Thanks for watching. Credit goes to Eric, his assistant and this class for allowing us to come in and do this. We loved this opportunity and we're happy to share. We're glad to see Professor Edson's teachings live on in this format.
Deborah, thanks for the reminder. I've thought about getting his book before when I've seen him in one of the RUclips postings. Think its time to order it.
I seek out lots of video's to help me with the arts of scriptwriting, and must say Eric is my favourite person, with such a relaxed manner you absorb so much
Thanks Camron, we are excited to share this footage. It was a thrilling experience for us. We'll see what opportunities present themselves moving forward.
Shrek will always be a good example. Solid story. Jerry Maguire is awesome as well. These movies cut all of the fat out and give you everything you need to get the emotional impacts and connections, nothing less. No time wasted and awesome execution. Everything serves the story.
This is fantastic!! Thank you for a video like this. I find the structural videos, like anatomy of story, the nutshell technique and this one so useful.
Film Courage that’s great news. I’ve been watching your videos to help me write a script for a graphic novel. Combining these videos with tips on graphic novel writing has been a lifesaver.
Glad you discovered this one Neodobby. We had a great time sitting in on Eric's class. We have the full version of this class published and we are still working through segments of his second class.
Really good lecture. Easy to understand and engaging. Are you guys on film campuses and film different teachers and students? Is that how you get your content. Keep it coming
First, I never take notes. I took notes. Second, I want to see more. Third, I would love to ask for a deeper explanation of some of his assertions. Often, people will pick examples that illustrate the point cleanly, but a messy example might give better evidence. For instance, in Vogler's "The Writer's Journey", he lays out the hero's journey and not only compares it to Star Wars, a clean example, but also Pulp Fiction, a very messy example. In this class, we saw the clean example of a stunning surprise in Shrek, but in Collateral it was also a clean example of a stunning surprise, although where to pin it might not be exactly clean (I haven't seen the movie, so maybe the example is messier than I think). Also, he states that the protagonist must be the best at something, but I'm having a hard time thinking of what "The Dude" from the Big Lebowski is best at.
Lon, thanks for your feedback. Great to see that this one had you taking notes. This was part of Eric's first class of the semester for first year MFA students. Knowing they still have two years together maybe it is best to begin with clean examples before heading to the messy examples as you state.
I don't agree on The layer Cake part, that the beginning just lays there. The take their time to introduce the main character in a proper way, so you can strongly relate to his problems later on. Something you miss in a lot of movies now a day.
There are many problems with a lot of inexperienced scripts, but one of the things that comes to mind after writing for several years is that so many scripts by newbies just don't have enough story. That is to say, a feature film has a lot of beats. watch any Hollywood film and count the beats in each scene. I find newbie screenplays are way too sparse on beats. In order to keep a reader or audience engaged the beats have to be quite frequent. This means you need enough characters to create enough sequences and within those sequences enough scenes, and within those scenes, enough beats.
I have yet to see a source complete of information, and this video is no exception. Although it is thorough, it is not complete (to understanding Act I). Where is the hook? What role does the hook play on the inciting incident? What internal conflict arises from the inciting incident? Also, he noted that the "stunning surprise one" and midpoint are different. I disagree; both push the hero / MC out of his / her comfort zone. *I look forward to learning more of his perspective in the next video* . I find it interesting that Eric defines acts as levels of maturation. Adam Skelter (in *An Overview Of 4 Act Story Structure by Adam Skelter* on Film Courage @ 04:48 into that video) defines acts as strategies taken by the hero. What Adam discusses in that video (e.g. how to engage an audience and what successful screenwriters do to make this happen) is missed in this video.
There's nothing here that suggests his purpose is to provide a complete understanding of Act 1. The title indicates he's going to talk about "Stunning Surprise 1" Sounds like that's what he's doing.
@@danbee998 So you were expecting a thorough screenwriting masterclass in 28 minutes? And you're surprised that different people have a different take on defining screenwriting?
@@Ruylopez778 It's Act I only. Thorough for Act I (masterclass), why not? Surprised? I noted it was interesting the differences between Adam and Eric; i.e. different perspectives. I think I like strategies better. Maturation sounds like a complete transformation, when anti-heroes often never, really go through complete transformation / maturation. Perspective! Don't get me wrong, there is *A LOT OF GREAT INFORMATION* shared in this video. Great job by Eric for that.
