You don't need a shouting match, you need dramatic beats within scene. Are all your characters the same? If they aren't, they read like they are. Some push back by one or two of them would add something. extra.

I'm not sure why you believe that it's anything other they have things to do.

Finger print guy must be a slight of hand or he hit the cutting room floor, so not an important character. However, note that the audience knows something about him before they hear his voice.

Oh okay, how does the audience know something about him before they hear his voice?

Well I thought I did have that pushback since the prosecutor thinks he doesn't have a case, but the cop wants him to go through with it any way and take a chance. Isn't that pushback?

The finger print guy's skills are given in the first phone call. They learn he;s an expert, respected by a key character.

It's weak push back, the cops should know that they've got a weak case and they have to prove someone is lying, otherwise it won't hold up in a criminal case. In a scene that long, you need to sense their different characters, at the moment you don't.

Oh okay, thanks I can try to write the characters differently.

The cops do not have to prove the victim is lying do they? I thought that was up to the defense. But the police want to pressure the defedant into cutting a detail the other villains, so in order to do that, they have to give the appearance that they are going through with the case, in order to pressure him.

The cops don't need to prove it, but it may be unlikely a case will proceed if everyone is doubtful, since they know she/he will come under cross examination and they don't have evidence to back them up. Rape cases can be difficult in this regard, so this is part of the drama.

To put pressure on a defendant, they will need to know enough evidence to put the pressure on. Of course, they may just use a plea bargaining system, but dramatically it's better if there's pressure applied.

Oh okay. Yeah they want to apply pressure so the defendant will take the plea bargain of course. But the way I wrote it was they decide not to put the victim on th stand, in the case, since she is not being reliable, and hope to pressure him with the other evidence, and just rely on evidence based prosecution as pressure.

That's a poor way of telling a story, unless you're doing "The Godfather II".

Oh okay, how is it a poor way of telling a story?

Because if someone just confesses, there's no story to tell because there's no struggle,

Oh yeah, the villain doesn't confess, and the plan doesn't work.

I would tighten up the scene and try to introduce the prosecutor earlier in the film as a set up. It can be part of a scene that has nothing to do with this case. I would do this if they are going to be doing more than one phone call,

They could be a woman, just to make a change to male cops.

Oh okay. I originally had the prosecutor in an earlier scene, but I decided to cut it because I just thought it wasn't needed, and it saved having to use the actor for another scene. But if it's needed, it's needed. Are you saying it's because he is on the phone that he needs an earlier scene?

I also thought it would be more interesting perhaps, if this case, which deals with rape, was prosecuted by a male world, so to speak, and thought that would make it more interesting, accept for the judge in the case, who is female. Or at least that was the goal, was to have it from a male prosecution. But perhaps I could make the prosecutor female, if that is better.

Henderson in the room is also female, in case the readers on here, do not know of course :). Not sure if that helps though.

When you say to introduce the prosector in a scene that has nothing do with the case, what would the prosecutor being doing then though, if it's not related to the plot at hand?

People here know very little about your script other than some basic stuff.

Have to do what best serves the story, not cutting back on the actors. Having the prosecutor establishes the relationship between him and Henderson and how they get on.

If Henderson is female, it's OK with having the male prosecutor.

Oh okay. I am happy to discuss the script for sure. Well Henderson is only in three scenes so far. I wrote her because I was told in my research to have a female officer interview the victim. So she is in the interview scene as well as this office scene that follows. I also wrote her in at the climax when she plays one of the arresting back up officers, with SWAT. But her being a part of the climax, also depends on actor availability for later so far as well.

But that's all I wrote for her so far, and she is more of a later draft character, or at least that's how I had it so far.

You mean, that you're going into detail on what I assume is music for this film and lighting, plus other technicalities and you haven even sorted out your characters yet?

This is putting the cart before the horse...

No I had all the characters sorted out. It's just that there were some concerns and suggestions on here, about some things in the script so I was just being open-minded about making changes.

Since we were talking about the story and tone of the script, I have another question about it, out of curiosity.

I was told my screenplay is not 'graphic and violent enough' for a thriller but is this a bad thing?
I was trying to get consultation for my script and here is the logline I have so far:
“After a mysterious group plagues the city with a series of kidnappings and sexual assaults, a victimized police officer, seeks revenge, before they strike again.”

