Reviewing movies that I've seen lately.

When it comes to watching movies, I've tried my best to keep myself updated on most of the recent releases. I've tried to give them a chance and watch them, even though I'm not always that excited about seeing some of these films.

After all, as a screenwriter, it's always a good thing to be aware of the latest movies that are produced and released. Watching these films gives you a solid idea on how well - or badly - written most of these new movies are.

So below are four different films that I've managed to watch in the last few weeks. I've managed to watch 'Johnny English Strikes Back', a spy film 'Red Sparrow', 'Crazy Rich Asians' and an animated movie called 'Wreck It Ralph'.

In any case, the first movie is 'Johnny English 3', a James Bond parody starring Rowan Atkinson  that I watched with my friends. We watched this film during one of our pizza evenings, since we didn't have anything better to do. 

So when it comes to this movie franchise, I have to say that I haven't been that big of a fan of Johnny English movies. Even though Rowan Atkinson is a wonderful actor and a talented comedian, these Bond parodies just haven't been that exciting.

The biggest reason that Bond parodies in general don't work is that there's not much to 'spoof'. The original Bond movies (especially the ones with Roger Moore) already were kind of comedies, so there isn't much left to parody.

So not surprisingly, considering that this was the third Johnny English film, the writers had run out of ideas. There was no consistency in the story or its characters, and the movie felt like a collection of scenes from other spoof movies.

As a whole, especially when it comes to all those 'Naked Gun' scene thefts, I was pretty pissed. These thefts (like the driving school one) were so blatant and so uncreative, that I can't really recommend the movie for almost anyone.

The second film that I saw is 'Red Sparrow', a cold war thriller about a Russian ballerina-turned-spy. This movie, that stars Jennifer Lawrence is a film that I didn't really expect that much from and wasn't really excited about.

After all, since the reviews weren't that good (43% positive at Rotten Tomatoes), I thought that it wouldn't be any good. I'm not that big of a fan of the genre anyway, so I thought that the movie wouldn't have anything special to offer to me.

Nevertheless, once I saw 'Red Sparrow', it turned out that the film was definitely better than I had expected at first. It had a solid storyline, the pacing was rather relaxed and it was beautifully shot - which is always a good thing.

When it comes to the acting in the movie, especially when it comes to Jennifer Lawrence, it's clear that she's the real deal. She gives everything that she has in her role (including being nude), so you can't blame her for not committing to the movie.

The only real problems that I had with the film had to do with its violence and that its ending didn't make enough sense. There was no real reason to create a flashback montage (unnecessary and convoluted) to explain the final spy exchange.

Still, if you like the genre and liked the classic thrillers (Fred Zinnemann's Day of The Jackal), this might be a movie for you. The film is pretty violent, but if you can stomach the rough parts, you should likely give 'Red Sparrow' a chance.

The third movie that I saw is 'Crazy Rich Asians', a romantic comedy about a wedding. The film has a lot to do with Asian culture and how individuals don't get to make up their own minds when it comes to love and getting married.

When it comes to this movie, I had relatively high expectations for the film. It had gotten really good reviews from the critics and I also don't have that much against romantic comedies either - as long as they're well made.

Nevertheless, having seen the film, I have to say that 'Crazy Rich Asians' is a little bit of a mixed bag. I enjoyed many aspects in the movie - especially the Asian culture stuff - but wasn't really sure about some other things in it.

By that I mean that even though the main storyline in the film is pretty interesting, its secondary storylines are pretty weak. They don't have enough story beats and don't get the focus and the attention that they would get in a better screenplay.

Still as whole, the reason that the movie is watchable is because of its premise. The 'ruthless' Asian culture sets up natural obstacles for our protagonists, which makes you root for them and gives this 'tired' genre some of the freshness that it desperately needs.

In that sense, even though the film is pretty stereotypical (it has its usual comic reliefs) you should give it a go and watch it. You should watch 'Crazy Rich Asian's, because despite its clichés, the good aspects in the film outweigh the bad ones.

The fourth and last movie is the animated film 'Wreck it Ralph' that I managed to see a week or so ago. I decided to watch the film, because I hadn't seen it before and because I noticed that they had made a sequel for it too.

So when it comes to the movie, the film (released in 2012) is about a character 'Ralph' who gets tired of being a villain in an arcade game.  In order to become one of the good guys, he goes on a journey to prove himself for others.

The biggest reason that the movie works so well is that the film and its characters are so likable. It's fun to watch Ralph's and Vanella's journey in the land of arcade games trying to reach their goals and defeating the bad guys.

The only clear flaw in the film has to do with its first act and its 'inciting incident'. The catalyst in the movie (Ralph hunting for the gold coin in order to join the club) feels pretty manufactured and isn't as strong as the writers perhaps thought it was.

Other than that, there are so many good things about this animated film. It's fast paced, its characters are likable, the humour in it is creative and especially the film's third act has quality story beats in it that I didn't expect to see.

In that sense, if you haven't seen 'Wreck it Ralph' yet, you should give it a go and watch it. You should watch the film, because even though the movie isn't perfect, as a whole, it's still better than most of the films that are out there. 

Update on my book project: getting feedback.

When it comes to my book writing project, it has to be said that it has taken a lot of work to make the story work. It hasn't been easy to make the story good enough so that I could feel comfortable about sharing it with others.

After all, if your draft isn't good enough, it becomes so difficult to let others check the quality of your writings. It's not easy to give them a chance to read the script and give feedback when there are too many problems with the story and how it's told.

Nevertheless, once I felt that my draft for the book was decent enough, I gave my reader a chance to take a look at it. I gave her (my manager) a chance to read the story, so that she could give me feedback on how to make it better.

So when it comes to the feedback that I got from her, I have to say that her feedback was really well thought out. She managed to find out different problems and noted whether these issues were really important or just minor issues that should likely be fixed.

In any case, when it comes to those 'less than critical issues', she noted that I needed to fix stuff like making sure that the characters sounded their age. I hadn't managed to polish the script so that the characters would always sound as believable as possible. 

The reason for this is that when you have a nine year old female protagonist in your story, you have to be careful with the language and the descriptions that you use. Kids don't understand all the things that we adults are able grasp when it comes to life.

In her 'token' feedback, there was also some other fairly minor, mostly language stuff that I needed to fix. These issues had to do with finding better words or sayings for situations that I had somewhat overlooked earlier in the process.

The good thing about all these 'less than critical' problems is that they aren't really that difficult to fix. Once you become aware of them, you can correct these mistakes pretty quickly without having to worry or stress about them that much.