@@danbee998 Nothing in the title or description should lead you to the conclusion that this is intended to be a thorough run through of Act 1. Well, not only did you 'note it was interesting' the perspectives are different, you also made a point of disagreeing with Eric's presentation, and comparing unfavorably to Adam's. And then you also challenged the first response, as though putting "Masterclass" in the title somehow proves your point.
The main character does not need to "have a job" and "be the best at it." Some people in life lose their jobs and that becomes part of their growing process. For several stories, forcing that plot point would make no sense.
He's a master but he got one thing wrong. The clean cab isn't designed to show that Max, like all heroes, is the best at what he does. The cab is a representation of Max's psyche. He has all these dreams, and his inertia and lack of courage to pursue his dream force him to apply all that energy and love into a single vehicle that has fundamentally become his whole life. In a way, he has become the perfect car cleaner, instead of the owner of a luxury Limo company. So in reality, he's a bum.
Yup, Max was a loser hanging on to a pipe dream. And he told everyone what his pipe dream was. It was a lot easier to tell the world his pipe dream than ADMITTING he was a loser and was never going to have that limo business. That's why the end is more powerful for him. He had a huge character arc from that experience.
@@joeygonzo You're kind of reading too much into this but you're correct. He was in stagnation. What I don't like about this film is the woman. They simultaneously fix everything but it's a movie
It's a while since I've seen the movie, but doesn't Max demonstrate competency by choosing a quicker route? I suppose I would say the clean cab is used to demonstrate multiple things. I agree with you that he's too focused on keeping the cab clean as a distraction and mask, but it also shows the audience he is conscientious and has an attention to detail, even if that is part of a flaw. A limo driver would also be concerned with keeping his car clean, so in a way he is kind of role playing his dream, if that makes sense.
@@Ruylopez778 Distraction and mask have nothing to do with it. Read my comment again. I totally agree though with the other side of the coin which shows his eagerness to be creative, and that's why I said he had become the best car cleaner in the world instead of a Limo company owner.
@@alexispapageorgiou72 I don't need to read your comment again to have my own interpretation of the movie. AFAIR Annie questions his route, and he gives an explanation and gets her to the destination quicker than she expects. This demonstrates his competency in his work, and how he can think quickly - otherwise there is no reason in the scene for the characters to discuss it. Max identifies too closely with his persona. Vincent represents Max's shadow. He lies to his mother about how successful he is, and won't stand up to his boss until Vincent forces him. The time he spends keeping the car clean is a distraction, an excuse - a symptom of his fear of pursuing his dream.
Eric Edson got way too specific in several points. For most rules he laid out, I could think of at least one notable exception. For example Get Out: Unusually, the protagonist doesn't have a clearly defined goal until the act 2 climax. Yes, he starts getting suspicious of the family after Stunning Surprise One, but he hardly takes any steps to actually discover their secrets. It's not until the act 2 climax that he decides to make a run for it. Granted, Get Out has an unconventional structure, and pulls a lot of things off that by all rights shouldn't work. But I could find such exceptions for almost every point he made. Edit: I watched the video further, and again there's a big generalization: The hero needs to be the best at what they do? Absolutely not! They absolutely can be a screw-up, it's just important that they have at least one admirable quality. That quality can be being the best at their job, but it can also be something entirely different like selflessness. I mean, even Max in Collateral is a screw-up, lying to himself about his grand future while not taking the necessary steps to achieve it. His admirable quality just so happens to be very good at his job.
@@MrDiscane Yeah but it's not the goal we are invested in. Given the genre, name and mood of the film, we know something really bad is going on long before the protagonist does. The goal of getting along with the girl's parents stops mattering really early. In fact, it stops mattering the moment he meets them and they appear to be super nice.
@UC9UGh7hzQPSUVFSNBySMfsQ Maybe goal not that exciting but it exists. I remember "The Colour of Magic" film/book. Rincewind has to be a guide to Twoflower. Also not that exciting but the story does everything to entertain readers.
Gui Caldo that’s the initial starting goal. When he has his first stunning surprise his goal changes in light of it. Get out isn’t an exception to the three act structure. I just don’t think you quite understand what he’s saying in the video. These aren’t must follows but they are tried and true points used in traditional storytelling to craft a story. The main character is not fully aware of the true conflict between himself and the antagonistic force until the end when he or she “grows up” and fully embraces their new truth learned via the story conflict. In get out, it’s when the lead confronts his demons of the past and fights the family. He doesn’t take action earlier because he is still clinging to the lie that anchored his original “normal world” of act one. It’s not an unconventionally structured movie, it’s just an interesting and well written one.