I showed the script to some other filmmakers and a couple of them came to the same conclusion and said that I don't understand the market, the "rape and revenge" genre market they said. They said that the reason people see these microbudget horror thrillers, is because of the graphic violence and gore, and that's the audience for them. But I portray things too subtly and do not show that much at all.

They also said that the plot is too sophisticated and too much about character, rather than the violent and slashing spectacle that the market is looking for. They say I need to write a script for the market that concentrates on these things, because people are only interested in a sophisticated story, with character concentration, if it's going to have big name actors.

If the actors are not known, they want graphic horror movies, which concentrates more on the violence and gore. This market and genre is spectacle driven and not character and plot driven.

But is this true, and I have to make a movie like that to appeal to the market, if the market is only interested in graphic horror thrillers, if they have no stars compared to more subtle horror thrillers? Do they have a point?

It depends on why you're wanting to make this movie in the first place. Is it a personal project, a story that's been bubbling up from inside you for years that you just have to tell? Then don't compromise. Do you genuinely want to make money from distributing it? Then listen to those who have experience (and hopefully success) selling their work. Are you mainly hoping to use it as a resume piece to get the attention of producers and future work in the industry? Something that is unique, striking, a little offbeat and meticulously crafted is in order. And it doesn't have to be a full length feature.

Probably, your ambitions include all of these elements, but when just starting out, it may be helpful to choose one end goal to concentrate on and let that be the guiding principle for all the decisions you make. So far it isn't clear, to me at least, what objective you have in mind.

Personally, I think making a profit is likely to be very, very difficult, especially for an inexperienced director and crew. If that's your goal, then go for it whole-heartedly, but for myself I would make it the least of my priorities.

Yeah for sure. I would say all three, if possible. But I wouldn't know how to make an 'exploitative film', if that's the type movie that the audience for this type of premise wants. So I wan to listen to other experienced people, but at the same time, how do you make one, especially out of fear, that exploitation might make the material worse?

exploitative film in this genre = “i spit on your grave” literally a rape/revenge film. Thats the kind of film theyre telling you to make.

Well the thing about making a movie like that is there is not a plot of plot and the plot recycles itself, but maybe that's what they want?

Also, my script ends in a violence begets violence tragic ending, and maybe readers found this disappointing, and perhaps want a more successful, pro-revenge ending?

I dont know about all THAT good sir, but you said you wouldnt know how to make an exploitative film so I was simply telling you exactly the kind of film they mean

Oh okay, for sure, thanks :). What is about that movie that is so good though, or why there is a larger audience for it?

probably what you said...not a lot of plot. In this case a good thing. violence, nudity, the catharsis of seeing the victim slaughter her attackers. ching ching ching bring on the gold bars.

Oh okay. But I thought nudity was no longer a big deal in the age of free internet porn nowadays. Why is not a lot of plot a good thing, especially since I was always told I have to keep the story moving and don't slow down?

How much nudity will depend on the market and the rating you want to get It also depends on how it's being used, the culture involved and the world of the story.

You don't need large amounts of either violence and nudity in a thriller, from memory the Dutch thriller from 1988 "The Vanishing" has very little of either, Not to be confused with the American remake.

I'm no prude by any means, but the productions I have been involved with over the years that feature nudity and sexual content to do feature on my CV at all. More recently, I'm spotting that more and more younger people also find it something they wish to distance from - even though they're well aware of it.

Back in the 70s and 80s we had movies with all kinds of nudity - from horror to comedy, and actresses of that period did it routinely as part of career progression. Now it is much less common. Google an actress from the 70s and there will be boobs, try it on an actress from 2000 onwards and far, far less. It's no longer a career progression route, so they don't do it. I'm not sure people even like it in a general release movie.

Having an X certificate limits your market and since it's so easy to access hard core porn for free on the internet, there is no real reason for mainstream films to feature nudity as a selling point.

You still get small amounts, even in TV dramas, but there's less of doing so for the sake of it.

Oh okay. Well nudity was not mentioned in the critique, but just more violence and gore, and showing more of the sexual violence was mentioned. But they didn't say whether or not to show nudity during it.

However, when it comes to more violence and gore, how descriptive should I be in the script, and how graphically should one shoot it...

