I’m not going to lie. I’m fascinated by Jordan Peele’s “Nope.”

Now that I’ve had some time to reflect on the film, I better appreciate what Peele has done. He swung for the fences in an industry that locks you in a batting cage. There’s something big and crazy and mystical about this movie that makes it unlike any other movie experience this year. And that’s to be admired.

But “Nope” is also a shining example of what an unfinished spec script looks like when it’s up on screen. It’s uneven. It’s sloppy. The main character isn’t very likable. The climax lacks clarity. You can feel the story trying to find itself as the movie is happening.

Who the f@%& is this character???

Which is what I want to talk about today. A finished script should never read like the writer is still playing with ideas, still trying to figure things out. Your script should have a certainty behind it. It should feel solid, like it always knows where it’s going.

To understand why this happens, you must first understand that a screenplay is a living breathing thing. We think we know our story when we start writing it. But, often times, we’ll discover new things that weren’t in the original plan. And, as an artist, it’s our duty to explore those new avenues to see if there’s anything there.

The most famous example of this is Good Will Hunting.

That movie started off as a thriller chronicling a genius mathematician who’s being pursued by the government for his abilities. But the drafts that Matt Damon and Ben Affleck were writing showed much more promise in the story’s character development, particularly the relationship between Will and his psychiatrist.

Matt and Ben did not want to change their story. But they were unknown back then and, in order to get the movie made, had to do what Castle Rock, who owned the rights, wanted them to do. So they scrapped the thriller angle and made it a character piece. The rest is history.

Part of what drafts 2, 3, 4, and 5 are about is identifying what’s working in your script and what’s not working, then leaning into the stuff that’s working. Just like Matt and Ben didn’t expect Psychiatrist Sean to be as interesting a character as he was, you might come up with a character, in the heat of writing, who you never thought of before you started, and that character might turn out to be a game-changer.

It’s in your best interest to then rethink your story to better incorporate that character. If that changes your movie – heck, even if it changes your genre – you have to consider it. That doesn’t mean you *have to* to deviate from your original vision every time this happens. But you should certainly weigh the pros and cons of the new option before writing it off.

I can’t help but think of this when reflecting on “Nope.”

Jordan Peele clearly had this vision of two Hollywood horse ranchers who discover that a UFO might be killing their horses. Admittedly, when you get that original idea in your head, it’s very hard to move away from it. So I suspect that once he had that idea, he never considered deviating. Which is too bad. Because it prevented him from writing a much better movie.

I don’t know how Peele conceived of the Ricky subplot. But based on his interviews and how obsessed he was with this monkey-massacre sitcom backstory, I assume it went something like this.

Peele had his crazy horse rancher UFO story over on one side. But he’d read about that story years ago (which we all did) about a monkey that tore its female owner’s face off. And he was so haunted by it that he just HAD to get it into his movie somehow. But how?

It would be too weird if the monkey massacre happened in the present. It would detract from the UFO-horse stuff. So he knew he had to put it in the past. Okay, well, how do we tie some crazed monkey backstory to the present? Maybe we have the woman whose face the monkey ripped off, many years later, involved in the story somehow.

They have animals in movies and TV shows all the time. What if this monkey was on a sitcom? And he didn’t just tear one person’s face off, he went ballistic and started attacking everyone on set? Okay, that’s cool. What if there’s a kid on this sitcom and he somehow comes away unscathed? And what if, many years later, he has his own little Western theme park out in the boondocks, not far from our horse ranchers? Okay, now we’re gradually finding tentacles to connect these two storylines.

Unfortunately, that’s as far as Jordan Peele went. Ricky (the kid from the sitcom) was going to be a supporting character in the movie.

This is the critical moment as an artist where you need to step back and objectively ask the question: Which of my two storylines is more interesting? The former kid sitcom star who survived a horrific monkey attack that killed two of his cast members and ripped the face off another, who’s put together a theme park where he tries to lure in UFOs… or a couple of horse ranchers who occasionally rent their horses to Hollywood?