Have a look at the attachment.. nofilmschool.com/2017/05/why-screenwriting-rules-are-myth Mr Edson is teaching the way a screenplay is and generally has been written, but a screenplay doesn't have to follow these rules. Rules are made to be broken..example, Napoleon Dynamite follows None of these rules, no one can say exactly what that movie was about, what the subject of the movie is.. Write in the style that you're comfortable with.. People like what they like regardless if It is written in the traditional way or if it's something completely different..
My question is ... if all these screenplay gurus know how to write a screenplay, and know everything needed to write an oscar winning script ... why the hell are they teaching? I'd be writing the $5M script ... and screw the classes ... garbage!
Because writing and analysis are two different skills, just like not all editors are writers, and not all writers are editors. You're also presuming that; a. someone who knows HOW to write, WANTS to write, and b. that he hasn't already written scripts for enjoyment, without the need for validation. Perhaps he enjoys teaching and inspiring people instead of just wanting money?
@@allthingselderly Analysis and creation are two different things. Some people can do both. Some can't. Some aren't interested. Just like some of the most imaginative minds can't articulate their process. It's important to know the rules of the craft. None of them promise that knowing craft guarantees you make $5m. Sorry, but they don't claim that. Their tools and techniques can help people write at the professional level. However, you want to complain, so you won't agree with this obvious truth. Instead of just calling it garbage, why don't you offer others watching this video some practical advice?
I'm curious. If you really think that 'all these screenplay gurus' wouldn't be teaching if they knew how to write the $5M script, then why are you searching for and watching these tutorial videos?
@@goldeneddie It's under the pretext of "I didn't find any answers in these books, so I'm going to enlighten everyone else, that must share my conclusion, and they will be grateful I pointed out it's a scam". And these comments focus only on success and money, not in terms of developing ability to express and convey an emotional response on the reader.
![Stunning Surprise Two In A Screenplay - Eric Edson [Screenwriting Masterclass]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/W6tXEwqkSnc/mqdefault.jpg)
![Stunning Surprise Two In A Screenplay - Eric Edson [Screenwriting Masterclass]](/img/tr.png)
![Writing The Love Interest Character - Eric Edson [Screenwriting Masterclass]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LlF1Ls-GGMg/mqdefault.jpg)
![[#2024MAMA] BIGBANG (빅뱅) - 뱅뱅뱅 (BANG BANG BANG) + FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EQsYfiPR9uM/mqdefault.jpg)
Here is a link to Stunning Surprise Two In A Screenplay - ruclips.net/video/W6tXEwqkSnc/видео.html
Film Courage thank you so much for sharing this class!
Thanks for watching. Credit goes to Eric, his assistant and this class for allowing us to come in and do this. We loved this opportunity and we're happy to share. We're glad to see Professor Edson's teachings live on in this format.
¡Gracias!
Eric’s book , The Story Solution is a must read for the serious storyteller. Thank you Eric 🥰
Deborah, thanks for the reminder. I've thought about getting his book before when I've seen him in one of the RUclips postings. Think its time to order it.
@@rebeccaoliver7977😢😊
I seek out lots of video's to help me with the arts of scriptwriting, and must say Eric is my favourite person, with such a relaxed manner you absorb so much
I love Edson! The Story Solution is the first book on screenwriting I ever read. Glad there's new video of him.
This one has been in the works for a very long time. We're really glad we were able to make this happen.
Please make more videos like this! Absolutely wonderful to watch and very instructive! Thanks so much :)
Thanks Braden! Appreciate the feedback. We have more of this lecture and then we'll see what happens from there.
I would love to see more videos like this!
Thanks Camron, we are excited to share this footage. It was a thrilling experience for us. We'll see what opportunities present themselves moving forward.
Thank you for all your work, Film Courage! I'm hopeful there's more of Eric's class to come.
Thank you Rebecca. Yes, we have all of Eric's opening lecture to his MFA class and will have it all online in the coming weeks.
@@filmcourage 😯😯😯😯 thats amazing!!! Thank you for sharing all of this!!!
Oh yes!! Love him. this is great. hope there's more to come.
