Sometimes I try, but I feel that I could use input from the suggestion maker as well, since they may know something about the 'hole' that I don't since it was their idea? I guess I feel maybe I missed something in the suggestion so I keep addressing those things.

As for it's what writers do, well I feel it's kind of more complicated than that, cause a lot of times, the suggestions from people will say that a character should do this instead of that, but if I do not know why the character has suddenly changed their behavior, I cannot fill the hole, if I do not know why the character is doing what they are doing anymore, just as an example.

Another thing I don't understand is, that when a suggestion is given to me, but that suggestion has a problem in it as well, than does that really make the suggestion better since you are just substituting one problem for another? Instead of trying to correct the original problem, you are just substituting it.

This is the part my brain does has trouble with when it comes to taking suggestions, as I do not understand why it's better to substitute one problem for another, as oppose to solving the original problem. Why is substituting better than attempting to solve?

Perhaps you're not really a writer. You seem to regard suggestions as problems, it's up to you to know your character well enough to know what they might do. The character may even use two suggestions and combine them to create new possibilities, everything is fluid.

However, I get the impression that it's not what the character won't do, than you're limiting what they might do.

The ultimate problem is you lack good judgement and don't understand what everyone else can clearly see. Even if we could convince you to follow our advice, you wouldn't understand why. So it wouldn't help you with the next problem. You need someone to help you with every decision you face. That's why it can't work.

The unanimous opinion of your premise is that it's implausible. Your solution is to execute a bad premise better?

I've just done a job in Bristol - so that's 10 hours driving today, so I'm a bit grumpy, but seeing yet another pile of posts makes me sigh.

If I understands Ryan's posts properly, what he is saying is that when he asks a question, the answers have holes in them? What on earth does he expect - he feeds us the very basic questions we respond with general solutions. Of course we leave holes, we never have enough detail.

Gender fluidity - you have written a screenplay that is based on a male perception of what a woman feels. That's bad enough - but nowadays, gender is far better understood by the majority and your viewpoint is narrow and for more than 50% now, it's probably wrong. It's distasteful I'm afraid.

You have very poor grasp of empathy, and clearly don't demonstrate it yourself.

You really just lack courage. You ask questions and hope to get the response you have already decided to bolster your gut reaction. Trouble is we often don't support your decision we find it simply crazy!

I have to be honest now Ryan. The only people who respond to your posts are beginning to feel pretty unappreciated and we're getting fed up with your bizarre attitude and persistence and total unwillingness to listen or try our ideas.

Did you learn nothing from getting banned on that other forum? Did you consider why your behaviour and responses made them do it? We can see identical processes happening here!

Perhaps you're not really a writer. You seem to regard suggestions as problems, it's up to you to know your character well enough to know what they might do. The character may even use two suggestions and combine them to create new possibilities, everything is fluid.

However, I get the impression that it's not what the character won't do, than you're limiting what they might do.

Oh okay I was told the opposite before and that the characters are too flexible when it comes to applying changes, and that I need to lock down their behavior and limit it more.

I've just done a job in Bristol - so that's 10 hours driving today, so I'm a bit grumpy, but seeing yet another pile of posts makes me sigh.

If I understands Ryan's posts properly, what he is saying is that when he asks a question, the answers have holes in them? What on earth does he expect - he feeds us the very basic questions we respond with general solutions. Of course we leave holes, we never have enough detail.

Gender fluidity - you have written a screenplay that is based on a male perception of what a woman feels. That's bad enough - but nowadays, gender is far better understood by the majority and your viewpoint is narrow and for more than 50% now, it's probably wrong. It's distasteful I'm afraid.

You have very poor grasp of empathy, and clearly don't demonstrate it yourself.

You really just lack courage. You ask questions and hope to get the response you have already decided to bolster your gut reaction. Trouble is we often don't support your decision we find it simply crazy!

I have to be honest now Ryan. The only people who respond to your posts are beginning to feel pretty unappreciated and we're getting fed up with your bizarre attitude and persistence and total unwillingness to listen or try our ideas.

Did you learn nothing from getting banned on that other forum? Did you consider why your behaviour and responses made them do it? We can see identical processes happening here!

Oh okay. I got a message saying I was banned cause when I posted some of the script on the site, they said they found the content offensive, and so I was banned. I did give a content warning of course.

When you say that my script is based on a male perception of what a woman feels, what is that perception then?

