Writing On Spec

But I Thought I Was Unique?

2011-01-20T00:35:00.003-05:00

So I'm listening to Sam and Jim's podcast (yeah, it's really old) and they were talking about how what Hollywood wants is the same but different and how that different piece is your unique point of view.

I've heard it and read it a million times. There isn't any new stories (and there aren't) it's the new *unique* slant that you put on it that makes it fresh. It's what we're all told Hollywood is looking for and we just take it and run with it. Instead, we should be asking ourselves exactly what does that mean?

Unique means what? Let's see what dictionary.com has to say:

–adjective
1. existing as the only one or as the sole example; single; solitary in type or characteristics: a unique copy of an ancient manuscript.
2. having no like or equal; unparalleled; incomparable: Bach was unique in his handling of counterpoint.
3. limited in occurrence to a given class, situation, or area: a species unique to Australia.
4. limited to a single outcome or result; without alternative possibilities: Certain types of problems have unique solutions.
5. not typical; unusual: She has a very unique smile.
–noun
6. the embodiment of unique characteristics; the only specimen of a given kind: The unique is also the improbable.

Well, let's really think about what that word means *together* with what it is we're trying to achieve as storytellers.

As a storyteller you are trying to engage mass audiences. The most effective stories do what? Anybody? Right - they make the audience feel like they have something in common with the main character. A bond. Something that's (is it coming to you yet?) - something that's definitely not unique.

While I'm sure there are exceptions all over the place, I believe this sort of language stems from people that do not understand writing and are reaching for words to communicate what they want - and to try and verbalize what it is they believe is missing in what they're reading.

What Hollywood sees is a lot of copying of films that have already been created. People tap into the universal consciousness and write the first thing that comes into their heads and it just rings bells for anybody who reads it. Not knowing what's at fault, you get vague feedback that doesn't really explain the problems with the writing.

Then take these same people and they pass onto the folks sending them material that they want something the same but different. Teachers try and verbalize what that means and come to terms with the only thing that's really different from story to story and that's the order of the words put on the page. It's the writer's own unique habit of the order of their words. We're all subject to the rules of grammar, but we have our idiosyncrasies of speech and this along with the well crafted story are what make stories different from one another.

What they are is very clear about just how un-unique we all are from one another when it all boils down to it. The most compelling story you can write is one that resonates with the most people.

Please don't cry...no, really. Don't.

2010-11-08T00:06:00.002-05:00

So reading through another script and a character is chopping veggies and crying at the sink. What's wrong with this scene is that I have no emotional tie to the action in the scene. I didn't know the deceased (why the person is crying), there is no association to the chore of chopping veggies and I've just met this new character.

This is wasted writing because what you want is for the reader to cry, not the characters. The most powerful scenes you will find are those where the character is the last to cry and the audience is the first. However, for this to happen you have to set it up.

A couple quick examples that stick out for me. Return to Me is a good example of a quick setup. Shows the couple as a really great pair. Soul mates kind of love - in sync, happy and loving life. A few scenes later and the husband's life has been shattered - a car accident and his wife is dead. You have the same location (the house) and their dog who is obviously looking for the wife - not expecting him home alone. Although we all know (if we think about it) that the dog would not react this way, we are manipulated because of what we know - we're leaping ahead in the story because we're putting ourselves there. So, the dog misses her, his world is shattered, he's been in shock and now he's starting to come to terms with what's happened. At this point, the audience is probably already in tears (yeah, it's the dog without a doubt). It's at this point that he can break down - after the audience should have.

This scene works because it's been setup clearly and because the audience has the necessary knowledge the understand the ramifications and to feel for the characters. It's a great story that can do this in less than 10 pages.

The second example is from a television show - Buffy The Vampire Slayer. It's a long, long setup - years really - but the payoff has a very human touch point. The ill fated lovers (Buffy & Angel) have decided to be together. Screw the rest of the world, they'll just be in love. Cut to Angel finding out that if they do that, not only will Buffy die, but the world will go to Hell. Their love is just not meant to be. Buffy knows nothing about this - hint: this is the writers letting the audience in on the big secret before the character (Buffy). The other shoe that is about to drop is when he has to tell her that they have to resume their old lives and cannot be together. The kicker is that he doesn't tell her until their moment is up. One minute until everything returns to normal and their perfect world turns to crap again.

Here is where the audience feels it before the character. They know what's coming - they know there's only a minute left, they know he has to tell her - the whole scene rests on the actor's not crying before us. She does a great job as she's told that fate has screwed them both and she only has one minute left. What this says to the audience is "how would you feel if your perfect world was about to end in one minute? How would you feel?"

Like the first example, it plays well, not only because of the actors but because of the setup given to the audience before the moment takes place.

Thus, next time you think a character needs to cry, think about if your audience will be crying before you or after you. If it's afterward, cut it and try again or look for where and how you need to set the story events up to have the audience ahead of you.

How Come Fish Travel in Schools, But They're Not Learning?

2009-10-29T00:47:00.007-04:00

I was talking with friends tonight about writers and one of them brought up a valid point: why don't some writer's learn? I mean, in the cases where you're a writer lucky enough to have a group of earnest screenwriters critique your work, why do you assume they're out to attack you and not help you improve? Why would you come back if you thought that way?

All too often a writer puts some thing important to them on paper and then it becomes magically sacred. Lord knows how, we ALL know the first draft of anything is shit, right? Hemingway. Really, how can you go wrong with advice from somebody like him? But sure enough, somebody serves up 30 pages of dung and then expects the group to regale their power of the English language and their story prowess.

For the most part, writer's groups are made up of non-published writers. You have a few that are professional writing groups, but when it comes to Screenwriting, there just are more people interested in the art than succeeding at it. Thus, odds are, you're not writing stuff that's good enough to sell... yet. Maybe you will later, but right now, you're learning. You have to put in your time to learn the craft. If you belong to a writer's group, it's a great start. Now, to take advantage of that, actually listen to what people have to say about your work. Much of what you hear will be "what if you...?" While it's all probably earnest and well meaning, much of it is only their take on the material. What you need to pay attention to is when glaring stuff gets repeated, "the dialogue is too long and on the nose", "I don't know what your story is about... and I'm at page 20". Stuff like that needs to make an impression on you.

With that kind of honest information, you can get to work and look at story construction. What kind of beats do you need to hit? And when? Do all of us fellow writer's group members a favor and learn from your critique. We take the time to read your work and to comment on it, so the least you can do is not do the same crap over and over again. I don't care if I see the same work again, but I really don't want to see script after script with long, on the nose, unwieldy dialogue.

And what is it about new screenwriters that they don't read? I'll admit, I'm not an uber film buff. I love film and writing, I love the written word and the power it holds, but I don't know all the old writers and what their impacts have been on the field of screenwriting. I can appreciate those that do, but it's not for me. What we all should do though is look at the nuts and bolts of the art/craft we've chosen. Reading scripts by established writers is, bar none, the best way to get a feel for writing a script. You learn the way dialogue sounds. You learn what a page should look like with dialogue and narration. You get an idea of how fast connections need to be made between the writer and the reader. And all it takes is a little time to read a script.

I can remember not so many years ago when you could only get a script by photo copying it, and that meant you had to get your hands on an actual copy. These days there are script sites that have hundreds of scripts, formatted correctly, for you to download and read or even print and read.

So many people are trying to figure out ways to get around the reader. The person they envision as their guardian to the promised land. Well, you should put yourselves in the shoes of said reader. Go ahead and read 15 scripts in a week (not a day or a weekend like they do). I'll even say make it easier and read scripts of produced movies. It's even better if you haven't seen the film. Then you can go out afterward and rent the movie and compare the script you read to the final product. Is it any different?

The ultimate challenge is to find yourself one of these script sites for new writers that publishes their full script or one that offers you a critique for you critiquing another script. The ultimate in punishment is to have to read through an entire crappy script. A script where some writer has probably heard all the comments you will scream to yourself as you read, yet, for some reason, is just not learning.

So do us all a favor, from fellow writer's group member, to reader, to producer and anybody involved in the industry or love of Screenwriting. When you get the same comments from multiple people, pay attention and learn. Change what you're doing and get better. Not only can it make you a better writer, but it will help you compete with your real ultimate enemy - the kid with natural story telling talent and nothing but free time :)

Stupid Writers

2009-04-05T22:29:00.002-04:00

Wow... we sure are a dumb lot. How on earth could we have predicted Netflix & Blockbuster streaming stuff over the internet. Hulu now airing re-broadcasts of multiple shows and some studios even signing exclusivity contracts to have them do it.

Then you have Joss Whedon & his internet smash Dr. Horrible.

Sheesh. Thank goodness the WGA stuck it out.

It All Comes Full Circle

2009-04-03T22:54:00.004-04:00

So, over at Unknown Screenwriter, I was feeling rather maudlin and posted "Why Write". To some degree, it's something I've been feeling for some time. Just about everything has been done, probably done to death, and usually by a more talented individual than myself, so why write? If I'm trying to pass on some wisdom that I may have learned (perhaps something like Family Man - that says family and love is more important or more fulfilling than work), well (I thought) nobody's listening. I'm not trying to say that I'm a genius or overly wise, but some of the simple stuff you figure you should be able to pass on. However, I'm failing. I've failed to be surprised by the greed of corporations or the employees that work at the top. I've failed to be surprised by the seemingly idiotic decisions that are made from the top while people on the bottom just stare wide-eyed in stark amazement that the decision was made (because it's so ludicrous).

But I digress. Why write? Well, after watching Storytellers, it really did become apparent. For myself. As I thought about that, I recalled the long given advice from scores of writers that I'd read over the years. Write for yourself. That's the advice. Because, you see, if you can't please yourself, how can you expect to please anybody else? If it's boring you, good lord, you can be sure it's boring others. If it's a subject or story you are compelled or excited to tell, then it should be able to keep you inspired long enough to go through those long many drafts to get it into condition that somebody other than mom and dad can stand it.

I'm also coming to the conclusion that life is short. When you're gone, you may have a legacy, but it's rare that your legacy is one that lasts past your children. We have history, but that's not the same as art and very few of us are lucky enough to produce art that perseveres for over a decade, let alone a century or longer.

So when you write, be selfish - write for yourself, write those stories that put a smile on your face or a tear in your eye. Scare yourself. Surely there is somebody out there just like you thinking "if only somebody would write something that moves me". There's no time like the present. Don't wait. Before you realize it, time will be gone and instead of thinking "I wonder when I'll move out to Hollywood" you start thinking "I hope the rumors that Hollywood will buy a good story no matter how old the writer is are true".

Now go write!

Who Give's A Damn About the Writer Anyway?

2009-03-13T23:48:00.004-04:00

Well, I'll be damned (debatable). I posed the question over on Unk's forum "who is your favorite writer and why?" Wouldn't you know it. Only a couple responses and neither could list a favorite writer. Let this not be condemnation of them at all. I just find it interesting that they couldn't list one. Obviously, I have not debated if they notice the writers of the films they watch or anything else.

I may have mentioned before (certainly to my friends) that who makes a movie is integral to me in my decision to actually watch it. What better criteria for knowing if you might enjoy a film than checking to see who wrote and directed it? They are the major focal points of the work. The writer's original input and the director's interpretation of those words. It doesn't take long to see that directors often have a type or a certain type of story they direct mostly. Is a Gus Van Sant film different than a Michael Bay film? I think you'd be hard pressed to confuse the two. How about Shane Black vs Lawrence Kasden? Quentin Tarrantino vs Ron Bass? I can spot Aaron Sorkin at work a mile away.

I've been playing guitar for years and one of the most frequent things you hear from musicians is the influence of other musicians they either emulated or respected. I thought it was the same in the writing world - lord knows, I respect and admire quite a few writers. Not just any writer. While some are good, some are really good, some just really hit home for me. Either the theme, stories or just the order they choose to put their words on the page. It's all a conscious decision on their part and how can you not be drawn to those very choices if you are trying to do the same thing?

Is screenwriting so ill respected that it's thought of as something a monkey can do? Reading the beginning of Unforgiven is so easy. Reading the final court scene in A Few Good Men is riviting. Are writers not held in high esteem even by fellow writers? I can't believe it.

To those few out there that may be reading - let me know if you have a favorite writer and why?

Checking in...

2009-02-24T18:43:00.004-05:00

It's been awhile. Can't say that I haven't been shamed into writing due to Shawna's threat to remove all those that don't post regularly (over at www.shoutingintothewind.com). However, writing is writing and lately I've felt less like writing and more like doing something drastic. Thankfully, I've been able to submerge myself in copious amounts of old television shows until the mood has passed.

Basically, I'm one of the many who was forced to take a pay cut to keep my job, only to discover that our illustrious CEO has raked in somewhere upwards of $50 million over the last three years (so while I just lost the last 5 years of raises, he'll be fine). Now, I know the way it goes, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer - you need money to make money, the list goes on, but never do I feel that the poor and middle class have been as publicly defrocked as in the recent past. The media and information outlets have become so ubiquitous that you can swing a dead cat without stumbling across some form of media device that can spout the most current information available on whomever or whatever is going on in the world.

Thus when all this frustration bubbled up and I began ranting to my wife about economics, the workforce, CEO's and the like I was surprised at the words that sprang to mind. I'm mad as hell... and I'm not going to take it. Huh. It struck a chord immediately. This is going around again. I know Paddy was a gifted writer, but I don't for a minute think the emotions from that film were just made up. So you writers out there with more dedication (read less family matters) than me should take a hint from the times and talk about some frustration. 'Cause let me tell you, there is lots of frustration in this country right now. How is it that good, honest people are losing their houses? Can't feed their family? Good workers losing their jobs when executives are raping the companies? I heard on the news that the billions in taxes that saved the financial businesses are being used to help the wealthy avoid paying taxes (tax shelters abroad). There is an estimate that folks have avoided something like 100 billion in tax revenue.

Now don't get me wrong - I don't believe all the wealthy are bastards, but it does seem that those self-serving upstarts of the 80's are just killing our country and making it hard for everyone without a second thought to anybody else.

Stories about the little guy winning, about justice being served - heck, perhaps a remake of Falling Down? Only this time, he'll be getting away with it because we're tired of seeing the downtrodden guy get screwed. Who knows.

Maybe next time I'll have some specific writing advice, but for now, it's think about the people you're around every day, think about the people you see on the news and how they're feeling. Take the pulse of the people and see if you can figure out what they want to hear, then provide it.

Are You Sure?

2008-11-12T00:06:00.003-05:00

So, it's been so long since I last posted, I'm starting to get that guilty feeling I get when I haven't called my parents in too long. While I often think about posting, when I consider the absolute downpour of postings that Unk is posting over at the Unknown Screenwriter, I find little else to add to his encyclopedic tomb.

Well, in reading this months (or next months, depending on if you subscribe or not) Script magazine, I saw where Justin Theroux (writer or co-writer of Tropic Thunder) is being offered the writing job of Iron Man 2.

My first thought was, "wow, I wouldn't want to be responsible for that." Which quickly led me to think, "what kind of loser doesn't want Iron Man 2?" See, on one hand, it's a lot of responsibility. If it tanks, it's your fault (although, considering we are just writers, I guess there isn't really that much at risk). On the other, what an incredible opportunity! Justin has been acting for some time, but Tropic is his only screen credit for writing thus far.

Something I believe many budding screenwriters don't consider is the writing for hire market. While you may never sell your script, you might get offered writing assignments based of what others like about your writing (just one more of the many reasons you *must* appear to be professional on the page and any vocal or visual appearances).

The question you have to ask yourself is: "If I was offered a writing assignment to write a major subject, would I take it?" Think about your favorite movie and imagine having to write a sequel - or a prequel. Could you? or something you consider too big - another Indy or Star Wars script. The writers of the last X-Men movie were thrilled and scared of the prospect. Could they do the job and have it live up to fans expectations? There are times when you will be faced with what appears to be a tremendous opportunity. Where you are being plucked from the crowd and given the chance to prove yourself and your talents. At these times, I recommend you remember that outside of things like rocket science and brain surgery, most people can do most things. Have confidence in yourself and the talent that put you in that new position and go for it. For nothing can be worse than remembering that when given what you wanted, you never even tried.

Mentors

2008-05-17T14:02:00.003-04:00

men·tor
Pronunciation[men-tawr, -ter]
–noun
1. a wise and trusted counselor or teacher.
2. an influential senior sponsor or supporter.
–verb (used without object)
3. to act as a mentor: She spent years mentoring to junior employees.
–verb (used with object)
4. to act as a mentor to: The brash young executive did not wish to be mentored by anyone.

Are you a young aspiring screenwriter? You have the desire, you don't mind putting in your dues, you're not a jackass (this is really important) and you don't feel entitled to the big money (another important thing). Then what you need is a mentor.

The worst thing about being anything these days is that, by and large, you're on your own. You may have training, you may have talent, you may have contacts, but when the rubber hits the road, it's you, yourself and, well.... you.

Having a mentor allows you to lean on the wisdom of somebody who has already been there, done that. Or at the very least, somebody who knows the pitfalls that await you in your chosen field of work/play. Reading the above definition, you'll see it also says "...and trusted" which really is important. This is a person who is going to see your insecurities, your weaknesses and your really shitty work (on the way to being better). But their goal is not to finance you. Not to get a sale, not find a contact for you - they're work lies in helping you be better tomorrow than you are today. This means opening up at some point (not the first thing you do) and sharing who you are what what you really want.

Now. Unfortunately, you can't go down to Mentors-R-Us and pick one up. It's a shame. How many times have you heard "if I could be X age knowing what I know today!". Well, having a mentor is sort of like that - it allows you to benefit from (sometimes) an almost lifetime of experience and hard work of another. To me, it's like having a "career coach". While a parent can be a type of life coach (how to live your life well), navigating the paths of a career is full of moments of peril - those times when you should duck instead of dodge. And making the right choice is the difference between success and more years of toiling away (or even failure).

Well. If you're young, I'd find a writer you admire for their writing. I wouldn't worry if their material is the same - as long as you admire the writing - and write them a letter. See if they would be willing to mentor you. Now - the caveat here is you can't ask somebody to train you. This isn't a free workshop, this is more like your post graduate work. Once you have some chops, you seek somebody to help you be the best you can be.

How do you know if you are good enough? Well, if you get some sincere positive feedback, that's a good start. Once again - mom doesn't count - or dad. If you can get a brother or sister to acclaim your exalted status publicly, then you may have something. I'd like to give you a blueprint of what to write, but it's all a crap shoot and you're basically begging (politely) another person to give up some of their precious time (and after 40 time really does become precious) to help *you*. I have seen the positive effects of being a role model and I know others with a mentor (and, yes, I am jealous). I suggest write from the heart and explain how you believe they can help and what you both expect and can do in return (perhaps down the line).

One thing to make certain of before you go down this road - you are not seeking just some great tips and strategy. This is, hopefully, a lifelong bond you're attempting to form. Should you progress, then it's possible that your mentor will even share their work with you. If you're lucky, what you'll get is an incredible bond with a fellow writer. Maybe it's the estrogen in me talking, but I believe sharing a common dream with a fellow human is a life affirming experience.

Wonderful Times

2008-03-05T12:04:00.002-05:00

How great is it to be a screenwriter these days? Heck, any writer! Boy. The material. You just can't beat the possibilities for getting new material now. At no time in the past has news and information been more available to assault your every sense.

On the downside, I saw part of a show (before the power went out) where it's almost like Candid Camera. Thing is, it's not jokes we're playing on each other - it's a study of human behavior. "What Would You Do?" They comment on the popular teenage past time of "bum bashing" where bored teenagers will randomly wander the streets in a gang, find a bum and then proceed to beat the hell out of them. I know. WTF? That was my thought too. Saw it on a CSI episode and thought, man, that's pretty creative. Should've known it was ripped from the headlines. You can take any material like this and create a compelling character. I'm here to tell you, your character is a bum, a basher or somebody who stops the basher, you have an instant POV and an instant reaction from your audience.

On the positive side, I ran across an artist's website (Anna Nalick). She's not the first artist to blog or reveal information about themselves - just the first I've read. Anyhoo... she goes on to reveal some personal moments about her life, what's going on and to share what she's doing regarding her music. How fantastic - and how dangerous these days. On one hand, they are enabling fans to get closer than ever - to communicate directly with them. All the old farts can think back to their favorite artists and remember how much communication they had with them... yeah. An album (that's an old timey vinyl "cd" for you young 'uns). It's allowing fans to share how much the art means to the them with the artist. And this is from all over the world!

Boy, how exciting. I say dangerous just because of the possibility of exploiting the information or the relationship, but here's hoping that's not happening.

From a writer's perspective, you can now get some personal information about artists in different Arts. See how they live and be able to form characters better. Be able to set stories in those environments better. For writers of different ages than the artists, you can get a unique insight into the older or younger personalities. When I read some of these young artist blogs, I can't help but see just how optimistic their perspectives are. When I think back a few years, I can remember hearing that Hollywood is a "young" town. They don't want older writers. Well, I know there are plenty of "older" writers out there, but I believe that this possibly came from the thought that older writers are out of touch with what young folks want to see at the movies. To some degree, it may be true.

While I remember Porky's fondly, it's not the type of film that I would find easy to write -- or more accurately, even want to write. At my age (not too old, but too old for the likes of Anna Nalick) I've got more issues that getting laid, getting drunk or will I graduate high school. As we all get older, we have to deal with new things in our lives. It might be something like - the first quarter - getting a good education and getting a good job. Second quarter - finding a spouse and getting married. Third quarter - raising children and *keeping* your job from being outsourced or given to people in their 1st quarter. And lastly, 4th quarter - trying to keep upright.

Those new concerns make for completely different stories, so if you're in one quarter, but your characters are in another quarter, perhaps you can help yourself by taking a peek at the internet and blogs of folks in other corners of their lives. It's so easy to share, and frankly, so many people are willing to share - hell, *wanting desperately* to share - to feel a part of something and connect with somebody, that it's well worth the time to invest in a little browsing on the internet.

Reach Out

2008-02-05T01:02:00.002-05:00

No, I'm not talking about the Cheap Trick song from the Heavy Metal soundtrack, I'm talking about the act of writers reaching out to their fellow writers for help. Writing is often pictured and spoken of as a solitary art. Hours, days, months toiling away plastered to a chair writing or typing away as we hammer out our story beats. Well, sometimes we get stuck. Get, not blocked, but just unsure of where we're going with a story. It's at this point that a writer's best friend can be another writer. Just a conversation to elicit some intelligent thoughts and fresh ideas into the thought process can make a huge splash in the creative pool of the original writer.

For me, I've been fortunate to belong to a group of writers for many years. Writers who will willingly give their time to read or listen to some of your thoughts and offer some suggestions. All it takes is a willingness to put your ideas out there and not be judgemental when you hear what's coming back. Be stimulating...if the place they're going is left field, see if you can't provide more information to them to either steer the idea back into your ballpark or, and this can be marvelous, provide enough information so they can steer your story into their ballpark! Sometimes what you thought was the right idea needs to be adjusted or tweaked into something new and different.

For me, one of the easiest things, and let's face it, most fun things, is to take a story or a script that doesn't have a ton of things wrong with it and punch it up. Offer suggestions that might just heighten the various situations a little. Sometimes people are so close to a story, they just can't see the whole thing and looking from a fresh perspective is all that is needed to lay out the whole outline. Then the writer can go back and write with a solid destination.

Now. This kind of fun is not to be confused with critique. Rewriting somebody's story should be left to them or at the very least to a request to assist with the rewriting. I once submitted a horror story and instead of getting some honest comments, I was told how I should change all the scenes in my first act to make it a comedy instead. Had I said, "this isn't working, does anybody have any suggestions?" that would have been expected, but in a critique format, you say what you believe will make the writer's current story stronger.

So make sure that you're not the only writer that you know and talk with on a regular basis. Writing is tough and there's no reason why we can't make things a little more encouraging by allowing somebody to refresh us with some stimulating thoughts.

Support the Writer's Strike

2008-01-10T12:57:00.000-05:00

It's frustrating these days how selfish and greedy we can be as a nation and as individuals. I was loitering about on TV.com checking out to see which of my shows were being canceled (4400 was the biggie so far) and the comments just astounded me. People are coming down on the writers because their shows aren't on the air. As if this is all the fault of the writers.

I'm dumbfounded that people are able to get up and go to work everyday and not be able to relate to the writers and their reason for striking.

If you've paid any attention to the strike information, you'll see there are actors and directors supporting the strike as well. Why? Well, aside from their belief that it's the right thing to do, their contracts with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP) have not expired yet, but will in the near future, and you can bet they want the same deal the writers are hoping to get. It's in their best interest to let the writers pay the big price here (in public opinion and view) so that when their contracts are reviewed, it's a smoother transaction.

If you read the AMPTP's website, they're taking it from the perspective of, "look what the writers are causing! All these people losing money and jobs and the fans don't get their tv shows. Just look! It's all the fault of the writers!" Well, if you look back a couple hundred years, you get the same perspective from King George in England when talking about our good ol' US of A.

I read one user who actually said, "and don't give me that old argument that without the writers there'd be no TV (or films) because you could say the same about actors and directors, too. Without them, they'd be no TV shows either. Hmmm... While in essence, it does take actors, directors and writers to make TV/film, I am sticking to the argument that without somebody to write the story, there is no reason for the others. While actors and directors (and producers) really do need somebody to actually write a story, writers don't really need actors and directors to gain an audience. Screenplays are read for pleasure all the time. In fact, we have something referred to as a "book" or "novel" that seems to have acquired some attention over the last couple thousand years.

Bottom line is the writers create the stories and, because of the Hollywood system, are required to sell their script to the studio in order to get it produced and made. Thus, they get paid once for their work. However, the AMPTP gets paid on multiple fronts throughout the life of the show/film. It's only fair that all the participants share in the profits. Now before some whack job goes off, we're talking about a small percentage for the writers (and probably actors directors, depending on the deal they strike when their contracts renew). All the writers are asking for is a small share - I don't even think it would qualify as a fair share, but hey, it's all they're asking for at this time.

Another person blasted, "well, if the AMPTP are the ones putting up all the money for the shows/films, why shouldn't they get all the profits?" Well. That'd be fine if the writers got paid a larger amount at the sale of the script, but the fact of the matter is that the AMPTP are protecting themselves by structuring the deal as it is. It allows them to pay the writers a small amount and only payoff more if the film/show does well. If it doesn't...no more. If they paid up front for the scripts, then they could lose money if the show/film didn't succeed as well as they'd hoped.

In the old days, writers could be hired by a studio and paid a salary. Everything they wrote was an assignment or on spec, but owned by the studio. These days, it's proven much cheaper to contract out to any writer they want, that way, they can hire/fire them at will, depending on their desires at the time. This has led to a sporadic work life for most writers. They are depending on the small percentages they get after a film sale to keep them afloat financially until the next time they sell something.

The public and critics cannot bitch about the quality of tv/film, then bitch that the writers are screwing them over when they're asking for fair wages. I don't know of anybody who would voluntarily give up wages for work. I know there are idiots willing to give work away for free when they have no financial or personal obligations, but that's not the same thing. When you need to feed your family and put a roof over their and your head, every penny counts and if it's your talent that is bringing in the bacon to the studio, you deserve a fair share.