We have the entire first lecture of his MFA class. Yes, more to come.
Getting crafty with the heroes journey.
Shrek will always be a good example. Solid story. Jerry Maguire is awesome as well. These movies cut all of the fat out and give you everything you need to get the emotional impacts and connections, nothing less. No time wasted and awesome execution. Everything serves the story.
thank you for sharing, this was amazing. the way he explains things is easy to follow, learned a lot
You better upload stunning surprise TWO!!!
While we wait, we get a hands-on class about suspense.
Haha, yes we will be uploading Stunning Surprise Two along with this entire lecture as one video.
@@filmcourage Thanks!
Hahaha
Just masterful. Thank you Sir Edson!
Awesome class...we need a part two of this video fast! Many thanks, Film Courage!
Great to see so many enjoying this class as much as we did. Stunning Surprise 2 coming soon...
@@filmcourage Your site is a great learning experience for future filmmakers...so inspiring! I love this channel! keep it up.
This is fantastic!! Thank you for a video like this. I find the structural videos, like anatomy of story, the nutshell technique and this one so useful.
Thanks Lawrence! We're glad to see people responding positively to this one. Looking forward to sharing more from this lecture in the near future.
Film Courage that’s great news. I’ve been watching your videos to help me write a script for a graphic novel. Combining these videos with tips on graphic novel writing has been a lifesaver.
This was helpful and the examples are great. Thanks.
Credit to Professor Edson for opening the doors to his class. Hope Film Courage helps ya audit more film courses.
Awesome video! Can we see the continuation of this!
Thanks Stephen, the continuation is definitely coming.
@@filmcourage Thank you! Looking forward to it!
4:40 What?! Who HASN'T seen Shrek?!
I have not seen Shrek once
Shrek is a classic! Fun movie.
This was great. Very helpful specific tips.
Glad you discovered this one Neodobby. We had a great time sitting in on Eric's class. We have the full version of this class published and we are still working through segments of his second class.
I paused at 7 53 to watch a film).
Tell about Surprise Two plz).
Thank you Film Courage!
👊
Another excellent video - thank you Film Courage (and Eric Edson!)
Thanks Darren, glad you found this one!
Master Class!
Super helpful!! Thanks! :))
Really good lecture. Easy to understand and engaging. Are you guys on film campuses and film different teachers and students? Is that how you get your content. Keep it coming
This was a rare opportunity for us. But we have put together our own classes in the past - bit.ly/2lxIFD2
great work
My stunning surprise is that none of the people know shrek or the matrix da whoot?
More videos like this.
Glad you are enjoying this Angel. Thanks for the feedback.
Part III on Film Courage 2 (different RUclips Channel): ruclips.net/video/0vft2493hZs/видео.html
Masterclass lessons use Shrek as an example. 👌
Thanks!
Cheers!
First, I never take notes. I took notes.
Second, I want to see more.
Third, I would love to ask for a deeper explanation of some of his assertions. Often, people will pick examples that illustrate the point cleanly, but a messy example might give better evidence. For instance, in Vogler's "The Writer's Journey", he lays out the hero's journey and not only compares it to Star Wars, a clean example, but also Pulp Fiction, a very messy example. In this class, we saw the clean example of a stunning surprise in Shrek, but in Collateral it was also a clean example of a stunning surprise, although where to pin it might not be exactly clean (I haven't seen the movie, so maybe the example is messier than I think). Also, he states that the protagonist must be the best at something, but I'm having a hard time thinking of what "The Dude" from the Big Lebowski is best at.
Lon, thanks for your feedback. Great to see that this one had you taking notes. This was part of Eric's first class of the semester for first year MFA students. Knowing they still have two years together maybe it is best to begin with clean examples before heading to the messy examples as you state.
The Dude was best at appreciating how that rug he had really tied the room together.
I don't agree on The layer Cake part, that the beginning just lays there. The take their time to introduce the main character in a proper way, so you can strongly relate to his problems later on. Something you miss in a lot of movies now a day.
is there a place in the internet where we can download screenplay pdf for free ?
Hi Clovis, here is one - imsdb.com
Facts bro
There are many problems with a lot of inexperienced scripts, but one of the things that comes to mind after writing for several years is that so many scripts by newbies just don't have enough story. That is to say, a feature film has a lot of beats. watch any Hollywood film and count the beats in each scene. I find newbie screenplays are way too sparse on beats. In order to keep a reader or audience engaged the beats have to be quite frequent. This means you need enough characters to create enough sequences and within those sequences enough scenes, and within those scenes, enough beats.
