Teaching Dark Lord
michellet at thecreativepartnership.co.uk
Mon May 20 10:19:33 EDT 2002
> Quite so. But I've seen about 90% more movies let down by bad scripts than
> by bad acting or bad FX.
> Capable actors can look very good with a good script and top class (by which
> I mean top class, not necessarily top Box Office) actors can look like hacks
> with a bad one. I was just discussing this with my husband the other day.
> Why don't movie makers send their shooting script to (say) three critics or
> assessors before they go ahead? Structural editing and a dialogue polish
> would make a huge difference.
Any script would normally go through several (at least 10) drafts in the
development process, as well as being read and critiqued by development
execs. Part of the problem is that films are sometimes rushed into
production because of funding issues or problems with cast availability -
the thing with movies is that there are so many elements, unlike with a
novel where you've really got just a writer and an agent/publisher. Have you
read William Goldman's 'Which Lie Did I Tell?' - fascinating insight into
But the main reason poor scripts get made into films is that people still go
and see em! And if they make money, at the end of the day that's what the
film companies and the cinemas want... Look at Attack of The Clones - every
review I've read says the script is appalling and the acting lame, but its
still breaking box office records.
To unsubscribe, email dwj-request at suberic.net with the body "unsubscribe".
Visit the archives at http://suberic.net/dwj/list/
More information about the Dwj