Rats. Ah well. Sorry.

It's good you're doing OK, ff3girl.

Face of the Samurai! =D *snackoo'd*

---

Hey guys, I already told Actorman that I'm not going to make it for the revolution. I'm going to be at the camp I'm counseloring, turns out! But it's okay cause A-man and I have already talked it all out. Ugh. I'm so lazy about this Redd White song!!!

---

Keep up the good work, everyone!

I'm very glad to see the surge of activity as of late, and I'm glad that everyone is excited to get to work--I know I am.

However, on that note, it has been about a week since my lovingly-called "Post of Doom" and now it's only 5 days until we all get together and discuss everything.

What I'd like to ask from you is simply that everyone get their opinions together. I want to hear everyone's stances on what to do about the script, the leadership positions, and just anything you have heightened concerns about--I'm sure that we'll be able to figure it out within the group, or at least raise it as something to solve in the future, once we figure out the main issues.

Please please PLEASE read the following, if nothing else, please read this:

Ethed has not replied to my PMs. I have not been able to contact her via AIM, and I checked her posting history, her last post on the board in its entirety was June 12th.

Now, I need your opinions: judging by these stats, I think it'd be pretty near a miracle if Ethed attended this chat. How do you think we should carry on if Ethed does not attend? It's hard enough to have this all take place and not want to do something radical, but that's unfair to everyone. And I'd rather not make any executive decisions behind Ethed's back, but we may have to in order to spur productivity. Please, here is where I REALLY need your feedback.

---

I don't think Ethed would object (believe it or not, no pun intended) to us taking the initiative on scriptwriting. It's not as if she planned to write the whole thing herself.

The trickier issue is going to be casting, if we end up lacking a director on a permanent basis. But we can cross that bridge when we come to it.

I won't be able to make the chat, but those are my opinions.

---

I'm gonna bring this post back.
I think that we need to do what is needed to keep this moving forward.
Right now our current leaders can't keep up with things for one reason or another.
If we need to change the leadership for a while that is what is needed.

The most important thing it to keep moving forward. No matter what.

---

And I'm quoting this because it was what I was going to say, but better. That's the beauty of an internet-based project. If members are not able to perform due to concerns, there are others who can at the very least, hold down the fort for them in their absence. We have many wonderful ideas here, but without the skeleton of script to put them on, the project would not get very far.

Sadly, I would love to make the July 11th discussion to talk further on the subject, but work concerns will prevent me from doing so. That said, if Ethed or Gerku are unable to lead, I would like the issue of interim leadership to be a talking point, at least to placate us plebes...>>;;

---

Sadly enough, I agree that if we can't get in contact with Ethed anymore, then we'll have to do something in regards to leadership. :-( I hope Ethed comes, because I know from talking with her so many times that she cared a lot about this project too. It was her idea in the first place.

Whether or not Ethed is able to come, I think we need to set up a leadership 'team' of people rather than 1 or 2. Perhaps a group of 3-5 would be better. That way, the sole responsibility falls on no single person, and we are not in a standstill about what to do if our leader isn't around. Maybe this 'leadership team' could have weekly meetings on teamspeak at a set time. Perhaps it could even be a 'rotating' leadership team, so we all get a chance to be on it at some point, and there is room for people to take breaks if need be.

I know I may be expressing these ideas kind of early, but its better to get them out in the open now so we can all think about them and process them.

---

That sounds like an excellent idea to me.

---

I like the idea of a leading "team".
That way if someone has to leave for a bit we aren't left in the dark.
Maybe it would be good to try to have a few people in charge of each section of the musical.
Some for music, some for script, and some for whatever else we need.
That way we would have people who can bounce issues off of each other and fill in for each other if someone has to leave for a bit.

And the weekly meetings idea is great! We need to have a regular planning time.
When I was in puppets we had weekly practices. Even if we didn't have anything coming up (almost never happened) we practiced together.
We need this kind of stuff if we hope to make this work.

