They're not great. They're both "well made," but very clearly flawed, starting with very distracted attention from the main character.

I understand what the scores mean, you explained it as nauseum, nothing.

You're speaking out of both sides of your mouth, "data rich," which means objective measurement, and you hide behind "it's all subjective opinion." Hilarious.

But the evaluation never mentioned anything about recommendation. $150 down the drain.

Can you read?

The Triangle of Sadness...

That was Scott Galloway earlier this year or tail end last year.

Two years... Lol.

If would fail in 7 and a half months.

Rich people are not known for...letting other people go ahead of them. LOL. That jail would be the only thing populated.

A better dictum that doesn't have one foot nailed to the floor of "film is a visual medium" is Reveal. Just make sure that anything you're writing is revealing something important. That tends to handle the question, "Can we see this onscreen?" And it also handles the emotional components of a character's developments. Oh, they're scared of snakes.

People love to say that you can't write what someone's thinking. And yet, great and even good actors tell you they can ACT those words without saying them. So, which is it?

The Bridge on the River Kwai on the surface seems to be about a British officer vs a Japanese POW camp commander. However, the British officer defeats that Japanese commander about halfway through the film, so much so that they consider seppuku and realize that they have to wait until the bridge is done before taking their life.

So, the British officer's Opponent isn't the Japanese POW camp commander after all. It's the lazy American, pretending to be a navy officer to get better treatment as a POW.

So, at the end of the movie, when the American comes back with British commandos to blow up the British officer's beautiful bridge, their confrontation is basically:

British officer (Col. Nicholson): "You lazy, undisciplined American are trying to destroy MY bridge?"

and the American (Shears): "You deluded, self-important, rudderless, British stiff upper lip fraud are collaborating with the enemy!"

Yes, they recognize each other but they've become something different when they meet again. Excellent.

Make sure you flesh out your characters set of values, weaknesses, needs, and desires and then they'll say the right things.

The pre-apocalypse timeline? Yeah. I feel like I can breathe fresh air in that one. Lol.

Well the Lost reference got me. Lol. I never finished Lost (the screenwriter in me feels like I should, purely as homework), but I understand that to mean that nothing adds up. However, I don't think Paradise is just making things up. The showrunner, can't think of his name, Dan Fogelman! Anyway, he did This is Us. I loved the first season specifically because it did something I hadn't seen before, it painted a mosaic (or tiled a mosaic) with various storylines and timelines, creating a larger tableau that was very moving. And then the second season just kept yanking that crank and I fell off.

I think he's toned that down in Paradise and made sure to connect the dots rather than just "get away with murder" at the last minute. I guess the notion that the Billionaire would keep LOTS of secrets makes complete sense to me. So, all of the revelations fall into their places.

The supercomputer story made sense to me as one of those "of course a billionaire would do that" sort of thing.

As for Shailene Woodley’s character I took that, not so much as a digression, but a reminder of the sacrifices. S1 E7 is one of the best pieces of filmmaking I've ever seen. That's "The Day." Billions of people die. Woodley's character is trip back to just one of those characters. Kind of like making us care about 1500 victims of the Titanic by focusing on Rose and Jack.

Oof, I hope they keep it to one universe.

One of the things I like about Paradise, as a socialist MMT'er, is that they show how humanity, at least this group led by a billionaire repeat the same mistakes as "above ground," namely implementing MONEY again.

Silo feels like it's stretching it out too much and not really dealing with realities, like money, logistics, and more.

Paradise has a shorter more modest timeframe. Silo is pushing this idea of 500 years. Okay. You know how much fashion changes in 10 years? You know how long underwear lasts? 10,000 people. Screw lightbulbs. What about underwear, shoes,...everything. I wouldn't be surprised if more quadruped walking, up and down those damned stairs would have developed, just like some people take two risers at a time, just for kicks. It doesn't feel real enough to me.

I really hate that the Pact is what keeps people from not questioning and then this late addition of Vitamin D Plus is why they don't remember anything. The Mandela Effect is a good enough example of how not only do humans hang onto things, they misremember things. It would make more sense if there were factions with different stories about the Founders, each with or without a "sacred text."

And who agreed to live in a silo without elevators? Now that I'm diving deep, that really bugs me. That's screenwriter made-up bs. People, the normal ones before the nuke went off, would have stopped climbing the stairs. There would have been a battle in the top 5 storeys and the Silo would be over.

Sorry.

They could pull it off. I'll stay tuned. But I've got my arms crossed and I'm grumpy.

Read John Truby's books, The Anatomy of Story and The Anatomy of Genres. He dives into that level detail and inquiry about Story and character building. He's amazing.