However, the most important feedback that she gave me had to do with a thing that wasn't really that easy to fix. I hadn't thought about the plausibility of one of the scenes that was really crucial in the way the story was constructed.

By that I mean that there was a scene in the script - as it stood - that wasn't plausible (social service legal stuff). I needed to create a workaround for the problem, so that the scene would be plausible enough in real life too.

Not surprisingly, at first I wasn't feeling that confident about the situation that I found myself in. I wasn't that confident that I would be able to find a solution for the problem easily, since I felt that I would have to rewrite the scene almost completely.

After all, had I needed to scrub the scene entirely, I would have been in really big trouble. Since the scene in question happened to be a setup for another storyline, without the existing scene, I would have to come up with tons of new stuff for the story.

Fortunately, when it comes to fixing the problem and the plausibility issues, it didn't turn out to be that difficult to come up with a solution than I had thought at first. It wasn't impossible, even though I did have my doubts and even though I did have to work hard.

After all, as long as I managed to address all the points that my reader had brought up in her notes, I was okay. I just needed to come up with a solid workaround that made the scene plausible and that wasn't too out of character for my protagonist.

In that sense, now that I've gotten reader feedback and have written a new draft, it cannot be emphasized enough how important it is to go through this part of the writing process. It's crucial that you let others read your script and get that feedback at some point.

After all, even though it isn't necessarily easy to let others read your script, giving them an opportunity to evaluate your writings pays off. It will make it so much easier to see the problems in the story (character, language, structure, plausibility etc.).

In the end, that is what being a solid, professional writer really is about. It's about taking that chance and giving your readers the opportunity to take a look at what you've managed to do with your project and not chicken out.

After all, even though they might not be professional readers, that's not a reason to ignore them. You shouldn't be thinking that they're not good enough and that you need to have some kind of a 'guru' to review your script instead.

On the contrary, even though they might not know everything about writing, they still very likely know whether your story works. They know enough to tell whether you're on the right track and what are the things that you still need to improve.

In that sense, not giving them a chance will only lead to you hurting yourself in the process. Not giving them a chance to read will only hurt you and will make it much less likely that you'll create a story that has value and that is eventually going to be worth publishing.

How to prepare for those *bad* days as a writer?

When it comes to being a writer, probably everyone has moments when you can't stand your own writing. No matter who you are, there are moments when you just lose it and feel that you can't manage to get anything right.

This is especially true when it comes to projects that are demanding and time consuming. When you're dealing with projects that take months to complete, it's almost guaranteed that you'll have moments when everything seems to fall apart. 

So when it comes to these 'meltdown' moments - that might even lead to throwing away your script -  you should be prepared for them. Even though you can't prevent these bad days from happening, you can certainly be prepared for them. 

Below are the most important tips for those who tend to have these really awful days as a writer. Following these simple tips will help you and will likely prevent you from doing anything too stupid during your writing projects.

1) Make sure you have a writing schedule that isn't too tight.

If it's only possible, make sure that you reserve enough time for your writing projects. You should have a writing schedule that allows you to make mistakes and that leaves you enough time to get everything (at least most of the things) figured out.

After all, everyone - no matter how talented or experienced you are - makes mistakes as a writer. No one is able to everything right in their first draft, no matter how hard you might be willing to work on your precious project.

In my case, even though I have a pretty tight writing routine, I try to give myself enough time to figure things out. I reserve at least two days for my articles, at least two weeks for my television scripts and a month / several months for movie / book writing projects.

2) Don't write or read your script when you're too tired.

This point should be fairly obvious, but in reality cannot be emphasized enough. If you're too stressed and tired from other things in life, you shouldn't be forcing yourself to write or read demanding stuff if it looks like things won't go your way.

After all, if you're too tired, there's a good chance that you'll freak out and start 'panic editing' your script - especially during a rewrite phase. In these cases you'll make horrible editing choices, and will make your script worse.

In my case, especially if I have had to speak in front of an audience during the day (I'm an introvert) and have had other exhausting tasks, I try not to write much that day. I try to take it easy and work on something else so that things won't get out of control.

3) Know the difference between big and small mistakes.

Even though no one likes making mistakes, you should be able to differentiate big mistakes from relatively small ones. There's clearly a difference between making a big structural mistake and making a simple typo in your screenplay.

After all, no matter how surprised you might be that missed a tiny typo, there's no point in freaking out over these mistakes. 99% of the time, they don't really lessen the value of your script, even though you might be thinking that at first.

In my case, I have tried not to get too bothered about small mistakes anymore. I know that they are easy to fix and even if I don't manage to notice them, those who read my script later won't care about them that much either.

4) Know how to use writing tools / writing software.

One of the things that I have only learned lately is that writing programs have pretty sophisticated 'undo' buttons. It's possible to go back all the way to your first edit of your current session, which can turn out to be really useful.

After all, there are times when you spend hours rewriting stuff without making your script any better. In these cases simply clicking the 'undo'-button will fairly quickly get you back to your earlier draft and you can take another shot at your project.

In my case, especially with my never ending book project, this undo-button has been a real life saver. It has allowed me go back to an earlier version of a draft / paragraph when I haven't managed to improve my draft during a writing session.

5) Remember to take enough copies of your script.

Furthermore, now that pretty much everyone uses a personal computer, saving and taking copies of your script has never been easier. You don't need to use a typewriter and a printer to get extra copies of your manuscript anymore.

The reason to have multiple copies of your scripts on different platforms is to prevent any 'accidents' from happening. If something happens to your copy of the script - laptop breaks down or you'll have an emotional breakdown - you'll have your backups.

In my case, I have multiple copies of my script on both my desktop and my laptop. I upload drafts of my screenplays to my email account and to my google drive, in case something unexpected would happen to my pc or to myself.

6) Understand that you can't always control everything.

In the end, when you put it all together, it's really important that you know that you can't always control things as a writer. Your mind will sometimes pull all kinds of tricks on you and you can't always rely on your brain to work.

After all, there are days when your brain simply won't agree to co-operate with you - no matter how good things might seem at first. There are going to be days when you won't write good stuff regardless of how 'prepared' you might be.

In that sense, the faster you notice that you need to take a break, the better. The faster you understand that you won't able to get things done that day, the easier it is to walk away from the situation and do something else instead.

'Incredibles 2' was a pretty disappointing movie.

When it comes to watching movies, I don't usually have high expectations for most films that are out there. In most cases I tend to keep my expectations relatively low, so that I wouldn't get too disappointed when I see these movies. 