For example, I wrote in the script that one character kills another with a baseball bat... I just wrote it so that he kills him with the bat and that's it, no more description in terms of gore. But should I write it so that the brains spill out all over the floor and everything and get that detailed? Or does that come off as a little gratuitous or over explaining?

Another thing is, I was told the script had too much plot compared to what audiences of this sort of thing expects. But I was told on here, before that the plot wasn't moving fast enough, so I am confused now for a thriller, if more or less plot is a good thing?

As for an X or NC-17 rating, I think with online streaming, nobody really cares anymore, since people watch NC-17 content all the time... Game of Thrones for example... So does that rating matter anymore in today's online streaming market, where anything seems to go almost?

You do what is dramatically appropriate for the character and the story.

It's often the build up and context of the violence that matters In the script. You describe what you'll see. You can read the scripts of "The Untouchables", "Casino" and various other films to see how they describe them. Don't expect other people to do your work for you.

Strangely, you can get less complaints about violence than nudity.

Oh okay. When you say you can get less complaints about violence and nudity, compared to what?

I've seen The Untouchables and Casino but it seems that I am being told to go beyond those even.

Theyre talking about the very American trope of people freaking out over an exposed nipple but you can show heads getting bashed all day long with nary a raised eyebrow

I think I need to clarify again ryan’s colleagues are complaining that his script is not enough in the aforementioned exploitation genre, a la “I spit on your grave”, and that is what they are trying to push him toward with his own movie. This is what’s confusing him. You guys are trying to tell him how to make a more typically “good” movie (proper plot arc, character development etc) while his friends are trying to tell him how to make specific genre film that often has none of that.

It depends on why you're wanting to make this movie in the first place. Is it a personal project, a story that's been bubbling up from inside you for years that you just have to tell? Then don't compromise. Do you genuinely want to make money from distributing it? Then listen to those who have experience (and hopefully success) selling their work. Are you mainly hoping to use it as a resume piece to get the attention of producers and future work in the industry? Something that is unique, striking, a little offbeat and meticulously crafted is in order. And it doesn't have to be a full length feature.

Probably, your ambitions include all of these elements, but when just starting out, it may be helpful to choose one end goal to concentrate on and let that be the guiding principle for all the decisions you make. So far it isn't clear, to me at least, what objective you have in mind.

Personally, I think making a profit is likely to be very, very difficult, especially for an inexperienced director and crew. If that's your goal, then go for it whole-heartedly, but for myself I would make it the least of my priorities.
This was a good post. I was fully expecting Ryan response would be all of the above. One of the things he is plagued by is lacking focus and acting with a specific goal in mind. He is constantly bouncing from around every conceivable aspect of film making and doing it all poorly. I've asked him before what is the intended purpose or budget of this film and never can get a straight answer from him. No doubt it's because he doesn't even know himself.

There are many things that go into making a successful film and Ryan wants to know the rules so he can follow them but it doesn't work that way. One thing I know for sure this movie will not make money. He would first need to become a competent film maker then after that you could talk about what scripts, approaches, contacts would yield the greatest chance of financial success. Very few people are able to make a go at this business...

I've seen The Untouchables and Casino but it seems that I am being told to go beyond those even.

yes, but have you read the scripts?

You were asking how you write these scenes, so read the scripts, don't just keep asking other people. Read "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer" and other similar screenplays if need be, they're available on line. If you want to be a script writer, that's what you..

BTW Get the scripts, not transcripts..

Oh okay. I don't see why it's bad to want to use it to get noticed in the industry but also try to make money off of it as well, if possible. Is it bad to want both?

But also, if I read scripts like The Untouchables and Casino, what I mean is, is that those scripts are in a different genre compared to something like I Spit on your Grave, so is the level of violence the same really?

....You guys are trying to tell him how to make a more typically “good” movie (proper plot arc, character development etc) while his friends are trying to tell him how to make specific genre film that often has none of that.

Yes! Yes!

You guys post faster than I can read!

Why does violence have to be [edit: shown] in a video? The old radio mystery programs never had video and yet they covered lots of violence. In fact, the programs dealt with essentially everything that is shown in a movie or on TV in a video, and the listeners visualized what happened.

War of the Worlds, the movie, oh, wait a minute, the radio program … was broadcast years before, in the 1930s or early '40s? Hollywood eventually made the movie, but the radio program gripped the audience throughout the nation. It took years before the movie would be made that would try to duplicate the audience reaction.