The ultimate problem is you lack good judgement and don't understand what everyone else can clearly see. Even if we could convince you to follow our advice, you wouldn't understand why. So it wouldn't help you with the next problem. You need someone to help you with every decision you face. That's why it can't work.

The unanimous opinion of your premise is that it's implausible. Your solution is to execute a bad premise better?

Well I didn't think it was a unanimous decision, cause some readers said the premise was fine and could work, if it was executed properly, and they said it's all about the execution.

Well I didn't think it was a unanimous decision, cause some readers said the premise was fine and could work, if it was executed properly, and they said it's all about the execution.
Ryan I read through that thread today and the overwhelming opinion was negative. This is an example of you cherry picking what you want to hear. There were people making helpful suggestions but in no way did they endorse the premise. The way you characterize things is delusional and dishonest.

Oh okay, but that was just on one site. I showed the script to several other people and got very different opinions from negative to positive, not just the one site. But I also rewrote several more drafts since I was on that site, and I think it's a lot more improved now than it was then from what I was told, as the opinions are more mixed now, as oppose to being a majority negative. And I did take a lot of the advice from that site, and applied it to the rewrites and it helped a lot.

But when you say the people made helpful suggestions but did not endorse the premise, even if they didn't endorse the premise, wouldn't the helpful suggestions still be helpful though? As for cherry picking what I want to hear, I told to take the constructive advice and apply that cause that will be more helpful, rather than follow all the negative advice. Is that true though, that I should pick the most constructive advice or is that cherry picking?

Oh okay I was told the opposite before and that the characters are too flexible when it comes to applying changes, and that I need to lock down their behavior and limit it more..

As I said, you need to know your characters, you have to work within what they will do. It sounds like you really don't know them if you're applying changes that the character's won't do. A character can change as the story progresses, so that they're not the same as at the beginning.

Well I feel that I know the characters and know what they would do. But at the same time, some people say the character should do this instead in order to blend with the rest of the plot, so should I therefore try to change the character then to apply people's suggestions? I am trying to take people's advice and change the character's decisions based on what they say would be best, but how do I do that without changing the characters though?

It's not just that the premise is implausible, it's incredibly offensive on so many levels. The fact it had to be repeatedly explained you, and you still defend it that you were able to find someone who didn't have a negative opinion...

It's not my job to convince you. If you write a terrible and offensive screenplay no one will want to be apart of it. Which I believe what has happened.

Well I feel that I know the characters and know what they would do. But at the same time, some people say the character should do this instead in order to blend with the rest of the plot, so should I therefore try to change the character then to apply people's suggestions? I am trying to take people's advice and change the character's decisions based on what they say would be best, but how do I do that without changing the characters though?

The character's needs will drive the plot, you may have to change the plot if these needs take things in a different direction. This is what happens when writers hear the characters speaking to them, it's not the dialogue, it's the action.

Horizontal thinking on your part, not vertical thinking is what it's about.

I was told this as well by a couple of readers and they said that the plot holds together just as fine as other movies, and that the reason why maybe people pick it apart is because they are offended by the premise, which causes them to pick things apart, more compared to a movie with a premise that wouldn't be to them, more.

However, it's a crime thriller and when criminals go out to commit crimes, of course people are going to find such immoral acts offensive. They are crimes. Do I have to write a screenplay about villains committing crimes, that the general public can get behind and support? Since when is a villain in a movie not allowed to commit grave sins that people do not approve of anymore? I mean there are movies out there where the villains commit bad crimes as well, so I didn't think I was breaking any rules there.

The character's needs will drive the plot, you may have to change the plot if these needs take things in a different direction. This is what happens when writers hear the characters speaking to them, it's not the dialogue, it's the action.

Horizontal thinking on your part, not vertical thinking is what it's about.

Oh okay, but is it ever the other way around, that if you want to build towards the ending you think is best, you need to change the character to fit certain plot points therefore, in order to reach that end? Especially if you want to get certain characters to be at the same place, at the same time for the ending to happen?

Good villains don't do bad things, they are for the good in how they view the world. Lee Marvin said he never played a baddie,

The feedback is for you to interpret, as has been said before, you will always get differing script reports. Not everyone is going to like Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, but it's a good film, if somewhat dark However, I suspect they understood their character better than you do.

Yeah for sure, I meant that villains do bad things from the perspective of the audience. So I thought that the audience will view it as a bad thing, and that that's normal, like other villains doing bad things in fiction.

That may be so, but if you're writing the character it's from their perspective. Even the most evil people in history thought they were doing the right thing, as do their supporters. .

