What's on your typewriter these days?

If you've ever heard the expression or phrase: "What's on your typewriter?", this comes from the early days of Hollywood and screenwriters who used typewriters and when Hollywood itself was at the peak of the silver screen movie business. Ever since the computer took over the industry, this expression or phrase was adapted or altered to say: "What's on your computer?" This expression is for when you or someone wants to ask a professional or aspiring screenwriter in the business what project (if any) they are working on. They would then turn around and respond accordingly. If you aren't aware, the standard typeface for writing screenplays was in the courier font; it was also the same font used in typewriters. So, you can see where this standard originated from. We are now learning that the pandemic has not only caused people and other professionals to find ways to save money, but was also hobbies like rediscovery of vintage technology like the typewriter. So, should screenwriters return to the simpler time where typewriters were the primary tool for writing screenplays and has reigned supreme?

I remember learning typing for the first time on a manual typewriter. I also remember using one when my maternal grandfather had one in his house, and it was one of those electronic daisy wheel typewriters that allowed you to type one sentence out and then printed it automatically on a piece of paper. The keyboard was that of a computer keyboard as was the tactile feedback that it gave for the time period it was manufactured in. My maternal grandfather was a humble professor and lived in an area with lots of trees and fauna.

The typewriter, as I recently came to realize, offers a few notable benefits over something like a computer or a tablet of today. One such benefit addresses our fast growing concern for privacy: No hacking, no compatible software or firmware updates to contend with, or security patches for that matter, and no spying from big brother or his Uncle Sam. No Internet access to distract us from the pantheon of information or social media stuff that people are so addicted to these days. Typing words directly onto the page is all that is needed, whether you are typing up an original copy of what you're working on for yourself or to be sent to an intended recipient. While this is a benefit onto itself, if you do need to make multiple copies of said original document, there is always the option of heading out to your local photocopy/xerox store and paying a small fee to accomplish this.

Why bother though? Why bother when a screenwriter can use software to easily format their screenplay to industry standards to begin with, save and send it to the intended recipient(s) at the click of a button via email? There is nothing stopping a screenwriter from continuing on with this trajectory, but to quote a recruiter: "If you keep doing what you've always done, you'll get what you've always gotten." To be honest, this statement or affirmation resonates in me in a few different levels as it should for a lot of you screenwriters reading this article: We can continue to deal with distractions from social media and other Internet content that is making us lethargic, or we can become who we screenwriters are born to be. I (for obvious reasons) choose the later. It will afford us the opportunity to exercise patience when writing our screenplay, which is a key qualification for any screenwriter to possess.

Now that we've taking a look at the white knights of the round when it comes to typewriters, let's turn our flaming eye from the towers of Mount Doom and towards the dark lord of their misfortune. I give you the darkest of them all: constantly remembering  the margin or tab settings for each screenplay element when you get to it. This dark lord  may be defeated and with Mount Doom felled, patience will once again reveal itself to be the Frodo Baggins that brought in a new age and a new instrument of sorcery to help screenwriters once more who shall be there and back again with another Baggins. So go ahead my screenwriting shirerings, type away your adventures while Gandalf the wise guides you through Fangorn forest while the tree beards show you to the path to the other side, and to Minas Tirith.

Christians: You aren't hated for your Christianity, just your religiosity.

We've seen you complain, and we've heard you scream from atop Mt. Olympus to all the way to Australasia. While your concerns of being crucified each time you voice or share a dissenting opinion on a subject matter or a group of people is valid, you need to understand that these opinions are subjected to (hopefully) objective criticism and consequences. You also need to take on board the understanding that no matter what your religion has taught you or continues to teach you regarding said group of people or subject matter, and about people's livelihoods, you need to live and let live as the old saying goes. Bear in mind that you yourselves have your own lives to life. Adding to societal pressure is what you'd be doing should you continue to impose what you perceive to be an acceptable life or because you believe you have a higher standard on this. I'm not generalizing when I say this in this article, but I am speaking to those who take it upon themselves to not just make it known what they believe and the standards that they live by, but also act on it through violence and abuse (both physical and psychological).

You may find this difficult to digest, but god's true plan is for us muggles is simple - and it does not have anything to do with pure obedience or him having a positive impact on our lives through the teachings of various scriptures. That plan is for us to be born, fulfil or serve our purpose on Earth (our destinies if you will), and when done, return to him. It is definitely not the reason you are hated by the general public or the skeptics, or at the very least loathed by the progressive public.