---

That being said, I don't believe that the leadership group should be too large lest it become too hard to manage. And I don't think I like the idea of a rotating leadership just because that could become very unorganized without exact communication.

Like ff3girl said, I think an ideal size would be about 5. Each of the supervisors could perhaps have a specialty, however. One person could oversee scripting while another oversees music, etc. Then, at weekly meetings (which I really like the idea of), you get updated on progress, and if one person's specialty is not progressing at an allowable rate, then the other leaders will be able to intervene. This would also be the same if a leader needed to take a leave of absence for the week, then the other leaders would be able to step in. That, along with the weekly meetings, harbor cooperation, organization, and teamwork, as well as the ability to mitigate stress on all levels by having several people to turn to.

This also allows those not in a leadership position to be able to contact one of several people. Say your script supervisor is not particularly responsive due to outside conflicts, said person would be able to contact one of the various other leaders (all of whom are likely active on the thread anyway) and they could either provide an answer or become a second party to get in contact the missing supervisor at the next meeting.

Ultimately, the idea of a stable leadership team is what we should be thinking about now, in my opinion.

EDIT: However, I also believe that there should be a "Head" to oversee all of the supervisors, and just deal with the messy stuff like updating the thread members on events, keeping tabs on all of the new songs, scripts, etc. popping up on the thread, keeping in contact with members, etc. But as of now, Ethed holds that position indefinitely, so we'll cross that bridge when we get to it.

---

I really like the idea of a team. =) And I'm pretty sure I'll be able to be there for the July 11th meeting/discussionish-type thing.

---

I like the idea of there being a 'head,' Actorman. I'm afraid of there being disagreement among some people about who that should be (I've got someone in mind *coughyoucough*), but I guess if we do need a new head, it can be decided by a vote.

I can understand not wanting to do the rotating team. I think I was suggesting it because the thought occurred to me that I don't know how we'll pick people to be on a leadership team. I'm not sure if it would be a vote, or if the person who is the 'head' would select. And when they are picked, what are the criteria? The amount of time they've been on the project? The number of contributions? The level of involvement in the forums??

That being said, there may be people who want to be on the team (and deserve it) who might not get a seat, which is why I suggested the rotation... of course, there are weaknesses in such a system, too. Leadership really does need to be constant. Maybe if there were just one seat in the team that was rotated? That would still leave consistency among most of the group.

Let's keep discussing ideas. :D

---

I wholeheartedly agree with everyone else on this matter. I have nothing else to add. Besides that I really like the idea of a team.

And Deja, I got a sendspace, It's Otakubox. For the ideas, I'm usually on deviantart a lot, so that would probably be the best place for us to get ideas going.

---

I, err, I'm with Otakubox. :)

Yeah, yay leadership team! A-man and I had already discussed the team ideafor leadership so bully for that. I've got to leave in 20 minutes to entertain 11 9-year-old girls for 6 hours... summer camp's a blast!

We had also discussed the idea of such a team to write the script. Now, Actorman and I have had two experiences this year in collaborative scriptwriting, both of which were very different. I'm going to (kinda) briefly explain these two examples and then talka bout how they apply to scriptwriting in general, and how that generality leads to our theory on how we should write this script.

I don't have time to do this post justice, so I'm going to write out a super-epic one during camp and post it when I get home to the internet. A-man and I have been to hell and back in terms of collaborative scriptwriting, I just never volunteered myself for scripting because of some of the evil we've experienced. Haha. But we can learn a LOT from this, and I think the third try's the charm that we'll finally get this scripting thing wright! Haha. Pun. Anyway, I just wanted to put this out there before the chat.

Expect mongo postage this afternoon!

---

I agree with everyone on this subject.

And I take advantage of the whole conversation to slip in one of my fanart, so nobody will notice it :p

---

I think leadership's a major issue--as I've complained before, I (and, I'm sure, others) cannot contribute until someone tells us what we're supposed to be doing. We need leadership that isn't going to go inactive, and I think having a few peopl in charge would be a good way to get around that.