Is it even a competition?

One’s a 9 out of 10 on the interesting scale.

The other is a 4 out of 10 at best.

Not only that but you could easily slide many of the current story elements over to the Ricky plot. For example, Ricky needs horses too. So if you really wanted to do the horse thing, you still have your horses as a main part of the plot. You could’ve even kept OJ. Have OJ begrudgingly working for Ricky. When the sh#t hits the fan, Ricky and OJ have to team up, which, unlike what they currently have, would’ve been fun to watch, since OJ doesn’t like Ricky.

Now some of you may be saying, “Hold on, Carson. Let’s play this out with some other movies. What about Star Wars? Han Solo had a way more interesting life than Luke Skywalker. Are you saying that George Lucas should’ve scrapped the whole Luke Skywalker Obi-Wan journey and made Star Wars, “The Adventures of Han Solo” instead? Cause we later saw the Han Solo movie. And it sucked.”

Totally fair argument. But I would combat that by saying while, yes, Han was the cooler character, Luke and Obi-Wan had the way better story. And since Han becomes a big part of the team after they meet anyway, we get all the Han Solo we can handle.

Here, Ricky has the better storyline AND is the more interesting character. He has the better story because he has an actual theme park he’s running. He’s putting all his resources into this new show. He doesn’t know if it’s going to work or not. If it doesn’t, it might bankrupt his whole business. Just as I’m writing this out, I’m imagining a 20 times better movie.

Ricky is also a guy who went through the most traumatic experience a kid could possibly go through. Yet here he is today, chipper and upbeat, always in a good mood. He clearly hasn’t dealt with that trauma. If we had more time with him, we’d be able to build more of an arc into that disconnect and see what happens when he finally breaks down and accepts what he saw.

So why did we build the story around the ranchers again?

One of two reasons, likely. As I said, once Peele locked into this idea of ranchers, he couldn’t let it go. He just had to tell the story from their point of view because they’re who he originally envisioned going through this. Another possibility is that he simply ran out of time. Unlike his 10 year journey writing Get Out, I’m guessing Universal dictated the release date of this film, which was strict enough that it prevented Peele from writing as many drafts as he would’ve wanted.

Which sucks because, he might’ve eventually figured this out. It’s clear to everyone who watched the movie that he was way more into Ricky’s storyline than the ranchers. That whole world of Ricky’s was like a sandbox full of toys. Every direction you looked (his current rodeo show, his old sitcom, killer monkeys, a weird theme park, maimed co-workers from his past) there was something to play with. Yet we instead get scenes like being stuck in Angel’s apartment while our three loser protagonists smoke weed together. It’s like, “uhhhh, I think there’s a better movie over this way, guys?”

Use this as a cautionary tale. Our minds are wonderful creative instruments and, sometimes, they come up with inspiration in the most unexpected of places. It could be that you’re writing a zombie movie and conceive one of your characters as an amazingly weird and captivating chess player. If Chess Guy is, far and away, the best thing about your zombie script, maybe you shouldn’t be writing a zombie script anymore.

Believe me, I know these choices aren’t easy. The more time you’ve invested in a storyline, the less motivation you have to change it. And, of course, there’s the danger of changing your mind *too much*. If you keep changing your script’s direction every time you come up with a new idea, you’re never going to finish. But if you encounter a scenario like Jordan Peele’s, “Nope,” where the subplot is actually way cooler than the main plot, you have to at least entertain the change. Cause I believe Jordan Peele missing the cue that Ricky was the main plot for Nope was the difference between making an okay movie and a great one.

