#script analysis

[david-talks-sw]

BONUS stuff from the AOTC screenplay...

1. Yoda probing the Dark Side.

In an earlier draft of the Attack of the Clones screenplay, Scene 51 (which I've already talked about here) ends with this comment by Mace, where he explains what Yoda is doing up in his quarters, followed up by Scene 52, showing Yoda meditating:

And it turns out, this is actually a mini plot point in this draft!

Since Qui-Gon's death, the Jedi are actually on the lookout for the remaining Sith Lord, waiting to sense even a trace of him... but then this happens.

And, like, nobody saw it coming! What the hell!

So that leads to this other cut scene (originally set right after Obi-Wan tells Anakin that Padmé "was happy to see us"), Scene 12, which features an evening conversation between Mace Windu and Yoda.

When Yoda says "the dark side of the Force clouds everything", that's not just an expression to say 'he doesn't know'.

The Dark Side has tainted everything around the Jedi, and THAT'S why the Sith have an advantage. Because they're used to it. They were 'born in the dark, molded by it'.

As a result... in this situation, they're the only ones who can foresee the possibilities of the future, while the Jedi are pretty much walking blind, in a fog.

It's not just that the Sith Lord is a master politician and the Jedi are politically inept. It's that, right now, he's the only one who can truly see the future and roll with it, while the only thing the Jedi can do is go forward, have their guard up and hope for the best.

Which a concept explored in the non-canon comic Sithisis from Star Wars: Visionaries (which, if I recall, was created by Derek Thompson after his regular interactions with George Lucas and a 45-minute interview with Ian McDiarmid)!

2. "Sifo-Dyas", aka Sidious

Okay, so some of y'all probably already knew this tidbit. I did, but didn't know it was in this draft of the script so it was a fun surprise:

Sifo-Dyas was originally a pseudonym used by Darth Sidious.

Throughout the script, his name is spelled "Sido-Dyas" (which sounds a lot more like "Sidious").

And when it comes to the mysterious Sido-Dyas, the Jedi talk about him like they've never heard of him before and full-on say he's an imposter.

At some point, there ended up being a typo in the scene where Obi-Wan talks to Lama Su, and the word was mispelled "Sifo-Dyas" and eventually Lucas decided to make him a different character.

Also the Tyranus who hired Jango Fett is referred to as "Darth Tyranus", in this draft, which I guess was changed because it was gonna be to obvious.

But it does indicate that after TPM, they concluded that Darth Maul was the Master, not the Apprentice.

3. Are Yoda and Padmé friends...?

Okay so there's this moment here:

Yoda taps Padmé with his cane!

Thus CONFIRMING that poking/tapping/hitting people with his cane is Yoda's love language!

Seconds later, there's also this line where Yoda tells Padmé to reign the selflessness and politics back and accept their help:

First off, I'm just picturing Padmé just casually kneeling so she can be at Yoda-height and I'm dying!

But also, like... he calls her "Padmé". They're on a first-name basis!

To me, that's gotta be an implication that in the 10 years between TPM and AOTC... I dunno, Padmé visited the Temple while Anakin was off-planet or just met Yoda at a meeting, and now they've formed a bond and they're pals.

If that's the case, then their Ilum mission in Clone Wars (2003) takes a whole new aspect.

And if we're rolling with this idea... how much of Padmé did Yoda see in Luke?? None? Some?

I think it's a case of when Luke is screwing up royally "he's just like Anakin ffs" and then the few times he's actually listening "nice to see you inherited some of your mother's sense!"

Bear in mind, these bits of dialog never made it on the screen but they did make it to the "final" version of the screenplay published in The Art of Attack of the Clones. So if I had to guess the reason for deletion, it was probably for pacing purposes.

Bonus:

Yoda introducing the younglings in his care is such an adorable thing.

Just in general, this scene is great. George Lucas had this to say in the AOTC commentary track:

"This is a chance for me to play with that more mischievous side of his character and get away from the 'official, serious Yoda' that ends up [...] on the Jedi Council, where he really isn't allowed to be as fun and tease people. In this environment with the kids, he's able to lighten up a little bit, which I really wanted to do for his character. It's much more what his character is in the other movies, especially in Empire Strikes Back."

But also... like Yoda is hyping up the younglings! Is that a thing?

Did Dooku & Yoda have competitions and introduce their respective clans like hype men? I'm picturing a scene where Yoda's like:

Yoda: "To a competition, the mighty Bear Clan challenges the Thranta Clan!" Bear Clan younglings: "GROOAAAAH!"

And Dooku is like:

Dooku: "The gallant Thranta Clan is ready to clean the floors with the Bear Clan whenever you want!" Thranta Clan younglings: *POSE MAJESTICALLY*

Glorious...

