ScriptShadow: Screenwriting and Screenplay reviews

GREY DAY!

2012-01-27T12:26:00.000-08:00

Awesome screenplay finally arrives in theaters!

It's National Grey Day my friends! Yes, it is the day where you tell your boss you're leaving work early to go see The Grey. If he has a problem with this, give him my e-mail and I'll have some words with him. Explain that I've been trumpeting the awesomeness of this script for a couple of years now and that movie watchage must occur on opening day. Explain to him that Liam Neeson cannot be fighting wolves with glass shards strapped to his knuckles and you NOT be there. It's simply impossible. If he's still giving you a hard time, tell him to go read my review of the script here. Of course, there's a strong possibility that he will now want to come with you so only use that as a last resort.

GREY DAY!!!

Screenplay Review - The Augmented Geologist (Amateur Friday)

2012-01-27T09:46:00.000-08:00

A period sci-fi screenplay with some amazing writing. But does screenwriter James Hutchinson do enough with the story to get that rare Friday "worth the read?"

To submit your script for an Amateur Review: Send your script in PDF form, along with your title, genre, logline, and why I should read your script to Carsonreeves3@gmail.com. Keep in mind your script will be posted in the review (feel free to keep your identity and script title private by providing an alias and fake title). Also, it's a good idea to resubmit every couple of weeks so that your submission stays near the top of the pile.

Genre: Sci-Fi
Premise: (from writer) In Victorian England, a respected geologist studies a strange crystal artifact that grants him incredible powers, tears his life apart and sends him on a deadly chase to discover its unearthly origin.
About: This is the part of his query that really got me interested in reading James’ script: “Here's why I think you should read it: This is big budget original sci-fi with a twist (in that it's set in the past). Imagine HG Wells writing about nanotechnology, or Sherlock Holmes crossed with District 9. These are not your usual science fiction characters, and it's a pretty unique and exciting world, hopefully I've done it justice.” Count me in!
Writer: James Hutchinson
Details: 96 pages

Jude Law for John?

First of all, I really like this writer. I really like you, James. In a purely platonic screenwriting man-love sort of way. Your writing is just so…smooth.

It’s now showy. You’re not trying to impress anyone. All you care about is telling the story.

Okay, it’s getting creepy that I’m talking to you directly so let’s regroup. Basically, this is some wild subject matter “Augmented” is dealing with. Nanotechnology, alien crystals, augmented powers. And yet I was never confused. I was never at a loss for what was going on. That may not seem like a big deal but I can’t tell you how many amateur scripts I read where I get confused by characters doing something as simple as walking across the room, the writing is so clunky.

Here’s a paragraph from the script, a POV from John as he’s experiencing his augmented powers: “A searing amount of INFORMATION captured at inhuman speed. Each column, paragraph, sentence, letter is rapidly scanned by boxes of light. The alphabet is being deciphered. And - TIME SLOWS. People inside the carriage are FROZEN. The rattle of the speeding train is now a soothing CLUNKING sound. Scenery glides gently by.”

That image isn’t easy to convey. And yet I imagined it as if I was right there in the theater. So why am I not giving The Augmented Geologist a big augmented thumbs up? Read on to find out...

London. 1894. A young archeologist is out on a dig and finds something remarkable. But we don’t see what it is yet. Cut to John Haldane, a 30-something bookish gentleman with polio. He hobbles into Godfrey Colleton’s home with an excitement he hasn’t felt for a long time. Godfrey shows John what they found on the dig – some sort of polygon crystal buried inside 500 million years’ worth of sediment.

The crystal is unnaturally pristine, which has John desperate to study it. Godfrey allows him a few days to conduct some experiments before he puts it on display at the museum. But when John brings it home, the crystal starts changing, gradually smoothing out into a sphere and finally a liquid. The liquid emits such a strong aroma that John ends up drinking it. And that’s when everything changes.

His vision becomes enhanced to the point where distances and measurements appear inside his eyesight. He can hear animals communicate with each other in bare-bones English. His polio disappears. He becomes stronger. Smarter.

However, while all this is really cool, it’s not what John was expecting, and it’s not like the guy’s had a steady diet of Terminator and Predator films to prepare him for becoming a cyborg. He’s living in 1897. They won’t even have the internet for another 10 years. So naturally these advancements are scary as hell.

This causes him to be manic, out of control, sort of like Britney during her whole hair-shaving incident. His already deteriorating relationship with his wife gets worse as a result. And soon Godfrey is back, looking for his crystal. John tells him that someone stole it, and the local cops start looking into possible suspects. But when it becomes clear that it wasn’t stolen, they center their efforts on John. So John decides to hightail it out of there and go back to the crystal’s origin, hoping it will provide some answer to what’s happening to him.

Okay, so like I said, I love the writing here. I also thought the story was AMAZING for about 40 pages. It was building. It was mysterious. It was different. I felt like I was reading a screenplay I’d never read before. And that doesn’t happen often. So it was exciting.

But here’s where I think The Augmented Geologist became unagumented: A true story never emerged! Or at least, not a big enough story. Essentially, what we have here, is a guy who gains superhuman abilities, lies to his friends about it, then runs to a mountain. I mean, for a premise like this, that’s not a big enough choice. People don’t want to read about a guy running away from people when he has superhuman powers. They want him encountering scenarios where he can UTILIZE his powers.

Let me try to be more specific. Once we hit the midway point, our hero’s powers no longer matter. He’s just running away from people. He could be ANY person in the world at this point and the story wouldn’t change. So that was upsetting.

Also, I didn’t like the passiveness of the storyline. When you have a hero, especially a literal hero with super powers, you’d like him to be dictating the story. You’d like him to be making choices that push the narrative forward. John spends most of this movie running away or avoiding things. Dramatically, it’s just not very interesting.

Now I’m not saying that The Augmented Geologist needs to become Spider-Man or Iron Man. But I do think in order to get the most out of this premise, there needs to be a foundation that takes advantage of the situation. You have a man with powers here. Let’s conceive of a few scenarios that put those powers to use.

Obviously, you can go a bunch of different ways with this but the most obvious is to create some sort of threat that only John (and his augmented body) can stop. There’s this late-story revelation that Godfrey is also augmented. It feels tagged on and therefore doesn’t work. But if you brought this up earlier in the story, and Godfrey started taking advantage of his power, and John had to stop him? That could be pretty cool.

Assassin's Creed

Another thing that bothered me was that in the second half, this felt a hell of a lot like Assassin’s Creed. Ironically, that’s the only video game I’ve played in the last two years (so if I hadn’t played it, I never wouldn’t have caught this). But everything from the way he sees things to the story’s setting to the way he’s running around on rooftops – it feels like that game. This is another reason to ditch the “running away” storyline and make our hero more active.

Finally, I thought the ending was too trippy. It was sort of cool but once you commit to these metaphysical abstract endings, it starts to feel like you’re fudging things. That may not be your intention. But that’s how it feels to the audience. I mean, I’m still not sure what happened exactly. He was a beacon? So the alien race could find earth? Hmmm… Kind of confusing.

But like I said, I think James is PACKED with talent. I wouldn’t be surprised if 3-4 years from now, you see him writing some big Hollywood sci-fi film. And hey, if he can get a handle on this story and give us something more mainstream and less existential, he might be able to salvage it. Either way, he’s a writer to look out for.

Script Link: The Augmented Geologist

[ ] Wait for the rewrite
[x] wasn’t for me
[ ] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius

What I learned: One thing you want to be conscious of, especially with high concept ideas, is that each successive plot point in your story be better/more interesting than the last. Because what I see with a lot of screenplays is the opposite. The script starts off REALLY good. But then every leg of the story becomes less interesting than the previous. The opening to The Augmented Geologist – with the mystery behind this crystal - was great. Ingesting the crystal and gaining powers was also great. But after that, each leg got less and less interesting. He fakes the crystal robbery. He suspects his wife is cheating on him. He tries to find a random dude and pin the fake robbery on him. He runs away from everyone. None of those choices were nearly as interesting as that opening act.

Screenwriter Interview: Jane Goldman

2012-01-26T07:18:00.000-08:00

The "X-Men: First Class" co-screenwriter talks screenwriting and her latest movie, The Woman In Black, with Scriptshadow.

Jane Goldman has had the kind of screenwriting career most writers dream of. She co-wrote "Stardust," "Kick-Ass," "X-Men: First Class," and most recently, "The Debt," all with Matthew Vaughn. This week, she offers her first solo screenwriting effort, an adaptation of "The Woman in Black," about a young lawyer who travels to a town only to find out it's being haunted by the ghost of a scorned woman. The movie stars Daniel Radcliffe and comes out next weekend.

SS: You seem to have a lot of different career opportunities (presenter, model, producer, etc.). What is it that draws you to screenwriting, a path that’s more low-key and that some might say doesn’t get nearly as much recognition as those other ventures?

JG: I’m honestly the least ambitious person I know in terms of a desire for recognition - the idea of being “known” has not only never appealed to me, but actually gives me panic attacks, as I’m chronically shy!

I’ve occasionally strayed off the writing career path as and when opportunities have presented themselves, but writing is what I’ve done my whole life, and what I wanted to do ever since I was a child.

I started freelancing while I was still at school – I used to spend my summer vacations hanging around in magazine office lobbies badgering features editors, which miraculously paid off! When I left school, my first full-time job was as a junior reporter on a newspaper and from there I moved on to working for magazines and writing books (eight non-fiction titles and one novel) before I wound up moving into screenwriting six years ago.

Along the way, I got offered various other jobs in other areas, and I always think it’s worth giving things a shot out of curiosity or just for fun. In the case of TV presenting, I turned out to be pretty crap at it and really didn’t enjoy being on the “wrong” side of the camera! Producing I love, however, and it’s the one other thing I still do when I can, alongside screenwriting.

I genuinely prefer the notion of a low-key career, as I’ve never craved recognition, and with screenwriting, I especially like the fact that you are part of a team rather than having to push yourself forward as an individual.

SS: I have a large UK following and a lot of UK’ers ask me how to break into Hollywood from another country. Can you give any advice to those trying to make it from the UK (or any other country)?

JG: My advice would be to do the very best work you can in order to break in to the film industry in your own country first, as anyone whose work has had even a small measure of success and recognition in their own country will likely be approached by US agents offering representation. Or at the very least, you can legitimately approach US agents yourself. I’d say that’s a far swifter and less stressful approach than moving to LA and trying to get a foot in the door without having anything substantial as a calling card.

The UK has the huge advantage of having radio as a very accessible stepping stone for writers, leading to getting an agent and opening doors into TV and film. But in these days of cheap HD cameras and Youtube there’s also always the option of just getting out there and making a low budget short – write something wonderful and find an aspiring director to make it, or even direct it yourself.

I thought the character development in X-Men was some of the best I’ve ever seen in a superhero movie. What’s your approach to building characters and what do you think the key is to creating a truly memorable character?

JG: Thank you SO much, that’s extremely kind of you! My initial approach is quite clinical and technical, in trying to make sure that a character has enough traits, complexities and flaws that they feel three dimensional. If I were trying to describe my best friend to you, I’d probably be able to reel off five or six adjectives or phrases without having to think too hard, so my aim would always be to strive for a similar level of detail in a fictional character, even if some of that detail never makes it onto the page. Ideally, you want to know your character so well that you know exactly what they’d do in any given situation. Then the next step is ensuring that all your characters who interact have traits that spark off one another – you want them to push each others buttons, yank one another out of their comfort zones, force each other to see things they don’t want to see. You want them to provide each other with obstacles or be catalysts for change – even the ones who get along.

Putting a touch of yourself, or people you’re close to, into your characters obviously doesn’t hurt either, in terms of making characters who feel real and relatable, and that’s certainly something I – and I think most writers – do.

Being objective, I’d say the key to creating a memorable character is to create someone with familiar traits, but in an uncommon combination, or someone who is a recognizable archetype with a surprising twist. For instance, one of my favorite characters is Maude from Harold and Maude. She’s the archetypal eccentric free spirit with a passion for life and scant regard for law or convention, and if she was also young and pretty with dyed hair and crazy clothes and too much mascara, it would all be eye-rollingly tedious, but the fact that she’s an octogenarian (and, it’s hinted, a holocaust survivor) makes her character fresh, affecting, extraordinary. By the same token, so many memorable characters play the game of combining traits you’d normally use in creating an unlikeable character, with other traits that make you adore them despite yourself – Ferris Bueller is a spoilt, manipulative rich kid who does whatever he wants, Melvin Udall from As Good As It Gets is a rude misanthrope, Tyler Durden is a psychopath, terrorist and all-round reprobate, Dexter and Hannibal Lecter kill people for kicks. But we love them all.

SS: I find that most screenwriters focus on the wrong things when they first start out. What was the primary thing you focused on as a beginning screenwriter and what’s the primary thing you focus on now? Do you look back and roll your eyes at the silly stuff you used to obsess about?

JG: The primary thing I focus on now is economy and pacing. I try to be really strict with the rule that every scene, every beat, every word of dialogue should be doing a job, or else it shouldn’t be there.

I feel like I made most of my mistakes, and hopefully learned from them, when I wrote my novel. I’m not sure that I focused on a specific wrong thing, but I deeply regret that what was published was essentially a first draft and it could have been a million times better if I’d gone through it with a critical eye, been brutal about editing, taken it apart, put it back together again and polished it until I was positive that every scene, every beat, every word was doing a vital job. I was just so happy when my editor didn’t suggest any changes that I cheerfully let it go to print as it was. I really regret that.

SS: You’ve been fortunate enough to work with a lot of talented people. What’s the best piece of story/screenwriting advice you’ve received from them?

JG: One director I worked with was a particular influence, although I unfortunately can’t name him, as the re-write job I did for him was a non-public thing. He had a really interesting policy about minor characters – he believed that whatever function they are serving, you can usually do away with them entirely and find other ways of making the same thing happen without them, and it’s a lot cleaner. I thought that was very interesting advice and have found on numerous occasions since that he’s absolutely right. He also likes his scripts to be notably shorter than the “standard” length for whatever genre, which made so much sense to me. Pretty much every movie’s first assembly in the edit room is always not just a little too long, but way too long, and losing scenes and moments that you love is never a nice experience.

SS: You’ve now written/co-written 5 movies. Which one of those movies was the hardest to write and why?

JG: Every project has it’s own challenges and pleasures, so it’s hard to single one out. X-Men: First Class had the tightest deadline, and the first draft needed to be delivered very fast because they were waiting to begin preproduction. That essentially meant a few weeks of writing seven days a week, essentially every hour that I was awake - literally only stopping for food, bathroom breaks and bedtime. My back eventually gave out from sitting in an office chair, so I started writing lying down on my couch instead, which has remained my favorite writing position ever since!

The most technically demanding was a screenplay that I recently completed, an adaptation of an incredible novel by Peter Ackroyd called Dan Leno and the Limehouse Golem (I believe it has a different title in the US, The Trial of Elizabeth Cree). It’s multi-stranded, strays into the esoteric and involves a monumental plot twist that is brilliantly concealed in the book by a literary conceit that you couldn’t possibly employ in a film! Figuring out how to approach an adaptation of it was immensely challenging but also unbelievably rewarding.

SS: You take some crazy chances in your screenplays. I particularly remember Stardust having some totally off-the-wall things going on (I loved the ending with the “dead person” swordfight). Do you deliberately try and buck convention or do you follow the traditional screenplay “rules” (3 acts, inciting incident, the protagonist arcs, hero must be likable, etc.)?

JG: Thank you! Re: the swordfight, a friend of mine remarked that it was typical of me to be working on a fairytale and find a way to slip a zombie in! I’d put zombies in everything, if I had my way :)

I think confounding expectations within storytelling is vitally important, but when it comes to structural framework, I don’t see any great need to buck convention - most of the traditional “rules” are there because they work well. It’s like building a house. You could build a house out of poptarts just to be different, but surely it’s more appealing to build it out of bricks and then buck convention in the design itself, knowing that it’ll hold strong.

To do away with things like inciting incident and protagonist arcs would seem a little bloody-minded and self-defeating to me. Some rules you can play with though, I think. In fact, Matthew recently noted that the screenplays we’ve worked on together could sort of be viewed as having four acts, rather than three. I’m not sure that a hero has to be likeable, either - just this year Young Adult and Submarine both played with that convention very effectively - but it obviously requires a different narrative drive to replace the one that is lost. There’s got to be something else that makes you want to see how the story is going to play out.

SS: I’ve been trying to come up with a good ghost story idea myself for years. What do you think the key is to making a ghost story work?

JG: I think the best ghost stories have an emotional core, but the main thing is probably mining what actually, genuinely scares you. I think with other genres you can approach things technically, but with horror – just like comedy - you’re actually trying to invoke a physical reaction in yourself and others. I think it’s not about finding something that seems scary, but a notion or collection of elements that actually make your skin creep, or send a shudder down your spine, or have you looking over your shoulder, even if you don’t believe in ghosts.

SS: What were some of the unique challenges you ran into while writing The Woman In Black and how did you go about solving them?

JG: One unique challenge was trying to ensure that it was scary! Writing descriptions of what are essentially visual beats, in a way that would convey their essence and my intentions clearly to a director, was a challenge because you need to be very specific. I’m used to writing action scenes, so conveying non-verbal beats wasn’t new to me, but at the same time, this was very different – it really required a lot of focus and careful choice of words - even punctuation! - in order to transfer from my head to the page what were often intricately timed moments, and their intended emotional and visceral effects.

SS: One of the issues I’ve noticed in these slower darker movies is that all of the characters are very restrained, and therefore it can be hard to write dialogue (in Kick-Ass for instance, every character has so much personality that I’m sure the dialogue flies off the fingertips). How do you conquer that problem and still make the dialogue pop?

JG: I actually made a conscious decision with the Woman in Black to let dialogue take a back seat and to keep things very simple, restrained and un-showy. I realized early on that this would serve the plot and the atmosphere best, and it was an interesting exercise as a writer, as you have to find other ways to convey character. It was also a good exercise in humility and ego-checking, as dialogue is the area where it’s easiest to show off!

SS: An always controversial discussion in the screenwriting community is the importance of theme. Do you put a high value on theme, and if so, can you explain how you incorporate it, and more specifically how you incorporated it into The Woman In Black?

JG: I do think theme is important, in that I think that if it is absent, a film risks having a sense of being directionless. Sometimes that sense is only vaguely tangible, other times it’s pretty obvious. I think incorporating theme is just about ensuring that there are plot points and scenes throughout that speak to your theme in a way that is consistent. It’s also pretty key that those thematic elements should involve not just your main character and their central dilemma or drive, but also ideally your supporting characters in parallel, related or opposing situations.

In the Woman in Black I guess the pervading theme is loss. And more specifically, the different ways in which people respond to loss. Without wanting to give away too much of the plot, we learn that the Woman in Black herself is driven by grief, anger and vengeance, so I wanted to ensure that Arthur, the main character, reflected another facet of that experience, an alternate reaction to bereavement. And, in fact, pretty much every supporting character also inhabits a different point on that same spectrum.

SS: Finally, it looks like this is the first time you’ve written by yourself. What was the biggest screenwriting lesson you learned that came out of that experience?

JG: I’ve done quite a few solo screenwriting jobs since Woman in Black, but yes, it was my first. It wasn’t really a markedly different experience, though, since Matthew and I don’t have the work habits of a traditional writing partnership – usually he works on the structure alone first, then we discuss it, then I go off and write alone, he gives me notes on the draft and then I make revisions. I just followed the same procedure – writing an outline, then the draft, then going through it with a critical eye and making improvements. I did miss having him to bounce ideas off at the structural stage, or to phone up to chat things through, or just to ask “I’ve just had an insane idea for how this scene could go – do you think it’s insane, or shall I try it?”

I guess I’d also written alone for a couple of decades before that, too, as a journalist and author, so it probably didn’t feel like a new enough experience to learn from it. I love the collaborative nature of screenwriting, though – whether you’re working with a director, a producer or directly with a creative partner. For me that’s probably one of things I enjoy most about screenwriting – the feeling that everyone is working together towards the common goal of making sure that you write the very best version of your screenplay possible.

Great interview! Thank you to Jane for stopping by. I learned a ton from her answers. Hope you guys did too. :)

Screenplay Review: He's Fucking Perfect

2012-01-25T08:21:00.000-08:00

A million dollar screenplay with a little help from Will Ferrell and Adam McKay.

Genre: Comedy
Premise: A woman uses her amazing internet skills to stalk and seduce the perfect guy.
About: This script finished Top 10 on the Black List and I believe Top 3 on the Hit List (list of best spec screenplays of the year). This is reportedly Kahn’s first script, but I have serious doubts about that. Nobody writes this efficiently their first time out. Either this is misinformation and they meant it’s the first script she’s gotten notice from, or she’s had help from producers guiding her along (like Diablo Cody did with Juno). Kahn was also Will Ferrell’s old assistant. Some people have told me he gave her notes on the script. Anyway, the script sold last year for a million bucks!
Writer: Lauryn Kahn
Details: 114 pages – August 22nd, 2011 draft (This is an early draft of the script. The situations, characters, and plot may change significantly by the time the film is released. This is not a definitive statement about the project, but rather an analysis of this unique draft as it pertains to the craft of screenwriting).

Hmmm, Zoey Deschanel for Charlie?

Well here’s a funny story. I’ve been going around telling everybody for the last two months that “He’s Fucking Perfect” is really fucking bad. I’d shout it from the rooftops when I could, only because I didn’t want anyone to waste their time. So it continually confused me when so many people wrote me saying, “Um, Carson, I don’t think this is that bad. I actually liked it a lot.” This led me to believe that everybody in the world was insane. But at a certain point, when, like, the 30th person in a row told me it was a good script, I began to wonder, “Am *I* the one who's insane?”

So finally, the other day, I picked it up and re-read the first 10 pages. Every reader has bad days when no matter what you put in front of them, they won’t like it. And I was wondering if I had had one of those days.

It took me about two pages to realize….this was a different script! This entire time I was confusing THIS script with ANOTHER script that had the word “Fucking” in the title. Hey, I’m sorry okay? I read a lot of scripts. This sometimes happens. But it would be helpful if everyone and their mom wasn’t putting the word “Fucking” in the title of their screenplay!

Anyway, as I started reading, it became clear to me, this script was EVEN WORSE than the other script I read!

No, I’m kidding. I’m KIDDING. Truth be told I was laughing within the first two pages. And it only got funnier from there. I’m just going to say it: This script is fuckin perfect!

Well, no, that’s not true. But it’s really good. In fact, the read so inspired me, I decided to create an impromptu list of “5 Ways You Know You’re Reading A Great Script.” Here we go!

1 – For the 100 minutes you’re reading the script, writing seems like the easiest thing in the world.

2 – Afterwards, you immediately want to go write a similar script in the same genre.

3 – You’re bummed when it’s over and wonder, “Why can’t every script be this good?”

I actually don’t have a 4 and 5. That’s what happens when you go impromptu. Man, I am not doing this review justice. Maybe now is a good time to get to the plot, no?