The only exception to this 'rule' is when we're talking about animated films. In these cases I know that most of the time I'm going to see a fairly solid, well made movie that is going to entertain me and keep me happy. 

So naturally, when I was about to watch an animated film called 'Incredibles 2' last week, I knew there was a good chance that I was going to like it. The movie had gotten great reviews and the first one in the franchise had been pretty okay too.

Unfortunately, when it comes to this second film, I have to say that I did not like it that much. Even though most critics gave the film a positive review (94% at rottentomatoes.com), I had a really hard time enjoying the movie.

The biggest reason that I didn't like 'Incredibles 2' had to do with the film's story. The screenplay for the movie was really weak and didn't warrant its almost two hour running time (2 hours and 5 minutes with credits).

By that I mean that there simply wasn't much of a story in the movie. The main storyline, in which the mother character becomes a reality star in order to 'save' the heroes and make them legal, was just too weak and didn't go anywhere.

In reality, pretty much all the story beats in the movie were severely lacking. Especially then ones that happened after the film's catalyst - when the family moves in to the producer's house - were genuinely terrible and awful.

For example, the subplot in which the father - 2nd act's 'fun & games' beat - parenting their kids was super tired and even sexist. There was no fun at all in this storyline, which didn't really seem to have any point whatsoever.

The other pretty terrible arc in the movie had to do with the scenes involving their daughter. The subplot with the daughter and her 'boyfriend' felt really half baked and was just badly written (especially the 'Men in Black' stuff).

Still, the weakest part of the movie had to do with the main storyline involving the family mother trying to catch the 'hypnotizer' villain. This was merely a collection of haphazard sequences, where we tried to find out who the bad guy was.

What was especially bad about this storyline was the identity of the villain. The mandatory villain being the producer's sister made so little sense that I more or less wanted to throw random objects at my television screen.

After all, even after the villainess gave a long monologue to the mother about her 'motive' (she hated super heroes), the stuff made no sense at all. It was simply shocking how amateurishly the story arc was written in the film.

In that sense, when you think about the movie as a whole, it's unfortunate that this was the best that the writers of the film were able to do. This was the best that they were able to come up with fourteen years after the first film premiered.

After all, as far as I can remember, the first 'Incredibles' movie was a rather well made animated film. The first one was a solid depiction of a family trying to balance their lives between being a normal family and a family of super heroes.

On the other hand, when it comes to this new movie, 'Incredibles 2' turned out to be a pretty big disappointment. It didn't manage to bring anything new to the table that would have made me care about the film or its characters.

On the contrary, pretty much all this film did was recycle tired ideas that we've all seen before. It put out half-baked story ideas that weren't good enough and that didn't have enough energy to keep us interested in what was going on.

In that sense, if you haven't yet seen 'Incredibles 2' yet, you might not want to see it. At the very least you shouldn't be getting your hopes up and think that this is going to be an awesome movie that is going to keep you entertained.

After all, despite the film's critical praise, there were too many flaws in the film. These flaws, like the movie being too long and the focus being all over the place, were mistakes that were too serious and that at least in my case, prevented me from enjoying the film.

'Bohemian Rhapsody' is a really good movie.

A couple of days ago me and my friend had a chance to watch 'Bohemian Rhapsody', a biographical movie about the band 'Queen' and its singer, Freddie Mercury. We saw the movie after getting tickets to the film's premiere last Saturday.

The reason that we decided to watch the film wasn't actually that obvious. I didn't feel that excited about watching the biopic, since a lot of the movie critics hadn't liked the movie that much (only 59% fresh on Rottentomatoes.com).

Nevertheless, having now seen 'Bohemian Rhapsody', it has to be said that the film was much better than I expected. It was so good that I don't really understand why critics thought that the movie was somehow lacking and wasn't good enough.

After all, critics - for some weird reason - have complained that movie isn't all that great as a whole. The story in the film is supposedly too 'formulaic',  it doesn't show enough of Freddie's 'dark side' and doesn't make him 'gay enough' either.

The biggest problem that I have with these kind of critiques is that they - in my opinion - miss the point of the film completely. 'Bohemian Rhapsody' was not produced so that it could be as dramatic or as serious (depressing) as possible.

In reality, the film was made so that it could be as entertaining as possible and that it could make people feel good about themselves. It wasn't going to be another 'Freddie's got Aids' movie that the critics were hoping for.

So when it comes to the story in the movie, even though the film is genuinely dramatic in parts and depicts Freddie (Rami Malek) as a gay man (or bisexual), that's not all there is to it. The focus is a lot more on the band and how it became so successful.

Indeed, this decision to pay attention to all the characters works really well. The movie concentrating on the group dynamics of the band and their creative process works much better than just focusing on Freddie's private life.

After all, throughout the movie there's a really nice balance between the cast members and it manages to keep the dramatic and the comedic elements balanced. This harmony in the story gives the movie its much needed energy and its uplifting tone.

In that sense, I can't help but to think that had the film been about Freddie and had it been too serious, it probably wouldn't have worked. The filmmakers wouldn't have managed to capture what made the band work so well together.

After all, had the critics had gotten their way, we probably would have gotten a miserable 'art' film instead. We would have gotten a movie about all the bad moments in Freddie Mercury's life, that would have only been liked by the critics.

In the end, thankfully 'Bohemian Rhapsody's' turned out to be as good as it did. We are lucky that we got a film that is so full of positive energy and that didn't take its audience for granted when it comes to entertaining us.

After all, especially when it comes to scenes where the band performs songs (like in 'Live Aid'), those moments were absolutely incredible. The energetic songs fit in perfectly with the rest of the movie and made the film what it is.

In that sense, if you haven't seen the movie yet, you should see it. You should see the film, because even though critics didn't like 'Bohemian Rhapsody' that much, at least in my view, the film was superbly made and managed to exceed all my expectations.

Your movie's story needs to be consistent.

When it comes to the craft of storytelling, it's not exactly a secret that writing good screenplays isn't easy. Writing a story that makes sense and works from start to finish isn't something that can be done if you don't take your craft seriously.

After all, there are so many mistakes that you can make with your screenplays. If you don't manage to keep your script plausible and consistent, you won't be able to come up with a story that keeps your audience entertained throughout its length.

So when it comes to an actual movie that has a lot of these consistency problems, let's look at Roland Emmerich's film 'White House Down'. This is a movie (released in 2013) that has a lot of  problems when it comes to its focus and plausibility.

In essence, the movie is about U.S Capitol Police Officer (Channing Tatum) and his daughter (Joey King). These two find themselves in the middle of a hostage situation when terrorists manage to invade and take control of the White House.