This argument is closely related to the bitching argument you hear from jealous sports spectators complaining about the salaries of major athletes. These players who many times only get about 5-10 years for their career and then afterwards are physically disabled due to the heavy pounding they take during their career. While not all of them are practically disabled, they all don't make the huge salaries either. You won't see many with 20 years of playing service though. I bet I can find more CEO's bringing down multi-million dollar salaries for longer than athletes. Fact is, it was Jordan that filled the areas. It's T.O. (and the like) that fill the stadium, not the owners or the coaches - the players - and they deserve a piece of that huge financial pie.

Getting back to tv/film, take a look at what writers are paid in comparison to actors or directors, then come back and tell me that it's their fault. There has been 1 (one) ONE script I've ever seen sell for $4 million. Fifteen years ago Arnold was getting $15 million for a movie. I don't even look at the salaries of today's film stars. The cast from Friends was getting $1 million per episode. Think the writers were getting that an episode? While the cast had a lot to do with the success of the show, I believe somebody put those words in their mouths in the first place. This is not a chicken or the egg argument. The writers came first. No writers. No show. The actors could have been anybody and we'd have the same chance of success. And I do say "chance" of success. Nobody can guarantee anything and there's no telling if a different case would have changed anything.

If you want the full details, go and visit the WGA site and read for yourself. If you just don't have the time, just read this FAQ for the most asked questions and see that the writers are David, not Goliath in this fight. The AMPTP is doing all they can to smear the WGA and the writers in an attempt to punish them and maximize their profits at the expense of the creative talent in Hollywood.

Bitching about you TV shows not being on right now is like bitching about all the stores closing down as the Jews were taken off to concentration camps. Do us all a favor and think before you bitch.

Is all that old stuff just crap?

2008-01-06T23:24:00.001-05:00

So, I'm all cranked up, after Unk whipped me into a screenwriting frenzy, to write a new entry when I sit down and catch (unintentionally) a documentary (Captured on Film: The True Story of Marion Davies (2001) on Marion Davies. Watching bits and pieces of her performances led me to dig deeper into my reasons for not watching all the golden oldies. I've still never seen A Wonderful Life all the way through and have little interest in seeing many of the older films that have garnered so much acclaim (i.e. Citizen Kane).

I started thinking about what it was that turned me off some of these old films and came to the conclusion that I'm just not relating to many of them. Now, a lot of these films have universal themes, you say, so how can I not relate? Well... I think it's a little of me and a little of the times they were made. I was reading the current Script and they are talking to Robert Osbourne about the Oscars and their history. He mentions that Mrs. Miniver was a great film, but that to truly appreciate the film, you need to put yourself in their perspective. That is - we'd just entered the war and everybody was terrified we'd be invaded.

Over time, our values change as humans. It's why it's difficult to appreciate the finer, perhaps character defining moments of specifically the older films, foreign films and perhaps some of the newer independent films. Mainstream Hollywood caters to the largest common denominator, so odds are, if you're an average individual, you at least "get" the movie. Liking it may be another story, however. Yet, with these other films, you just may not "get" them. If you don't understand where the characters in a movie are coming from - what's driving them - it's hard to invest yourself in their plight. And if you're not emotionally invested in the characters, I guarantee you won't think much of the film.

Thinking back to the older films, what takes me out of them immediately is the society. While I understand that all films are not "real life", when you put in Narnia, you don't expect anything close to real life, however, when you toss in, say, The Seven Year Itch, which is based in our real world, you expect to relate. However, in the opening, we have a man sending his family off on vacation and staying home. Now, while I'm sure there are families like that, mine is not one, and I'm going to guess after seeing all the families on my vacation, most don't these days.

There are little things in the film that just remind you that this is not from your time - the attitude towards people or things, the jargon used at the time, the innocence of some of the characters. Rarely do you see an adult portrayed as possessing any innocence these days - even Nell was more savage than wide-eyed positivity. Our times today are defined by sarcasm, bittersweet, the unfairness of life instead of over the top romance or wackiness.

What does all this point to? That as writers, we need to be conscious of our audience and as an audience (or reader) we need to try and put ourselves in the time of the writing in order to immerse ourselves in the story. A good story is told from a universal perspective - we still fear, love, hate, strive to succeed, are jealous of the achievements of others. Find themes that mean something to you and then put characters people can relate to into those stories.

Science fiction has a difficult time connecting with people due to it's inherent fictionalization of just about everything, but one story set far, far away in another galaxy caught the attention of millions of people and is still popular today; Star Wars capitalized on universal themes and characters who, while we were unable to relate to the specific needs, we were able to relate to their story needs (falling in love, growing up to be successful, stopping the bad guy, learning new skills, finding your family).

The more universal your character needs, the better chance you have of connecting to your audience.

Please... At Least Make An Effort

2007-12-02T01:55:00.000-05:00

So I've been reading and writing scripts (mostly reading I have to admit) for the better part of 15 years now. Overall, the worst thing I've come across is the half-assed effort some people seem to put into a script. People wanting - hell, expecting, this writing to be good enough to earn hard cash. Maybe not immediately, but they believe this can all be theirs (since the last thing they saw on the silver screen just stunk).

These people come in with a format not even recognizable as a script. If, by some miracle, it is in script format, then there are orphan sluglines and Tarantino-esque diatribes (with none of the skill) and narration out of a Stephen King novel. Fifteen years ago, this wasn't hard to do. You really had to do some looking to get information. Books were scarce, there were about 5 sites on the internet, and about 60% fewer computers even on the internet. Scripts were obtainable only through the script stores and local film offices.

Now, though? You can't swing a dead cat without hitting a script. They're in film offices, all over the web, in book stores... all over the place. How can you *not* find a script when you want to learn to write one? To make matters even more pathetic, there is even *free* screenwriting software now. I'll admit that Page2Stage isn't the most full featured software, but compared to Notepad or Wordpad - hell, even Word or Wordperfect, it's a godsend.

The absolute total lack of professional effort astounds me. I know why readers are so ill tempered sometimes. If you had to read one of these full scripts, you'd want to torture the writer in some equally painful way, also. Even worse is to inflict one of these mental turds on a writer's group. Here, a group of your peers who will provide free feedback are being asked to just casually burn 1-2 hours on some drek a person didn't have the respect to even fully think out.

I know I waste a lot of my time on things I have no business doing. But it's my time and my life. Asking that of another should command some sense of pride in yourself and some respect for that other person's time. The following are *musts* if you submit your screenplay to somebody else:

1) You must have read at least 5 scripts written by professional writers.
2) You must write in standard screenplay format
3) You must have proofread your script at least once *after* you believe it's ready for submission
4) You will have no narrative passages of more than 5 lines.
5) You will have no more than 3 passages of dialog more than 4 lines
6) You will always have narration after an Int/Ext slugline
7) You will always use courier new font - 12 point
8) You will always have fewer than 10 speaking parts in 30 pages
9) You will use flashbacks as a last resort
10) You will not use a montage until you have written 3 scripts
11) Curse words are to be used only by characters, and not as commonly as vowels.

If at all possible:

1) Have the story be about somebody doing something that we can identify in 15 pages
2) Have your main character actually DO something. Not walk and talk for 30 pages.
3) Have some sort of jeopardy for the main character. It has to matter to them or it sure won't to us.

If you can do the above, your reader should at least talk to you again.

I haven't written for awhile now because I've just been thinking "how many times can you just repeat the same rules over and over?" I mean, nothing is really changing. But in light of the last four months and what I've come across. It would appear that a) somebody is always learning something new and b) some people are just hard headed and are not getting this the first 100 times.

Power to the writers. Go WGA.

So let it be said, so let it be done

2007-09-09T15:41:00.001-04:00

Just caught a preview of The Brave One with Jodie Foster and my rants about the average person's frustrations with crime came to mind. I believe I mentioned how the Death Wish type movies will be making a comeback and here we have a fine example. While obviously our perspectives have changed with regards to taking justice into our own hands, I can't help but feel this is a reflection of the times. That the majority of well behaved people are tired of criminals shaping our society.

We'll see if my thoughts are validated when the box office receipts come in and the reviews roll in.

I believe the remake to the ending of Shooter is another reflection of the frustration we feel with regards to the corruption of our political leaders. What better way to express our thoughts that have them executed in cold blood?

How can WB be the only one that sees this?

2007-08-16T19:29:00.000-04:00

If you ever watched Charmed, or have tuned into Smallville, you know that both of these shows just have to be sponsored in part by WB's music arm because they both feature the music played on the show prominently after the show. For folks that like the music, it makes it so simple to just go down to the local music shop (or even one click to Amazon) and pick up their new favorite music.

However, nobody else seems to get this. Forums all over the internet are just chock full of posts asking who performs X song on Y show during Z episode or who does the theme song to Q show. It's not rocket science. Obviously, somebody thought this song was good enough or appropriate to include in the show, but after that, it's mums the word.

The RIAA is all over fining teens for downloading music, why can't they just work with the TV folks and put out some PR on these songs? It's truly frustrating. Depending on the internet for information is a lot like shoving a message into a bottle and throwing it in the ocean.

Anybody out there with contacts on the show Burn Notice? I need some artist names and song titles :)

Thank you For Smoking -- sort of

2007-08-12T23:10:00.001-04:00

Spoilers beyond here.

I finally got around to watching Thank You For Not Smoking. I'd read the book and read the interview with the writer/director (Jason Reitman) in one of the screenwriting magazines. Now, I read where he said that he felt boosting the kids presence was important and he felt deepened the story. There were several added scenes created just to add/embellish create more screen time for the father/son relationship. For the most part, they were good, some really good and often funny. Really in keeping with the novel.

What I liked about this was that the tone of the novel was kept and, for the most part, it stayed fairly close to the book. The comedy really played well and it proved that this book really was ripe for translating to the screen - no special effects to speak of, good dialogue and a great modern day whodunnit wrapped up in a fabulous black comedy.

Problem is, they took out the story. WTF? I really don't get it. The movie, while entertaining, is really just 90 minutes of stand-up type comedy. It's a character study of a guy and his world. You really can't say, "this is a story about a guy who...." because although things happen to him and around him, there is no reason for any of it. They kept the kidnapping, but removed the whole purpose behind it.

Don't get me wrong - I've said it before - I love seeing books turned into films. I don't expect to see the same thing I read; however, I usually expect to see a *story* in the film. Even the worst adaptations tend to keep that damn much. In this case, they dumped the story and kept the characters. And what a shame.

I can't imagine why this was left out - and it wouldn't have added much more to the length of the film. Then, at least the movie would have made sense - it certainly would have received better reviews and word of mouth than it must have received as it is.

As it stands, this movie makes a great starter for the book. It allows you to see the characters in the book so well and would make for an even better read. The casting and acting were first rate and the scenes with the son add some depth to a character in the book that was a minor character.

Anonymity on the Internet

2007-05-08T22:46:00.000-04:00

I'm in a spiral of defeatism lately, so seeing this stuff just adds fuel to the fire.

Andy Barker, P.I. is a comedy. I didn't watch one episode, even though I knew Jane Espensen was involved. However, something pulled me over to the NBC site, so I watched the pilot. It was humorous, so I ended up watching all of them.

I look over to the forums to verify that it's been canceled (what isn't these days?) and I see this comment:

It is no wonder that there is nothing but Crap to watch on TV these days with idiots like you wanting to keep this kind of trash running. This was the most idiotic show that NBC has put on the air waves in a long time.

Hmm.. That's great. Username means nothing, no personal info, no first or last name, no contact info. Now while you may say "everybody is entitled to their opinion", I don't know that it's really necessary for everybody to voice that opinion. I mean, exactly how does this comment help anybody? Should the creators/producers of the show actually read the forum, this tells them nothing of what they may have done right or wrong on the show.

It says nothing positive about anything and is basically an attack at the previous individual that expressed a desire to see the show continue, the network for it's programming and the creators/writers of the show. Nice. Proud to have this person as a fellow human being.

Anonymity on the internet is just breeding this type of infantile behavior. Suddenly, it's okay to publicly mouth off about anything without providing any type of insight as to why you have your opinion nor take any responsibility for your words. While this is just comments about a TV show, people are doing much worse by making personal attacks towards individuals on their personal blogs.

Keep these comments in mind next time you critique something for another writer - or give your review of a movie to a friend. Likes and dislikes are always in the eyes of the beholder and as such, what you think is bad, might appeal to somebody else. Reporting that it's "crap" or "doesn't work" doesn't help at all. However, if you can articulate what didn't work and why it didn't work for you, that will go a lot further to giving the other person some insight into what the writing/movie is about and also learn something more about you as well.

And It Only Took, Like, Two Weeks!

2007-05-07T23:38:00.000-04:00

Excuse me, but that has to be the last thing any screenwriter wants to utter in the presence of other writers. And I don't mean that because they'll all be jealous of your immense skill at writing a complete script in less than a month.

I mean, don't be a freakin' idiot. There are some writers out there that have outlined their script, thought about it and made notes, etc. for months and then in the span of a month written out the script.

I'm not talking about those folks.

I'm talking about the newbies who go from blank page to completed script in <30 days and are proud of it. While I applaud the ability to crank out 120 pages or so in that brief period of time, you really don't have time to actually consider plot, character, theme, etc. when you're just busy typing the first thing that pops into your head.

I've heard this over and over, for years, and it still grates on my nerves.

How'd you like to hear from your lawyer or surgeon, "Yeah, I graduated in half the time it takes most people." Wouldn't you wonder exactly what they missed? I mean, really, not *everybody* is a bloody genius, right? Did you get the genius or the screw-up?

This is like the folks that figure movie X was so bad, I can do better. Uh. Okay, but you probably can't right away. Screenwriting is an art and a skill. It's something that nobody picks up and does well right off the bat. Nobody. Pick your favorite/best writer and their first script sucked. Hell, I'll go one further and I'll bet you that their most current first draft wasn't that good either. That's because writing is hard. It's not a trade where once you have it down, you just start cranking out the new pieces. Every piece is new and different. Filled with new problems, new characters and new challenges.

It has to be the only job that even after 10 or 20 years is even harder than when you started (because now you've seen 10-20 years worth of stories and you really know how hard it is to actually be original).

So please, new writers, show some humility and let's not assume that just because a film isn't to your liking or didn't do as well as planned, that the makers are screw-ups. Sure, sometimes they are, but mostly, it's just something that didn't work right. Just look in the mirror and see if you've ever done something that didn't turn out right.

Then, go ahead and writer a better script. Just don't make the foolish mistake of thinking the first thing you crap out of your word processor is going to win an oscar.

Shooter and Moral Obligations

2007-04-10T16:50:00.000-04:00

Warning -- spoilers abound:

Went to see Shooter last night. I enjoyed it, but...

Now, it's important for me to preface my comments by saying:

1) I did read the book just over a month ago
2) I really do enjoy reading books and then watching the movies. I have enjoyed many adaptations and am fully aware of the problems with adaptation for the screen.

With those in mind, here's some of what I liked and didn't like. Normally, I'm not up for film reviews in a blog, but this one had some interesting differences.

First of all, the story was taken out of Vietnam and stuck pretty much in the present day Africa. Considering the hero's age if he was in Vietnam, this is understood. However, what they take out is the sniper that took out Donny and took Bob Lee out of the military. Again, while not a big deal at first glimpe, it's a strong motivating factor in Bob's involvement in the whole story.

Another area weakened was the Nick Memphis line. There were some real positives about the adaptation. They made him younger, a newcomer to the FBI and so some of what happened in the book was able to be translated easily without any backstory. His screwup when meeting Bob (losing his gun and car), his inability to put the case away (he's determined to fix his mistake) played well. The downside is that it's Nick who uncovers the whole homicidal incident out of country. The way the information is revealed and handled is pretty weak comparatively.

The "other" sniper because a combined character which I understand, but then it didn't make much sense for him to be around at all with the rest of the team. Previously, he was the psychologist and that's how they were able to select and read Bob. The other sniper was just a tool. I thought the use of the precision machinery detracted from the human capabilities of the story. I'm not sure why that was changed, there was no real reason to remove it.

Some things removed completely were the opening with the deer - Bob's decision to not kill anything again. Also, his return to get his dog's body. While the adventure with the dog was obviously entertaining, it wasn't necessary for the story. The deer incident, I feel, was a really strong character scene. I imagine there just wasn't a place for it in the story line after it was re-written. A shame.

For once, I applaud the removal of the love scene. In the book, you're able to see Bob recover and grow closer to Sarah. There was more time to see the relationship develop from the flowers, the conversations with Donny to the final recovery and consummation of their relationship. In the movie, there was just no time, so I was grateful for the cutaway. It just didn't feel right.

There are some small areas which, unfortunately, don't play as strongly on film. The bringing in of the mercenary team, for instance. The plan is there, but there was no time to see the plan as in the book. So you see the plan in action and the suspense is really taken away. In the book, you know what's going to happen, you just need to see how Bob is going to get out of it. In the book, you don't realize Bob knows it's a setup until 30 seconds before the fighting begins. Again, not a bad handling, one would just wish for more.

My only real complaint about the movie is the ending. Here I believe it's just my morals when it comes to putting things on the screen. In the book, Bob is a patriot. He serves his country as he is instructed and his country doesn't screw him over. He's retired honorably due to an injury. He has no issues with the military, other than he was removed when I'd imagine he still felt he could serve. He has a proud military family history also. Bob kills only when threatened or when ordered. In this story, he is the tainted hero. At the end, he is out to save Sarah from cruelty at the hands of the war criminals. These men, while military, are not from the same military Bob served.

In the movie, we have a military that, at least first glance, abandons it's servicemen (while this is a fact, it's not true to the story and didn't have to be changed). In addition, while the story remains mostly true, at the end the main two bad guys are still alive. It's Bob who then comes after them to clean-up the mess so they can't do it again. This would have fit in a movie like Death Wish or so many Bond or Arnold films; however, in this film, it goes against the character. In the book, the colonel is shot point blank while going for a weapon. It's a duel and he loses, along with his "dog" (Jack Payne). The Senator dies from an aneurysm when the whole story of the village is blown open. This is God punishing the wicked, not Bob.

Lastly, Sarah kills Payne point blank. Unable to defend himself. This is just plain murder, she was not at risk at all - pure revenge. The problem I have with this is that it's not her character to take this type of action. By the end of the story, they have both become murderers, criminals against society. Killing when not in self-defense. While he certainly deserved to die, he needed to die at Bob's hand, while still a threat to Sarah (as in the book).

While the movie is still entertaining, I feel this ending diminishes the power of the story as a whole and demeans the integrity of the two characters. These actions undermine, to a large degree, the moral of the story - that bad deeds are punished. Now, Bob and Sarah need to be brought to justice as they are just as bad as the outlaws who hunted them.

When it comes to taking human lives, there's a fine line between when it's justified and when it's not. In real life, people land on both sides of the issue, but in film we aren't really prone to the same issues as real life - we have the time to think our story through. Think of the stakes and how it affects out story and characters. Essentially, what kind of message are we sending to our viewers about the right to take a life?

A Distinct Advantage

2007-03-22T14:05:00.000-04:00

Wanna be a Screenwriter for a living? Here's a tip. Write.

Oh, I know you say "that's a given", but think about the real, tangible advantages folks who put 4-5 (or more) hours a day into writing vs those that scrape by with an hour (still good) or those that do even less.

The best thing a person could do would be to treat it as a profession. Work at it everyday, 5 days a week, several hours (at least) a day. That's when you can say you've been "working" at being a screenwriter. Anything less and you're really talking about your hobby.

The worst situation is those folks that are past, say, 35 who have already established some sort of job (not career, because if it was a career, we should be happy, right?). Folks in this situation usually have some sort of responsibility (food, spouse, children, bills, etc.) Tossing these responsibilities into the wind and "going for it" is often not an option and, thus, we have the determined folks that put in an hour or two a day (getting up extra early or working extra late) or the folks that say they have no time to write, but want to.

It really does come down to dedication at that point. It's what do you really want vs what would you like, if it was a perfect world. Because, many of us want to write, but prefer, instead, to watch the latest show on TV. Or go out to dinner, or visit with friends, etc. How important is it for you? These are the dues that people are paying, they're just doing it earlier. This is the penalty for not making a better decision earlier in life when we had fewer distractions. Boy does that suck.

It's one of the reasons so many of us enjoy particular movies - because the actions of the characters are what we would like to do - if we had the drive/courage, etc. We can all toss our responsibilities aside and go for what we want, but most of the time, we're not willing to pay the price for just the "chance" of success. If it was guaranteed or we knew the outcome, it would be so much easier - but we don't. With movies, we get to take that chance with impunity.

So, my fellow hobbyists, as you plonk away on that script you may never finish - think about things that you want - think about things you year for, but are unable or unwilling to sacrifice what you have currently in exchange. Live vicariously through your characters - let them take chances and either succeed or fail, but know that your audience is just like you and they know what failure is - what they want to see is success. They want to know that the dream they could work out. To crush dreams is to destroy hope, and that, my friends, is what gets the majority of America up everyday. The Hope that one day they'll have the courage to do what they need to do in order to get where they want to be.

Give "em what they want

2007-02-14T22:43:00.000-05:00

One of the big deals with writing a scene is that character A has to want something and something or someone (Character B) has to be keeping it from them. They may or may not get this thing they want/need at the end of the scene, but they do either need to get it (at some unexpected cost) or they need to not get it. If they don't get it, then you need to keep the tension up and if they do, it's time to get creative 'cause if they got what they want, the drive is over, so it's time for them to discover something else they really (really) need.

Typically, in the romantic comedy, it's the drive of the story - they need to get together, but something is keeping them apart. Well, I'm gonna rave about one of my favorite writers (yeah, Aaron Sorkin again) and mention Studio 60. While opinions differ on the quality of the show, I believe it's one of the better ones because of the writing. I know some folks dislike his injection of his beliefs into story and character lines, but if you ask me, isn't that the privilege, heck the *job* of a writer to instill stories with life? What better way than to inject emotional issues or people from your life.

Anyway... back to the point. Early on they introduce friction between Danny & Jordan. Then, in one episode they introduce Danny's feelings for Jordan. This starts about a 3 episode "mini romantic comedy" where Danny pursues Jordan. End of episode 1 Danny proclaims his desire for Jordan. End of episode 2 Jordan tells Danny to stop pursuing her (to which he replies NO). End of episode 3, Jordan returns his affections.

Part of what makes Sorkin's writing so fulfilling is he is able to give us a character, show us what they want and then make them do, and here's the kicker, what WE would want to say or do in that given situation. For the most part, it's not even remotely realistic (which is often a criticism of Sorkin's stories). However, this is entertainment. By having characters do or say things that not only are beyond typical expectations in order to get what they want, it gives a life like (or big screen) feel to the story.

Little Miss Sunshine has a great moment in it when Dwayne freaks out in the van. The family's reaction to this, especially Olive's is a touching moment. At the end of the story, it's almost embarrassing to watch. They make complete fools of themselves (albeit in a good way and for a good reason), but these are two kinds of dramatic moments that engage the viewer.

With both of these scenes, I believe that the actions are right for the characters, but I don't believe that the audience is thinking I wish I could act that way in that given situation.

In contrast to a couple of Sorkin's moments, albeit quite a different movie. A Few Good Men. Few scenes can top the moment Tom Cruise gets Jack Nicholson to admit his ordering the Code Red. A smaller moment is when Tom Cruise is playing softball and discussing the case of a private caught with a dime bag of oregano. His attitude, logic and smooth talking make you want to root and cheer for this character.

It's these kinds of moments at which Sorkin excels. Not only does he give the character what he wants, but he does so in such a way that we, the audience, is a cheerleader for the cause. When they finally achieve the goal, we almost feel the emotions of the character. We're proud of the way the obtained the goal.

Obviously, you can't do this for every scene, but using this to your advantage is a powerful tool in your writing. Make sure the audience is behind the goal, not just the characters.

The Word Nobody Uses in Writing

2007-01-18T21:07:00.000-05:00

Practice.

The popular phrase is "write everyday", but really, they don't mean the normal kind of writing you do (grocery lists, e-mail, reports, etc.). What you need to do is practice. Practice isn't writing another x amount of pages of your latest script, because, let's face it, that's just one script. How can writing one script help all of the necessary elements to tell a great story? It can't. It doesn't.

When people learn to paint, to play an instrument... any kind of artistic or skilled endeavor, what they do is practice fundamentals. With writing, it's words, spelling, punctuation, sentences, etc.; however, Screenwriting isn't just writing, it's storytelling blueprints for film. Thus, you need to practice the elements of storytelling.

Things like drama, comedy, suspense. Put two characters into a situation and resolve it. Perhaps resolve it more than one way. Write at the top of a piece of paper (or if using a computer, the first line), what the objective is for a specific scene. It doesn't have to have anything to do with any story now or in the future. It's an exercise. Practice. One person is going to get something from another. The other person is just as bent on not relinquishing the same thing to anybody.

There are several books with creative practice exercises:

Developing Story Ideas and How to Write a Script the Hal Ackerman Way are two I've read and found engaging.

What you develop by doing these varied practice sessions is a set of skills that are not connected to a specific story you are telling. It enables you to draw on a wealth of material rather than a single script/story with a few characters.

Many writers have suggested eavesdropping on others for story or character content. Perhaps take somebody you've seen or overheard and put them in a situation and see how you think it would turn out. The sky is the limit. The perk of practice is that you don't have to have something in your script worked out AND it's possible to practice everyday and still write/add to your script/story as the ideas come (instead of staring into space and doing nothing).

I'll dig up some suggestions for next time. If any of you have any good suggestions, fire away!

Merry Christmas

2006-12-24T23:48:00.001-05:00

Hope everybody has a safe and happy holiday.

How Freakin' Sad

2006-12-22T19:26:00.000-05:00

Just went to see A Night at the Museum. Good flick. Plays all the right cards, fits the bill nicely for a light hearted, feel-good comedy. I actually enjoyed watching Stiller. Often he gets too goofy for me, but he played this part well. Great cast and lots of laughs. Highly recommend.

However, the freakin' sad part was the previews. They previewed Fantastic Four 2 (Rise of the Silver Surfer). Holy freakin' cow. I was as giddy as a 4 year old. The theater was packed and I was unable to stop myself from giggling and clapping after the preview...the only consolation was that I was up front and couldn't see the rest of the adults staring at me. I didn't turn either.

Needless to say, I'm a Silver Surfer fan (not an uber fan, just a fan). The animation looked great to me and when the Human Torch catches him and he turns, grabs him and zooms into outer space... oh. my. god. Can't wait. Transformers looked good. Spiderman looks great. But. The Silver Surfer. I'm still giddy. It's the same feeling I got when seeing Spiderman and playing Spiderman 2 on the Playstation 2. Absolute joy.

And I have 1 person to tell who even remotely gives a shit.

So here I am. Broadcasting to the entire planet in the hopes somebody shares my giddiness for seeing the Silver Surfer in live action (even if it is CGI).

Looks like, for now, the trailer is only in theaters - and perhaps only in front of A Night at the Museum.

Jumper

2006-12-19T23:45:00.000-05:00

I love movies. I love books adapted to movies. I understand that it's really not the same, but something with a very similar concept now in movie format. However, I just *love* Jumper. It's a fantastic book. One of the things that makes this book great is that the main character is the only person who can do what he does --- Teleport.

So... it comes with great dismay when I read the plot on IMDB:

A teenager from an abusive household discovers he can teleport from one place to another. He uses this ability to search for the man he believes is responsible for the death of his mother, drawing the attention of the NSA, and another kid with the same power.