However, with a larger leadership team comes the danger that the right hand won't know what the left is doing, so to speak, and the buck has to stop somewhere.

Personally, I think it should be three unbiased people who do casting (that, or we vote.), and then a different three that direct the project itself.

With a directing team, there would be someone who directs the songs-- both the score and the singers, someone who directs the acting, and someone who directs the visual aspect. All three would need to work well with the scriptwriting team and the songwriters, not to mention the actors themselves.

That's Deja's vaguely intellegent thought for the day.

---

I can see the advantage of wanting three unbiased people... but where exactly would we find these three unbiased people? >_> I think everyone in this project has their own favorites for certain parts. Maybe we should cross the casting bridge when we come to it, and not worry about it for now. Its important, but I'm afraid of the casting issue taking attention away from the leadership issue. (Though I do like the voting idea!) :D

And are you suggesting Deja, that the leadership team be someone other than the scriptwriters and songwriters? I personally would like to see the song/script writers be the leadership team, since the work belongs to those people. Buut, I realize I'm biased on this issue. ^_^;;

I agree that we need separate leadership for the songs than we do for the scriptwriting and the animation and/or storyboards. *sniff* I want animators.

Clarounette--Wheeee! Preeetty! ^_^ What is that art referencing?

---

Sh-- someone noticed it :p Thanks anyway!
Well it's obviously Dee Vasquez (what? it's not? ) playing Cyd Charisse's part in Singing in the Rain.

---

I am feeling that maybe the leader-team should be separate from other teams. Though obviously, we're all going to work together, but the script writers should write the script, not direct. That's why movies have script writers, actors, directors, etc.

In the case of casting, I feel that really isn't an issue at all at the moment. :) That is small potatoes to what needs to be done now.

Anyway, I think that we should have two or three leaders, and just stick with them. Then there is no confusion. But for people who aren't going to be leaders, and feel they should, or whatever...who cares? Haha. You don't need to be a leader in this project to get recognized. We get our leaders, they keep things together, and take pretty much everything else to us, and we all make votes.

I think it sounds like a proper democracy. :D

---

Mel Brooks. =P

I think if we have to many people trying to run this we'll have more problems than having to few.
To many chefs ruin the stew.

And I agree that voting is the way to go.
And before we get there I'd like to nominate Actorman for head.
He has shown that he can be a leader and has led this project in one way or another for a while now.

We need someplace to start off and with all the stuff we are gonna be talking about we are gonna need to be ready to go right into things.

---

So that makes at least 3 votes for Actorman... :p
Do we really need to have a chat on friday, since we already know who will be our new leader? (kidding)

---

I don't think teams are necessary to be designated for every area. For example, we don't have many animators to begin with. I think casting should DEFINITELY be talked about later. That's like the final thing to do.

Begin massive post. Again, I’m going to talk about two recent experiences in collaborative scriptwriting, the good, bad and ugly.


This is long, but please read, especially if you are planning on taking part in the scripting process. Some very important points are discussed.


***

The first experiment was a play which our theatre class wrote collaboratively. Our theatre class is 12 theatre students with varied writing experience. Regardless of writing experience, all of us have read enough plays to fill a library. So theoretically we all had a very clear idea of what good scriptwriting comprises of. I'm going to add that one to a coming bulleted list of things I think important criteria to remember when developing the script. Now, the play we wrote was very abstract and experimental. We chose a common theme (survival) and basically worked up from there. The basic way in which our play was written was nearly identical to the way songs have been written in this project. Namely, they were individual or small team writings which were brought in to share to the group at large when a first draft was finished. They took feedback and changed the piece appropriately.

Some pieces didn't make it in. It was not that they were worse, they just didn’t fit for one reason or another. Some people were willing to cut their pieces for the god of the play. Others created a lot of stressful drama by clinging to pieces, refusing to revise, or sulking when their pieces got cut. This was very detrimental to the process. Personally, I brought in total 4 pieces (pieces meaning scene or monologue) of which 2 made it in. Because I brought them in being prepared to cut them if they didn’t fit, it wasn’t a problem. In fact after reading them I realized the two I had brought in, even though I loved the pieces and had worked hard on them, really didn’t fit at all. It wasn’t a big deal if I knew it was for the good of the play.