Randy Ingermanson talks about Surprise 1 & 2 (and 3) in his book on Fiction. amzn.to/2LjSkaD I like how this talk adds to it.
Is he Michael Hauge?
I have yet to see a source complete of information, and this video is no exception. Although it is thorough, it is not complete (to understanding Act I). Where is the hook? What role does the hook play on the inciting incident? What internal conflict arises from the inciting incident? Also, he noted that the "stunning surprise one" and midpoint are different. I disagree; both push the hero / MC out of his / her comfort zone. *I look forward to learning more of his perspective in the next video* . I find it interesting that Eric defines acts as levels of maturation. Adam Skelter (in *An Overview Of 4 Act Story Structure by Adam Skelter* on Film Courage @ 04:48 into that video) defines acts as strategies taken by the hero. What Adam discusses in that video (e.g. how to engage an audience and what successful screenwriters do to make this happen) is missed in this video.
There's nothing here that suggests his purpose is to provide a complete understanding of Act 1. The title indicates he's going to talk about "Stunning Surprise 1" Sounds like that's what he's doing.
@@rebeccaoliver7977 Masterclass?
@@danbee998 So you were expecting a thorough screenwriting masterclass in 28 minutes? And you're surprised that different people have a different take on defining screenwriting?
@@Ruylopez778 It's Act I only. Thorough for Act I (masterclass), why not? Surprised? I noted it was interesting the differences between Adam and Eric; i.e. different perspectives. I think I like strategies better. Maturation sounds like a complete transformation, when anti-heroes often never, really go through complete transformation / maturation. Perspective! Don't get me wrong, there is *A LOT OF GREAT INFORMATION* shared in this video. Great job by Eric for that.
@@danbee998 Nothing in the title or description should lead you to the conclusion that this is intended to be a thorough run through of Act 1. Well, not only did you 'note it was interesting' the perspectives are different, you also made a point of disagreeing with Eric's presentation, and comparing unfavorably to Adam's. And then you also challenged the first response, as though putting "Masterclass" in the title somehow proves your point.
Karen, being left out of a Film Courage episode:
ruclips.net/video/8WLdvNHbQOk/видео.html
Great content. Please don't play with the exposure in and out. It driving me nuts. You guys should know better.
We appreciate the feedback, what other option do we have to capture this footage live?
The main character does not need to "have a job" and "be the best at it." Some people in life lose their jobs and that becomes part of their growing process. For several stories, forcing that plot point would make no sense.
He's a master but he got one thing wrong. The clean cab isn't designed to show that Max, like all heroes, is the best at what he does. The cab is a representation of Max's psyche. He has all these dreams, and his inertia and lack of courage to pursue his dream force him to apply all that energy and love into a single vehicle that has fundamentally become his whole life. In a way, he has become the perfect car cleaner, instead of the owner of a luxury Limo company. So in reality, he's a bum.
Yup, Max was a loser hanging on to a pipe dream. And he told everyone what his pipe dream was. It was a lot easier to tell the world his pipe dream than ADMITTING he was a loser and was never going to have that limo business. That's why the end is more powerful for him. He had a huge character arc from that experience.
@@joeygonzo You're kind of reading too much into this but you're correct. He was in stagnation. What I don't like about this film is the woman. They simultaneously fix everything but it's a movie
It's a while since I've seen the movie, but doesn't Max demonstrate competency by choosing a quicker route? I suppose I would say the clean cab is used to demonstrate multiple things. I agree with you that he's too focused on keeping the cab clean as a distraction and mask, but it also shows the audience he is conscientious and has an attention to detail, even if that is part of a flaw. A limo driver would also be concerned with keeping his car clean, so in a way he is kind of role playing his dream, if that makes sense.
@@Ruylopez778 Distraction and mask have nothing to do with it. Read my comment again. I totally agree though with the other side of the coin which shows his eagerness to be creative, and that's why I said he had become the best car cleaner in the world instead of a Limo company owner.
@@alexispapageorgiou72 I don't need to read your comment again to have my own interpretation of the movie.