So, why must the blood, guts, and bodily harm be actually shown in a video? Does the viewing public have feelings anymore?

For what it’s worth, during this lockdown I’ve read two books, one published in 1840 (that’s 180 years ago), about a British couple who moved to Canada (and then to New England), and a second one written in the time frame of 1850 to 1860, published in 1980 (where the author moved from New England to the mid west, then finally to California during the gold rush), and the writing style is very interesting. Much more poetic than today, and much more “wordy”, probably not the best word choice, but the authors really wrote a lot more about FEELINGS than the typical author does today. This is difficult to explain but the reader got more into the characters, their thoughts, their reactions, body movements, etc., than the typical prose of today’s writing. The old radio programs, many only 30 minutes long and included commercials, seemed to elicit more feeling than todays TV programs, in-spite of all the color and high resolution available.

We hear about the plight of victims all the time, so have we become insensitive to the pain of others?
Is it necessary to VISIBLY show someone being hurt as part of a story? Descriptions and audio don't work?
Or, animals don’t have feelings because they aren’t human?

[recent news article on the BBC about swine (I think, or calves?) taken to Spain for fattening, then shipped, in cramped conditions where many died in transit, to Lebanon(?) for slaughter. Won’t go into detail how they were slaughtered] Are we numb now?

Do you think maybe it's a case in marketing where indie filmmakers are able to show more than Hollywood is willing to show, and maybe therefore, movies that push the envelop in violence, and sexual violence are bigger sellers, because they stick out from the crowd in terms of pushing the envelope?

For example in my script, one of the readers, a different one said I should show a rape scene, where it was implied but not shown before. She said that not having it would be like cutting out the shower scene in Psycho, and just skipping ahead.

So maybe from a standpoint like that, a movie is willing to get noticed more, if it's more daring in what it shows, like Psycho, compared to trying to be subtle, when trying to get your movie noticed?

The first step is doing something well. The second step having the right people notice what you did. You haven't accomplished the first step. The other thing we were talking about is if you have as specific goal then you can direct your energies. So a script to show off your unique and artistic vision would be different than one to show that you're good at doing mindless action junk. The first approach might win you a film festival award and lead to opportunities, while the other you might be hired to do b-movie crap or tv soap opera. No one wants someone who is mediocre at a bunch of things they want someone who is fabulous at one thing. If you goal is to make it at all costs, that might mean dropping your script, compromising your vision and doing what the producer wants. When you pick a goal then the decisions become more clear. It doesn't mean you will succeed just you are putting your energies in the right direction and are more likely to achieve your goal.

Oh okay. And another thing is, I was told one thing to improve on the most for me is the acting. But I probably have a better chance at finding a better pool of actors who are interested if it I don't take a b movie approach? Unless maybe people would rather do it as a b movie, because maybe a lot of people prefer b mobies, when it comes to dark material, because they feel it's more of a safe movie, that way?

Reading scripts, regardless of other genres will show how to write action. Each writer will have a different way of doing this and you can learn from them. You're like someone just wanting to learn how to do an effect, rather than learning how to use the NLE,

You've got to improve everything, not just the acting because without a good script the actors have nothing.

There are A movies that do dark subject matter as well, any movie attempting such material shouldn't be safe. However, they're usually B movies because it's harder to get funding for cark subjects because they're not safe..

Oh okay. And yes the person who told me that said that if it's a b movie, it's more likely to get funding. But I'm just not sure how to make it into a b movie.

Ah, but can one even make a b movie with intent? Are we sure those directors weren't doing their absolute best to make artistic gold, and ended up with a B movie instead? Despite what Tommy Wiseau says, The Room was not The Room on purpose.

Oh okay. Well when it comes to a movie in the genre I was advised to for and a movie like I Spit on Your Grave for example, was that intended to be a movie? The script does follow a repetitive formula and is more predictable, at least to me... So did they know that, or were they trying to make something really good, script wise? But also, if b movies are not meant to be made with intent, do investors still know they are b movies when they read the script, if they would rather fund b movies?

They know it's a B movie when reading the script, just as some of the modern A movies are basically B movies.

Some B movies are better than some A movies, you just don't start writing a bad script for the genre.

Oh okay well they tell me the script will sell better if it was a b movie script more so, so they are implying it is not b movie-ish enough then, rather than already being a b movie script?