[twinsfawn]

saltburn review please ? it’s very important to me to know your thoughts

i’m so sorry i took forever to answer this, i wanted to really dive in and needed the time/headspace to do it in. it’s not the best movie i’ve ever seen by any means but there’s so many dynamics/themes/motifs that i can’t stop thinking about.

spoilers and me rambling endlessly under the cut

the relationship that has the most meat is obviously between oliver and felix. i’ve been ruminating on how love and hate are often not opposites but rather two ribbons dancing entwined with one another. both are an obsession. i can’t stop thinking about you. i loathe you. i wish you were dead. i can’t live without you. i need to be you, a part of you, inside you. i need to consume you. i can never get close enough. it infuriates me.

i want to fucking destroy you and then kiss and cradle every broken piece. i want to wear your skin. i have to get rid of you forever. i’ll never let you go.

there’s also obviously a possessiveness that oliver has over felix (as well as most of the other characters at saltburn). “i protected him” (you’re mine).

funnily enough, oliver is felix’s pet just as much as felix is oliver’s

more on oliver’s character in general: everyone is a pawn to him and fills some emotional/psychological/financial hole.

when his real self slips through there’s a sociopathic dominance

…..his need to make venetia and farleigh “behave”. his need to keep felix right where he wants him.

on venetia and oliver: obviously i love eroticism with a side of gore. vampiric and disturbingly intimate.

also loved the weird dynamic of control regarding venetia eating, again as if she were oliver’s pet

on felix and venetia: there are DEFINITELY little glimpses of incestuous undertones which were very interesting. they’re attached at the hip. matching tattoos. sharing clothes. venetia sits in her brother’s lap despite them both being adults. venetia seducing all of oliver’s closest friends and him being disturbed by it

…venetia’s shock and horror at finding oliver is wearing felix’s aftershave right after they bury him but also being intoxicated by the twisted perversion

more on venetia: i really liked her character as a whole and the actress’ portrayal of her was enthralling. she’s truly a cold blooded ghost, and a snake at times

finally here’s some miscellaneous sections of the script that i really liked

[nowmemoriees]

So, most of you probably knew this already, but in the original script for the pilot episode of Stranger Things, "Montauk", it was adressed that Mike originally had a crush on Jennifer Hayes.

Which makes me think, it was always supposed to be that way. Mike was always supposed to like a girl first. Even when El was supposed to die in the first season of the show.

And, even having his girl crush, Will was still his main priority. So that makes me think, there were so many possibilites and ideas that would always end up in the same result. Bisexual Mike? Could be! A Mike who is trying to discover what he likes? Absolutely possible. Repression? Who knows.

If we think about it, it absolutely makes sense! And even more if we consider how many melvin moments are fanservice. It was always supposed to be that way.

Many, manyyyy things of this original script were changed. So many. But, the idea is still there. Locations, names, love interests, and a lot of important stuff were modified, but Mike worried about Will the same way he does in the series. So, even if this "doesn't count" it shows really well how they have always had planned how Mike and Will's development would be: Mike would like a girl first.

And, to close the post, this scene was replaced with Mike and Steve, but it's kinda curious how it was originally scripted to be with Nancy and how they caught each other sneaking out to look for... their person.

[waateeystein]

Analyzing Nick Dear's Frankenstein (and why we should move on to better play adaptations)

Alrighty y'all, its the long-awaited Nick Dear Frankenstein analysis post! This post is focusing specifically on Dear's characterization of the Creature, and why it negatively affects the play overall (plus some adaption theory added in for funsies). For additional context, I am an MFA candidate studying theatre, and I did this research and the accompanying slides for a project in my graduate-level theatrical criticism class. Basically this post is the text version of that presentation, with some of the slides included, and the fluff trimmed. There is a fair bit of academic jargon in here, but I tried to make it as accessible as possible!

And with all of that out of the way, the Nick Dear Frankenstein deep dive is under the cut! (And citations at the end.)

CW: Discussions of violence and SA.

Before I get into the script itself (which if you are interested in reading it, a PDF version is easily found on google), I want to introduce a fun adaptation theory which is specific to studying Frankenstein, called "Frankenstein Complex Theory." This theory comes from Dennis R. Cutchins and Dennis R. Perry in the introduction section to "Adapting Frankenstein: The Monster's Eternal Lives in Popular Culture." (A fantastic read that I recommend to anyone if your school or local library has it in circulation.) This introduction introduces the "complex" theory, as well as some really awesome ideas that get used and referenced by all of the authors included in the book.