Another kid with the same power? Oh, man. There's even a freakin' sequel for this book in which ONE more person is discovered, and it's NOT another kid.

Now, Steven Gould wrote the book and I'll be the first to admit that it's really all over the place. I wanted to adapt this book many years ago, but somebody from Hollywood beat me to it. I was thrilled when I heard the writers on this film: David Goyer, Simon Kinberg & Jim Uhls (some pretty good writers). But the addition of another kid with the same power is just disheartening.

I'll be hoping that's an early draft and perhaps things have changed since then... I'll still have to go see it because it really does kick immense ass and is perfect movie material. Just curious how it's implemented.

Should anybody happen to have a copy of the script, I sure wouldn't turn down a viewing of it .

If you haven't read the book, you can only get it used now, but it's well worth a read. Both that and the sequel Reflex. You want more movie stuff, he also wrote Wildside. A book about kids that find out their uncle has been travelling back to prehistoric times and is now lost. They then decide to start trapping prehistoric wildlife and bringing it back to our times to sell for profit. Woot! Ka-Ching. Jurrasic park with young entrepreneurs.

ok...after some more research, now I'm getting the feeling it's both Jumper & Reflex combined.... Hmm... more interest in the script...

The Best Kept Secret

2006-12-16T00:39:00.000-05:00

Recently Unk had a post on why going to the movies is or is not "special" any longer. Well, I don't go to the movies much these days. I work all day, have a wife and kid and finding time to go out to a movie is difficult. I can, however, throw in a dvd and watch a movie much easier. I have a big screen TV and home theater system, so I really do enjoy the movies at home.

So, Scott the Reader puts up some good words on Casino Royale and I love Bond, so what better flick to actually go to, right? Big effects, big action flick...woohoo!

Well, it takes me about a week to get to it...one thing or another always comes up to keep me out. Now, I have to catch the first show because I need to pick up my daughter by 6pm. I check online and the first show is at 2:50pm, so I've got to hit that show, the next is 3:55.

So, after a week or so of trying, I finally make it. Sit down...woohoo....lots of trailers. This is great - albeit, it's a tad louder than I remember, but, hey, it's Bond, right? The film comes up in B&W. WTF? ok... something arty... whatever. It's also open captioned... maybe it has something to do with the artsy thing.

So the music comes up and, yup, on-screen lyrics. I'm hoping this is a mistake. The screen is jumpy too, so I head out to talk to somebody. I grab a guy and tell him that the screen is jumpy and it's captioned. He steps in and says "oh, that's how it's supposed to be, but I'll get somebody to check the jumpiness." Just then a lady comes up and says, "i have to ask somebody to turn this down and fix the screen jump." I mention I've asked somebody already, but she keeps going since I didn't mention the volume.

I come back in and in a few moments, the screen jumping stops, but the captions are still up.

I pop back out to talk to somebody else.

I finally get somebody who says that it's supposed to be captioned. I've stepped into a film version/theater which is for the hard of hearing. I'm sort of dumbfounded.

Now, I don't mean to imply anything about deaf or hard of hearing people not going to see movies, but jesus, you think the theaters could fucking advertise this fact a little better? There was nothing online, on my ticket stubb or anything I came across on my way into the movie. You know where it was? Over the tiny little picture at the ticket booth...in like 20 point type "open captioned". I always buy at the little credit card machine - it's so handy.

My beef was first, when the hell did the start this? But it turns out since, like, the 90's. I don't know how I've been watching movies for almost 25 years and never come across it - either in the movies or in print. Talk about a great secret! If I'm a movie buff and I haven't seen it, how many people who actually WANT it are coming across it? And I just know the theater doesn't give a crap about publicizing it because they don't want only the hard of hearing showing up for the showtime. They want people like me waltzing in and just accepting the damn on-screen text.

Man, I'm here to tell you, my DVD experience would have been MUCH better in this instance. Sheesh... I'll be out to see Eragon and the museum flick later this month and it'd better be an improved experience or I won't be going back.

Strike 1 movie theaters.

Can anybody explain Stay?

2006-12-10T12:32:00.000-05:00

I watched the whole thing expecting some sort of explanation or story, but the movie ended and I was still confused. This is the one with Ewan McGregor - 2005.

What Do You Like?

2006-12-09T19:03:00.000-05:00

I was racking my brain the other day over my current script/story (still in the 'staring at the ceiling' phase) when I decided to take a break and get some food. With food came watching a show to relax. I picked Studio 60 since I love Sorkin's stuff.

This was the show where Danny comes out and admits that he's in love with Jordan.

What I realized, after the show, was that I absolutely loved that episode. So, as I'm prone to do, I dove back into the rerun in my head. Exactly what the hell made that episode so dang entertaining for me? For that matter, what makes Sorkin's work so dang entertaining for me.

I came to the conclusion that it's the characters. They're pretty much people I want to be. They're smart, funny, hip, self-aware (to some degree), opinionated, fair and yet -- still very human.

Let's take Sports Night - the two anchors are very close - can almost suss each other out with only a look. They're always thinking 2 steps ahead, yet they both have their own issues. What makes it really funny is they both know the other's weaknesses and they play off that knowledge.

West Wing - you have most of the staff acting in that same manner. They're all smart, very smart, and yet they all have weaknesses. What's interesting to watch is the banter between them. This is because they all appear to be in on some inside joke that we, the audience, is actually let in on. You feel like part of the group - and, wow, what a great group to be a part of!

Transition to Studio 60 and, here again, we have smart people. On top of things. Snappy dialogue, people that you'd probably want to hang out with - or... even be! They're powerful, or funny, or popular, yet they're not assholes.

The most evil character on the show is played by Steven Weber - and wow is he evil sometimes. Yet, when Aaron takes you behind the curtains to give you a peek at his life, you can see what he's up against. You actually like this guy.

My favorite scene in the recent show I mentioned is when Matt just says to his buddy Danny, "Say it out loud." It's great. The actor is able to portray a momentary goofy "i'm in love" look and his buddy spots it a mile away. He knows what's coming even before his friend. The great part is that we're in on it, too. So we get to go along for the ride. The cajoling that Matt does until Danny finally breaks and admits his feelings to Jordan. There is nothing dumb about the characters or the situation. It's funny because we see the weakness of the character (unable to express his feelings) in a friendly, teasing situation that encourages the audience to participate in the friendship.

The culmination is classic Sorkin-esque dialogue. I mean, talk about melodrama at it's best! Skipping to the good stuff here...

Jordan with a mouth full of food, steps out of the room.

Danny
I've been married twice before and I'm a recovering cocaine addict. And I know that's no woman's dream of a man, or of a father. None the less, I believe I'm falling in love with you. If you want to run, I understand, but you'd better get a good headstart 'cause I"m coming for you Jordan.
(beat)
You should go ahead and chew that sandwich.

He turns and leaves.

Dumfounded, Jordan slowly chews.

This is all setup by the original TWO discussion with Matt, who is teasing Danny. The first with "say it out loud", then again when he pushes Danny into revealing that he's driven by Jordan's house. Matt is pushing Danny the whole episode and this speech delivers in spades.

Can you imagine somebody actually saying this AND getting away with it? I don't know. Around here you don't see many twice married, recovering cocaine addicts in high paying jobs with tons of responsibility. But, here, man... plays like a charm.

One of the things Sorkin does fantastically is the speech. His most famous probably being the "you can't handle the truth" exchange in A Few Good Men. But his speeches are in just about every TV episode he's written and they're in every film he's written. What makes them great is that they are characters spilling emotions on screen. It doesn't feel like acting because, in the hands of a good actor, these people feel so real.

But I've digressed a little... my point in mentioning all this is that, if you haven't noticed, I desperately want an apprenticeship under Sorkin. I love his work, so when I look at what I'm writing, I thought, why not write what I love to watch? It's not the subject that I love, it's the characters. For me, that means writing smart characters. Characters that have emotional depth and yet are willing to share that with others that are close.

These characters are very different from, say, the characters in The Unit. Also deep, also involving, smart and human. But that's not what I want to write. My advice is take a look at the films or the TV that you watch and see what shows really turn you on. What are the characters like? Then look at your own writing and see if you're reflecting those same type of characters. I believe it'll make the work much more entertaining and enjoyable if we want to return to the characters again and again.

Say Thanks to our Troops

2006-12-06T21:27:00.000-05:00

Jumping on the colloquial bandwagon here, but I believe it really is for a good cause.

Regardless of what your thoughts are about our soldiers being overseas, they are. They are harms way and they're doing it for those of us at home.

While I know we all wish that it wasn't necessary, we don't always get what we want, do we?

Click on the title to go to the webpage and send a card to our troops overseas.

I'm an addict

2006-12-06T17:01:00.000-05:00

I just can't help it.

I look over the creative screenwriting expo dvds and I just must have them! What great subjects: Theme, creating scenes/characters, etc. with emotional impact, using sequencing, how to adapt anything, everything you wanted to know about structure, guiding your career, how to get by Hollywood readers...oh my god! How can I not buy them?

The sad thing is that after studying this damn art/science/skill/trade and reading probably 30 or more books on it, several lectures (hell giving a couple), I can't think of many things that I still need to be told. I know exactly what I need to do.

Sit down and bloody write.

It's so easy to get wrapped up in new books, dvds, seminars, etc. thinking that it'll be some magic pill to get you past that illusive trouble spot you're in. The truth of the matter is that, deep down, we all want this to be easier than it really is. It's much like simple games like Tetris, Othello, Checkers, etc. The concept is simple, but mastering is difficult. Just about all of us can write, but writing something emotionally engaging is something learned.

All you need to do is introduce the audience to engaging character they will care about. Put that character in jeopardy, then show us how that character's emotional growth during the story enables them to either escape their jeopardy or succumb to it.

All in 90-120 pages... easy, huh?

Everything else, all these books and videos and seminars are just ways to help you break down the process. To make it easier to understand - more palatable - things that make it *seem* easier. Does it? Perhaps. But none of them will replace sitting down and dreaming up a story about an interesting character in jeopardy. There are no magic pills for that outside the boredom of staring at the white wall/white screen/white sheet of paper and sweating blood until the Muse decides it's time to pay you a little visit.

The best thing about the web right now is that you can get so much valuable information FOR FREE from great blogs and web pages. If you're new, just glance at my links and they'll take you to month's worth of sites where you can view, for free, information, stories and advice on my favorite form of writing - screenwriting.

So, when you start jonesing for that new book/dvd/seminar, have a little browse around the web - or stop off at the Scribosphere for a chat on screenwriting to ease your urge, then get your butt back in the chair for some real writing.

A little kindness goes a long way

2006-12-05T13:06:00.000-05:00

I've had this for darn near 15 years. I'd always dreamed of "making it" in screenwriting and getting an opportunity to meet and talk with Jeff. I wanted to make it big and then give back to all the newbies like me.

Alas, he was taken from us in 2000, so I will never get to meet him.

I've spoken about how our writing group had obtained items to auction off to raise money for our group (many years ago). Well, my responsibility was to send out requests to writers to donate scripts - any of their choice.

James Cameron's envelope came back with a wrong address. Phil Alden Robinson rejected the letter. However, Richard Price and Jeffrey Boam both replied with autographed scripts. Jeff's came with the pictured card from his desk. He sent three of his scripts. Richard Price sent a very nicely bound copy of Sea of Love, autographed of course.

I've never forgotten the kindness displayed by those two in what is depicted as such a glitz town with no connection to the outside world. These two took the time to open a letter from some nobody, read it and actually respond.

Today, it's all at once, easier and harder to contact our writing heroes. There are more avenues than ever to get in touch with somebody, yet, due to the abuse from spammers, telemarketers and sycophants, people are more apt to shut off all communication from those they don't recognize.

One of the greatest things I've seen lately is the blog scene. There are many folks making a living in the industry who are taking their time to share their knowledge and friendship with newbies all over the world. I wish more professionals would contribute.

Thanks, Jeff & Richard for your kind responses and taking the time to help the little guys on the opposite coast share a little bit of the dream that is screenwriting. These 15 years later and that kindness is still appreciated.

Tightening a Script

2006-12-02T02:53:00.000-05:00

Awhile back, I asked a longtime writer friend of mine to write an article on tightening the script. He's sold a script, optioned a couple and done some re-write work and I consider him to be a pretty good writer. Here's what he had to say:

I try to even make the page look right. I don't want the page to look too cluttered or full of words. Words should, where appropriate, be kept to a minimum

Your script, generally speaking, is usually around 100 to 120 pages. That's not a lot of pages, 50 each word needs to count. Keep description lean.

Your scene description or exposition blocks should usually be one, two or three lines long. Sometimes four. MAYBE five, but not often. If you have more, cut and prune where you can, and then just break it up - make more paragraphs so it looks better.

I also look at blocks of dialogue that run more than three lines. Of course sometimes it's's necessary to have longer blocks of dialogue. But more often than not, if your block of dialogue is more than three lines long, you'll find you can come up with away of cutting one, two, or many more words out of it.

One of the first things I look for when trying to tighten a script is those blocks of description or dialogue (especially those three or more lines long) where there is only one or two words on the last line. By reducing that block by a couple of words, I've made that section one line shorter. And probably eight times out often, I can do that. What this shows me is that most "long" blocks of description or dialogue can be tightened it. I'm also always amazed at how many times I can go through a script tightening it, and yet I still be able to rework a paragraph again and once again reword it such that it's shorter. I become intent on finding a way to say an eight word sentence in six words. Or in five. I always count the number of words I'm able to remove. Sometimes it's really easy. Other times I simply have to rephrase how I'm saying something. But I don't make the change if I feel it makes the sentence too vague or nonsensical. But the great thing about tightening a script is usually the shorter sentence is the more powerful one.

In a script I was recently working on, I looked at the dialogue in the first 30 pages, and found I only had three blocks of dialogue over four lines long, and none over five lines. Again, it's not to say you can't have large blocks of dialogue; people will always point to Quentin Tarrantino or Paddy Chayevsky, but those are the exception. But even if you do need large blocks of dialogue, it's still essential that each word and sentence is necessary. A large block of dialogue should be one that you've worked on and worked on and worked on to tighten, and you've gotten it as tight as it can be. So if it turns out to be ten lines long, then it needs to be ten lines long. But again, you show me a block of description or dialogue five or six lines long, and I'll likely be able to say it in fewer words.

Sometimes you need to look to see if the dialogue is truly needed. For instance, in Hitchcock's "North by Northwest", Leo 0. Carroll's character is explaining something to Cary Grant. It's not necessary for the audience to understand the details(since we already know it), but it is necessary for Grant. So Hitchcock has them talking while the sound of an airplane engine drowns out their dialogue. This serves two purposes. We don't have to hear what's unimportant to us, and the characters can get away with explaining something in a fraction of the time it wouldn't have taken in real time. The scene with Grant took seconds. In real time the dialogue would have taken minutes.

Personal preference: I don't buy into the "Continued's" at the top and bottom of each page. I don't use the "Cut To's" after each scene. I don't use "continued's" when the same character speaks with exposition dividing up his dialogue.

In the script I'm currently working on, I'm struggling trying to keep it at 119 pages. With my Scriptware software, I've found that by changing the name of one character who appeared a lot near the end of the script... from Steinberg to Keys (from nine letters to five), I was actually able to shorten the final product by a page simply because of the way the longer name sometimes caused a descriptive paragraph to run another line long. This is kind of an extreme example, and is more appropriate for lessons on how to "cheat" the page length, but I offer it to show the lengths you might need to consider to keep a script within certain parameters.

Some ways to tighten a script include the following ~art of this is from various articles):try as much as possible to rely on nouns and verbs, rather than adverbs and adjectives. Instead of a "light rain", try "drizzle". Not only is it shorter, it's less bland. Instead of "quickly ran", use "dashes" or "races"

-get rid of words that aren't necessary. For instance, I constantly find myself still writing "he stands up": when during rewriting I try to replace it with "he stands". Same with "he sits down". Of course he sits down, therefore, it become "he sits".

-Get rid of present progressive phrases. Instead of "she is watching", simply use "she watches". Instead of "they are ignoring the man", just use "they ignore the man". In other words, where appropriate, try getting rid of the"is/are + mg" combination.

-Avoid weak linking verbs (such as "is, are, was") Removing them leads to greater variety and usually to a more colorful replacement. Instead of "The sign in front of them is huge", try "the huge sign looms before them". Not only is it a better sentence, but you've replaced an eight word sentence with a six word sentence. Instead of "The man looks angry. He glares at them", try"the angry man glares at them". You've replaced two sentences and eight words with one more powerful sentence with six words.

-Use the active voice, not the passive: Active voice means someone or something does something. Passive voice means something is done to someone or something. Most of the time, the active voice is more vigorous, as well as stronger and more direct. Plus, it's usually shorter. Instead of "He is smacked in the face by the foul ball", try "The foul ball smacks him in the face" (ten words reduced to eight). "The money is grabbed by the crowd" is changed into "The crowd grabs the money".

Don't use "we see" or "we hear" unless absolutely necessary. Instead of "we see the ball as it hurtles through the air", just say "The ball hurtles through the air

Beware of characters who ramble or go from one item to another like a pinball machine. Perhaps your character is someone who talks like this, in which case maybe it reflects character. But otherwise, tighten, tighten, tighten.

The following are some examples from a script I'm currently working on. Some, if not most, of these are obvious when you're looking at it in this context, but in my first or second draft the first examples are what I came up with. It was only upon rewriting with an eye on tightening the sentences that I reduced the word count. In fact, when typing these up to present this evening, I even thought of ways to make a couple of them even shorter. I've tried italicizing some of the words in the first example which ended up getting changed.

1st draft: Paul looks around the empty bookstore.
2nd draft: Paul surveys the empty bookstore.

1st: "Yes, I prefer not being up too high".
2nd: "Yes, I dislike heights".

1st: Robert grabs his suitcase and walks away from the counter. He walks over and rings for an elevator. One arrives and he steps into the empty car and pushes the button for the 3lst floor.

2nd: Robert grabs his suitcase, walks across the lobby and rings for an elevator. One arrives and he steps into the empty car, pushing the button for the 3lst floor.(from 35 words to 29 words)

1st: Several people sit at tables throughout the restaurant.
2nd: A fairly crowded restaurant. (the previous sentence was reduced by half).

1st: Jamie is pacing around Nancy's living room as her host sits in a chair watching her rant.

2nd: Jamie paces around Nancy's living room as her host sits, watching her rant.(from 17 words to 13 words. I took out the "is pacing" suggestion mentioned earlier, plus it wasn't important for me to note that her host is sitting "in a chair".)

1st: Robert peeks out the door of the bathroom and sees the groom's mother on the other side of the room surrounded by friends.

2nd: Robert peeks out the bathroom and sees the groom's mother across the room surrounded by friends.(from 23 words to 16 words)

1st: Jamie wanders down the hotel corridor past the ballroom where the rehearsal dinner is being held.

2nd: Jamie wanders down the hotel corridor past the rehearsal dinner ballroom.(from 16 words toll)

My suggestion for tightening a script is to first look at blocks of description more than three or four lines long, and look at dialogue more than three lines long. See if you can't tighten there. Secondly, I would suggest you try finding those blocks of description or dialogue where there is only a word or two on the last line and see if you can't do something to shorten that block by a line. If you're able to do that, then you're likely able to shorten other blocks as well.

The game is to find a way to take out one, two, or more words. Even taking out only one word is a good thing. When I can shorten a block of description or dialogue by five or six or more words it's like finding a nugget of gold.

No matter how tight your script is, chances are another look through it will reveal ways to make it even tighter. Eventually you have to move on and send it out(you don't want to spend ALL your time obsessing over word count), but you need to be partially obsessive about it. The tighter the script, the better the "look"of it on the page, the quicker the read, and the clearer the story, unless of course you've taken out TOO many words. Readers and producers in L.A. recognize when a writer has gone the extra yard to write a concise and very tight draft, and they'll be given a little more consideration as professionals.

Critique or Critic by K. Michael Bolk

2006-11-30T04:26:00.000-05:00

Over my years in our writing group, we've made a point of discussing the qualities of a good critique and how best to help our fellow writers when commenting on their submitted work. The following article from K. Michael Bolk sums it up with a nice little story.

There is a point in our writing endeavors where we start to find out about improving our technique. We buy reference books, attend classes and begin to network. For me, this time of transition was monumental. Not only did I learn that verbs really do liven up a story, but I also found out about critiquing.

one of the most valuable ways we can improve our writing is by receiving input from others. Hence, we offer our work to be critiqued.

My first experience with a critique group was over twenty years ago, but what I learned during this initial exposure stays with me today. It was a unique experience, so let me tell you what happened.

I was seated in an old, musty classroom, when my Drill Sergeant began passing out booklets. "This is a copy of the newest Air Defense Artillery Manual, " he barked while rhythmically placing the books on each desk. "You will review this document, evaluate its contents and provide viable input for possible revisions. The words are simple, so even pea-brains like you can understand them."

Since we all knew what 'traverse target vectoring' was, no problem, right? Wrong. After the first chapter was read, some poor private made the mistake of commenting that the manual started off incorrectly and had to be completely rewritten. His critique was met by the full facial screams of the Drill Sergeant.

"Private, the Army has spent thousands of dollars and man hours to produce this document. Do you get my message, Soldier?"

Quivering with fear, the private nodded his acknowledgement and sat down.

The Drill Sergeant began pacing the room, then placed his hand behind his back. "Obviously some of you have already forgotten what I told you. You will evaluate its content, not judge. Do I make myself clear?"

In the tradition of the military, we all shouted in unison, "Yes, Drill Sergeant."

Now, I like to think of myself as an intelligent individual. The smarter response to this situation might have been to sit back quietly as we moved to the second chapter, but he had asked for my evaluation, and that first chapter was really bad. Of course, I couldn't come out and say it. I had already seen the response to that suggestion. So I had to think of what the chapter needed, and how I could present it to the Drill Sergeant. I figured that in this situation it would be helpful to use my best military tact (if you don't know what military tact is, it's the ability to tell someone to go to hell in such a way that they anxiously await the trip).

Taking a deep breath, I jumped to my feet and snapped to 'parade rest'. "Drill Sergeant." My voice echoed in the room.

He shot me a menacing stare. "Yes, Private Bolk?"

"I have evaluated this chapter."

"Do you have a problem with it?" he scowled.

"Yes, Drill Sergeant," I shouted. "Although it is a well written technical manual, I believe if the second and fifth paragraphs were reversed, the flow of events would be more realistic. Also, it appears to me as if the author is attempting to show his advanced expertise with this piece of equipment by giving a complete description of the radar set when it would best be infused gradually in each section pertaining to the specific component. Additionally, the trailer maintenance is repetitious because it is included in another manual and does not pertain to the material at hand."

I quickly returned to my seat. My heart pounded furiously in my chest, awaiting the retaliation of the Drill Sergeant. I only hoped my recommendation would be evaluated in a positive way, and without retribution.

He folded his arms and began slowly nodding his head. Taking a deep breath he looked around the room. "That, gentleman, is a critique. Don't just tell me what's wrong. Tell me how to fix it easily, and without rewriting the entire book." A sinister smile crept over his face. "Keep in mind, this is my radar and only I can tell you about it. If I lose you, or you don't understand what I'm telling you, then I have not shown you my radar."

At that point I realized the difference between a critique and a critic. One provides input, where the other judges. Also, it is necessary to point out flaws to improve the story without trying to completely re-write it.

I found out that critiquing is an art performed in a positive manner. When I critique, I always compliment the work by mentioning a part that grabbed my interest. I try to make good recommendations, and back them up with reasons for the possible change. I always try to evaluate and recommend, rather than judge. After all, I'm a critiquer, not a critic.

Creating An Opponent

2006-11-28T22:38:00.000-05:00

This is information I picked up from the Tennessee Screenwriting Association Newsletter years ago. I thought the info was good, so thought I'd share.

While the forces of Conflict (or Antagonism) may be presented in any one or combination of four ways:

1. Conflict with self

2. Conflict with others,

3. Conflict with the environment,

4. Conflict with the supernatural.

The most common is conflict with another who is a strong opponent. The reasons why...
The role of the Protagonist is only as interesting as his Antagonist is strong. The Antagonist must be as complex and valuable to the story as the Protagonist. The Antagonist must have great power or status.

Only by competing for the same goal in the story do the Protagonist and Antagonist drive each other to great heights.

The Antagonist is necessary to the Hero's story because he is the one person in the world best able to attack the Hero's weakness (which must be established in the hero's persona).

The purpose driving the Antagonist's actions must be strong enough to create a unity of opposites (believable reasons why both hero and opponent must get to the same place at the same time).
Only because of the Antagonist's actions is the Protagonist forced to learn (or arc) by examining his own actions.

The Antagonist should not be an exact opposite of the hero; he should have similarities as well as distinct differences.

The Antagonist's rationale toward his actions should make sense to an audience as to why he's doing what he's doing.

The conflict between the Antagonist and Protagonist should establish the Moral Argument of the Story (the difference between what each character does to reach their goal and ending with the Hero's actions forcing him to make a self-realization that the Antagonist is usually unwilling or unable to make).

To create a strong opponent, here are some good basic rules to follow:

1. You must set up the opposition early. Make sure you know the Opponent's set of values vs. the Hero's set of values.
2. If the opponent is some type of system, choose a character to personify the system.
3. If the protagonist must face a series of opponents, create a Hierarchy of opponents that clearly show which opponent is the strongest.

Jonathan Hensleigh created a pair of great opponents in "The Rock." Although Hummel's reasons for fighting are good, his choice of getting his message out is flawed. This makes for a complex character with whom the audience can sympathize. Although you want (and rightfully so) the hero to succeed, there is still the nagging feeling that you want Hummel to succeed as well. This is because he has a just cause. This mixture of emotions you feel when watching The Rock is because of the character development of Hummel.

Another good example os The Joker from the first Batman movie, by Sam Hamm & Warren Skaaren. Although he is a bad guy, you feel for the position he has been put in by Batman. Batman is, after all, the reason for his disfigurement. The sense of humor that was injected into the character only added to the part. Although we don't feel sorry for the Joker when Batman triumphs, there is still a twinge of regret that the whole episode happened to him.

Top Gun, written by Chip Proser, created a good match of opponents in Maverick (Tom Cruise) and Iceman (Val Kilmer). The Iceman character is the type of character you love to hate because he is so good. Maverick is the perfect underdog because he wants so much, like most of us, and yet he runs into somebody that has more skill than he does - Iceman. We can all associate with Maverick's plight, and, therefore, we are all thrust into the film by being able to relate to Maverick's situation.

A more recent example of great character development for the hero and opponent is Face Off with Nick Cage and John Travolta. Nick Cage's character is as bad as they come, but he has a real soft spot when it comes to his brother. He really does care about what happens to him (just like a big brother should). John Travolta's character appears to have everything, but is in the process of tossing it all away because of his obsession with Nick Cage. If you want to create a great set of opposing characters, check out this film written by Mike Werb & Michael Colleary.

Next time you watch a movie, check out the antagonist and see if they are really a good opponent, or if they are just a bad guy.

Character Basics

2006-11-27T21:47:00.000-05:00

Here's some great information on character basics. Creating a great character takes work and there are some simple touches that can be applied to your existing characters that may make them a little more memorable for your audience.