29 year old Charlie (Oh no! A female character with a male name in a romantic comedy – maybe this *is* Lauryn’s first time writing a script) is a Google ninja. Her biggest talent is her ability to research guys her friends are dating to determine whether they’re marriage material or not. She’s gotten so good at it, in fact, that women are now coming to her willing to pay for her services.

This culminates in an old bitchy acquaintance of hers asking to look into her new boyfriend, Evan, who seems too good to be true. Charlie does just that and for the first time in history, she doesn’t find a SINGLE thing wrong with the man she’s researching. He’s hot. He’s kind. He climbs mountains. He plays instruments. He volunteers at children’s clubs (he’s even a “Big Brother!”). He’s fucking PERFECT.

So what does Charlie do? Well of course she tells her acquaintance that she found out Even has gonorrhea and then goes after him herself! But not the way normal people go after someone. Charlie learns every single thing about the guy on the internet so that she can become his perfect match!

After stalking his foursquare movements, she “accidentally” bumps into him one day, and because she’s able to play to his every interest, he quickly falls for her.

But what Charlie starts to realize is that dating the perfect guy is HARD WORK. It means that YOU TOO have to be perfect. And since Charlie is anything but perfect (she’s not a vegetarian, she doesn’t play instruments, she doesn’t like culture, she doesn’t want to feed the children in Africa), making this relationship work is taking a LOT of effort.

What’s complicating things even more is that Evan’s best friend seems WAY more like her crowd. I mean, he doesn’t have 8 pack abs and isn’t changing the world, but he likes to smoke pot, he likes to eat meat and he’s generally more…relaxed. Like Charlie! As Charlie tries to navigate these conflicted feelings – being with the man she believes she’s supposed to be with or being with the man she’s actually supposed to be with – her not-so-secret plan begins to unravel, possibly destroying her chances with either of them.

This screenplay was just fucking good. There’s usually one really good comedy script every year and this is the one, without question. I mean, I don’t even know where to begin.

The characters! The characters were great. Besides the main three, we have Betsy, Charlie’s best friend, who may be the dumbest girl you’ve ever met, and yet the funniest. Little quirks like her always messing up popular phrases (“I’m waiting on eggshells.”) were perfect.

Then there’s Doug, the weirdo potential stalker/rapist who Betsy hires to help Charlie stalk Evan. Even though Charlie fires him the first day, he still somehow finds his way to every single event and date that Charlie goes on with Evan.

Lauryn also got the best out of every scene she wrote. This is really what separates the okay comedy writers from the great ones. Every single scene is good. Not every fourth scene. EVERY scene. For example, there’s a scene early on where Charlie prepares to ‘accidentally’ bump into Evan at the bookstore. She spots him, picks up a random book to look busy, and just as planned, he notices her. They start chatting and in order to impress him, she makes up a story about buying the book for her “younger sister” from the “Little Sisters” program. But Charlie hasn’t actually looked at the book yet and when she lifts it up, it’s one of those weird inappropriate fantasy books with naked alien women on the cover. Evan’s weirded out, but she’s able to talk her way out of it AND secure a future date with the hunk. Except Evan suggests they get their little brother and sister together to bring with them. Of course, Charlie doesn’t have a little sister, so she has to go find one for the date. And it’s all hilarious. Every scene here is full of funny situations like this.

One thing I noticed about “He’s Fucking Perfect” is that it had a few “Let’s Get High” scenes (Charlie smokes pot with Evan’s friend) JUST LIKE Two Night Stand from last week. And if you remember, I took that script to task for the lazy choice. Usually, when you have two characters wanting to get high, it means you’ve run out of ideas for your story.

But here’s the difference. In “He’s Fucking Perfect,” the “Let’s get high” scenes are integrated into the characters and plot. The whole point here is that Charlie’s trying to be this “perfect” person in front of Evan. But “getting high” is who she *really is.* It’s a secret she keeps from him. So when she’s given the opportunity to secretly get high with his friend, she’s making a choice steeped in character – go back to who she really is or be this “new person” that she wants to be. The scenes also push forward the relationship between her and Evan’s friend, making them plot-related as well. In other words, the choice to include the “let’s get high” scenes is necessary for the story.

In Two Night Stand, it boiled down to a writer who didn’t have any ideas so he threw in the infamous, “Wanna get high?” scenario.

In the end, what I really loved about this script though was how infectious and fun the writing was. There was no strain here. The words on the page seemed to emerge effortlessly, as if they were coming right out of Lauryn’s mouth.

This is so contrary to what I usually read, where sentences and paragraphs feel heavy – almost *too* constructed. Don’t get me wrong. You want your script and your writing to be polished. But there’s a point where it becomes too perfect and the writing doesn’t feel natural anymore. You want to watch out for that, ESPECIALLY in a comedy, where the writing is supposed to feel loose and fast.

I don’t know what else to say. This script was really good. It might even make my Top 25 after I sit on it for awhile. If you’re a comedy writer, this is the bar. This is what you’re aiming for.

[ ] Wait for the rewrite
[ ] wasn’t for me
[ ] worth the read
[x] impressive
[ ] genius

What I learned: The other day, Tawnya talked about how theme is the opposite of a character’s flaw. Let’s see that in action here. The theme of this script is a simple one: “Be yourself.” Charlie’s flaw is what? She’s trying to become someone she’s not. There it is. Flaw and theme are the opposite of one another.

And here are your 2011 Academy Award Screenwriting Nominations!

2012-01-24T10:05:00.000-08:00

For a full list of all of the nominations, head over to Slash-Film. Basically, the writing nominations this year are sort of lacking. There's nothing that sexy, nothing with any HUGE buzz attached to it. In the adapted category, I'm thinking the bigger names have a leg up on the competition. That means Moneyball and The Descendents are your frontrunners (Payne, Zallian and Sorkin are hard to say no to). If you asked me which SCRIPT was the best, I would say "The Ides Of March." I remember reading that when it was Farragut North and really liking it. I just don't think it has the cache to stand up to those other films.

The original category is more interesting (as it usually is). I mean, it has Bridesmaids in there. Now let me say this. I REALLY LIKED Bridesmaids. But if a straight comedy gets an Oscar nomination in screenwriting, it's probably a weak year. I'm a little surprised to see Margin Call in there. I liked the script and I loved JC Chandor's success story (he struggled his ass off before writing this script). But he's likewise probably helped by a weak year as well. The Artist has a shot but I find it hard to believe people will give a screenwriting Oscar to a movie with no dialogue (I'm not saying *I* would penalize it - I'm saying others probably will). I'll be honest. I don't even know what "A Separation" is. So I can't comment on that. And that leaves us with the huge favorite in the group, Midnight in Paris. Allen will almost certainly win this one.

Some people have asked how I feel about Drive being snubbed by the voters. I can't say I'm surprised. It's just a weird little movie and I'm not sure they campaigned for it very well. So I'm a little bummed but I'll get over it. Here are the nominations.

Writing (Adapted Screenplay)

“The Descendants” (Fox Searchlight) Screenplay by Alexander Payne and Nat Faxon & Jim Rash
“Hugo” (Paramount) Screenplay by John Logan
“The Ides of March” (Sony Pictures Releasing) Screenplay by George Clooney & Grant Heslov and Beau Willimon
“Moneyball” (Sony Pictures Releasing) Screenplay by Steven Zaillian and Aaron Sorkin Story by Stan Chervin
“Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy” (Focus Features) Screenplay by Bridget O’Connor & Peter Straughan

Writing (Original Screenplay)

“The Artist” (The Weinstein Company) Written by Michel Hazanavicius
“Bridesmaids” (Universal) Written by Annie Mumolo & Kristen Wiig
“Margin Call” (Roadside Attractions) Written by J.C. Chandor
“Midnight in Paris” (Sony Pictures Classics) Written by Woody Allen
“A Separation” (Sony Pictures Classics) Written by Asghar Farhadi

Bodies At Rest

2012-01-24T09:38:00.000-08:00

Genre: Contained Thriller
Premise: A group of masked thugs break into a morgue, demanding access to a body that contains evidence to a crime they recently committed.
About: Information on this one is mixed but I believe it originally went wide in 2010 and then finally ended up selling (possibly after a few rewrites) at the end of 2011. David Lesser, the writer, has been around for a long time, working mainly in TV. He wrote for “Who’s The Boss,” and wrote episodes for “Coach” and “Sabrina The Teenage Witch.”
Writer: David Lesser
Details: 106 pages - undated (This is an early draft of the script. The situations, characters, and plot may change significantly by the time the film is released. This is not a definitive statement about the project, but rather an analysis of this unique draft as it pertains to the craft of screenwriting).

I guess what happens when you get into the later stages of your screenwriting career is you stop writing spec scripts. You usually have a family, children, people who depend on you. So you don’t have the luxury of spending those precious few hours each day on writing something that doesn’t guarantee a paycheck. Instead, you go where the money is. And the money is in a steady paying TV job or assignment work.

For that reason, it’s always cool to see a veteran writer still writing specs - still taking a shot. And to that end, I love what Lesser has done here. He’s come up with a cool little idea with plenty of conflict and a cheap production tag.

With that said, Bodies at Rest is one of those screenplays that exists in the floating netherworld of spec sales. It’s good enough to get purchased, but something’s missing from making it that break out “talked about” screenplay. Sometimes I bring up the notion that certain stories (namely dramas and thrillers) need TEETH. They need to bite down on you, wrestle you, make you feel like you’re not going to get away. They need to feel DANGEROUS. That’s how I felt yesterday. I felt like The Stanford Prison Experiment dug its teeth into me and wouldn’t let go. With this script, I feel more like the characters are blowing bubbles at me. They’re winking and smiling when the cameras aren’t looking. Nobody ever feels threatening or threatened. For that reason, it was hard to become invested.

For example, it seemed like over a dozen times the villain said to our hero, “If you try and screw around ONE MORE TIME I’m going to [some clever saying about the method in which he was going to kill him].” But that moment never came. Once you get past 3 empty threats, it’s hard to take anything the villain says seriously. The irony is that in The Stanford Prison Experiment, we knew with 100% certainty that those characters were safe - that nothing terrible was ever going to happen to them. And yet I was a thousand times more terrified for them than I was the characters in Bodies At Rest. And that’s because that script had TEETH.

Anyway, Bodies At Rest follows the beautiful Lia and the mischievously handsome Abe. Both of them work together at the morgue, tearing up dead bodies and trying to figure out how they died. The two have a bit of a romance going, but Lia wants more out of it than Abe, and that causes just the slightest bit of friction between the two. She’s ready to take the next step. He’s not.

Well that white picket fence Lia’s so obsessed with is about to get mowed down, because three armed men in masks burst into the morgue, demanding to see a woman’s body. Now you’d think our body carvers would be terrified by this development. I mean, it’s not every night that someone breaks into a morgue and threatens to kill you. But for whatever reason, our heroic duo is as calm as the dead body lying on the table in front of them.

We soon learn that the trio wants a bullet taken out of a female body. Abe, who is somehow more relaxed now than he was when Lia was asking for a commitment, shrugs his shoulders as if to say, “Sure, why not?” He goes in the back room to extract the bullet from the woman. The thug watching him is so grossed out, he can’t look. Abe gives the man his bullet and the group leaves.

Once they go, Abe reveals to Lia that he didn’t give the men the bullet they were looking for. He extracted a bullet out of a different female body. Now he wants to find out why the men wanted that body. Hmmm. So instead of calling the cops, Abe wants to play Sherlock Holmes? Of course, the thugs realize that they’ve been had and charge back into the morgue all over again, demanding the REAL bullet.

What follows is a psychological game of cat and mouse as Casual Abe leads the thugs on and the thugs keep catching on, menacingly threatening Abe each time but never actually doing anything about it. In the end, when they’ve really truly honestly had enough of Abe’s antics, it looks like they’re REALLY going to kill him. Casual Abe will then have to come up with one last trick to get he and Lia out of this mess.

So I’ve already given you my main problems with the script. But here’s the thing I’m stumped over. There are certain movies where the main character is essentially a super-hero. He’s not afraid of anything because he knows he’s more powerful than everyone else. Many of these movies are popular (Mission Impossible, James Bond). But isn’t it more interesting when the main character actually exhibits fear? When he (and we) feel like there’s a possibility that he can be beaten/defeated/killed?

Because if we’re not worried that anything’s going to happen to our protagonist, then what are the stakes? What’s dramatically interesting about a person who can’t be hurt? That was my issue with Abe. He just seemed WAY too sure of himself and was never once afraid. Since he wasn’t afraid, I wasn’t afraid. And if I’m not afraid, I’m not going to be into the movie.

Still, I admit this kind of character works in some scenarios. One of my favorite characters of all time, Wesley from The Princess Bride, is this kind of character. He always knew he was going to come out okay and so did we. So what’s the difference here? Why does Wesley work and Abe not work? Or do we only accept these characters in larger than life scenarios?

This same approach was extended over to Lia. There’s a moment early on, when the thugs send Abe off to extract the bullet, and Lia is left standing there with the men. What is the first thing she says to them? “Do you mind if I get back to work?”

Uh, wait a minute. What did you just say?

DO YOU MIND IF I GET BACK TO WORK?????

Oh yeah, that would definitely be my reaction if someone was pointing a gun to my head. “Hey guys? I know you want to kill me n’stuff but I REALLY need to get this blog entry up. If you can just hang out for a moment? There’s food in the fridge. Believe me, if you knew Grendl, you’d know why I need to do this pronto.”

Anyway, this gets to the heart of why the script didn’t work for me. Nobody acted like people would really act in this situation. For example, when one of the bad guys is about to rape Lia, she tells him she’s into weird kinky sexual shit and asks if she can spit on him. The thug answers “yes” for God knows what reason and she asks him to hold out his hands. He does, she spits on them, and then kicks him backwards into a freezer where his wet hands get stuck on the frozen doors. This, apparently, was her plan all along. I mean let’s be serious for a second. Is this in any way believable?

My philosophy is always to put yourself in your character’s shoes. Ask the question, “What would I do if I were in this situation?” If your characters are doing something completely different from that, you better have a great reason for why. And I couldn’t find that reason with Bodies At Rest.

[ ] Wait for the rewrite
[x] wasn’t for me
[ ] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius

What I learned: I think it’s important that the audience FEARS your villain. If we don’t fear the villain, there’s a lack of tension and uncertainty in the script that’s hard to make up for. Star Wars has a great moment early on when Darth Vader holds a rebel soldier up off the ground by his neck, choking him to death. So right away, I’m scared of Darth Vader. But it’s not just that he killed someone (the villain in Bodies at Rest kills a few people). It’s the manner in which he does it. It’s cold, it’s heartless, it’s brutal. I just never got that feeling here from the villain. He was never very frightening.

The Stanford Prison Experiment

2012-01-23T09:04:00.000-08:00

Genre: Drama
Premise: Based on a true story, in 1971, a Stanford professor initiated one of the most controversial university experiments of all time, recreating a simulated prison environment with volunteers. Within hours, the experiment spun out of control.
About: The Stanford Prison Experiment is a 2006 script written by Christopher McQuarrie and Tim Talbott for McQuarrie to direct. McQuarrie had assembled a great cast that included Channing Tatum, Giovanni Ribisi, Ryan Phillipe, Jesse Eisenberg, Paul Dano, Jamie Bell, Ben McKenzie, and others, but just as the project was getting ready to go, Valkyrie emerged, and McQuarrie had to make a tough decision on whether to produce that film or direct this one. It was a difficult choice but he ultimately went with Valkyrie. You might remember I reviewed a more recent McQuarrie screenplay, One Shot, a couple of months back.
Writers: Tim Talbott & Christopher McQuarrie
Details: 122 pages – August 7, 2006 Draft (This is an early draft of the script. The situations, characters, and plot may change significantly by the time the film is released. This is not a definitive statement about the project, but rather an analysis of this unique draft as it pertains to the craft of screenwriting).

So I’d been hearing about how good this script was for-evvvvv-er but the reason I hadn’t picked it up is because I’d seen “Das Experiment” (A German film covering the same territory - it was pretty good) and figured I already knew the story, so what was the point? But this script had a nasty habit of not going away. It just kept popping up on my radar. And due to the recent slate of less than stellar scripts here on Scriptshadow, I decided to read something I knew was going to be a quality screenplay.

Whereas Das Experiment took the subject matter and went all “creative license” with it, Chris and Tim seem to be more interested in exploring how things *really* went down on that fateful week in 1971. The event centers around an arrogant Stanford Professor named Dr. Philip Zimbrado who thought it’d be interesting to study the effects of how prisoners and guards interact with one another in a prison setting.

So he put an ad in the paper and narrowed the applicants down to 30 people, most of them in the 19-25 age range. 9 of them were made guards and the rest prisoners. Zimbardo then set up a make-shift jail and began the experiment.

Immediately, things started getting weird. The volunteers were led to believe this was going to be a fun little experiment they could leave at any moment. Zimbardo had another plan, however. His goal was to strip away every “prisoner’s” humanity, make them feel like dirt, and study how this affected them. So right when they arrived, the prisoners were literally stripped naked and de-liced. They were then given smocks that barely covered anything. The experience was humiliating but they still went along with it, figuring things would get better.

They didn’t.

One of the guards, a cocksure 18 year old sociopath named David Eshleman, decided to take his role very seriously, to the point where he changed his Northeastern accent to a Southern one. He took on the persona of a meaner creepier version of himself who didn’t take shit from anybody. He began harassing the prisoners with a vengeance. And if any of them got out of line, he’d send them to “the hole,” a box so tiny you couldn’t even stand up in it.

One of the prisoners, 22 year old Doug Corpi, quickly realized that if the prisoners didn’t stand up for their rights, they were about to experience two weeks of torture. So he began rebelling, refusing to eat food and barricading the cell entrances so the guards couldn’t get inside. Eshelman didn’t back down. He told the other inmates that unless Corpi started abiding by the rules, they wouldn’t eat. They wouldn’t get bathroom breaks.

It was a standoff. A hatred began building between the two sides, fueled by Corpi and Eshelman, and it was clear that only 48 hours in, things were out of control. But did Zimbardo stop? No. He was too fascinated by the interaction. He wanted more.

Soon, the psychological exhaustion of dealing with the relentless guards began to take its toll, and the prisoners started breaking down. They went to Zimbardo, begging for help, but since they never specifically asked to leave, he wouldn’t let them go. He’d force them right back into their cells to endure more psychological terror.

His biggest fascination, however, was Eshelman. He wanted to see how far he would go. The problem with that was Eshelman wanted to see how far he could take it. So he just got worse and worse and worse until he was a bona fide monster. But since no one was telling him to stop, he kept going. He devoted his entire shifts to torturing the inmates.

At a certain point, things became so ridiculously out of control, that Zimbardo had no choice but to stop the experiment, a mere six days in. It was not due to any sympathy on his part. It was only because his staff couldn’t bear it anymore. And just like that, it was over. The prisoners were released from their cells and told to go home.

Man, I don’t even know if I can talk about this script in screenwriting terms. I was just so fucking…..ANGRY at Zimbardo and Eshelman. These people were tortured for six straight days and there were no consequences for their torturers! They just got to smile and shrug their shoulders at the end and call it a day.

I think this is why this script leaves such an impression. There aren’t many movies where the bad guys get to mercilessly torture the good guys without any payback. It just feels so…unfair.

Especially in the case of Zimbardo, the smarmy piece of shit who came up with the idea. He just watches the whole thing with this evil little grin on his face, allowing these men to be berated and humiliated. I wanted to find out where he lived and conduct my own little experiment on him.

And you want to talk about a script with awkward mechanics. You know our hero? Corpi? Yeah well he goes insane and leaves the movie at the 65% point. So our main character is just gone. It’s a little like Psycho in that sense. After Corpi leaves, we’re sitting there going, “Who is it we’re now supposed to follow? Whose story is it now?” And at a certain point we realize it’s Zimbardo’s. We’re stuck with this manipulating douche-bag monster for the rest of the film.

You’ll also notice the script has a ton of characters, which I thought I’d bring up because last week I went off on Cities of Refuge for having too many characters. First of all, it’s important to remember that McQuarrie was directing this himself. So the only person who had to remember all these characters was him. But he and Tim also do something unique with the characters at the beginning of the screenplay. They tell you they're going to name them, but to pay no attention to their names. Because they’re not people in this movie. They’re rats in a maze. They’re nobodies.

Truthfully, the only people we have to remember are Korpi, Eshelman, Zimbardo, and a few minor characters.

This isn’t a GSU movie either. The driving force behind the movie is not a goal – it’s a question. What’s going to happen to these people? What’s going to happen in this situation? And because the situation is so compelling (every single scene is packed with conflict), we want to find out.

The thing about the script that baffles me most, though, is the lack of stakes. Going into this, I thought for sure I wouldn’t care because the stakes were so low. It’s just an experiment – and an experiment at a prestigious University at that. You knew nothing could get *too* bad. I mean any of the prisoners could get up, say they had enough, and walk out without any consequences.

And yet despite this, I was still riveted by their predicament. I’m still not sure how Talbott and McQuarrie managed to do this. I think part of it may be that humans always respond passionately towards a) people being taken advantage of, and b) people abusing their power. Since both of those scenarios were on full display here, we were invested in the story from the moment those prisoners walked into their cells.

I’m still pissed off there were no repercussions for Zimbardo and Eshelmen though. I wanted somebody to go down at the end of this. But you’ll have a tough time finding another screenplay out there that pulls you into its story as effectively as this one.

[ ] What The Hell Did I Just Read?
[ ] wasn’t for me
[ ] worth the read
[x] impressive
[ ] genius

What I learned: A lot of writers are looking for that perfect “save the cat” moment, the thing that’s going to make the audience fall in love with their main character. They forget, however, that an often more effective way of making us like the main character is to “kick the owner.” If we see the bad guy beat down our protagonist, a much stronger “sympathy” bond is created between us and the character, resulting in our steadfast support of him for the rest of the movie. You see that here in spades (you also saw it in The Shawshank Redemption). So remember, saving the cat isn’t your only option. Kicking the owner creates a similar – and often – more powerful effect.

Interview with Tawnya Bhattacharya from Script Anatomy!

2012-01-20T08:26:00.000-08:00

Tawnya is basically one of my favorite people in the world. She’s sweet, smart, cool and has a staggeringly high screenwriting IQ. So when she told me she was starting up Script Anatomy, which would teach both TV and feature writing (in Los Angeles), the first thing I said was, “Well we have to get you some students.” Not for Tawnya’s sake, but for the students’ sake! I knew that anybody I could get into her class was going to become a hell of a lot better screenwriter.

To give you some background on Tawnya, she taught at the Writers Boot Camp for 4 years. She now writes on USA’s “Fairly Legal” with her writing partner, Ali Laventhol. The pair are in development on two original pilots, and have optioned a few features, one being packaged by CAA. They are repped at CAA and RABINER/DAMATO Entertainment. Feel free to jump over to her site right now or sign up for spots while they’re still open (I don’t know how long they’ll be available after this post). Or get to know her and her philosophy on screenwriting first in our interview. Enjoy!