The end product, in my opinion, ended up being... okay. Certain pieces were fantastic, others weren't as hot. The process was long and grueling. One of the things which made it worse were the distinctly different writing styles. Now obviously there were a few more problems, but they were specific to that play so I won’t mention them here. Having 12 people bring in pieces made it terribly disjointed. In the end I think we all realized that 12 was JUST too many. The voices were different, it was like watching a play written by Tennessee Williams, Mamet, Durang and Beckett. Yeah. It was disjointed. But the point is that if it were simply a smaller group of people, it would have melded better.

Now, in summary, the lesons learned from this play? Be willing to cut pieces even if you like them and that a small, core group of scriptwriters is always best.

Now, songs lend themselves to such a process which is so detrimental to scriptwriting. The reason is hat songs are little individual units. However, a play must function both as units and as a whole. Most importantly as a whole. One of the worst things we could do for this project would be have individual team members write scenes and stick them all together. That is what we should not do. What we should do is have a small group of people build a skeleton for this script, then built it up around that, rather than bringing in lots of little parts to stick together.


Experience 2!

This experience was very different. It also parallels the Phoenix project very closely, not in that it was a large group nor in the way we have been working so far. Why this was similar is that we were not technically “writing” a script, but condensing. I was in a performance (also with Actorman) where, for a showcase, we were performing a 10-minute piece. Now, our director who was a student) had selected the play “Emma” to perform. But in the style of Emma (Goldman) herself, we worked collaboratively. Our cast was four, plus the director, made it five.

Emma is a 3-hour play. Out job was how to accurately showcase that in 10 minutes. Now, what we did was we met every Sunday for about 4 hours. We had snacks and food and lots and lots of laughs. Before the first rehearsal, we all read the play. We decided that we would rather try and perform a condensed version rather than an individual scene from the play to get the whole story. Thus began our process. It was not that long nor arduous, because the group was small and everyone got along and basically had the same artistic vision.

We brainstormed about what was important. What we wanted to show about Emma. Then we (systematically) went through scene by scene. Since we all knew the play so well, we worked fast. Scenes we marked by ones we would cut completely, ones we would edit, but keep definitely keep in and ones we would try our best to put in, but could go either way for. Everything was very systematic.

We went through the scenes and started cutting them up. Ten minute scenes became two minutes. We balanced carefully not cramming the play with exposition so character development was clear, but also getting the important plot points across. We were cutting individual lines, conceptualizing new contexts for monologues we liked, etc. In the end, we had a 10(ish)-minute scene which told a little about the life of Emma Goldman. We covered the failed assassination plot of Alexander Berkman (haha, “my glasses!!!” actorman) but also ket individual lines which were really beautiful. Our second act was entirely monologues that Emma gave at rallies, which we blended together. In the end, Emma was really a fantastic piece. Now, let’s look at why.

One key reason was the process. We were friends, we had inside jokes, we had food! We spent half of rehearsal goofing off, but still got stuff done. Nobody was married to any one scene or monologue. Keeping it fun is a big deal.

Another key reason was the size. Our group was small. But we all knew what we were doing and we divided the work equally. More work gets done with fewer people.

And another key reason was the method. We didn’t haphazardly start cutting from scene one and move throughout the play. We met, discussed and made a gameplan. We went through the play multiple times to make sure the piece worked as a whole. This unity was key. Our regular meeting schedule and deadline kept us on task. Also, we did most of the work together. That way everything came together as one. Occasionally someone might make individual cuts to a monologue on their own. But we kept it Emma style and all worked together.

Now for the big finale: The gameplan.