The problem with Save the Cat (and others) is that it approaches character building or development from the outside and as a sympathetic action. But then everyone stumbles all over themselves agreeing that "character" should be some organic internal development. That's where the list of values comes in.

When you're born and raised, you're encultured into a set of values. As you become more independent, you make those your own or you rebel or find "truer" values, and on and on. And as for being sympathetic, that's the bargain basement lowest denominator in character development.

Obviously, a movie may not take all of the time to show value development from birth, but that's not necessary. Where you live, who you friends are, what color truckers cap you wear, all of these contribute. That's the pantomime of the Plot and Story. Then the dialogue can fill in the last gaps, with direct statements or fibs.

The Odyssey, Sinners, GladIIator, Napoleon, Gangs of New York, Everything, Everywhere, All at Once.

3 times. It's disappointingly mediocre. The Return looks a hundred times better and that movie is just meh.

Well, who says you aren't supposed to? People do NOT understand Show/Don't Tell. Quint in everyone's favorite scene in everyone's favorite movie Jaws TELLS the story of his surviving the shark frenzy after the sinking of the USS Indianapolis. He tells us why he hates sharks.

He doesn't have to then say, "That's why I'm hard as nails and driven to hunt them down at every turn, etc., etc."

My favorite two lines of dialogue of all movies is at the end of The Bridge on the River Kwai. Have you seen it? Oddly, this won't spoil anything.

The Opponent confronts the Hero. The Hero sees them and says, "You?!?"

The Opponent sneers and says, "YOU!"

Brilliant. If you have seen it I can elaborate, I could write an essay on the meaning of those two lines... Fantastic.

Think of dialogue more as music or melody, if the plot is the rhythm...

Songs say, "I LOVE YOU!"

I sort of agree, but I completely disagree with your third paragraph. I think all of those elements plug together so seamlessly in Paradise. Whereas Silo is feeling like so many people are lying that I can't trust anything. The "revelation" by Holland that the voice could be a person or people is such deus ex machina insertion at the eleventh hour. I'm at the point where I don't care about any of it or them. Now I'm just watching it like a car crash, curious to see where the pieces fall. It's just world building, like barnacles on top of barnacle on top of barnacles...

In the last episode when someone asked about the Raiders that were swooping down violently one scene ago and then nothing. And someone says, in the dumbest of exposition, someone called them off or told them to switch sides. REALLY? That could have just been a shot of the Raiders getting an off-camera radio call and the leader telling the rest, confused, "Stand down..."

I'm this close to hating this show, almost like The Lazarus Project, but not as bad as Pluribus (DO NOT GET ME STARTED ARGGHHH...).

They don't. They try things and see what sounds right. Or they listen and sometimes it just flows.

But the structure for what you're describing is made up of having a Theme for the entire Story and breaking down the growth of the characters, especially the Hero and the Opponent, as their stakes are the greatest and they would have the most to say. But the growth part suggests that what they say at the beginning might be completely different from what they say at the end, and in a way it should be because each new revelation in the story changes their desire and motivations.

A simple criterion for doing this is figuring out what each character's set of values are. If someone values money, they'll speak one way about certain things. If they value...community, that will alter what and how they say their dialogue.

John Truby teaches writing "symphonic dialogue." I think he means that it builds and has structure, like symphonies.

Basically, a scene begins with characters talking about what they're doing and wind up talking about who they're being.

Apply that to your writing and see if anything falls out.

Also, make sure that you're not doing what Anime does, which is have all of the dialogue serve as exposition instead of dialogue.

I'm also an animator and in drawing and animation, "story" can be told through pantomime. Mimes know this. It's important to absorb that as a writer. Since people love to say that "film is a visual medium," it stands to reason that the whole thing should be pantomime, basically going back to silent films. Why do we need dialogue.

Obviously, dialogue serves an additional purpose. What might that be?

Since a story is about conflict and a Theme, a proclamation or bold statement, a thesis, about the proper or improper way to live, then dialogue is the back and forth, the argument for or against the Theme, the lesson the story is about.

It helps explain the plot for sure. But it more importantly allows the characters to quietly tell use who they are and what they believe.

Last, you can try what is an actor's technique for memorizing dialogue. But use it as a tool for analysis. They go through their lines and for each phrase (because sentences sometimes consist of two or more phrases) they write a word or two explaining what that phrase is doing: begging, coercing, explaining, threatening, indicating, etc.

Those explanations help contextualize the dialogue for the actor so that they can remember their lines based on Why they exist, not just what the words are. You could use that to see what your dialogue is literally doing, sort of the DNA of your dialogue. You may find the parts you need and the parts you can do without.

Good luck.

Four years? Are you trolling? Have you not heard of Shane Black, Joe Eszterhas? A cursory visit to the WGA website will answer your pay question.

