View Single Post
Old 04-22-2015, 12:51 PM   #5
Robert_S
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 175
Robert_S will become famous soon enough

Most everything is clear and that script has undergone rewrites even before the review (it was a two month waiting period and I wasn't going do nothing in that time), but I have some questions on things that aren't clear:

Quote:
(new bubble) (Useless and lazy. Label all your balloons. This lets the letterer know this is a new balloon.)
Label how?

Quote:


The Sagan is a ring shaped off-world vessel with a long tube hub extending behind it (a donut with a stick through the hole) and two canopy shields against particle radiation. Six large rectangular box containers attach to the hub tube radially by detachable grid works of steel tubing (See reference picture 1A).

It rotates at 3rpm to maintain an artificial gravity within its 200m diameter hull. Its mission, to drop the initial material for a base on Calisto, the most viable of Jupiter’s moons. It’s an expensive feel good mission, a US show of tech achievement to the world and its Middle East antagonist. (This entire paragraph is useless information.)
I got criticized before for NOT describing the Sagan's appearance and this person is criticizing me for describing it.

Which is it?

Quote:


Room: Cargo Prep. Little more than an 86 cell when all equipment is taken into account. There are two workstations, each with two touchscreen panels: one vertical at head height and another angled at about 30 degrees waist height. Piping for fluid transfer and cable collectors run along the walls. All panels on this page take place in this room. (So, you still insist on giving a setting, but don’t describe much. She’s a girl. She’s got two arms, two legs. That’s all you need to know, artist… That’s basically what these settings are doing. If you created a proper establishing shot for whenever you changed locations, your bumhole probably wouldn’t be stinging as much as it is now, because I’d have little cause to crawl up in it the way I am. Then again, if you bothered to tell an interesting story, we’d all feel a whole lot better about this script.)
Again, I've been criticized before for NOT describing the details of a room, now this person is criticizing me for describing the details of the room.

FFS, which is it?

Quote:


Shot/Panel: Medium panel. Shot from behind and slightly above, through the lens of a camera. (It’s all through the “lens” of a “camera.” Really, breaking out the camera view into its own element isn’t helping you much. It’s just another hot poker in my eye, which I’m turning around and giving back to you. You are the new Cornholio, with a hot poker for your bunghole. Yes, I’m old. Old enough to hate Beavis and Butthead, seeing them as the beginning of the downfall of MTV.)
Seriously? This "person" agreed to set aside time to review review script and he or she or it gets pissy because it's not something out of the gate interesting and uses it as an opportunity to lob personal insults. Really? That's allowed?

May I insult this person back?


Quote:


MISSION SPECIALIST SUAREZ and PAYLOAD SPECIALIST WILEY work nearly shoulder-to-shoulder with Suarez on the left and Wiley right (What are they doing? They’re “working,” but what the hell are they doing? I don’t know what “working” means, and I refuse to go back up to the top of this page to look for that information, because it is supposed to be in the panel description.
So, don't describe the room in detail, but describe what people are doing?

I don't get it. I'm getting different advice from different people. Some say to describe the room in detail, others say not. Some say describe the object in detail, others not.

I can live with describing what people are doing even when it's kind of brain dead obvious they are working at touchscreen panels checking systems. Yet, this person doesn't want to know the shape or layout of the rooms?
Robert_S is offline   Reply With Quote