I’m speaking at the monthly meeting of this group on Monday, Sept. 13th, 7:30 PM at 20th Century Fox.  They are a group of screenwriters who meet each month for in-depth discussion of a screenplay for a new movie (which everyone has read prior to the meeting), led by a guest industry professional.  This month, it’s the WALL STREET sequel.

Here’s some more info about the group:

StoryBoard Development Group is dedicated to the mastery of feature film screenwriting and development skills.  The group was founded as an off-shoot of a UCLA Extension class in 1981 and has been operating continuously ever since.

Every month we discuss the screenplay for a feature film that is about to be released – except Springtime when we discuss one or two current Oscar nominated screenplays.  We focus on the craft of screenwriting and conduct a serious in-depth discussion with our members and guests who are writers, filmmakers and industry professionals who have an understanding of established screenwriting structure and principles.  Scripts are scheduled so the finished film can be seen on screen soon afterward.

Each month a different guest moderator leads our discussion.  Our guest moderators are among the best teachers, authors, consultants and professionals in the business.  A StoryBoard membership offers an opportunity to meet them individually and to experience a variety of analytical styles and approaches to screenwriting.

We meet on the 20th Century Fox studio lot on the second Monday of every month.  Members receive a copy of the screenplay prior to the meeting and come prepared for a serious discussion.  Meetings start at 7:30 pm and usually run until about 9:30/10:00PM – sometimes later on occasions when more time is required.

The cost of membership for a six-month period is $210.  One-time guests are welcome to attend a meeting for $35.  A copy of the screenplay to be discussed, along with sandwiches, snacks & beverages on the night of the meeting, are all included in the cost.  At the monthly meeting, members can pick up the screenplay for the next month.  If you are a member and should happen to miss the meeting we will mail the screenplay to you.

Prospective members should be actively involved in screenwriting and/or filmmaking, and be familiar with established screenwriting principles and structure.

Members having a screenplay they have written, or having a project to which they are attached, who would like to participate in a development workshop where other members discuss your screenplay, are welcome to submit a screenplay for consideration.  Once the project is accepted, we’ll schedule a development workshop for a date sometime other than our regular meetings.

Please contact me if you are interested in becoming a member, would like to attend a meeting, or have any questions.  I look forward to hearing from you.

Scott Burnell

Chairman

StoryBoard Development Group

1761 S. Marvin Avenue

Los Angeles, CA  90019-5122

323 205 0773

sburnell@earthlink.net please include “StoryBoard” in the subject line of emails.

Join Erik Bork at the monthly meeting of StoryBoard Development Group at 7:30 PM Monday, Sep 13 on the lot at 20^th Century Fox Studios as he leads an in-depth discussion of the screenplay Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps.  The group, founded in 1981, is dedicated to the mastery of screenwriting and feature film development skills.

Erik, a Golden Globe and Emmy Award winning writer, is a screenwriting consultant and coach who was rated “Cream of the Crop” by Creative Screenwriting in their “Best Analysts and Consultants” review in June 2010.

Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps, the sequel to the popular 1987 film Wall Street was directed by Oliver Stone, and is scheduled to be released on Friday, Sep 24.  It stars Michael Douglas and Charlie Sheen, who reprise their original 1987 roles along with Shia LaBoeuf, Carey Mulligan, Josh Brolin and Susan Sarandon.

Pre-registration ($35) and reading the script ahead of time are required.  For further information contact Scott Burnell directly at 323 205 0773 or at sburnell@earthlink.net.

If you’re in Los Angeles’ South Bay, you  might be interested in this group which meets in Manhattan Beach.  I am the guest speaker at their monthly meeting on Wednesday, September 8 at 7:00 PM.  For more info, see http://www.southbayfilmmakers.org/calendar/13952592/?from=list&offset=0

THIS JUST IN… Scriptwriters Network has postponed their TV Staff Writers Workshop scheduled for Saturday, August 21 (I am one of the professional writers slated to lead it, when they reschedule).  Instead, they’ve  invited me to do my own workshop on “Creating Series Ideas for TV” that morning, at CBS Radford Studios in Studio City.