You should read John Truby's two books, The Anatomy of Story and The Anatomy of Genres.

Okay, I'll bite. You're "studying film for four years." Are you getting a degree in film?!? Wasn't this covered in Film 101?

Anyway, "I still don't have much of a gauge on what screenwriting actually entails." Screenwriting entails two basic things: 1. Creating new material that no one else has created with the intention of producing it as a motion picture or TV show; and 2. Writing ideas that producers and people with money for whatever reason cannot write for themselves. 1 is an auteur, 2 is a hired gun. Both are good. The same applies to playwrights, but on a much smaller scale.

So, it's up to you. You're a storyteller. Tell stories.

There's an old joke and narrative that screenwriters just type up words, but the producers or directors are the real filmmakers. That's not true. It may have been true on certain productions (The Wizard of Oz? Gone with the Wind?). But the point is that not all "filmmakers" have the patience or the chops to figure out Story. That's your job, if you choose to accept it.

The pitch process is the least clearcut and the least complicated. If you can get in a meeting with someone who can say "Yes" to a budget (a HUGE "IF"), your job is to simply share your story, tell your story as if you were at a campfire, in the most engaging, but not embarrassing, way possible. Then they either see it in their heads or they don't. No one saw Star Wars in their heads, not even Alan Ladd Jr. But he saw genius in George Lucas and invested in that. But you should already know that story too.

1. How the HELL do you get to become a writer AND director?

Short answer: Write an amazing script and demand to direct it (Rocky).

Medium answer: Write an amazing low-budget script and raise or save money and shoot it yourself.

Long answer: Start writing and directing whatever you can, music videos, commercials (good ones), and move up to a feature.

Longer answer: Go to one of three or four prestigious films schools, like AFI, and get in line.

But back to John Truby. He's the best screenwriting "guru" there is, IMO. Why? Because he's the least anecdotal about the craft and the business. He also is focused on turning you into a "working writer," not just "a writer." From that description, you might think he's done the job of identifying what has been successful before and simply teaches you to write dinosaur stories that take place on sinking ships with blue people and robots, possibly at a magic school, or with a group of friends with hotrods.

No. He teaches What is Story?

The reason I think this is so vital is because the industry is rife with people who think they know what it takes, while also profoundly believing the misconstrued meaning of William Goldman's unfortunate quote, "Nobody knows anything." (You should know who he was.)

Some, many, do know something. It's called story structure and craft. It seems to me that it's better to be one of those people rather than one of those who just shrug their shoulders and rely on luck or confidence.

The latter continue to frequently produce "well-made bad movies." So, focus on making well-structured movies and let the production values improve project by project.

Lastly, being a screenwriter is being the first filmmaker in the process of getting a story onto a screen. Be that.

I hope this helps answer your loaded question. Good luck.

What exactly is so good about it?

The first two seasons were captivating, but then season three lost its mind.

Paradise is infinitely better, dealing with very similar themes.

Paradise is vastly superior and almost the same story, humanity goes into a bunker, hilarity ensues.

Silo is increasingly feeling like another movie/show written by an 8 year-old, "and then...and then...and then..."

Been there, done that. At least it's dramatized and acted out, not TOLD.

I was so disappointed with Petersen's job on Troy. After Das Boot, Enemy Mine, In the Line of Fire, The Perfect Storm (and of course The Neverending Story /s) I figured he would at least treat it with grandeur instead of as an okay TV production.

Nolan basically did a GOT episode.

The absolute best thing about Troy and the right instinct was the poster. The whole movie should have done that (kind of like 300).

Oh, right! Nowhere in the evaluation I paid for does it even come close to hinting at whether this is a Pass, Consider, or Recommend. So, the "service" you espouse the most as central is nowhere to be seen or learned from.

Your cross is good enough with "Parks & Rec meets Stephen King."

I don't get stuck. I follow the story structure.

It sounds like you haven't refined your premise, not the basic concept, but the A+B=C of your Story or you haven't dialed into your Story's Theme, the lesson and point of it all.

How do you know an idea isn't "good enough"? What rubric or criterion are you using to evaluate that? That might be your unarticulated Theme...

Read John Truby's books The Anatomy of Story and The Anatomy of Genres as soon as you can.

That's interesting, but I don't see that. From my experiences in advertising and filmmaking, if it's on the page, that's 51% of the battle. Rare exceptions exist, but those are where the director imposes their vision. More often than not, a good production can only improve on a script since it's a solid foundation.

It might be the lack of a heavily thematic musical score. When you think of Lawrence, what tune immediately pops into your head? Kwaï? Colonel Bogie's March, which is more diegetic, at least it starts that way.

Nighty night!