Are you looking for help on your latest screenplay? – Let someone who’s read over 10,000 scripts identify your screenplay’s weak points and how to fix them.  I have a 4 page notes package (2300-2500 words) or the more detailed 8 page option (4600-5000 words).  I also give feedback on loglines, outlines, synopses, first acts, or any aspect of screenwriting you need help with. This includes Zoom calls discussing anything from talking through your script to getting advice on how to break into the industry.  If you’re interested, e-mail me at carsonreeves1@gmail.com and let’s set something up!  I look forward to working with you. 

Genre: Comedy
Premise: A successful illustrator finds herself friendless after her best friend gets engaged, forcing her to embark on an epic quest to “date” for new girlfriends — as an adult.
About: Scarlett Bermingham has written on a few small TV shows, including “Epic Night,” and “Damage Control.” She’s also had a few small roles as an actress. This script of hers made it onto last year’s Black List.
Writer: Scarlett Bermingham
Details: 115 pages

Slate for Mimi?

How many big ideas do you need for a concept?

There’s a belief that one isn’t enough. That you need a second one to make it truly original.

For reference, a “single idea” concept would be Top Gun: Maverick. A famous flight instructor comes back to Top Gun flight school to teach a new generation of pilots how to fly. A “double idea” concept would be “Nope.” It starts off as horror-mystery movie. Then it turns into an alien/UFO movie.  Or the recent spec sale, Classified.  It’s a heist movie AND a supernatural Indiana-Jones type movie.

Because my screenwriting philosophy is “keep it simple,” I lean towards one idea. But this topic is open for debate. You can find examples of both types of movies working.

When I read the concept for Mimi on the Black List, I was immediately intrigued. Instead of dating to find a boyfriend or girlfriend, you’re “dating” to find a friend. It was a solid “single idea” concept.

But then you open the script and are attacked by this secondary element of a cartoon world. Every scene involves a break into the cartoon version of what’s happening to Mimi. All of a sudden, you’re in “double idea” territory which means your enjoyment of the script will depend on if you’re a “single idea” or “double idea” person.

30 year-old Mimi works as an illustrator at a billboard advertising center. Mimi is one of those people who’s only ever needed one great friend. And that friend is Caroline. They’ve been BFFs since they were kids.

But, lately, Caroline keeps hanging around her new boyfriend, Kip, who Mimi thinks is a loser. As the weeks go by, Caroline is replying less and less to Mimi’s texts, until Caroline stops texting altogether. A couple months later, Mimi sees on social media that Caroline and Kip are getting married.

It’s around this time that Mimi gets the hint that Caroline is upset about something. But Mimi is too proud to call her and ask what. Which creates a new dilemma for her. Who’s going to be her new best friend? She’s got to find one.

Mimi quickly learns that making friends as an adult is a lot harder than making friends as a kid. She goes to pottery classes, scaring potential friends away with her “Let’s be friends now!” energy. She tries to make friends with her neighbor, who finds her way too overbearing. She even goes as far as to join a “Friend” version of Tinder and go on Tinder Friend dates.

For some reason, Mimi can’t make friends with anyone. She then becomes infuriated when she learns that there’s an actual date for Caroline’s wedding and SHE WASN’T INVITED. So she does what any scorned lover would do – she crashes the wedding!

There, she confronts Caroline, who tells her that Mimi is the embodiment of a selfish friend. It’s always about her. And that Caroline doesn’t want to be her friend anymore. Unfortunately, there is no happy ending here. The two go their separate ways and… that’s it.

Like I was saying earlier, I would’ve liked this a lot better without the animation. I suppose it will add visual flair to the movie itself, which might change my mind. But to me I saw it as a writer admitting that they didn’t believe in their idea enough. The original logline, sans animation, is funny! Trust that. I don’t think you need to add a bunch of bells and whistles to distract people in case it’s not enough.

Also, I felt the script could’ve done a lot more on the comedic side. I kept waiting for that big scene that was going to truly take advantage of the premise, but it never happened. We’d get funny little moments here and there – like Mimi coming on to a potential friend too hard and the friend being scared off. But that laugh takes up 5 seconds of the total screenplay. You need funny set-pieces that last FIVE MINUTES.