So when it comes to the story in the film, it has to be said that the first act of the movie (first 35 minutes or so) is actually rather well written. This is when the story feels plausible and you're interested in what's going on.

By that I mean that the movie - for once - doesn't rush things and takes its time in introducing us to the characters. The divorced cop (an underdog) and his smart-ass daughter are in a situation that most of us are able to relate to.

So when things finally escalate in the story, you feel that the movie has potential to be something solid. When a bomb goes off at the capitol hill and the white house gets invaded - the main protagonists are there on a tour - the movie makes sense.

However, the big problems in the film begin when it becomes apparent that the story is not that much about our protagonists. At roughly 40 minute mark, the focus of the film changes pretty drastically - and not in a good way.

After all, this is when it's revealed that this is not a simple hostage movie. It is revealed that the evil 'mastermind' of the movie is not the head of the terrorist group - but the head of the secret service detail (James Woods).

Unfortunately, from that moment on, the movie gets increasingly more convoluted and more implausible. It keeps introducing tons of new - fairly ridiculous - characters to the story that aren't needed and that make the film lose its focus.

Especially when it comes to the hacker (villain), the innocent wife of the mastermind (who agrees with the plot!) and the speaker of the house (part of the plot too), the movie falls apart. It loses its focus and isn't about the father and the girl anymore.

In that sense, when you think about this movie and screenwriting in general, it's clear that quality writing is not about making your script too convoluted. It's not a good idea to write stuff that is all over the place and that doesn't know what it's about.

After all, if you decide to come up with stupid ideas like adding completely implausible plot twists - like the convoluted plot concerning the speaker of the house - things won't work. There are clearly limits to what you're allowed to do in your scripts.

In the end, that was the reason that 'White House Down' didn't work. The writers - as unfortunate as it is - didn't trust their premise or characters and kept adding stuff that didn't make sense and that didn't raise the stakes believably.

After all, instead of the movie concentrating on the father / daughter relationship and keeping the script tighter, it did the total opposite. The film more or less went from a solid, tight movie to a ridiculous 'nukem all' mess.

In that sense, it's really unfortunate that 'White House Down' didn't have a better script. It's too bad that its script was that bad, because had the writers paid more attention to the basics, this could actually have been a fairly solid movie.

I managed to watch some movies again.

Over the last few weeks, me and my friend have managed to watch some movies together again. We managed to watch some of the recently released films that we were hoping would turn out to be worth our time and worth watching.

After all, we didn't really have that high expectations for most of these movies. We were just hoping that some of these films would keep us entertained and that they would not be completely awful and horrible as movies.

In any case, below are my short reviews and opinions on the three films that we watched. We managed to see 'Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom', an action/sci-fi 'B'-movie called 'Upgrade' and 'Hotel Transylvania 3: Summer Vacation'.

So the first film that we managed to watch is 'Jurassic Park: Fallen Kingdom'. This is a movie that we decided to watch, even though we didn't have our hopes up - since we had already seen the first one (Jurassic World).

After all, 'Jurassic World' (2015), in all honesty, was a horribly weak and unnecessary remake itself. It had none of the good qualities that had made the original 'Jurassic Park' (1993) watchable and a well made movie.

Not surprisingly, even though we had tiny hopes that this new movie would be even remotely watchable or entertaining, it wasn't that. This sequel did not offer anything that would have made it better than the first remake.

On the contrary, 'Fallen Kingdom's' story was so awful that every aspect of the story reeked of desperation and the writers running out of ideas. There was nothing original or plausible in the story that was completely ridiculous.

Especially when it came to the 'plot' of the film (stealing & black market selling the dinos), I was only able to shake my head and wonder how idiotic the writers and the producers were. The movie really made no sense at all.

The second movie that we watched is 'Upgrade', a sci-fi movie about a paralyzed man who gets his life back when a microchip is inserted to his body. This microchip contains a program (and a 'master') that allows the protagonist to use his limbs again. 

When it comes to this movie, I have to say that 'Upgrade' wasn't actually a bad film per se. There are certainly positive aspects of the film that make it fairly interesting and watchable (my friend liked it a bit more than I did). 

For example, there's no question that the film has an interesting premise. The movie is well acted, its action scenes are pretty well made - considering the movie's low budget - and parts of the film even managed to be humorous. 

At the same time, 'Upgrade' suffers from a screenplay that isn't that well thought out. Especially when it comes to the movie's third act and finale, the story gets entirely too convoluted and doesn't have a clear point of view.

By that I mean that once the 'artificial intelligence' takes control of the protagonist, that stuff pretty much comes out of nowhere. The stuff doesn't fit in with the rest of the movie and I felt like I was watching an episode of 'The Outer Limits' instead.

Still, that doesn't mean that for those who like action films, this is a no-go movie. Even though the screenplay for the film isn't 'A'-grade and the movie is probably too violent, 'Upgrade' is still a film that you likely should watch at some point.

The third and final movie that we watched is the animated film 'Hotel Transylvania 3'. The series is about a Vampire family (father, daughter and her human husband) that keeps a hotel in Transylvania for its numerous guests.

The reason that we watched the film is because we had enjoyed the first two instalment of the series. The first two movies were pretty well made and you couldn't help but to like the characters and the uplifting tone that they had.

When it comes to the third 'Hotel Transylvania', it has to be said that the story in the third one is not as good as in the previous two instalments. The premise of the 'whole gang going on a holiday on a love boat' isn't that strong.

At the same time, just because the story is a bit laggy, that doesn't mean that I wasn't able to enjoy the film as a whole. I'm not saying that the weak parts (weak catalyst etc.) were able to outweigh the good parts in it.

On the contrary, especially when it comes to the dance scenes in the third act and the film's 'love' angle in the latter half of the second act, those parts made the movie. They were well executed and made me feel pretty happy.

In that sense, even though 'Hotel Transylvania 3: Summer Vacation' could have been a better film, it's still a solid movie. It's a solid movie that you should watch, even though its screenplay could have been more plausible and better written.

Why are most screenwriting books so bad?

Over the last ten or so years, I've spent a lot of time trying to learn movie writing. I've spent countless hours reading and re-reading books that are supposed to give you insight on the basics of storytelling and how to become a better screenwriter.

After all, since writing screenplays is fairly difficult, I thought that it wouldn't hurt to get these books and read them. I thought that there was a good chance that reading these books would help me and would make it easier to write a screenplay om my own.