Characters who are compelling and believable, who display understandable actions and justifiable emotions, are the very heart of good fictions. The protagonist, or main character, should be likable and sympathetic - but not perfect. Imperfections make a character more real, more human. Readers need to be able to identify with, and care about, the protagonist. Or even better, to be the protagonist. Readers should feel the protagonist's fears, share the protagonist's hopes, strive for the protagonist's goals. It's like the difference between driving by a horrible accident involving strangers, and driving by one that involves your loved ones. Emotional intensity increases when the reader can identify with the situation on a more personal, visceral level.

Characters should be unforgettable, lingering in the reader's mind long after the story is finished. They should be full-bodied and well developed, but not cardboard cut-outs or caricatures. How does a writer create memorable characters? Begin by observing the people around you. Use your eyes first, but don't dwell on the physical description. Make use of your other senses. What does a person sound like? How does their handshake feel? How do they smell? Take not of their behavior. Are there any nervous habits, mannerisms, or idiosyncrasies that make them notable? If so, what do these suggest about their personality? What is their facial expression? How are they dressed? What sort of posture do they have? For instance, if a woman is tall, and her posture is slump-shouldered, might that suggest she is, or at least has been, self-conscious about her height? In each person you know or meet, identify one or two intriguing or telling characteristics for your files. Collect those files every day, whether they are written or stored only in your head. Build yourself a portfolio of character traits that you can later pull from. Make use of every opportunity. If you're standing in line at the grocery store, watch the check-out clerk. If you're stuck in traffic, study the drivers in the cars around you. What can you surmise about these people during your brief and limited observations? If the guy in the car beside you is wearing a suit and drive a Mercedes convertible, what does that suggest? What if the guy in the Mercedes is wearing a raggy old T-shirt, has messy hair, and a four-day growth of beard?

Which brings us to consistency. It's important for your character's motivations and actions to be consistent for them to be believable. That doesn't mean you must avoid all inconsistencies. But your baseline must be firmly established first. Let's say you have a character who is obsessive about her appearance. Her makeup is always impeccable, her hair meticulously coifed. Her fingernails are well manicured, and flawlessly polished. Her clothes are designer fashions, well cared for and neatly pressed, with never a wrinkle to be found. She would rather be dead than be caught in public looking anything less than perfect. Would this character make a quick run to the 7-11 without her makeup? Certainly not under any ordinary circumstances. But suppose someone has broken into her house in the middle of the night and is now holding her young son hostage at gunpoint. Suppose this someone told her to go to the 7-11 and buy him some cigarettes, and that she had exactly 10 minutes to get there and back, or else her kid's brains would be decorating the walls. Would that prompt her to go out without her makeup? And might someone seeing her, someone who knows about her usual obsession, not sense something is very wrong?

Let's go back to the man in the Mercedes, the one wearing the grungy T-shirt. Here, implausibility might be a key tool. The inconsistency of the image - the rich man's car being driven by someone who appears to be just shy of a vagabond, might be used to reveal a significant fact about the character. Perhaps the driver was once rich and successful, but then he fell on hard times and lost everything. Now he's broke, drifting from one menial job to another, never knowing where his next meal will come from. Yet he clings to the car, even though he could eat for several months on the money he'd make if he sold it. Why? Does the car have some special meaning for him? Is his identity, his sense of self, somehow tied to that car? Is he, perhaps living in it? Does he clean and care for the car with great tenderness, even though he doesn't care for himself very well?

Whatever the scenario, it must be believable. Real life is full of inconsistencies and unexplainable behavior. Fiction should not be.

A good writer brings his characters to life on the page. To do that, the writer must know the character inside and out, every thought, every nuance, every trait. Much of this character information will never be used and, in fact, shouldn't be. A handful of telling and identifiable characteristics - the primary characteristics that truly define and communicate who the character is - are all that is necessary. Finding the perfect balance between revealing too little or too much about character can be difficult. Too often, beginning writers portray their characters through snapshots - brief glimpses of static time that reveal nothing about the person inside the hull. Overexposure can be just as deadly. Don't overwhelm your reader with details up front, but rather leak them out as the story progresses. Let your reader get to know your characters the same way we get to know people in real life. When you meet somebody for the first time, they don't usually tell you all the details about themselves or their lives. You're provided with a few clues, an initial impression that may or may not be on target. If you spend more time with that person, additional details are often revealed, allowing you to adjust and expand upon that initial impression. Many of those details are gleaned through your own observations, not because someone spells them out for you. A good writer will let readers do their own gleaning by showing what the characters are like, rather than simply telling them. If a writer does her job well, her characters will eventually become instantly identifiable to the reader through their gestures, patterns of speech, actions and motivations.

Consider the following examples:

David Martin, three years old, was a little hellion. He was always getting into trouble. Today was no different. While his mother was busy with the laundry down in the basement, he scribbled on the kitchen wall with a purple crayon. He knew he wasn't supposed to write on the walls, but he did it anyway. When he heard his mother start back up the stairs, he ran and hid behind the couch, thinking she couldn't punish him if she couldn't find him. But his mother wasn't fooled for one minute. She heard him, running his truck along the floor behind the couch, making engine noises with his throat.

Hearing his mother's footsteps on the cellar stairs, Davie froze for one long moment, his hand poised before his scribbled creation. His face resembled the wide-eyed stare of the head he'd torn off his sister's doll this morning - unblinking and startled. And then he sprang into action, darting from the room, running for his hiding place behind the couch. In one chubby hand, he clutched his favorite Tonka dump truck, scraped and battered, with one wheel missing. In the other, was the purple crayon he'd just used on the kitchen wall. He dropped to his knees near the end of the couch, shoving the offending crayon beneath it. Then he scrambled into the safety of his fortress, pausing a moment to listen for his mother. His eyes drifted from the space at the end of the couch to the truck still clutched in his hand. He reached over with one finger and spun a wheel on it's axle. Then he set the truck on the floor and began to push it back and forth, making growling engine noises from the back of his throat.

The first example tells the reader about David. The voice is mostly passive, distancing the reader from the action. The second example does a better job of showing the reader who David is. The use of the diminutive form of his name, Davie, as opposed to David, gives a clue to his age. The items he carries with him, and the action of using the crayon on the wall give another. The fact that he tries to hide the crayon show an immature understanding of right and wrong. And while he's smart enough to try to hide the evidence, he's not smart enough to remain quiet while hidden. The brevity of his attention span further shows his character. As does the fact that he ripped the head off his sister's doll. While readers may not know exactly how old David is, they will certainly have a good idea. And the second example does a better job of involving readers in the action. Note that neither example gives us any type of physical description of David. Readers will create their own mental image of a character when one is lacking. Which of the above examples creates a more vivid and detailed image? How important is it if your image doesn't exactly match someone else's? How important is it that David's character, or to the reader, if David's hair is blonde or black?

Don't overlook the importance of character interactions. How will Davie's mother react to her son's misadventures? Will she laugh and gently scold him for drawing on the wall? Or will she stomp her feet and rake her hands through her hair and drag Davie from behind the couch, threatening him with severe punishment? How will Davie's sister react to the whole scenario? Will she sympathize with her little brother's troubles, or take delight in the fact that he's been caught and punished? Will Davie's mother tell Davie's father about the incident? Or keep it to herself? The interplay of emotions, and the way one character behaves with another can often reveal telling details about the relationship between the two characters, as well as their personalities.

Brilliance Toward a Few Steps by James K. Shea

2006-11-27T01:35:00.000-05:00

Once again, digging around and found a great article. Can't remember where it came from, but it's some good info from James K. Shea.

Hollywood literary agents talk in the shorthand of the business when they describe scripts. Either they're "brilliant"… or "they suck." There is no middle ground. Screenplays that are "okay," or "not bad" or "have potential" really fall under the category of "they suck. Because of the staggering cost of a film today, Hollywood is only interested in the "home run," the potential blockbuster, the screenplay that all agree seems Brilliant.

The dictionary definition of "Brilliant" uses key words and phrases such as: "striking," "distinctive," and "distinguished by unusual mental keenness." In writing it relates to a concept that is unique, a story that captivates emotionally, and a superbly crafted script.

This article presupposes that you have reached a level of craftsmanship where writing aspects such as structure, conflict, setting, plot, multi-dimensional characters, and scripts, individualizing dialogue that reflects those characters are all second nature to you.

Following are some steps that may help you elevate your script in the areas of emotion and uniqueness.

Emotion

The purpose of writing is to communicate. The purpose of writing fiction is to communicate emotion. There are other forms of writing - statistical, informational, instructional - where emotion plays no part. But for fiction emotion is the key.

It is possible to build emotion into your premise, your story, and conceivably into your plot. But far and away the easier single area to generate emotion is with your characters.

The character's passion for his goal is one of the most engaging elements that causes an audience to care. Add to this his internal struggle, and you have humanized your character. Then every obstacle you place in his path will move, intrigue, and captivate your audience. Accomplish this and you're well on your way to "brilliant."

The passion can be as obvious as Dorothy's desire to get back to Kansas, or a John Wayne-style "We're not giving up this island." It can be the catalyst that incites the story as in Jimmy Stewart's decision to commit suicide at the beginning of It's A Wonderful Life - or as subtle as in the seething understatement of Casablanca.

Show me any good movie and I'll show you a protagonist who exudes anger at some point and fear at another. Anger demonstrates his passion, fear his humanity - both qualities we can identify with and admire. If your script fails to grab the audience emotionally, you've missed the boat.

Uniqueness

An excellent writing instructor once said the key phrase to what ever produced ultimately wants is: Amaze me! Th3e foundation of "amaze me" is creating something unique.

Syd Field says in his book Four Screenplays (Dell Books, 1994), "Make the impossible plausible." If you can do this, you are creating the unique.

The most valuable (and most difficult) tool for creating the unique is:

The Tenth Level of Solution

We all write from our subconscious. The subconscious takes thoughts and ideas it has heard, observed or acquired, and twists them around to offer new suggestions in the form of thoughts. But these thoughts are often based on material we have recently seen and therefore they seem derivative. How do we break this cycle to create unique and original stories?

If a writer has a problem of any kind with his/her script (especially the premise), make a list of 10 solutions to the problem. The first three or four will tend to be taken from shows seen in the past few months or years. Around solution number five, you will start to be original, and by number ten, it may b genius. Obviously, coming up with ten solutions to a problem will take some strenuous thinking, but maybe that's what "brilliant" is all about.

We are all basically lazy, it's part of being human. Most people are more at ease doing things they are familiar with. We know the things within our comfort zone. But comfort can be a curse - it limits the writer to the mundane.

Success lies beyond the comfort zone. It lies in risking the unknown; that's the only place you will find the unique.

But don't take a blank sheet of paper, listing numbers one to 10 down the left hand column. This is more than just a bit intimidating, this is instantly overwhelming.

Merely list number one, and write down a solution. Anyone can find one solution. It's okay if the first one stinks, this is just a beginning. Only when it is finished write the number two, and create your second answer. This "one at a time" process is less intimidating and can jump-start your creativity. Do you have to go all the way to number 10 What if seven or eight is great? Use it! This process is a tool to stimulate your creativity. Be committed to excellence in your writing, not obsessed with procedure.

An aside that dove-tails with this concept: An executive I know said it usually takes a writer five or six scripts before they begin creating worthwhile material. It's partly the learning process, and mastering your craft, but it's also getting beyond the derivative script and into the unique.

Programming Subconscious Response

Another technique used successfully is to pin-point a specific problem and study it from as many aspects as possible. Program your subconscious to come up with a solution within a specified time - say the next morning.

The French Mathematician Henri Poincare, in his treatise Science And Method, tells of being stumped on a math problem. He analyzed it from every aspect, but could not come up with an answer. He put the problem aside and went for a walk, "my mind was preoccupied with very different matters." When he returned to the problem, the solution suddenly flashed before him. He used this process repeatedly throughout his brilliant career.

Again, here are the three key steps:
1. Analyze all aspects of the problem.
2. Get your mind totally off the problem and, if possible, actively engage your mind in an unrelated subject.
3. Focus again on the original problem, and the solution will appear in a flash of inspiration.

Twists and Surprises

One of the most consistently brilliant screenwriters in America is William Goldman (Butch Cassidy & The Sundance Kid, The Princess Bride, The Ghost and The Darkness, [which contains the quintessential dream sequence], Marathon Man, and many more). He is also the author of one of the most often quoted books on motion pictures and writing, Adventures in The Screen Trade (Warner Books, 1994).

One of my favorite techniques comes from him. In essence he says set up a situation, look for the most obvious solution, then go in the exact opposite direction. Never give them what they can predict. Always find a twist to surprise them. If you must give them what they expected, i.e. "Boy meets Girl" give it to them in a way they would never expect.

Writing From A Parallel Universe

John Vorhaus, author of The Comic Toolkit (Silman-James Press, 1994), gave this advice to members of the "Scriptwriters Network" in an article in their newsletter. Suppose you've painted yourself into a corner. There is no possible solution to the problem you've created within the limits of our universe.

A possible method of finding the solution is to approach it from an Alternate universe, where our limitations don't apply. Viewed from a limitless universe, do new solutions present themselves? Can you then rewrite your set-up to allow some manner of loop-hole that permits this new solution in our universe?

Brainstorming

Several writing instructors have stressed the value of "Brainstorming." This means taking an idea and exploring it, twisting it, randomly looking for new aspects of it, flipping it over, looking at it upside down, inside out, etc.

The first script that I wrote which won a contest was the brainstorming of a treatment that I had sold years before.

Background: I wanted to make my villains stronger, so I took a class called Scream Writing by Alan Ormsby, who had just written the modernization of the old horror classic Cat. In the class, each student was to write a horror premise.

The premise I came up with was that a rogue army office needs to hide some nerve gas he had been ordered to destroy. He sends a truckload to a remote station in the piney-backwoods of New England. A forest fire breaks out, the truck topples over and the combination of pine smoke and nerve gas turns the soldiers into flesh-eating monsters. If you have any taste at all, this premise will make you gag.

Now, just over the hill, is the closing week of a girl's summer camp. So you have young girls in jeopardy from both the forest fire and flesh-eating monsters. Because of the execution of the materiel I was able to sell this, in treatment form, to a producer.

Several years later, I took David S. Freeman's class, "Beyond Structure." He discussed ways of brainstorming, by reversing the gender of the lead(s), changing the location, the time period, etc.

During the class I realized, "Wait a minute, I know this odd aspect of nature that has never been explored on film. Why not use it to create a new monster, and take the kids in jeopardy (from the summer camp story) and put them in outer space in the future?"

The result is an entirely new script, Terraformed, based on a concept that was good enough to sell, plus a new monster, new arena, and sufficient twists to make it completely original.

Brainstorming is readily found throughout the film industry. West Side Story is a modernization of Romeo & Juliet, Outland, took High Noon into outer space. Independence Day is a modernization of War of The Worlds, with a brilliant twist of substituting a computer virus for the original bacterial virus.

Most recently, Disney's A Bug's Life was a comedic retelling of the Magnificent Seven which in turn was a westernization of the Japanese film The Seven Samurai. In a Bug's Life, instead of seven warriors, circus bugs are mistaken for warriors. This comedic twist on the original story is a perfect example of brainstorming.

Strengthening Your Female Characters

One of the judges of a contest was discussing a script with me. Since all the scripts in the contest are read blind, he didn't know I was the author. He felt sure this script was written by a female. When I asked why, he said "Because the female characters are so well written." I couldn't ask for a nicer compliment.

This is especially important to me, because when I first started writing female characters, they merely served the plot, and were usually so dumb they walked into walls.

Where, then, were the shifts to create well written females? The first shift I'm aware of came when I had my females wanting to support the lead in achieving his goals, and being the best that he can be.

This hasn't been discussed a lot, but I think this may be a universal desire among males, to have a woman support his dreams. This is seen in The King and I, My Cousin Vinny and most recently in As Good As It Gets with Jack Nicholson's line, "You make me want to be a better man."

The next shift came from a book called The Secrets of Action Screenwriting (self-published) by William C. Martell. He pointed out that the days of women standing around and saying "oh! Oh! Oh1" while their boyfriends are in the middle of a fight to save them are now ancient history. Today's woman wants to be an equal partner, and damn well finds a way to help. The females in my scripts are very much active, aggressive, supportive "buddies."

Objectives & Subtext

Every principal character, male or female, must have an objective, a goal to strive for in each and every scene. The clash of those goals creates conflict, the heart of both drama and comedy. Optimally, you have created those objectives in such a way that for social reasons, fear of rejection, embarrassment, or whatever, they cannot be discussed openly.

When characters are driven by an objective they can't discussed openly, you have automatically generated subtext. Subtext eliminates boring "on-the-nose" dialogue where characters say exactly what they mean. It is the single richest area for enhancing both your scene work and dialogue. For the best example of this, rent the Academy Award winning Sense and Sensibility. It is wall-to-wall subtext.

The Masked Avenger

Many years ago, Johnny Hart, the author of B. C. Comics, added a character to his strip that I believe was called The Masked Avenger. It was just one of his ordinary caveman characters, but when the moon was up, he put on a cape and mask, and was capable of doing extraordinary things.
One sunny day the somewhat klutzy caveman was playing golf. It was the 18th green and if he sank this putt, it would be his best score ever. He squared off to the golf ball, but the pressure became intense. His hands began to shake and his knees began to wobble uncontrollably.

Then he had an idea. He ducked behind a tree, waited for the moon to come up, approached the ball as The Masked Avenger, and confidently sank the putt!

While the comic strip was done in pure fun, I believe we all have The Masked Avenger within us. We all have the ability, under pressure, to go beyond our own fears and limitations.

It's almost as if we asked ourselves, "How would I solve this if I were a Pro?" Maybe we substitute our favorite author. "How would I solve this if I were William Goldman, or Shane Black, or whoever?" We then drag ourselves beyond our own limitations.

On Subtlety

A while back there was a television tribute to the great writer-director Billy Wilder. Walter Matthau, who had worked in many Wilder films, was one of the guest speakers. It seems he was discussing a part with Billy, and said, "But there are subtleties in acting." To which Wilder responded, "Of course there are subtleties, just make them obvious!"

Examples of doing it well are difficult to see, because when it's done right, even blatantly, it blends in and seems natural. Let's suppose two devout church women, Sara and Mary, are talking at a social tea. Sarah whispers that one of the parish women is having an affair. If Mary's reaction is to look down and quietly whisper, "Are you sure?" this subtle reaction could be interpreted as her concern over the reputation of the congregation.

However, if Mary's reaction is to almost spill her tea, deliberately avoid Sarah's look, then struggle, searching for the right words before whispering, "Do you have any evidence?", it should be obvious to the reader/audience that Mary is experiencing some guilt. Especially when Sarah says, "It's Alice Smith," and Mary giggles in relief.

Okay, this example goes beyond natural and into the comedic, but the point holds true. Just remember the words of Billy Wilder.

There are countless aspects to writing a great script, and these seemingly disparate elements are merely facets, the awareness of which may enhance your overall writing and possibly lead you a few steps closer to Brilliance.

Blake Snyder's beat sheet

2006-11-26T12:10:00.000-05:00

Found this pretty nifty little program if you use Blake's beat sheet.

If you've never heard of Blake Snyder or his book, Save the Cat, check out his website for details.

The ABC's of Character Development

2006-11-24T22:22:00.000-05:00

Can't remember where I found this, but it's an interesting tool for building characters.

A - Appearance. What are the character's basic physical descriptors (height, weight, hair, eyes, complexion, grooming and clothing). What does her appearance reveal about her personality?

B - Behavior. What is the character's general manner and bearing? Is he polite or rude? Domineering or deferential? Nervous or calm? Any mental health problems? List some mannerisms uniquely his own.

C - Chronology. What is the character's history? How did she get to where she is now? What sort of childhood did she have? What were the major influences and experiences that shaped her personality?

D - Demographics. What is the character's age? Sex? How much income does he have? What's his marital status? What's his cultural background?

E - Education. How much education does the character have? High school drop-out or Ph.D? What areas has she studied? How good a student was she?

F - Fears. What are the primary fears that drive the character's actions? Does he have any phobias? How does he deal with his fears? Face them head-on or avoid them at all costs?

G - Goals. What are the character's main goals, both in terms of life in general and the story in particular? What will she need to do to accomplish those goals?

H - Hobbies/Habits. Does the character have any favorite pastimes? Does he have any rituals or patterns in his life? What knowledge does he have because of his areas of interest?

I - Idiosyncrasies. Does the character have any unusual and identifying quirks or peculiarities? How about nervous tics? Does she have any catch phrases?

J - Job. What does the character do for a living? Why? What skills does he have because of his job training and experience? What jobs has he held in the past, and what skills did he gain from those?

K - Kinfolk. Who are the character's family and close friends? What type of relationship do they have? How important are they in her day-to-day life? Does she have siblings? What's her birth order?

L - Language. What is the character's voice? Is it unique and consistent enough to identify his dialogue without attributions? What does his body language reveal?

M - Motivation. What is the character's primary motivation in the story? Is it believable? Consistent throughout?

N - Name. What is the character's name? Does it say anything about her? Does she like it? Is it ethnically appropriate? Are all of your character's different enough to avoid reader confusion?

O - Obstacles. What obstacles will the character encounter? How will he overcome them? What skills will he use? How will this dictate his actions and thoughts?

P - Perceptions. How does the character experience her environment? Use all five of her senses to determine her response to each scene. How does her current world look, smell, feel, sound and taste?

Q - Qualities. What are the character's dominant qualities? Is he brave? Kind? Loving? Remember, even evil characters can possess a good quality or two.

R - Religion. What are the character's religious beliefs? How important is religion in her life? How do her beliefs influence her actions and decisions?

S - Strengths. What are the character's main strengths? Are they physical? Mental? Emotional? Intellectual? How will he capitalize on those strengths to reach his goals and overcome obstacles?

T - Temperament. What is the character's usual disposition? Is she a Type A, a Type B, or a mix of both? What might cause her to deviate from her normal temperament?

U - Universals. What universal emotions will the character experience in the story? Love? Hate? Jealousy? Hurt? Fear? How can you make the reader feel those emotions along with the character?

V - Values. List the principles, morals, ideals, standards and ethics the character subscribes to. How do they influence his actions and behavior? Will any of his values change in the course of the story?

W - Weaknesses. What is the character's overall state of health? Does he have any limitations, impairments, injuries or handicaps? How important is health to him, and how does it influence his lifestyle?

X - X-Rays. What is the character's overall state of health? Does he have any limitations, impairments, injuries or handicaps? How important is health to him, and how does it influence his lifestyle?

Y - Yearnings. What longings and desires will the character experience in the course of the story? Will they be basic (hunger, thirst) or superfluous (greed, recognition)? Will she obtain them?

Z - Zip code. Where does the character live? Why does he live there? How did he come to be there? What does his home environment reveal about his personality? Is the home consistent with income?

That's Just The Way I Planned It

2006-11-20T02:50:00.000-05:00

Read a great article in, I think, Creative Screenwriting where they were talking about the history behind one of my favorite movies/scripts - Die Hard. While you can disagree with my love for this movie, it really does have a lot going for it:

1) Action
2) Comedy
3) Romance/Love
4) Fantastic bad guy
5) Imortalized tag lines

One of the thing I love about the script is how effortlessly it moves. Each scene moves quickly into the next in seemingly inconsequential episodes/scenes, but they all have value. They reveal information, character or plot (or a combination of the three).

I knew that the script was adapted from a novel, but did not realize how much was changed from the original material. It seems just about everything changed slightly or in a major way. One of the more amusing notes was the original main character's name was John Ford. That was until somebody pointed out the famous director's name and thus, the writer headed to the phone book for something new... thus, John McClane is born.

One of the groundbreaking elements of the script is the screen time and development of the bad guy in the story - Hans Gruber. Of course, it's not until you find out that the reason Bruce Willis isn't in every freakin' scene like he would be today is because he was working on Moonlighting during the day and Die Hard at night. He only had so much time, thus, his screen time was cut and others boosted so they could work around him while he wasn't on the set.

It's a testament to the writers that they were able to create so many scenes that contributed to the overal story structure, yet didn't contain Bruce. The humor in all this new information is that, typically, you write a story and put your main character in every scene you can and yet, here we have an example of a story which was written with the specific intention of scaling back the protagonist's involvement.

Just goes to show, as Unk so recently mentioned, that screenplays, while originally a writer's product, are eventually a collaboration for film and thus anything goes! Keep this in mind when studying films or scripts.

Best New earphones for the iPod

2006-11-17T19:00:00.000-05:00

totally unrelated to screenwriting, but if you own an ipod and looking for some great headphones, Bose just spat out a fantastic set for $99. This is about the same price (or less) than some of the other uber in-ear phones on the market, but the Bose are absolutely fantastic. They have a great sense of bass without having to seal them in your ears like some others.

I've tried a variety of headphones and these are really good if you can swing it. A much better option than the $300 Shure ear phones.

Perspective

2006-11-11T22:42:00.000-05:00

It's an important word. Important realization. You are not who you think you are - you are who you are perceived to be by others.

I have been a real victim of this in the everyday workforce and was fortunate enough to have somebody on the other side looking out for me. I'm a do-gooder. I like things to be done right, so when a manager sends out a blast with a set of instructions and asks for feedback, I'd give it. The problem is, they really didn't want feedback all the time, on every little thing. That was perceived as whining or complaining. I was perceived as somebody that was never happy.

This was far from the truth.

As a writer, we come up with a story, characters and write the script all by ourselves. It's terribly exciting. We may spend months or years on this material it's so fantastic to us. Then, when we believe we have it all as perfect as we can make it, we sent it out to others in the hope that they'll enjoy it enough to purchase it and turn it into a movie.

Then it happens. They have the audacity to make recommendations! Request changes! The nerve! What the hell are they thinking? I just wrote this thing - it's perfect. They're not even writers for godsake. What idiots!

Let's look at the other side though. You're a producer, agent, whatever - but you see this script - it's going to be made and you're one of any number of people involved in making the movie. You just LOVE this story. It's fantastic. You've read hundreds of scripts looking for something this good. My GOD you're going to love working on this - you can't wait to get started. It's all laid out, the story, the characters, etc. But... in this one part, you'd really like to X happen instead of what's written. It would make the movie so much better, you just know it. So you make the suggestion to the writer and they wig out.

Something I don't think writers really take into account is that in order for a movie to be made, people HAVE to be excited about your script. Let that sink in. They HAVE TO BE EXCITED ABOUT YOUR SCRIPT. If they're not, it doesn't get made. Now. If you throw a script down in front of 15 different people, they will all have ideas that just pop into their heads that they honestly believe will make the story better. They are excited, their creative juices are flowing and they want this movie to be great. Think about all the ideas you get when you review a buddies script.

If you whine or complain about the comments you receive on your script, you will be perceived as somebody hard to work with and thus you will be replaced. Your goal as a writer is to be a great collaborator. If you disagree with a suggestion, you don't need to refuse it on the spot. You can mull it over and come back later with an honest, well-thought out reason for not incorporating the idea. At first, you will be just reacting to the though of change in your story. You must not react to that feeling as it's not an honest one. Some ideas may well be worth pursuing, others may be way off, some may be interesting but present other problems.

As a writer, it's your job to take all suggestions as honest intentions to improve the story and see if they will or they won't. If they won't explain clearly why you think they won't work so that the people understand what's a stake should they insist on the changes.