Amongst your congregations, there is always that one individual who will interpret what is written in scripture and what it has to say about a particular subject matter or a group of people and decide that the only to handle (or correct) the situation concerning said group of people or subject matter is to use threats of eternal torture - or intimidation even. They refer to parts of scripture and argue that god hates a select group of people while sinning themselves. This explains why the world has seen book publications from non-theologians or non believers (as some of you may refer to them as) such as Sir Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens. These henchmen (the religiosity kind) often believe that god has chosen them as missionaries to deliver what is again perceived to be divine justice, when it isn't the case. They have a 'holier than thou' mentality or a "I have to delete you to save you" complex. Yet, we still allow them to live free or die hard with no consequences to them.

What these religiosity individuals fail to understand or grasp is that there are other more pressing issues in the world that demand our attention than worrying about how Joe Bloggs next door is conducting his life. Examples of such individuals include, but aren't limited to the minister or pastor of your local church or may be the country's pope even. There are certainly red flags that are so obvious that are frequently overlooked. I will discuss this later in the article.

Rest assured that most of us are as respectful as they come. However, we know for a fact that there are those in every group that ruin for the entire group. It is up to us to ensure and or uphold the integrity of the groups while not allowing power hungry demons or monsters go all righteous on us and use it as weapons for our psychological destruction.

It is for the religiosity that you are hated for and not for your belief system per se. You can make a difference and get into god's good graces by putting those power hungry demons in their place and promote god's true plan for us. You cannot get your morality from a book but by connecting with god directly.

While it is pretty natural for followers of any religion to look up to a figure of authority when said authority figure deploys their charisma and irresistible charms, we cannot allow these chumps to overrule our sense and sensibility just because they believe that god wants them to eliminate a certain percentage of the population. And for what you may ask: because they are either believed to be inferior or not worthy of god's love or his kingdom - or them for that matter. This form of righteousness should not only be condemned, but also be met with applied consequences.

We cannot stay silent simply from fear of negative consequences or succumb to threats of eternal torture of our souls from these demons. That's how they trap, psychologically bully is and get away with it.

On to the red flags I mentioned earlier. Look for these in your congregations, your place of worship, workplaces and educational institutions:

1. They can't help talk negatively about a specific group of people or a topic of controversy and continue to complain about it.
2. They keep using buzzwords like: "the right path" or "straying away from god" to get us to pay attention to them.
3. They won't stop bringing Lucifer (aka the devil) and how he's causing all the problems of the world or place blame on the devil when they observe changes in the world that they don't like - changes that they'd rather not see.
4. They will most likely resort to unconventional, unproven or frequently dangerous methods to force people into giving in to their way of thinking and believing, which often leads to psychological damage to their victims. Perfect example of this is conversion or reparative therapies that have been denounced by the medical professions of all areas - and they show no remorse or signs of atonement when their dirty deeds are exposed.

Mahatma Gandhi one said - and I quote: "I like your Christ, but not your Christians." If you truly believe in the son of god and what he stood for, you cannot just rest on your laurels and preach about him. Your true Christianity shall shine when you are still able to retain your belief in god without the assistance of a book that contains old and rusty laws, or a figure of authority in your congregation telling you otherwise. 

God's love can be shared without any judgement from any scripture or religious authority. Others may disagree and claim that those who aren't worthy of god and a place in his kingdom do not deserve it, but you need to beg to differ. Let's change the narrative and prevent hostility to anyone in the community. To do this, society will need your help and your effort in this journey. I hope you take the first step.

Your Story, Your judgement - trust it.

A producer or a screenwriter's greatest asset is the story that he or she conceptualizes and uses their creative flair to shape the story.

Then why on great Zeus' Olympus would they not trust their own judgement when it comes to the stories that they create and have to share? Why do they need to heavily rely on someone else to decide whether these some of the most amazing stories that are floating around are any good or worth the viewer's time? And why do some professional decision makers in the industry give up their power to these unqualified and sometimes inexperienced individuals? And why are professional producers and showrunners in the industry of today apprehensive when it comes to taking risks?