It’s free to their members, and $15.00 for all others…  Here’s the link, and you can e-mail me for more detailed info…

I’ll be speaking on at 10 AM Saturday August 7, at the monthly meeting of the Alameda Writers Group, in Glendale, CA.  See this link for details…

To me, this is a great example of taking appealing source material that doesn’t specifically meet the usual story structure guidelines that books like SAVE THE CAT talk about, and adapting it aggressively to create a story that does.  (Spoiler Alert if you read beyond this point!)

I saw a quote from Tim Burton, saying about prior versions, “It was always a girl wandering around from one crazy character to another, and I never really felt any real emotional connection.”  And then an interview with the screenwriter Linda Woolverton on the WGA site here, which discusses how the story is really conceived as a kind of sequel to the original “Alice” and “Through the Looking Glass” books, where an older Alice goes back to Wonderland and has an adventure that feels much more like a movie story with the requisite structural shape.

In watching the movie, without knowing any of this, and having a vague recollection of the books as episodic and purposefully nonsensical, I was definitely impressed that somehow a clear story problem and goal had been added that gave the narrative drive.  Actually, two story problems, both of which were compelling and entertaining to me: (1) Alice’s pending marriage proposal from a man she doesn’t love, and being trapped in a world that stifles her creative spirit and seems to offer no escape, and (2) the goal in Wonderland of slaying the Jabberwock and restoring the white queen to power – something only Alice, apparently, can do.

I tried to work out what some of the “Save the Cat” beat sheet beats were, while watching.  Though further study (or your comments) might change my mind, here is what I came up with:

There’s a very engaging SETUP that gets us caring about Alice, whose father has died and who lives in a world she doesn’t connect to, and seems to be trapped in.  Although it reveals information about her, notice that it is problem, problem, problem from the very first pages.  If there’s one thing that tends to be the main advice I give writers (and myself) about their plotting, it’s “More problems!”  I think this script is a good example of constant conflicts and issues to be solved, that don’t fully get solved until the end.  Instead of wandering off into flights of fantasy spectacle (as I feared it would) without any real story, it kept the tension tight throughout, and stuck to the problems.

I think the CATALYST is the news that she’s going to be proposed to – which takes her generalized discomfort with the world she lives in to a much bigger and more pressing and specific place, as good catalysts tend to do.  It’s followed by all sorts of DEBATE, first about what to do about a variety of related issues (including whether to tell her sister about her husband’s cheating kiss), and then, once she’s entered “Underland,” the debate about whether she’s the right Alice, whether this is all a dream, and where to go and what to do.

Although this “bizarro world” is clearly the stuff of BREAK INTO ACT TWO from the very beginning of her time there, I would say the debate section hasn’t ended, and Act Two hasn’t started, until she’s come to realize this isn’t a dream, and we come to feel that she’s going to stay here and carry out a mission of some sort.  I see it as a rather soft break, not marked by one specific event or moment, but a clear change in direction from “figuring out what’s going on here” to “accept the challenge given me in this new world.”

That challenge, to restore the white queen to power, plays out as the main problem of the movie, but I kind of see it as the “B STORY.”  This is due to the fact that what I, as a viewer, most cared about (thanks to the Setup and Catalyst) was what she’s going to do when she gets back to her normal life, as I assume she will, by the end.  How is this experience going to affect and change her and allow her to face her “home life” successfully?  As always with the B Story, it has its own beats, its own beginning, middle and end, that ultimately dovetail with the A Story.  In this movie, though, it is more developed and central to the story than they normally are, because in a sense, the A Story is paused.  I know one could argue that her goal in Underland is really the A Story, but this is how I experienced it.  I don’t know that there’s one right answer.

