The Naked Prey. Probably 8 lines of dialog in the whole thing, and they're all done within the first 5 minutes. Cornell Wilde wrote, directed and starred. It's a true story, based on Colter's Run, which happened in America, not Africa. The best way to enhance your writing is to take your talkiest scene and rewrite it entirely without dialog. You'll find a way. It's a useful exercise.
This is excellent advice - it's the best screenwriting exercise I know of. I'm a film editor. Often we end up doing this in the edit - sometimes because the screenplay ought to have been edited more aggressively, but often because, once you've got the images, you really don't need all those words.
It's astonishing how a snippet of a glance from a good actor can replace paragraphs of dialogue.take you're (sic.) talkiest scene and rewrite it entirely without dialog. You'll find a way. It's a useful exercise.
Apologies for this, kleinbl00. You are quite right that it is intentionally antagonistic.
I was having a horrible day yesterday and I guess I tried to take it out on an internet stranger's typo. It was extremely immature of me, and I've been feeling horrible about it all day.
I hope you can accept this apology.
You're confusing dialogue excess and showing rather than telling. Speechless doesn't mean a good story by itself: it's how the story is told that matters. Judging from the trailer, The Naked Prey is nothing more than a Rightful White Man in the Black Men's Land story.
...I've been optioned twice. I was repped at William Morris. I've judged two different screenwriting contests. I currently have a novel at a boutique agency in New York. I haven't confused shit, my new not-friend, and you're looking at a trailer cut in 1963. I answered your question honestly and with the full weight of my experience. If you want to throw that back in my face, be my guest... but know that it's the last time I'll answer your questions.
No, you have. Perhaps not through your self-reportedly superb knowledge of the subject - which is appeal to authority, I'll let you know - but through misunderstanding of what I was digging into. Though if you were going to rage on if I didn't agree with you somewhere down the road and your ego was hurt either way, you can go fuck yourself.
The argument from authority is logos rhetoric - "trust what I say because I am an expert." The Appeal to Authority fallacy is "I'm not a doctor but I play one on TV... and I trust Vicks 44." You can choose not to believe me, but misapplying rhetoric like an angry teenager from /r/atheism undermines your credibility. From your own link: Good luck with your writing.It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts or scientific consensus.
Are you for real? You asked a question. You received an answer. You shat on that answer. THEN When the person you stuck your nose up at showed that they were speaking from serious experience (which anyone who's been on this site for more than a month can attest to), rather than saying "whoa, my bad", you doubled down on your ignorant and childish behaviour. KB doesn't need me to defend them - they're more than capable of twisting the english language into new and interesting ways to chastise - but I think it's important to know that when you speak in this community, people see you and remember your behaviour. I think it's also important to know that shitty behaviour will not just be witnessed here - people will call you out on it, because this is not, in fact, a new Reddit. This is a place where accountability matters.
I was expressing an opinion, hoping for a reply that will clear the situation regardless of whether the person I was expressing it towards - after they came to answer a question that I asked - agrees or disagrees. Clearly, something went wrong between us - I assume it's the assertive nature of my first reply. Yet then, the what is supposed to be authority on the matter get angry at a newbie whom they've never met - after one supposedly wicked reply? Misunderstanding is fine, it happens to the best of us from time to time, but arrogance due to authority coupled with lack of either theory behind the answer or explanation why I may have been wrong or misunderstanding in the first place (which may have been the case, for I'm not perfect but not omniscient either) I will not tolerate, no matter whom it's coming from. How difficult it might be to answer my ignorance with "Well, no, you are confusing things, because" and state reasons for this? If that's all it takes to piss off the person I'm talking to, I don't want to be talking to them. EDIT: Don't listen to me. I'm not happy with how my life goes, and this makes me far more aggressive and selfish than I'd like to be. This argument isn't helping the situation but buries it deeper. Clearly, I've made a few mistakes here and there, and it would take some time for me to figure them out.
I know that feel, and I've been there more than once. I think the takeaway here is - Watch how you say things. Written text has advantages, but it's also dangerous in that tone is almost nonexistant. Things said in jest, or in a more neutral tone when said in real life can take a significantly more sinister turn in text, especially when you are an unknown to the reader. I mean, take a look at my post. I'm generally an unknown to you, and I'm swooping in to reinforce someone else's criticism - I'm sure my post came off more aggressive than it was written. The thing I wanted to impress upon you the most is the thing that probably got buried the fastest: Hubski's like a small town. Have you ever lived in a small town? If you have you know that people remember what you do, good and bad, and good will only goes so far to redeem perceived bad behaviour (that's just the way humans perceive). As a result, it's useful to handle people you don't know... not necessarily with kid gloves, but with a baseline level of respect.Don't listen to me. I'm not happy with how my life goes, and this makes me far more aggressive and selfish than I'd like to be. This argument isn't helping the situation but buries it deeper. Clearly, I've made a few mistakes here and there, and it would take some time for me to figure them out.
I also found this trailer offputting, tbh. I'd never come across the film, and I googled Roger Ebert's review of it, and am still none the wiser! What is it that you recommend about this film, kleinbl00?