We can understand from a producing standpoint that a lot of money is being invested in making a blockbuster movie and that a lot of thought and design work goes in during the pre-production stages, and that a producer or a showrunner does expect a healthy return on their investments when all is said and done. However, the issue is the over reliance on critics and the giving away of too much of the power in the hopes that these critics may help the screenwriter, director, producer or the showrunner produce better quality content - but alas, they've been duped.

Let's begin our discussion with why on Earth would the professionals in the mainstream film industry not trust their own judgement when it comes to the stories that are told and or are produced for the viewing audience? After all, they are relentless when it comes to the proposals submitted by aspiring content creators. I would argue that because of the amount of money and time that needs to be invested in a movie or a spec script as the industry professionals would like to refer to it as. The producer or the showrunner's natural expectation of a healthy return on this through the sales and promotion of the movie once it is has undergone the production and post production stages, and the strain it places on the filmmaker plays a huge part in this equation. I would also theorize that the goal of saving on costs and having the content or movie produced has certainly not only entertained the minds of the producers, but they may have also made it a standard practice in the industry. It can be good when done right, but this particular hydra seems to have produced some new heads that makes it difficult to deal with.

For the purposes of this article, I want us to set aside these expectations and practices in the industry and ask ourselves this simple question: "Are producers incapable of trusting their own judgements? If the answer is a Yes, then they shouldn't continue with the project. If the answer is a solid No, then they shouldn't be needing to heavily rely on unqualified and inexperienced Joe Shmoes to determine the quality of their work. This goes for every other screenwriter and filmmaker on the planet. That's for your target audience to determine. They do not need to rely that heavily on anyone who is clearly not qualified or even under qualified for the job. It'll be like the hire manager of a company or a business hiring someone who doesn't even know what they're doing and expecting that person to deliver a quality product/service to their standards. It doesn't work like that.

Critics of today have positioned themselves as gods of the industry and they will lash out against anyone that challenges their power. The producers and showrunners, out of fear may have essentially given away their power to these (dare I call them) smart a$%es.

Another possible reason why professional producers and showrunners are heavily relying on unqualified and often inexperienced individuals is due to either plain laziness or in an attempt to save costs. I would argue both only because they don't do their due diligence in picking these questionable individuals, and or want to get to the production and the post production stages faster than a speeding Valkyrie. I've observed this happen one too many times with my classmates in film school: they were to eager to get to the production and post production stages and did not bother with the entire rewriting process of the project that we were assigned. This didn't surprise me as they were too impatient. I on the other side enjoyed the whole rewriting process every single time a project was assigned.

Why the article then? Why do I believe this is the biggest issue since the American civil rights movement? When you allow your story to be critiqued by questionable people or individuals, you are basically:

• Taking the easy way out
• You don't trust yourself when it comes to your own story, or your characters even.
• You are sacrificing the quality of your creations.

You need to set yourselves an affirmation every single time you engage in a new project or submit your work for critique. Believe in your characters and your story. And as part of that affirmation, tell yourself that this is your story - and you are the only one who is allowed to judge your own creations. If you feel you need a second opinion for whatever reason, find yourselves a well established critic who may or may not charge an arm and a leg for their services, but will provide you with constructive criticism. Only seek them out if you feel that your story is way too important for you to self critique.

If you strongly believe in your story and in your characters, you will find within yourself to be the judge automatically until you know that the story is perfect. To quote filmmaker S.S. Rajamouli: "Don't make films just for the money. Do it because you believe in your characters and your story". That is the key to producing or making quality films, TV shows or other content in the mainstream or independent cinema world.

Also remember this: No pain, no gain and No risk, no reward.

The human morality scale

Something happened in the middle ages and the dark ages: the persecution of the LGBTQ individuals (specifically gays). The darkest time in human morality.

There is nothing in the law books that says your freedom to practice your religion affords you the right to impose it upon the unsuspecting public in any country or continent, and yet, it does happen no matter how progressive the world becomes.

For thousands of years, religion has been at the forefront of human morality, often resulting in a few members of the clergy taking advantage of the blind faith that people have in their so called wisdom to propagate their agendas and or their worldview of things. It also gave rise to laws that are more in line with fascist dictatorships in continents like Africa and the middle east. Asia wasn't immune to this either.

While skepticism against religion growing within modern society is a healthy sign, we're still allowing religious scumbaggery to flourish with little to no consequences. These religious organizations are still enjoying the benefits of tax exemption status that our governments are able to afford them. We still have a long way to go.

