I've had two people read my script. One is a guy who actually funded his own movie (let's call him Dude 1) and the other is a guy who recently finished film school and currently reads and critiques scripts for his current job (Dude 2).
Dude 1 reads only 30 pages of my script and absolutely hates it. He says it's fundamentally broken and that's the only critique he gives. Nothing else.
Dude 2 reads my script and actually gives me notes page by page, says that he likes my writing and that my script is better than a lot of the scripts he has to read on the daily.
So when it comes to critique, especially when you have two extremes of critique, who do you trust? Whose judgement do you trust?
Also, all the people who have read my script have really liked it except for this one person. and when I told him that, he just said that people were lying to me about liking my script. I think the guy has some issues...I don't really care that he hated my work, but he didn't back up why he hated my work.
so dude 1 is basically the kind of person who self-publishes?
>>7880856
Basically
>>7880863
i wouldn't worry about him
>>7880846
I would listen to dude 2 because he would know what he's talking about and went in detail
Dude 1's only credential is that he put a bunch of money into a project that may or may not have went anywhere, and is possibly bitter that you have a better idea then him
Or he's just stupid, either or really
>>7880846
What's it about?
I won't ask to read it because you poetically don't want to be showing it to people if you're trying to actually get it made
>dude 1 barely reads it and says it's shit ( no better than /lit/)
>dude 2 makes notes/criticisms page by page and says it's better than average
Id go with dude 2, dude
>>7880886
To keep it short, it's pretty much about a dude who drifts from town to town and he accidentally ends up staying with a cult.
>>7880885
Dude 1 is trying to shop his film around at the film festivals. IDK if it's really going to get anywhere. Story is about a writer and some prostitute. So we'll see.
Dude 1 sounds like a complete cheeser. Probably safe to say you can go ahead and disregard him.
>>7880846
Dude 1 has absolutely no credentials or knowledge except determination to make his own ideas come true. He might be right but he's not giving you any way to improve your writing, so there is nothing you can really do about it now.
>>7880892
This post is brimming with accuracy.
>>7880892
let's call him dude 0
>>7880846
>a guy who actually funded his own movie
>a guy who recently finished film school
Did Dude 1 get the funding from his own pockets, or did he convince actual sponsors with his story?
Either way, fresh graduates' opinions are worthless. They went to a school and think that somehow makes them all-knowing. Giving notes just means he's got more free time and energy than he has experience, or skill, and if he actually likes the script, why does he need to give notes page by page? If your story is fundamentally broken, it won't be saved by fucking with the little details.
>>7880949
Dude one funded it from his own pockets.
Every story even the best ones all get notes. Think of all your favorite films, no matter how good they are, little things, edits,changes can make all the difference.
>>7880961
>Every story even the best ones all get notes.
Yeah, sure, that means your story is one of the best ones, right? Because all it needs is a little bit of polish. Are you paying Dude 2 to give notes for you? No? Then all that tells me is that he's got his priorities mixed and can't condense his thoughts to what really matters.
The way it looks to me, you've decided to believe Dude 2 from before you even made this thread, just because he was oh so nice to you, while the other guy was a douche with too much money in his hands and clearly jealous of your overwhelming talent. Well, good luck with your big project.
>>7880977
Are you dude one, by chance anon?
>>7880977
Obviously everyone wants to believe the nice person over the mean person. By all means my story isn't the best of the best.
I made this thread because the extremes of critique was bothering me a lot.
I'm not the best writer in the world but it is frustrating when someone says your work is shit and doesn't go into detail about exactly what's wrong with it. It doesn't give you much to improve on.
>>7880982
I felt playing the devil's advocate here would be more meaningful than just going "you da man, anon, don't let the meanies get you down!"
We don't really have enough information to reliably say who was more correct in this case. Okay, Dude 1 sounds like a bitter asshole, sure. But let's be realists, if OP were to submit his script to some agency, they'd most like say the exact same. They're not going to go into details or talk about whys and hows. Frustrating? Maybe, but they simply don't have the time to give elaborate feedback for every script they get. That's just something to get used to.
If OP really cares so much, he could try use Dude 2's notes to figure out what was the "fundamental flaw" Dude 1 perceived in his script and attempt to fix it. Or, he could just conclude that Dude 1 was a prick and forget about it.
>>7881007
I understand, and probably OP is a raging fucking faggot for not going into detail about the critique he was given and is most likely doing this for attention.
But when given polar opinions and one of the critiques is a fundamental flaw wouldn't you want to know anon as to know why is it a flaw other than than the words utter shit.
I mean for all we know The OP could just be a beginner who is new to this and thinks his first rough draft is the greatest thing to be written since Mein Kampf. And probably doesn't know why someone would called it awful but isnt that why we should help him, I mean he ask nicely
>>7881025
>But when given polar opinions and one of the critiques is a fundamental flaw wouldn't you want to know anon as to know why is it a flaw other than than the words utter shit.
Well, the thing is, no matter what you do, be it a genuine masterpiece or the worst pile of garbage, one person is going to say they love it and another is going to call it worse than hitler. That's people for you. And most likely, you'll never really understand the reasoning of either. You will just have to live with the haunting thought that "maybe the guy who called it shit is actually right and all the others are lying". The only remedy to that is to stop giving a fuck and build trust in yourself.
>>7880846
OP, don't be surprise the response you've got is mostly positive, even in workshops most people say nice things because politeness. Find out what Dude 1 meant more specifically, and decide if you agree or not.
>>7880893
So like Hellblazer?
>>7880846
If you can't captivate your audience in the first 30 minutes (30 pages), then your movie isn't good at all. On the other hand, this doesn't mean you should just dismiss dude 2 and your script as a whole: he showed to you that your movie has potential if someone bothers to read or watch it completely.
In conclusion, you should edit your script so that it hooks people in less than 30 pages.
>>7881599
This genuinely triggered me and not because of the bullshit that's written but because of how confident this piece of arrogant shit is. You're unironically saying that if a movie doesn't grab the attention of the audience in 30 minutes, it's bad? You're saying that because people who have ruined their attention spans can't sit still and focus enough to appreciate the work as a whole, OP should rewrite his work to accommodate them?
Some of the greatest films not only don't capture the audience with some meme technique in the first half hour, but don't do so at all because they don't need to. Why don't you stick to your action packed Marvel films that don't fail to draw your attention and stop trying to give advice that is only shit?
>>7881533
I did ask him exactly what was wrong with it but he wouldn't give me a concrete answer. He just said that it was shit, the story was fundamentally broken, and that I should start over. He didn't articulate his thoughts.
>>7881641
>Some of the greatest films not only don't capture the audience with some meme technique in the first half hour
They capture the audience and they do so by being good. There are no "meme techniques", if you have skill and good taste, it will show no matter what you do. Don't kid yourself, literally no movie ever was pure shit for the first thirty minutes and then magically became a classic. If you can't understand what made them good from the get go, then that's your problem.
