Ken Cormick: Screenwriter in Melbourne, Australia.

C.H.U.D was a good cheesy film. We all have guilty pleasures we enjoy watching.

Sci-fi and horror definitely work together because there are people who can't wrap their head around magical elements in a story. They'd rather be afraid of some kind of radioactive mutant because science and all.

I think any 2 genres can work together. It's just the story you want to tell and how it's shot. You can do horror in any setting. Like Midsommar does it all in the daylight at a pagan summer festival. And sci-fi is even easier to apply to anything than horror is. Mixing the two together isn't particularly special or revolutionary. It's just a design choice of the writer. Even Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is categorized as sci-fi horror.

Hello Tabitha!

Hello Tabitha and welcome to Stage 32!

Let me know if I can ever help you with anything - www.wickidpissapublicity.com

Great idea, but use a google like company as the skeleton!

I wish there was a Knight Rider movie. Michael Knight, Kitt, and Knight Foundation, can play the "villain." It would give an opportunity for a corruptible young group, and individual, to play the protagonist. It would be a sort of switch places, but in the end we're all on the same side type of movie. I thought it would be interesting to give a youthful group power, but essentially have them follow the hero's journey, in order to weed out the real heroes, anti-heroes.

My favorite novel is The Bonfire of the Vanities - I didn't watch the film because I knew it was a disaster. Would love for some good to remake it. Also, I loved Atlas Shrugged and heard that film was not good.

Thanks for all the commentaries. The one thing that bothered me, and I'm not sure how bothered you'd all be by this one, but the otherwise beautifully done The Imitation Game had a glaring historical flaw in it. The older generation, that's me, might remember this, the younger ones, no. The movie is set in the 1950's and during WW II. On a manual typewriter, in that scene, the typist used whiteout to correct an error. Whiteout was not invented until around the 70's I think by of all people Michael Nesmith's mom. He was one of the Monkees and as far as I know he continued to work in Hollywood after the TV sitcom. I just thought it was a rather glaring error to put in such a well made movie. So, with that for those who don't need to be reminded of historical accuracy, okay. And thank you again for your comments.

I loved the Imitation Game, can't recall that scene, but perhaps it was a licence re convenience, though there should have been another option to consider for the same effect - you're correct re Mike Nesmith - easy to make the mistake, I wrote a script set in 1912 and referred to the Queen of England when it should have been the King.

Yes, it was at the very beginning. It wouldn't have mattered so much but the director focused the camera on the typewriter. What he should have had and I can remember using one of these is an old style eraser specially made for typing paper and ink. It is just one of those things I think Hollywood should be more careful with. Krakatoa "East" of Java cost that film thousands of dollars to correct. Ithe volcano is west of Java.

Yes, I can relate to that: we were raised in a "children should be seen, not heard" family, too. Interesting that we were given alcoholic cordials in winter (to get warm) but coffee and tea were forbidden; caffeine was thought to stunt the growth of children.

I guess Linda that what I am trying to indicate is that India is a big diverse country, with a massive population (1.25 billion) and that you need to know who the mother is before you decide how she will react. Although her background sTory will not appear in the finished film how she behaves and reacts seems an essential part to the climax of the film and you can only really work that out if she has a 3d character. How did she meet Zygmunt's father? Were they married? How did her own mother react? Etc

Michael: thank you so much!

I build the story with index cards first. I have the entire movie in 20 sequences on the bulletin board before I write a word of the script.

I like to keep things as simple as I possibly can. I'm not one for writing up copious notes accompanied by even more copious 'story structure' index cards scattered all over the computer and on the walls throughout my house. That system does not work for me; that to me just complicates the process. I have an idea in my head and I go with it. I open up the page and then begin to write. I don't write and write and write and then come back and realise what a diabolical shambles I've just created - I write line by line, scene by scene, act by act so in effect I'm writing, editing, writing, editing, writing, editing as I go along. If a scene heading or a set of dialogue needs to be re-written I do it there and then as I go which leaves me free to either stay on track with the theme I want to create or, it can lead me into a different direction. I find that this system is particularly useful in the middle of the story where the plot can often times become weak ( you know, that spot in the movie where it appears to be dragging) before act three. Doing this can sometimes open up a further sub-plot that I did not envisage when I began the initial write. The advantage of this is that a further (unexpected) sub-plot can not only add interest to the middle of the story, but can also play a definitive role in the end of the story; a role I had not envisaged when I began to write. A good example of this is a story I currently have in my head; it is the story of three people in their mid-twenties that have known each other since early high school; one is a lawyer, one is a red-neck bogan who works in a factory and the other is a part time actoress who is an activist and leads a gothic ligestyle. It has the potential to be a comedy, a serious drama - a movie or a series, but where it will go will depend entirely upon the direction I take in act two.

I've been writing for a long time (wrote my first stage play when I was 9 yrs old) and every project begins the same way: a detailed outline. Also I often have a final image / sentence / phrase in mind -- and I swim towards that lifeboat.

I only did that once. I had a difficult scene with no idea how to write it. I thought "what would Tom Hanks say here?" and got something down. I since polished it up to sound more like the character which is normally what I try to imagine.

I sometimes imagine a particular actor for my main characters. It helps alot with forming the personality and traits of that person in my work.

I always imagine actors in the roles. It helps me see expression, emotion, whether something might "sound" right coming from that type of character. When I took a screenwriting class it was advised to make the character accessible...can you see various actors deliver the line and still be effective? I hope this helps.

James, It's 'Whitehaven' Beach, Australia. The sand is 98% pure Silica.

It's beautiful!