While the constitution says nothing about being able to impose your beliefs, values and worldview points or religious teachings, it should come as no surprise that this sort of thing continues to happen (especially in the middle east). Either someone resorts to radical extremism or takes steps to pass laws knowing full well that the citizenry will need to follow the rules or face consequences. It is either 'their way or the highway' as the old saying goes. These radical losers don't seem to want to do anything to better themselves or pursue any goals in life. Same goes for those who pass laws that infringe on a citizen's personal life.

Forcing innocent people to subscribe to a viewpoint or a belief system by threatening them with dire consequences (both spiritual and legal). The threat of this penalty sure does have a psychological effect on the victim in various degrees. A few of these includes, but not limited to: Being ostracized from society or a particular community that the victim grew up in and grown accustomed to, a sense of worthlessness, and not being able to share the love and compassion with another human being of their choice. Some of these religious demons really make the divine creator not very welcoming or approachable. They solely rely on the threat of eternal torture to maintain power and control, thus proving: its their way or the highway mentality.

The fact that most argue that the holy bible or any other religious text is the absolute word or law of the divine or another god is in itself flawed. I could easily refute this argument by simply finding any book written by a particular author, holding it up and boldly claiming that whichever book I was holding is the true word and law of the said author and anyone who argues against this is a heretic and deserves eternal punishment and torture to the fullest extent of the law. We all know how that would turn out to be.

Then why are we allowing this to happen to other people? I do not believe simply by citing co-existing peacefully as a valid reason as the religious scumbags and or nut jobs will always inevitably find a way to abuse this privilege no matter how strict the rules are against them.

They can complain all the way to Hades and back to Earth, but I believe that the best solution to tackle this will be to:

• Not allow any form of recruitment, subscription or affiliation with any religion until a citizen or individual has reached the age of 15 or discernment age between what it is fiction and what is fact or at least discourage it in the first place - and maybe even banned in some cases
• No special treatment for religious organizations and communities or disingenuous respect from members when they use threats (which by the way should be punishable) of eternal torture. They all should be treated the same as any ordinary citizen.
• No tax breaks. This means no tax exempt status by default. However, should governments still decide to offer religious organizations tax breaks or tax exempt status, these organizations will need to prove to the citizenry or to the government that they are still worthy of receiving these benefits on a consistent basis.
• The religious organizations can have a say or give their two cents worth when it comes to social issues, but the second they resort to imposing their beliefs, values and viewpoints onto the vulnerable or the unsuspecting younger generation, they need to be ostracized, exiled or both - no exceptions.

If we were to evolve as a society, the world needs to step up and up its game. I would strongly recommend that religions and religious scumbags are treated the same when committing a crime or when engaging in a commendable act: i.e. give credit where credit is due. We need punishments other than sending offenders to jail only to have them re-enter society and commit the same crimes again. For crimes that inflict psychological damage on their victims, I would recommend a psychological punishment be in order. This will fit the crime more than sending them to jail by default. I may not be a qualified therapist or psychologist, but experience suggests that human beings adapt to change only when the mind is subjected to psychological trauma or a tragedy in life. The penalties should reflect this. As long as there are religious people who feel that they are doing the divine's work by imposing their worldviews and belief systems on to the rest of us, we as a society will continue to be victimized by this childish entitlement.

I will leave you with this:

As long as you are fearful, there will always be he who will keep you fearful.

 

Mediocre romance films and why they need to be held to a higher standard than they are now

Romance is a highly popular and profitable genre in the film and television industry. According to a report by the Motion Picture Association, romance films accounted for 13% of the global box office revenue in 2019, making it the third most successful genre after action and adventure. The genre also dominates streaming platforms, with Netflix producing multiple original romantic comedies and dramas every year, such as To All the Boys I’ve Loved Before, The Kissing Booth, and The Princess Switch.

However, the genre's popularity and profitability do not always translate to quality and creativity. Critics and viewers have pointed out the flaws and clichés that plague the romance genre, such as unrealistic expectations, stereotypical characters, predictable plots, and problematic messages. These issues not only affect the artistic value of the genre but also the social and cultural impact of the genre, particularly on younger and more impressionable audiences.