Are you sure you know what a B movie is? I suspect you have misunderstood the history. Low budget doesn't always mean bad, and some B movies are excellent - BAD movies die a painful death. Of course some are just not very good, but very famous actors were in B movies and it never did their careers and harm.

If you have a bad movie, it won't become good by getting a B movie tag. Really, I think B movies were like B sides on a record. They were the movie choice that came before the A movie - the one people really paid to see, that's all.

If you have crap actors then the movie is just a bad movie. If you know they're bad, it's pointless trying to justify the bad acting by calling it a B movie, because the B movie base is budget. Sure, it can mean poorer sets and costumes too, but primarily there is a B movie feel. The rush to get movie product into hire shops produced all those Hills Have Eyes type movies and of course Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Absolutely B movies, but studios here were churning out loads of budget horror movies too - the Hammer House of Horrors series. These were still decent movies. Peter Cushing and Vincent Price and Christopher Lee cleaned up. If your movie is going badly in the planning, it's bad to try to deliberately turn it into a B movie, but being very honest EVERYTHING about it I think you've now had issues with. A really dodgy script - simply because like me, wanting to write a script does not make it a good one. You have actor issues, camera issues, sound issues, set issues, location issues, music issues, content issues and of course the script you are struggling to make realistic.

We've never established what you're actually a natural at Ryan - you try so hard, but keep making the same mistakes. I wish we could sort it for you.

Oh okay, I am not sure then...

Well I did suggest before that someone else could go through the script and punch up the dialogue since I was told that was a major problem, but I was advised not to do that because it would cost too much. I was also advised before that I could bring in actors from other cities to have more options of a pool to choose from as well, but was told that would cost too much.

So I am not sure what to do then, if I am to keep the costs down.

And yeah, I know what a b movie is, something like the ones you mentioned, or I Spit On your Grave, or Invasion of the Bee Girls comes to mind as well. Something like that?

But I was just told by a couple of other filmmakers, that I wrote a script that is in the "rape and revenge film" genre as they put it, but I go against expectations of that genre, and I should just meet the expectations, rather than try to do something other than, if they have a point.

It depends on how define a B movie, that's an extremely broad church, it covers more than slasher and exploitation movies.

"I Spit on Your Grave" is a horror film, with a long gang rape. I thought you wee making a thriller, You really need to know the story you're trying to tell and which genre it belongs in.

Is there a reason why you want to write this particular script? It just seems to be because someone told you that it would be easy to sell.

That sounds like the beginning of something has little to recommend it as a starting point, At least the writer of "I Spit on Your Grave" claims that it's inspired by an encounter he had with a woman who had been raped by two men. At least that has a starting point in the real world, rather than watching films.

There are a range of films that have rape and revenge, so what makes yours different?

Whatever film you make at this budget will be a B movie, unless you're planning to make an art house movie.

It depends on how define a B movie, that's an extremely broad church, it covers more than slasher and exploitation movies.

"I Spit on Your Grave" is a horror film, with a long gang rape. I thought you wee making a thriller, You really need to know the story you're trying to tell and which genre it belongs in.

Is there a reason why you want to write this particular script? It just seems to be because someone told you that it would be easy to sell.

That sounds like the beginning of something has little to recommend it as a starting point, At least the writer of "I Spit on Your Grave" claims that it's inspired by an encounter he had with a woman who had been raped by two men. At least that has a starting point in the real world, rather than watching films.

There are a range of films that have rape and revenge, so what makes yours different?

Whatever film you make at this budget will be a B movie, unless you're planning to make an art house movie.

Yeah the script I wrote was a thriller, and no one told me to write it. I thought it was a good idea and came up with it on my own, and thought it was the best script I have for the lowest amount of cost.

But I was advised to make it more like a rape and revenge film like I Spit on your Grave or something like that and up the violence and gore, and graphicness of the whole thing. I was also told the plot may be too ambitious. But I did find I Spit on your Grave to perhaps not be an A movie, because the plot recycles itself, so I thought maybe it was a b movie because of that, at least in my perception.

"I Spit on your Grave" would always be a B movie because of its budget it's nothing to do with the plot repeating etc.

There are A list movies, which are based on B movies.The difference being that they've got an A list budget, with A list stars, while the original had a B movie budget.