For me, the second half of the movie was weaker than the first, because although the FUN AND GAMES led to something of a MIDPOINT and BAD GUYS CLOSING IN in the second act, the ALL IS LOST was a little weak, for me.  It felt like the hatter’s pending execution was the closest thing to that, but it didn’t take things to a DARK NIGHT OF THE SOUL moment, in my mind – it was kind of solved quickly, and without a sense that Alice is out of options and can now never win.  As a result, the extended finale, though it fit with the usual requirements, felt a little underwhelming to me, emotionally.  I didn’t feel Alice had quite been forced to grow and change in some clear and difficult way in order to rise to this occasion, and I wasn’t too convinced about what that change was that allowed her to go back to her home life, and very quickly state her rebellion against others’ plans for her.  This seemed a bit sketchy to me, too quickly, easily, and patly resolved, and not so “earned” by what had happened.

I definitely like the message of the movie, and found it funny and inventive and visually captivating, and I would recommend it.  At the same time, it wasn’t hugely emotionally satisfying in the end, to me.  I think part of what’s missing is what Dramatica would call an Impact Character – with whom the Main Character forms a passsionate relationship, where the “right approach” is debated until finally, in the end, someone changes.  The relationship with the Hatter, for me, didn’t quite rise to that level, dramatically – because there was not that clear conflict about what to do and how to be, on which Alice’s growth and change could be hung.

In my coaching and consulting I help a lot of writers with original series ideas: evaluating concepts, reading pilots, and sharing my knowledge from the work I’ve done developing, pitching and selling series ideas  - which has given me a lot of insight into what agents and managers, production companies, studios, and most importantly networks look for.

I also read a fair amount of spec scripts for existing shows – the other tried and true method for breaking in to T.V. writing.  Today I came across a publication on the WGA website that I’d read a few years ago, and realize it’s full of good insider information for aspiring T.V. writers who may not be aware of its existence.

So I decided to link to it here.  It’s called “Writing for Episodic TV: From Freelance to Showrunner.”   It’s not so much about creating your own show, but writing for other people’s series, and working your way up the staffing ladder.

The Guild’s site has a lot of other useful tools, information and interviews in its section on “The Craft.”

I also recommend getting their magazine “Written By,” which has great interviews and advice on both film and television writing, from a professional perspective.  (Members receive it automatically, but anyone can subscribe.)

I guess I’ve become a fan of acronyms.

First, it was “CURE”: what I think we as writers should aim for with every concept, every story, ever scene — that it be Compelling, Unique, Real, and Entertaining.  (I posted about this here.)

Now it’s “POP”: the three qualities I think we all need to develop and practice to move forward as writers.  I blogged about this under the heading “Talent is Overrated,” and I want to go into it a bit further – because I think a lack of one or more of these is the only thing that can truly get in our way.

Of course it starts with Passion.  We have ideas we like and want to explore, which we turn into a piece of writing that we’re enthusiastic about.  That part is usually easy, at least in the beginning.

Then you show it to people.  You’re Open to feedback.  But they never love it the way we hoped they would.  They always have notes.  They often don’t get it.  They didn’t find it Compelling, Unique, Real and or Entertaining.

Then what?  That’s when we as writers are at risk of losing one, two, or all three of these key practices – which are more important than talent, more important than connections, more important than ANYTHING ELSE.

We lose our Passion.  Our enthusiasm is gone.  We don’t see the point.  We don’t believe in our ideas anymore.  Or we can’t get excited about the process, with all the disappointment it seems to contain.  (Think you’re alone in this?  Every good writer including top professionals go through it.  We all get beat up by others’ reaction to our stuff, and we’re all at risk of losing our passion.)