Therefore, I propose that romance films and filmmakers should be held to higher standards than any other genre in film and television. By higher standards, I mean that romance films and filmmakers should strive to:

- Challenge the conventions and tropes of the genre: Instead of relying on the same formula and patterns that have been used for decades, romance films and filmmakers should explore new and diverse ways of storytelling about love and relationships. For example, they could subvert the audience's expectations, experiment with different formats and styles, or incorporate elements from other genres. Some examples of romance films that have done this are Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, 500 Days of Summer, and The Shape of Water. This includes demanding that the pantheon of screenwriting instructors/gurus/teachers and filmmaking schools raise their game and not allow mediocre ideas to flood the market with meaningless stories that are super predictable.

- Represent the diversity and complexity of the real world: Instead of portraying a narrow and idealized version of romance, romance films, and filmmakers should reflect the variety and richness of the real world. For example, they could feature characters and couples of different races, ethnicities, genders, sexualities, ages, cultures, and backgrounds. They could also address the challenges and issues that affect real relationships, such as communication, compatibility, conflict, and compromise. This can come from both heterosexual and gay couples and not just from tunnel-visioned heterosexual relationships. Some examples of romance films that have done this are The Big Sick, Moonlight, and The Farewell.

• Whenever a perverted filmmaker proposes an additional idea for a boy meets girl love story, we can point out that there are other areas of love that they are missing out on and encourage them to explore these. Examples include: love and bond shared between a parent and child, between cousins, between grandparent and grandchild, between friends (i.e. bromances). It doesn't always need to be sexual in nature like most perverted filmmakers are known to think up. 

• Each time a perverted filmmaker proposes the idea for this boy meets girl premise, we need to ask them these questions:

1. Why have you chosen these particular characters to fall in love with each other?
2. How are the two characters complimenting their weaknesses with each other's strengths?
3. Why have you chosen only straight couples for this movie? 
4. Why have you not chosen characters that belong to the LGBT community to tell this story?
5. Can these chosen characters convert their weaknesses into strengths while being together? Why not? 
6. Can you think of ways where the characters are able to turn each others' weaknesses into strengths without them having to fall in love with each other? Why not? 
7.  Why should you always have the male character chase after the female character? Can you accomplish the same by reversing the roles?

- Empower and educate the audience: Instead of reinforcing harmful and outdated norms and values, romance films and filmmakers should empower and educate the audience. For example, they could promote healthy and respectful relationships, celebrate individuality and agency, and inspire positive and meaningful change. They could also raise awareness and spark dialogue about important and relevant topics, such as consent, equality, and social justice. Some examples of romance films that have done this are The Perks of Being a Wallflower, The Half of It, and Promising Young Woman.

By holding romance films and filmmakers to higher standards, we can not only improve the quality and creativity of the genre but also the social and cultural impact of the genre. Romance films and filmmakers have the power and responsibility to shape the way we think and feel about love and relationships, and they should use that power and responsibility wisely and ethically. Romance is not just entertainment; it is also education. We deserve better.

Why the gay community needs to be afforded the right to self defense training in these times of increased hatred and self hatred.

I am super passionate about this topic for 3 reasons:

1. Just because you disagree with how someone is living their life or the fact that said someone is living a life that you consider an 'abomination' is not a strong enough reason for you to go out of your fucking way to destroy their lives. 
2. We have all been taught to either judge or hate against a particular group of people (like the outcasts) at some point in our lives.
3. Mediocre films and other entertainment content from established sources (like the perverted filmmakers) that promote and or glorify the boy meets girl premises are responsible for this stigma, hatred, and backlash from society (even in small towns).

The LGBT community has been subjected to violence, harassment, and bullying for a long time. According to the Australian Human Rights Commission, violence, harassment, and bullying are violations of fundamental human rights ¹. The Sex Discrimination Act 1984 makes it unlawful to discriminate based on a person's sexual orientation, gender identity, and intersex status ⁴. However, LGBT individuals continue to experience unprovoked violence at a much higher rate than the general population ³.

Several organizations provide self-defense training for the LGBT community. For instance, Armed Equality is a Southern California-based group that focuses on making self-defense training more accessible to the LGBT community and stresses the importance of educated decisions ³. Operation Blazing Sword is another group that provides gun education to the LGBT community to ensure responsible gun ownership ³. 

