Dear friends I’ve been entangled to a dialogistic synergy with WeScreenplay, Hollywood’s #1 Script Coverage services and I can definitely say outputs and conclusions fascinate me. Before I delve deeply into it, I would like to explain the rationale of this dialogue influenced from other experience. We get notes. We get notes on concept, plot, characters, structure, dialogue, overall impression. So suddenly we realize interpretations are ambiguous, multifaceted and those of us who definitely like to express ourselves in many ways can definitely go wrong. But in order to flex your intellectual muscles it’s all about interaction. Sometimes this risks reliability. For example, a Greek journalist has invited an astrobiologist at his broadcast to talk about life in the universe and extra-terrestrials... No matter how much scientists we are, we or somebody else, can we correlate and identify? No. What on earth does “this” journalist know in terms of asking the right questions, in terms of asking the critical meanings and hidden wisdom so to produce an interesting scientific outcome on the discussion of whether we are alone or not in the universe? Nothing. To communicate and discuss on somebody’s expertise requires going deep as well as putting pressure on the right points. These were the comments of WeScreenplay as well. Being indicated that I ask outstanding questions, meaning questions that penetrate to the essence of writing and crisis recovery, I have also come up with conclusions of how to think of my self-publishing ventures. But let’s just view at the facts analytically. Many times, but not the case for the entire of scripts, literaturistic characters prove not more than 35% sufficiency than cinematic characters...! Many of us think as litterateurs, not entertainers or actors...
Literature is the arena of sophisticated descriptions and we have seen already that if canons of literature unify with the canons of screenwriting, then movie scripts can be considered audio-visual literature as well. Many times, mere literature but not cinematic storytelling, rotates around completely different natures of narrative elements and dimensions. There may be thought, fantasy travelling, narrator’s voice, etc. This means that what is left from the script to be devoted on how to super-develop a cast is not enough. Accurately, it is much less than enough. Screenplay characters, it’s theory for every script, have 5 prime emotional needs: love, comfort, validation, respect, justice. Love should not be confused with comfort nor validation with respect. Based on this as well as the fact that the popular structure of screenplays is The 3 Acts Structure, meaning to divide the script in 3 Acts, where every act is being developed appropriately, means that argumentation on literature is very different than argumentation on screenplays. Behind the reality of greenlights, movie theaters and a big audience hides a cultural gap that is based on favoring object-oriented writing if compared with intellectualism. So, these objectives focus entirely on character development that affect the entire architecture of the script. A lot of people who read books including us, the writers who write these books, can only think in terms of literature but not in terms of analyzing casting through the eyes of a Hollywood reader and later on, actors and directors. As it is not necessarily right to juggle between three different jobs of the entertainment industry, it’s only the writer’s mind that can do the job right...
This means “structured” argumentation and real-world experiences. Nevertheless, bridging gaps matters more than ever. In any case, multimedia publishing perspectives in terms of content guidelines from big data markets such as Amazon and Apple iTunes, Ingram, etc, is as perfect as our first thoughts towards it, as perfect as we initially dreamed of it all along! For it is true in the majority of the cases that cinematic storytelling has 70% more characters’ development sufficiency than literature! Have a great time folks!