Unfortunately, having now read almost all of the popular 'how-to' books that are out there, it has to be said that almost all of them are horrible. Almost all of these books are awful and are written by authors who don't know much about movie writing.

In order to show why most of the screenwriting books are so useless, let's look at Robert McKee's 'Story'. This is a screenwriting book that supposedly teaches you 'Award-Winning' methods about the craft and is one of the best 'how-to' guides out there.

So when it comes to this book, the biggest problem with 'Story' is that its advice isn't simple to understand at all. Instead of the book giving you practical advice that you could use, the author is much more interested in confusing the reader as much as possible.

For example, when it comes to those fundamental aspects of storytelling like story beats and story structure, there's very little useful material in the book. I just couldn't get a clear picture of what was going on, no matter how many times I read it.

In hindsight, the reason that the book is so confusing is that before it starts to talk about crucial stuff like the premise or the film's protagonist, we're already one third into the book. This is not good at all and in most cases will turn the reader off.

In reality, the story always starts with the premise of the film and what your main character(s) is going to be like. This is the most important part of the story, yet the author doesn't bring it up before we've reached page one hundred in the book.

Still, the most confusing thing about 'Story' has to do with its diagrams that are supposed to illustrate story structure. These illustrations (see below) that look like electrical circuit diagrams, are confusing and even contain 'false' information.

For example, even though McKee keeps repeating throughout the book how important it is that your scenes alternate between positive and negative (emotionally speaking), as a writer I have never paid any attention to this supposed 'fact'.

On the contrary, I'm pretty sure that paying attention to these ups and downs is redundant and will only make your scripts worse. I just don't see why anyone should worry about this stuff that seems to have 'voodoo science' written all over it.

That same way, I would also be cautious about (again the pic above) overanalysing the characters' desires or their conflicts. I don't see why one should get too obsessed with these different levels of conflicts, because storytelling isn't really that complicated.

After all, even though you obviously need to have characters that are interesting, them having  direction, energy and purpose (a goal) is what counts the most. Writing movies is not about creating characters that are too complicated and too confused.

In that sense, when I think about books like Robert McKee's 'Story', it's clear that reading them is likely going to make you feel confused about the craft. These are not books for those who want to learn the fundamentals of storytelling and story structure.

After all, paying too much attention to books like McKee's (& John Truby's etc.) will only make you less confident. Worrying about stuff like those diagrams will only make you postpone your own projects and make you think that you don't have it in you as a writer.

In the end, I can only be grateful that in my case - after first reading the bad books - I found stuff that was actually helpful and easy to understand. Solid books like Blake Snyder's 'Save The Cat' series gave me hope and helped me to write my own screenplay.

After all, unlike those other books, 'Save The Cat' didn't try to make the process any harder than it is. Instead of confusing the reader, it gave me a simple 'story formula' that felt natural and wasn't too restrictive in its approach to story structure.

In that sense, if you want to become a screenwriter, you should read those good books instead of the bad ones. You should read the good ones, because they are the ones that can help you and that can give you the chance to understand what storytelling really is about.

You shouldn't overthink things as a writer.

When it comes to writing, it's not exactly a secret that it's not easy to come up with quality stuff. Writing stuff that makes sense and has value is something that takes a lot of effort and is something that should never be taken for granted.

After all, in order to be able to write quality scripts, you have to work hard and use your precious brain well. You can't slack with your projects and phone things in, no matter how good or capable you might be as a screenwriter.

At the same time, just because writing quality stuff is hard work and is difficult, it shouldn't be something that is too difficult for you. You shouldn't find yourself in situations where you worry about the process too much or you keep overthinking yourself to death.

For example, when it comes to my book writing project (adaptation from a movie script), I was in a lot of trouble because I kept overthinking things all the time. I couldn't see things clearly and I kept freaking out about what I was supposed to do.

The biggest reason for my problems was basically that I had no previous experience in writing a book. I didn't know enough about writing a children's book, even though I knew a lot about writing for television and movies. 

In practice, overthinking stuff lead to me constantly overanalysing and micromanaging things. I worried about things like paragraphs, transitions and character dialogue so much, that at some point I couldn't see the forest for the trees anymore.  

Me worrying and overthinking become so serious that I started to feel that I wouldn't get the project finished. I thought that there was no way that I would get the book completed and that my story wasn't suitable for the adaptation.

Thankfully, at some point I managed to take a break from writing and went back to learning more about the craft. I went back and read books like Enid Blyton's 'Five Series' in hopes that I would get some insights on how to write my book.

Fortunately, it didn't take long before I noticed that reading these children's books helped me immensely. I noticed that I had been panicking in most cases for no reason at all and that I had actually been doing the right things all along.

After all, even though I had worried about everything, I noticed that I could get away with a lot of things. Things like my scene transitions weren't actually that bad and my dialogue for the characters was pretty solid too.

In that sense, when you think about overthinking, it's clear that the process has a lot to do with  experience (or the lack of it). It's about feeling insecure of yourself and not having confidence in how things are supposed to be done.

After all, if you don't know enough about the basics of writing novels, it's no surprise that you're going to feel uncomfortable about the craft. You're going to start panicking and overthinking everything, no matter how talented you might be.

In the end, I can only be grateful that in my case I managed to take a break from writing and went back to learn more about the craft. I can only be grateful that I noticed that I was micromanaging everything and that I was starting to feel awful about myself.

After all, even though I had a lot of experience as a writer, the fact that I hadn't written books or even read that many of them made my project so vulnerable. My lack of experience as novel writer wasn't a good thing at all.

In that sense, if you ever decide to write a book, you really should study the basics first as well as possible. You should study the basics and make sure that you feel comfortable about your genre before you start your writing.

After all, the more you know about the craft, the easier it becomes to get the project done. The more you know about how the basics and the fundamentals work, the easier it becomes to complete a project that has value and that makes sense.

I watched some random television shows again.

When it comes to my television watching habits, I haven't lately been watching that many tv shows. Even though I have tried to follow my favourite reality shows (The Amazing Race & Survivor), I haven't been watching anything else on a regular basis.

That of course doesn't mean that I haven't had my tv open when I have had free time during the evenings. After all, I tend to channel surf almost every day, in case there happens to be something interesting on that could be worth my time.

In any case, below are three different shows that I managed to watch while I was flipping channels last week. I watched these shows and gave them a chance, even though I more or less knew that I would not enjoy all of them.

So the first show that I watched was an episode of the 'New MacGyver' series. I managed to watch most of episode S2x20, 'Skyscraper - Power', that aired Wednesday night when I  felt tired and was just about go to sleep.