In addition to these organizations, several online resources are available for self-defense training. Ammo.com provides a self-protection and concealed carry guide for the LGBT community ³. The guide offers tips on how to defend oneself from unprovoked violence and how to use firearms safely.

You have the right to defend yourself against hatred and self hatred - from The Sensei film.

Opponents of self-defense training for the LGBT community may argue that it is unnecessary and that the community should rely on law enforcement to protect them. However, this argument is flawed because law enforcement is not always available or reliable in protecting individuals from violence and harassment. In addition, self-defense training provides individuals with the necessary skills to protect themselves in situations where law enforcement is not present ³.

Another argument against self-defense training for the LGBT community is that it promotes violence. However, this argument is also flawed because self-defense training does not promote violence but instead teaches individuals how to protect themselves from violence and harassment ³.

The first rule of self-defense is to de-escalate the situation. If the aggressor still refuses to back down or listen to reason, then it would be time to use self-defense.

There are plenty of examples where members of the LGBT community have been cornered and attacked by not one, but a gang of aggressors who were stalking them. They will even attack anyone who supports them:

California Woman Fatally Shot For Displaying Pride Flag Outside Her Store

It is essential that the LGBT community has access to affordable self-defense training. The Equality Act in the United States expands on the 1964 Civil Rights Act to include protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity ². However, self-defense training designed specifically for LGBT individuals is rarely discussed, let alone available ³. 

Source: Conversation with Bing, 07/10/2023

(1) Self Defense for LGBT: A Self-Protection and Concealed Carry (CCW .... https://ammo.com/articles/lgbt-self-defense-guide-lesbian-gay-bi-trans-community.

(2) The Elusiveness of Self-Defense for the Black Transgender Community - SSRN. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3689118.

(3) LGBTQ+ self-defense class offers tools in the face of adversity. https://www.tampabay.com/news/2023/05/30/lgbtq-self-defense-class-offers-tools-face-adversity/.

(4) ACON Pride Training - LGBTQ+ Awareness and Inclusion Training. https://www.pridetraining.org.au/.

(5) undefined. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3689118.

(6) undefined. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3689118.

(7) Defenders of the human rights of LGBT persons constantly at ... - OHCHR. https://www.ohchr.org/en/statements/2022/03/defenders-human-rights-lgbt-persons-constantly-risk-warn-un-experts.

(8) There’s a problem with the LGBT rights movement - The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/theres-a-problem-with-the-lgbt-rights-movement-its-limiting-freedom-101999.

What screenwriting instructors get wrong about teaching screenwriting

Whether you are new to screenwriting or just trying to brush up on your skills as a seasoned and professional screenwriter, screenwriting courses can be a blessing or a nightmare. What is the use of taking a screenwriting course only to walk away learning little to nothing after having paid all the fees and time learning about the craft?

While some screenwriting courses are better structured than others, it's the individual teaching the screenwriting course that makes or breaks the students' ability to be successful at their craft - using words to illustrate the story they are wanting to share. There are also different ways to learn screenwriting as each teacher or instructor is different. But they all have a few fundamental flaws in common. These flaws not only ill prepare the students to go out there and woo the showrunners with their talent, they practically enable any bad idea that a student can throw at them in screenwriting workshops (if they even have them). This not only does not do the aspiring screenwriters any favors by not helping them advance their careers, but it also takes away the quality from the screenwriters' work.

I've been to a few screenwriting classes (about half of them are beginner's screenwriting classes) and at first, I did not think of it much, but now that I am older and more wiser, I have to wonder why these screenwriting classes suck so much - factor out the part where I was studying in Los Angeles, California and where I have gained some industry experience, the issues are still prevalent with any beginner's screenwriting course (whether you are charged peanuts to learn or an arm and a leg is besides the point).

The opening question of "why do we watch movies?":

Why do we watch movies? Is that the best these teachers or gurus can come up with? Did their awareness meter drop all the way down to zero when they ask this question? Are they ignorant to the fact that they are teaching a screenwriting class to bunch of people who will be tomorrow's greatest writers? I'd say yes to all of the above.