AFAIR Annie questions his route, and he gives an explanation and gets her to the destination quicker than she expects. This demonstrates his competency in his work, and how he can think quickly - otherwise there is no reason in the scene for the characters to discuss it. Max identifies too closely with his persona. Vincent represents Max's shadow. He lies to his mother about how successful he is, and won't stand up to his boss until Vincent forces him. The time he spends keeping the car clean is a distraction, an excuse - a symptom of his fear of pursuing his dream.
Eric Edson got way too specific in several points. For most rules he laid out, I could think of at least one notable exception.
For example Get Out: Unusually, the protagonist doesn't have a clearly defined goal until the act 2 climax. Yes, he starts getting suspicious of the family after Stunning Surprise One, but he hardly takes any steps to actually discover their secrets. It's not until the act 2 climax that he decides to make a run for it.
Granted, Get Out has an unconventional structure, and pulls a lot of things off that by all rights shouldn't work. But I could find such exceptions for almost every point he made.
Edit: I watched the video further, and again there's a big generalization: The hero needs to be the best at what they do? Absolutely not! They absolutely can be a screw-up, it's just important that they have at least one admirable quality. That quality can be being the best at their job, but it can also be something entirely different like selflessness.
I mean, even Max in Collateral is a screw-up, lying to himself about his grand future while not taking the necessary steps to achieve it. His admirable quality just so happens to be very good at his job.
His goal is to date a girl and gets along with her parents.
@@MrDiscane Yeah but it's not the goal we are invested in. Given the genre, name and mood of the film, we know something really bad is going on long before the protagonist does. The goal of getting along with the girl's parents stops mattering really early. In fact, it stops mattering the moment he meets them and they appear to be super nice.
@UC9UGh7hzQPSUVFSNBySMfsQ Maybe goal not that exciting but it exists. I remember "The Colour of Magic" film/book. Rincewind has to be a guide to Twoflower. Also not that exciting but the story does everything to entertain readers.
Gui Caldo that’s the initial starting goal. When he has his first stunning surprise his goal changes in light of it. Get out isn’t an exception to the three act structure. I just don’t think you quite understand what he’s saying in the video. These aren’t must follows but they are tried and true points used in traditional storytelling to craft a story. The main character is not fully aware of the true conflict between himself and the antagonistic force until the end when he or she “grows up” and fully embraces their new truth learned via the story conflict. In get out, it’s when the lead confronts his demons of the past and fights the family. He doesn’t take action earlier because he is still clinging to the lie that anchored his original “normal world” of act one. It’s not an unconventionally structured movie, it’s just an interesting and well written one.
Have a look at the attachment..
nofilmschool.com/2017/05/why-screenwriting-rules-are-myth
Mr Edson is teaching the way a screenplay is and generally has been written, but a screenplay doesn't have to follow these rules. Rules are made to be broken..example, Napoleon Dynamite follows None of these rules, no one can say exactly what that movie was about, what the subject of the movie is.. Write in the style that you're comfortable with.. People like what they like regardless if It is written in the traditional way or if it's something completely different..
Rivetting.
3 act..
John Truby didn't like This vidéo
My question is ... if all these screenplay gurus know how to write a screenplay, and know everything needed to write an oscar winning script ... why the hell are they teaching? I'd be writing the $5M script ... and screw the classes ... garbage!
Because writing and analysis are two different skills, just like not all editors are writers, and not all writers are editors. You're also presuming that; a. someone who knows HOW to write, WANTS to write, and b. that he hasn't already written scripts for enjoyment, without the need for validation. Perhaps he enjoys teaching and inspiring people instead of just wanting money?
People do both
@@allthingselderly Analysis and creation are two different things. Some people can do both. Some can't. Some aren't interested. Just like some of the most imaginative minds can't articulate their process. It's important to know the rules of the craft.
None of them promise that knowing craft guarantees you make $5m. Sorry, but they don't claim that. Their tools and techniques can help people write at the professional level.
However, you want to complain, so you won't agree with this obvious truth.
Instead of just calling it garbage, why don't you offer others watching this video some practical advice?
I'm curious. If you really think that 'all these screenplay gurus' wouldn't be teaching if they knew how to write the $5M script, then why are you searching for and watching these tutorial videos?
@@goldeneddie It's under the pretext of "I didn't find any answers in these books, so I'm going to enlighten everyone else, that must share my conclusion, and they will be grateful I pointed out it's a scam". And these comments focus only on success and money, not in terms of developing ability to express and convey an emotional response on the reader.