Oh yes for sure, the villains think they are doing the right thing. But for other people to think the premise is too offensive because of what the villains do just seems strange to me because of course the villains are going to do things, that the audience will perceive is bad.

That's the point of such a thriller, is that bad, dangerous people are on the loose wreaking havoc, and how will they be stopped. So I just find it odd that people are offended by villains doing bad things, when that's what villains do.

If you enter into a taboo subject you will find strong reactions. Female serial killers or female rapists will tend to fall into that area. Also, your potential sales market will reduce.

Oh okay. Well I thought that if I made a movie that wasn't safe, that it may stand out in the crowd more. A lot of indie movies are not bad at all but forgotten about because the stories just didn't have subject matter in them that got you think too much about it afterward. So I thought you would probably get noticed more if you made something risky, compared to safe...

Some of the other filmmakers I worked with before liked the idea and said they wanted to help make it and be part of it and got excited, unless they were just being nice. But even if they are being nice, they are still offering to be a part of it, so is that still good?

Ryan. You are totally insensitive to the state of the world, and the way that people react to what they are fed by the media. In a way, you also fail to understand that the success of media products are down to reception. This can easily work big time when the product is a quality script, that retains the quality through production values, budget and marketing. Each stage is in a way, a filter. If you accept that some people will find the subject matter, even before watching it, distasteful, then that's a big chunk of audience gone. Of those that then do investigate and perhaps view the trailer, you will lose another chunk of available viewers. So your first viewings are with a small chunk of the market. Then you start on the reactive phase - what they think about it and what they say on social media. This is where script quality, acting, shooting style and the rest will impact.

Making a movie that doesn't score highly is very risky, and clearly every time your screenplay gets aired, people find real problems with it. Is this not enough to demonstrate that your opinion of it is skewed, probably because you wrote it. They read it, and their opinion really is vital.

Put it like this. Let's say you have a decent budget for really well known actors. Would their agents even forward it to them for reading? Be honest. Are you an amazing screenplay writer and the heavyweight actors are going to really want to lead this? Somehow, I suspect that despite your years and years of honing, it would be in the recycle bin after the first few pages. This is realistic. What you have is the classic script where too many bits in it have been revised as more and more people tell you problems. You have a product that has had too much in the way of reaction built into it.

You are a budding writer with no confidence whatsoever that what you write is perfect. You constantly tinker, and tweak it, then put it out for review. You are averaging and constantly reviewing, and at this late stage you suddenly think about revealing plot points? Surely this is a first draft or before decision.

Clearly you live on forums and search them relentlessly for comments. This is futile. One thing I learned early on - and the thing you WILL NOT acknowledge, is that we cannot all be good at everything. You want to be a one man band, and seem to hate giving things away. We convince you you don't have the ability to things, so you say you will give it to the DP. We tell you about audio, you pass that on. We tell you about direction, and you ask if you should engage a director. Can you not see that you are now asking US about scripts, which is only our specialism by being able to spot dreadful ones given to us. It doesn't mean we can write - but we sure know a lemon when we see one.

How many people do you have to ask until you find a forum who say wow Ryan, this script is excellent, and then on another, they tell you your camera and lens are brilliant, and the panning shots are a super idea and will work fine, and that your boom work will provide the editor with excellent audio. Perhaps an editing forum will let you know your ideas for editing are amazing and will work brilliantly?

Is this some kind of dream? As soon as you find this internet special place, will you actually get up and make the movie, or will we find you still hawking this pile of poo on a forum in twenty years time when you are older and still trying to make it work?

Sorry Ryan - but I really have to suggest that movie making really is something you clearly cannot do on your own. Years ago I suggested you did a skills audit, to produce a definitive snapshot of your abilities, to help focus your direction. You never did it. Why? Maybe because you just don't want to accept your limitations? I don't know, but what I do know is you never listen, you never learn and you never grow. You just go around in huge circles, getting nowhere and suddenly arriving back at the start.

I've looked on forums where you have posted and your readership and response rates drop off so quickly until just a bunch of people get left who have the patience to keep trying. You are down to 3 or 4 now on here, have you noticed. People read the topics and just don't want to get involved. I don't even understand some of your questions anymore - they make no sense?

Oh okay, well I could do a safer script, I just thought if I did, it wouldn't stand out above the rest, because it doesn't have anything thought provoking in it to make it stand out above the rest.

There is one script a couple of actors I worked with before got excited about. It's a Santa Clause script and they said I should make that instead. I just don't know if I have the budget for it, since a lot of the story takes place in Santa Claus's factory and that will probably warrant a lot of set and costume design.