SS: So why did you get into screenwriting? Are you a masochist?

TB: I started out as an actress. I had gone to an Acting Conservatory. Worked in the theater in Seattle, Chicago, Vienna and Prague and then moved to LA. After struggling, not getting enough auditions and doing a slew of crappy B films (if we’re letter grading they’d be D minus at best), I’d had enough. The writing was awful. The directing was awful. I was awful. And it was painful. This was years ago, and my boyfriend at the time was in the business and doing pretty well as a writer/director. I think I was the only actress in town for whom the casting couch failed -- he never gave me any work. Bastard!

I started writing because I wanted to write a short for myself but I ended up catching the bug. I knew inside that I was really a writer. I quit acting and started writing. Two screenplays in and one thing was clear: I had no idea what the hell I was doing. So I set out to change that. I read books. I read scripts. I took every class and workshop under the sun: Robert McKee, William Martell, Jen Grisanti, Blake Snyder, Michael Hague, John Truby… I went to Writers Boot Camp for 22 months, where I then ended up teaching for four years. Am I a masochist? Isn’t every writer?

SS: You and I have chatted about the craft before. What do you think is the hardest thing about writing a screenplay?

TB: Writing the screenplay.

Seriously, I think what’s difficult about writing a screenplay is going to vary depending on the individual and where they are with their craft and process. I feel like dialogue and scene work were always strong suits for me. Early on, getting the structure right did my head in. Later, it was theme and arcing the character throughout their journey. I worked hard on those and now specialize in them as an instructor. Not many instructors out there teach theme and how to apply it, which blows my mind because it’s so important.

Anyway… focusing solely on my last two scripts, I’d have to say the most difficult part was getting the opening right. There are so many ways in, but maybe only a few ways that will get your story off on the right foot. On the most recent one, we (the producer, my writing partner, and I) had a two hander and there was some disagreement as to whose story it really was. We went back and forth. We ended up making the right choice - but it wasn’t without trying it many different ways. On another project, I was hired by a director to write his idea. Looking back, I shouldn’t have taken the job. I wasn’t excited about the material, which made it a long and hard row to hoe. If you don’t love what you’re writing -- if your heart isn’t in it -- you constantly have to pull out the defibrillators. Even when you love what you are writing, rewriting over and over again without losing enthusiasm for a project can be challenging. Writing is rewriting. It’s how you turn something good into something great -- yet if you lose your passion it shows on the page.

SS: You’ve also taught a lot of screenwriters. In your experience, what was their biggest misconception about the craft that you needed to correct?

TB: I think the biggest misconception is that structure kills creativity. That if you’re writing a smaller independent film, structure doesn’t matter. Of course, that would launch me in to breaking down the structure of Another Earth, Lars and the Real Girl, Happy Accidents, The Swimming Pool or In the Bedroom and what have you. All storytelling adheres to structure -- it’s just whether it’s weak, ineffective structure or strong, effective structure.

SS: What were some of their common mistakes? And don’t hold back!

TB: I think the usual suspects are:

- Weak concept or no concept at all
- Poor structure or no structure at all
- Passive writing
- Inactive characters
- Too many characters
- Characters who don’t have distinct voices
- No conflict or stakes
- Dense action lines
- Dialogue heavy/action light
- On the nose dialogue
- Taking too long to get into the story
- Unmemorable characters that lack a flaw and therefore possibility for growth and change.
- Characters who are two-dimensional archetypes instead of three-dimensional humans. If they don’t come alive we can’t possibly care about them and their story.
- No theme
- Too much directing on the page. Pet peeve: CUT TO. When you write a new slug line that is a cut.
- Typos
- Incorrect formatting
- Scripts that are too long
- Lack of surprise
- Getting into a scene too early / getting out too late
- Lack of craft in transitions
- No story. Yes, that’s right. No story! Just a lot of words and bumbling about that doesn’t lead anywhere.
Etcetera.

SS: Wow, you really didn't hold back. Okay, so, let’s move on to something more positive. I always have a lot of writers asking me how to write great dialogue. I find it one of the harder questions to answer. What’s your approach to teaching dialogue?

TB: I like Elmore Leonard’s list, especially, “Leave out all the boring parts” and “If it sounds like writing, rewrite it.”

After going over a long list of dialogue no-no’s, I teach dialogue techniques and give writers examples of those techniques from existing TV or feature scripts. Sometimes I show clips as well. In class, students rewrite one or two of their scenes implementing the techniques they’ve learned. A partial list is: tangents, parallel construction, reversals, unexpected response, comeback zingers, exposition, subtext, character interruptions, echoing, similes, character on own track, response implying answer, set ups and pay offs, comic contrasts… etc.

Here are a couple of examples…

EXAMPLE 1 - From the MAD MEN Pilot written by Matthew Weiner, illustrates a few techniques: SET UP AND PAY OFF, an UNEXPECTED RESPONSE and a COMEBACK LINE.

DON
We should get married.

MIDGE
You think I'd make a good ex-wife?

Don sits up and grabs a cigarette off the end table.

DON
I'm serious. You have your own business and you don't care when I come over. What size Cadillac do you take?

EXAMPLE 2 - From UP IN THE AIR, screenplay by Jason Reitman, based on the novel by Walter Kirn, uses ECHOING and PROGRESSIVE DIALOGUE.

CRAIG GREGORY
Today I took my first crap in two weeks. Hallelujah.

RYAN
That’s me, applauding.

CRAIG GREGORY
That’s me, passing blood.

RYAN
That’s me, hanging up on you.

SS: What’s your general screenwriting teaching philosophy? What do you focus on most?

TB: Character, character, character. And structure and theme. My TV and feature classes begin with concept and continue through full development of a writer’s first draft. However, because of the depth of in class exercises and tools I teach, usually the resulting first draft will look more like a second or third. I really believe in investing the time up front – developing ideas and characters, brainstorming infinite options and outlining vigilantly before writing pages.

SS: You seem to be hitting on theme a lot. It’s definitely one of those things screenwriters struggle to grasp. Can you give me a basic breakdown of what theme is in your opinion and how you apply it?

TB: Theme is the foundation on which your screenplay is built. Theme is the spine, the core, the heart and soul of your story and what makes it relatable and universal and meaningful. Because it’s the lesson or moral of the story and expresses your unique point of view about the world and the state of humanity, theme is your voice.
And how do you express theme? Through symbolism and cinematic imagery, dialogue… many ways… but most importantly, through character and transformational arc. I do a workshop on theme and I hate to simplify because it’s actually more complex than this but I’ll distill it here for “page” length purposes.

Theme is the opposite of the main character’s flaw. (Carson note: I like this! I've never heard it expressed this way before)

Your Main Character or Hero is flawed. They have a goal they are not getting because of this flaw. To achieve the goal the MC will have to change and grow, overcoming the flaw throughout the second act journey - hence learning the lesson. (In some cases, the character doesn’t grow or learn but the theme is still articulated). This process is the transformational arc. We see this evolution occur as the MC confronts his flaw via conflict and obstacles, a strong opponent and a catalyst character(s)… we see them “become the theme” in a sense.

Like I said, there’s much more to it - in class I focus on it in more depth as writers develop their projects.

In TV, theme works a little differently. You’re obviously not arcing your characters in one episode to the point of alleviating their flaw. If Nurse Jackie cures her drug addiction do they still have a show? Her med addiction is so connected to the concept, character and arena, they have to draw out her transformational arc – but - she has other flaws to play with that stem from the addiction: lying, cheating, stealing… Which brings me to branches of theme. Theme is like a tree. There might be one primary theme that is the trunk, but other secondary facets of theme, like branches, stem from the trunk.

A show will likely have a series theme and possibly another theme per season, and individual themes per episode - which all may or may not be related.

SS: You work in both TV and features. What would you say is the big “writing” difference between the two mediums?

TB: Writing-wise it’s obviously much more manageable to tell a 24 to 60 page story than it is 110. There’s a lot more to track in a feature. And much more room for mistakes.

Work/Career-wise, the TV and feature world couldn’t be more different. Writing features can be a lonely business. It’s collaborative in that you might get notes from the studio or a director, but you’ll go off and write by yourself. Working in television you’re surrounded by other writers and it’s a collaborative process. Movies are difficult to get made and it can take years whereas everything about TV is fast. You can start working on a TV show and within months you can have a produced credit. I think most writers would think that’s golden.

SS: I’m curious. Which one do you think is easier?

TB: Oh boy. I don’t think it’s ever easy to write well, but… but TV. As I mentioned, it’s an extremely collaborative medium. The room usually breaks story as a group. If you’re lucky, like we are on our show, you have an amazing showrunner with a strong vision and voice. Writing an episode is much more manageable than a feature just by way of page count but also because some of the work has been done for you: the template, characters, tone, the world, relationships and conflicts are pre-existing. Writing an original pilot is as difficult as writing a feature, it just takes less time. The real challenge of writing for television is the pace. It’s incredibly fast. Recently we (my writing partner and I) had two days to outline our episode and two weeks to write it.

SS: Which one do you think it’s easier to break into?

TB: I’d say TV. There are more jobs in television. There are also specific ways a new writer can break in such as becoming a writers’ assistant and then getting bumped up. Acceptance into one of the prestigious Studio Writing Programs (I did FOX’s Diversity Initiative and NBC Writers On The Verge) can be a great launching point for a writer. Neither is easy to break into, but it can be done.

SS: In your experience, is an agent necessary to become a successful screenwriter?

TB: I’ll most likely contradict myself, so here goes: yes and no.

No. Writing careers are like snowflakes. There are no two alike. And everyone’s way in is different. I really believe that great writing will rise to the top and get noticed eventually if you are putting yourself out there. That may be through friends and contacts or a reputable screenwriting contest or fellowship. Hell, it might be because your script got caught in a tornado and five pages landed on Spielberg’s desk. If those pages knock his socks off he’ll come find you even if you’re not repped. Maybe I’m exaggerating, maybe not, but I’ve always done my best to believe that anything’s possible in a career that sometimes feels like the lottery.

Yes. An effective agent or manager can help build your career. They have relationships in the business that you don’t -- especially starting out. They can guide you, connect you with the right people and help sell you to those people. A big agency might package a project. And then of course, it doesn’t hurt to be validated by someone respected in the business. People feel more confident about you if you’ve been vetted. That said, I have friends who have agents who are ineffective yet they stay because they’re afraid of not having one.
In our experience, our agents and managers were crucial in getting a job on Fairly Legal. We’re really happy with our reps and their involvement in our career.

SS: You’re repped at CAA. How did you find your way over there and what can Joe and Jane Writer do to get there too?

TB: I can't make an exact trail map for Joe and Jane, but I can tell you how we got there… (sorry we should have left bread crumbs!)

My writing partner and I have a feature with a producer attached. This producer had given our script to a talent agent at CAA who happened to like it for his star client. A few weeks later my partner and I went to The Austin Film Festival. At one of those panel discussions we noticed a CAA TV agent who stood out as being incredibly savvy and smart. After the panel, we introduced ourselves and asked her a question. During the conversation we managed to slip in that were currently in NBC’s Writers On the Verge program. A few weeks later our feature producer put in a call to the agent. The rest was history. Just kidding. Nothing happened after the call. The agent, more senior in the company, had mostly established writers on her list and wasn’t exactly looking for new writers. After NBC WOTV was over, the head of the program made a call, but it wasn’t until our mentor, who at the time (he’s since been promoted) was the Sr. Vice President of Drama Development at NBC, made a call that we got a meeting. Now we have 4 people on our team there -- two TV and two feature agents aside from our two managers.

SS: I know you’re pushing me to stop by your classes. But you know I’m a busy guy! If I came by, what should I expect? What would an average class be like?

TB: You are a busy guy! And I’m so proud of you, by the way, for all you have created with ScriptShadow and all of the exciting things coming up. Still… you should stop by one of my classes! So, um… what to expect… well, nothing average. Haha. You should expect to learn a lot about screen or TV writing (depending on the class) and to become a better writer through not only lecture and theory but more importantly through exercises and tool work. You should expect to gain an applicable process (or improve the process you already have) that will serve you throughout your screenwriting career. My next TV Workshop is already in progress but my next Feature Class is ten weeks long and starts up February 25th.

SS: Before we finish up, do you want to do a shameless plug for the show you’re writing on?

TB: It’s an “all new” FAIRLY LEGAL Season 2 which will air on USA March 16th on Friday nights at 9pm. “All new” because the entire writing team from the showrunner down is brand new. Expect some very exciting changes. My episode, which I wrote with my writing partner, Ali Laventhol, is “Gimme Shelter”. Hope you enjoy it.

I’m already on the Tivo. Does Tivo allow you to tape shows two months in advance? Anyway, thanks Tawnya for dropping by and sharing your wonderful insight. I think I need to take your class for dialogue alone. I’ve never even heard of some of those terms before but I like them. So, if you guys want to learn a little more about Tawnya and her site, check out Script Anatomy. Or if you want to grab a spot while they’re still available, here’s the site where you can sign up for her classes. Good news for Scriptshadow readers. If you sign up before this Sunday at midnight (Pacific Time), it’s 10% off. When it asks for the promotional code, just enter “Scriptshadow_22.” If you have any question about the classes, feel free to e-mail Tawnya at tawnya@scriptanatomy.com. What are you waiting for! Go become a better screenwriter. And who knows? You might even see me there. :)

Amateur Thursday! - Funny Money

2012-01-19T08:39:00.000-08:00

Amateur Friday Submission Process: To submit your script for an Amateur Review, send it in PDF form, along with your title, genre, logline, and why I should read your script to Carsonreeves3@gmail.com. Keep in mind your script will be posted in the review (feel free to keep your identity and script title private by providing an alias and fake title). Also, it's a good idea to resubmit every couple of weeks so that your submission stays near the top of the pile.

Genre: Comedy
Premise: A print shop owner who moonlights as a counterfeiter finds himself in over his head after a money deal gone wrong.
Writer: Robert Cornero
Details: 142 pages

Amateur Friday has been switched to Amateur Thursday this week!

So today we’re going to do something different. Robert, a longtime reader of Scriptshadow and a really nice guy, e-mailed me to let me know he had finally written a script he was confident enough in to submit to Amateur Friday. There was only one problem, he noted. It violated one of my most hardcore rules. It was 142 pages long.

I told him I couldn’t read it. 142 pages? There was no way. We then had a back and forth discussion/argument on why a script can’t be 140 pages. I argued my side. He argued his (his main point was that his script was dialogue heavy, which takes up a lot of space). And at the end of the discussion, I realized, this is the exact same argument I hear from every screenwriter who writes a long screenplay. So that gave me an idea. I could use this script as a learning tool. I would show writers our argument, and then, assuming I was right, use the review to show why a 140 page script shouldn’t be written. At the same time, I would be open-minded and give the script a fair shot. If Robert proved me wrong, I would happily admit so, and writers everywhere would have new ammunition for their super-sized screenplays. So, here was our e-mail exchange…

MY REPLY

Hey Robert,

I hear you. Dialogue heavy scripts are a little longer, but 142 pages??? I'll be honest. If that landed on my desk and I didn't know who you were, I would never read it. That's not true. I MIGHT read the very first page. If it made me BURST OUT LAUGHING then I'd keep reading. But comedies are supposed to be lean and mean, not bulky, even WITH dialogue (remember, most comedies are dialogue based, so you don't get much leniency in that area). If you got it down to 110, I'd put it in the mix. The thing is, I've only ever read 2 scripts over 130 pages that were good. The Social Network and Brigands Of Rattleborge. That's 2 in maybe 400. I know you think yours is the exception, but every one of those bad 130+ page scripts also had writers who swore theirs was the exception. So it's hard to believe anyone when they say that.

Gut that puppy! I know it's hard but you gotta do it. :)

HIS REPLY

I hear ya. Believe me, I hear ya. It wasn't a choice I made lightly, and it's still something I'm concerned about, not for story reasons, but exactly for the kind of length-bias you echoed here - which isn't to accuse you of being biased. After all, there's good reason for it - there are a lot of bad writers out there and they tend to multiply their words. But I have to wonder if Hollywood as a whole suffers for its reluctance to read lengthier pieces (or at least automatically equating length with story quality). I mean:

Citizen Kane - 167 pages.
The Shawshank Redemption - 131 pages
Silence of the Lambs - 145 pages
Batman Begins - 150 pages
The Dark Knight - 141 pages
Toy Story 3 - 131 pages
Lord of the Rings - 173 pages
Inglourious Basterds - 166 pages
The Hurt Locker - 131 pages
Inception - 147 pages
City of the Gods (Darabont) - 141 pages
Smoke & Mirrors - 128 pages
Catch Me If You Can - 134 pages

And of course, all established pros, right? They get to do that because they earned it, or so the logic goes. But it seems that lengthier scripts generally turn into better, more timeless movies than their shorter brethren. It's just a fact of the page; you're never, ever going to jam as meaningful a story into 90 pages as you would spending 130 pages on the story.

Idk, maybe I'm wrong, but a lean cuisine, microwave friendly script is not going to be as satisfying as a home cooked meal script, meat, potatoes and all. Just because 90-110 is dominant doesn't mean it's healthy, or good.

Maybe there's an article somewhere in that thought there for Scriptshadow.

MY REPLY

Lol, that's not really fair to list those movies. I could also list you the 398 130+ screenplays that I've read which have been terrible. That would multiply exponentially if you included the ones ALL the readers in Hollywood have read...

Ager's Toothache 159 pages
Prophecy Boy 181 pages
Caramel Is My Favorite - 143 pages
The Barber Ate My Baby - 156 pages
(and on for another 50,000 scripts)

Here's the thing I ALWAYS see with big scripts. They always show a lack of discipline. They always include more than they should. It's incredibly rare that I read a long script where the writer ACTUALLY utilizes every single one of those pages. Am I saying yours can't be that one? No. But I'd probably want to read something of yours that was 100 pages so I could at least see if you could write before I gave you that chance, you know?

But you're right. It's reader-bias that's your biggest problem here. It doesn't really matter if your script is good or not. If it's 140 pages (with a comedy no less, which are supposed to come in between 100-110), they're not giving it a chance.

HIS REPLY

But haven't you read an equal, if not greater, amount of terrible normal-sized scripts? My point in listing those was to show there's no direct correlation between length and skill.

I mean, the 90-110 page rule isn't exactly a hidden secret. Everyone knows it and shoots for it. I'd be willing to wager that the vast majority of terrible scripts out there fall into the 90-110 page category. So the question is, why then don't "normal" scripts get the same negative reaction?

When it comes to long scripts, if a reader gets a terrible one, it just takes the reader longer to figure out that it's terrible, and because they've spent that much more time on it, they get that much more fed up and end up decrying all long scripts. We live in a microwave culture. We want catharsis immediately. We want gratification and pay off right away. A great example is The Godfather. That script would not get made today. It barely got made in the 70's and today, it wouldn't stand a snowball's chance.

Anyway, thanks for the conversation and feedback. It's given me some things to consider. My hope is that the reader won't be dismissive when they arrive at page 1.

MY REPLY

The longer scripts are always worse for three reasons. 1) They're always more unfocused (naturally, since the writers are using the extra pages for the wrong reasons), 2) Instead of only having to endure bad for 100 pages, you have to endure it for 140, which if you read a lot of scripts is the worst! and 3) They steal an extra 30-40 minutes out of your day. Readers live to work on their own writing. When a script steals nearly an extra hour out of their night, they get mad as hell.

Robert, all I can say is that when I was just writing, I thought the EXACT SAME WAY you did. I was making these exact same arguments to people. In fact, most young writers offer these same arguments. It took me being on the other side to realize how wrong I was.

:)

HIS REPLY

And I agree with you, for the most part. I see the value and truth in what you are saying, and what many have said before you. I guess I just wish I could communicate the gravity with which I made that decision to allow it to be long, so that you would understand that page count is not something I take lightly.

Anyway, I'm not going to worry about it. Whether it moves forward or not is largely out of my hands at the moment.

And that’s when I offered to read his script if I could post this discussion. So, it’s time to look at Funny Money and see if it’s worth the 140 pages it takes to tell its story or if it, indeed, could’ve been cut waaaaay down. Let’s begin…

Funny Money follows a 30-something print shop owner named Andrew Piero. Andrew is raising his 11 year old precocious son on his own because his wife died after a very long and expensive battle with cancer.

But we soon learn there’s more going on to Andrew than we thought. He and his 70-something assistant, Hugo, are counterfeiting money in their basement! These guys just print money at will. What they find out, however, is that the Feds might be onto them. The bumbling duo of Agent Charlie and Agent Cynthia have been monitoring them for weeks. They just need that last “smoking gun” piece of evidence to convict them.

Once they realize this, Andy and Hugo decide to make one last giant sum of money and then dump the equipment. This is where the story got a little confusing to me, but I believe they need the help of some special guy who knows the secret ingredient that the U.S. Treasury is adding to all their new bills, in order for their fake money to look/feel authentic. And it just so happens this man operates out of Monte Carlo.

Cut to Europe, where we meet Marie Aubert, a sort of gold digging con woman, the hotter younger female version of Steve Martin in Dirty Rotten Scoundrels. This woman sucks men out of all their money then moves on to the next target.

She runs across Andrew and Hugo, as well as Agents Charlie and Cynthia (who are following them) and puts two and two together. These guys are up to no good. Being her con-woman self, she decides to play both sides of the fence, telling the agents she’ll help them for a sum of money and our heroes she’ll help them for a sum of money. In the end, she’ll be able to run off and live happily (and lavishly) ever after. Except complications arise when she starts to have feelings for Andrew. Ahhh, might Marie have finally met her match? Love? And does any of this even matter, with our agents close to finally securing the evidence that they need?

So, we shall ask the age old screenwriting question once again: Is it possible to write a great 140 page script? Or is this proof, once again, that all super-long amateur scripts are going to be wandering messes? Well, I hate to answer this so anti-climactically, but the answer is…I’m not sure. The thing is, Funny Money has some story issues that have nothing to do with page length. And it’s only once we fix those that we can determine how length affects this screenplay. Having said that, there were numerous places I felt could be easily cut.

Let’s start at the top. The opening scene was quite strange. Andrew buys a ham. Another man steals it from him as he walks out the door. Andrew chases him, corners him, and then pays him $375 for the ham back. I believe this was to show that money wasn’t a problem for Andrew, but I was having a hard time accepting the logic of the scene. Why not just go to one of the 800 other butchers in Manhattan and buy another ham for 30 bucks? Or back to the one you just came from? I’m assuming butcher shops keep more than one ham.

But that issue paled in comparison to the big issue I had with the script. What was Andrew’s motivation for needing all this money he was printing up in the first place? He lived a very middling existence. He didn’t have fancy cars or a nice place. Through all of these money-making montages, the implication is that hundreds of thousands of dollars is being made. Where exactly is all this money going if he’s not using it? And if he’s not using it, why does he need it? I’m sure it’s not every day that he gets a ham stolen from him.