The 40 Year Old Virgin is a good example of this. You place a 40 Year Old Virgin on a date with a girl who makes it extremely clear she wants to have sex with him at the end of the night, and then you throw a ton of obstacles at the date (she gets egregiously drunk) which slowly and meticulously destroys the opportunity for said sex. A lot of comedy comes from us watching our main character’s misery.

We didn’t have that scene in “Mimi.”

But there were a couple of things I liked. The first was the choice not to explore the friendship between Mimi and Caroline. In fact, Caroline is absent the entire movie. (Spoilers) Normally, these movies are about repairing the central relationship. But we go 180 degrees in the opposite direction. Not only do we not explore the main relationship, but in the final confrontation, the characters go their separate ways. There is no happy resolution. That’s a very bold choice for a comedy.

I also liked what precluded the confrontation. Once we move away from the muted shenanigans of the first and second acts, we find Mimi truly exploring why she’s unable to have friendships. That was the first time in the script where I actually started to feel something. Cause a lot of what was said was truthful – how friendships are messy and how, if you take more than you give, sooner or later the other party is going to say, “Enough is enough.” Ultimately, Mimi needs to learn how to give more in friendships. That’s her big character journey.

And, to top it off, the script has a nice little epilogue where Mimi learns she’s already made friends with her neighbor without realizing it.

These scripts always mess with my head because I didn’t think much of the first two acts, but the third act really worked for me. And since it’s the most recent act, I’m tempted to give the script a ‘worth the read.’ But that’s still 75% of the script that I wasn’t on board with. So I’m not saying this is worth the read. But it *is* an interesting script in places and should not be easily dismissed.

P.S. Very clever name for a selfish main character – Mimi (“Me” “Me”).

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

What I learned: Any time you feel like you need to add CRAZY VOICE OVER or ANIMATION or YOUR MAIN CHARACTER BREAKS THE FOURTH WALL A LOT or SPEAK DIRECTLY TO THE READER THROUGH THE DESCRIPTION – ask yourself why you’re doing this. If you’re doing it because you genuinely believe it makes the script better, include it. But if you’re just doing it because you’re worried the story itself isn’t enough, you need to take a hard look at your concept and figure out if you really want a write it. No supplemental entertainment factor is going to save a weak premise. And, in some cases, like today’s script, it can actually get in the way of a fun idea.

Today’s script has a very real shot at becoming a future Oscar contender!

Genre: War
Premise: JULY 20, 1942: Russian composer Dmitri Shostakovich becomes known around the world for writing an epic symphony during the deadly World War II siege of Leningrad.
About: This script finished fairly high on last year’s Black List and is, surprisingly, the only World War 2 script that made the esteemed list. While Daniel Persitz does not have any previous writing credits, he was a producer on the 2014 horror film, Ouija.
Writer: Daniel Persitz
Details: 117 pages

One of the early lessons I learned about screenwriting was that they will never ever run out of movies to make about World War 2. I thought they’d scraped the bottom of the barrel and that was 20 years ago. I was wrong. Hollywood will scrape the blood off the carcass of a dead World War 2 soldier if there’s even a SLIVER of a new movie concept in it.

At first glance, writing a symphony seems low stakes in the shadow of one of the most devastating wars ever. But let’s not forget, they made a World War 2 movie about a piano. A piano! A symphony has, like, what? 30 more instruments? Which, by the power of maths, means it must be 30 times better. Right?

Stop being such a film snob and agree with me.

The year is 1937 and famous Russian composer, Dmitri Shostakovich, has just finished his latest musical, Lady MacBeth. While Dmitri is the 1937 celebrity equivalent of Drake in Russia, the tide has been turning against Russian artists lately. Joseph Stalin, threatened by the new ideas that art contains, is quietly disappearing Russian artists across the land. During Lady MacBeth, he stomps out mid-performance, implying that it won’t be long before Dmitri disappears too.