Basically Cutchins and Perry assert that traditional adaptation theory is simple not enough to properly study Frankenstein and it's innumerable adaptations. One might also assert that Frankenstein itself is an adaptation, Mary Shelley published multiple editions of her story, and one could argue that the original story is an adaptation of other stories like "Paradise Lost." Linda Hutcheon, another academic in the field of adaptation studies who also wrote a fantastic book (cited at the end), talks about this idea of "palimpsestuous Intertextuality." I want to first argue here that the original text of Frankenstein and its adaptations (the "myth" of Frankenstein) are palimpsestuous.

And when I say the "myth" of Frankenstein is "palimpsestuous," its basically just saying that the "myth" (tall green guy with bolts in his neck who is mostly non-verbal, going around killing people mostly without rhyme or reason) is the predominate cultural narrative of Frankenstein's monster, rather than how he actually is in the book. All of the cultural ideas of what Frankenstein's monster is are this giant network which interweaves with itself, references and builds off itself, and constantly creates new things from these connections. The book and it's adaptations are not in hierarchy, one is not implicitly better or more important than another, they all work together to create our cultural narrative of Frankenstein's monster. Thus, palimpsestuous Intertextuality.

But what is this "Complex" theory I mentioned earlier, and what does it have to do with Nick Dear? Well, here is a helpful diagram!

Essentially, every piece of Frankenstein media every created, including Mary Shelley's original novel, are all part of the "Frankenstein Network." The complex, however, is personal, it includes anything from that network that you have personally consumed. Some people have a wider complex than others, but nonetheless, most of us have some kind of Frankenstein Complex (if you're this far in the post I'm assuming you have one lol.) I think Cutchins and Perry really popped off when they created this theory, its a fantastic way of studying/teaching adaptation.

But onto Nick Dear. Why did I just spend so much time covering adaptation theory and teaching you all a bunch of academic jargon? Well firstly, I spent a lot of time on that research for class and I wanted to share. But secondly and more importantly, my thesis for this entire post is that Nick Dear, whose goal with his play was to create an adaptation which humanized the Creature and sticks very close to the novel, created something that was unintentionally more a product of his personal complex and the palimpsestuous "myth" of Frankenstein's monster. He wrote a play that deeply mischaracterizes the Creature, and in turn uses violence and SA for shock value rather than substance.

And maybe this is a bold claim, but I think comparing the plot of the novel (from the creature's point of view) and the plot of Dear's play is a good place to start. And for your visual reference, I created a plot diagram for both so that we can compare the two side-by-side. (Thanks Freytag lol.)

The first thing we can notice about comparing the overall plot structure is that they are indeed, very similar. And this tends to be most people's reactions to seeing this play. That compared to most other Frankenstein media, it is super faithful to the book in terms of setting and characters and hitting important plot points. And I too want to praise Dear for that. I think he was extremely smart about what characters he chose to cut or combine, and the plot points he chose to include. I also personally love that despite the cutting of Walton's character, Victor and the Creature still visit the arctic at the end of the play. Dear made so many great choices with his play, but ends up squandering it his mischaracterization of the Creature.

But how is he mischaracterizing the Creature? Well first, lets look at how Shelley characterizes him in the book, specifically in terms of violence. I argue, that anytime the Creature kills someone in the book, it is a mostly equal/proportionate reaction to the violence done against him. His first murder his killing William, and the subsequent execution of Justine after he frames her for William's murder. All of this comes after Victor's initial rejection of the Creature, and rejection by multiple villages, the DeLacey's and the young drowning girl and her father. Killing William and Justine was his first retribution after all of the rejection and violence against him, which was initiated by Victor creating him and rejecting him in the first place. And this is his only planned revenge at that point, his next move was demanding that Victor create a female creature for him, with the plan to flee and live a peaceful life in South America (whether he actually meant what he said is up to interpretation.) His next murders only come after Victor destroys the unfished female creature. This is when the Creature kills Henry and then Elizabeth. Elizabeth (and arguably Henry) are Victor's partners, and the people he most personally loves. Killing them is direct retribution for Victor destroying the female Creature, who was supposed to be (at least from the Creature's perspective) the Creature's romantic partner. All of the Creature's direct murders are direct mirrors to Victor's transgressions against the Creature. William is killed for the initial rejection and subsequent exiling from society, Henry and Elizabeth are killed for the destruction of his future romantic partner.