Sometimes, we close off that Openness to others’ feedback – to really listen and hear what they have to say.  I’m not saying “others” are always right, and we should follow their vision above our own.  Not at all.  But I am saying that showing our work to others – especially the right kind of “others” who know what they are talking about and are honest with us – is an essential part of moving forward.  So is understanding that there’s always going to be this cycle of enthusiasm, feedback, and then rethinking and rewriting – at every stage of the process as a screenwriter.  If we are defensive, or closed off, and don’t seek that input from the world, we will not move forward.

It’s unfortunate – it even seems unfair, because we often think we just want to be DONE with a piece of writing, and to have others receive it as GOOD, and hopefully praise us, and give us money.  It’s human nature.  It’s annoying to be told you didn’t hit the mark somehow, even devastating – an outrage – and it means we have to do more work.

That’s where the Persistence comes in.  Perhaps the most important practice of all.  To keep going, despite how frustrating this process can be.  Of course, it’s only really frustrating inasmuch as we resist it, and expect or want it to be different from how it is.  But we all do it.  We want to sell our work and have it succeed.  We don’t want to be told it’s not sellable, in its current form.  So what do we do, when that happens, and it happens over and over again?

Do we get down on ourselves, and our abilities?  Do we decide we’ll never get there?  Do we lose our passion, and close off?

I like what Akiva Goldsman, Oscar-winning screenwriter of A BEAUTIFUL MIND said at a WGA rally at the beginning of the last strike, in November 2007.  I’ve quoted bits of this before, but here’s a longer version:

“I was the worst writer in my seventh grade class.  And when I went to college, I was the worst writer in my college class.  But each time someone told me to stop writing, I never stopped.  When I wanted to write a thesis in college and do it as a novel, my faculty advisor told me I have to stop writing.  He said, You’re not very good.  I didn’t stop.  When I went to graduate school, and tried to get a degree in creative writing, they told me to stop, because they said that I wasn’t that good, and I didn’t stop writing.  And now, I’m just the last one standing of everyone I knew who is still writing.”

Is it really that simple?  Obviously he had passion and continued to pursue it.  He kept showing his work to others, even as their feedback seemed to be beating him down.  (And he continues to do so to this day.  And trust me, he gets as many notes as anyone else.)  And he keeps at it.

My point is that the process is basically the same for all of us.  And the pitfalls are the same.  It’s just a question of how we respond.  I have to remind myself of this all the time.  It’s about continuing to stay with something I believe in until it reaches that level where it can positively impact others in a real way.

Of course, sometimes the passion truly isn’t there.  I’m not saying you have to push through and try to force things.  But if you can get past the disappointment and discouragement, and find that writing (or a particular project) is something you really do have underlying Passion for, then maybe it will be helpful to keep this “POP” concept in mind, and keep going…

For those of you who use the Blake Snyder Beat Sheet (which I highly recommend, and use when I consult with writers), I recently came across an archived blog post from Blake himself, where he goes into greater detail on how he thinks the “Finale” section (that huge chunk of Act 3 that decides the ultimate outcome of the story) works.  He breaks it down into five steps, using a “rescue the princess from the castle” metaphor, which is not to be taken literally – whatever the main problem of the script is that we’re waiting to see resolved, here is where the main character has to summon everything they have and face their biggest challenge yet, putting the “new idea” of Act 3 into practice – and it’s usually where their ultimate change (or decision to remain “steadfast,” if you understand Dramatica lingo) finally happens, which is a key part in deciding the ultimate outcome.

As usual, Blake’s style is breezy, funny, and a quick read.  Check it out:

http://www.blakesnyder.com/2007/12/17/the-five-step-finale/

(It’s also included in the third book, SAVE THE CAT STRIKES BACK.)