The problem with this particular episode was that it had none of the qualities of the original 'MacGyver' series from the 80s. There wasn't really anything that would make you care about the characters or what happens to them.

After all, the original series was not just a great action show that kept you entertained. It was also a genuinely intelligent series that dealt with all kinds of social and environmental issues that are important and that we should be aware of.

When it comes to this new series, it just doesn't have any of those qualities at all. The episode in which Mac and Jack are trying to save a kid from a skyscraper after the kid gets kidnapped, was pretty bad and bland.

Especially when it came to the episode's pop culture references (Die Hard), I have no idea what the writers were thinking. It was really frustrating to keep hearing dialogue from the Bruce Willis film over and over again.

The second show that I managed to watch is AMC's long running zombie series 'The Walking Dead'. I saw its episode S8E06, 'The King Widow and Rick', when I was watching Fox channel at 2.30 a.m. in the morning last Sunday.

When it comes to this zombie series, I haven't exactly been a regular viewer, even though I have nothing against the show either. I have tried to give the series a chance if I haven't had anything else to do during the weekends.

After all, there's something genuinely fascinating about human beings trying to survive in a post apocalyptic world. The circumstances - in which the society has fallen apart and there's very little hope left - is pretty fascinating in my opinion.

At the same time, when it comes to this particular episode, S8E06 was, as sad as it is, super repetitive and had nothing going for it. It was clear that the writers had no story and that they were just trying to create as much filler as possible.

Especially when it came to the wounded character (Ezekiel), who kept falling down again and again and who told others that he should be left behind again and again, that was not entertainment. Clearly this was an episode that was difficult to finish.

My last example is the sitcom 'Superior Donuts' that aired on CBS from 2017 to 2018 for two seasons. I managed to watch the pilot episode for the comedy series last Saturday, when I kept flipping channels and tried to find something that would entertain me.

When it comes to the series about a donut shop and its employees, I was somewhat positively surprised by it. The series has a simple, down to earth premise, which makes it possible for its characters and storylines to be relatable and likable.

The writing on the show, surprisingly enough, was also solid for a multi-cam (laugh track) comedy series. The pacing in the pilot episode was pretty good and the jokes came naturally of the situations - which I didn't really expect to happen.

Still, the best thing about the show had to do with its acting. Especially when it comes to the comedy veteran Judd Hirsch, it was simply incredible to watch a guy in his eighties (!) have as much as energy as he has here.

In that sense, if you happen to be on a channel that plays this show, you should watch it. You should watch it, because even though 'Superior Donuts' is not a great show, it's still a series that manages to get solid laughs from its premise and its likable characters.

The importance of learning from your mistakes.

When it comes to one being a writer, it's not exactly a secret that writing is a process that isn't easy to master. It's not a craft that can be mastered easily, even though it's possible to become better at it if you're willing to practice hard enough.

After all, no matter how talented you are, you will always make a lot of mistakes as a writer. No matter how good or experienced you might be, it's pretty much guaranteed that you will always make mistakes in the process.

So the reason that I'm writing about this is that I have been making a lot of these 'mistakes' in my latest writing project. Ever since I started adapting my animated screenplay into a novel, I have been struggling with all kinds of things.

Very likely the biggest problem that I have had with the book adaptation has to do with the story's pacing. It has been a really big challenge to make the story work, so that the novel could actually read like a book instead of it reading like a film script.

By that I mean that when it comes to writing books, the process is certainly different compared to writing television shows or movies. Especially when it comes to exposition in scenes and transitions, there are a lot of differences between these two art forms.

After all, writing books, unlike writing movies or television scripts, is not all about being as simplistic as possible. Writing books - or simply even reading them - requires so much more attention to detail compared to television shows or movies.

Not surprisingly, when it comes to my book, I have learned the hard way that writing dialogue or simply describing events like they are in the film script isn't enough. It takes more to make the scenes and the characters in the story to feel real and believable.

Naturally, this part of the task hasn't been as easy as I had thought at first. It has been super frustrating when I haven't been able to get the pacing and the transitions right, even though I have tried to pay attention to these aspects of the process a lot.

In reality, no matter how much I have tried, some of the problems in the adaptation have been painfully difficult to fix. It hasn't been easy to write inner dialogue, manage timelines and create composite characters so that the story could have a better flow.

Still, just because I have been struggling and making these mistakes, that doesn't meant that this project has been a total letdown for me. Just because it has felt horrible to not get things right, that's not all there is to this process.

After all, whenever I have faced things that haven't gone my way, I have tried to remind myself that just because I keep making mistakes, I can still learn from them. As long as I pay attention to where I went wrong, I can fix these mistakes later.

In that sense, even though I've had my bad days during this project, this has still been a great learning experience for me. This has been a great project, even though there are days when nothing seems to work and you really have to push yourself.

After all, as long as I keep learning and keep fixing these mistakes, eventually I'll get the project done. I'll get the project done and I'll get a chance to work on something new that would challenge me and that could make me a better writer.

Review: 'Ready Player One'.

Yesterday me and my friend managed to find time to watch Steven Spielberg's movie 'Ready Player One'. We managed to watch the sci-fi film after checking that it had gotten solid reviews from both the critics and the general audience. 

After all, since 73% of the movie critics and 78% of the viewers (on Rottentomatoes.com) had given this film a fresh rating, that was good enough for us. There was a high enough chance that the movie would be worth watching and worth our time. 

In any case, having now seen 'Ready Player One', I have to say that the film managed to be somewhat better than I had expected it to be. It exceeded my expectations, which weren't honestly that high for me in the beginning.

So when it comes to the film, 'Ready Player One' is a science fiction movie that is about virtual reality. It's about people escaping reality after their living conditions on earth have gotten considerably worse over the last couple of decades.

In the film, as our protagonist, we have a young guy called Wade (Tye Sheridan), who spends most of his time in virtual reality. By using his special glasses, he's able to enter this another world where there are almost no limits on who you can be and what you can do.

When it comes to the plot of the movie, the catalyst of the film happens when the developer of the virtual reality (Mark Rylance) passes away. In his will, he's giving his company to the person who solves the puzzles that are hidden inside his virtual 'Oasis'.

Not surprisingly, this incident and revelation launches a massive hunt for his incredible inheritance. Individuals and corporations with their massive resources all over the country start searching for clues that could give them the keys to the ownership of the company.

So when it comes to things that I liked about this film, one of the best things about 'Ready Player One' is that it looks really good. There's no question that a lot of effort went into making sure that the movie would look as good as possible.