Dear takes a different approach in adapting these murders. In his play, the Creature's first murder is not William, but is actually the DeLacey's. After being personally tutored by Father DeLacey for a significant amount of time, the eventual and fated meeting with Felix and Agatha arrives and the creature is rejected by them. Instead of going straight to Geneva, as he does in the novel, he first sets fire to the DeLacey's cabin, killing the entire family inside. To me, this feels like the first instance of spectacle and shock over actual substance. In both Shelley's novel and Dear's play, as the creature learns about humanity and war, he clearly has a distaste for violence and killing. And because of this, I don't understand why the Creature has such an extreme reaction to the DeLacey's, especially in this version where Father DeLacey shows him so much direct kindness, and it is Felix and Agatha specifically who reject him. Why would the Creature decide to kill them all? If Dear wanted to add additional deaths, why not just kill Felix and Agatha and spare Father DeLacey because of his previous kindness? This violence, to me, feels undeserved and does not mirror the violence done against him by this family. From a staging perspective, the visual of the house burning is actually a very impressive collaboration between the set and lighting designers on the giant stage of the National Theatre. But I question why this moment needs to be here, when the rest of the play and it's staging in the premier production already has so much beauty and shock and spectacle. This is also the first moment where I find the Creature unsympathetic, because this action seems overly extreme as a response.

After this moment, the murder of William is different but not too dissimilar in tone to the novel. At it's heart, it is still the Creature's first direct revenge against Victor. After this, our next big departure from the novel is when the female creature is fully brought to life, different to the novel where she is never fully given life. Victor killing her after she has been able to briefly live is a more extreme measure on Victor's part too, which by my own argument, may warrant a more extreme reaction from the Creature. And to be absolutely clear, Victor simply kills/dismantles her, and nothing more. As for the creature's reaction, Henry is a cut character in this adaptation, so we obviously don't see his death. Instead, the Creature kills Elizabeth, but in this version, not only does the creature kill her, he also r*pes her. This is my biggest point of contention with the play. To me, the subtext in Dear's version is that the Creature views both Elizabeth and the Female Creature as some kind of property, and when his property (the female Creature) is taken away by Victor, he takes Victor's property (Elizabeth) away too. Right before her death in the play, the Creature and Elizabeth actually have a really touching conversation, and they seem to genuinely bond. And so when the Creature eventually kills her afterwards, him r*ping her comes completely out of left field. The only explanation to me, is that despite empathizing with her, the Creature ultimately still views her as Victor's property, and needed to take her away from Victor in a way that was more than just taking her life from him. And honestly, it's a really gross interpretation of these characters. And I want to be very clear that I know depiction is not endorsement, and that I also believe there is a time and a place for depicting SA on stage, but this play was not the time nor the place. The creature simply killing Elizabeth is enough to get the point across, the SA seems to have been added for pure shock value, and again, spectacle. One could argue that this action done by the creature is part of his sexual awakening, just as he learns about other aspects of humanity. But again I believe this is not justified by the text of the play, and is written for pure shock value at the expense of another character, specifically a woman. I would call this misogynistic.

And these extreme reactions from the Creature in Dear's play seem to create this hyper-masculinized version of the character and the story. And I think that is a shame considering the original story was written by a woman, and Mary Shelley did a fantastic job of writing a story where the men can exist across a spectrum of masculinity, without needing to be this stereotyped version of hypermasculinity with a desire for sexual vengeance. I mean, Victor creating the Creature is a pretty clear metaphor for motherhood/parenthood, especially considering Shelley's experience with motherhood and the loss of her children and her own mother. And not to say that a cis man isn't capable of writing an authentic adaptation of a woman's story, but here, I think Nick Dear missed the mark, especially in regards to Elizabeth's death and his depiction of Creature/masculinity.

And I don't want to boil this down to, "Nick Dear is a man and therefore his adaption is automatically bad." Because I don't think that's the case, and I think that's an unfair assumption to make. What I do think, is that despite trying to make an adaptation that strove to humanize the Creature better than most other adaptations, Dear instead created an adaptation that fell into the overly-violent monster tropes of the greater Frankenstein Network of adaptations. In essence, Dear may have unintentionally become a product of his own "complex." And unfortunately, that subconscious influence may be partially why we get this interpretation of the Creature, and the unnecessary shock factors added into the story.

So where do we go from here? Chances are, if you see a theatre company putting on a production of Frankenstein, it's probably the Nick Dear version. This was the case for me last October when I accidentally attended a production of this script at a professional theatre company back home in Florida. My hope is that one day we can move on from this script, and find a Frankenstein play adaptation that humanizes the Creature in a way that most audiences (who probably have not read the book) are unfamiliar with, while also not resorting to shock value that dehumanizes the women in the story. My homework for myself beyond this research project, is to read more Frankenstein play adaptations, and specifically ones that are not written by cis men. I think the experiences of women, trans people and disabled people (or obviously any intersection of these communities and identities) could really lend themselves to new and exciting interpretations of the script that bring broader perspectives into context. If you have any suggestions of Frankenstein plays or playwrights who have written Frankenstein plays, I would love to check them out! I also suggest giving the National Theatre world premier pro-shot of Nick Dear's Frankenstein a watch, purely just for the design of the show. Costumes, set, sound and lighting are all really spectacular, and I would love to do an analysis of that aspect of the show one day.