I loved the book, as well as Michael Lewis’ other book MONEYBALL, and was surprised and interested to see that a movie version had been made.  It’s a good example of what is needed to turn a true story, no matter how compelling, into a “story story” that will emotionally engage an audience.  Though everything in the movie is mentioned at some point in the book, I would not have imagined the specifics of the movie from having read the book, especially some of the structural choices.  I think they did an amazing job.  I highly recommend reading the book and comparing the two, especially if you’ve got a “true story” you’re working on.  If you read on before doing so, I’m alerting you right now that there will be SPOILERS in this post…

The book opens with a whole lot on the history of the Offensive Left Tackle in the NFL, why it’s now so important and highly paid.  (Hint: it has something to do with Lawrence Taylor, explaining Sandra Bullock’s last line in the movie — which was a big “huh?” for me, since none of this material was present in the movie.)  The book talks a lot about Michael Oher’s physical freakishness, in that he has the incredibly rare (and thus valuable) combination of size and QUICKNESS that is most valued in the left tackle (who protects a right-handed quarterback’s “blind side”).  This also wasn’t even really mentioned in the movie.

Instead, they focused, I think quite effectively, on Sandra Bullock’s character, and made it her story.  It’s one of those movies with two central characters who might seem equal in emphasis (like many romantic comedies).  But ask yourself this question: “Is it more giving us the experience of being this woman who takes in this boy, or the experience of this boy who gets taken in by this woman?”  I think the answer is clear — she’s the main character.

Michael, in Dramatica terms, is the Impact Character.  This is a great illustration of the importance of this character (and relationship with the Main Character) at the center of compelling stories – including true ones.  The book presented a great Overall Story about Michael’s arc, but you wouldn’t have necessarily seen this way of telling the story from the book – with her as the MC and him as the IC.  And there are certainly other ways you could do it.  But for my money (and that of the huge audience that has supported this movie and got her such recognition), this choice really worked.

So if the Main and Impact character both influence each other, and one makes a big change at the end, and the other stays steadfast (regarding their key approach to life that the story is about), how did it work in this movie?  My answer is this: Michael, the impact character, changes – in that he finally fully trusts and relaxes into the sincere love of a family.  Sandra’s character, pressed to evaluate her own motives and goodness at the All is Lost moment, ultimately is seen to remain steadfast in her path, and the rightness of that path is affirmed.

Michael has great impact on her throughout, and she gains much from this relationship, but her basic motives and approach are only reaffirmed in the end.  It’s a lot like the Jerry Maguire-Rod Tidwell relationship I often talk about – it’s deeply moving when this character she has impacted makes some sort of change that she has caused, and helps her see that her initial approach that she has stuck with, through thick and thin and even necessity, has worked.

I was especially intrigued by the way this movie handled the climax.  When Michael was being courted by colleges and working with Kathy Bates, my attention waned a bit, because it didn’t feel like much of a “Bad Guys Close In” section (getting his grade point average up to qualify for a scholarship did not feel like a big or believable enough threat in the scheme of things)  Knowing the true story of his success, I began to worry that they weren’t going to have an “All is Lost” moment (like SAVE THE CAT talks about).  But boy, did they find one!

The issue of the NCAA questioning the family’s motives, and causing Michael to question them, is something I didn’t even remember from the book, and I’m guessing is something the movie GREATLY expanded upon in order to find an “All is Lost” moment.  And it was a great one, in my opinion, because it truly felt like the main question of this movie was now being answered with a resounding “No.”   (To me, that question was: “Will she make Michael a true and permanent part of this family in a way that changes his and everyone’s lives for the better?”  And because it really comes down to whether these two incomplete characters will end up “together,” or not, I’d classify it as what Blake Snyder would call a “Buddy Love” movie.)

This “All is Lost” sequence rocked both the Main and Impact Character to their core (but we feel it much more through the Main Character – we see things “through” her, but look “at” Michael).  And it led to a satisfying Act Three in which a new solution is found, so that the story problem is finally put to rest.

Finding a personal and emotionally compelling “take” on a true story is so important, in my opinion, to making it work for an audience.  I think “The Blind Side” is a great example of how to do that…

Longtime Dramatica expert and contributor to their newsletter, Jim Hull, has been quoting me on his excellent blog about story with a Dramatica slant, which I highly recommend!