Eventually we’re told that Andrew’s wife died from cancer. And her care was expensive. So maybe – though it’s not ever made 100% clear – he’s using the fake money to pay off her medical bills? The problem with this is two-fold. One, we never actually see him PAYING a medical bill. So is the reader supposed to assume he’s doing this off-screen? And two, he’s not printing money out of an HP inkjet printer here. He’s got huge heavy-duty equipment that can print dozens of hundred dollar bills at a time.

I’m not a math-major. But let’s just assume worst-case scenario here. His wife’s cancer cost them 2 million dollars. From the equipment I’ve seen, I’m thinking he could probably print that up within 2-3 weeks tops? Yet it’s implied his wife has been dead for years. So what’s taking so long to print up all this money?

Anyway, after he and Hugo try to print up one last lump sum, I either missed a key plot point or something wasn’t explained well, because I couldn’t figure out exactly why they needed this guy in Europe. I think it was to secure some special ingredient that was being used in all the U.S.’s new money. This was probably the death knell for me because not only did I not understand why our main character printed up so much money that he never used, but I didn’t understand the main goal of the movie – why he’s going to this European man for help. I mean, it’s not like if you print up money without the special ingredient that it won’t be any good. Hundred dollar bills from 10 years ago are worth the same as hundred dollar bills being printed today. So who cares if you print old bills? Due to all this shaky logic, it was hard to give myself to the story.

Once they get to Monte Carlo, Marie approaches Andrew about the agents chasing him and offers to help, but when they go back to the room to get Hugo, he’s gone. At this point I assumed that Hugo was some sort of double agent and had screwed Andrew over, which I thought was sort of a cool idea, as Andrew’s plan couldn’t work without him. But then later we learn that Hugo just LEFT! He left because he got a strange phone call from someone totally unaffiliated with the plot. I can’t appropriately convey my response to this choice. But it was somewhere between utter frustration and complete bafllement. A main character exits the story because of a random phone call??

From this point on, I was just confused as to what the story was about. I guess a new goal was introduced where they needed to get Andrew a passport so he could get back to the U.S. safely (because Hugo had his original passport maybe?). But it seemed like such a strange choice to have this entire story build up what they needed to do in Europe, only to have your character get there and have to come right back. Dramatically, it’s sort of uninteresting. I didn’t love the storyline with the mysterious money-ingredient guy, but at least that storyline held some promise.

As for the length of the screenplay, there were definitely places to cut. There’s an incredibly long scene early on, for instance, where an insignificant character Marie is talking to breaks his finger. It’s something like 3-4 pages of a man talking about how his finger is broken. Those are the easiest cuts to make in a 140 page screenplay.

We have a pointless scene on page 53 where Andy talks about how his feet hurt. Easy cut. Andy doesn’t meet the love interest until page 65!!! He needs to meet her by page 30 (and we should be in Europe by page 20 at the latest – probably earlier). We have this whole random Blackjack storyline with Marie, who is some sort of Blackjack genius and can beat the dealer every time. When I refer to scripts “wandering,” this is what I mean. Blackjack should have nothing to do with this story. It needs to be ditched (Also, if she’s so great at blackjack, why does she need men for money? Why not just win a billion dollars for herself in Vegas?).

Hugo gets a 7 line paragraph description. Unacceptable in a 140 page screenplay. On page 88, characters spend a half a page ordering drinks. Ordering drinks is not interesting and should never be included in your script unless it’s plot related. Just from a general first read, I would’ve been able to chop 20 pages off this guy without a second thought. Then you just have to go in there and do a bunch of minor snips to bring it down to 110.

The thing is, Robert clearly has some talent. The dialogue at times is funny. The idea of a printer who’s secretly a counterfeiter is one with all sorts of potential, but I don’t think this story allows any of that potential to be explored.

I see this kind of script a lot actually. It happens a lot with young writers. There’s some talent on display, but the script reads like it only makes sense to the writer himself, as if he thinks we’re in his head with him. For example, if the point to printing all this money is, indeed, to pay for his wife’s medical bills, that needs to be shown somewhere. We need to know how much money is left on the tab. We need to see him paying the hospital bills. We need to understand HOW much money his machines can print at a time so we understand WHY he hasn’t already printed up enough money to pay the bills. I’m sure all of this is clear in Robert’s head, but unless he shows it to us, we’re left in the dark.

This is all tough love here. Robert’s always been super nice to me. And I take no happiness from digging my claws into this script as deeply as I have. But I’m hoping that, like most everyone who submits for Amateur Friday, these notes end up making the script (and the writer!) better.

[ ] What the hell did I just read?
[x] wasn’t for me
[ ] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius

What I learned: If your script is heavy on dialogue, you need to lose some weight in your description. Dialogue takes up a lot more space than description. So if all that dialogue is pushing you past the 120 page mark, do yourself a favor and thin out ALL YOUR DESCRIPTION LINES to make up for it. You can’t complain that your script is long because of the dialogue, then have a 7 line introduction for one of your characters. I would try and keep EVERYTHING under 2 lines. That’s the sacrifice you have to make if you’re going to have a dialogue heavy script.

Good Kids

2012-01-18T08:16:00.000-08:00

Genre: Comedy
Premise: (from Black List) Four overachieving high school students in Cape Cod reinvent themselves during the summer after graduation.
About: Good Kids finished with 12 votes on the 2011 Black List, the same number of votes as yesterday’s encyclopedia, Cities of Refuge. My love for writer Chris McCoy is growing. I did NOT like his 2009 script “Good Looking,” at all. It had a pretty good premise - you’ve been with someone for 5 years only to find out that an online dating service knows, with 100% certainty, your soul mate, and it’s not the person you’re with – but the execution was weak. Then last year he sold his script “Get Back,” his ode to “Back To The Future,” about a Beatles fanatic who finds a time machine and decides to go back in time and prevent Yoko Ono from ever meeting John Lennon. A little derivative but a big improvement over Good Looking. And today we have his latest spec, “Good Kids,” about one last crazy summer before a group of friends go off to college. This one, it turns out, is his best yet. It’s always nice to see a writer improving. It is a little strange though that all his titles contain two words and start with the letter ‘G.’ I wonder if there’s something deeper going on there. Maybe Chris has done some research and found that two-word titles starting with “G” have the best chance of selling. Scriptshadow Nation, please do some research on this for me.
Writer: Chris McCoy
Details: 101 pages – Oct. 2011 draft (This is an early draft of the script. The situations, characters, and plot may change significantly by the time the film is released. This is not a definitive statement about the project, but rather an analysis of this unique draft as it pertains to the craft of screenwriting).

Is the American Pie franchise and their monopoly on teenage antics finally in for some competition?

Good Kids takes places in Cape Cod, Massachusetts and follows four newly graduated high school students. There’s Andy, the “John Cusack” of the group. There’s “Spice,” the slightly pudgy future chef. There’s Nora, the girl who’s always been “one of the guys” but in the last two months has become smoking hot and none of the group knows how to handle it, including her. And finally there’s Lionel “The Lion,” Miller, who’s basically a big fat weirdo.

These lifelong friends are the “good kids.” They actually paid attention in school. They did their homework. They got into great schools. BUT, in the process, they didn’t do anything else. They never went to parties. They never took any risks. They’ve played it safe their entire lives.

And here, on their last summer together, they realize this is going to be the only time in their lives where they can actually have some fun without any consequences. So they make a pact (Hmmm, American Pie anyone?) to say “yes” to any opportunity that sounds like fun this summer.

When the rich summer crowd comes in for their two months of vacation, the good kids find themselves attending parties and making new friends. Andy, a tennis pro, gets his Mrs. Robinson act on and starts sleeping with his MILF students….FOR MONEY. Nora starts dating her much older co-worker at her bio-lab internship. Spice spends every waking second trying to secure his first handjob. And The Lion does a ton of drugs.

Andy also has an online relationship with a really hot Indian girl who’s been dying to come see him, but can’t afford it. This is, of course, why Andy becomes a gigolo, so he can save up enough money to get her a ticket. Ahhh, teenage logic. I used to love rationalizing things like that. – All in all, their plan turns out to be the greatest plan in the universe. They’re all having the time of their lives!

But as everybody knows, anything that’s too good to be true probably is (except for Scriptshadow). And soon these choices start coming back to haunt them, particularly Andy, whose “tennis lesson’s” husbands get wind of the fact that it isn’t tennis balls their wives are playing with. Nora also realizes she may be in over her head with this older guy. Spice manages to piss off more girls than he attracts. And The Lion? Well, he might be too high to realize what’s going on. But in the end, all four of them will have to face the consequences of their actions.

Let’s start with some miscellaneous notes here. Once again, we start with a crazy opening scene…AND THEN JUMP BACK 12 WEEKS EARLIER. I’m not lying to you guys. It’s a disease I tell you. A disease! The flashforward is in almost every script I read now! There’s no stopping it! In Good Kids’ defense though, it was one of the few times where it worked. The opening scene was so weird (Andy in a junkyard wearing war paint running from a bunch of 40 year old men) that I actually wanted to see how we got there.

I liked the “fish-out-of-water” angle of the story as well. Remember, fish-out-of-water situations almost always work! To see the “nerdy” kids tackle all these unfamiliar situations was instant conflict. And as we know, conflict equals drama, and drama equals entertainment!

I also dug the time period McCoy picked. Maybe someone can correct me, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen a major film about this specific time in people’s lives. I’ve seen a lot of movies about high school kids in their last days of high school. But none that focused on the summer between high school and college.

Now, as for the script itself, it’s by no means a traditional story. Let’s put it through the GSU wringer, shall we? Goal. There’s no concrete goal here. The goal is an open-ended one. It’s to “have fun.” As I’ve mentioned before, the less defined your goal is, the harder your story will be to execute. American Pie had a clear goal – for each of the guys to get laid before prom. That’s what gave that movie so much focus.

Stakes. What are the stakes if they succeed or fail? Not a whole lot. And this goes back to “goal.” If there’s no concrete goal in your movie, then how can there be any stakes attached to it? However, as the script goes on, the stakes do get higher for each character. Andy, for example, is threatening his job by banging all these women. Nora begins to really like her co-worker. So there’s something at stake if he dumps her. Still, the stakes are pretty low.

Urgency – There’s no real urgency either. And again, this goes back to the goal. If there’s no goal ,then there’s no amount of time our characters will have to achieve it by. There is a “ticking clock” though, always important when you don’t have urgency. Remember, audiences like to have an idea of when the story is going to end. So here, it’s the 12 weeks of summer, indicated right after the opening scene when we see the title “12 weeks earlier.”

So then wait a minute. No GSU? How is this any good? Well, for some of you, it isn’t good. I’ve had a handful of e-mails telling me they didn’t like this script. And the fact that there’s no real plot (no “GSU”) is probably a big part of that. People like characters who are after things. You’re not going to get that in Good Kids.

If you don’t have any of those structural things in place, you’re basically resting your script on the creation of original, interesting, compelling characters an audience will want to follow (other examples of this include Breakfast Club and Dazed and Confused). You do that, and the audience will want to know the answer to this question: “What happens to these guys?” They want to see how their situations are going to end up. You saw this in Swingers as well. Vince Vaughn and Jon Favreau don’t have a goal in the movie other than to find chicks. But we want to see how their situation will end because we like their characters. I’ll continue to warn you though, these movies are incredibly hard to write. If you don’t have a plot pushing the story forward, you better be amazing with character. And I thought McCoy produced three (Spice doesn’t make the cut) really fun characters here. But like I said, I’m already expecting a portion of you to hate this for its directionless story.

[ ] What the hell did I just read? (for Karlos)
[ ] wasn’t for me
[xx] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius

What I learned: Teasers. If you don’t have a structured plot, MAKE SURE YOU HAVE TEASERS. What are teasers? Teasers are events coming up later in the story that you tease. We may not have an overall goal to look forward to. But with teasers we still want to keep reading because we want to get to those events. Here, it’s Andy’s online Indian girlfriend. McCoy teases her later arrival a few times, and therefore we want to see what happens when she shows up. You can also call the opening of the script (with Andy being chased by the 40-year old men) a teaser (we want to see how we get there), although I still think you should avoid the opening flash-forward if at all possible. It’s in every script I read now!

Cities Of Refuge

2012-01-17T08:06:00.001-08:00

Genre: Drama
Premise: (from Black List) A former FBI psychologist is called in to investigate when a young girl goes missing after the apparent murder of her father and brother by two strangers in a small Oklahoma town.
About: This script finished near the middle of the Black List with 12 votes. It was optioned in September with Charlize Theron coming on to produce and possibly star. Brandon Willer continues a trend of Black List writers who have made this year’s list a harkening back to the Black Lists of yesteryear, when more unknown talent was celebrated. While many have attacked the 2011 Black List for having a below-par selection of scripts, it’s to be expected that if the list caters to younger more unknown writers, the quality of those scripts is naturally going to be lower. Willer is just finishing up his only previous credit, a tiny indie film he wrote, directed and starred in called, “The Racket Boys,” about two men and a woman driving from L.A. to San Francisco.
Writer: Brandon Willer
Details: 111 pages (This is an early draft of the script. The situations, characters, and plot may change significantly by the time the film is released. This is not a definitive statement about the project, but rather an analysis of this unique draft as it pertains to the craft of screenwriting).

Welcome to Cities of Refuge, or as I like to refer to it: “Introduce-A-character-A-Thon.” There were more characters introduced in this script than live in India and China combined. This made Cities one of the hardest reads I’ve ever tried to get through. At one point I hired a second person to take notes for me because my Microsoft Word document – for the first time in history – gave me the error “out of space,” due to all the characters I had written down.

Cities of Refuge begins with 40-something Nathan Spiller, a former marine, hanging out with his two kids, 19 year old Colt and 10 year old Jenny. Nathan clearly loves his daughter more than anything, and even though he and Colt have issues, he loves him too.

Well I hope he loves them in DEATH! Because a group of three bad men sneak into Nathan’s house, apparently looking for money, and kill him and his son. When the cops arrive the next day, they find the bodies, but realize Jenny, the daughter, is missing. Did these thugs take her?

After the FBI gets involved, they recruit former FBI missing persons specialist, Brooke Benedict. This girl used to be the best in the biz. She had a perfect record for finding kids alive. But then one case went bad and she hasn’t investigated a missing child case since. But the FBI give her the hard sell and she decides to make a comeback.

When they bring in their lead suspect, a former nasty marine named Marcus, they want Brooke to see if she can get anything out of him. But the interrogation proves too much for her and she realizes that maybe she shouldn’t have come back – that she’s in over her head.

During this time, there’s a local drugpin (I think?) named Delgado who seems to be interested in the case for some reason. There’s also some guy who’s pissed off that the police aren’t looking into the case harder so he gets the town all riled up for a possible run on the police station, where Marcus is being held. Marcus starts becoming a lot like Hannibal Lecter. At first he hates Brooke but then he starts liking her for some reason and giving her clues about the case. Eventually all these stories come crashing into each other in the end.

Okay, so look. I’m not going to lie. I’m angry. It’s one thing to have a lot of characters in your story but it’s another to introduce a character per page. Having lots of characters in your screenplay is no sin. The story you’re writing will dictate how many characters you should have. Pirates of The Caribbean, for example, will have a lot more characters than Buried.

However, you have to be realistic about what the reader is capable of remembering. But before we even get into that, let’s deal with the industry side of this. Do you already have a producer on board? If you’re writing for a producer (as I’m assuming Willer was) who will later package your script and sell it to a studio, character count isn’t as big of a deal. You already have a producer on your side who likely knows the underpinnings of the story, so who cares if there are a lot of characters? To that end, Willer is off the hook.

Same thing goes, to a lesser degree, if you’re working with a manager or already have an agent. They’ll be able to get your script to important people so it’s not as big of an issue.

However, if you are an unrepped, unmanaged, un-anything’d as a writer, DON’T WRITE SCRIPTS WITH LOTS OF CHARACTERS! Don’t do it. Because your scripts will be the lowest priority for industry readers. Therefore they will have the LEAST AMOUNT OF PATIENCE for you. If they’re already confused about who’s who on page 20? You’re dead. They’re not going to go back and check who’s who. They don’t have time. They’re going to keep reading through it, subsequently being less and less sure of which characters are which, resulting in more confusion, resulting in more skimming, resulting in a snowball effect that leads to total confusion by the time your script ends. Your script may ACTUALLY make perfect sense. It might even be good! But because you made things so difficult on the reader with the character count, they wouldn’t know.

That’s why most people in the spec sale market favor simple easy-to-understand stories. Because they can easily keep track of who’s who and therefore what’s going on. That’s not to say you can’t have complications and twists and turns. You just have them on top of a story that a reader can actually follow. Source Code is a good example. It has a low character count and yet it has plenty of twists and turns and complications.

So I guess what I’m saying here is: Don’t write a movie like Cities Of Refuge unless you’re working with someone pretty high up in the business. And even THEN, you need to use a smart approach to your character count, your character content, as well as HOW you go about creating characters, so that the reader ACTUALLY has a chance of remembering them. For example, if I know a character is in only one scene, I’m not going to name him Bob Jensen. I’m not even going to name him Bob. This implies that we’ll see him again, which means the reader has to reserve a spot in his memory for when this guy comes back later. One more character in the memory banks means one more character to potentially mix up with ALL THE OTHER CHARACTERS. Instead of doing that, just name the guy, “Slick Guy,” or “Truck Driver.” This indicates to the reader that the person will only be in one scene.

There are about 10 tricks of the trade you can use to make characters memorable amongst high character counts – this being one of them. But even if you do have a producer or manager already on your side, you’re still trying to write the best story possible. You’re still trying to make the read as enjoyable as you can since other actors and producers are going to be reading it to see if they want to be a part of the project. So show some restraint. Look for ways to make it easy on them so they actually enjoy your story.

I suppose I should use this time to tell you what I thought of Cities of Refuge but I can’t. I literally had no idea what was going on by the midpoint. There were too many damn people. Not only did this make the character count high, but it added too many subplots, many of which I also found hard to follow because I couldn’t remember who was who.

I will say that the final act was pretty damn explosive and has tons of twists and turns. It might even be enough to save the movie. But as I preach to you on top of this broken record player, I will say this one more time – I didn’t understand what was going on during it. There were too many characters.

[x] Wait for the rewrite
[ ] wasn’t for me
[ ] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius

What I learned: The best way to handle a story that requires a lot of characters is to ask yourself, “Do I really need all these characters?” You’d be surprised at who you can cut and which characters you can combine. Also, another little trick is to give lesser characters memorable nicknames. For example, instead of calling someone “Jim,” call him “Big Jim.” Jim I won’t remember. “Big Jim,” I will. But the real solution to this problem is the most basic one. Ask yourself: “Do I honestly need all these people to tell my story?” Chances are you don’t.

Two Night Stand

2012-01-16T08:39:00.000-08:00

Genre: Comedy/Romantic Comedy
Premise: After committing her first ever one-night stand, a young woman begins her walk of shame, only to realize she’s been snowed in. But the worst is yet to come. When the man she slept with wakes up, she quickly realizes she hates him.
About: 2 Night Stand finished in the middle of the 2011 Black List. This is Mark Hammer’s breakthrough screenplay.
Writer: Mark Hammer
Details: 98 pages (This is an early draft of the script. The situations, characters, and plot may change significantly by the time the film is released. This is not a definitive statement about the project, but rather an analysis of this unique draft as it pertains to the craft of screenwriting).

Emma Roberts for Megan?

I really hope today’s writer, Mark Hammer, isn’t the same Mark Hammer who starred as “Old Man” in Meet The Parents, seeing as that Mark Hammer died back in 2007. That would reflect REALLY badly on the Black List, if dead people were making it. Although I guess it would explain all the zombie scripts.

Lame jokes aside, it’s time for some lame jokes INSIDE. As in “Inside” this script. Haha. Actually, that’s not true. Two Night Stand is by no means a bad script. But unless you’re 22 years old, I’m not sure you’re going to like it too much. It’s sort of like Scenic Route but with a vagina. And if I remember correctly, you guys weren’t loving that one (I still stand by it as an interesting piece of screenwriting!).

But I will say this. You are one bold motherf*cker if you try and write a romantic comedy that takes place in one room. This isn’t a contained thriller where you can throw in a bunch of sweet twists and turns the second things go slow. It’s just two people talking about their issues and stuff. Which means if those two people aren’t captivating beyond all reason? And their dialogue isn’t the greatest dialogue in the universe? It’s going to be Bore City. So, is this script Ricky Gervais circa the 2011 Golden Globes or is it Ricky Gervais circa the 2012 Golden Globes? Read on to find out.

22 year old recent college grad (and I’m assuming very cute) Megan spends her days surfing the internet and watching TV. In other words, she’s my hero. Her gorgeous roommate, Faiza, has been enduring this for months and is finally fed up with it. She confronts Megan on why she’s been such a lazy worthless pile of excrement and tells her she needs to get a job!

But see, Megan’s still getting over her devastating breakup with her fiance and, as a result, can’t muster up the enthusiasm to re-enter society. So Faiza gets an idea. Megan needs to get laid. She needs to meet some random dude and take him to the bone zone! This’ll put a period on her mourning and allow her to move on. Megan’s a little reluctant at first but decides, “What the hell?” It just might work. Pause it. If I can just interject here for a moment. WHERE THE HELL ARE THESE WOMEN WHEN I’M OUT ON THE TOWN?? Unpause. Right, so, after Megan can’t get into a bar, she comes home and meets some random guy on the internet and asks him if she can come over and have sex with him.

Pause it again. WHERE THE HELL ARE THESE WOMEN WHEN I’M ON THE INTERNET??” Unpause. Megan goes over, the two get drunk, and we cut to the next morning, after a wild night of sexual escapading. Embarrassed that she’s stooped this low, Megan gets her clothes together and tip toes out the door, trying to disappear before the guy wakes up. Pause it.

WHERE THE HELL ARE THESE WOMEN WHEN I’M…

Kidding! Just a joke there ladies. Sort of. So yeah, Megan gets outside only to realize the biggest snowstorm in New York since Pocahontas and John Smith shared a tent, has trapped her in this apartment. With this dude. Who she doesn’t know. And had sex with.

Up until this point, I kind of liked the script. We were moving towards something. The story was pushing FORWARD. But here’s the issue with one-location scripts. Once we get into that location, there’s no more going forward. Your characters are stuck together. And now, it’s purely about how interesting those characters are and how entertaining you can make their interactions.

Your best tool once you’ve backed yourself into this corner is conflict. And that conflict has to be pretty intense because the whole movie rests on the drama in this room, and if you can’t create drama, you don’t have a movie. The problem with Two Night Stand, at least in my opinion, is I didn’t feel that conflict was authentic. I see this in a lot in romantic comedy scripts, where the writer knows he has to keep things interesting, so he makes the characters hate each other, without really knowing why. He just knows that it needs to happen.

