A response from a Nicholls reader

Kosh · Oct 23, 2008

I asked another forum for advice on The Nicholls fellowship (not that you guys aren't the best). I said I know they perfer indie-like dramas to commercial blockbusters and I got this response:

I read the semi-final round in the Nicholl. The round judged by AMPAS members.

I do not like indie-like dramas more than super commercial blockbusters.
I think the Nicholl attracts WRITERS who like indie-like dramas, because the writers writing more commercial projects are out trying to get those scripts sold.
I'd LOVE to read the next Titanic, IronMan, etc.

I like good writing, solid structure, good dialog, believable characters.

Proper format is good to have, but spelling and clarity more important.

I really hope this is how all the readers feel.

mario_c · Oct 23, 2008

Well...
Assuming he is what he says he is...
But I'm sure Nicholls judges 'popcorn' or genre scripts fairly alongside the more personal Off-Hollywood kind of works Nicholls is known for promoting. It's just that the latter tends to do better.

A good writer will stand out no matter what genre s/he adopts.
He has a point that popcorn movie writers tend to dismiss contests like Nicholls and just go after the money. Recognition as an aritst is not a priority in there lives. There are exceptions, maybe.

PS Thanks for the accolade! Yeah, never underestimate a good peer review.

small axe · Oct 24, 2008

Assuming he is what he says he is...

As for myself, the thought of it being true gives me much peace of mind, so it's an assumption I'll be happy to make!

And why shouldn't it be true?

We all know the assumption that "commercial blockbuster" is supposed to mean it's "artless crap" ... but if we're talking about the Nicolls or similar contests, why shouldn't quality story and character exist in even "blockbusters" ?

JAWS, comrade. JAWS.

I've been more often disappointed by "artsy" films that tried to be "art" or tried to be Tarantino-hip and failed pathetically, than by the alternative. (Though Hollywood is littered too with the stinking corpses of films where they were aiming to make "blockbusters" and only ended up with crap)

C'mon, we know when something, a tale or a character, grabs us ... and one of the telltale signs is that it takes us OUT of our analytical "Art" mind ... and steals us away to being stone age human souls huddled around a campfire, hearing and utterly captivated by a Story.

And that's where "commercial blockbusters" dwell too, imo.

ricetalks · Oct 25, 2008

small axe said:
As for myself, the thought of it being true gives me much peace of mind, so it's an assumption I'll be happy to make!

And why shouldn't it be true?

We all know the assumption that "commercial blockbuster" is supposed to mean it's "artless crap" ... but if we're talking about the Nicolls or similar contests, why shouldn't quality story and character exist in even "blockbusters" ?

JAWS, comrade. JAWS.

I've been more often disappointed by "artsy" films that tried to be "art" or tried to be Tarantino-hip and failed pathetically, than by the alternative. (Though Hollywood is littered too with the stinking corpses of films where they were aiming to make "blockbusters" and only ended up with crap)

C'mon, we know when something, a tale or a character, grabs us ... and one of the telltale signs is that it takes us OUT of our analytical "Art" mind ... and steals us away to being stone age human souls huddled around a campfire, hearing and utterly captivated by a Story.

And that's where "commercial blockbusters" dwell too, imo.

A sure sign of "artsy" pretensions is when it tries to be Tarantino.

Tarantino never spent any time trying to be something else. He was, specifically, Tarantino. And that's what separated him from everyone else who, before Tarantino, were probably busy trying to be Scorscesse. (sp? sorry, Martin)

And Tarantino's stuff was spectacularly un-blockbuster stuff until it made a lot of money and then, in appying the rule of 'blackbuster' backwards, it becomes the new example of blockbuster.

'Blockbuster' is a term that in the artistic sense has no real meaning. It's only true meaning is in the financial sense. Did it make lots and lots of money on its opening weekend? That is due to a variety of reasons, and some of that is marketing.

What is a blockbuster changes with the times.

A response from a Nicholls reader

Kosh

Will Write for Food

mario_c

Your thoughts are not real...

small axe

memento mori

ricetalks