A version of this Emma method I think would work for Phoenix Wright. We already have the gamescript as a starting point, and there are some iconic lines we’ll have to keep in. Now, a small group of people can go through read the script and come to the first “meeting” prepared with ideas. We can systematically go through the script and see what scenes can be cut, what little bits of minutia and evidence that we can cut. Remember, this time we’re telling a story, not solving a mystery. So little things, like rights and lefts or limps or steak or whatever can be cut. But it takes attention to detail to make sure we don’t cut too much and end up with gaping wholes in our lawyerly logic. We have the bonus of assuming that 90% of our audience already knows the story. So our job is just to tell it well! Our team can go through systematically, and build our script from a skeleton up. In this way, I am confident a full script can be churned out in under a month, I’d say.


So that’s my big gameplan. And when I say “my”, I most of it was Actorman and I. He was in both of the shows I talked about and I think he can agree with me. Now, one last question. How do we decide who’s on the team? I have an answer, but this post is getting massive. I’ll save that one for later.

***


Long, I know. I've given this a lot of thought and I'd really like to end up doing as much as I can for the scriptwriting process which is why I wrote that. Sorry for taking your time, haha.

---

Last edited by Pooleterson on Tue Jul 08, 2008 9:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

...
*stands and claps*
We need to work on our gameplan.
He who fails to plan plans to fail.

I think the first thing we need to do is to plan a regular teamspeak meeting schedule.
Something that I feel needs to be at least once a week.
I know there will be times that people won't be able to come regularly but the more often we meet the better.
And I'm sure there is a way someone could keep track of what is said in the meeting and post it in the topic for those who miss it.
I can't wait for the 11th, this is gonna be great.

---

Continuing my trend of echoing other people instead of contributing my own ideas, I hereby endorse Pooleterson's post.

I also endorse the weekly teamspeak idea, but that's mostly because I want more chances to sing Giovanni von Karma's theme.

Can we try to set up a teamspeak meeting on the 12th, for the benefit of poor schlubs such as myself who can't make the chat on the 11th? Just to review the committee's findings, and whatnot.

---

And this is where I go, "I AGREE WITH POOLETERSON!"

ff3-- as for the directing situation, I'm not suggesting that song/scriptwriters are not directors, I'm saying that they have to be able to work with the others. The entire show isn't written by one person. However, there would be certain biases in having song/scriptwriters be the leaders... which we would either have to avoid or deal with, one of the two. :/

I don't know. I'm just tossing my suggestions into the void.

---

Hey, just wanted to make another appearance. Basically, I stand by everything Pooleterson said because, well, I was there right next to her, and basically everything she posted is what we talk about whenever the subjects are brought up.

As far as the 12th, arimnaes, I might not be able to attend such a meeting. What I do intend to do, however, is copy the entire chat log from the chat on the 11th, and then I'll take the liberty to post on the thread, for those of you who will not be able to attend, everything discussed and what our planned fixes, remedies, and courses of action for everything we have discussed, as well.

Also, a couple of other important notes:

1. As glad as I am that you're all endorsing my leadership, remember that it's only a temporary fix. I'd gladly take the position permanently, and I'll gladly accept the position temporarily in Ethed's absence, but I will not be the permanent leader until Ethed's return and when it is discussed with her. I don't plan to permanently usurp anyone's position without them being an active member of what's happening. But again, thank you for all the faith you're placing in me. It does mean a lot, and it's just more motivation for pulling through with this "revolution".
2. It is IMPERATIVE that those of you who are not attending the chat post your sentiments and opinions on the board so that I can cite them for the chat. Unless you tell me how your thoughts about how things are going, there's no possible way I can represent you in the chat, and everyone's opinion is important here, this is all of our project, so please don't sell yourselves short by not speaking up.
3. If you plan on attending the chat, I need your screen names. I obviously cannot invite you if I have no screen name from you. I will post when I get back from rehearsal tonight whose screen names I do have, but if you are unsure whether or not I have it, post it again.