One friend of mine suggested that I take a really realistic approach and just shoot in a real factory and give it a realistic approach as to the type of factory environment Santa Claus would run. Factories look crummy in real life, so just embrace that crummy factory look he said, and just make it a total realistic sweat shop looking factory he said.

However, if I take that approach, would audience really care about realism when it comes to Santa Claus's factory though?

I told the actors who were excited about it, that maybe we should do a script that is cheaper and can be done on real locations, and they said to find a way to make this one instead. Should I?

It really depends on what you want to say about the consumerism etc around Christmas. Family Guy did a dark version of Santa's factory, however, since you seem to have a copy and paste process, perhaps you're not capable of making the imaginative leaps that hold a mirror to society. You don't seem to have any personal vision that you put into your work.

Family Guy - Christmas time is killing us - YouTube

Who would the audience be?

Santa Claus Movie - so are we talking comedy, drama or what? AND - is this a multi-age product, the old fashioned family movie with a happy ending?

It's more of a comedy so maybe a more realistic look to it, might add to the comedy, but it might also have the effect of people thinking it's too cheap looking as well.

As for a copy and paste process, whenever I try to do something original and make it my own, I am told it doesn't work, so I try to do what people want as a result. I could go full on original and make a movie I've never seen before, but also shot in a way I have never seen before, but worried that people might think I am trying to reinvent the wheel, but in a bad way if I do that, since I have often been told I have done things wrong before.

If the content in front of the camera is good with at least some original content, you don't need to come up with super clever shots and editing.

Oh okay but do the locations and the production design still have to be more rich looking though, for a Santa Claus premise?

No, you're looking at this from a cliche viewpoint, look at the Family Guy extract I posted earlier,

Bad Santa also works.

Oh okay, but the factor in the Family Guy clip still looks more cinematic than the factories where I live. As long as it will pass. As for going for a more realistic dark consumerism approach, it was not my idea. It was a friend's idea that he suggested in order to cover up for lack budget. So I would be using his idea when I didn't originally envision it for this story, as long as that's the way to go to cover up the lack of budget?

There's nothing wrong with "stealing" or lifting ideas, top writers admit to doing it. They soak up stuff all the time, even Shakespeare did it. However, this isn't just copying, they make it their own, they take it and run with it.

Doing the direct opposite of the cliche tends to work most of the time.

It's how you do it that makes something cinematic.

I know everyone is well meaning but you’re giving professional advice to someone on the spectrum. Since I’ve never meet someone with that condition and because we are communicating over a message board it’s hard to imagine what’s going on.

One thing for sure he keeps trying to take pieces of advice and put them together. He keeps trying to do things he has no ability to do or are way to complex. He has no business trying to make a feature film. Anyone not on the spectrum would struggle to make a feature but he doesn’t get it or doesn’t want to get it.

I’m sure at some point when he was trying to figure out what to do some said you should do what you love. So he loves movies. He goes to film school and that doesn’t work. Ok try your hand working on a movie set. That doesn’t work. Ok make your own film. And that’s not working.

Moral of the story just because you love to watch feature films doesn’t mean you’re equipped to make a feature film. So then what? I’d suggest getting help to find out what you are capable of doing.

Some very creative people are on the spectrum.

https://the-art-of-autism.com/6-creatives-on-the-autism-spectrum-actors-and-filmmakers/

https://www.appliedbehavioranalysisprograms.com/historys-30-most-inspiring-people-on-the-autism-spectrum/

However, Ryan doesn't seem to be making the leaps that these people are making in exploring the world as they see it.

few things

first, I believe he DID do the skills audit and it told him he was good at planning. he said he didnt know how to apply that to filmmaking.

Regarding the spectrum, I’m no expert at all but I have met a few “high functioning” people on it (those who can more or less live a full life as opposed to the sadder cases where people cant communicate at all or simply stare at walls all day). My layman’s observation is that being on the spectrum, even when high functioning, affects people differently and manifests differently. It ranges from being something you would never notice unless maybe you knew the person really well/for a long time to people who very much seem “challenged”.

For instance Jesse Eisenberg has Aspergers and Darryl Hannah is autistic. Would you have ever known that? Not that theyre writers/directors. Or maybe they are.

Brian thanks for sharing. I wasn’t aware of that.