This is also a character lesson when writing your characters. Your main character is performing specific actions and doing certain things in order to achieve a definate perception of themselves. This is typically not who they are in reality - and thus the problem for them. It's the person who dates manically to show that they're not alone when in fact, they are lonely. It's the individual who fakes bravado by bullying others so they appear powerful or strong when in fact they are weak.

Inspired by Greatness in Other Formats

2006-10-21T23:04:00.000-04:00

There are stories in just about all kinds of formats, one of which, is song. I've been listening to David Wilcox for years now (no, not constantly) and I'm talking about the American one, not the Canadian one (not that there's anything wrong with being Canadian) and (deep breath), one of the things he does best - infuriatingly well as a matter of fact, is tell stories.

There's a song call "Eye of the Hurricane" which is all about a girl having an accident on a motorcycle. Kicker is, it's really a song about addiction.

Then there's "Johnny's Camero" about a girl who goes to Africa and is taken to and from the airport by her boyfriend in his camero. But it's really about that moment in life that changes you forever.

He has a bunch of them. It's inspiring to see how a great writer can tell you a story about one thing, yet be teaching you lesson about something else. It's what all the greats are inspired to do - hell, even Mel Gibson is inspired to do something great with film and he's "just" an actor (well, director now, too.

Point is, we all have an opinion on something we believe to be important, the question is can you find away to put that into the form of a story? Odds are if you're passionate about something specific, then you're not the only one. Make a list of the things you are most passionate about and see if there is an argument to be made for or against any of them. If so, start looking for a story that you can tell that would prove your point.

One pager

2006-10-02T01:09:00.000-04:00

Here's one page from a script that won't be the same after I figure it out... interesting as I look back at this versus others - I have no dialogue on the first page.

Follow-up

2006-09-22T02:48:00.000-04:00

Good news is I think my last post may have revealed something I was unaware of in my screenwriting.

Bad news is I think it kinda screws me six ways to sunday (at least for awhile).

I find myself in a situation much like having all the ingredients to make a recipe but not having the directions on how to combine them. This sucks.

Good news is I know why my bloody writing is so hard these days.

This also explains why I've always been so good at helping others rewrite, but stinking up the joint when it comes to my own stories.

bugger me.

The Fear

2006-09-22T01:57:00.000-04:00

Fear drives people to do all kinds of crazy things. Sometimes, though, fear drives us *from* doing things.

See, for me, I can't help but wonder if it's fear keeping me all bunged up in the creative head.

When I was younger, ideas were a dime a dozen. I couldn't swing a dead cat without hitting an idea that seemed appealing to me. Something I could write about. I still believe I can write a scene. A sequence. Something small. It's the larger stuff that's eluding me.

I'm exausted by the possibilities. The longer I work on something, the worse it gets. I have time to think of more possibilities. I mean, really, *anything* can happen. I don't know how I did it before. When I was young. It was the same situation, but somehow there just weren't as many possibilities.

The start of the script was here. I was wrong of course, but there was no doubt in my mind. Now... I come up with 20 different scenarios for one story. And 25% of them change the bloody story so that now I have a mish-mash of about 4 or 5 stories. None of which is a complete one.

Is it fear? I mean, if I complete the script. Then I have to do something with it, right? It's at that point that it's confirmed if I suck or not. Or if I have an idea that's worth a shit. Right now, I'm a writer that just hasn't made it. I cross that line and write something then I'm either a success or a failure.

Before I go getting too melodramatic, I must confess that it's really not fear for me. I just spread myself too thin. I want to do it all. And you know where that leads -- nowhere.

The problem, however, is real. I know that the best plan for me is to come up with the idea, hammer the bastard into an outline, then write. Problem is, I've already waited too long. So now I have a bunch of ideas and none form a coherant story.

How do some of you hammer out an idea into a story? How do you come up with your log lines?
How many of you come up with characters in situations for a story versus a high concept idea you beat out into a story versus my particular curse, concepts? By concepts I mean something that sounds high concept, but it's really just a kernal of an idea (i.e. A guy who's terrified of heights gets his dream job, but it's working on the top floor of the Sears building.)

Music to Write To

2006-09-21T00:32:00.000-04:00

On a second note, I find it peculiarly peaceful to write to Sade - specifically, her Love Deluxe or Lovers Rock cds.

Weird.

Biff the Angel

2006-09-21T00:23:00.001-04:00

This was a short I did for a party reading. Our writer's group had a group of actors come in, we'd serve food and cold read short scripts. Always liked this. Thought I'd share.

FADE IN:

EXT. SKY - DAY

A notebook falls.

EXT. CENTRAL PARK - NEW YORK - DAY

A BUM wrapped in newspaper sleeps peacefully on his park bench.

WHAP~! The notebook smacks the bum on the head.

BUM
Ouch! Who the..?

He looks around for the perpatrator. Finds nobody. Lying on the ground, however, is a notebook. Spiral bound. In large bold letters on the front it reads:

"Frequently Asked Questions"

He picks it up and opens the first page.

EXT. HEAVEN - DAY

Overcast. Big black clouds dull the otherwise bright, white fluffy clouds that constitute the ground.

BIFF, timid and unassuming, shuffles across white fluffy clouds. Whisps of cloud puff with each shuffle. He bears tiny wings on his back. His shirt is cut to allow them to protrude through the back.

Slung over his shoulder is a knapsack. The zipper is open and folders and papers hang precariously in the opening.

He stops to check his watch. Rolls his eyes as he remembers he doesn't have a watch anymore. He has a small sun dial on his wrist.

He holds it out to try and catch some ray of sunshine. The sun dial remains dull and listless. Biff shakes his head and continues his trek. A slip of paper slips out and flutters down through the clouds.

EXT. CENTRAL PARK - NEW YORK - DAY

POOF! A piece of paper materializes and gets tossed by the wind.

EXT. HEAVEN'S PARK - DAY

Full of gorgeous statues - unmarred by the earthen aviary constituants. A pond ripples in the center of the park. Lush trees rustle in a gentle breeze.

Sitting on a park bench is THE ARCHANGEL ELLIOTT. His huge wings flap quickly in agitation. He taps his foot. Checks his sun dial. Looks around the park. He spots Biff.

Biff plods through the park. Ignores all the grandeur around him. POOF! Elliott is standing beside him.

ELLIOTT
And just where have you been?

BIFF
Eh...

ELLIOTT
Do you know what time it is?

BIFF
Funny you should mention that.

ELLIOTT
I don't know what it is with you newbies. No manners. Couldn't send a thought that you'd be late?

BIFF
A thought?

ELLIOTT
You know, telekenesis.

BIFF
Yeah, right. Sorry, I wasn't thinking.

ELLIOTT
You can say that again. Now come on. I've got another orientation at three and the mornings almost gone as it is.

BIFF
Elliott?

ELLIOTT
Archangel Elliott.

BIFF
Sorry. Archangel Elliott? What time is it?

Elliott huffs. Thrusts his wrist out to show his sun dial.

ELLIOTT
One-fifteen. Didn't you read your fack? It's all in there.

A blank look crosses Biff's face.

BIFF
Err...yeah. It just hasn't all sunk in yet.

Elliott grabs Biff by the hand and begins to drag him along.

ELLIOTT
You'd think that He could do something about this disorientation thing for you newbies, you know?

BIFF
Huh?

Elliott sighs. Rolls his eyes.

ELLIOTT
Come on, now. We have a lot to do in the next hour.

EXT. PALACE - HEAVEN - DAY

A giant palace, rich in splendor stretches into the sky. Sculptured stone angels watch from the top of the building.

BIFF
Is this where He lives?

ELLIOTT
No, silly. This is John's place.

BIFF
THE John?

ELLIOTT
If you mean St. John, yes.

BIFF
Where does He live?

ELLIOTT
You didn't read your fack, did you?

BIFF
Yes, I did.

ELLIOTT
Remember, you're in heaven now. We don't take to lying here.

BIFF
Honest, I read the fuck.

ELLIOTT
Fack.

BIFF
Sorry.

Elliott shakes his head.

ELLIOTT
I'd like to know what I did to deserve this. You know I was in the same creation group as Gabriel. But do I get to manifest myself in bright lights and splendor? No, I'm doomed to orientations. What has he got that I haven't?

BIFF
Maybe it's your name.

ELLIOTT
What?

BIFF
The Archangel Elliott. It doesn't have the same ring to it as the Archangel Gabriel.

ELLIOTT
What would you know, you're still disoriented.

BIFF
Are all angels as mean as you?

ELLIOTT
Just shut-up and follow me.

Biff trudges after Elliott.

CUT TO:

EXT. PEARLY GATES - HEAVEN - DAY

The pearly gates. They really are pearly. Biff stands in awe. Elliott stands with his arms folded across his chest. Taps his foot rapidly.

ELLIOTT
Had enough?

BIFF
They're prettier that I ever imagined.

ELLIOTT
Do you have your questions ready?

BIFF
Oh, yeah. Thought about 'em all night.

ELLIOTT
(to himself)
Bet you did.

BIFF
I wanted to make sure I didn't waste any.

ELLIOTT
So what are they?

BIFF
I'm not telling you.

ELLIOTT
Please. Must we go through this? It's my job to make sure you ask appropriate questions.

BIFF
What kind of questions would be inappropriate?

Big sigh for Elliott - could this be any more tedious?

ELLIOTT
Things like, "why did you give me such a small penis?"

Biff checks his list. Elliott's eyes bulge at the idea that Biff may have written down that question.

Biff looks up. Smiles.

ELLIOTT
Well?

BIFF
Well what?

ELLIOTT
Is it on your list?

BIFF
That's none of your business.

ELLIOTT
Just read them out.

BIFF
They're personal.

Elliott grabs Biff by the throat and raises him into the air.

ELLIOTT
If you don't read me those questions, I swear I'll pluck every hair from your body one at a time.

BIFF
Wouldn't that hurt?

ELLIOTT
A lot.

BIFF
I didn't think you could feel pain in heaven.

Elliott reaches out and plucks a hair from Biff's arm.

BIFF
Ouch!

ELLIOTT
Care to begin reading?

BIFF
(reluctantly)
You promise you won't tell anyone?

Elliott pauses as he remembers:

CUT TO:

EXT. HEAVEN'S BAR - NIGHT (FLASHBACK)

Elliott sits at a table with several other angels tossing back a few brews. They're all laughing hysterically. Elliott composes himself for a moment. Wipes tears from his eyes.

ELLIOTT
Swear to Him. That was the guys' question. I almost popped a wing socket laughing.

CUT TO:

EXT. PEARLY GATES - HEAVEN - DAY

Elliott forms a solomn look. Sets Biff down and crosses his heart. He holds up three fingers in the Boy Scout signal.

ELLIOTT
Scout's honor.

BIFF
(hesitantly)
Okay. One - how come I always lose one sock in the wash? And where does it go?

ELLIOTT
That's two questions.

BIFF
Then I'll rephrase. What happens to the sock I always lose when I wash clothes.

ELLIOTT
You're serious?

BIFF
You never wondered?

ELLIOTT
I'm an angel. We don't wear socks.

BIFF
Don't your feet get cold?

ELLIOTT
In heaven?

BIFF
It never gets cold here?

ELLIOTT
(in disbelief)
It's heaven.

BIFF
I know, but-

ELLIOTT
(resigned)
This isn't sinking in, is it?

A blank look from Biff.

ELLIOTT
All right. Next question.

BIFF
What is the meaning of life.

ELLIOTT
I knew it. You haven't read the fack have you?

BIFF
Did too.

ELLIOTT
Did not.

BIFF
Prove it.

ELLIOTT
That's the first question in the fack.

BIFF
You keep talking about this fuck-

ELLIOTT
FACK.

BIFF
This fack thing.

ELLIOTT
Yes. It's very important that you have read it before you appear before Him.

BIFF
Exactly what is it?

ELLIOTT
Didn't you read any of the material that was given to you?

BIFF
I have a bit of a confession to make.
(beat)
I can't read.

ELLIOTT
Just a moment.

Poof! Elliott disappears. Biff looks around nervously.

BIFF
Hello? Archangel Elliott?

Poof! Elliott's back. His wings are a little singed. The bottom of his gown is on fire.

ELLIOTT
Sorry.

BIFF
(pointing to gown)
You're on fire.

Elliott looks down. Blows on the fire. It goes out.

ELLIOTT
Again. Sorry. I had something to say that He wouldn't really appreciate.

BIFF
You were going to explain the fack.

ELLIOTT
It's all the most frequently asked questions He receives. The F.A.Q. The fack.

BIFF
But that's faqueue.

ELLIOTT
It's pronounced fack. Just live with it.

Biff pulls his backpack off. Begins to dig into it.

BIFF
I've got everything you gave me right here.

Elliott peeks into the backpack.

ELLIOTT
Where's the FAQ?

BIFF
(digging)
It's here.

ELLIOTT
You lost it didn't you?

BIFF
Aren't we Mr. Positive?

FADE TO BLACK

GERALDO
Welcome to Geraldo. Today we have a gentlemen who claims to know the answer to the question on all our minds...what happens to the lost sock in the wash. The answer to this, the meaning of life, and many others when we return from this commercial break.

FADE OUT:

THE END

How Come It's Not Getting Easier?

2006-09-17T00:11:00.000-04:00

I've liked Shane's stuff over the years. Although he did have one flick that I can't find, the others, I've enjoyed reading and watching. Lethal Weapon was my reading blueprint for some time. His writing taught me that you need a writing style. It doesn't have to be talking to the camera or any of his numerous traits, but you would hope that after awhile, you develop a rhythm of language of your own. I don't know that I could go as far as to say that you could recognize the writer from the writing, but certainly if held up beside another sample, you could tell if the two samples were from the same writer or two different writers.

Recently, I was reading an article about Shane Black and his recent film Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang. He said something that struck a chord with me. I'll paraphrase since i'm too lazy to go fetch the article. It was something like, 'you always figure that the more you write, the easier it'll get. I mean, if you make shoes for 20 years, you should be able to knock out a pretty good shoe in a short amount of time. But writing just gets harder every time.'

Think about that. Normally, you'd figure with experience comes expertise. But is that really true? Looking back I started to see a meaning between his lines.

When I started writing, I just wrote whatever I wanted. Whatever was funny, moving, interesting, etc. Whatever the characters wanted to do, that hit the page. (it wasn't really as crappy as it sounds, but it's never going to sell either).

So then I learned a little about screenwriting. Now I need a 3 act structure (well, ANY structure, but 3 Act was IN then). This meant the inciting incident, first act break, mid point and 2nd act break.

Okay. I'm rockin' now. I've got a script with all these elements. It's kickin' ass and takin' names. Or it's just getting passed on all over the place because it's really not that good. You see....

What I realized next was that the characters really had to have a meaning behind everything they said. You really can't just have them say *anything*. It has to mean something to the characters and/or the story. Same with their actions. Everything has to be for a reason. They are in this place/time because X happens or Y is said.

Boy. When I got THAT down. It was all over. Now I had it made. Three act story with every scene meaning something to the story.

How come it didn't work? Well, of course, it's because I was lacking a Theme. Something that the story was saying to the cosmos. That's what all the scenes and character situations had to play off (in some form or fashion).

Then there's the character arc of at least one character, perhaps more, perhaps none - all depends on the type of story. Which then leads to genre types and expectations. If you're going to write that horror movie, you need to hit certain points in the story. Not because it's formula, but because it's the recipe for a horror film. Without those points, it's not horror, it's something else. Oh, and there are several genres, each with a different recipe and expectant learning curve.

Oh, can't forget High Concept. Whatever my story is, it has to be something that will be interesting to just about everybody in a one or two sentence teaser.

Holy cow! What a laundry list of things to do. There's more, I know. It just makes your head spin. For TV it's even worse because of the necessities of their format. The problem is for self-starters, you're in one of two camps. Camp 1 - you get all the information and it's a case of information overload. The brain can't process it, so you forget most of it until you can deal with it (several scripts later probably). Or, you're in Camp 2 - where you don't get all the info at the same time, but you get it over a number of years. Either way, the information that you need in order to write a professional script is undoubtedly years away (from when you start).

The bottom line is that we grow with each script. Hopefully, we're able to incorporate a little more of the professional's skills into each new story and be one step closer to being a better screenwriter. If somebody who has made it can admit that it's really like starting over each time, then we should all be able to face it, accept it and move forward without fear.

Exactly What is a Great Script?

2006-09-12T00:08:00.000-04:00

As you read books, articles and attend seminars, the one thing you're trying to do is to write a great script. Everybody in Hollywood is looking for a great script. However, you can't say that a good/great movie necessarily came from a great script (or that a great script makes a great movie). Often, both are good, but the experience is different for each medium.

I remember when I first got interested in screenwriting, I read a ton of scripts. Really. I was lucky enough to work a few floors away from the Film Office in Virginia and they had stockpiles of scripts that were free for the copying (ah, the good old days).

The problem with a lot of scripts is not their quality, but that not all of them fit the same molds. You can read one book and see a few script examples, but not many books take scripts from start to finish as an example. If they do, it's typically a handful, and typically not made within the last 20 years.

This is a problem for writers since there are plenty of movies available, plenty of scripts available, but we gravitate towards the material that interests us. However, those scripts are probably not broken down and if they are, not completely.

There are some great scripts out there. Scripts that once you start reading, you find it hard to put down, regardless of how many times you've read it. I look back and some of the scripts I've loved and, much to my chagrin, they're all freakin' old.

A Few Good Men - Aaron Sorkin
The American President - Aaron Sorkin
Die Hard - Jeb Stuart
Lethal Weapon - Shane Black
Notting Hill - Richard Curtis
Four Weddings and a Funeral - Richard Curtis
Unforgiven - David Webb Peoples
Toostie

I have a ton of downloaded scripts (which I think are great for education), but these days I don't print them and finding a couple hours to start at the monitor is a tough one.

The problem is to differentiate between a movie you like/love and the script. The two are not always the same. I loved the film There's Something About Mary, but the script didn't read as well. The stuff was still funny, but it didn't have the drive that other scripts have had for me.

So while it's important to watch films and break them down, don't undervalue the importance of actually reading the written word. If writing a script is what you want to do, then you really do need to spend some time reading them to get a good idea of the pacing, the flow and the beauty of the language you're putting on paper (or screen). The better writers have a way of keeping your interest through what appear to be the most mundane actions.

What are some of your favorite scripts?

Re-reading (or *69ing the Muse)

2006-09-10T23:16:00.000-04:00

I've been an avid reader for years, although declining as of late, but my typical habit has been to read once, then file. I have way too many books, scripts and magazines for my own good. My dream was to have a library (in my home) with tall bookshelves and a big oak (or the like) desk.

I have the books, don't have the actually physical library (much to my wife's displeasure).

Anyway, this is all about the value in re-reading. Books are a tough re-read unless you have the time, but scripts and magazines are great re-reads since they're typically done in a day or less.

I've told you all how I've been stuck in a story I'm trying to write and things haven't been progressing very quickly (still aren't, but keep reading).

Today I was re-reading a Scr(i)pt article about loglines - forget which one - the 2nd in a series of 2. Anyway, the author is talking about how important they are (and they really are - refer to previous article of mine as well) and it struck me -- who my villain really needs to be! Yes. Amazing. Struck by the muse in "my office".

Hasn't solved everything, but it does lend a new slant to the story, which I now have to think through. That's the hateful part. The sitting and daydreaming exactly how that affects the story. I believe it has to be better, since it's makes the story more personal to my main character. Just need the "why". Hate that...

So, go re-read something and see if it doesn't stir up some memories and creative juices!

Manipulation

2006-09-08T00:40:00.000-04:00

Well, still no further on the ideas. Not liking that much at all. Although, on the bright side, after watching some other movies, maybe I'm overthinking the whole concept of the story actually making sense. I mean, really...winners at contests are small, character driven movies that nobody watches (and I'm not writing) and the big budget stuff is rarely as well-written (although there are a good number of great writers). Maybe all I need is a few fart jokes and get the damn thing on paper. Food for thought.

But while I'm mulling this over, I get Dirty from Netflix. I've read the article in Script about the writer (Chris Fisher) and it sounded interesting, so into the queue it went. Well... um. Spoilers alert if you're dying to see this flick...

As I go back go my issue of Script to glaze over what was written, I realize I had this movie all wrong. I thought this was a story-story... you know, shit that's made up and fits together. But this really isn't. This is, as Chris says, a "fictional true life" retelling. Meaning, some of the stuff happened, but he's had to change names, events and such so that you know what he's talking about, but nobody in real life is named, so can't sue.

Unfortunately for me, I'm not in LA (that may be a good thing too), so I don't know about the LAPD scandal that this movie is based upon. Strike 1.

I'm also in Virginia. Not a lot of hispanics and gangs roaming the streets. Strike 2.

I'm not a cop (although one of my neighbors is one), so I really don't sympathize with what these guys are doing. Strike 3.

Overall, the movie is quite suspenseful. It's really gripping for much of it's length. However, that's not that difficult (to me). Put a gun in a scene with two people who don't like each other and - bingo! Tension.

What I didn't like most about the film are two things that harken back to other films.

1) Arlington Road - I hate this movie for two reasons. 1) The main character is supposed to be smart, but makes the most boneheaded decisions at the end. 2) The villain is not a psychic, but would have to be to plan the whole thing and 3) What's the lesson? The theme? The message you get as you walk out? "Bad guys are smarter than the good guys" or something akin.

Dirty is similar in that just about everybody in the movie is bad - aka "dirty". If that's the world, maybe we're better off with a meteor taking us out. I understand that there are bad elements in our world, but, frankly, I prefer to see some sort of redemption. That's wholly personal and no real strike against the film.

2) The Usual Suspects and The Sixth Sense. I loved both of these movies, but what I believe the Sixth Sense does great, the Ususal Suspects and Dirty fail. They all have a "holy shit" ending. But while the Sixth Sense has shown you the clues all along, you just have to see them, both the Usual Suspects and Dirty flat out lie to you. What you'll hear (and what I've been told) is that "you're dealing with a unreliable narrator". Uh...no shit, they straight up lie to us from the git-go. However, problem with that is that you have no reason not to believe the narrator and thus, you believe them. How easy all our mysteries and thrillers would be if we just up front fucking lie in the beginning.

Dirty does the same thing. Lie to us from the start and then reveal the lie at the end. Just like The Ususal Suspects, the lie is necessary or the whole "holy shit" ending just falls flat - it's expected. People would figure it out. That to me, is manipulation. Your audience loves to be involved in the story - to guess what will happen ahead of you. How many people do you know who proudly proclaimed after Bruce Willis was shown to be dead, "I knew it all along. I told you." Well, of course he was! There were a million clues when you go back and look. Many of us just got lost in the story and it was all a big surprise. Either way, it was fun for both sides.

Now, if the writer goes and starts off lying. What fun is that? Where's the participation? You can't win because the writer's changed the rules without telling you.

Lastly - and here's the spoilers - I don't get the story.

It's about a cop who is unable to deal with the fact he shot an innocent person. So he's going to rat to IA about his department.

Okay - that's fine. However, the entire story (you find out at the end) is an elaborate plot to get him shot so he won't talk...uh... that's not the same thing as above. That's somebody else's story... like, maybe his partner... a dirty cop goes along with setting up his partner in order to keep him from ratting out the department to IA. But he's not the main character - it's not his story.

So, while it's entertaining, I can't say that it's a particularly well-written story.

Wish I was going to Expo this year. I'd love to catch the Pixar guys talking about story. That should be pretty good.

What I've been up to

2006-08-30T23:50:00.000-04:00

Well, I've been beating my head against the figurative wall for awhile now and it's hurting a lot.

I'm a great one for creating situational setups. Not characters. The problem with this is that you need a character in order to complete a story. So, I've taken a break for a little while and tried to help some local friends put together a website for our what I hope to be our local disc golf club.

While I work on this, I'm hoping that my subconscious will work on my characters and help me figure out how I can get two of my favorite ideas into a story...

There's no such thing as addiction

2006-08-25T00:30:00.000-04:00

Okay, that may be a little too general, but it's got me wondering. I had a conversation about this with some friends recently and I don't think they bought into my thoughts. But hear me out and, whether you agree or not, you can't really argue with the logic.

Alcohol. Addictive. I'd say yes. You stop drinking (if you are a solid drinker) and you go through physical withdrawal symptoms. Unpleasant ones.

Coke/Hash/Morphene, etc. I'll go out on a limb and say addictive. You stop using and there are some really crappy side effects (I hear).

Pot. I don't know. Everybody who smokes it says not addictive. ok... so that leads to...

Smoking. Must be not, right? I mean, if pot isn't, then how can smoking/nicotine be?

I have more though.

If smoking is so 'addictive', how is it that so many people are able to just quit cold turkey. Stop one day. Done. The only side effects that I know of (and I quit after over 10 years of smoking) are cravings, some 'bad' moods and you tend to gain weight due to the hand to mouth habit.

Compared to what a junkie goes through or an alcoholic, this sounds pretty tame.

I contend that smoking is actually more of a habit. Not that habits are a piece of cake to break, but a habit isn't addictive. It's ingrained. The side-effects of smoking could be negated if we could only learn to replace the hand to mouth with something positive besides food and could get over our childish "I'm going to pout/bitch/moan because I can't have what I want".

So, now that I've pissed off a bunch of smokers, let's look at this from another angle.

People that are overweight are often looked at as weak willed or indulgent. People that can't control themselves and are even, perhaps, lazy.

If the tobacco industry was accused of putting substances in cigarettes to make them addictive, is it so beyond belief that people in the food industry would not do something similar? What if something as innocuous as chocolate has an ingredient that many, but not all, found addictive. People on diets often talk of breaking down and binging. What's the difference between that and a smoker who takes a 5 hour flight and then puffs up several cigs back to back?

The results are the same - unhealthy. Yet, fat people are looked down on and smokers are "afflicted with an addiction".

My bottom line is how much we, as humans, can do if we set our minds to the task. Should you decide to stop smoking, all you have to do is decide you want to and it's done. I mean really want to. Not the "my life would make a great screenplay that I'll write one day" type of want to, but the "if I don't take my hand out of the garbage disposal before I turn it on, I'll regret it" kind of desire. Same goes for those with weight problems. If you want to, you can learn healthier habits, train yourself to eat the better foods.

Speaking of habits. Why is it some are so easy and some are so hard? Bad habits are so easy to keep up with - smoking, not exercising, eating poorly, etc. Yet, something like brushing your teeth, damn, it's so easy to just not do it. You'd think after 30+ years of doing it, you'd just *have* to do it or you wouldn't feel right.

Nope.

Could stop right now and not miss a thing.

That's messed up.

Sacrifice

2006-08-22T00:20:00.000-04:00

I've talked about this before, but after watching an assload of previews over at quicktime.com and reading Scott's latest blog, I'm compelled to blather about it again.

There are several movies coming out which can talk to it, but one sticks out, Pursuit of Happyness with Will Smith. It's about the struggles of a single father keeping himself and his son under a roof and fed. His plights of employement and the lesson he's teaching his son, "don't let anyone ever tell you that you can't do anything - not even me." There it is.

You can do anything.

What nobody says, but it's quite evident in every film and every history of every person you hear interviewed on the Actor's Studio is that they made sacrifices to get where they are. Big sacrifices. Not the pissant ones that so many would-be writers claim to have made.

I'm talking about leaving your family to be closer to the work.

Shunning the social life to hone your skill (whatever it is).