By that I mean that from start to finish, everything in the film looks amazing visually. The real world and the virtual reality world 'Oasis' both look so mesmerising and wonderful that it's hard to take your eyes off the movie screen.

This wonderful look of the movie becomes especially obvious during the film's numerous action scenes. There are so many crazy action scenes that you just can't help but to wonder how much time it took to make everything work.

At the same time, even though there are a lot of good things that can be said about 'Ready Player One', that doesn't mean that everything in the movie works. Especially when it comes to the film's screenplay, the story leaves a lot to be desired.

At least in my opinion, one of the biggest problems with the story is that it's too episodic. The film's plot device - where the players have to find three different keys in order to inherit the company - in my view, feels rather forced and unnatural.

When it comes to those many 'celebrated' popular culture references in the film, I wasn't particularly impressed by them either. Even though it was cool to see some of those popular creatures in the virtual reality, it started to reek of 'fanboy' service rather quickly.

It also has to be said that the movie suffers from not having a clear message. It doesn't take a stand against the dangers of virtual reality, even though the whole movie is about the excesses of escaping reality and the dangers of the system.

After all, when the end result of the film is that the protagonist - after inheriting the company - decides to only limit the use of his 'Oasis' for others, that did not sit well with me. That was just a massive cop out that severely diluted the film's message.

Still, in the end, just because the movie had a lot of these problems in its story, that doesn't mean that I wasn't able to enjoy watching it. I'm not saying that you shouldn't watch it or that the film's story wouldn't keep you entertained.

After all, even though there were quite a few issues with the film's screenplay, that doesn't mean that these problems were too serious. Clearly the positive aspects were able to outweigh the negative aspects, when you put all things together.

In that sense, even though 'Ready Player One' could have been a better movie, it was still a watchable one. It was a watchable movie and kept me entertained, even though its screenplay could have been better and more organic in certain places.

Review: 'Molly's Game'.

Earlier this week me and my friend managed to find time to watch a movie called 'Molly's Game'. We watched this biographical film about Molly Bloom, an ex-athlete, who ran underground high stakes poker games for celebrities and businessmen in the early 2000's. 

The reason that we decided to watch this film - that is written and directed by Aaron Sorkin - is that we couldn't find any other movie that looked interesting. This was the only one that had gotten reviews that were good enough and that had a solid premise.

In any case, having now seen 'Molly's Game', it has to be said that I have mostly positive things to say about it. Even though there are certain problems with the film that shouldn't be overlooked, these problems in my opinion don't hurt it too much.

So when it comes to the good aspects of the movie, there's no doubt that the gambling scenes in it are entertaining. The movie is at its best when Molly - played wonderfully by Jessica Chastain - organizes and runs these underground high stakes events.

By that I mean that when her unlikely new career path - from a waitress to a gambling hostess starts to emerge (after giving up on her sports career due to a serious injury), that's when the story really starts to pick up speed.

In these enthralling scenes, we have A-list movie stars, famous athletes and businessmen (names changed for the sake of privacy) gambling and taking big risks. The movie shows these celebrated human beings in less than flattering light - to say the least.

During this phase of the movie, it was really fascinating to try to figure out who these characters were in real life. I couldn't help but to feel satisfaction when I was able to pinpoint who the characters' real life counterparts were (Tobey Maguire, Jamie Gold etc.).

In these parts, the movie works not only because of the gambling stuff, but also because the main protagonist starts to get in trouble. Molly gets in legal trouble because of her endeavours and also because the Russian mafia starts to go after her. 

The movie also works in these scenes, because in these scenes it knows what it's about. The story doesn't humanize Molly too much or make her - as a businesswoman - seem like she's a good person or that we should empathize with her too much.

That's why it's unfortunate that once we get to those scenes where we're supposed to feel for the character (excluding her getting beaten up) the story feels a bit forced. The scenes don't fit in with the rest of the movie and feel somewhat out of place.

Especially when it comes to the ice-rink scene where she - out of nowhere - runs into her father and has a touchy-feely talk with him, the scene doesn't make enough sense. I just couldn't find it to be believable or consistent with the rest of the movie.

In that sense, when I think about the movie as a whole, it's clear that 'Molly's Game' - even though a fairly good movie - is not a perfect film. It's clear that there are certain moments in the film where the story and the characters don't work that well together.

After all, even though some of these emotional scenes were perhaps necessary for the story to work, they don't fit in as well as they should. The movie's main protagonist isn't as likable and relatable as the writer probably thought she was.

In that sense, if you're thinking about giving 'Molly's Game' a chance as a movie, there's nothing wrong with you if you don't end up liking it that much. You might not like it, because certain moments in the film aren't that plausible storywise.

After all, even though most of the things in the movie are superb and even riveting, especially the scenes where Molly gets humanized aren't that great. They go against the film's ruthless nature and seem pretty inauthentic and misplaced.

At the same time, in case you do end up liking the movie, like me, there's nothing wrong with that either. There's nothing wrong with thinking that the problems in the film weren't that important and that they didn't prevent one from enjoying it.

After all, at least in my case, I found the movie - despite its flaws to be well made. Despite its flaws, I found that 'Molly's Game' as a whole kept me entertained and the good things in it clearly managed to outweigh the bad things in the film.

Updates on my book writing project.

A couple of months ago I wrote about my writing project, in which I would adapt my movie screenplay into a book. I wrote about how I would do the writing myself and that I wouldn't give the project for anyone else to do.

After all, since I wrote the original screenplay, there was no reason why I wouldn't be able to write the book version too. It was clear that I should try to write it myself - even though I didn't have any previous experience in writing novels.

So when it comes to how things have progressed lately, it can be said  that I have managed to get things done here. Even though I haven't finished the book yet, I've been busy with it and should be able to finish it in the next couple of months or so.

The biggest reason that I'm relatively confident that I'll get the job done is because I managed to write the rough draft already. I wrote a draft (in Finnish), which is a lot like the original film screenplay version that I wrote last year.

By that I mean that all the characters and all the events that are in the movie version are also in the novel version. I didn't have to cut any of the storylines or the plot points that were in the original version of the screenplay.

What this basically means is that in order to be able to write a solid book, I 'more or less' only have to follow the road map (the draft) and make sure that I keep the reader involved in the story. That's all that it takes to write a solid book - at least in theory.

Still, just because I can rely on a story that is well written and that makes sense, that doesn't mean that I have been able to make everything work right way. I'm not saying that I haven't had any setbacks during the adaptation process.