One thing I would caution is it is a spectrum. Just because one might share a broad diagnosis with someone one famous doesn’t mean that one could enjoy the same success at what they do. Many geniuses or great artists are often not what we deem normal because in order to achieve great things you can’t think like everyone else. While finding exceptions to the rule may serve as an inspiration, I think it would be far more helpful to look at the individual. I don’t know if you or someone else suggested he take a test to better learn what he is capable of.

The inflexibility, singular purpose, and obsession might be helpful for a genius while those same characteristics will lead someone of limited aptitude down a dead end going in circles.

edit: it was Josh who suggested the audit. Yes Ryan is definitely a planner.

Right...see my post above

It is very much an individual thing, like where they are on the spectrum and other factors,

I know everyone is well meaning but you’re giving professional advice to someone on the spectrum. Since I’ve never meet someone with that condition and because we are communicating over a message board it’s hard to imagine what’s going on.

One thing for sure he keeps trying to take pieces of advice and put them together. He keeps trying to do things he has no ability to do or are way to complex. He has no business trying to make a feature film. Anyone not on the spectrum would struggle to make a feature but he doesn’t get it or doesn’t want to get it.

I’m sure at some point when he was trying to figure out what to do some said you should do what you love. So he loves movies. He goes to film school and that doesn’t work. Ok try your hand working on a movie set. That doesn’t work. Ok make your own film. And that’s not working.

Moral of the story just because you love to watch feature films doesn’t mean you’re equipped to make a feature film. So then what? I’d suggest getting help to find out what you are capable of doing.

When you say that I went to film school and that didn't work, and that I worked on movie sets and that didn't work, what about those didn't work? The film school was fine, and I did a fine job on the move sets it seemed. What about them didn't work?

Brian thanks for sharing. I wasn’t aware of that.

One thing I would caution is it is a spectrum. Just because one might share a broad diagnosis with someone one famous doesn’t mean that one could enjoy the same success at what they do. Many geniuses or great artists are often not what we deem normal because in order to achieve great things you can’t think like everyone else. While finding exceptions to the rule may serve as an inspiration, I think it would be far more helpful to look at the individual. I don’t know if you or someone else suggested he take a test to better learn what he is capable of.

The inflexibility, singular purpose, and obsession might be helpful for a genius while those same characteristics will lead someone of limited aptitude down a dead end going in circles.

edit: it was Josh who suggested the audit. Yes Ryan is definitely a planner.

Do you think perhaps I should try to improve my aptitude then?

I think that you need to understand your capabilities, that way you would not waste your time. You have the ability to pick out a few sentences from a huge post, and focus in on them in ways the writer did not remotely expect.

If you cannot remember, we heard all about the things you were fed at the film school, that sadly, like here, you misunderstood, or got the context wrong. We keep telling you that the school was terrible because frankly, what you learned there was totally misunderstood - totally! They clearly didn't notice you got the wrong end of the stick. You told us of all sorts of problems - have you forgotten? You have this wonderful ability to shut out negatives and ignore them, rather than do something about them?

I'm really not sure you understand us, and we certainly don't understand your thought processes at all.

You clearly want to make movies, and I think you probably could - but your need to constantly build a rule book and need everything broken down to levels where you can allow yourself to believe it. You also have a very under-developed appreciation of success and failure.

I really think there is not much we can do to assist you remotely. Do you have any close friends skilled in movie making? They would be the best way to learn. I'm not sure it works at a distance.

Oh okay, I thought that even though film school, I had some problems there with the projects I asked about, I thought it went well overall.

I have a couple of friends who have also made movies that I worked with. I have learned some things from them but there are other things I want to do, that they do not in filmmaking as well. I feel that my style I guess you could call it, is different than theres, so I cannot learn everything from them of course.

As for constantly building a rule book, well I am told I do things the wrong way in filmmaking and that I go outside the box too much, so if that's true, I wanted to have some rules or guidelines as to what people want. I could make a movie where I have no rules, and it's directed and shot in a completely original way by me, but not sure if people will accept an attempt at re-inventing of the wheel.

But I was told I would do a lot better if I could get better actors and a better DP, if that's true.

Although better actors and DPs will assist, you don't seem to have a different vision on how you tell a story. if anything you impose restrictions. You seem to have difficulty with the most basic stuff like "the line", rather than producing individualistic films, they tend towards the televisual.

Oh okay, so should I ignore the restrictions then like the line for example and still hope it turns out well? Are they more televisual cause of the lighting, or the shot choices themselves, or both?

No, you should understand the line, otherwise things won't cut together, it should be a natural process for you, not a struggle.