Obviously there was a lot about this show I didn't cover (Cumberbatch, I know), I just wanted to cover the characterization of the Creature at a textual level, because to me that is the most glaring issue with this play. Please let me know your thoughts, and thanks for reading if you got this far!

Citations (I didn't do a great job of referencing these in-text, but all of these sources are great and I highly recommend checking them out!)

Cutchins, Dennis R, and Dennis R Perry. “Introduction- The Frankenstein Complex: When the text is more than a text.” Adapting Frankenstein: The Monster’s Eternal Lives in Popular Culture, Manchester University Press, Manchester, 2018, pp. 1–19.

Dear, Nick, and Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley. Frankenstein: Based on the Novel by Mary Shelley. Faber and Faber, 2011.

Hutcheon, Linda. “Beginning to Theorize Adaptation: What? Who? Why? How? Where? When?” A Theory of Adaptation, Routledge, New York, New York, 2006, pp. 1–32.

Jones, Kelly. “Adaptations of ‘liveness’ in theatrical representations of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein.” Adapting Frankenstein: The Monster’s Eternal Lives in Popular Culture, Manchester University Press, Manchester, 2018, pp. 316–334.

Pfeiffer, Lee. “Frankenstein: Film by Whale [1931].” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, inc., 24 Nov. 2023, www.britannica.com/topic/Frankenstein-film-by-Whale.

Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus. 1818.

Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus. 1831.

[henrysglock]

In Short: I Was Right About The Released Script and The Filmed Monologue.

In this post here about the discrepancies in the released 4.07 script as compared to the version of One's monologue that we see on screen, I mentioned a sneaking suspicion that they might be two halves of a whole monologue.

So, I spliced the 4.07 transcript and 4.07 script together:

For clarity's sake, I color-coded it. Red-colored lines are ones that only appear in the filmed monologue. Blue-colored lines are ones that only appear in the released script. Words in parentheses indicate a swap in wording/phrasing. Words not in parentheses are additional words. Everything is left in order of appearance, i.e. none of the lines have been shifted for clarity. The texts are one-to-one merged.

As we can see, they splice together very nicely...especially in places where we were missing subjects, conclusions, topic introductions, and/or topic re-introductions in the individual texts.

For example:

In the script, the conculsion/Victor's fate is not mentioned. In the transcript, Victor is never re-introduced to El as the subject of his own arrest.

In the merged version, it becomes:

Victor is re-introduced to El, and his fate is told.

Or here:

Brenner's goals with One is introduced in the script, but the part about "fixing" comes out of nowhere, since Virginia's goal of fixing Henry is never brought up. "A doctor not interested in fixing" implies that someone had been interested in fixing him. No such case is mentioned. Meanwhile, Virginia's goal of fixing Henry is mentioned in the transcript, but Brenner's "studying" part comes out of nowhere. "He did not just want to study me" implies that being studied was mentioned previously. It was not.

In the merged version, it becomes:

Fixing? Mentioned by discussion of Virginia. Studying? Mentioned via Brenner's introduction.

And even within that section:

The transcript initially mentions why Henward wants to escape/break free, but it veers away from it with Victor's arrest...only to revisit it out of nowhere directly after. The script never introduces breaking free/why Henward wanted to escape, but it does go from Victor's knowledge (or lack thereof) directly into a clear reintroduction of his need to escape.

In the merged version, it becomes:

Reason for escaping? Given. Escaping? Clear reintroduction to the topic.

The two texts fill in each other's gaps, just as I suspected.

Now I won't say that there aren't some wonky bits, particularly in the "My naive father...for their sins" and "The more I practiced...take the next step" sections.

These exist entirely separately, and they overlay the same memory: Victor's cradle vision and Henward in the red sweater sitting in the attic.

This becomes interesting when we consider that this ^ isn't Nancy's POV. Nancy is downstairs watching Victor...

...and this view is peeking over some boxes in the attic, supposedly seeing Henward while he's enacting said vision:

It, like this scene:

Is from a bizarre outsider POV, one that's about Henward-height.

So my thoughts on that wonky-ness amount to this:

I would speculate that the two lines don't feed into each other, but may instead be meant to occur simultaneously from different people (whether that be via a time loop or via timelines...I can't say for certain).

Either way, the texts do line up as two halves of a whole.

[studyingsocialjustice]

can you give any theatre/acting related advice that you have learnt through your studies as a theatre major? thanks

Anon I am SO sorry - this ask is from a year ago and I literally JUST saw this and I have absolutely no idea how that happened. I hope that you are still following me and will see this!