Missing all the cool new shows or the latest movie because, you're getting it, you're working on your skill.

I'll never forget reading that Ron Bass would get up at 5am to write, then help get the kids off to school, then go to work, come home and spend time with the wife/family. The sacrifice of sleep and other "hobbies" has led to a fruitful career.

The downside of this is that the majority of folks have made these sacrifices early. Perhaps that's why so many Hollywood marriages seem to fail. They've made so many sacrifices to get where they are, they're missing the longing others have for commitment to others.

I don't want to take anything away from Scott and his great feelings over writing recently, so I'm posting here where he'll undoubtedly never read it, but that good feeling comes from hard work. He sacrificed, it appears, a couple days and evenings to do the work and was rewarded with a nice chunk of writing. He's talking about making another push with the momentum he's gathered from Nicholl's, but the real question, I believe, is what is he willing to sacrifice to make the push payoff? Obviously, trashing a marriage and family is insane, but there are plenty of things that can come before that... social events, TV, movies, perhaps the blog & the web for awhile? I wish him all the luck and determination in the world. Go knock 'em dead, Scott!

If there's something you want, just think about what you are willing to give up to get it.

Don't believe me? Just start reading some biographies of any talented folks - sports, music, arts, whatever. Everybody who is making a living doing something fantastic has put in the time. Are you willing to put in the time as well? If not, either face up to the fact you're not going to make it to the big time, or go do something else.

Emotional Timebombs

2006-08-21T00:50:00.000-04:00

I recently watched "The Thing About My Parents". It's a new flick by Mad About You creator Paul Reiser. I like him as a stand-up comic and as a writer/actor, so it wasn't hard to plop this in the Netflix queue.

The cast is good as well, Elizabeth Perkins, Peter Falk and a small part by Olympia Dukaukis. The story is about a father and son getting to know each other (I won't go into a ton of details, rent it and see for yourself).

I didn't really read much on the flyer about it, just threw it in and watched. No expectations whatsoever.

The story had it's funny moments and some real tender moments. The tough thing for me, however, was the bonding between father and son. My dad died when I was 9. I don't remember anything about him. I have pictures and my mother's stories, but that's it. It's a peculiar thing when you become a parent - at least for me - now I see myself as a father and I'm realizing how much I've missed the relationship with my father.

What's funny - and poignant - is that if somebody brings up fathers and discovers that mine died while I was young, I don't feel anything, but there are certain situations (and films for sure) that will just well-up those deep emotions.

One such occassion, quite peculiar and unexpected, was during Armageddon. My father was in the Air Force (retired) and so at the end of the movie, when they have the 5 planes fly over and one peel off, I just burst into tears. Being the manly man I was at that age (20 something) I had to wipe back the tears and choke it up, but it was disconcerting to not be able to control my emotions.

If you're lucky, you're able to put your characters into these situations in your stories. Things that touch them in ways they are unaware of.

The Thing About My Parents is a touching film that I know got made based on Reiser's credits and not the Hollywood machine. There is no draw for this film whatsover in the logline, much like the current "sunshine", it's all in the character interactions and the bond you create with them during the 90 minutes of screen time.

From Me To You

2006-08-20T00:50:00.000-04:00

It's been awhile and, unfortunately, not much interesting going on. Not much to post outside of the mundane day-to-days. So, I thought I'd pass on something from me to you. These are for WCDixon, who shares so many verses of song. These are two verses that just seemed to hit me in the gut the first time I heard them, and ever since.

#1 - David Wilcox - Show the Way from Big Horizon

You say you see no hope, you say you see no reason
We should dream that the world would ever change
You're saying love is foolish to believe
'Cause there'll always be some crazy with an Army or a Knife
To wake you from your day dream, put the fear back in your life...
Look, if someone wrote a play just to glorify
What's stronger than hate, would they not arrange the stage
To look as if the hero came too late he's almost in defeat
It's looking like the Evil side will win, so on the Edge
Of every seat, from the moment that the whole thing begins

This guy is an incredible songwriter. Check out his site (David Wilcox). You're in for a real treat if you like the type of music.

#2 - Matchbox Twenty - Rest Stop from Mad Season

She said - while you were sleeping
I was listening to the radio
And wondering what you're dreaming when
It came to mind that I didn't care
So I thought - hell if it's over
I had better end it quick
Or I could lose my nerve
Are you listening - can you hear me
Have you forgotten

Talk about getting to the point. It's painful just to hear. Undoubtedly, we've all heard the sentiment, although perhaps not so harshly spoken. The lead singer, Rob Thomas, is a great songwriter. Prolific as hell as well it seems.

Music speaks to so many of us. I know that many folks enjoy listening to music while they write, some can't listen to anything while they write. I've found that, peculiarly, in order to write, I have to put the headphones on so that the music is all I can hear. If I can manage to find some music that stirs a mood in me for the story I'm writing, I just loop the song(s) over and over while I write.

One of my fondest memories was reading the Riftwar Saga by Raymond E. Feist. There were only 4 books when I read it and for the majority of my reading, I listened to Enya's first couple CDs. They have an ethereal and fantastic feel and along with the fantasy setting of the novel, it was a wonderful experience. For years after finishing the book, whenever I heard particular Enya tunes, I would remember the characters in the story and feel a pang of wanting to share the adventure again.

What's Better Than Winning a Contest

2006-08-04T00:31:00.000-04:00

The Disney Fellowship. Lots of people enter and if you're single, or married and able to relocate or be apart from your spouse for a year, so should you.

A contest win is very satisfying. You get a prize, you might get some calls to option your work, etc. However, if there are no bites, that's it.

The Disney Fellowship is a job writing for a living with other professionals for a year. What better place to learn the business, make contacts and work on polishing your writing to a professional level?

The title of this blog should link to their page. Bookmark it and check out the guidelines and mark their deadline on your calendar each year.

Sam & Jim (of Sam & Jim Go To Hollywood fame) were both Disney fellows as well as Sal over at "Let Me In". Check out their pages and see what they thought of the program. Sam & Jim are doing well currently and Sal is still in the program, so you can get a current view of what it's like.

Life Changing Events

2006-08-02T22:56:00.000-04:00

I could put in something easy like the birth of our child, but that would be easy. Instead, it's the band Boston. When I was 17, I heard this band for the first time and they just lit me up. That music installed in me a deep desire to play the guitar. That desire is still with me today - over 20 years later.

I recently picked up the remastered versions of the first two "cds" (actually albums) and was listening to them again. What memories. Well, nothing specific, but a general feeling of "goodness" washed over me as I cranked up the volume (in the house alone) and sang along to some of my favorite music ever.

When you are writing your stories, you should be giving your main character a moment as big or bigger. Your story actually begins when that moment happens (is most often called the inciting incident). It's what makes your character want to change the way their life is going. Makes them want to do something different. It could be any change; however, the end result is that after mulling it over with themself or friends, they do take that plunge and that plunge is a moment they can't take back.

Even in "small" stories, these actions or events take place because it is an essential ingredient in the recipe of Story.

There's Nothing on TV

2006-07-31T14:49:00.000-04:00

I hear that so many times, and I'm not even IN the TV business.

Just watched the preview from We. The Screenwriter

It looks great, but one of the comments that bugged me was when a TV writer said that whenever he says he's a TV writer, the response is, "how come there's nothing good on TV?"

I just don't understand that comment at all. Do they mean there's really nothing on the channel I watch? There's nothing at the time of day I want to watch TV? My television is really just an aquarium and I don't like the fish? Really? I believe currently, television represents just about any kind of show you could want to watch. So much more than used to be on television (as far as the spectrum or range of shows that is).

What were the shows you thought were good? They're pretty much there now, perhaps disguised a little differently, but they're there. Maybe you just got tire of looking through the listings or you don't watch commercials so you miss all the previews of new shows.

Are you a big 3 snob? Only watch shows on NBC, CBS or ABC?

I just don't get it.

I've enjoyed a variety of shows for a variety of reasons. First and foremost, it's TV... that's television. What are the expectations from television these days? Has it changed since the days of Leave it to Beaver, My 3 Sons, Quincy, Rockford Files, Dallas, etc.? I don't think so. It's still there to entertain.

Maybe the problem is that there are good shows, but you're not paying attention so you don't watch and then they're cancelled. Gone are the days when a good show would get a couple years to develop an audience. You get a few episodes and pray for a hit.

This past year sported three engaging and creative sci-fi type shows (Threshold, Surface and Invasion) on the Big 3 networks. But all 3 were cancelled. Over There and Thief both came and went from FX. Critically acclaimed and fantastic shows. Gone. Nobody watched them.

Maybe it's just that you don't recognize the show, so you don't tune in? Do you only give a show one viewing? Maybe the reason there's "nothing good on tv" anymore is your fault. Maybe you're just not tuning in or giving some of the new shows a chance.

I know that for myself, often my favorite cd from an artist is the one that first drew me to them. The other cd's often just aren't as good for some reason. Perhaps that's the way it's going with TV. Many of the popular actors are out of TV from the past generation and now nobody recognizes the new popular actors/acresses. Maybe it's fewer spinoffs, so all the shows are "new" and original so there's no familiarity inherent to the show.

I don't know.

I do think it's a falacy that there's nothing good on TV anymore. They may not be your "cup of tea" but here are some shows that are entertaining to watch:

Nip/Tuck, Rescue Me, Blade, Smallville, Supernatural, House, CSI NY, CSI LV, CSI Miami, Eureka, It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, 4400, Windfall, Numbers, NCIS, Medium, Las Vegas, Monk, Psych, The Loop, Scrubs, The Dead Zone, Criminal Minds, The Shield, New Adventures of Old Christine & Saved.

These are all night shows, so we're not even counting shows during the day or on channels like discovery or history that show a variety of educational materials.

And that's excluding all the reality shows (since I despise them on pure principal - doesn't appear to be much "creative" writing - although I understand there are writers on the shows).

If you still can't find anything on TV, maybe you should just sell it and play outside instead.

The Relativity of Danger

2006-07-24T00:08:00.000-04:00

So I'm driving down the road the other day - Interstate 95. It's a pretty busy road - all kinds of traffic from Florida to NY and above. Three lanes, busy 24/7. I say this because I don't want to give the impression that this is a back road or anything remotely similar to a deserted highway.

I'm doing, I think about 70mph. The speed limit is 60 or 65 and traffic is just groovin' along. Not many slouches at this time of day. It's about 5pm on a Saturday.

I see a motorcycle come zipping along in the rear-view, so I pull into the center lane. Less than a minute later, the bike goes by.

I must add, that although I've ridden motorcycles in my youth, they were always the offroad variety. Nothing on the road. So, while I have some experience, I'm not an expert. I do know though that what this guy is wearing, isn't the typical safety gear.

T-shirt, shorts, sneakers & a helmet. He's doing about 85mph, riding one-handed and looking back over his shoulder as he zips by me.

He continues to look over his shoulder (and drive one-handed) as he zips by three other vehicles about 300 feet ahead.

So I'm thinking, holy cow, that guy's crazy wearing just what he has on and going that fast - must be up to 90mph by now as fast as he's going by cars.

Then he does it - pops a wheelie. Ninety mph on the open highway and he's on one wheel passing a minivan or something. I about crapped my pants just seeing it.

So there it is - two perspectives. To him, it's exciting, but not a huge risk. To me, all I can think about is the 300 feet of body parts and flesh strewn across the highway that would be him if he made the slightest mistake.

Danger is relative to the person in the situation.

When you're writing your action sequence, try to put your hero in situations that are dangerous to us, but not him, to show his competence, but situations that are dangerous to him to show his courage. Dangerous doesn't always have to be an action sequence either. Dangerous could be something as simple as placing him in the vicinity of something he's allergic too. Perhaps even something that the majority of folks are not.

Just make sure that when you're writing, you remember that the person in danger is your character and not you - so the things that are pushing them are not things that necessarily affect you.

Hard to Believe

2006-07-22T11:06:00.000-04:00

I must admit, that although I'm a huge screenwriting fan and I love films, I haven't been as rabid as some are - plowing through the history of film and writers as far back as the written word goes.

So I decided recently to watch The Seven Year Itch. I'm almost ashamed to say I haven't seen it just because it's one of the "biggies" that I just believe is on the must-see list.

I must say that I was underwhelmed by the first act just because it was so chock full of monologue and setup. There really wasn't much going on at all. However, once Marilyn is introduced, things started rolling. I'm not a huge Monroe fan, but I would have to agree that she's something else on screen.

What is really great is there is a backstory section on the dvd that talks about the the stars, the writers, the history of the film, etc. For somebody who isn't in the industry and hasn't been a history fan, it was quite an eye-opener.

For starters, I certainly feel for Marilyn Monroe. I'm peripherally aware of her career and how things ended, but this short featurette really put a different slant on how things were for her. To be honest, it was just as bad as anything today, if you ask me, because although stars have privacy issues, they are privacy issues. It would appear that back in the 50's the subject of a star having privacy wasn't an issue. She seemed more to be "owned" by the studio and they would do whatever they wanted if they felt it was in their best interest - regardless of the impact on her.

Secondly, I'm stunned about the Hayes office and the Legion of Decency. It's no wonder all the films of yesteryear seemed so damned innocent - they had the life censored out of them. From the featurette, which has interviews with Billy Wilder and George Axelrod (the writer), you learn that the original play was much spicier - with lots of sexual banter and - wait for it - an *actual* affair! In the film, there is no affair - merely a few kisses.

The Hayes office created a list of rules that films had to adhere to - one of these rules being that you could not speak of sexual infidelity in a humorous manner. There were many restrictions on subject matter, language, etc. In addition to the censorship going on, the Legion of Decency would also stamp movies they approved of with their seal of approval. If a film didn't have them seal of approval, they would recommend to all Catholics that they avoid the film.

It's akin to allowing Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson censor all our films before we see them.

Think about that. Let that sink in.

Wow.

Then think about some of the films that Billy Wilder did during that time and all of a sudden, you realize why this guy is such an icon. It's not just the films, it was he was able to do at the time he did them.

It's all William Martell's fault

2006-07-19T00:29:00.000-04:00

This guy writes a ton of scripts and does a ton of articles. Regardless of what you think of his advice, he's definately one of the most giving individuals when it comes to sharing knowledge that I think you'll find.

I don't think there's a screenwriting magazine he hasn't contributed to, frequents festivals, visits forums & blogs and, oh, he actually makes time to write scripts too. I believe he's had a fair amount of success. I'd say for someone with his success, he's being unbelievably kind to the rest of us by sharing what he's learned.

Anyhoo - he chirps up with an aritcle in the latest Script mag (that I spoke about last post) and it's got me wondering about characters.

So here we go - here's some of the shows I watch and their main characters:

1) Numbers - main characters are emotionally unavailable. Both too scared, for one reason or another, to commit to a relationship. Both obsessed with their work.

2) NCIS - main character is obsessed with work and an extreme hardass.

3) Medium - obsessed with work (that would be *dead people*).

4) Las Vegas - obsessed with work and hard ass (sneaky spy background as well)

5) Monk - Phobic beyond belief. Obsessed with cleanliness.

6) Still Standing - Both parents are callous and selfish. Obsessed with their own needs regardless of consequences to others.

7) Smallville - Obsessed with doing good and keeping his secret.

8) Rescue Me - Good god... what an asshole.

9) It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia - Bunch of selfish pricks.

10) Criminal Minds - Waaay too obsessed with work.

11) Supernatural - Again...see a theme? Obsessed with their work (as it is) and unable to emotionally connect with anybody because of it.

12) New Adventures of Old Christine - Obsessed with what others think.

13) Saved - Gambler and chronic underachiever.

14) Seinfeld (for kicks) - Another bunch of assholes.

Ok, I could go on, but you get the idea. The point is, probably the majority of characters we see on television, and film, are not really "nice" people. Many are jerks and the like. They consistently find ways to disappoint those that care about them.

They are *not* real people. The supporting cast is often made up of more realistic people, but the main characters are defective in some concrete ways. They are not people I would like. Not people I'd hang around with. Not because I feel I'm better, but if you think about it, wouldn't you find yourself saying, "Oh my God! Can you just get beyond this?" I mean, really, Gibbs is made out to be a good guy, but it's a valid history that he's been married 4 times. Who the hell would want a man who is hardly ever home and cares more about work than their family?

The comedies are funny, Still Standing, Philadelphia & Seinfeld - but, good god, if these were real people, how sad. I've always heard that Rosanne was well received because the characters were more realistic and I finally see why now. Their humor came out of everyday situations, not the outlandish skits that are written in many of the other shows. Everybody Loves Raymond and Mad About You followed similar models. These were often people you knew or wanted to know, not people you laughed at - people you laughed with.

Oh My God! Is That All You Think About?

2006-07-18T00:32:00.000-04:00

William Martell has a good article in the last Script magazine.

He talks about how the main character in The Incredibles (dad) is obsessed with caring/giving. It's what drives him to be a superhero, save the character that sues them and kills the super hero biz for all of them. It's what drives him to moonlight as a superhero and results in his getting fired. It's was causes him to get involved with the bad guys and drives - yes - the entire story. His obsession with trying to help.

In this light, he doesn't seem like such a good guy. He's almost negligent when it comes to his family.

So I started looking at a few other flicks.

Bruce Almighty. Career driven - obsessed with it. It's the reason for the majority of his actions. What an ass!

Sky High - the kid is obsessed with his power (or lack of it). It's what binds him to his best friend and why he ends up pushing her away.

Collateral - Jamie Foxx is afraid - afraid to step out of his safe world. The world he knows so well (driving a cab). It drives all his actions until he's forced out of it by Vincent.

Laws of Attraction - The character is driven to win at all costs.

This isn't the case for every movie, but it does appear that a large cross-section of films have a main character that in our own personal lives, we very well might consider an asshole. They pursue their lives based off a single desire, regardless of the consequences.

What the writers have done, however, is to show us this one trait, mixed in with several other more palatable traits that endear us to them. We are then able to root for them as the story progresses. However, whenever a decision needs to be made - it's always based off their single desire (until, of course, they get to learn their lesson - or in European cinema they don't).

I love Bruce Almighty, but if you take a minute and look at that story from the girl's perspective, you really wonder why she's with him in the first place and exactly how much of a jack ass he is. The trick in that film is that he is shown to be downtrodden so many times, always put upon so that we feel sorry for him. He's funny and, probably most of all, she loves him - therefore, he must be worth loving.

Take a look at some of the films you've watched and see if the main character fits this obsessive type behavior. If so, are they really likable? How do the writer's get you to feel for them despite their selfish behavior? If it's resolved in the end (i.e. they see the error of their ways) is there a dramatic scene where they realize this? Did it work for you?

While some might construe this as formula, I tend to think of it more as the necessary ingredients for a type of story.

After all, when we tell stories, we're trying to tell somebody else, through story, that the type of behavior of our main character is either acceptable and expected or not acceptable and thus subject to punishment.

The Handicapped

2006-07-14T00:05:00.000-04:00

There are some things that just piss you off, regardless of how bad you feel about being pissed off about them.

For me, it's bloody handicapped markers on license plates, the handicapped spots at stores and the hangers for the car rear-view mirror.

I can't drive drunk because it impairs my ability to drive a vehicle. As a teenager, I'm charged out the ass for insurance because I'm "reckless". But a handicapped driver? They're the fucking bomb. Exactly what qualifies for getting the handicapped moniker? I really should look it up. I just might now. I mean, really.

The loss of a limb? Can you be mentally handicapped and get it?

Now before you go looking me up to send a death squad to my door. I could really care less about weather the handicapped drive or not. More power to them. Progress is great, no?

What bugs me is they get the special treatment. Why? All the time I see somebody park in the handicapped spot, hop out and walk to the store.

You know. If you're too handicapped to walk from wherever you park, perhaps you're too handicapped to drive? If it's somebody else driving because the handicapped person is in a wheelchair, then where's the heartache? They're on wheels! The person pushing isn't handicapped, so normally they don't get to park that close.

See, what's pissing me off is that it doesn't make sense.

These are like pity perks for people who probably don't even want them. I'd wager that the most popular users of these perks are friends/relatives of the handicapped who take advantage of their perks. Which is cheating, which is akin to cutting in line, etc. Pisses me off.

How could this possibly relate to writing you ask?

Well, there are way too many times when something happens that just makes no damned sense.

My favorite example is a film I love to hate: Arlington Road.

This smart guy is duped so completely that not only is his every action and reaction known, but so is the timing of his actions. If he's so damned smart, how can he be such a fucking idiot? How did everybody at the end of that story get beaten with an idiot stick?

Pisses me off.

You're allowed one coincidence in your story. Typically early and what gets the whole shabang going, after that your audience will be on guard, so don't try it again because...

you'll piss 'em off.

This goes for character flip-flops just as much as plot implausibles. If you've written yourself into a corner, don't cheat to get out.

p.s. I don't drink alcohol at all (sadly), so I don't drink & drive, so put the flame-mails away.

ppss - I did look it up and apparently, a Dr. completes the form and it's their opinion of what consitutes a handicapp. A physician's opinion. Because they're so right. Here's two blurbs from physicians: "A patient always knows their body better than a dr." Yet, somehow, "A dr. is the worst patient."

but i digress

The Psychic In All of Us

2006-07-09T23:52:00.000-04:00

We've all been there - well, those of us who have chosen to drive on the highways.

You can see it coming - seems like from a mile away. The jackass that has to go around you to pull in front of you when:

a) The traffic just isn't moving fast enough to warrant the move
b) It gets them nowhere but in front of you
c) There really isn't enough room between you and the car in front, let alone for them to pull in between the two of you.

They don't even need to use an indicator. You can just feel it.

That feeling is what we're getting when we go see a movie. Every 20-30 minutes, we're leading the audience up to that moment - the moment when they'll say, "oh yeah, I saw that coming a mile away." However, we need to make them say, 'Oh... I didn't see that coming."

It doesn't have to be big - it can be small. You want to avoid the, "Where the hell did that come from?" reaction as well. Recently, there has been some criticism of Superman Returns. One moment that raises the WTF? is when Lois is able to turn around on their plane and rescue SM. I know that in film we have to use cuts, but that was using CUT TO in the real world and you can't do that.

A good example is from Under the Tuscan Sun. She purchases a home in Italy on a spur of the moment decision. It's something you don't expect - sort of -- with a title like Under the Tuscan Sun, you know where she'll be, you just don't realize the length of time at the outset.

A lot of folks dislike M. Night's movies, but for better or worse, they do one thing effectively - they show you a story from one perspective and then when you're believing, "I know exactly where this is going", he shows you the story from another perspective. Whether you're entertained up until that point is disputable; however, I don't think many folks have seen it coming from a mile away.

This is an important aspect of knowing your story and your beats. You are writing toward an end-point, just writing to fill space. All of your build-up to that beat should be leading your audience toward or away from their expectation and your revelation.

The worst thing you can do is intentionally fool your audience by lying to them; so don't resort to that. Make sure that you plant all your clues along the way, but deflect them in creative ways. Many mysteries will show a culpret or a piece of evidence and then have somebody in authority dismiss it for what would appear to be a valid reason. The audience will believe that if it's done authentically. But then, later, you can show why this dismissal was invalid and the audience will feel like a sucker for accepting it so blindly when they *knew* they shouldn't have...

After all, the goal isn't to fool the audience, it's to make them feel smart and involved.

Redundancy

2006-07-05T22:31:00.000-04:00

Well, after my most recent double post, it would appear somebody wants an article on redundancy.

That is, saying the same thing again. When you've already said it. Or shown it.

Doing the same thing over again, because, you believe, some people are thick (they really are) and they're just not getting it.

So, you say it again. Or show it again.

Redundancy.

It's only really good on a network.

See, we have a habit of doing it in our stories when we're not paying attention. We'll show something happen, then turn right around and have a character repeat what just happened. Doh!

I've seen many a script have a scene with somebody talking on the phone, they'll chat away with another character beside them, and then, when they are finished on the phone, they repeat what the phone conversation was about. Now, maybe your other character is really polite and not listening to what was said on the phone, but, you'd better hope your audience is not that well-mannered. My recommendation for things like that is to either start the phone conversation off-screen so we don't hear it - we just see them hang up. Or have the conversation mean something - i.e. the other character should not be listening, but is and then the other person lies to them about the call.

There is also the situation which replays itself over and over through your story because you're *sure* the audience just isn't going to get it the first time. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that if you've made it fairly obvious, then just let it ride and see how reactions go before adding it into the story again. If Marge is seen getting shot, we don't need to hear somebody say, "did you hear Marge was shot?"

A sort of exception to this would be in line with the Rule of Threes. Whereby you could relay the same information again; however, it would have to be either interpreted differently each time or the first two times would be the same and we would expect the third to be the same, but it is totally different and story/character impacting as a result.

This doesn't just apply to characters and story. It also applies to the very words you put on the page. Just as the word "like" is being overused, you don't want to put the same descriptive word down over and over. Obviously, words such as "the" will be repetitive, but you want to avoid stuff like: "It was a quiet night. He walked quietly across the room trying not to wake the person sleeping on the couch." You get the picture.

With characters, you can use this to a good effect if it's in their character to use a word over and over. Simple example is the word "like" or "dude" which has been popular for surfer guys and gals.

It could be a character who uses a particular curse word and is trying to stop - yet can't. Perhaps they have a string of creative substitutes they fail to utilize in the moment of truth.

As you go through that rewrite, keep a heads-up for the redundancy factor.

i love disc golf

2006-07-04T23:10:00.000-04:00

This is supposed to be all about "writing on spec", but for me, I needed to recharge, and it's been through disc golf. It's a great sport, doesn't kill you, doesn't cost much and doesn't take too long.

It's just like regular golf, only you throw special frisbees and land them in chain baskets instead of holes. Every hole is a par 3, so there's no worry about different pars.

Courses are all over the world - probably a bunch within driving distance of you.

If you're looking for something fun to do outside in the pretty weather, give it a shot.

Next "Hot" movie

2006-06-28T23:45:00.000-04:00

If you ask me, the reason all these comic book movies are doing so well, aside from the fact they are well-made (i.e. somewhat faithful to their comics and not shlock like I believe Batman 2 up to Batman Beyond were. See the last couple Supermans prior to Superman Returns) is that they are vengence stories.

Okay, maybe vengence is a little strong. Let's say they are Action movies.

Well, DUH! you say. But maybe you're not looking closely enough. These aren't the same action pictures like "Last Action Hero" or "Predator". These are action stories where people *take* action and *DO* something. People controlling their lives instead of being controlled. It's what Superheros are all about. Saving the day. Thwarting evil, etc.

If there weren't so many 'issues' surrounding the gun lobby these days, I would have expected an update of Death Wish.

You see, in our current world, frustration is the enemy of the day. You can't get anything done anymore. Worse, if you do, you're just as likely to be punished for it.

Does anybody really merge anymore? Or is it more like 75% of the people get in line and 25% of the people fucking rush down the open merge lane for the front of the line.

At the Express checkout, do people really count? Walmart says "about 15" because they know some ass is going to walk up with 16 items and pitch a fit if they're not checked out. I went into Food Lion today and some woman drops like 20 items on the belt with a sign above her reading "Express lane - 12 or less items". She has two teenagers with her bringing more items up as she waits in line.

Now. Do the rest of us say anything? No. Frustration. What if we do? Think she'll put her shit back in her cart and move to another register? Uh... don't think so.