So out of nowhere, these two just started hating each other. I don’t know how. I don’t know why. It just happened all of a sudden. This led to a lot of forced dialogue where they attacked each other about their sexual prowess, their relationship status and everything else in between. Some of it was definitely amusing but the whole time I couldn’t stop wondering what had caused these two to get so worked up about each other in the first place.

Here’s an idea (spoiler alert). Later in the script, Megan finds out that Alec (oh yeah, that’s the guy) has a girlfriend. Instead, she should’ve found that out right away, like as soon as she woke up. She finds some piece of evidence that proves he has a girlfriend. She’s disgusted with him. Tries to leave. And when she has to come back and face him, she just starts going off on him about it. THAT I could believe. Now the conflict has some basis in reality.

OR possibly she doesn't tell him she knows, which could lead to all sorts of dramatic irony during their conversations. He could tell her that he's one of the most loyal men in the universe. His middle name is loyalty. And Megan is just stewing inside, waiting for the right moment to pounce on him about what she knows.

I also would’ve looked for ways to involve the rest of the building somehow. You may not have the luxury of space to play with. But you do have, presumably, a building full of potentially interesting characters. Have a few memorable people you can shift in and out of the apartment. The creepy maintenance guy. The hot neighbor Alec formally had a fling with who does NOT like Megan at all and who Alec never officially “ended” it with. If the Koreans next door were also the managers, and Alec was late on rent, that could lead to some interesting conflict when Megan had to go over there to use the bathroom (the bathroom in Alec’s apartment has overflowed). Alec begs her not to go but she does anyway, which leads to the manager storming over and, of course, demanding Alec’s rent. I don’t know, it just seemed like there was so much more opportunity to play here, and instead we stayed focused on these two talking to each other for 60 straight minutes. It’s not that it’s bad. It just gets a little…stale. I mean usually when you pull out the “You wanna get high?” scene, it means you’re plum out of ideas.

I also had a bit of a problem with the tone. Parts of it felt like an indie-comedy (especially the premise), with a 500 Days Of Summer vibe to it. Other parts (like scaling the building) were broad enough to be outtakes from How To Lose A Guy In 10 Days. But I don’t think you can write a movie like that that takes place in a single apartment. I mean, this isn’t a part a Matthew McConaghey type would play. Not that there are rules to that sort of thing. But I just felt the indie vibe lent itself to a slightly more realistic tone.

Anyway, I’m probably over-thinking this. Like I said, the script wasn’t bad. It’s just that the forced conflict threw me and the single location got stale after awhile. I was hoping for a little more out of this one.

[ ] Wait for the rewrite
[x] wasn’t for me
[ ] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius

What I learned: Do not repeat in your description what your characters have just said or done. In Two Night Stand, when Megan and Alec first wake up, they make a few jokes to defuse the awkward situation. Right afterwards, we get this line of description: “They’re making the best of the awkward situation with humor.” You don’t need to tell us that. We just saw it ourselves.

What I learned 2: Scriptshadow Moratorium. I am disallowing, from this point on, female character backstories that include finding out their old boyfriend/husband was gay. I have read this in possibly over 200 screenplays. I’m begging the writing populace out there. Stop using this. Please!

Amateur Friday - Charming

2012-01-13T08:33:00.000-08:00

As I started reading through Charming, my first thoughts were, “Uh-oh. This feels a lot like Shrek.” We have fairy tales. We have self-aware humor. Charming goes one step further than the Ogre’d one and adds a healthy dose of swearing, but for the most part, they seemed quite similar, and that worried me. The second a producer goes, “They’ve already made this,” the dream is over.

But then the story begins to take shape and you realize it’s a completely different fairy tale adventure. Charming is, well, Prince Charming! He’s the greatest. He’s handsome. He’s successful. He’s awesome. The only thing wrong with him is that he loves himself a WEE bit much. If by “wee bit” you mean “is utterly obsessed with himself beyond all logic.” If Charming could date himself, he would. The only thing Charming DOESN’T have is the throne. But that’s about to change.

Yes, his father is announcing his retirement, which means it’s time for Charming to get that crown fit. Except….there’s just one problem. Charming has a twin brother, Delightful, who’s ALSO up for the throne. You see, the birth records for the twins were lost, so it’s unclear which of the brothers was born first (and therefore *which* is the official heir to the throne). It’s somewhat inconceivable that Delightful could become king. He’s fat, he’s unhygienic, and he’s annoying. But! He’s still a prince, which means he gets a shot.

The king decides to solve the problem with a contest. Whoever lands the most beautiful princess in the land will become king. After a lot of unsuccessful attempts (Charming’s women are all smoking hot. Most of Delightful’s look like men. One even is a man), Charming finally finds Snow White, who is it agreed upon is the most beautiful in the land. The wedding is set and Charming starts practicing his king pose. But on his wedding day, Snow White is a no-show!

It turns out that snowy wench has run off with his brother to a hot new vacation resort the Seven Dwarves just opened! More angry than hurt, Charming charges off to the resort to win his fiancé back. What Charming doesn’t know, however, is that his brother has been planning this for a long time. He’s always resented Charming, specifically his favored status with their father, and has therefore decided to get rid of him once and for all. He’ll have the bride, be the king, and finally land his father’s love. Muwhawhawhaw! MUWHAHAHAHAHA!

Once at the resort, Charming befriends a pretty young handmaiden who works there named Cinderella. He unexpectedly starts to fall for the woman, but realizes it’s a pointless endeavor. Charming’s goal is to become KING! That’s the only reason he’s out here – to get Snow White back so he can win the crown! If he takes this peasant home, the King will never name him as successor. So Charming will have to make a decision. Fight for a woman he barely likes in order to become king, or follow his heart, even if it means never ruling the land.

I thought Charming (both the script and the character) were pretty darn funny. I enjoyed following a main character who was just so damned into himself. These characters are tricky to write because if they’re too into themselves, we get annoyed by them, but in Charming’s case, he was so funny that it worked.

And if you’re laughing during a comedy, that’s a good sign for the comedy. Most obvious statement of the year? Not really. I read a lot of comedy scripts where I don’t laugh at all. It’s quite common actually. But this was good. My favorite was Cinderella hanging out with forest creatures the whole movie and everyone around them acting like this was totally normal. Watching Charming eagerly devour a cooked rabbit right in front of one of Cinderella’s rabbits was awesome.

Structure-wise, we have a clear goal (win back Snow White) and clear stakes (if he gets her, he becomes king!). So far, so good. But this brings us to our first problem. THERE’S NO URGENCY! There’s no ticking time bomb! And listen, I get that there are certain stories where ticking time bombs aren’t a priority. But this isn’t one of them. In fact, this is the kind of story created for ticking time bombs! I mean, fairy tales are what gave us the “carriage turns back into a pumpkin at midnight” storyline. How much more ticking time bomb can you get?

Here’s how I propose Tom and Chris solve the problem. The wedding (that Snow White ditches out on) should not be at the beginning of the story. It should be at the end. Preferably three days from now. So three days before the wedding, Charming finds out Snow White has run off with Delightful. That means Charming has three days to go find Snow White, convince her to come back to him, all in time for the wedding so that he can become king. I think that works better.

I also thought there was an opportunity to do more with the king. Say we’re using my story suggestion above. What if Charming can’t let the king know what’s happened? If his father finds out Delightful and Snow White are together, it jeopardizes his chance of becoming king. Now, you have Charming sneaking away and not telling his father where he’s going, which provides a little more drama (characters hiding BIG THINGS from other characters is always good). I could see the king finding out his sons are at the resort and heading there to find out what’s going on. Now, in addition to trying to win Snow White back, Charming must find ways to occupy his father to keep him off the scent.

Something else that’s bothering me is Charming and Cinderella’s relationship. There’s something not quite “there” about it yet. I think my problem with it is that they never DO anything together. They just sort of hang out between much bigger and more exciting plot points. There are only so many ways to make chatting and giggling in a back room entertaining.

So how to fix it? Well, go back to a Scriptshadow favorite: the goal. If something’s stagnating in your script, it’s usually because the characters aren't doing enough. So give them something to do (a goal!). What if you set this up like a traditional romantic comedy? Charming actively enlists Cinderella’s help to win Snow White back. Now she’s part of every plan. She’s tripping up Delightful at every turn. She “befriends” Snow White and starts talking up Charming. If you used the King showing up, like I mentioned above, Cinderella could be the one enlisted to distract him. Once Charming and Cinderella are DOING things together, their relationship will feel more alive. And plus, I believe it’s a more interesting situation. Imagine Cinderella telling Snow White why Charming is so great when we know that she secretly likes him. How hard that would be. There’s a teensy bit of that going on here in this draft, but not nearly enough.

Overall, I thought this was fun! It still needs work. But I think it’s worth a read.

Script link: Charming

[ ] Wait for the rewrite
[ ] wasn’t for me
[x] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius

What I learned: I’m hitting you with the “Hero’s Choice” tip again because it’s so important and because this is a great script to highlight it. The whole point of giving your character a fatal flaw (the defining “weakness” that’s held them back from true happiness in life) is to give them a choice in the end which allows them to either overcome that flaw or stay the same. It’s sort of like a “test” to determine if they’ve changed or not. Charming’s flaw is that he values prestige (being king) over true love (or connection with others). This is illuminated by the fact that he doesn’t really like Snow White. He just needs her in order to become king. Over the course of the story then, he starts to fall for Cinderella. BUT, if he marries her, he won’t become king. Hence, you have the “Hero’s Choice.” Pick a woman he doesn’t love so he can have prestige (his flaw remains) or pick a woman he does love even if it means no prestige (he’s overcome his flaw). The writers who execute fatal flaws and the Hero’s Choice effectively tend to be some of the better writers out there, as it’s a device that takes a while to master. It’s not QUITE there yet with Charming. It still needs a few drafts to iron out the creases. But the basis for a solid “Hero Choice” is there.

Interview with Adam Zopf - writer of Reunion!

2012-01-12T07:16:00.000-08:00

You may remember Adam. He wrote my favorite amateur script I’ve ever reviewed on the site, “Reunion,” about a bullied kid who decides to enact revenge on his tormentors at their high school reunion. You can check out the original review here, where you can also download a copy of the script. A lot of people have been e-mailing me asking what happened after all the buzz the review created, so I thought it would be fun to catch up with Adam as well as learn a little about his approach to screenwriting. Adam is currently looking for a buyer for his new comedy script, What If It Was, about a ghost writer forced to pen an outrageous fake memoir. I haven’t read it yet but am looking forward to it. You can download the script yourself here. Adam’s also always open to answering questions so feel free to e-mail him at adamzopf@gmail.com or ask him anything in the comments.

SS: First of all, for those not familiar with what you’ve been doing since the Reunion review, can you fill us in on what’s happened since then? You found a production house for the project, right? How did that all happen?

AZ: After the review, I got emails from a few managers but mostly a lot of independent producers and production companies. I then took meetings and half were interested in doing something with Reunion and the other half wanted to know about other stuff. Since then I’ve still been talking to them about other scripts, including the one I’m outlining now. And overall, everyone was very cool and I really didn’t have any bad experiences. But I settled on Two Ton Films for Reunion about a month ago. Two Ton’s Justin Zackham (writer of “The Bucket List”, creator of F/X’s “Lights Out” and writer/director of “The Wedding” starring Robert DeNiro, Diane Keaton, Susan Sarandon, Robin Williams, Amanda Seyfried and Topher Grace which will come out in the Fall) was incredibly up front through the entire process, telling me to take my time and ask him any questions I had. And through that I really got the sense that, as a writer, he was treating me the way he thought writers should be treated, which led to a certain amount of trust that that would continue if I went with them. He had his own war stories and in the short time I’ve spent with him, I’ve learned an incredible amount. At some point it came down to “I just like this fucking guy and more importantly I believe in him, his company and their vision for the movie and how to get it actually made.”

SS: You had expressed to me that you wrote for a long time without any success. What are some of the mistakes you think you made in regards to how you approached the industry? Things that might have hindered your progress?

AZ: I don’t think it was anything I did or didn’t do but really just circumstance that befall a lot of people here. If you don’t luck out, you will go through every stage of the process before something happens. And that’s fine because it’s just more battle testing for when it actually counts. It really doesn’t get any more straight forward than 1) I took about a year to write my first script, 2) I wrote 3-4 more super personal scripts that were hot messes, 3) I wrote about four pretty okay, finally looks like a movie scripts, 4) Wrote another 5-6 that were actually enjoyed by people but just weren’t good enough to get made, 5) Wrote five scripts that could conceivably get made but I just didn’t get the right break for a few years and now 6) One of those gets noticed and here we are. And I still haven’t sold anything or even have representation yet but once I’m in a room I can talk scripts and ideas all day. I know my process inside and out and can deliver on opportunities rather than where I might have been say four years ago, which is still green. So I guess - and this is super hard when you just can’t express the ideas you have in your head or you keep almost getting the right script with the right opportunity - but I would have had more patience overall. Just don’t get frustrated. But that’s easy to say and hard to do.

SS: If you could do it all over again – if you were just arriving in Los Angeles today - what would you do differently?

AZ: Outside of writing, I would’ve come to LA sooner. Get on a set quicker. Get on multiple sets quicker. I moved here in 2003 at 25 and hadn’t seen a single film shoot until 2005 at 27. And this was on a truly awful indie movie but it was a gigantic deal to see someone say action and cut in person. So just demythologizing movie-making and getting the dream out of my head and a plan into it. You aren’t going to win an Oscar or write a $100 million movie your first time out. There isn’t anyone who’s going to give you the key to “Show Business” and a million dollar check. Start looking at things practically earlier. If I met someone who just got here, I’d say get the traditional way out of your head because that’s just a byproduct of your “dream.” Write stuff and shoot it. Work at a production company. Find a director working in small films or even commercials and offer to do whatever as long as you can see them work. Get an entire vision of the process from script to actual product. It makes it more real. It puts stuff like budgets, locations, casting etc. in your head just as someone who could actually make your script has it in theirs. You are miles ahead of the masses slaving away at their laptops if you know what it takes to actually make a movie.

SS: What inspired you to write Reunion and how long did it take you from first draft to last?

AZ: I was rewriting a comedy I’d gotten a director attached to (a talented person who was getting a lot of notice at the time) but I was having to wait on him a lot and I had to get something else on paper or I was gonna pull my own Fat Pig. I put up the antenna for a new idea and there was a new $5-$10 million horror movie coming out every week. Which makes total sense. Those movies are the safest bets in entertainment. And if one hits, not only do you get that but it’s an immediate property. But most of them suck, so alright smart guy, come up with one then. Then it just Stay-Puft-Marshmallow-Man’d into my head one night. Guy who gets revenge at a reunion. And nobody had done it. And it’s totally something that someone will do in some form in actual, real life. By that I mean bring a gun into the Holiday Inn because they’re drunk and their high school sweetheart is married but still… But if I took that basic revenge idea and movie’d it up? There you go. And I’d also wanted to write a movie that took place in a condensed time period for a while so that also helped. But from there it went much faster than usual because there’s just no other place for the story to go. Have to show him plan, have to show the actual reunion, he has to get them back there, has to get them in the collars, have to have the scene where he lays it all out for them and then what places in a school would make the best set pieces? Pool, library, shop class, gym, lunch room… People have to start getting picked off. The flashback story took a bit to plan out but all told it was 6 weeks from idea to having essentially what it is now. Not the usual but I had a lot of structural factors because of the genre and the idea I picked that combined to make it a pretty quick process.

SS: One of my favorite parts about Reunion, as you know, is the character development, particularly the character of Fat Pig. Can you tell us what your approach is to character development and was for that character in particular? How do you craft a character like that?

AZ: Inevitably story and the main character go hand in glove. Most likely story idea first, then “What would be the optimal character to put through that story?” Kind of like how you need music first to write lyrics to. And then supporting characters, whether they be with the main character or opposing them, have differing viewpoints that bring about the most conflict. So I have the idea for Reunion. Now: “Who is the best main character for this?” Well, making him fat is kind of a stock approach. However, it’s that way because it’s true. Society as a whole feels comfortable judging fat people, especially 10 years ago. It also gives me a visual character and someone who I can change physically to not only differentiate his past and present, but that also shows character. He has turned himself, through rage, into a Discipline Machine built for revenge. Which gives me most of how he is in the present. Exact. Calculating. Patient. Vicious. It’s all gonna pour out during that night. So where did it come from? Now I work through the flashback story and think about what could be his goal. Acceptance. Just a day that isn’t hell. How does he do that? Etc. And as I start to build that story, I think of these small moments. Terror (the popular kids, the sea of regular kids, swim class, the bus, etc.) mixed with any relief he can find (food and someone, anyone who is nice to him… Then I have Maria). Now I have who *she* is. So who is her husband? And all the way down the line. Everything is hopefully an organic reaction and that includes the characters and their dynamics. And once you get that process going of what would work with this (oh wait, if I did *that* then I could do *this*) and so on and so on, it takes on a life of its own. You just let the story become what it wants to and the characters who they need to be to tell it.

SS: What about the rest of your approach? What are the three most important things you focus on when you write a screenplay?

AZ: 1) The main idea. What is the essential story and am I serving it at absolutely all times? Anything that doesn’t add, subtracts. (Carson note: VERY IMPORTANT!!!)
2) External and internal goals and them being extensions of each other. This is a HUGE lesson to learn. You get this solid and follow it through and your script is automatically going to be halfway there. A 60 year old man tries to climb the highest mountain in the world. Eh… A 60 year old man grieves for his dead 25 year old son. Eh… BUT… A 60 year old man sets out to climb the highest mountain in the world because his 25 year old son died 200 feet from the top? You still got to write the fucking thing, but it’s at least an actual potential movie.
3) Entertain these fucking people. Once you’ve figured out your structure and done all the work, you owe it to yourself to nail down each scene with the best possible execution. You can have the right scene and intent and it’s just kind of lying there, so maybe toss something in out of the blue and see what happens. I dunno… It’s a feel thing, but you get as many chances as you want so don’t be happy until you’re actually happy. And even then, there’s always gonna be a few things you still feel you’re only 80% there on.

SS: You do something in this script a lot of screenwriters are told to avoid: Flashbacks. Are you aware of the resistance to this technique and how did you approach the flashbacks in your script to avoid this?

AZ: It’s one of the first rules you learn because 99% of the time it’s done poorly as a lazy way to “show” and not “tell” exposition. But there is a reason flashbacks exist, because on occasion you need them. If I hadn’t put them in Reunion, it would’ve felt flat. “How hard could it have really been for this guy?” the audience is asking. So I have to show you. And I think a key in doing flashbacks well is committing to them as an actual plot line rather than a momentary cheat to get information out. Like if you have a character just appear and then you never see them again, it feels like a cheat. But other than that, two other things worked in my favor. One, the juxtaposition of the two types of brutality, torture and bullying, are both painful in their own ways, so it helps to ground the violence in something we’ve all experienced or witnessed or even participated in. And by the time Fat Pig’s high school story reaches an apex with the attack on him, it feeds right into the violence of the story 10 years later, so it really is one whole series of events cut in half and then shuffled together like a deck of cards. And two, the flashbacks serve as a way to break up the “horror” stuff and allow me to reset characters spatially in the present. So you have something I could’ve easily fucked up five years ago but now, because it happened naturally, I could use it as a way to structurally fortify the script rather than take away from it.

SS: One of the most popular genres on the spec market is contained thriller/horror. Unfortunately that’s led to a lot of people writing boring “been there/done that” contained thrillers, a problem you’ve managed to avoid. What do you think the key is to making a contained thriller work?

AZ: I think you wrap yourself in the warm blanket of the structural advantages the genre offers: Keeping it as short as possible. Only a certain amount of characters. A need to develop characters on the fly, because, you won’t have time to do it otherwise. And a place that they can be trapped in but also explore. Now what circumstances bring these together where I can also give a strong reason for someone to put all of this into motion? A lot of these scripts fail basic logic tests right there. Then, you probably need a device to bounce out of the main story. It helps visually and also pacing-wise because A) you can balance action with quieter moments (otherwise everyone is dead in 45 minutes) and B) you can jump ahead a little time-wise when you need to move characters around/do basic stuff that keep the script from being 25% longer than it needs to be. I had present and past. Someone could do present and future. A classic is inside the bank with hostages, outside with the negotiator – whatever it is… It only has to be a contained movie in that people are stuck in a bad situation. Alien, Predator, Speed, Die Hard… They all boil down to a bug in a jar and your hand is on top of the lid. But each finds a way to open the movie up and give you different looks so that it feels like a nice big meal while also keeping the screws on the characters tightened.

SS: Something I don’t talk about enough on this blog is rewriting. Can you take us through your rewriting process?

AZ: I tend to have pretty comprehensive first drafts due to outlining a lot and also taking breaks from writing to edit during the first draft, so once I’m done with it, it’s pretty much what it’s going to be. Then a few days later I take it out and just read it. This is where experience helps a lot because some stuff will feel off and some stuff I know will stay almost-as-written throughout. But mostly I’m looking for ways to do things quicker. Cutting little ‘back and forths’ that aren’t adding anything to a conversation. Beginnings and endings of scenes. One thing I learned through the years is that when you rewrite, you want to be doing what’s already in the script but better, and that means planning out ahead of time so you’re only doing the cutting afterward. Adding characters or plot lines after the fact is just gonna put stress on parts of your script that weren’t conceived with those things in mind. That’s why I really consider writing outlining. Your time writing the actual script should be it just flowing out of you.

SS: Tell us a little more about your outlining process then. When did you start outlining in your screenwriting journey and why?

AZ: Outlining is where I’m actually creating the story. I didn’t do it my first script (which promptly took about 10 months). Second script I went to note cards which really helped me see the entire movie for the first time. I did that for the next eight scripts and then at some point I went over to outlines because there got to be too many note cards and too much detail. Now I do about a 15 page outline and note cards just for scene headings (but even that’s kind of fading out of my process). The outline can contain any random thought I come up with, and as I start to get to the 5 or 6 page mark, I begin to organize and delete things that new ideas have made obsolete. That’s when I start organizing the scene ideas into an order and then group those by sequences and acts. So the movie is being assembled at the top while I have a section for Random Bits (random story pieces - scenes, lines of dialogue, cool moments - that haven’t found a home yet), Characters (notes on them, their arcs, etc.), Themes/Big Stuff (Movies my idea shares DNA with. For example, Reunion is structurally similar to Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory). And as I vomit out all the ideas I have, they eventually find a home and then the top of the movie starts to take shape so I start writing those scenes. And as I write them, I delete everything from the outline I’ve used. The outline then gets shorter at the front, longer at the back and like a conveyor belt it just feeds scenes into the script. So as I’m writing at the computer, I have everything pretty well planned out and then when I get bored of writing, I work on the outline and back and forth until I have like a four page nub of an outline full of unused ideas. But I’ll outline for about two months and write a script in about six weeks. And for anywhere between a couple of years to a few weeks I could be kicking around the idea before that process begins.

SS: What do you think is the hardest thing about screenwriting and how do you tackle it?