EDIT from May 2023: Haha. Oops. This ask is now from maybe like two years ago? Possibly almost three? I genuinely don't know. But I am so sorry that it's taken so long. I remember exactly what I was doing while typing my original response to this: I was folding laundry and trying to get ready to move back in to school, and I was procrastinating doing the folding by typing my response to this, and then my parents came in and were like "why aren't you folding laundry" and I remember saying to myself that I would come back to this ask and then I never did. But you probably don't care about that much, so here we go:

My top three things I have learned, in order:

Number One: Script analysis is everything. It will help you connect to and understand your character, it will help you to connect to and understand the world of the play - it is the foundation for understanding everything. Look at the historical context of when the play was written and where it stands in the playwright's repertoire chronologically. Look at word choice. Look at how the characters interact with each other. My favorite books I recommend for this are A Practical Handbook for the Actor by Melissa Bruder, Lee Michael Cohn, etc. and Backwards and Forwards by David Ball. I read these books in my senior year of high school, so four years ago now, and I still use their methodology for all of my script analysis. Their methods are incredibly useful and I highly highly recommend reading them. B&F was also required reading for my Script Analysis course at my university this year, and it is still just as useful. The books are old enough that they aren't too expensive to buy, and you could probably also find copies online, though I'm not sure of that.

Two: One of the best, and in my opinion most accessible methods of script analysis (especially if you don't want to read a whole book) is the Question Words Method: Who? What? Where? When? Why? How? This works for monologues as well as general script analysis, and is usually applied to one character at a time.

For monologues: Who is speaking? Who are they speaking to? What are they trying to achieve by speaking? Where are they while they're talking? When in the course of the story is this happening? Why are they talking about this now? Why not later, why not sooner? To quote one acting teacher I had, why are they opening their mouth? And finally, how are they going about getting what they want? What tactics are they using, what's their word choice? What actions are they taking as they speak?

For characters: Who are they? This includes, name, title, relationships, basic biographical information. What do they want? What is their goal throughout this story? Where does this story take place? When? For a particular scene, where and when does that scene take place (general setting) and when in the course of the story does it take place? Why do they want whatever it is that they want? And how are they working to achieve it?

The most essential part of this, in my opinion, is what does the character want, and how they are going about achieving that. It's the objective and the tactics.

Three: This comes from one of my professors from this past school year. There is this idea in the world of theatre that if there's anything else you can see yourself doing, you should go do that because acting is only for people who can see themselves doing nothing else and just really really want it. Which is stupid because just because you might be able to imagine yourself taking a different career path doesn't mean you would be happy doing it. So, from my professor: "If you could see yourself doing anything else, do this anyway, because it's better." Again: If you could see yourself doing anything else, do this anyway, because it's better. If this is what you love, who cares about what else you could be doing? Do the thing that is fulfilling and makes you happy. It doesn't matter if other people think that it isn't a good career or won't make you enough money. If this is what you love, do it, because it's better than anything else.

I sincerely hope that this advice was helpful to you! Again, I'm so sorry that it's taken me so long to answer your ask; time unfortunately is not my friend and I've had a lot of - for lack of a better word - bullshit happen to me this year. Best of luck going forward, and please know that although it may sometimes take me a while to respond, my inbox is always open! I love giving advice, and am always happy to provide it!

[hologramcowboy]

I agree with you and a lot of the other antis on many things but the one thing I have to disagree with is the perspective on John Winchester. It’s common knowledge since the early seasons that he wasn’t a good father or person in general at all after Mary died. I’m not sure what there is that JDM defended when he literally filmed a scene where John berates Dean and coddles Sam, he forced his sons into a life they never would’ve wanted,told his son to never come back after he left. JW is not good

Confused about this ask as I never wrote that John Winchester is good?

However, from an acting standpoint, no actor judges his character, he does instead look for motivations. No bad guy knows he is the bad guy, in his mind he feels justified, he thinks he is the good guy. There is an interview out there, where jDM explains perfectly his perspective on John and why he potrayed John the way he did.

Just to clarify, I never stated John was good, I simply shared a status of an unprepared actor who did no character analysis and is making less than intelligent comments instead of following the actual character's impulses which would be world away from what he currently does on screen.

John was a questionable father and a dark man, however, from an acting perspective, no one ever looks at a character to judge it, instead, they try to own that character's WHY fully even when it contradicts their real life self. They find ways to bridge the gap and personalize the work. Acting is incredible because it teaches you that no one should ever be judged, we are all the result of many experiences that shaped us and those experiences define our values which in turn defines our choices.

From John's POV, he was being loving in his own way, the only way a broken man knew how. Doesn't make it right but it does make it human and relatable and acting is all about allowing people to reach catharsis by facing their flaws, traumas, etc when they see it in those characters and recognize themselves and their inner stuff.