It's a daily battle of frustration. The person who drives right on the speed limit or below, in thick traffic in the passing lane. You know they see everybody back there. And you know what they're thinking.... "if that SOB wants to pass me, he can just go around. I'm going the speed limit."

Thanks. I'd do that if it wasn't so fucking packed in all the other slow ass lanes going the same speed as you.

Work. Gee - we all love it. Countless stories from Hollywood about troublesome actors, stupid executive notes, etc. Is it really much better outside Hollywood? Management that can't make a decision because once they do, they'll be responsible for it. Outsourcing all our entry-level tech jobs to foreign countries because it's cheaper. Even though the majority of the population doesn't want it and, I'm sorry, can't understand what many operators are saying.

The price of gas is going up, yet our government, and the car industry, just keeps on pumping out the gas guzzlers. Last I heard, you had to get on a waiting list for a hybrid. Check out the upcoming movie "who killed the electric car" for more information.

So, you want to make a new movie? Make a movie where you see somebody VENT that damn frustration. In just about any manner, and it will be welcomed.

In our society you can't *do* anything without some sort of repercussion - even the absurd ones. Defend your life from an attacker? Held on charges for assault. Spank your unruly child in public? Expect a visit from the social workers. Piss of your spouse? They could screw you over by reporting you as a child abuser. You could beat the rap, but your reputation is shit now.

So find a way to get some of that frustration into a film and then figure out a way to vent it. I'll be the first in line to see it when it comes to my local theater.

Act 3

2006-06-27T22:53:00.000-04:00

Wow...time has gone so fast, almost forget about Act 3!

With any luck, Act 3 should be easy.

Well, easier than Act 2, anyway.

It's going to start at the very bottom of the barrel. The worst moment for your character. Everything they've fought for has turned out to be a failure. They've lost (at least that's what they have to think). In the majority of Hollywood cinema, it's a false loss because eventually they will succeed. In European film it's quite often the long dark fall into total failure. Umm... that'll be fun.

Anyway, we're talking about the Hollywood film here, so at around 75% of your film, you have the Darkest Hour moment.

This is followed by a point of discovery. The main character's original plan has failed, but, like a phoenix rising from the ashes, they will be reborn with a new plan. Possibly even a plan that is born out of the B story. It's where they actually get to use the knowledge they've gained in the Special World (i.e. Act 2).

Let's say that again because it's important. The new plan your main character will create to win the day will be hatched because of what they have learned in Act 2 in the Special World.

If they don't go through their experiences in Act 2, they don't grow into the person that can solve the problem that is before them at the end of Act 2. A clear example is the character in Bruce Almighty. He has the power of God in Act 2 - he can do almost anything - anything but make somebody fall in love with him. It's not until he loses his girlfriend that he realizes what he had. With that knowledge, he is able to grow past his career-centric focus and find true happiness.

The finale is going to be almost the last 20% of the story and it will be putting their new plan into action. For Hollywood films it will typically be a success and will end with a final image that's 180 degrees from the opening image. Again, to use Bruce Almighty, it opens with him being embarrassed about his job. He feels humiliated doing his story. However, the last shot of the final act is him turning it around to his advantage and being a much happier person.

If you can manage it, your final image should show just how much your character has grown (or failed to grow) through the story's events. They should be bookends.

It's okay not to get it.

2006-06-26T23:17:00.000-04:00

So I lend Lord of War and The Weather Man to my brother & sister-in-law. They didn't care for either. Didn't even finish watching either. Didn't hold their interest. Boring. Nothing happening. Couldn't get into them.

So, I immediately return home with them and watch them the next day.

Lord of War wasn't what I thought it was billed to be, but it was entertaining. I think had they ran with the "based on actual events" it would have fared worse at the box office. However, the Weather Man was much of what I expected. I enjoyed it quite a bit, which leads me to some rather uncomfortable territory.

For starters - am I "that" person who didn't like Match Point because I didn't get it? That's a distinct possibility, even though I really tried to look at it objectively from the writer's perspective.

This leads me to The Weather Man. To me, it seemed to speak to the 40 somethings out there who have found themselves at a point in life where they can't get back what they may have lost. No matter how hard they try. Dreams you had as a child, or young adult aren't as achievable any longer.

So, I'm feeling some empathy for the guy - Dave Spritz. He's not the best guy in the world, but I can see how he got to where he did and I understand why he's all fucked up in the head now.

What surprised me is that three of the people closest to me just don't get that. They are where they are in life, and that's okay. I don't know if they didn't have any dreams or ambition or what. I feel kinda mean digging around that area just because I feel like I'm saying there's something wrong with them if they don't feel that way, but it's really the opposite - why can't I?

They're happy. I'm, well, not unhappy, but feeling a little unfulfilled.

What's the point of all this?

Don't let any one person sway your story's content. There will always be somebody who doesn't get your story, regardless of content. Make sure that when you ask for critiques, you spread it out to a good mix of people. Not people that are necessarily close to you or even similar in interests. Find several "common" folk - the people that'd be going to see your movie.

I've found that most people/acquaintences are quite willing to read something. They don't have to finish the script - of course you hope it's interesting enough to finish, but whatever feedback you get will be valuable in some respect because it should be honest comments about your work from a viewers perspective. Hopefully, with some writer's perspectives combined with the viewers you'll have a good idea of what is working and what is not.

I don't need no stinkin' therapy

2006-06-23T23:18:00.000-04:00

That's what I keep telling myself in that hollow, tinny voice. It used to be a thunderous, splendiferous voice, but not so much lately.

I don't write, but I don't have writer's block. What I have is an unexplainable desire to weep for the planet... a tad dramatic, isn't it?

There is so much good in the world, right? There's supposed to be, anyway. I saw a special on a guy from WWI, survived so much stuff you wonder how we can't overcome anything. He's got 5 kids and my first thought is, FIVE? Good god, you couldn't stop at one or two?

China's policy on children seems less and less insane when I hear pro-lifers talking about saving/keeping every conception. I know it's a big planet, but:

a) We can't live everywhere
b) We can't asphalt the rest of the damn thing

So. Ok. I have population explosion issues.

The planet is the hottest it's been in 2,000 years. More greenhouse effect stuff. Pretty soon we'll screw ourselves because of our pollution destroying the ozone layer.

I don't want to discuss the atrocities and cruelties we commit towards animal life without a thought on a daily basis.

Or, for that matter, our careless treatment of nature in general as we wipe out 100 year old trees to widen a road.

We have kids in our own 'fortunate' country who don't expect to live to 25. Don't care about getting an education to make something of themselves and parents who treat their children about as well as people treat stray animals.

People are so infrequently courteous, kind, well-mannered in person, let alone when they have the annonymity of the internet to flame anybody and everybody.

So now, for some reason, I'm a big steaming pile of empathy.

You remember Empathy? It's what you're reaching for when you write that script you're toiling over. You want, hell, you need that person in the audience to feel just like you're making that character feel. It's what draws them out of their normal life and into your Special World.

Well, guess what, I read the other day that you can de-empathize people. Yup. If at a young age, they are not shown, taught, made to believe in empathy, then they have none. What do we get? Serial killers, psychopaths or people who just don't give a shit about anything. Value in an item or person is strictly in relation to them. How it makes another feel is inconsequential.

So if you can manage it, try and empathize a little. Before honking the horn and flipping somebody off, imagine it was you - we all make mistakes. Before you intentionally bypass a line of traffic to speed to the end of the merge (where you will bring traffic to a complete stand-still), just imagine what it's like to wait in line and see everybody else cut in front of you.

For your stories, create a character that has something to lose. Something at risk. Something they care about. Something that we can relate to and take that journey with them. Every story should have empathy, just like every one of us should be able to empathize with one another, the world around us and a great story.

Reveals

2006-06-19T23:06:00.000-04:00

At least that's all I can think of to call them right now.

Just saw one in In My Shoes, a pretty good movie. Was surprised to see Curtis Hanson directing, but after watching, it was a good story, so I can see how he would be drawn to it.

Anyhoo... one of the big questions in the movie is "why wasn't grandma around?" The question is the elephant in the room as soon as she's introduced. However, it's not just blurted out. It's not ripped out by one of the main characters in a forced, overly dramatic scene. It's teased out by one of the side characters in a private, emotional moment between the her and the grandma. She reveals the secret, adding that she's never told anybody, not even her husband.

It's a significant piece of the story and explains a lot about the relationship between the son in law as well.

It was extremelly well acted and well written.

It was much like the Butch Cassidy & The Sundance Kid classic reveal where the Kid has to reveal that he can't swim right before they jump off the cliff into the water. You knew the Kid was afraid of something - swimming hadn't come up until that moment. That's when it was most important.

It's a difficult thing to keep a secret in a story. The question is always there and you would figure *somebody* would just HAVE to talk about it -- but they don't.

It's left hanging there, scene after scene, minute after minute, for the audience to wonder and squirm about when it will be revealed.

Another film with a strong reveal was Gross Anatomy. The burning questions are, "why is she pushing him so hard? Why does she care so much?" Of course, once it's explained, you understand completely. However, it would have been a completely different movie had this been explained up front. The same with The Dead Poet's Society - if you know the big secret up front, the story isn't the same.

So next time you're answering questions left and right in your exposition, think about if it's worthwhile holding back a little and letting the audience stew a little before revealing all your information.

The Bad Guy

2006-06-17T00:03:00.000-04:00

There's a great couple page article in the new Writer's Digest about writing good bad guys (or three dimensional bad guys). It's a great excuse to mosey on down to your local Barnes & Noble or Borders, grab a cup o java (or water), the latest Writer's Digest and have a good read (then return the magazine and leave).

Still astounds me that concept isn't a problem with the stores.

But... moving on.

Creating a good bad guy. I say bad guy, but really, from their perspective, they aren't the bad guy (typically).

My first suggestion is don't dilute your nemesis. The first Batman was a great flick - one nemesis - The Joker. Played great. Every other one (until the most recent Batman Begins) felt that the more bad guys the better. No. The more the worse. With all the Batman sequels, the drama was divided and there just wasn't enough time to devote to a good nemesis. The makers relied on the history of the series to make up all the backstory, but it just didn't work in my opinion.

One of the best bad guys, and the movie wasn't bad either, was the general from The Rock. Here was a decorated soldier with a deceased wife who cared for the soldiers who served under him. His problem was that these soldiers were not being recognized for their sacrifices and their families not rewarded appropriately for those said sacrifices.

From his perspective, he has chosen the only action left to him. Threaten to blow up a city to get the attention of the government who has swept their servicemen's deaths under the rug. Obviously, this is not the appropriate action (according to our writer).

Another good nemesis was in Unbreakable. From his perspective, there was a logical reason for doing everything he did, and there was no other alternative.

The popular advice is to make your bad guys three dimensional as well. Make them as big and bad as you can so that the hero's task of defeating them seems impossible. While this is good for the plot, it doesn't always involve the audience in the character's struggles. If the audience can understand where the nemesis is coming from, then it puts them in an uncomfortable position of wanting the hero to win, but not wanting the nemesis to lose.

For romantic comedies it might be the person who is trying to prevent the relationship from developing. They may have a very good reason for this - and if we can show the audience how valid that reason is, then they should struggle with the romance as well. They will want it to take place because they love our main character(s); yet feel for the nemesis because they have a valid desire for the relationship not to solidify.

A good exercise when creating your nemesis is to tell the story from their perspective. Why are they doing what they are doing? Why is our hero opposed to them? Why should they win and not the hero?

It may be that the only thing flawed about the nemesis is their interpretation of the information they have or the method of implementation they choose that makes them fall on the bad side of the story.

Act 2

2006-06-16T01:06:00.000-04:00

Ah... the long, dry wasteland of Act 2.

First of all, let's get out where you're going from and to in the second act.

We're starting at our main character entering the special world, right after they've made a significant decision which should end up changing their life. Act 2 will go all the way up to the "all is lost" moment, where things just can't get worse for the main character.

So. Starting out we have some scenes of our main character adjusting to their new decision. It had to have some consequences or involve something more than 1 minute long. This is where it goes. It's where our main character starts to implement the plan they made and acted on to throw us into Act 2. An example from a recent flick I watched (Under the Tuscan Sun) is her purchase of the old house. Once she makes the purchase, there are several scenes following which are her adjustment and implementation scenes. This is often where your B story would be introduced. In Under the Tuscan Sun, it's the introduction of "false" romantic leads (since this isn't a story about meeting the right person, but becoming who you need to be before you can meet that special person).

What we're talking about here is the distance of 25% of your script to 27% of your script - from 110 pages, about 5 pages worth of material. Not much. One sequence or a few scenes.

Now we're at what Blake Snyder calls the "Fun and Games" section. This is where he says all your poster stuff goes. All the stuff that made you want to write the script goes here - 25 pages worth. For Frances in Under the Tuscan Sun, this is the renovations in the house, meeting new friends, the cooking for the workmen, etc. This is where Bruce (in Bruce Almighty) goes crazy with the god powers. The only downside to all this fun is that you do have a direction. That direction, or culmination, is your midpoint. It's your half-way point. This is where the plans that were set in motion with the end of act 1 are paying off (for better or worse). In Under the Tuscan Sun, it's where the house is coming along, she's meeting friends and making Italy her new home. The culminating scene is when she meets Marcello. After this, she's on top of the world - everything has come together and she's finally got the confirmation she's been looking for that she made the right decision.

Problem is that whatever happens at this point (good or bad), the character is mistaken - it is never as good or bad as it appears. In this instance, it's not the love she believes it to be (but more on that later).

Well, we should be at page 50ish now - or 50% through the script. You've had your fun and games scenes and they've finally either hit bottom or are walking on clouds. You've got about 5 pages to show them go through these emotions (from start to finish). It's also a point at which they are closer to achieving their goal than starting over. A place from which they cannot turn back. A great example is the Firm with Tom Cruise - he's told by the FBI that his life as he knows it is over. He either helps them bust The Firm or he goes to jail with them - either way, he cannot go back to his old life. In Under the Tuscan Sun, it's right after she returns from Marcello's. She has mentally made up her mind that it's working out and that her thoughts of failure are behind her.

Now it's time to head towards another checkpoint - the All is Lost moment. The place at which it cannot get any worse for our main character (in terms of achieving their goals set out at the beginning of Act 1 (in Under the Tuscan Sun, she mentions that she wants a family at the house, she wants a wedding and she wants children in the house). So... now she's well on her way. She's got the house, it's improving day by day, she's met this great guy, everything is just rockin' along. Time to screw up her life.

For our good friend Frances in Under the Tuscan Sun, while she's making plans to meet Marcello, her good friend from the USA surprises her with a visit - and she's pregnant. This part of the script is where things begin to unravel. Whatever was working in the first Act now begins to break or fail. For Frances, she's unable to meet with Marcello, her friend Katherine is having some major emotional problems and the house still isn't finished. In fact, the faucet *still* doesn't work. You've got about 20 pages worth of material to dig up. This is about 2 full sequences. It's also the place where the main character realizes that things are not going as smoothly as they had planned, and they need to take an all or nothing approach to achieving their goals. It's a big risk, but they need to take it (no balls, no blue chips). For Frances, this entails driving up the coast to visit Marcello - a surprise visit. This leads us right into --

The All is Lost moment. She discovers he's with somebody else. It's all over. She's back to square one again with her love life. You've got to dig up about 5 pages worth of despair and sorrow for your character as they realize that all their plans have gone up in smoke. They're screwed. No idea what to do. Bottom of the barrel, etc.Once that scene is over - hey! It's Act 3.

It's important to note that all of Act 1 will take place in the character's original "ordinary world". For Frances, this is the good old USA and her married life.

All of Act 2 will take place in their "special world". For Frances, this is Italy & Tuscany and her life as a single woman.

All of Act 3 will take place in the character's NEW "ordinary world". For Frances, it will be her newly discovered life in Tuscany - the one in which she will remain.

To break it down briefly, we have:

5 pages of transformation into Act 1
25 pages of fun and games
5 pages of hitting the wall (or ceiling) - depending on your story
20 pages of spiraling downwards as everything in the fun and games goes wrong
5 pages of transition from act 2 to act 3.

Act 2 all done - smaller chunks - definable goals.

The whole act can also be broken down (the Ackerman Way) into 6 major scenes - 1 for Act 1 break, 2 in the first half, 2 in the second half and 1 for the act 2 break. These are pivotal scenes for the main character.

Next, Act 3...

Backing up your blog

2006-06-14T20:27:00.000-04:00

For those of you out there keeping a current blog, but not backing it up, Michael Gilvary (of "Who Are You People?" blog) would have a suggestion.

Back it up!

Unfortunately, the server holding his site went down and took everything with it. He has been able to cobble most of it together again, but it's been quite awhile.

I'm not sure how I would go about restoring my blog if it were deleted, but I can at least have a current (as current as I like) copy of it on my local drive.

I found a free (opensource) program that with a simple wizard allows you to do just that - copy your blog to a folder on your hard drive.

The program is HTTrack Website Copier (http://www.httrack.com/).

Blog safely.

Oh, this also would be a cool feature if you're going to be offline for a little while - you could copy a few blogs to the hard drive for reading (or something like Wordplay) or reference.

Act 1

2006-06-14T00:22:00.000-04:00

Wulp, after reading Save The Cat, Write Screenplays That Sell (the Ackerman way) & The Writer's Journey, I've sort of combined them a little to make a little more sense. So, from me, to you... my thoughts on what goes in the first act.

First of all, this is the introduction of the main character in their ordinary world. It's their normal life. Here you want to introduce your main character in such a way as to get the audience to bond with them. This can be done in many ways, but here's a few examples:

a) Show the character as being particularly skilled at their job/work. This would be them having some insight, performing a tricky action, etc.

b) Have them treated unfairly or unjustly. We've all felt the pang of injustice so it's a quick way to get the audience in with the character.

c) Make the character funny/humerous. Tying back into Jane Espenson's blog, this would mean (typically) creating a comic character (one who is serious, but what they say/do is so goofy that it's funny) or a serious character whose dialog is intentionally funny.

d) Create a character who has power (be it political, fantastic or whatever). Gordon Gecko from Wall Street is a character that jumps to mind. So does Magneto from X-Men.

e) Put the character in jeopardy right away. Audiences have a natural tendency to root for the person shown to be in danger.

So now we have about 10 pages (or 10%) of our script to come up with some good "ordinary world" scenes that will bond our character wth the audience. There are many scripts which have the first scene be one bookend and the last scene be the opposite of of that scene to show the development of the character.

At about the 10% mark, something should happen (typically called the 'inciting incident'). This should be an event that starts the story going in the direction it does. It's an event which makes the main character want to in a new direction. This is also called the "call to adventure".

Typically, the character at this point in the story will be lacking something very obvious to the audience, but not them (love, compassion, confidence, etc.).

After the inciting incident, the character will often deny or refuse the call to adventure. They will spend the next 15% (up to the first act break) trying to avoid accepting the call to adventure.

Should the story dictate that the character desires this change, then that 15% (up to the first act break) would consist of the character adjusting to the situation into which they have put themself.

Once the character decides to accept the call to adventure, then they will take an action that should be (in our best case) irrevocable. It should be a point after which they can no longer return to their old life unchanged. Taking the Firm as an example, once Mitch hears about the Firm from the FBI, he can no longer ignore his inklings. He must pursue their suggestions to discover the truth himself (which is the push into act 2).

By breaking things down into smaller chunks and having regular checkpoints, it seems to be easier to approach (it's not, but I feel like it should).

I don't consider this to be a formula, but more like the components of a story.

There are many folks who talk about the formulaic approach in hollywood, but if after reading Vogler's book, I can't help but think that Hollywood is just focusing primarily on the fairie tale type stories, and thus, there are certain requirements in order for a story to meet the requirements of a fairie tale.

Act 2 next...

More Movies

2006-06-11T00:46:00.000-04:00

Watched Tootsie again - man, that is such a solid flick. From setup to payoff, start to finish, an excellent movie.

Coach Carter - Great movie. It's been done before, but this was pretty good. Brought up some issues some other films similar to this didn't do as well (the education thing). This is based on a true story. I watched some of the "real Ken Carter" and it's amazing that the parents were the hardest to deal with in this situation.

I don't get how parents don't want more for their kids than they have. How can so many be so blinded by the lure of professional sports that they abandon everything else in favor of it? Albeit some dedicate their youth to it and it pays off, but it just seems like some folks treat it as a given. They might be pretty good, but they don't train and work at it like they're training to be a professional.

I'm not even talking about the fact that if these kids fail to make it as a pro athelete they have nothing.

Just the fact that if you're going to put all your eggs in that basket, then you need to be training for it. I watched the film about Sebastian Telfore's last year. Now that kid was training. He worked hard in school, got up early in the morning to workout/train, went to school, then did more after school either with friends/family or with the team.

Such a shame that we live in a country that has so much to offer so many, yet there are people who don't take advantage of it and the people that are really giving up a lot to help. Teachers and public service folks are some generous people and yet they are just taken for granted so much. What can they be making teaching in some of these inner cities? It's sure as hell not close to what they could be making at a private school or even an upper scale public school in a "good" neighborhood.

A lot of true statements in Coach Carter.

Also watched Under The Tuscan Sun. Wow. If only we could all live that way. It's all about living your life as you desire/need rather than settling for what you believe others think you should be/do.

Was listening to Imagine (by John Lennon) and was struck for the first time at how insane that song really is when he sings:

Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today...

Hey! We're doing that now, in our inner cities. Living for today. Kids that don't believe they'll make it to 24, so why bother with rules? Why bother with being good? Why bother with education or anything that will pay off 10 or 20 years from now? Why think about falling in love and settling down?

It would be total anarchy, not peace. If you lived every day like it was your last, who would work? Who would be doing those shitty jobs day after day? Nobody. The reason they're done is because they pay money and people anticipate living past today and they need food, shelter and necessities.

While I enjoyed Under the Tuscan Sun immensely, there really is a limited audience of folks who can seriously take it's advice. People with no money worries. Young people with no major attachments (past family/friends), divorced people with no major attachments (friends/family). For the majority of us, we can't just "do what we feel". There are consequences.

Of course, things may turn out great, too. But the old phrase, "no balls, no blue chips" or "all or nothing" didn't come about because everybody who took a big risk landed safely.

It reminds me of the Sunscreen Song - treasure your youth, oh, nevermind, you won't appreciate your youth until you don't have it. Under the Tuscan Sun should be seen by young people so they *know* - take a risk now. Make every effort now to be who and what you want while you have the ability to do anything, go anywhere. Once you've either made it (woohoo) or determined that you will stop trying (it does happen), then you can settle into mid-life in peace with "what if's" or "I wonder's".

Latest Movies

2006-06-10T00:30:00.000-04:00

Seen a few lately.

The Man... better than expected. Seemed like a good structure, well-written. They did a good job of making character likable, establishing risk, setting a plant up all within the first few minutes.

The Family Stone - was expecting something much funnier than I got. Good film - but I seem to recall the previews showing all the funny parts, not the drama-downer parts. All in all, entertaining and fun to watch.

Grandma's Boy - As expected. Nothing new really, Porky's (dating myself) humor with a minor storyline. Some amusing jokes. Really solidifies Jane's blog about dramatic versus comedic characters.

The Grudge - so-so. Watched the extras where they talked about how original it was, but it sure didn't feel like it. It was by the original film's writer/director and felt like it (that is foreign). Again, not bad, but perhaps not the grab I expected. This might be in part to what makes it a horror film for the Eastern audiences isn't a familiar belief with Western audiences.

The Exorcism of Emily Rose - ungh. Creepy as hell. Glad I watched it during the day. Brought back memories of the Exorcism. I thought it was quite well done. Although I find it ironic that one of the lines IN the movie is almost a quote from a writer friend of mine who wrote a similar script years before this came out - that is (paraphrasing), "nobody has ever tried to prove the devil exists in court". If this is a year old now, was two years in the making, I can see why my friend's script probably didn't get much attention - perhaps this was in the works.

The Great Raid - Pretty good. Excellent treatment of a horrible subject. The only bad thing I can see about movies like this are that it reminds us of what transpired before. While it's good to remember the great deeds and hero's, it also brings back the hatred and atrocious acts committed against people by certain countries (Germany & Japan being the most featured).

I feel that although you can't just forgive and forget, the people there now just aren't the same, but very likely could be viewed that way because of the films.

It's a difficult situation for us as human beings who want to recognize the sacrifices of those that came before yet grow beyond our prior selves of 50 years ago.

Stupid Work Sh*t

2006-06-10T00:20:00.000-04:00

ok - so being a screenwriter for a living is horrible, right? We've all heard the crazy notes, the insane suggestions, the re-writes, replacements. Oh My God. How can anybody do it?

It's a job. That's why. It's a job that some folks (well a lot of folks really) love. And when you love a job, you'll be willing to put up with some major bullshit.

Take, for instance, the bullshit I have to put up with just because I need a job.

We have 9 employees on my team. They are all working full time, 40-40+ hours/week. Three of them quit. Now we have 6 people trying to do the work of 9. We finally get 2 new people hired, but not the third.

What we get, instead, is - "our management has seen that some of us are working 40 hours a week and some 50-60 hours a week. We've been told that we need to even it out."

Say what? When we were 6 people, we were all working 60 hour weeks, when we were 7, fewer, 8 even fewer. Give us that other position that was working 40 hours/week and, Presto! We're not working 60 hour weeks anymore.

No.

That's not an option.

WTF? How do you lose a position that's necessary, get bitched about for working extra hours (that by the way are NOT overtime, just plain screwing the employee) and then refuse to hire the position that's needed?

By the way, this is all "because we care about those individuals putting in so many hours." Yeah, that makes sense. It's much better to put all of us at 50-55 hours a week than to just let a couple people suffer. And I must insert here:

1) We all go through times like this on our team
2) The one person is doing 2 jobs (remember the last position that needs to be hired)

So it's not just being mean saying they should suffer - it's just, if we all work 50 hours, the "problem" is solved and now we've found a way to evenly distribute the workload so we can take on more work. Huh?

How about paying them extra? Perhaps then it wouldn't be so bad. Oh, that's right. No money in the budget for salary. Only executive perks.

Bastards.

Reading out loud

2006-06-10T00:16:00.000-04:00

One of the greatest times at the Virginia Screenwriters Forum was at Christmas, we'd all write 2-3 page scenes and we'd call actors from the local scene in and they would read them. We'd all bring in food and drink, sit back and we'd have about 10-15 scenes read by professional and aspiring actors.

There's nothing quite like having your work read - be it live, on stage or on screen (can't testify to the others, but I do believe the "wow" factor increases with each). You get to see how your characters are intepreted. How others might see the speech patterns. What plays verbally versus what plays internaly to you.

Many writers recommend reading your script, or at least your dialogue out loud, but I would go another step and have somebody (preferably an actor or student actor) read it. They will offer more enthusiasm and want to interpret the material rather than regurgitate what you have written.

Jane Espenson

2006-06-08T23:57:00.000-04:00

I can't imagine any aspiring TV/film writing not reading Jane's blog, it so chock full of interesting information.

This one really caught my eye: http://www.janeespenson.com/archives/00000116.php

A really interesting tidbit of information about comedy, drama and characters. Be sure to read it if you haven't.

I've ready quite a few blogs and it's interesting to see who has what to say about writing. Jane's blog peaks my interest because it makes me wonder if writers on shows, or even professional feature writers for that matter, actually think down to the level o a joke. "How can we best play this joke?" or "We need a joke here, what kind should we use?"