AZ: It varies at all stages of your path but personally, now, it’s coming up with an idea that’s worth writing. You get some crappy scripts out of you and then an under-discussed longer stage is when you write a lot of simply “good scripts.” They make perfect sense, have laughs or thrills or whatever, but aren’t good enough to get noticed. And once you get past that, you really need to focus and come up with something cool no matter how high or low concept it is. It just has to get you hyped to write it and do all the work that at this point, you know is going to be a pretty thorough process. It’s a struggle to get to the point where you can express what’s in your head and heart on the page. But once you get there, it’s just as much of a struggle with each script because you know how good you can make it. I get done with something now and I’m not smiling as it comes out of the printer. I’m fucking exhausted. So you really have to find something you’re into to make it worth it. That takes time.

SS: Just for kicks, let’s say we compared two horror scripts, one written by Adam from eight years ago and one written by Adam today. What would be the biggest difference?

AZ: The one eight years ago would’ve been flat out ‘shoulder shrug’ material. A big fat, “Eh.” It would make sense and be cool in spots but it would be the equivalent of me going on the internet for a lasagna recipe and making it versus someone who spent 12 years learning to be a chef making it. Edible does the job but not much more.

SS: What’s next on the horizon?

AZ: Well, Two Ton and I will kick into gear on Reunion shortly - going through the script and ironing out anything they might want to take a look at. They’ll also be trying to put the movie together on their end. I’m taking meetings on my new project, a supernatural thriller that’s a step up in budget. People are responding well so far, so I’m hoping to find a home for it before I sit down so I can involve them in the process. Then it’s finding a home for comedy stuff which is my actual bread and butter. Whether that’s a manager or someone interested in a specific script, who knows? And I probably need to solve the representation question at some point. Right now, I’m just dealing with people myself which is kind of cool as I’m relying on word of mouth that’s built from SS and being good in the room to foster relationships. It seems to be working which is a good confidence builder. But it is a bit of a job on top of my writing job on top of my actual day job, which I still have. So hopefully soon someone will step forward who I feel comfortable with and can take some of this off my plate. Other than that, just keep writing. Got me this far. Seems like a good plan.

Flashback

2012-01-11T07:07:00.000-08:00

Genre: Sci-Fi
Premise: (from Black List) A former NASA pilot with amnesia — also the first person to travel the speed of light — realizes he has the ability to travel back in time and along the way rediscovers his love for his wife.
About: Flashback finished on the lower half of the 2011 Black List. This is Will Honley’s breakthrough screenplay.
Writer: Will Honley
Details: 101 pages - undated (This is an early draft of the script. The situations, characters, and plot may change significantly by the time the film is released. This is not a definitive statement about the project, but rather an analysis of this unique draft as it pertains to the craft of screenwriting).

Scriptshadow Choice: Chris Pine for Cale.

Let’s get this out of the way first. Flashback is HEAVILY influenced by Source Code. I mean…at times they’re so similar *I* was having flashbacks to my first Source Code read. The subject matter and the central relationships are different (for the most part) but the structure reads so identical that I felt like Jake Gylenhal was sitting on my lap.

Wait a minute. That sounded weird.

What I’m trying to say is, there was no way for me to objectively review this. I mean, Source Code’s one of my favorite scripts of all time. It’s only natural that if you write something similar, I’m going to be comparing the two.

Flashback follows Cale Isaacs, a man who’s just woken up in a hospital bed with no memory of how he got there. He’s soon approached by a doctor who tells him some bad shit happened but he can’t tell him what yet because his brain is too fragile. Cale’s able to piece some things together though. There are wicked scars on his head and stomach, which means whatever happened, it was messy.

Eventually the doctor comes clean. Cale works for NASA, and in particular a top secret project that was working on a ship that could travel the speed of light. They hadn’t been able to achieve that yet until recently when Cale broke the light barrier for a fraction of a second. Unfortunately, he crashed soon afterwards. Now, they need to get into his brain and find out what he did to get the ship to the speed of light. The problem is, Cale doesn’t remember!

Well, the powers that be aren’t fucking around. They need to know NOW. And that means trying some experimental shit, namely jolting his brain full of electricity to jumpstart his memory. So they take him into this small lab room with an intimidating steel chair and give him a taste of Thomas Edison.

When he’s jolted, Cale finds himself back in his body a few months (years?) ago. He realizes that he and his wife, who he doesn’t remember, are having some marriage issues. Before he can figure out why, however, he’s jolted back to the present. It appears that the combination of his speed of light flight and this electro-chair has allowed Cale to momentarily jump through time.

As the movie goes on and more time jumps occur, Cale begins to realize that he dedicated his life to this project, ignoring his wife in the process. He doesn’t want to be that way anymore, so he starts using the jumps to repair the relationship. But the NASA people are getting impatient. They want to know what the fuck Cale did to jump to light speed. So they step up the voltage a la the “Machine Of Death” in The Princess Bride. Not surprisingly, this has some ill-effects, and Cale starts to die. This means he’s running out of time to reconnect with his wife and save their relationship. Will he or can he succeed?

First of all, I love the way Flashback is written. If you can get your hands on this script, read the first eight pages. That’s about as well as you can write 8 pages of a story without any dialogue. The action lines are not only short, but descriptive. This may seem obvious but I find that most scripts have either short paragraphs that don’t give enough information or long paragraphs that give too much information. To write a short paragraph that’s still packed with information isn’t easy.

And structurally, this script kills it. Both the hero and the “villain” have solid goals that make sure the script is always moving forward. For Cale, he’s trying to reconnect with his wife. For the “bad guys,” they’re trying to extract information from Cale’s mind. Because these two goals are in constant conflict, the story is consistently entertaining.

On top of this, there’s a big mystery we want the answer to. What did Cale do right before he crashed? How did he jump to light speed? One more reason to keep reading!

Another great thing about this spec is that it’s EXACTLY the kind of script one should write if they want to break into the business. It’s got a high concept idea (time travel/NASA/amnesia) and it’s contained to mostly one location. That means it will be cheap to make. This is the holy grail of screenplays because not everybody in town can pay 800 grand for your interplanetary war script. But TONS of people can pay you 80 grand for your high concept time-travel contained thriller.

As for the script’s weaknesses, there are a few. It does start to get repetitive after awhile. This is always a pitfall you’ll deal with if you’re writing a contained movie. So you really have to be inventive and keep switching things up to keep the story fresh. There are a few surprises along the way, but none of them was big enough to ward off all of the repetitive sequences (“Hey, we’re jumping back in time again to have pretty much the exact same conversation with the wife as before!”).

Also, I just wasn’t emotionally involved enough with the Cale-wife storyline. That’s the thing that really has to anchor a movie like this because the “gimmickry” (albeit fun gimmickry) of the premise only wows the audience for so long. Sooner or later they need some substance. And you get that substance from your central relationship.

I’m not even sure what’s wrong with said relationship but there’s definitely something missing. I think it’s that their “issue” is kind of boring. They have a rough marriage because he works too much. Hmmm. Really? Join the rest of America. And the thing is, the relationship actually starts with some real potential. She’s furious at him about something. Okay. Genuine conflict. I can get on board with. But the next time they meet, she’s apologetic and they’re a happy couple again. What happened to the conflict??? I’m a big believer that the chasm between your main characters has to be HUGE. Look at a movie like Indiana Jones. Indiana betrayed Marion. Abandoned Marion. There’s genuine anger there, a genuine feeling that this can never be repaired. The relationship in Flashback is just so…repairable.

But if you take Flashback as a whole, the script is pretty solid. I liked the writing. I liked the concept. I just think it needs to differentiate itself from Source Code and work on its central relationship more.

[ ] Wait for the rewrite
[ ] wasn’t for me
[x] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius

What I learned: The fake ticking time bomb – It’s been awhile since I’ve gone all ticking time bomb on you guys, but you know how I feel about the device. It’s the easiest way to create urgency in your script. Flashback teaches us an alternative way to use the device though. The whole point of a “ticking time bomb” is to imply that if a goal isn’t reached by a certain amount of time, a bomb will “blow up.” Well, sometimes you can trick the audience into BELIEVING the bomb will blow up even if you don’t have a bomb. Flashback does exactly that. These NASA people need the light-speed information from Cale RIGHT NOW. But why? What happens if they don’t get it? Errr…nothing. But the script never stops long enough to allow us to realize that. We HEAR the bad guys repeatedly saying they need the information “right now” and therefore we believe it. The ticking time bomb, in actuality, is a fake. Contrast this with Source Code, where we KNOW if Cole doesn’t find the bomb on the train, OTHER BOMBS in the city will explode. So that’s a literal ticking time bomb. I’d recommend using a real ticking time bomb if at all possible. But if you’re in a pinch, a fake one can work.

Chewie

2012-01-10T07:09:00.000-08:00

Genre: Comedy/Satire
Premise: (from Black List) A satirical behind the scenes look at the making of Star Wars through the eyes of Peter Mayhew who played Chewbacca.
About: Chewie landed in the Top 10 on 2011’s Black List and is probably the most high-profile script that made the list due to its subject matter. After I wrote this review, I did a little research and found out that this was not a true autobiographical story like I’d assumed. It was a satire written by two guys who like Star Wars. Which makes sense because there’s so little exploration of Peter Mayhew as a person that I wondered if they actually knew anything about Peter. Well it turns out they did interview him……… in a Star Wars Comic-Con line! They were able to ask him five questions. Hey, you gotta do your research somehow. – For this movie to get made, George Lucas will have to approve of it. My understanding is that he or his people are giving it a look. So we could have ourselves some Chewie on the big screen in 2013.
Writers: Evan Susser, Van Robichaux
Details: 100 pages (This is an early draft of the script. The situations, characters, and plot may change significantly by the time the film is released. This is not a definitive statement about the project, but rather an analysis of this unique draft as it pertains to the craft of screenwriting).

Duhhh duhhhh, duh duh duh dahhhhh duh. Duh duh duh dahhhhh duh, dahduh dummmmmmm…

That’s me singing Star Wars. Truth be told, I wasn’t looking forward to this one. I’m a not-so-closeted Star Wars fanatic and I’d heard rumors this was a script about Peter Mayhew, the actor who played Chewbacca, watching everybody on the set of Star Wars act like assholes while he floated around like an angel.

If this was true, it would negatively affect all future Star Wars viewings, which wasn’t an option. But I don’t do these reviews for me. I do them for you. And if that meant destroying a little bit of Star Wars in my life, well then bantha fodder on Salacius’ Crumb’s bum, I was going to do it.

Still, I mean, how realistic was it that someone could come up with a fresh take on Star Wars 30 years and 8 billion fan films later? Is that even possible? Let’s find out.

Chewie is about Peter Mayhew (sorta), the impossibly sized man-giant who played Chewbacca in the Star Wars films, otherwise known as Han Solo’s right hand…furry fuzzy monster friend. Right away we’re told that Peter was a super shy dude, always uncomfortable with his size, and at the time, actually going into a career in medicine.

But Peter had another dream. Or, I shouldn’t say dream. Hmmm, maybe I’d call it a “strong interest” in being an actor. His giant size filled a tiny niche in the movie market and when George Lucas and Co. came calling, it turned out he was perfect for the part (George didn’t even talk to Peter at the casting by the way. He just looked him up and down and said, “Yeah, he’s perfect,” and walked away).

But now Peter had a dilemma. His burgeoning medical career required that he be at the hospital all the time. How the heck was he going to fit in a movie? Well somehow Peter convinced his asshole boss (the “Emperor” of this tale) to give him some time off to film his weird little movie.

From there on, we basically see the making of Star Wars through Peter’s eyes. Unfortunately, there isn’t anything new being said here. All of these stories have been told in numerous texts. It’s almost like someone breezed through the Making Of Star Wars biography and plucked out all the best parts. Yes, Harrison Ford was a jerk. Yes, he and Carrie Fisher hooked up. Yes, they had no money and were barely able to hold the production together. Yes nobody trusted George’s vision. I suppose for a non-Star Wars fan this might be interesting news. But if you’re one of the 8 non-Star Wars fans in the world, I’m not sure you care about a Making Of Star Wars movie.

I think the most disappointing part of the script, for me, was that Peter, our narrator, was barely in it! Every single piece of drama that happens in the film has nothing to do with him. We’re simply watching it all through his eyes (and in some cases, not through his eyes, since he isn’t even in the scene). I guess when I thought I’d be seeing a film from a certain person’s point of view, I expected that person to be involved. So it was kind of baffling when he wasn’t.

The one bit of character development Peter DOES have happens away from the Star Wars set, back at the hospital. His super-asshole boss keeps yelling at him for going off to shoot his silly movie, to which Peter, the most non-confrontational human being in the universe, just takes it. The scenes aren’t terrible but they’re incredibly on the nose and simplistic. Peter wants to film. Boss doesn’t want him to film. We get four of these scenes and they’re all pretty much the same.

The guy who doesn’t stand up for himself finally standing up for himself is one of the easiest character arcs to write (you also saw it with Ed Helms in The Hangover). But you still have to add some texture to it. You can’t just have four scenes where someone yells at a character and the fifth time he yells back. An 8th grader can pull that off. Yet that’s exactly what we get here. The most simplistic execution of a character arc imaginable. Combined with his absence throughout the rest of the story, the main character (assuming Peter is the main character – I’m still not sure) just isn’t interesting.

There were some cool parts though. Seeing George Lucas broken and battered, watching his vision slip away a little more each day. Harrison Ford is kind of funny as the set diva. It was interesting to hear that he was considering not taking Star Wars so he could get a real job and provide for his family. Carrie Fisher comes off as a sweet but ultimately nutty chick, who has a nice little friendship with Peter. And then there was the shining light - Peter being the only one who believed in George’s vision. He may not have been very complex, but he sure was nice.

Yet that was the problem. Nice overly-polite people don’t make good movie characters, especially if they’re barely connected to the plot. There’s one scene in the script where Peter’s preparing for a scene with Harrison and nobody can find Ford. However WE know that Peter knows where Harrison is. He’s in his trailer smoking pot. It’s the one moment in the script where Peter has to make a difficult choice, that he’s actually involved in some drama. This is when we REALLY learn about a character – when they’re faced with a dilemma, two equally undesirable options. Does he lie and say he doesn’t know where Harrison is, even though he doesn’t lie, or give him up, getting him in trouble?

Neither! The writers take the easy way out. Peter excuses himself to run off and get Harrison. No difficult choice was made. That was my problem here. Every avenue where drama could’ve been milked was passed over.

I mean we already know the story of Star Wars. What we don’t know is the story of Peter’s Star Wars. And after Chewie, I still don’t know the story of Peter’s Star Wars. Honestly, the only thing I learned was that he worked at a hospital and was shy!

I do think the movie carries a great message though – to chase your dreams and take chances in life. You never know when that one chance will be your “Han Solo” moment, the thing that sets you up for the rest of your life. I just wish the main character had been more interesting and that we’d actually learned something about him.

[ ] Wait for the rewrite
[x] wasn’t for me
[ ] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius

What I learned: Avoid office scenes! Remember, two people in a closed room/office with no interruptions is usually a boring scene. It’s too comfortable. Find a location that makes things less comfortable. It will bring out the drama. All these scenes with the hospital boss yelling at Peter take place in his boring office so they all feel the same. What if, instead, the boss confronted Peter as he was tending to one of his favorite patients? He pulls him over to the corner of the room and and curses him out, his favorite patient watching on. NOW you have yourself a scene. Peter is being reamed out in front of a friend – which is way more embarrassing than being reamed out in private.

Cool app for the Ipad

2012-01-08T08:42:00.000-08:00

Hey guys, just found this app for the Ipad. It's this screenplay app that not only allows you to read screenplays, but it has an entire library of them to download. It's all mainly produced work, but I was surprised at how easy it was. It lists all the screenplays right there on the screen, you just press 'download' and you're reading it a few seconds later. Oh, and it's FREE. I'm loving my Ipad!

Scripted for Ipad.

Congrats Emily!

2012-01-07T07:29:00.000-08:00

Wanted to give a shout out and congratulations to longtime Scriptshadow reader Emily Blake over at Bamboo Killers. You may remember that Emily's logline for her script "Nice Girls Don't Kill," finished Top 5 in our First Ten Pages contest a few weeks ago. She ended up as one of the finalists at the TrackingB contest with another script, "How My Wedding Dress Got This Dirty," and quickly secured a manager and an agent at ICM. She's now working on rewriting "Nice Girls Don't Kill," incorporating some of the notes you gave her on the First Ten Pages. That's 1 down and 49 to go for Scriptshadow readers who are going to break in this year. It's possible people. Just keep working hard!

Amateur Friday - The Wreckage

2012-01-06T08:07:00.000-08:00

To submit your script for an Amateur Review, send it in PDF form, along with your title, genre, logline, and why I should read your script to Carsonreeves3@gmail.com. Keep in mind your script will be posted in the review (feel free to keep your identity and script title private by providing an alias and fake title). Also, it's a good idea to resubmit every couple of weeks so that your submission stays near the top of the pile.

Genre: Action/Adventure
Premise: (original 6th place logline) A wild young woman gets seduced into a high tech, storm chasing motorcycle gang that loots and murders under the chaotic veil created by natural disasters.
About: For those of you with bad short-term memory, The Wreckage was unfortunate enough to finish one spot out of the top five of the First Ten Pages contest a few weeks back, just missing a review. Well what a sweet consolation prize. Today, we’re reviewing the entire script!
Writer: Michael McCartney (story by Laton and Michael McCartney)
Details: 102 pages (This is an early draft of the script. The situations, characters, and plot may change significantly by the time the film is released. This is not a definitive statement about the project, but rather an analysis of this unique draft as it pertains to the craft of screenwriting).

When Michael McCartney, the writer of today’s script, was pitching his premise some months back, producers told him that no one was interested in purchasing a storm flick. Not too long afterwards, Hollywood purchased two big storm projects, one a heist film similar in vein to The Wreckage. Just goes to show that nobody likes anything until they like it. But I can assure you The Wreckage is nothing like those scripts. McCartney, the eldest grandson of Beatles legend Paul McCartney, does something quite different here. The question is, did he go too far with it?

I was just joking about the Paul McCartney thing by the way. Michael’s not really McCartney’s grandson. Anyway, the wily 24 year old twister known as Maddy is sick of living a lame life in Wichita Falls, Texas. She’s way too unchained for this place. I always tell you guys to introduce your characters with an action that tells us who they are. Well, Maddy’s introduced having sex with her boyfriend while he’s driving. Yup, I think we know who this character is right away.

Afterwards, Maddy heads back to her parents’ jewelry store on the eve of an approaching storm. Things look so bad, in fact, that they have to board up the windows. But apparently it’s not one of those “you only have to board up the windows and you’ll be okay” type storms. This is the type of storm that rips buildings down.

And that’s exactly what happens. While Maddy survives the destruction, her father dies and her mother is injured. As Maddy tries to figure out what to do, a crazy ass motorcycle gang pulls up, led by a creepy sonofabitch named Scarecrow. Scarecrow and his gang wait for storms to hit towns then ride in, when no police are around, and start looting. Once Scarecrow sees Maddy though, he realizes he’s found the loot of the century.

Scarecrow and crew grab Maddy and drive off into the sunrise, Easy Rider style, and at some point poor Maddy realizes she’s been kidnapped. Cut to FBI Agent Leo, whose since-deceased sister used to be friends with Maddy in high school. He’s tasked with finding and saving Maddy.

Problem is, Maddy starts to like it with this group of vagabonds. They’re as bonkers as she is. Shit, even moreso! They rob places to survive. And that’s probably the life she was heading for anyway. So she figures, “What the hell Charles Manson wannabe. I’ll join your cult!”

The rest of the script follows the motorcycle gang around as they beeline into tornadoes and rob everything in sight. Scarecrow preaches a life of freedom, of not having to live by society's rules. Of course, the impressionable Maddy loves this at first, but eventually realizes she isn’t free at all. She’s Scarecrow’s puppet, just like everybody else in this gang. And she wants out. I think it might be too late for that though, Maddy. This is The Family. Once you’re in, you’re in for life.

The Wreckage is kind of like a wild college night. You know what I’m talking about. Those nights that are filled with both the best and the worst of you? I have to give credit to McCartney. He’s not making any obvious choices here. But I think his story’s too unhinged.

I mean we have a sort of heist/robbing/looting film, a motorcycle/Easy Rider/travel film, a storm film, a cult film, a kidnapping film. I felt like ideas were competing against each other left and right, and I’m not sure that the best of those ideas was featured. In The Wreckage, the motorcycle gang theme actually takes precedence over the much cooler idea of robbing places during storms.

The robbing, in fact, felt secondary, something the group did to pass the time. Since I never got the sense that they were hard up for money, I wasn’t convinced any of the robbing was even needed. And if you’re writing a movie about a crew going into storms to steal things and the crew doesn’t have a strong purpose/reason to do so, I’m not sure you have a movie. There needs to be stakes attached to each robbery, or else they feel meaningless. In Fast Five, Paul Walker needs to steal all that money so he and his fiance can go off the grid for good and never worry about money again (or at least until Fast Six). Now there’s purpose to the heist.

Something else that worried me was Maddy liking the group. She actually began enjoying herself. So when we cut to the FBI chasing after her, we’re not really interested in whether they save her or not - because Maddy doesn’t want to be saved. If would be like if that chick in the basement in Silence Of The Lambs became BFFs with Buffalo Bill and they were chilling on the couch and smoking pot all day. Would we still be interested in Jodie Foster saving her?

But the biggest thing that needs fixing in this script, by far, is the FBI agents. These two have to be two of the most inadequate FBI agents in history. They’re never anywhere CLOSE to catching Maddy. And they spend half the time sitting in rooms talking about shit. These are your agents! They need to be out there DOING SHIT. They need to be ACTIVE. I don’t remember a single scene in The Silence Of The Lambs where Jodie Foster was sitting down.

I think Michael also needs to be aware of going *too* on-the-nose in places. At one point his partner says to Leo, “You know they're different people, don't you? Your sister and the Dylan girl.” This is followed not too long afterwards by Leo, drunk, staring at a picture of his dead sister. Talk about hitting us on the head. Yes, we know: he’s really trying to save his sister. I dig that Michael made a personal connection between Leo and Maddy, but all you needed to sell this was the picture scene, particularly because it’s *showing* us and not *telling* us.

I will say this. There’s a beautiful, almost poetic, quality to these deranged cyclists barreling into monster storms. You also have a diabolical villain in Scarecrow, who I thought was well-crafted. But the engine driving this Harley needs a major overhaul.

I think it starts with the premise. We need to streamline the direction so there aren’t so many competing elements. If we’re not going to properly utilize the “storm-heist” angle, I think it should be a kidnapper flick. After the storm, Maddy sees the bikers kill someone. They spot her, snatch her up, and bring her with them because she’s a witness. They plan to kill her, but for a number of lucky reasons, she stays alive. Now you have a girl in peril, which gives the FBI pursuers (assuming they actually pursue in this next draft) a lot more weight. She’s also no longer chumming it up with everybody – which provides the script with more conflict. I think that would work better.