On the contrary, the minute I started the second phase of the project - making the draft look like an actual book - it became apparent that I would face obstacles here. There were obvious challenges that I hadn't thought about before.

For example, in the book version, I needed to create a narrative (third person) that would mimic the original version's friendly tone. I would have to make sure that the characters were genuinely likable,  because otherwise the story just wouldn't be worth following.

The other really big challenge in the book version has had to do with the pacing of the story. It has been a lot more difficult to give the story a solid pace, so that the scenes could have a relaxed feel and that the pacing wouldn't feel rushed.

Especially considering that there are so many transitions - characters moving from one place to another - time lapses etc. - it hasn't been easy to figure things out. It has been a lot more challenging to give the story a solid flow than I had expected.

Still, when I think about this project as a whole, just because I have had these challenges, that doesn't mean that I'm screwed. I'm not thinking that I'm not good enough and that I should give someone else the chance to finish the book.

After all, when it comes to projects like these, I tend to be really persistent and won't give up easily. Instead of giving up, I'm willing to try almost every possible solution in order to make sure that the story works and feels natural.

In that sense, even though I still have things to do here, I'll keep going. I'll keep going and will make sure that no matter what happens, I won't give up just because I might sometimes have bad days or just because I don't always get things done.

After all, as long as I'll keep writing on a consistent basis, eventually I'll be able to finish the book. I'll be able to finish the book and will have the chance to do something else that I might find to be interesting and that might be worth my time.

Review: The Florida Project.

Last week I managed to watch a movie that my manager thought I should watch at some point. She recommended that I should watch 'The Florida Project, a film that was well received and that wasn't that different from my own project.

After all, since my own screenplay was also about kids and about them growing up, she thought that I should check the film and compare it to my own story. She thought that I would get a good feel about what this 'genre' is about.

In any case, having now seen the movie, it has to be said that I have some mixed feelings about 'The Florida Project'. Even though this wasn't necessarily a bad film, there are some things about it that didn't really work at all.

So when it comes to the movie, very likely the biggest problem that I had with the film - that is about a single mom and her daughter - is that it has a relatively weak story. The screenplay for the film is lacking and doesn't have all the necessary elements in it.

By that I mean is that even though most of the characters in the film are fairly relatable and likable - especially the kids and the hotel manager (the wonderful Willed Dafoe) - they don't have proper story arcs in the movie.

What this basically means is that instead of the characters evolving and changing over the course of the story, they more or less stay the same. There's no noticeable change in pretty much any of the characters over the course of the film.

This lack of progression is unfortunate, because storytelling really is about characters changing - progressing or regressing. It's essential that you have people in your story that transform and become better (or worse) as human beings.

After all, nobody likes to watch a movie where characters just do stuff that doesn't have an effect on anything or anyone. Nobody wants to watch a film where too many random things happen without any real meaningful consequences.

In that sense, when I think about 'The Florida Project', it's clear that the film suffers from not having enough of these meaningful and progressive scenes. It's clear that the movie has problems when it comes to telling a story that has a point.

After all, even though there are a lot of good things here - the kids making the best out of their situation and the humanity in Willem Dafoe's character - that isn't enough. It's not enough to hold my attention throughout the length of film.

In the end, the movie would have been better, had it paid more attention to its script and to its story arcs. It would have been better had it made sure that there was more to the characters and that more things actually happened to them.

After all, just because the mother gets taken away at the end and just because the kids manage to temporarily 'escape' from their situation, that's a bit too little a bit too late for me. That's not enough drama or change to win me back.

In that sense, even though you should still probably see the film, I can't recommend it that much. I can't recommend it that much, because in my opinion, there are too many basic story problems in 'The Florida Project' that weigh the movie down a bit too much.

Know your strengths and weaknesses as a writer.

When it comes to being a good writer, it's really important that you know your abilities well as a writer. It's important that you have a good grasp of what you're capable of doing as a writer and that you know what your strengths are when it comes to the craft.

After all, the more you are aware of your capabilities, the easier it becomes to make right decisions. The more aware you are of your skills, the more likely it is that you'll get your projects done they way they should be.

The reason that I'm writing about this is that even though I think I have a relatively solid grasp of my abilities as a writer, this hasn't always been the case. There have been times when I have overestimated my skills and have failed with my tasks. 

For example, years ago, when I tried writing my first movie screenplay (in 2008), I did not get the project completed. I wasn't even close to coming up with a script that made sense and that had potential to become a movie.

The biggest reason for this was that when I tried writing the movie script, I didn't know the fundamentals of storytelling. I didn't know that I was still an amateur and only at the beginning of my journey as a screenwriter.

By that I mean is that when I started writing the movie, as a writer, I had only managed to complete my very first television spec scripts. I had just finished my 'Boston Legal' scripts, which gave me confidence that I could write movies too.

Naturally, even though I felt confident about myself, I was still clueless about the craft as a whole. Even though it took a lot of talent to write tv scripts, I had very little knowledge about the story structure or how to create my own material.

After all, when it comes to those drama specs for Boston Legal, I was writing for an existing television series. I didn't have to know anything about creating characters from scratch, coming up with overarching storylines or anything else.

So not surprisingly, when it came to this movie writing task, it was just a total failure. I spent months writing stuff that had no organic premise, no interesting characters or anything that would have given the story any direction or momentum.

As a whole, the whole thing was such a disaster, that it took almost ten years before I had the courage to try writing movies again. I didn't have the nerve to try again until I had learned more about the craft and felt that I knew enough to give it a go again.

In that sense, when it comes to the craft of storytelling and writing in general, it's so important that you're aware of your strengths and weaknesses as a writer. You should be aware of what you can do and what are the things that you don't know enough about.

After all, even though it's true that you don't need to know everything about the craft before you start writing, you should know at least the basics. Writing movie scripts is too much of a crapshoot if you don't know how the fundamentals work.

In the end, in my case, being so clueless about the fundamentals clearly hurt me as a writer. It was so unfortunate that I didn't know the basics of story structure and that there were so many things that I still needed to learn as a writer.

After all, had I known about the basics of story structure earlier (Blake Snyder's beat sheet for example), that would have helped me immensely as a writer. It would have made my learning curve so much easier than it turned out to be.

In that sense, I can only hope that those who think about writing movies manage to learn the basics first. I hope that they manage to pay attention to the fundamentals of story structure instead of getting too excited about their strengths and abilities as writers.

After all, if they manage to do those things, writing movies will become so much easier for them. It will become so much easier to come up with screenplays that are good enough and that have the potential to be produced for the big screen too.