I like the idea of breaking the writing down to that level. Although writing is primarily a singular pursuit, it's quite appealing to to discuss the art with others - what works, what doesn't, how to improve, etc.

That's the best thing about the blogs - you can read any book to get the information you want, but the web allows interaction with others. So, don't hesitate to post folks! Not just here, but anywhere you visit. Not only do the owners get a perk, but there have been some great conversations started in blogs.

Rocking Chair Stories

2006-06-07T23:18:00.000-04:00

Here's a story from back in the day.

One of those moments that when I'm 90 and sitting in the rocking chair staring into space, there's a good chance my mind will replay this one for me.

I'm in my mid 20's and my best friend and I have been going to concerts for years now. All over the state, but not much further. We've been attending the concerts of one Sara Hickman (http://www.sarahickman.com/) . She's a folk musician, plays solo, or did 99% of the time.

She was always entertaining, plays some wonderful songs and is easy on the eyes.

Now I've seen her twice before.

The first time, I had nothing for an autograph but a 3x5 index card (I've been a Guerilla Screenwriter* for years). So I got her autograph and things were swell.

Next time I saw her, I brought the same 3x5 and got it autographed on the other side.

This is the third time.

Have I mentioned the rule of 3's yet? It's strong - like the force - even in real life. Make sure you make it so in your scripts.

So, we're out at the Tobacco Club, this is a bar in downtown Richmond, VA. It's a pretty nice place, 3 floors (see the 3 again?) and caters to the fiancial district for it's customers. They have a fair sized stage and have performers in on a regular basis.

So, we're up front - I mean, it's a bar, so we're there early (free food at 5pm). Anyway, we're watching her for the first half of the show and when she comes down for her break, I make a point of getting her attention and calling her over.

We do the usual fawning that 20-something nerds do and I show her the card that I have (signed on both sides). She gives me this radient smile and after that much of the experience (sadly) blurs. You see, she sits in my lap, puts her arm around me and sings a song to me. A James Taylor/Carley Simon duet (not me singing of course).

I'm young, my best friend is 5 feet away from me and a beautiful woman with a lovely voice (who we both love) is sitting in my lap singing to me. It was absolute heaven.

As expected, my friend (whom is still my best friend) doesn't care for me to recollect that fantastic memory - no doubt a little sour from the outside of the experience.

Thanks, Sara, for a fantastic memory.

Quotes to live by

2006-06-03T01:03:00.000-04:00

I have friends that can just about recite some Monty Python movies.

Others who know all the big lines from movies.

Me, I have a few that stick, but that's about it. For me, they've been ingrained through life into my head. I've actually taken these lines and made them a part of my life. Something I would be honored to be able to achieve.

What I find peculiar is that the lines aren't from huge films or the oft listed 'great' writers.

#1 - Wall Street - Carl Fox - Stop going for the easy buck and start producing something with your life. Create, instead of living off the buying and selling of others.

Always took it upon myself to create something. At the end of the day I had something to show for myself

#2 - Cocktail - Brian - All things end badly, or else they wouldn't end.

Ain't that the truth. It was lame, but solid advise for myself and all others who came to me awash in tears over something ending badly.

I've learned that may not be the case 100% of the time, but I think it's true more than it's not - at least for one side.

What quotes from characters have you taken to heart?

Match Point Sucks

2006-06-01T17:31:00.000-04:00

ok - that's just my opinion and i'm interested in hearing why you don't think it does. I want opinions from writers like me who should have something more than to say than "it was boring" (which it was - like watching paint peel under natural conditions).

First off - I'm not a Woody Allen hater. I actually own at least one of his films. So this is purely a discussion on the film as it stands.

My perspective:

1) Going off traditional advice to make the main character engaging. This one wasn't. He wasn't "good at what he does" because as a professional tennis player, he quit because he wasn't good enough. He wasn't funny. He wasn't doing anything "special" just a tennis pro. There was nothing supernatural involved. He had nothing or no-one to care for to show him as a concerned person or a person with a love of somebody/something. So right off, I could care less what happens with/to him.

2) There was a tension in the film like something was about to happen - it just never did. Or at least not in a satisfying way. It was completely predictable and very minor - very "every dayish" in nature. Almost like watching somebody's life go by - minute by minute.

3) The stakes were rarely raised during the story. What if he doesn't get the tennis pro job? He'll get another job. What if he doesn't meet the girl? Oh well... What if he doesn't marry her? Whatever... no consequences until the big P issue and then what happens is SO predictable and lame.

4) There was rarely *any* conflict at all in the whole film. Little bits here and there, but largely it was one slice of life scene after another.

5) Entertaining. I don't believe that this was really entertaining - although that really is subjective.

6) It doesn't pass the MC (friend of mine) test. If you came into this movie 30 minutes late, what would I have to tell you to catch you up? In this film, "he's a tennis pro dating that girl. Her family has a lot of money."

Your thoughts?

When to Write

2006-05-31T22:18:00.000-04:00

When to write is always the biggest hurdle for me.

I'm a night person - I can stay up just about all night, problem is, I'm worthless the next morning if I do stay up too late.

It was great when I was younger and could get up and get to work (and then sleepwalk through the first couple hours). I was always good to go after lunch.

These days though it's a lot tougher to roust myself up in the morning. Perhaps it's the fact that my job is largely make my own hours, I really don't *have* to be up and at it early, but if I'm not, I'm up and at it way too late in the evening.

I've read that if finding time is a problem, then shoot for a 30 minute chunk or a regular basis and then as you get into the routine, add time to it.

I really liked wcdixon's idea of getting up 30 minutes earlier and working on writing for a bit, then getting to work.

I've found that - for better or worse, I seem to be able to get focused by putting on a set of headphones and turning up the music (to drown out everything else). Taking 5-10 minutes to adjust, read scripts, blogs, notes, etc. gets me into the writing mood and then I'm good for awhile.

Anybody got any other tips for when to write or getting into the flow?

If only I felt like this hours ago

2006-05-31T00:46:00.000-04:00

After reading blogs and contributing and such for a couple hours I'm all psyched to start writing - it's just too damned late to start now.

buggered again.

if I had any real guts, I'd quit my job tomorrow and be a fulltime unpaid screenwriter.

screw food & shelter, dammit.

Inspiration

2006-05-30T22:59:00.000-04:00

So I decided to watch a few movies and try and read some script excepts for fun this past week.

Read part of Enemy of the State and then watched the flick. Interesting how the opening is just a little different. I suspect budget as well as a stronger action on the tape.

Ended up watching a couple other flicks and started Match Point - which was highly recommended. I'm iffy on Woody Allen though. Boy, this thing seems SOOO long right now. I'm really feeling like an MTV generation product now when I'm looking at the time and wondering when the story will actually "start". I suspect I'll be more patient when I actually have some time to watch rather than trying to squeeze in a partial viewing (bad Dave, bad Dave).

It's funny how some things group in your life - it's especially noticable if you pay attention.

For instance. As I may have mentioned, I did some research on the 9/11 conspiracy stuff (definately depressing in conspiritual 'our government is out to get us' sort of way). After that, I decided to read Enemy of the State (on a whim, not due to anything else), then watched it - which of course 9/11 has spurred a lot of the technology being batted around in Enemy of the State.

So then I'm perusing the new sites and see an article on a new LCD being developed that can act as a monitor *and* a webcam. So you could do the two-way phone thing over broadband and better. Of course, the comments are - "who's watching you on the other side of your own monitor?"

Also watched Payback with Mel Gibson - that's a great action flick. Also, Domino. Another pretty good flick. Seem to be unintentionally watching a bunch of Tony Scott's films recently.

Hoping to see X3 & Da Vinci code in the near future. Nothing inspires more than actually getting involved again in what you love. It's so easy to put it all aside for other "more important" things. Helps remind me why I even wanted to write a script in the first place. Not because I could do something better, but because I wanted to be part of movies.

Hitting the educational wall

2006-05-24T23:04:00.000-04:00

I use Netflix and found that they have some interesting dvds in the "self help/special interest" section. Seems they have Syd Field's screenwriting workshop on dvd.

Wow. Cool. Ok. Let's rent it. Get on the 'extra very long don't hold your breath you could probably get pregnant and have a child before the dvd arrives' waiting list. It did take awhile too.

But.

Finally arrives. Woohoo! Slam it into the player, hit play and there he is -- Syd Field. The guy who started it all (well, sorta - started the paperback avalanche that is the screenwriting section in Barnes & Noble anyway).

And 10 minutes in I'm yawning. It's not that the material isn't interesting or that he doesn't have a great plan. It's just that I've heard it all before (not his pitch specifically).

I've read over 50 books, see a few dvds/vhs tapes, been to seminars, the writer's group thing, etc. and what it comes down to is what I was told by a guy years ago.

At some point you have to stop reading and start writing.

Screenwriting isn't that mysterious. It's not rocket science, it's not magic, it's just writing. And rewriting.

So for those of you out there that are addicted to books, seminars, tapes, dvds and the like. After you've seen/attended 20 (and that's being generous), it's time to start writing and get some feedback on what you can produce.

I've come to enjoy the interview books most of all these days - the William Froug ones are particularly fun, but there are others. As writers typically are, screenwriters are a reclusive bunch and to get a peek into their daily lives and writing habits is always interesting. Often you get the opportunity to see their true personality, as opposed to what you see on screen or read in a script.

Time to git a writin'.

Being in the Mood

2006-05-23T22:11:00.000-04:00

For some reason, I just feel like I was so much more creative when I was an angst ridden twenty-something. Pain was great. It just poured out onto the page in sarcasm laden waves of prose.

I went through a phase where life was a peach, everything was great. Why write? No reason. I'm happy by golly!

Then I hit the wall.

Why write.

What's the fucking point?

It's all been done. If it hasn't, it will be. Besides, who cares?

Can't say which is the better producer for me though - good moods or bad moods. Sometimes, you're in that bad/depressed mood and you just can't stand to do anything but vegetate. Sometimes, when you're happy you really want to krank something out (not me, but perhaps you).

I know a lot of people who see a 'bad' movie and get all pumped up with "I can do better than that", but we should all know by now that what you see isn't necessarily what was written. Who knows who screwed up the film. Yes, I know there are some that are bad from start to finish, but we don't go aiming to do better than the worst do we? We aim to be better than something that's supposed to be good.

Some folks get inspired to write a great script when they see a great movie. While I could revert to the previous statement (who knows how much the movie was improved over the original script through rewrites by other folks), I'll just say that there are times when I think, "Yeah, that's freakin' great. That's exactly why I should let them do it."

I can find a reason not to write just about anywhere.

However, I can't stop either.

I've tried to quit. I stopped for a while after my child was born. Although I don't know how much was intentially trying to quit and how much was the sheer insanity of a newborn.

I also tend to create better at night than any other time. I wake up around 9-10pm. What really sucks is that in order to do my day job I need about 8 hours sleep, so I need to be in bed by 11pm-ish.

A really organized person would probably be able to plan that time and write, but me - I end up pissing away the hour or two and then I'm guilt-ridden over not doing anything *again*.

I really envy people like Ron Bass. I read years ago how he would get up at 4am to write for a couple hours before heading off to work. I don't know how people do it. Probably drive and ambition.

Well...now that I've started writing, it's 10:30 and I'm still in the mood, I think I'm going to go write... i.e. stare into space and think about my story...

30 page curse

2006-05-21T23:25:00.001-04:00

Ok - here's the bad thing about our writer's group. And when I say "bad thing", what I really mean is, "here's the thing that kills many writers unknowingly due to a simple, valid decision the writer's group made."

The group couldn't read 90-110 pages every two weeks - it's really too much to expect writer's to crank out on a regular basis. Thirty pages, however, could be done. You could write 30, rewrite it and write a new 30 all in a year. That's not too much to expect. So with that logic, and a small group of writers, it was decided we'd critique 30 pages every two weeks.

The downside of not having a mentor, formal training (or hell, 15 years of experience) is that you don't know where the pitfalls are.

Here was one that hit me good - on a regular basis. It doesn't have to be 30 pages - could be any arbitrary number; the end result is the same though. You don't complete a script, you just keep rewriting.

For me, I'd write 30, get feedback, re-write 30, get feedback, etc. ad nausium.

Now, if I had followed my earlier advise (worked out a solid premise/logline) this would not have been so much of a problem. But, nobody to tell me this, remember? So, off I go with pages of notes and new ideas.

Now I have a new 30 pages which is, again, engaging, but leaves the readers with the end question of "what's it all about?"

This has led to one of my newer truths, which (after a premise) is to write through the whole story as soon as possible. Just as executives, directors and actors will all have notes for your script when they read it, so will you after a few months. In fact, I'll bet that some sequences will seem totally lame - or you have much better ideas now!

With that in mind, it's best to get a draft down while you still have a strong feeling of where you want to go and what kind of mood you want to be in the story. I'm sure I've heard this advise before, but with over 50 books and more magazines, it escapes me now.

So, there you have it. Dave's first rules of screenwriting:

1) Hammer out a logline/premise so you know where you're going, what's going to happen and who your lead character is going to be.
2) Write it all down as soon as possible to get a first draft

Man. It sounds so easy. I'll have to do that tomorrow.

What Would Aaron Do?

2006-05-18T22:43:00.000-04:00

I really enjoy Aaron Sorkin's work, as well as assortment of other writers. Right now I'm working on a few scripts, but primarily one. The hardest part for me is sitting down and coming up with some sort of outline/timeline.

It's all pulling shit out of my ass, sifting through it and saving the best parts.

I can see no other way around this than sitting and staring into space. Of course, I do this in the worst place - in front of my computer.

How do you folks write your scripts in the beginning/planning phase? Where?

Revisiting Premise or Peril

2006-05-18T21:59:00.000-04:00

I was thinking last night (when I should have been sleeping) about premise and how important it is... I was spurred on by a blog I was reading (that escapes me now), but I need to post this before I forget it.

Here's the first idea: A guy is IN the building when it's robbed by thieves.

Not bad. Interesting concept, but doesn't tell you much. Who is the guy? Will he bail or try and catch the guys? Why are they there? What's the big story (the main chunk of the story)? How will it end?

ok... so we refine a little bit.

A cop is in a building when it's robbed by thieves.

Okay - getting better. Now we know he's a cop. You figure he *should* want to do something about this crime now. Although -- it could be his personality to bail on the situation.

Back to the drawing board.

A smart-ass cop faces off against thieves when he's caught in the building when they rob it.

That's better. Now we have a personality to the copy, we have a better idea about where the chunk of the story will be (him facing off against the thieves) and how it will end (thieves will get caught or cop will die trying to stop them).

Let's dig a little more.

A smart-ass NY cop visiting his estranged wife in LA is caught in a building when thieves rob it. He must face off against them in order to save his wife and the rest of the hostages from certain death.

And we have a winner. This may not be the same logline you'd used for Die Hard, but it's close enough and I think we can all agree it's better than the first.

Here, you have a smart ass NY cop (personality) visiting his estranged wife in LA (fish out of water as well as character issues - estranged wife) fighting against thieves in order to save his wife. You can guess that the majority of this will be about him fighting the thieves and that if he saves his wife, that there should be some sort of happy ending.

I believe that most of the recaps you see of the movie say terrorists, but that was all a plot ploy, so I don't consider it the original logline from which the writer started.

This shows the importance of getting the logline/premise sorted out FIRST. Get it done. This may take awhile, but once you have it, take it up so you can refer to it whenever you write. If you're writing doesn't fit within the logline, scrap it.

Life Support for Writers

2006-05-17T22:46:00.000-04:00

I'd like to give a shout out to all my writer's group friends. They've been a fantastic group for many years. The Virginia Screenwriters Forum. I'm sure I'd be absolutely nowhere if not for Helene Wagner and this group. Also, the great folks at the Virginia Film Office. Back in the days before it was such a hot item, they would allow me to check out scripts they had received. Man, what a perk. I worked about 5 floors down from their office. I was able to get a hold of Josh's script Dead Drop (which became the worse Chain Reaction), Crazy People (when the psychiatrist was being cast with Charles Grodin - who I think to this day would have been better than Dreyfus).

Helene came to town from Texas looking for a screenwriting group and there was absolutely nothing. Let's face it - we're talking about Richmond, Virginia circa 1990. Only the Film Office new about screenplays and nobody knew about them. It was a tough time for film and screenwriting in Richmond.

So, I'm out of college, got that fan-freakin'-tastic BA in English. I can still hear my counselors words, "it will prove that you have a solid grasp of all the basics and that they can train you to do whatever they need. Companies want somebody with a solid foundation."

So, I'm in word processing for a bank. I type everyday. Memos, letters, training documents, whatever. And, you know, the basics are completely lost on the majority of crap that's turned in to me. These folks making 2-3 times my salary just can't write at all. It was during this time that the film After Hours was released and I began to understand the bizarre duality of pain/pleasure.

So... I'm talking with a secretary at lunch one day and she's telling me about her acting classes and how great they are and I should go to one. I tell her about my screenwriting aspirations, but that I can't find any information on it outside of jumping on a plane to LA (which I can't do because I'm a total pussy at this point). She tells me to head on over to the film office - a few floors up. "The what?" I say.

It's nirvana. A small office/room, just packed with scripts from almost floor to ceiling. Un-fucking believable. So I go ask somebody what I have to do to check one out and she hands me a flier. Says, "maybe you'd be interested in this." It's a flier for the Virginia Screenwriters Forum. Just starting out. First meeting in a couple weeks.

Now, I'm here to tell you - I've had so many damn lucky opportunities I shudder every time I recall them. I mention this because if you're young (which I'm not), you HAVE to take advantage of them when they come along.

So there I am, early 20's, a film office a few floors up, enough scripts to keep me reading for months and a brand new group where I can learn how to write them. I had it all. In the first two years, I entered a contest and got a mixed bag of feedback - some really good, some okay and I tailspin from there.

I've been one of those writers that has suffered from re-writing the same 30 pages over and over. I've done it about 5 times.

Now, before you say, "poor ol' dave", I've learned so much over the years about what to do, what not to do, etc. Our group has consisted of folks who have sold, optioned, won contests, been agents, directed, etc. We've had a fantastic group and the experience I've gained has been invaluable. This is why I say, if you have a writer's group near you, get involved. Just the feedback alone is worth the price of admission. It's like regular coverage on whatever you're working on. Not to mention, if the group is on the smaller side, you can probably hit up any of the members when you have something new - so you can bounce ideas off without wasting your time.

Tomorrow I'll give an example of why you have to finish fast and not think too much about what you're writing so you can avoid the 30 page curse.

A big 'ol holla out to all you VSF folks!

And the Audience is... ?

2006-05-16T23:56:00.000-04:00

I'm going to slide one in behind Scott over at Alligators in a Helicopter.

While his gripe was about screenwriters thinking about who the audience
will be for a script, mine is about Scr(i)pt magazine and one of the
articles.

It's the one where somebody sells for the first time and has something
to say.

Last month there was a pretty cool article that Fun Joel pointed out
about the guy who walks by the artist's workshop all the time. That was
great. It was inspiring how the guy was motivated regardless of if the
artist was working or not - and that the artist probably never even knew
the effect he was having on the writer.

This month - we have an article about the writer of Inside Man. I don't
want to poop on the writer (he seems like a decent guy) nor on the movie
- I haven't seen it yet (but I hear it's good). However, I believe
Scr(i)pt is catering to the non-selling audience out there, not those
that have actually made it.

My gripe is the author's story of how he got to where he is today...

a) Daddy struck it rich in a real estate deal so I figured I'd take a
couple years off and tour Europe
b) He'd always had this "story" in his head, so thought he'd take the
time to put it down - never having written a script before, he read some
scripts and wrote it down.
c) Having finished his script, he sent it to a family friend, who just
happens to be an established producer. He, in turn, helped pull the
script together and get it sold in a week.

Well, shit.

I just can't think of a more inspiring fucking story than that. We all
know (or should know) that Hollywood is an insider town - you have to
know somebody to get somewhere, but you'd think that the story you'd
want to read is the one from the little guy that made it. You wanna hear
about Rudy not the dude that got it all handed to him on a silver platter.

You want to know that hard work and perseverance pay off.

If this was People or Us, I wouldn't be so pissed, but this is a
magazine that's supposed to be boosting my morale not reminding me I'm
not in the right club to make it.

Otherwise, the magazine was a pretty good read.

Exactly why write a blog?

2006-05-15T22:28:00.000-04:00

Sick today. Blah. Sore throat - started last night and just had to stick around 'til morning. Don't like 'em. Blame my last job.

I worked on a world class IT helpdesk, took almost 40 calls a day and loved/hated every minute of it (I loved leaving and hated arriving). My voice has never been the same since. Now I get a sore throat faster than I can turn my head and cough.

But I still can't help but try and read some blogs - since with a sore throat, I obviously can't write.

Did I mention I took an allergy pill as well? There goes 5 hours out of my day. To me they're not so much allergy relief as they are non-consiously aware of allergy problems medication.

As my friend so eloquently puts it, "They knock me the fuck out."

So now it's 10pm and I'm praying that I stay drugged long enough to fall asleep. Because the worst thing that can happen is I wake up.

So, I'm reading around a bit - stumble on over to Moviequill - poor guy. He's been doing this awhile and hit the wall about a month back with the question "why do I even write a blog?" I'm on that road too, to some degree, but I just had to visit Jane Espensen's site to realize why.

She's got a hella blog (see how hip I am?). She breaks down the art of writing in a way that is intelligent, fascinating and entertaining. Having a problem with something in your script, I'd head over to her site and comb it for suggestions. Can't help but come away with something worthwhile.

Scott the reader over at Alligators in a Helicopter is another one. Speaking of scripts, if you want to know how a good one reads, go check out his blog. You can read several days entries before you realize how much time you've spent there.

You hope that what you have to write is entertaining first. There are a ton of blogs out there, a ton even for just screenwriters. The best ones aren't necessarily the most posted, but they're the most entertaining. They draw something out of us like a story. Perhaps a dash from their personal lives mixed in with the post.

Besides, I just read that a stripper with a blog was able to turn it into a deal and is now writing for a living.

Speaking of reading - I got it out of the latest issue of Sc(i)pt and I have my own personal bitch about another article in there that I've fought over discussing, but will have to tomorrow.

Interesting People and Why I Don't Know More of Them

2006-05-14T00:58:00.000-04:00

So I'm trolling the blogs again and I'm really starting to get pissed off at how many people out there are loving writing/screenwriting and interesting/funny people and yet, I don't know them.

I'm adding this to my list of questions for God when I see him.

Karma - or how to will your way to what you want

2006-05-14T00:06:00.001-04:00

I was speaking with a friend of mine about losing some weight and he turned me onto some new age stuff. It started with Napoleon Hill's Think and Grow Rich, but also went into some of the 'mind over matter' stuff.

See, if you think about something enough, you can almost will it to be.

You know how when you're having a problem with a writing/story problem and you go to bed only to wake up either in the middle of the night or the next morning with an answer?

Know how you have this great idea and at some point during your writing process, you see that somebody else already has a movie, novel, etc. *just* like it already out?

These are small examples of what i'm talking about.

If you really think about what you want to accomplish, your mind will help you work on the problem while you're asleep.

In a larger sense, I believe that the universe will help put you where you need to be to get what it is that you're after.

An example, albeit minor, I'm thinking about screenwriting and being a screenwriter. My concentration on the whole career aspect is like a biorhythm, up and down. In my most intense periods, I'll find myself either hearing about film events in my town, people will be asking me about story, screenwriting, I'll just be more aware of everything around me that surrounds screenwriting.

I believe it goes hand in hand with the Think and Grow Rich idea. If you want something bad enough, you'll think about it all the time and you'll do whatever you can to get it. By doing those things, you'll find yourself open or more receptive to any information or opportunity that can help you fulfill that desire.

I wish that as youngsters we were taught to think this way - how much more could we make of ourselves by simply thinking about what we want and being receptive to the world around us?

Think and Grow Rich

2006-05-14T00:06:00.000-04:00

It's a book by Napoleon Hill. It's Andrew Carnegie's secret to success. I'm sure a ton of people read this book figuring it'll show them how to get rich easily. The book, however, is not at all about how to make money - really - nor is it a get rich quick scheme.

This book should be ready by everybody by age 15. The only problem is that they won't really understand it until they're in their 30's. Some of us already know what it has to say intuitively. Some of us will learn it sooner, rather than later, bu for the bulk of us, we'll learn this lesson too later or not at all.

This is going to sound so common sense you'll wonder why it's in a book at all.

People always get what they want the most.

That's it.

Essentially, That's the bottom line.

The problem is what we want isn't always what we think we want. That's the rub. That's what the book talks about to some degree.

It's all about know what you want, then going after it without remorse, regret or regard for consequences.

The folks that know this intuitively are the ones that are doing things early. Gymnasts, athletes, creative prodigies. Folks with talent and/or drive they have all by themselves. This can't be pushed on you by a parent or sibling. It has to be something you want - you - and want very badly. That's the crux of the whole thing. It has to be something that you want more than anything and you have to be willing to sacrifice anything (or everything) to get it. While sacrificing anything/everything sounds rather sinister, it's not necessarily so - nor does it have to be a permanent thing.

For example: We'll use screenwriting now since that's what I'm supposed to be all about.

If you want to be a TV writer, you have to live out in CA (for the Hollywood TV market anyway). There's no getting around that. It's an established fact. Yet so many people toil away working on TV scripts outside of CA. Why? At the very least, you need three things to break into Hollywood TV:

1) Location - gotta be in LA (best) or at least CA - so you can make a meeting
2) Talent - have to be able to entertain with your writing
3) Contacts - have to know somebody willing to speak up for you

You can practice writing and get enough feedback to determine if you have enough talent.
If you play the Kevin Bacon game with your own life (pick 10 people and invariably somebody knows somebody who knows somebody in Hollywood), then you can make some contacts

However, you have to move to CA - preferably LA. You'll be making sacrifices - perhaps friends, family, maybe a lucrative or enjoyable job. But if you can't make the move - you don't want to be in TV badly enough. As such, Napoleon Hill says the odds are against you making it.

See - that's the whole point of the book and this post. You *always* get what you want. While you may think you want to be rich, or thin, or doing whatever job, you really do get what you want which is whatever you are now. It might be a job you don't like, but it doesn't require much from you. If you're overweight, but say you want to be thin or in better shape - maybe you want to not limit your food intake or exercise as much as required to be in better shape.

So when you say you want to be a screenwriter, you need to think about what you're willing to give up in order to make it.

It's also a tip for everybody under 25 and wanting to do whatever. Take a shot at it now. If it's a career, no mater what, give it 10-15 years. That's how long somebody typically takes to make it to where they want. I'm not talking about making it as a janitor, but as a professional. Med school, law school, college, internships - it all takes time. So give it your best shot and don't bail out. When you're done, you'll still have time to settle for something else and you'll know that you gave it your everything.

Compulsion

2006-05-13T02:38:00.000-04:00

This is becoming a compulsion. I don't feel right laying down in bed at night until I've said something.

Unfortunately, today was a long-ass day - spent 6 hours re-arranging the garage. Trust me, it needed it.

"Needed it more than you needed writing your script?" You say.

Touche, my friend, touche.

Tomorrow - I need to talk about "Think & Grow Rich". Then, karma, but that's the day after the Think and Grow Rich talk.

Now.

Sleep....