Things only get worse as this new German rabble-rouser, a guy named Hitler, starts taking over Europe. Tensions grow because even though Stalin and Hitler make a deal to be friends, Hitler is becoming unpredictable. And then it happens. Hitler invades Russia, storming up north through the giant country.

At a certain point Dmitri, along with his wife, Nina, his mother, Sofia, his father and his two children, start getting worried. They’re safely tucked inside Leningrad at the moment. But Hitler’s forces relentlessly move north, getting closer and closer to the city. Nina freaks out, demanding that they leave. But it’s inconceivable to Dmitri that Leningrad could fall so he says, “let’s stay, it’ll be fine.” It’s a critical error, because soon, the city is surrounded. There’s no way out.

Dmitri passes the time by writing his seventh symphony, inspired by the atrocities of war – the bombing, the starvation, the hopelessness. Every day, through thick and thin, he keeps writing that symphony. Then, when the city is devastated and without hope, word travels about Dmitri’s determination, and he’s invited onto Leningrad radio. In one of the most powerful moments of the war, he tells the Russians to remain defiant. That the Germans can’t stop him from working. He’s still writing his symphony. They, too, should keep working, keep resisting.

His speech is so powerful that Stalin himself orders Dmitri to be rescued from Leningrad. He’s allowed to bring his wife and kids, but not his parents. Dmitri is then ordered to finish his symphony as soon as possible as Stalin believes it will inspire other countries, particularly America, to join the war. But Dmitri is more concerned with his parents. He asks, if he can deliver the symphony, can his parents be rescued? Stalin’s right-hand man says, “We’ll try.” That’s enough for Dmitri, who puts everything he’s got into finishing that darn symphony.

This was pretty freaking good.

I went in wondering why I was going to care about a man finishing a symphony. And while the plot itself never convinced me it was a necessity. From a character perspective, I liked Dmitri so much, that I wanted to see him finish.

I always try to figure out the exact reason (even the exact moment) why I like or dislike a hero. Because that’s usually the moment in a script that determines everything that follows. If you don’t like the hero, you’re probably not going to like the story. If you do, you probably are.

So it’s worth it, whenever you watch a movie that you like or read a script that you like, to figure out exactly where you started liking the character. For me, it was two-fold. When I heard that Soviet artists were being killed, I felt this immediate fear for Dmitri. He was vulnerable. For making music of all things. Audiences don’t like when people are unfairly attacked. So, right away, we feel sympathy for him.

And then Persitz got more specific. He had Stalin show up to Lady MacBeth and have him hate it. Now we really hate Stalin, cause he hates our guy’s music. So we want Dmitri to thrive so he can prove him wrong. But again, it’s that base setup of someone being unfairly threatened/attacked that ensured we would root for Dmitri.

But the script still had a tough mountain to climb. The story takes place over five years. That’s a long time in movies. Most movies do well with a short timeframe – under two weeks if possible. However, war movies are one of the few genres that do well with passing time because there’s an organic-ness to watching the toll of war play out over time.

And Persitz makes good use of the time. He makes sure that things keep getting worse for his hero. First, it’s bad enough in Leningrad that people start evacuating. Then, people start need ration cards. Then, the city starts getting bombed. Then, the city is surrounded, as the Germans try to starve the population out.

Just when that starts to feel repetitive, Persitz introduces the “radio interview” scene, which allows Dmitri and his family to get out of the city. And that gives the narrative new life, since we’re in a new place. This plotline is subsidized by Dmitri’s determination to save his parents (the stakes) and this newfound excitement around this defiant composer who’s writing a symphony while his city is being bombed. It’s inspiring stuff.