Hope that helps you. From an acting perspective, if you play a villan or a questionable character, you will look for the why behind those actions and empathize instead of judging. Only then can you truly embody a flawed, complex human being that people can see themselves in. If you judge your character, disconnection happens. Not only between you and your character but especially between you and the audience and since your performance is meant to serve the audience...I am going to stop here because I could go on forever. Yes, John was a questionable father many levels and a conflicted, torn, traumatized man which is precisely why JDM did an excellent character analysis that resulted in exquisite inner work. He was one of the best actors on SPN and the reason is he didn't judge John, he made him real, flawed and complex and he fought for John's objectives til the end which made you root for his character even if he was a lost man.

Drake, on the other hand, is supeficially putting a happy sticker on it and thus denying many the chance to experience catharsis by facing their inner demons. There is so much more to a performance than lay people grasp and it seems Drake is clueless about his own craft. Hope that clears my post up for you.

[cuntyfiedcatholicbisaster]

So who's gonna upload the whole Goncharov script so we all can experience this masterpiece as it was meant to be?

Here in Latam it's so fucking hard to find any working copies and piracy has failed us for once.

[i-promise-i-am-not-on-drugs]

I love this so fucking much

i fully believe the reason the final cut of this scene is so different is because they changed it to be more subtle. cause if you imagine it played out on screen, it's so unbelievably romantic. the final cut is also extremely romantic, but the og is just nuts to me. i'm also pretty sure the duffers said they change things and cut things out to make things less obvious, so take that as you will

1. will is still kneeling on the floor, but there's no direction for mike to sit on his bed. it says mike goes up to him, which could be a lot of things, but since will is still on the floor im guessing mike was meant to squat down to his level or kneel next to him. already way more intimate than the final cut where mike sits on his bed. so as we go through this, make sure you keep in mind they are sitting right next to each other

i imagine he was supposed to be right there

2. 'you didn't have to' wasn't in the original script. originally, mike and will were supposed to let will's words hang in the air and smile at each other for a second or two (probably the same amount of time between 'you didn't have to' and 'hey, also-' in the final cut). they were supposed to smile at each other until mike says "Hey, listen [...]", then will looks away. a few uncut seconds of them....smiling at each other.....until one of them awkwardly breaks the silence.... y'all.

id also like to bring up what finn said about mike not knowing about will's feelings, but there also being a mutual understanding and acceptance. i think what he means is that they mutually understand how different and special their relationship is. "i didn't say it..." with no response but a shared smile implies the same thing the final cut does. will didn't have to, mike understood anyway. that shared smile is supposed to be them acknowledging that. they both know it, and i honestly don't know how finn and noah were supposed to act that out without it being so obviously flirty and blushy. hence why they most likely didn't keep it in. also remember that they're supposed to be right next to each other probably face to face. THE OG WOULDVE BEEN SO BLUSHY AND AWKWARD LIKE.......

3. "If we're....friends again. Best friends."

lord jesus

given that at this point in s4 the audience is meant to have already put it together that will likes mike, that line is crazy to me.

"If we're..."

WHY DID HE HAVE TO THINK??? WHY DID HE HESITATE???? the watcher already knows there is romance present in this dynamic, how fucking else is that meant to be taken?? this is also stranger things, the show where a staple in their romances is that they always claim they're just friends, when they're not. and it's MIKE saying this, not will.

and right after this, it says "Will finally looks at mike, emotional." so during mike's entire monologue, will isn't looking at him. to be honest i think them staring into each other's souls in the final cut it more romantic, but mike saying all this to a will who isn't looking at him adds a lot of depth. imagine mike saying all that and staring at will, who isn't looking back. it puts more romantic emphasis on mike. it's like mike wants will's approval.

smooth transition into—

4. "Yeah?" "Yeah."

good god it's so romantic

they swapped this for "Cool." "Cool." which can be interpreted as platonic a lot easier. and the time they did use "yeah?" "yeah." was during the van scene. it happens in the og script for the bedroom scene too, except it was WILL asking and MIKE confirming. they're flip flopped.

we can't know for sure what scene they filmed first, but i think it might've been van scene first and then the bedroom scene, cause i know the roller rink scenes and scenes in the house were filmed near the end of filming as a whole.

i probably sound crazy, but let's entertain that possibility for a second. cause one was filmed first, which means one was changed first.

the van scene lines were originally "You really think so?" "I know so." , but they changed it to "Yeah?" "Yeah." so what if they changed it so it would parallel the bedroom scene?

if they kept it as it was originally written, the scenes would be very obvious parallels. one talks and talks and talks about their feelings for the other. then the other asks for confirmation, and confirmation is given. it would've paralleled mike's monologue to will to a love confession, which is WAY too obvious

i cannot express to you how crazy this makes me 

5. "This intimate moment is shattered"

i don't even have to explain why this is a romantic trope, it just is

i'm gonna assume they were still supposed to have their gazes torn from each other like in the final cut, but imagine that happening while they're way closer. SO much more obviously romantic. they could've been in the same shot when it happens like in the other two scenes where they're interrupted, but in the final cut they aren't. and it's entirely possible they changed that cause the og is just WAY too romantic

i also want to highlight a couple parallels between this scene and the van scene cause this script pretty much confirmed they're connected and i honestly never thought about it until now

> "These past few months she's been so...lost without you."