If this is a “storm-heist” movie, however, I say you drop Maddy. Just focus on the gang and the FBI pursuing them.

The Wreckage was an interesting read. But the plot needs some streamline soup before I give it a “worth the read.” Still, I wish Michael the best with it. Tell your grandpa I love his music!

Script link: The Wreckage

[ ] Wait for the rewrite.
[x] wasn’t for me
[ ] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius

What I learned: Beware the movie concept that contains competing ideas, as those ideas will be fighting for attention the entire way through, leading to an uneven story. You can’t make a prison break movie, for example, that’s also about a boat race. Know when an idea requires its own movie. That’s what threw me here. Going into dangerous storms to rob towns is the star concept, but it takes a back seat to the cult-motorcycle-kidnapping storyline.

Article - Your 2012 Screenwriting New Year's Resolutions!

2012-01-05T06:42:00.000-08:00

I know you guys are busy. You’re getting back into work, you got families to tend to, you have scripts to finish. Who’s got time to come up with a list of resolutions? I mean, we never end up following them for more than a week anyway. What’s the point? I’ll tell you what the point is. The point is making yourself a better person dammit! Which is why I’m going to write your New Year’s resolutions for you. Well, not your personal resolutions, but your screenwriting resolutions. You see, I want this to be an amazing year for all Scriptshadow readers. I’m predicting a good 50 of you will break through and find agents/managers this year, and ten of you will go on to sell a screenplay (maybe even more!). But it’s not going to be easy. You’re going to have to work your butt off and make the right decisions along the way. Which is what I’m going to help you with. Here, my friends, are your 2012 screenwriting New Year’s resolutions!

1) Believe in yourself. – Guys, you cannot succeed unless you believe you can. A lack of confidence affects every aspect of your screenwriting. You won’t write as much. You won’t write as well. You won’t try as hard to get your material out there. You’ll project an image of negativity. You have to believe that big things are going to happen if you really want to make it. I just read this article over at CNN which said that while most people give up on their small resolutions, they stick with their big ones, because the big ones require more commitment. So commit to a big spec sale and BELIEVE you can do it. That one shift in attitude is going to change your life.

2) Write marketable concepts - Guys, I mean, come on. Enough. Stop with these scripts that have no chance of doing anything. Trying to be that 1 in a trillion screenwriter who breaks through on a “nothing” premise is a suicide mission. The number 1 reason a script doesn’t sell is because the concept is weak/non-existent. You want to write your “change the world” script? Break in first. Look at I Think My Facebook Friend Is Dead. Clint and Donnie will be the first ones to tell you they have a lot left to learn, but they came up with a great premise and now their test movie is arguably the frontrunner for the million dollar Amazon prize. Don’t take yourself out of the game this year before you’ve even started to write. Be smart and choose a concept that has a chance of selling.

3) Take chances in your writing – No, not on a boring premise, but on your actual story. This is one I’ve been thinking about a lot lately. We get so wrapped up in the rules (I’m no exception to this) that we forget we’re still dealing with art here. And every famous painting or movie or song or play has that certain “je ne sais quoi,” – something in it you can’t quite explain. And that unexplainable quality comes from taking chances. If everything’s exactly by the numbers then that’s how your story will feel – exactly by the numbers. Just make sure you’re not taking chances ONLY to take chances. It still has to feel right and appropriate for your story.

4) Don’t focus on anything negative – This is a sister resolution to #1, but you guys gotta stop focusing on all the negative information out there about making it as a screenwriter. Are you TRYING to talk yourself out of success? Do you WANT to convince yourself that it’s impossible? Because the information is out there if you want it: “Only one in a million screenwriters actually makes it.” “It’s impossible to become a screenwriter if you don’t live in Los Angeles.” “New screenwriters never sell spec scripts.” Don’t expect anything good to come out of you obsessing over these facts that have been so exaggerated over the years that they’re not even accurate anymore. Just focus on what you can control: Writing and learning. The more writing you do and the more learning you do, the closer you’ll get to breaking in. This business is not as dependent on luck as you think. The people who work their asses off and are serious about their craft almost always find a way in.

5) Think outside the box – This is a creative industry. That’s what we do. Create. So use some of that creativity to find a back door into the business. People have been doing this forever, and even though showmanship isn’t as beloved as it used to be (screenwriters sending ticking clocks to producers in anticipation of their spec, “The Ticking Man,” which went on to sell for a million bucks), there are still a lot of backdoor creative opportunities to get in. By starting this blog, I increased my rolodex by 200 fold, giving me way more opportunities than I ever dreamed of having. What will you create? What sneaky little thing do you have up your sleeve to break into the industry?

6) Do not deviate from the plan – There are a lot of great screenplays out there that we’ll never see because they never get finished. Why? Because you never finish them. Because you get bored. Because you don’t want to do the hard work. Because it’s SO MUCH EASIER to start on that new exciting idea you came up with yesterday. I got news for you buster. Screenwriting is hard. It takes dedication. It takes work. It takes you barreling through those shitty moments where you don’t have any idea what to do with your story. Instead of moving on to something new that will eventually put you in the same position you’re in now, stick with it. Finish your screenplay. That sense of accomplishment will give you confidence to rewrite it until it’s perfect. I know it isn’t easy guys. But nothing worth having in this world is.

7) Be brave – Being passive in real life isn’t much different from being a passive character in a screenplay. It leads to a story that goes NOWHERE. You’re going to have to buck up and do some things you don’t like doing if you want to advance your career. No, I’m not talking about streetwalking on Hollywood and Vine. But you’re going to have to call agents, call managers, send more e-mail queries, follow-up more e-mails. You’re going to have to call that long lost sorta-friend who knows that production manager even though it’s going to be an awkward conversation. Any way you can get people to read your scripts, do it. Because you never know where that break is going to come from. It’s usually from a guy who knows a guy who knows a guy who gave your script to them. That person calls you in. You end up hitting it off. He hires you for a rewrite. And what do you know? Your career has begun. Breaks materialize in the oddest of places. But they never materialize for people who keep their scripts hidden on their hard drives. Be brave people. Get your shit out there.

8) Work more on your characters – I mentioned this in my interview a couple of weeks back. The biggest difference I see between amateur screenplays and professional screenplays is character development. So if you’re serious about this screenwriting thing? It’s time to put a lot more effort into character. Read everything you can about it. Learn how to arc a character. Learn how to build compelling relationships between characters. Start writing 10 page character bios for your main characters. Go through my Scriptshadow Character Generator again. It doesn’t matter how cool your plot is. If you don’t have characters we care about, your script will be LAME.

9) Get honest feedback – We writers like to live in a dream world, a bubble that allows us to live on in perfect bliss. In this bubble, we improve at a glacial pace, because nobody ever tells us what’s REALLY wrong with our writing. When we do give our script out, it’s to friends or family, the people we know will support us and pat us on the back. I’m sorry but I’m popping your fucking bubble. Bubble time is over loser. This year, I want you to make a commitment to get some honest feedback. Whether it’s joining a writers group, forcing friends to stop bullshitting you, or paying for professional notes. You need someone telling you the truth. Just remember, the main reason writers avoid this is because they’re afraid of being told their writing is bad. Don’t think of it that way! Your writing IS bad. 90% of all writing is bad. But in order to knock that percentage down, you need people telling you what you’re doing wrong so you can IMPROVE.

10) Help others – This may seem like a touchy feely filler resolution, but it’s probably the most important resolution on this list. All the writers I meet are so focused on THEMSELVES, on their scripts and their problems and their endless screenwriting heartbreaks, that they’ve lost sight of the bigger picture. Here’s the truth. The more you help other people, the more people will want to help you. I PROMISE you this. I SWEAR to you this will happen. Just try it for a month. Start asking people what you can do for them. Offer someone help in your specific trade. Read other writers’ scripts and give them notes. It will come back to you in ways you’d never imagine. And best of all, you’ll feel good about yourself.

Let the damn New Year begin!

Flarsky

2012-01-04T09:31:00.000-08:00

Genre: Romantic Comedy
Premise: (from Black List) A political journalist courts his old babysitter, who is now the United States Secretary of State.
About: Dan Sterling has developed his comedic chops writing for TV since the mid-90s. He’s worked on The Sarah Silverman Show, The Jon Stewart Show, King of The Hill, and South Park. He was actually the first writer other than Matt and Trey on South Park. Flarsky finished 21st on 2011’s Black List with 17 votes.
Writer: Dan Sterling
Details: 118 pages - undated (This is an early draft of the script. The situations, characters, and plot may change significantly by the time the film is released. This is not a definitive statement about the project, but rather an analysis of this unique draft as it pertains to the craft of screenwriting).

Reese for Charlotte?

It appears that there aren’t many fun scripts on this year's Black List. I wanted to include something light for this week’s reading and started scrolling down the list only to realize that almost every script sounded incredibly depressing. Is this the Black List or the “Wear Black List?” As in we’re going to a funeral! (sorry – I’m trying out some new material in 2012). Then I came across Flarsky. Finally, a comedy!

But………it was a politically charged romantic comedy. Uh oh. I’d probably have more fun reading through a stack of TPS reports. I HATE political romantic comedies. The comedy’s always buried under some stupid political message. I worked behind the Los Angeles Federal Building for 7 years, where they had a demonstration every weekend. I’m done with political agendas.

But it did score high on the Black List so I figured it had a *chance* of being funny (“So you’re saying there’s a chance!”). I poofed up my pillow beforehand though. That’s the one good thing about bad scripts. They’re perfect nap initiators.

But that nap never came. Because I loooooooved me some Flarsky!

Charlotte Field is the gorgeous 30-something Secretary Of State and the United States’ closest thing to royalty. This woman makes Jackie Onassis look like Snooki. She’s funny, smart, powerful, cool, and everybody’s frontrunner for the 2016 Presidential race.

Fred Flarsky is the opposite. He’s dull, weak, uncool, unkempt, and everybody’s frontrunner for 2012’s most annoying drunk at the end of Larry’s Bar. But it wasn’t always like this for Flarsky. He once held promise. He once was a great writer.

Well, he still is a great writer. Unfortunately, that writing is happening at some 4th rate newspaper nobody reads. Until the inevitable happens. Yes, due to that bastard known as the internet, which is destroying print newspapers left and right, poor Flarsky is fired, leaving him in an even more pathetic state than he was already in, if that’s possible.

Strangely enough, Flarsky once had a connection with Charlotte Field. She used to babysit him when he was a kid, and in one of the most monumental moments of his life, he worked up the courage to plant a kiss on her, to which he still thinks about this day. But that was 25 years ago. Since then, their lives have gone in completely different directions.

But Flarsky’s best friend, Lance, has a different assessment. Lance believes that you can have anything you want in life if you try, and encourages Flarsky to go after Charlotte. In fact, he has two tickets to a benefit she’ll be at tonight! Flarsky agrees reluctantly, and is shocked when Charlotte recognizes him, inspiring an impromptu jaunt down memory lane.

When Charlotte finds out Flarsky is a writer, she hires him to help her with her speeches. The next thing you know, Flarsky’s gone from the seat at the end of the bar to the seat at the front of the plane. Despite Flarsky being nowhere near Charlotte’s league, she finds something charming in him, which leads to – gasp – a relationship! Since Charlotte’s married (a marriage that’s been technically dead for years), her advisors try anything in their power to get rid of Flarsky, as even the hint of this affair threatens each and every one of their jobs. In the end, Charlotte will have to make a choice between her political ambitions and the man she’s fallen in love with, Flarsky.

I thought this was hilarious. As you all know, I love underdog stories, and there’s no bigger underdog than Flarsky! I suspect women are going to hate this script because it’s yet another example of a loser guy getting the impossibly beautiful girl, which kinda never happens in life. And I might have thought that myself if not for the babysitting connection. The fact that they knew each other beforehand gave the relationship just enough credibility to make it believable. Now does Flarsky have to be the single biggest loser on the planet (a drunk, unkempt, bad hygiene, depressed, unconfident)? Maybe Sterling went a little too far in that department, but the writing was so strong that I went with it.

What I was really happy about was that the political stuff never got in the way of the story or the comedy. I see this happen sometimes, especially in these political scripts, where the writer believes we care more about some issue our characters are promoting rather than the characters themselves. This is a romantic comedy. That means the characters and the relationship have to come first. And Sterling wisely focuses on exactly that.

My only problem with the script was the first act. The setup for this kind of situation is always tough because getting two people together who are this far apart in stature requires its share of forced moments. For example, it seems like the only reason Flarsky’s best friend Lance is so rich is so Sterling had a believable way to get Flarsky into the high class benefit Charlotte was attending. Then there’s something about Flarsky getting a broken leg and Charlotte feeling responsible so she takes him to dinner. I don’t know. I could definitely feel the writer tapping the keys on that one. It’s never easy to navigate these choppy plot mechanic waters though and I suppose Sterling did a manageable job of keeping it sort of believable.

The thing that really killed me though was the forced “save the cat” moment. I HAAAAATE forced save the cat moments! These are moments where the writer tries WAY too hard to make you love his character. Here, a bunch of meatheads are talking about how much they hate blacks and gays. Flarsky overhears this and tries to beat them up. Uhhh, why don’t you just put Flarsky in a time machine and have him murder Hitler.

But once we get past that first act and into the romance, the script really begins to fly. In these screenplays, it’s all about the chemistry between the leads, and Flarsky and Charlotte are perfect together. I so wanted them to stay together in fact, that I mouthed “noooo” when Charlotte’s sworn enemy (a Rupert Murdoch like media mogul) got hold of a sensitive picture of her that threatened to blow the whole affair up.

There’s also something fresh about the setting that we haven’t seen in a romantic comedy before. I mean in what other rom-com have you seen the leads having to dodge rockets? And all the jetsetting (as they go from country to country) keeps the script moving at a breakneck pace, which is also rare for the genre.

And overall, I just loved the predicament. Charlotte can’t go public with this affair. If she does, she ruins her marriage, loses the trust of her followers, and loses her shot at becoming president. Not to mention her entire team is out of a job. So the stakes are very high. When Flarsky first comes to terms with that realization – the fact that their relationship can never be real, it’s a genuinely sad moment. And I, for one, was wondering how it was going to end. In a romantic comedy no less. When you ALWAYS know how it’s going to end.

The success of this film will depend on the casting, as it always does with romantic comedies. But assuming they get that right, this movie should do well, because the script is there.

[ ] What the hell did I just read?
[ ] wasn’t for me
[ ] worth the read
[x] impressive
[ ] genius

What I learned: The impossible choice. Force one of your leads into an impossible choice at the end of the movie. Here, Charlotte must choose between her career and Flarsky. If you set that decision up well (where each choice has devastating consequences), we’ll be dying to know what they choose.

Beyond The Pale

2012-01-03T08:29:00.000-08:00

Genre: Drama/Thriller
Premise: When they find out he’s robbing graves, including their father’s, a brother and sister living in a small town decide to blackmail the local undertaker. But they soon find themselves in way over their head.
About: Chad Feehan, the writer of Beyond The Pale, produced the film “All The Boys Love Mandy Lane,” and wrote/directed “Beneath The Dark,” which came out in 2010. Beyond The Pale is actually an adaptation of the book, “Twilight,” by William Gay. Beyond The Pale finished 10th on 2011’s Black List with 27 votes.
Writer: Chad Feehan
Details: 109 pages – March 2, 2011 draft (This is an early draft of the script. The situations, characters, and plot may change significantly by the time the film is released. This is not a definitive statement about the project, but rather an analysis of this unique draft as it pertains to the craft of screenwriting).

I heard mixed things about this one and had been avoiding it mainly because of the title, which had me imagining a man wandering around the desert, carrying a pail. No, I’m serious. I imagined a Western where a mysterious man strolls into town with nothing but a pail. The big mystery would be, what’s in that pail? Rainwaiter possibly? Toiletries? I didn’t know. But whatever it was, I didn’t want to read it anytime soon. Then again, I thought if this script made the Black List with that title, it may be the best script ever written.

It turned out Beyond The Pale wasn’t a Western at all, but another small-town murder tale, which is like catnip to the Black List. We get 5 of these a year on the list at least, some of them good, some not so good. Where Beyond The Pale ranks is debatable. This is such a strange screenplay. It’s almost like two different movies, the first a small town blackmail tale and the second a chase film. If you can roll with that shift, you’ll like it. If not, prepare to be disappointed.

It’s 1973 and we start with a family getting killed, only to then jump back to, you guessed it, 13 days earlier! Yes, we have yet another screenplay that begins with a flashforward. I think you guys are finally getting an idea of how often I see this device. Multiply every time I highlight it in a review by five and you're getting close. It wouldn’t be so bad if EVERYBODY didn’t use it. But because they do, it starts your script off on a cliché note. Never good.

Anyway, the flashforward introduces us to Granville Sutter, a local murderer who has somehow evaded every murder he’s been accused of so is now living freely in this town, eager to target his next victim. He’ll get that chance soon enough.

13 days earlier we meet Corrie and Kenneth Tyler, a barely out of high school brother-sister duo. Corrie has really come into her own, and has all the men in town drooling over her every step, which has forced Kenneth into a protector role, something he’s had to get good at due to their family’s lousy reputation.

And then of course, it’s not going well for Corrie. She’s 72 hours away from losing her place and needs money fast. It just so turns out that the siblings lost their father recently, and discover that the local undertaker, Fenton Breece, has been grave robbing everybody he buries, including their pa!

But it gets worse. When they raid his office, they find pictures of Breece engaged in sexual acts with dead female bodies. Uh-oh. Spagettio. Necrophiliaism! Corrie, not the brightest firework in the New Year’s celebration, decides to use this information to bribe Breece. Breece, of course, freaks out, and contacts Mr. Murder himself, Granville Sutter.

Sutter is more than happy to add a couple more bodies to his tally so immediately jumps into action. (Spoiler) While the first encounter ends up in Corrie’s death, Kenneth is able to get away. Because the local cops are corrupt, Kenneth must trudge through an isolated Appalachian trail to the next county over where there’s said to be a clean cop. Unfortunately, Granville will do anything to make sure he doesn’t make it.

I quite liked the first half of Beyond The Pale. I thought the idea of bribing a grave-robbing undertaker was a unique one. The necrophilia reveal was a nice touch, and provided the story with an edge these scripts don’t usually have.

In general, blackmail is a strong story device as it leads to a lot of dramatic irony and subtext. Because of the secrecy that must be maintained on both sides, there are a lot of conversations and situations that must occur on the down low. Fox example, from that point on, every scene with Breece becomes laced with dramatic irony, as he must defend his secret. When his secretary finds out, he must kill her. When the police come looking for the secretary, he must feign ignorance. On the flip side, our bribers can’t go to the police, because what they’re doing is illegal as well. That means also fighting their battles below the radar. This is usually more interesting than fighting your battles out in the open.

Unfortunately, once Granville sets his sights on Kenneth, that’s exactly where we end up, fighting our battles out in the open. All that nuance we built up is kind of thrown out the window. Beyond The Pale becomes a simple chase movie. That’s what bothered me so much. The first half made me think - pulled me into this complicated web of a story. The second is no different from one of those cheap B-Movies Paul Walker always finds himself in.

I did admire some of the structural achievements of the script. You’ll notice that Beyond The Pale has a great example of the “changing goal.” Remember, you always want your main character to have a goal. But in some screenplays, that goal will change along the way. The first goal here is to blackmail Reece. When that plan goes awry, the goal changes to getting to the next county where Kenneth can alert the clean cop to what’s going on. So while I didn’t like this part of the story, I admit it was well-constructed. Had Kenneth simply been running for his life (with no destination), I don’t think it would have been as interesting.

Another thing to note is the “Midpoint Shift.” The midpoint is that place where you want to throw something new at the characters or the story to change things up a little. You do this so that the story doesn’t stagnate or start to feel predictable. So in Titanic, the midpoint is when the ship hits the iceberg, creating a much different second half than the first. The midpoint in Beyond The Pale is obviously (spoiler) when Corrie is killed and Kenneth goes on the run.

The thing is, there’s a risk involved if you go *too* far with this shift. It’s hard enough to create one interesting storyline, so to bet that you can create two in one screenplay is a big risk. Sometimes that risk hits, but if it doesn’t, you leave people wondering, “What happened to the movie we were just watching? Where did that go?” In my opinion, that’s what happened with Beyond The Pale. What happened to that clever small town murder-bribery story I was watching?

Overall, this is one of those scripts that hovered right on the line between a “wasn’t for me” and a “worth the read.” But since the second half left me pining for the original story, I’m afraid I have to give this a “wasn’t for me.”

[ ] Wait for the rewrite.
[x] wasn’t for me
[ ] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius

What I learned: While I didn’t necessarily agree with the choice that Gay and Feehan made with the sharp midpoint twist, I respected the risk. It reminded me that while having a rule set which guides your writing is a good thing, you still have to take chances, you still have to take risks. I’m reading this book “IQ84” and in it, a publisher is giving advice to a writer. This is what he says: “There also has to be that ‘special something,’ an indefinable quality, something I can’t quite put my finger on. That’s the part of fiction I value more highly than anything else. Stuff I understand perfectly doesn’t interest me.” That really stayed with me. “Stuff I understand perfectly doesn’t interest me.” I think that’s the reason a script like “When The Streetlights Go On” is so memorable. You don’t understand perfectly why you like it. You just do. And that only comes from taking risks.

What I learned 2: If you’re worried about cell phones screwing up the believability of your story, set your script in a time before they existed. Beyond The Pale is one of those stories that doesn’t work in the cell phone era. So they set it in 1973. Problem solved.

Father Daughter Time

2012-01-02T07:24:00.000-08:00

Genre: Drama/Thriller
Premise: (from the Black List) A man goes on a three state crime spree with his eleven year old daughter.
About: This script famously sold a few months back for half a million bucks. Matt Damon originally tried to buy it himself, then Warners swooped in and tried to outbid him, and then somewhere amidst it all, the two decided to work together, with Warners buying and Damon attaching himself as director. The way I understand it, not everybody likes working with studios to develop a script. You get a lot more notes. You don’t have nearly as much control. If Damon bought it himself, he could develop it at his own pace and do it the way he wanted. That’s why he was sort of pissed that Warners came in, at least according to what Nikki Finke was saying. But anyway, it looks like Damon will make this his first directing project and the rumor is he wants John Krasinski (from The Office) to star. For the love of all that is Holy, let’s hope that’s just a rumor. I’d have more confidence in Hugo from Lost playing the lead. “Dude, just like, go rob the store daughter chick.” (edit: one of the commenters pointed out Matt and John are doing a different project together, not this one). This is Matthew Aldrich’s first spec sale.
Writer: Matthew Aldrich
Details: 107 pages (This is an early draft of the script. The situations, characters, and plot may change significantly by the time the film is released. This is not a definitive statement about the project, but rather an analysis of this unique draft as it pertains to the craft of screenwriting).