If I have a gripe, it’s that the symphony isn’t tied enough to the war. The writer makes all these inferences that the symphony is going to inspire the world. But I wasn’t ever sure what that meant, or if I even believed it. Granted, I don’t know what it was like living in 1941, or what the music scene was back then. But I find it hard to believe that all the kids are waiting by the radio for that new 1 and a half hour song with lots of old-timey instruments and no singer.

Still, the writer does an exceptional job of making us like and care about the hero. The circumstances surrounding the goal make everything feel big and important. Even with a sketchy connection to the war, I was tearing up when composers around the world played Dmitri’s music.

It really does have that juicy Oscar feel to it. More importantly, it’s a good script. I recommend checking it out!

Script link: Symphony of Survival

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

What I learned: Beware “out of character” character introductions. Here’s a line early in the script. “He’s pulled aside by ISAAC GLIKMAN (25), his secretary and friend. A sophisticated intellectual who usually exudes warmth, at the moment Glikman fidgets with anxiety.” Notice that normally, Glikamn is sophisticated. That’s his true character. But we’re meeting him acting the exact opposite (“fidgets with anxiety”). The reason this is problematic is because readers put a ton of stock into how a character acts when they’re introduced. So if a character is a jerk, it doesn’t matter if you say in the description, “He’s normally nice.” Actions speak louder than words and right now, this guy is acting like a jerk, so that’s how we’re going to see him. For this reason, ALWAYS avoid out-of-character character introductions for your protagonists. And try your best to introduce every supporting character IN CHARACTER. If you absolutely positively can’t do that, then you can do what Persitz does here. But it should be your last option.

There isn’t a whole lot going on in the movie world this weekend. The Superpowered Pet Express, or whatever that movie was called, slinked into first place with 25 million dollars. In a somewhat surprising development, “Nope” only dropped 58% from its inaugural weekend. Some thought, with the weak word of mouth, it would dip as much as 70%. Maybe the film is better than I gave it credit for.

The lack of movie excitement gave me an opportunity to take in the TV landscape, more specifically the rapidly rising popularity of showrunners. Now I’m not sure I’d go so far as to say Shonda Rhimes, Taylor Sheridan, and and Eric Kripke have supplanted the names of Martin Scorsese, Quentin Tarantino, and James Cameron. But people are definitely becoming more familiar with those names. And it seems like when all these splashy directors retire, their namesake in popular culture will not be replaced by new movie directors, but rather by showrunners.

This got me thinking about how big the current TV space is. Some days it seems like there are more TV shows than there are people to watch them. And because there are so many shows, only a select few rise to the top and become what I refer to as, “The Talked About.”

“The Talked About” are the shows that have found a footprint in public discourse. Movie sites write articles about them. Reddit creates subreddits about them. Content creators vlog about them.  These shows are hash-tagging their a$$es all the way around Twitter. And, of course, most importantly, when you see the show yourself, you want to tell a friend about it.

“The Talked About” shows are not to be confused with the critical darlings or shows that get a ton of Emmy nominations, even though you’ve never heard to them. A good example would be that show Ramy, on Hulu. It won an Emmy even though not a single person was aware the show existed (which the creator admitted in his acceptance speech). Side note: Go watch one episode of that show and you’ll know exactly why critics loved it despite it being overwhelmingly average. We’ll leave it at that.

I admit this even for shows I loved. I thought “Devs” was great. But I’ll be the first to admit that it was not talked about other than the times I talked about it to myself. I don’t think Severance is a talked about show. I don’t think Hacks is a talked about show. I don’t even think personal favorite, The White Lotus, is a talked about show. The TV landscape is littered with shows like this.

See
The Wheel of Time
Big Sky
Virgin River
Equalizer
New Amsterdam
Loot
The Stand
Lost in Space
The Wilds
The Gilded Age
Foundation
Life and Beth
Invasion
Irma Vep
Good Girls
Physical
The Orville
Outer Range
Night Sky
Our Flag Means Death

I’m not saying you can’t personally like these shows. I’m just telling you that nobody, and I mean nobody, talks about these shows. Meanwhile, you have “The Talked About.”