They are televisual because you're relying on dialogue without much sub text.

Oh okay. Thanks, I will try work on subtext more then.

There is one thing I was thinking of doing for this next project. In the past, I would shoot a master shot first, then go in for closer ups after. The actors always gave the better performances in the later takes. But this means that if I want the best performance, I have to use the close up almost all the time, if I shoot the close ups last.

I was thinking, I should shoot the coverage shots in the order of what shot I want the performance to be the best one. So for example, if I want to have a scene where most of the scene is the master shot in the edit, then I should shoot the master last, cause the performances will be best in the master more likely then. Does that sound like a good idea, to shoot the last shots, where you want to have the best performance?

That's why it's usual to shoot the master shot first because the better takes are usually in the closer shots, where you want them.

In practice, the master shot may not be used in the final cut, so it acts as a rehearsal for the closer shots, especially if you've got limited time.

If using master shot for most of the scene, shoot the number of takes needed for a good performance. The master allows everyone to see where everything goes including the DP and director, otherwise you risk painting yourself into a corner, so best shot first.

Oh yes I thought we could set it up so that nothing would be in the way of the master if we did it last. But if shooting more takes on it instead is best than I can do that... I just feel in past projects I relied on close ups too much for performance and want wider shots used more.

Just do more takes, so you get the performance in the wider shots. If those are the ones you're going to use you need the performance.

Oh okay thanks I will do that. Another thing I don't want to do in what other filmmakers I worked with have done, is they go for more of that soap opera look where, it's a master shot, and singles of each actor after. But it feels like of soap opera-ish or sitcom-ish, at least to me to shoot that way, so I feel I need to choose my own shots based on emotional beats instead. Is this overcomplicating things for myself?

I think this was covered in another thread, You don't need to shoot everything, don't cover every actor with a CU if you/re not going to use them all and you've got MCUs or other shot sizes. however, make sure you've got overlaps to allow choice in cutting points and the actors to ramp up their performances.

Emotional beats? Not quite sure I understand what you mean?

I must admit I'm often confused now between genres. My favourite US TV series is NCIS, and watching it last week noticed a very unusual shot and I'mnot sure I liked it or not. Two people have a calm and serious conversation, and the camera went round in a circle around each actor - but it still did the usual cuts between them as one stopped speaking and the other started, but they blocked it so that as the person out of shot's head appeard about to block the face, they cut, then repeated it over and over again. This isn't conventional TV, but it's not really cinema either? I don't know that I liked it - I found it a bit intrusive. It made me think about technical aspects, and stop following the plot?

I'm not sure about the emotional bests aspect or if Ryan has any sense of these, although the term "beats" within a scene does get used, but less in the shot coverage and more with the dramatic points during script writing (or at least on courses), it also gets used for timing purposes for the actors.

There was less coverage when shooting film, because of the cost and you needed a reasonable budget to get over 6 to 1 shooting ratio, This may have affected the style of shooting on films, together with the cutting speed, which is generally faster today because you can shoot the greater coverage. TV producers also like the latter, because it gives them greater control of the final cut.

I think this was covered in another thread, You don't need to shoot everything, don't cover every actor with a CU if you/re not going to use them all and you've got MCUs or other shot sizes. however, make sure you've got overlaps to allow choice in cutting points and the actors to ramp up their performances.

Emotional beats? Not quite sure I understand what you mean?

Oh well sometimes I feel I need to shoot enough coverage though. For example one of the short films I did before, every take of the master shot was slightly out of focus I noticed later. So I had to scrap the master shot completely and rely on the close ups. But if I didn't have those close ups, then I couldn't have done that.

I must admit I'm often confused now between genres. My favourite US TV series is NCIS, and watching it last week noticed a very unusual shot and I'mnot sure I liked it or not. Two people have a calm and serious conversation, and the camera went round in a circle around each actor - but it still did the usual cuts between them as one stopped speaking and the other started, but they blocked it so that as the person out of shot's head appeard about to block the face, they cut, then repeated it over and over again. This isn't conventional TV, but it's not really cinema either? I don't know that I liked it - I found it a bit intrusive. It made me think about technical aspects, and stop following the plot?

Oh that's interesting. Well in my experience with other filmmakers I worked with they will get a master and CUs, but if there is an emotional change in the character or situation, I feel that the shot should be changed along with that emotional change sometimes, but they never do it, which made me think I should have shot changes like that marked throughout the script, rather than allowing the same shots, to carry the entire scene if that makes sense?