball rolling.

Hope to see you there.

Sorry if your use of "heteronormative" was misconstrued. I still think it's a reductive term that has all sorts of implications to it -- but I guess I'm not allowed to read into the implications of things.

Oh you are. You just need to actually do it accurately or reasonably, or it will be pointed out that you are incorrect. You didn't. You made up material whole cloth about adult monogamy.

Heteronormative is no more a reductive term than "heterosexual" or "queer." You're confusing what you don't like with what is wrong.
 
It's one of those words that only means derision and hate, much like your use of the word "Hillbilly" to describe Christopher because we happen to be southern.

Yep, after being declared mannerless because of my perceived sexuality, after my writing (which Chris has not read) was insulted, after being called a poorly socialized nerd, after being called "fat" all by Chris, I used the term "hillbilly rage." But of course, your behavior and his behavior aren't meaningful.

And actually, I think I did post an argument initially (and have received several emails in support of it), in which I explained why I thought it was despicable to think of screenwriting as low. (That's different, btw, than calling _you_ despicable.)

I know it is different. I never said that you called me despicable. And I never called Chris a homophobe, I just pointed out, entirely correctly, that he made a homophobic slur.

But the fact is my opinion isn't despicable. You disagree with it. You and your toadies also manufactured motivations, slammed my physical appearance and perceived sexuality (if Chris doesn't think his slam was a homophobic slur, he just shouldn't be allowed to write anymore) and then whined and complained constantly without EVER addressing what I had to say.

And you STILL haven't.

But my argument was that calling screenwriting low seems to be based on a misunderstanding of what it actually is. Something I still believe to be true. This meets that and getting meetings doesn't cut it in the real world.

I gave real world examples. Aspen Extreme was one, Larry Santoro getting meetings simply because he was based on Chicago was another. Here's another: American Pie.

It's okay to call me Shrieky the Nitwit because you can justify it through a very obtuse statement on my blog?

1. your statement was no obtuse. 2. turnabout is fair play. Sorry, the Internet does not belong to you. You do not get to dictate that only you may post complaints in your blog but that others may not do the same.

 It's okay to call Christopher names

After that email from him, it would be perfectly okay, because turnabout is fair play.

We shouldn't doubt your expertise and knowledge, but someone who's actually a produced screenwriter gets dismissed as a troll? (Someone who did make posts with arguments, beyond the ones directed at you that you keep bringing up.)

If you mean Tag, she never made any of those arguments. She claimed that "movie writers write movies", which is just a brute force assertion. Anyone who reads the trades knows what scripts go through. Anyone who has been on a set knows the transformative nature of production and post-production. Anyone who has seen a movie knows how obviously and how often scripts fail to meet the quality standard of a penny-a-word semi-pro. Simply the fact that Tag is produced means nothing. It's an argument from authority.

So, please, when I make future posts, don't reply to them. They aren't for you.

Hmm, no. Once again, the Internet does not belong to you. If you put something in a public forum, you invite criticism. That is the nature of expression. Certainly any writer knows that.

They are for the people here who have honestly voiced an interesting in screenwriting, and not in just dismissing screenwriting and screenwriters out of hand because you've made some decision about the limits of a form which is barely 100 years old.

I've never dismissed anything out of hand. I should have, however, as it would have saved a lot of time and energy.

And Jon: you can't divorce studios' profit motives with the form of screenwriting. The one is what created the other.

Edited by author 06-09-2003 03:13 PM
Nick, the studios altered a previously existing form (playwriting) to fit a new medium. That's not precisely creating a new form of storytelling. And yes, it evolved, even as the modern novel has evolved. Even so; how does it matter? Previous forms of telling stories were created to make money (or rather, return some value to the creators, be it goods, status, a cozy place in the afterlife, or simple attention). The form still exists. Whether the movie that's created out of it makes money or not is irrelevant. If the studios all collapsed tomorrow from their own paranoia, people could still make movies following the form.

I'm actually thinking we've reached the point where there's no point in arguing about it anymore.

Edited by author 06-09-2003 04:52 PM
I respectfully request that this screenwriting discussion not continue on Tim's board. I was going to create a new Quick Topic and invite you to continue it over there, but it seems Gwenda has beat me to it (she posted the link below). I'm sorry to take away a "neutral" space, but I can't take my friends fighting with one another any more. Tim feels similarly; he wouldn't even check his email yesterday morning before he left because he didn't want to leave with a bad taste in his mouth, and when I told him on the phone it was still going on, he expressed gratitude that he wasn't around to read it.

I'm interested in reading the discussion about screenwriting, but I've about had it with the name calling. What ever happened to "agree to disagree"? (I realize that it's far past the stage where you'd be able to do that here). I like all of you and find it distressing that some of this has gotten so ugly.

So. I'd love it if we could maybe fill this space with some thing, if not uplifting, not quite as depressing, so Tim has something nicer to greet him when he comes home.

One thing I forgot to mention about my chat with him yesterday: Angelica Huston was on his flight from LAX to ABQ yesterday. He says she's just as tall and stately in real life, though she looks younger in person than she did in the Royal Tennenbaums. No, he didn't talk to her.

Greg: it's also one of my goals to get invited to Rio Hondo and/or Sycamore Hill. They sound so cool! Sigh.

Heather, when this sort of thing breaks out on my journal, I post a picture of socks.

Hi Heather,

Glad to hear that Tim is having a great time. When you talk to him next, pass on my message about making McHugh cook for him, since he won't read his quicktopic till he gets back. I wouldn't want him to miss out on that.

I'd never made a wish list or set any goals like Greg or you have, Heather, in the sense of being invited to one of these really cool workshops, but I had the chance to attend the Blue Heaven novel workshop that Charlie Finlay arranged in April, and it was wonderful, and helped my writing a lot. I'm sure Rio Hondo will be as good or even better for Tim, and Sycamore Hill for Christopher. And I'm sure you'll be invited to one of these some day soon as well, with the publishing record you've started for yourself. Heck, there's a lot of us here who would make up an excellent weeklong or two week long workshop. We should make a new one. I've always wanted to do that myself.

A bunch of us have talked about holing up somewhere for a new workshop, so it's not a bad idea, Chris.

I do apologize that this has disintegrated into such nastiness. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth too, and please send my apologies to Tim for the role I've played in it.

I met Anjelica Huston a couple of years ago when she was here with Derby, along with her best friend Dame Edna's (er, Barry Humphrey's) wife, and her lovely assistant who likes to dress up in themed outfits. (I sent the assistant a copy of the book about Japanese street fashion called FRUITS, which is wonderful if you haven't seen it.) She is definitely tall and able to look at really hideous homemade hats with narry a squinch or a squint during the judging of hat competitions. I was quite impressed by her regal quality.

I love socks.

What Gwenda said.

Except that I haven't met Angelica Huston. Or Dame Edna's wife.

Oopsie. Bumped that URL off the front page. At the request of our long suffering hosts, the screenwriting discussions and associated ballyhoo are now here:

http://www.quicktopic.com/22/H/e4cWqNPMJYt6

Dang -- I ran out of popcorn and I can't find where Tim stashed the stuff before he left.

And did anyone keep score? I lost count over the weekend.

:)