First of all, I just want to welcome all of you back. I know it was hard last week not having any reviews. I heard that a few of you actually resorted to going out and, like, doing real world stuff. I am so so sorry you had to experience that. Luckily, we have a mountain of Black List scripts and an entire year to get things back on track. Well, at least until the whole Mayan thing ends the world. That reminds me, what’s the next “End Of The World” date that comes after 2012? Do we have one? I remember the world was going to end in 2000. It was going to end last year with the whole “End Of Days” thing. What happens after 2012 ends? The nutties can’t operate without a doomsday scenario.

Like Charles Barkley, Theo is not a role model. Theo, actually, is the exact opposite of a role model. He’s a deadbeat. A drunk. He’s that pathetic loser you see hanging at the end of the bar at 11:30 on a Sunday morning. But things are starting to change. Theo is climbing out of the bottle so he can be the one and only thing he cares about in this world – a better father.

His daughter, 11 year old Maggie, has desperately been waiting for this moment. She’s stuck with a mother who doesn’t love her, and so even though she’s aware of her father’s problems, she’d rather be with him than her. Problem is, Theo is barely getting by. He works at Jack-In-The-Box of all places, and while their Crispy Chicken sandwich is delish, dead birds can’t pay rent.

Which is why he’s forced to steal tampons when Maggie unexpectedly has her first period. It doesn’t take long for the cops to realize what happened and that means Theo, who’s on parole, is going back to jail. But Maggie will do anything to avoid living with her mom again, so she locates her father, who’s since relapsed, steals his friend’s car and starts driving.

When Theo wakes up, he’s shocked to find that he’s 500 miles away from home with his 11 year old daughter at the wheel. She has a plan – to go back to the cabin they used to stay at when she was younger – when everything was perfect. At first Theo’s not onboard, but then he sees the desperation in her eyes and decides to go with it.

Meanwhile, his ex-wife is raising a shitfest with the cops, and as a result this becomes a Federal kidnapping case. Everybody in the country is looking for Theo and Maggie. The two are forced to rob and steal in order to keep their journey alive, but as you’d expect, it all catches up to them. In the end, Theo will have to decide whether to do the right thing, even though it means leaving the person he loves most in this world, or doing the wrong thing in order to stay with her. What will Theo do?

Father Daughter Time was a good script. I don’t know what the hell the title means but it sounds cool when you say it out loud so I’m down. The biggest thing with a script like this is capturing that father-daughter relationship. If you can make that honest, if you can make us believe in and care about it, you have yourself a screenplay. Aldrich makes us believe.

He actually achieves this in the very first scene, which tells us everything we need to know about the characters. In it, his daughter has just gotten her first period so they go to the convenience store to buy some tampons. Obviously, this is awkward for Theo, who would have trouble with this even in ideal circumstances. But the fact that he hasn’t been around his daughter much makes it more awkward.

After guessing on the right kind, he gets to the counter only to realize he can’t afford the 12 dollar box and must beg a disgusting convenience store clerk (who gave his daughter a slimy smile when he realized the tampons were for her) to let him have them anyway. After the clerk says no, he goes outside, rethinks the situation, then goes back in and robs the store – for tampons.

Let’s take a look at how this scene reveals character. We start off with Theo and Maggie walking in and looking through the tampon section together. Both look confused. But Maggie is looking to her father for answers, a sign that she trusts him. We can also tell that these two don’t know each other well. There’s no shorthand here. They *want* to know each other but they don’t yet.

Next, we go up to the counter and realize Theo can’t afford the box. This tells us that our main character is poor, another important character detail. When the clerk eyes Maggie, connecting her to the tampons, and smiles, we see the fury in Theo’s eyes. We know that even though these two aren’t around each other much, he’s still hugely protective of her. After going outside then and rethinking it, Theo decides to go back in and rob the place, which tells us that this man will do anything for his daughter.

This is what good scenes do. They reveal character by placing the characters in a series of situations that require them to make choices. When those choices are made, we learn about them. Look at all we’ve learned here. This father and daughter haven’t spent a lot of time together. Maggie looks up to her dad. Theo is poor. Theo will do anything for his daughter.

As for the rest of the script, like I said, it was solid. My only real beef is that it wasn’t edgy enough. I guess when I heard about the project, I assumed what made it so popular was this idea of a father and daughter going on this raging crime spree. But it’s more like the two are just trying to survive, trying to get to the next destination on the map. There is one scene where something really bad happens, but for the most part it feels like a very “polite” crime spree. I realize it’s a thin line because if they become too aggressive, we might not root for them. But I still would’ve liked this to feel more “R” and less “PG-13.”

Can’t wait to see what Damon does with this. I just hope Hurley and his daughter don’t end up back on the island with Locke.

[ ] What the hell did I just read?
[ ] wasn’t for me
[xx] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius

What I learned: Overall, I think I know why this sold. It has that rare combination of being a character piece (which actors love) as well as a genre piece about fugitives on the run (which producers love). In other words, it meets everybody’s criteria. This is the exact same thing that happened with The Town. At its heart, it was a character piece about a man’s relationship with his best friend and a girl. But the producers were able to market it as a heist film, which is why it was still able to make a bunch of money. Keep that in mind as you’re writing your next spec. If you can check both of those boxes, you probably have something marketable on your hands.

Facebook Friend Is Very Much Alive

2011-12-30T07:40:00.000-08:00

First off, no official post today. I know, I know. What's the deal, Carson? Hey, a man has to have some fun every once in awhile. I got myself an Ipad 2 for Christmas and can't stop playing with it. Which reminds me, what are the essential screenwriting apps for the Ipad? I feel like I'm leaving productivity on the table with this thing. I absolutely love it for books though. Just downloaded Haruki Murakami's IQ84 and loving it so far. Yes, that's right. I'm the only person in the world who takes time off from reading to, um, read.

Anyway, to the real point of this post. Many months ago I reviewed a script called, "I Think My Facebook Friend Is Dead" for Amateur Friday. The script went on to win the monthly prize over at Amazon, and just yesterday, received a big live-action test movie. For those who don't know, Amazon is giving a million dollars at the end of the year to whoever can come up with the best test movie for one of its winners. So these guys (no affiliation with the writers) went out and filmed the entirety of "I Think My Facebook Friend Is Dead," which is now up on the website. I've only been able to watch 15 minutes so far, but for shooting an entire feature on no budget, I was pretty impressed. I bring this up because 3 years ago, something like this would never have happened. But in the strangest way, Clint and Donnie actually got their movie made. Anyway, check it out if you have some free time.

THE 15 BEST MOVIES I SAW IN 2011!

2011-12-29T10:34:00.000-08:00

Will Rooney make this year's Top 15? Will I ever run out of excuses to put pictures of beautiful women at the top of my blog posts?

And now, the moment you've all been waiting for. I'm sure you've been on pins and needles since January 1st waiting with bated breath, mumbling incoherently to yourself, “I can’t wait any longer. I need Carson’s 2011 Top 15 List now!” Well here it is! And looking over it, I can’t believe some of the movies on it either. If you would’ve told me going into 2011 that I’d like a certain high profile cash grab comedy sequel, I’d tell you you were bananas. I mean, this is not the Top 15 I expected. But that’s the great thing about movies. They surprise you when you least expect it. Now just a reminder. Not all of these films came out in 2011. Qualifications for the list are only that I saw the movie in 2011. So let’s stop wasting time and get down to business!

15) Source Code
Writer: Ben Ripley
Director: Duncan Jones
You guys all know how much I loved this script. To me, it's still one of the best sci-fi screenplays of the last decade. Therefore, it was going to be hard for the film to live up to that love. And right away, I didn’t like some of the changes. My main gripe was changing Christina from an introverted artist into a perky happy semi-girlfriend. The reasoning for this change was that it would make more sense if the two knew each other beforehand because it would be easier for Colter to convince her to help him after every time reset. What they didn’t realize was that that's the exact reason they shouldn't have changed it. You WANT things to be difficult for your character. You want it to be hard. And Ben Ripley’s original script handled that perfectly. Despite that, director Duncan Jones managed to craft a pretty entertaining little thriller. Just enough to pull this film by its bootstraps into the Top 15.

14) Chalk
Writers: Chris Mass and Mike Akel
Director: Mike Akel
I think this film originally came out in 2006. Chalk is sort of like a high school version of The Office, but without the production value. What helps you overlook that though is the casting, which is top-notch. Chalk documents (or mockuments) a group of high school teachers that include the “maybe” lesbian gym teacher who takes her job way too seriously. The science teacher desperate to win “Teacher of the Year,” even though his students are smarter than he is. And the history teacher whose utter lack of social skills makes every class a mumbling bumbling journey of awkwardness. Like all micro-budget affairs, Chalk has its share of questionable moments (there’s a dream sequence that any halfway intelligent director would’ve burned off the negative), but the film hits a lot more than it misses. This was one of the funniest films of the year for me.

13) The Descendants
Writers: Alexander Payne and Nat Faxon & Jim Rash
Director: Alexander Payne
George Clooney and I have a love-hate relationship. I love to hate him. No, but seriously. I do. No, seriously though. I really do. Having said that, The Descendants is a film that never would've been made had Clooney not been involved, so cheers to that. You want to talk about non-commercial? Try a mother who’s in a coma for the entire movie, and who (spoiler) our characters take off life-support at the end. This requires our hero, Matt King (Clooney) to get his two daughters together, the beautiful but angry 16 year old Alexandra, and the hilarious but naïve 10 year old Scottie, and begin telling family members throughout the Hawaiian Islands that she isn’t going to make it. The power of the movie comes from Matt’s disconnect with his daughters. He was never the caretaker in the family, and now must learn on the job. The two subplots include Matt deciding whether to sell a huge chunk of commercial real estate that his descendants purchased as well as confronting the man he learns was sleeping with his wife, who coincidentally stands to make a lot of money if Matt sells. What I liked here was the unexpected humor, the difficult to predict plot, and the exploration of Matt’s broken relationship with his oldest daughter. The Descendants is slow and certainly isn’t for everyone, but if you like character driven films that take their time, this one might be worth checking out.

12) The Hangover II
Writers: Craig Mazin & Scot Armstrong & Todd Phillips (Characters by Jon Lucas & Scott Moore)
Director: Todd Phillips
No. This is not a misprint. I am actually including The Hangover II on my list. Before you think I've started drinking early for New Year's Eve, let me try and explain. When I kept hearing that this film was exactly the same film, beat for beat, as the first Hangover, I rolled my eyes at how lazy Hollywood was. I mean why not try to do *something* different? But after seeing the film, I understand exactly why they did it, and consider them sorta geniuses for the choice. The script is the most unpredictable of all the variables in filmmaking. Yeah, you could nail it in three months. But there’s a chance you might not nail it for a year. You just don't know. And the problem with Hollywood is, they’re not waiting until you figure it out. They set a date and wherever that date arrives, that’s the script they go with. This is the reason why we have so many bad sequels. The writers try to write an entirely new story and simply don’t have the time to explore it (see the Matrix sequels as examples A & B). So the Hangover team said, “Hey, we already have a formula that works here. We try to write a whole new movie, it’ll be all over the place. Let’s just stick with what works.” So while there was nothing particularly new in The Hangover II, the structure of the film was solid, creating a story that not only made sense, but was pretty tight - rare for a sequel. In addition, outside all of that screenwriting jibber-jabber, I just thought this film was funnier than the first one. I mean when Ed Helms learned that he had had sex with a tranny, I honestly lost it. And that may say more about me than it does about the film, but I loved that they took chances like that. This was easily the biggest shocker of the year for me because I expected to hate this film. Bring on Hangover III baby!

11) Super 8
Writer: J.J. Abrams
Director: J.J. Abrams
I wouldn’t go so far as to say I loved Super 8. But I certainly did like it. If there’s any director I’d trust to take me back to the Steven Spielberg era, it’s JJ Abrams, who kicks ass in every direction. What really impressed me in Super 8 was the casting and the perfect chemistry between the kids. I was reminded of what it felt like to be back with my own little bike gang as a kid going off on some daily adventure. I was a little disappointed that the monster was so independent from the main plot, but Elle Fanning more than made up for it. This girl is going to be a force in the future. That scene where she gives her first zombie performance while Joe puts make-up on her would've had me falling in love if I were 14 again. And a special mention goes out to Riley Griffiths, who gave a great performance as the director of the group. Super 8 had its faults, but it was a monster/sci-fi movie with some heart, which is rare to come by these days.

10) Troll Hunter
Writer: Andre Overdal and Havard S. Johansen
Director: Andre Overdal
I remember when I first saw this trailer I screamed, “I have to see this now!” I unfortunately had to wait seven months before I finally got my hands on it but it was well worth the wait. Over here in America, we’re getting bored with all the horror, alien, and ghost found footage films. Seeing a found footage film, then, that revolved around… TROLLS??? Giant trolls at that?? In a movie where the visual effects were pretty darn good? That's fresh. What I think got me more than anything though, was the detail that went into the mythology. For example, if there's a guy who hunts trolls, then aren’t there a bunch of dead trolls lying around? These guys developed not one, but two methods of disposing of troll bodies that were actually believable inside the universe they created. It does get a little repetitive near the end but you'll be surprised at who you’re rooting for in that final battle. These are the films that inspire me – where people just go out and do something different and it ends up catching a wave. A unique and fun movie.

9) Warrior
Writers: Gavin O’Connor & Anthony Tambakis & Cliff Dorfman
Director: Gavin O’Connor
I'm kinda surprised this movie didn't do better. I think one of the variables that screws up box office prediction is Middle America. As you rise up in the screenwriting ranks, you become focused on creating smart character driven fare that will impress Hollywood folks. In the meantime, the movies that play well in Middle America are Paul Blart and the latest Adam Sandler abortion. I thought Warrior was going to be the perfect hybrid. It had a couple of respected up-and-coming actors. It was a feel-good underdog story. And it featured ultimate fighting, which plays well in Middle America. So I don't know if they didn't sell it well. I don't know if the stars weren’t big enough. I don't know if not being able to use UFC's name had anything to do with it. But the movie didn't do well. And yet it’s one of the better sports movies I've seen in a while. Tom Hardy plays one of the biggest bad asses you'll ever meet. Joel Edgerton plays the underdog role to perfection. And the final match up in the film is more than emotionally satisfying. I wish this film would've done better because it deserved it.

8) Friends With Benefits
Writers: Keith Merryman & David A. Newman and Will Gluck (story by Harley Peyton and Keith Merryman & David A. Newman)
Director: Will Gluck
Yesterday, I highlighted one of the worst films of the year, No Strings Attached. So why am I now celebrating its doppelgänger? Because Will Gluck is one of the few young comedy directors with a unique voice. There's something different about his films that stir up the butterflies at the bottom of your stomach. I didn't love Easy A, but I recognized its originality. And this film has that same kind of unique charm. But what really sets it apart is the killer chemistry between Justin Timberlake and Mila Kunis. I mean these two are perfect together. Every scene between them sparked. It was the exact opposite of No Brains Attached. As I was watching “Benefits,” I actually wondered, in a science experiment way, what these two movies would've played like had they switched actors. Would “Strings” be the good one and “Friends” the bad one? I'm not sure. But I do know that any movie with Kutcher is probably going to be terrible so thank God this experiment never happened.

7) Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes
Writers: Rick Jaffa & Amanda Silver (spun off the novel “La Planete Des Singes”)
Director: Rupert Wyatt
I don’t know who Rupert Wyatt is and what he directed before this, but he and the writers of “Rise” deserve a filmmaking medal. They took a franchise known for putting style over substance and rebuilt it to highlight substance over style. Not only that, but they turned a major franchise into a character-driven silent film! I don't think I've ever seen a mainstream release take that big of a chance before. Because that's what this is - a silent film. And to couple that with two acts that don’t feature a single major set-piece, instead focusing on a conflicted ape who's trying to come to terms with his emerging intelligence? - I mean, I still can't believe they did this. And even more impressive – THEY PULLED IT OFF! I loved “Rise.”

6) Midnight In Paris
Writer: Woody Allen
Director: Woody Allen
Let's be honest. Woody Allen isn't trying to make good movies anymore. He's just trying to keep busy. That was confirmed for me a few years back when he cast Jason Biggs and Christina Ritchie in a movie. Lucky for him, actors still believe it's an honor to work with Woody for some reason, and that means sooner or later he’s going to hit. Well, that moment’s finally come. Midnight In Paris is a wonderful little film, particularly if you have any interest in the famed city, which I’ve held a fascination with for much of my life. But what really grabbed me here was the time-jumping! You know I’m a sucker for time-travel, and who would’ve thought Allen would be writing a time-travel film at this stage of his career? Watching Owen Wilson stumble through 1925 Paris, bumping into Zelda and F. Scott Fitzgerald among others, all while trying to figure out what was going on, was hilarious. I also have a renewed appreciation for Allen’s dialogue. This is a man who has written dialogue-driven films for 30 years, and seeing how he crafts his scenes to maximize the character exchanges was enlightening. The only thing that would’ve made this movie better was a Nutella crepe from the sacre couer court!

5) The Disappearance Of Alice Creed
Writer: J Blakeson
Director: J Blakeson
One of the challenges of low-character-count contained thrillers is the limited amount of choices. I read so many of these things that peter out in the second act, and that’s due exclusively to writers running out of ideas. Every once in a while, though, someone figures out how to make it to the finish line. The Disappearance Of Alice Creed follows two men who kidnap the daughter of a wealthy man and demand a ransom. 97% of the film takes place in two rooms and not once does it get boring. There are all these little twists and turns that come right at the moment these films usually start grasping for life support. In combination with a disarmingly confident directing style (watch the opening scene where they construct the room to see what I mean), you get the feeling you’re watching something special. We talk about subtext and dramatic irony a lot on the site. If you want to learn how to utilize these tools effectively, clear 90 minutes out of your schedule and watch this film. It’s pretty awesome.

T-4) Bridesmaids
Writers: Kristin Wiig & Annie Mumolo
Director: Paul Feig
Bridesmaids easily wins the underdog film of the year award. Some people didn’t think it would make a hundred bucks, much less a hundred million. But the character work in this female Hangover elevated it beyond your standard bodily function comedy, which it did, ironically, have plenty of. I just thought Kristin Wiig was perfect as this misguided naïve woman on the wrong side of thirty who was about to lose her best friend to marriage. Despite all of the juvenile desperate stunts she pulls to win her friend back, you still root for her. You still want her to succeed. And that’s the mark of a great character. Even the cliché inappropriate friend role was nailed by Melissa McCarthy, who had me rolling on the ground when she stole all the puppies. In a year with a lot of lame comedies, it was nice to watch one that actually made you give a shit.

T-4) X-Men: First Class
Writers: Ashley Miller & Zack Stentz and Jane Goldman & Matthew Vaughn (story by Sheldon Turner and Bryan Singer)
Director: Matthew Vaughn
It's confession time here on Scriptshadow. I'm not a big fan of the X-Men movies. So I was hardly looking forward to X-Men: First class. Sure, director Vaughn was trumpeting to anyone who would listen that he was doing something “different” with his super-hero film, but those claims are almost always lip service. So I ignored the film until a bored Tuesday evening, when I reluctantly clicked “Rent” on my Itunes. The next thing I knew, my whole world had changed. Okay, that may be overstating it, but what a kick ass movie (no pun intended)! The character development in this film puts all other super hero movies to shame. Michael Fassbender and James McAvoy are mesmerizing as friends Charles Xavier and Magneto. Magneto’s inner battle between good and evil was pitch perfect. The training sequences, because they were anchored in that friendship (and not just about special effects), were the best I’ve ever seen in a super-hero film. It almost didn’t seem like a super hero movie. It was more about people. I can’t NOT celebrate that on a screenwriting site. Thank you Vaughn and Goldman for this totally unexpected treat!

3) Hanna
Writers: Seth Lochhead and David Farr
Director: Joe Wright
So everybody asks me, are there any examples of bad scripts that became good movies? Take a look at my old script review of Hanna. I thought that script kinda blew. At the heart of the problem was a plot that didn't make sense. A father trains his daughter to become a perfect warrior then sends her out into the world to meet him later on? Ummmmm, why not just go there together???? On top of this, the script was boring. Hanna was stuck in these weird caves for like 30 pages doing nothing. The only reason I watched this is because I like Joe Wright as a director. And about 15 minutes in, I was ready to turn it off. But then something happened. There was this unexpected kookiness to the story that was never hinted at in the script. A fairytale quality began to emerge. The world was exaggerated in the most unexpected and intriguing ways. But the key change was eliminating all those damn lags in the story. Instead of locking our heroine down in those caves for an eternity, writers Lochhead and Farr kept Hanna on the move throughout, which gave the movie a momentum the script lacked. Wright and his writers actually made a bunch of interesting choices, the most surprising of which may have been the 14-year-old lesbian friendship/relationship that they managed to somehow not make sleazy. Then of course Saoirse Ronan is fucking amazing. She’s right up there with Elle Fanning in that league of dynamite young actresses. This movie was just so much wilder than I expected it to be. What a surprise.

2) The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo
Writer: Steve Zallian
Director: David Fincher
I read the book, which I thought was amazing. I saw the Swedish film, which I thought was underwhelming. So I didn’t know what to expect from this. And that bizarre opening title sequence didn’t help. What the hell drug was Fincher on when he made that? I suppose it wasn’t as bad as the Mission Impossible title sequence, which inexplicably gave the entire movie away before it even started. Worst choice ever? Anyway, back to Dragon Tattoo. This film was fucking AWESOME! Rooney Mara kicked posterior as the girl. If the make-up and costume directors of this film don’t win Oscars for what they did to her, it will be a crime. Every frame of this movie was perfect. Fincher’s unflinching directing was as good as it’s ever been. It seems like his entire career was merely a set of practice drills preparing for this franchise. The big feat for Fincher here, though, was capturing the relationship between Lisbeth and Blomkvist. It’s no secret that Fincher sucks with male-female relationships in his films, but he nailed this one. I felt Lisbeth’s pain in the end when (spoiler) she saw Blomkvist walk off with Erika. Young Fincher couldn’t have handled that. And thank you Steve Zallian for changing that way-too-drawn-out ending!

1) Drive
Writer: Hossein Amini (book by James Sallis)
Director: Nicholas Winding Refn
Any surprises here? I not only loved the original script, but I loved the pared down 30 pages less version they used for the movie. I can't think of any situation where they cut out that much of an already great screenplay and didn’t lose anything. But while the writing here is awesome, the real star is the director, Nicholas Winding Refn. He's able to capture a mood up on screen that so few directors can. All you need to watch is the opening getaway sequence to know what I'm talking about. Instead of the typical back-and-forth jokey exchanges you see from antsy directors who fear even the slightest hint of silence onscreen, Refn plays it quiet, allowing the heart thumping soundtrack along with your own heart thumping to do the work for him. Ryan Gosling was amazing as Driver. The cinematography was outstanding. The soundtrack was an instant classic. The directing was first rate. This movie left the biggest impression on me all year so it’s no shock it’s number 1. I still bust out the soundtrack when I’m driving around in the city, pretending I’m Driver, preparing for a getaway. That may make me dorky but that’s what a great film will do to you!