Thanks again, and again, my screen name is broadwaybriner09 for those of you who want to contact me. If you need extra information, IM me there or drop me a PM!

---

He's crazy. :P

Anyway, I like your idea, Pooleterson, with the Emma-style-writing. :)

---

Sounds like you've got some great ideas, Pooleterson! I especially agree that we all need to start with this attitude: whatever we've previously completed or worked on possibly won't make it. It sounds like both you and Actorman have a great foundation and starting place for writing this script, and I would love if a process like that were used.

Do you imagine this script-writing team to be separate from the leadership team?

I still personally feel that the leadership could consist of 3-5, with representation from the song-writing viewpoint, script-writing, and directing aspect (with possibly animators later on.. we can dream ^_~). I still feel like people who have spent so much time working on something should have a say in what's going to happen with that work.

We should also begin thinking about how this leadership team will be selected--by vote, or by appointment of the head (aka Actorman)?

I would also love it if we could come to an agreement that if something is decided at this meeting that we personally don't like, we would all still be willing to continue working on the project and defer to the leadership.

In other words, we should go in this meeting with the attitude of 'agree to disagree,' because there are already some minor opposing viewpoints, it seems!

---

Thank you guys for all reading my mondo post!! haha

ff3girl- I 100% think that the script team should be separate from the leadership team. haha, I know it's a lot of teams, but being a good scriptwriter does not mean being a good leader and vice versa. I think that's something very important. Also, the leadership team should have representatives, like you said, from all areas. And the selection for the leadership team would in some way be impacted by thread loyalty, etc. Basically, I could write more or just say I totally agree with everything you said, haha.

Regarding weekly teamspeak, I think it's vital. That way if someone misses one teampseak, they're not behind. If someone misses the big chat on the 11th, that's no big deal, because there's another meeting in a few days.

I'm not making the chat, but I'll probably be on the phone with A-man at the time, haha.

I've got another post which is not quite mondo in the works. It's like diet-mondo. It might not see the light of day cause, like the last, it was basically a transcription of several convos A-man and I have had. And since he's running the chat, he'll say everything I'd like said, haha.

---

Wow. Phoenix Wright really has corrupted by brain, because my first thought upon reading that was "The leadership could consist of Bridge to the Turnabout? What on earth does that mean?"

Pooleterson (and Actorman?): Am I interpreting your conclusion about scriptwriting correctly to think that you're advocating a small team of a few people writing the whole script in concert, rather than a larger group of people each working on individual scenes? If so, should we start circulating writing samples to try to figure out who should be included in such a group?

---

Hmmm... selecting the writing team might be difficult. Especially if we're going to have to cut down the number of members. :-\

I think we should wait to discuss the selection of the writing team until we've gotten the leadership team taken care of, but I bet it couldn't hurt everyone to get samples together so we'll all be ready to compare everybody's styles and the like.

---

Haha, that's what I thought for a second too.

---

If anyone needs it, I still have my writing sample I sent to Gerk way back when. It's not Phoenix Wright-related, but it is script writing.

Does Teamspeak require the use of a microphone? I haven't used the program before and I don't have it downloaded right now. If it does I'll have to dig one out from somewhere; mine seems to have disappeared when we moved my computer.

Haha, yes, I mean a little DL-6, but mostly 3-5. But basically, yes that's what I'm saying and yes we should start looking at that. I mean, I'm not sure exactly what the best process would be for determining, but we should begin thinking about it. I have ideas, which maybe I'll articulate later? I'm just super busy!!

EDIT: Okay, I checked popdrivel, and the writing team which is posted there only has 2 active members on it: Diana and Don. Everyone else I know I've never really seen around the thread (minus Gerk and Ethed, who I've seen but are no longer here) I'm pretty sure that's about right, unless I'm missing something.

---

Just popping in to say I support the recent ideas being tossed around. It's time to take action and get the ball rolling!

I know I'll be there tomorrow!

---

Tomorrow..? OK! But the meeting's the day after tomorrow.

---

Errr

Oh yeah.

---