What they should really be asking is this: "why do we tell stories?" This is the most appropriate question to ask the students because it is most relevant to the class and the subject matter at hand. In his book: Sapiens, author Yuval Noah Harari claims that all human beings are sociable people and that we have a habit of gossiping from Smallville to all the way to Vancouver, British Columbia. When the question about why we tell stories comes up, it will result in a variety of responses being received from the students. The truth of the matter is that students from different backgrounds have different reasons to why they are taking a screenwriters class. Maybe they have stories that they found intriguing that they want to share with the rest of us, or maybe some will simply say that they are only doing it as a means of self expression.

Whatever the reason may be, I would strongly advise against asking the question about watching movies and gravitate towards why we're taking the screenwriting in the first place learning about it. What can happen when this question is asked is the students will be more open to discover their own voices sooner rather than later after everything is said and done in their lives, which by this time, the audience and the industry would have moved on.

Screening movies rather than studying already written scripts:

If you have ever completed a screenwriting class, you will find that the students will be watching the movies that have been finished. Meaning that the final rewrite has already taken place before distribution to the general public. I say final rewrite because editing a film or any content is classified by editors in the industry as the final stages of piecing a story together with all the footage in sequence that is coherent and a natural flowing story that people will (supposedly) enjoy when it is released to them.

What the students should really be doing is getting into the habit of reading screenplays and familiarizing themselves with how effective descriptions are written in the screenplays they are studying. They need to be practicing the craft within the confines of screenwriting school in order to make sure that the quill is in fact mightier than the sword.

When I first started to officially learn screenwriting in 2011, our screenwriting instructor at that time (Mick Curran) was the first screenwriting instructor/teacher to tell us that we need to be using dynamic action verbs in our screenplays. Same goes for directors directing their actors. While he had some great advice, I would say that him showing a movie towards the end of the class was what put a stop to the urge to start writing. It is for this reason that screenwriting teachers and gurus should focus more on getting the students to practice their writing rather than wasting time watching a finished film.

Not challenging mediocre ideas from students:

I'm not sure how many times I've come across a situation where almost 100% of the time when it comes to conceptualization of a film, most students are not even being challenged. I would put forth the notion that this is primarily due to the fact that the teacher or guru teaching the course will suffer backlash from the students or from the higher ups if this screenwriting guru is working for a large educational organization that has set its sights on gaining more students than turning existing students into quality screenwriters. When there is obvious evidence of mediocrity in the ideas been formulated or presented by the students, the screenwriting guru or teacher doesn't challenge their students. They will simply accept that "is the idea, now let's make it a reality". That sort of mentality is not doing the students any favors as all it is doing is pumping out more mediocrity and weak competition in the industry. No one is standing up to the mediocre screenwriters and telling them to "do better". Probing questions need to be asked why the student writer has come up a mediocre idea and if said student writer has done their research and asked themselves whether their idea is a heavily recycled one.

Leaving the student writer to figure out how to write effective descriptions:

While in screenwriting class, the student writer is given a few examples of how to write effective descriptions that leap off the page, but there are no tips offered on how to approach the complex topic of writing it so that the reader is instantaneously compelled (in a good way) to turn the page. There should be a lot more time spent on practicing writing out descriptions effectively and exploring how these descriptions differ from Genre to Genre.

Until this is done, quality of the work put out by screenwriters will be either subpar or non-existent.

Most screenwriting gurus haven't critiqued a screenplay, aren't a reader from the industry or are a produced writer themselves:

Most screenwriting gurus have no idea what a reader will look for in a screenplay, because if there is one thing I did learn about film critics and script readers in the industry is that they are always looking for ways and or reasons to say no to your film or screenplay. They (the critics and script readers) are always on the lookout to find something wrong with the work of the filmmaker or a screenwriter.

I know. For a guy that heavily critiques the critics, I sure have done a complete 180 in supporting them, but no. I am simply affirming from experience, based on the fact that critics in the business do this. In fact, this is one of the reasons why I have started to analyze a critic's feedback or critique to determine whether or not I was receiving, fair, balanced and objective criticism rather than the destructive kind.

What I would love to see in these instances is a stringent code or criteria set by the industry that will keep all the shitty critics and script readers out while seeking out the most genuine ones out there.

Until something changes, it will all remain the same for generations or centuries to come. My passion for screenwriting was realized during the final semester of being in film school. I noticed how I really enjoyed the writing process and how I was looking forward to rewriting it if the story or the characters or anything in the script needed fixing. This is unwavering. What would make it better for the rest of those are aspiring to be screenwriters who would one day end up working in the industry.