> "Listen, the truth is, this last year has been weird, you know? And, you know, Max and Lucas and Dustin—they're great, they're great, it's just...it's Hawkins, it's not the same without you."

> "Mike takes this all in. Emotional now too."

"You really think so?"

"I know so."

and in the final cut

"Yeah?"

"Yeah."

> "Will finally looks at mike, emotional."

"Yeah?"

"Yeah."

and in the final cut

"Cool."

"Cool."

and of course, the painting. the bedroom scene is the set up for the painting. will grabs it before the shoot out happens. and the van scene is the pay off. idk how in the hell i never picked up on that, but i see it now

but yeah. i guess the duffers realized on set how obviously romantic the byler scenes play out and had to fix it so it'll still fly under the radar for most people

not me though y'all stay safe ❤️

[scriptwriters-network]

Script Analysis ~ Readers Class 6/29 **Special Day.

Reading and analyzing scripts is one of the best ways to improve your writing! It’s so much easier to see glaring problems and brilliant writing in work that is not your own – and once you see it and know what to look for, you can apply it to your scripts.

More information here.

[david-talks-sw]

Okay so I’m reading through the screenplay of Revenge of the Sith and get to this moment, here:

But this is how it’s described on the page:

And for a second, I don’t know why, all I could picture was:

Palpatine: *realizes he's out of options, shrugs and just starts SCREAMING at Mace* Mace: *puts away his saber and SCREAMS right back*

Anakin: *walks into the room to find sheer chaos*

Just a random tidbit I thought it was funny 😂

[nowmemoriees]

their breath catches.

[devonellington]

Tues. June 13, 2023: Peeking Between The Pages

image courtesy of Ag Ku via pixabay.com Tuesday, June 13, 2023 Waning Moon Pluto Retrograde Rainy, warm, humid How was your weekend? Ready for the regular Tuesday natter? Today’s serial episode is from Legerdemain: Episode 93: Descendants of Doom Pub Tracking Grimmkins is thirsty work. Legerdemain Serial Link Legerdemain Website Friday seems very far away. But I was out of the house…

[henrysglock]

Now…I might sound insane, but it’ll be worth it if I end up being right.

I think this might be half a script, and the final product is the other half of it.

There are key, emphasized points in here that are essentially inverse-swapped from the final filmed product.

Final Filmed Product: - Heavy emphasis on Martin Brenner, sound effects and everything. - Brenner being placed at the center of the 1959 massacre by his involvement with the Creel mother. - Henward having been exposed to Brenner often enough to want to escape him before the 1959 massacre. - The Creel Mother despising Henward. - Henward was forced to kill because he was cornered in the situation with Brenner, - Barely any mention of Victor, but the mention we do have talks about a demon (which only appears in the Henry newspaper). - Strange, abrupt dialogue cut to Victor's arrest (i.e. "He was arrested..." with no clear mention to El of who "he" is). - Tattoo reads 00—

Script: - Brenner never mentioned to El by name by Henward - Brenner having no direct link to the 1959 massacre - No mention of the Creel Mother...at all. - Killing to escape his family framed as Henward's next logical step - Victor is focused on, his arrest is not mentioned, and neither is the demon. - Tattoo reads 001 right off the bat.

It's also so bizarre to me that even after the Henry-001 reveal in this script, he's never referred to as Henry. Henry is named in the flashbacks, but when it's NINA dialogue it's always One. One is never equated to Henry.

Even here:

Never "Henry is One". Just "Henry is Vecna." and "One is Vecna."

We also have an entirely different transformation scene, one that would have more adequately tied Henward to Vecna without giving us that bizarre Brenner face overlay:

Which brings me to my final assertion: (Once again) There are two different Vecnas.

This would absolutely track with my observations about the mirror shards (here), the unaccounted for jumpsuits (here), the differences in build between Vecnas (here), and the Max/Maxine swapping (mentioned in script talk here, but it also appears in the final filmed product).

(And for heaven's sake, if you're thinking of coming into my reblogs with talk of revisions and unscripted changes: please don't. I have considered that, and I don't particularly care because there's a pattern to the changes.)

Script available here: link

[tripleprod]

Very few time ago we hired a scriptwriter for writing scripts. But time is continuously changing. Now we can do automated script writing with AI technology.  Click here for details.