Only Murders in the Building
The Boys
Squid Game
Game of Thrones
Umbrella Academy
Stranger Things
Euphoria
You
Ozark
Barry
Yellowstone
Ted Lasso
Better Call Saul
Succession
Peaky Blinders
Fleabag
Cobra Kai
Billions
Killing Eve
Big Little Lies
The Handmaid’s Tale
Bridgerton
What We Do In The Shadows
Normal People

Riddle me this: What are shows like Ted Lasso, Billions, and Euphoria, doing that shows like Foundation, Outer Range, and Virgin River are not?

To understand this, you need to break these “talked about” shows down into two categories. Big-budget and Normal Budget. Big Budget would be shows like The Boys, Squid Game, Stranger Things, and Peaky Blinders. Normal Budget would be shows like Barry, You, Euphoria, Cobra Kai, and Better Call Saul.

When it comes to Normal Budget, the formula seems to be, first and foremost, create a really interesting main character. The best bet appears to be a “bad” character who does bad things who we still like, usually because they’re taking on even worse people. Barry, You, and Better Call Saul fall under this category. Even the goofy Cobra Kai is built on this premise, as it celebrates the character of Johnny, a “bad” karate instructor who teaches his students how to defeat “even worse” karate students.

If you’re going low budget and don’t have a standout character, you need to add something to the plot to counter-balance this hole. I’d argue that neither Only Murders In The Building or Big Little Lies had stand out characters. But Murders is built around an intriguing mystery and Big Little Lies is a thriller constructed around a woman trying to escape a marriage. Both shows have genre components that help keep the plot zipping along.

From there, we move into the comedy space, and that’s where it’s harder to pinpoint what makes a show stand out. Ted Lasso is definitely an outlier in that the main character is the nicest guy in the world and endlessly optimistic. Usually shows have main characters with issues that they need to overcome. So I confess I don’t know why that show is popular other than people find it funny. Both What We Do In the Shadows and Fleabag are also really funny, each in different ways. Although I might slide Fleabag into the same category as Barry, Better Call Saul and You in that the main character is heavily flawed, yet we still want to see them succeed.

And Euphoria and Normal People are also outliers in that they cover extremely familiar territory (high school and romance) but do so with unique directing flairs that make them stand out. Euphoria goes deeper into the underbelly of high school than any other high school show you’ve seen. And Normal People is much rawer, and therefore realistic, than any young romance show.

Things get more complicated once you move into these bigger shows. But one thing that pops out at me immediately is that many of these shows embrace a, “We’re not going to sugarcoat s#@t” attitude. The shows aren’t afraid to kill characters off. They’re not afraid to say controversial things. They’re not afraid to be risky or unpredictable. Squid Game falls under this category. Game of Thrones does, especially the early seasons. The Boys. Succession. Billions. It’s been a while since I saw The Handmaid’s Tale, but it felt like that show embraced that mantra as well.

One of the things that’s surprised me in the last five years is how much audiences love a great period TV show. They love that big budget high production value period setting. Yellowstone, Peaky Blinders, The Queen’s Gambit. The more authenticity you can bring to these shows, the better. Audiences really want to live in these worlds. So you can’t half-a$$ your research. The Queen’s Gambit team had been trying to make that project for 15 years. They knew every single thing about that time and place so that when it was time to make the series, it felt authentic.

Then you have shows like Stranger Things and The Umbrella Academy which seem to be outliers in that I don’t think they exist in any clear genre. I’ve honestly never met anyone who’s seen The Umbrella Academy. But it’s definitely a talked about show on social media. I suspect that may be because the media really wants it to succeed. But Stranger Things, man…. I don’t know if there’s anything to learn about this show. It’s like Lost – the ultimate “caught lightning in a bottle” show. Remember how every single showrunner in Hollywood created a Lost knockoff and they all failed? That’s what I mean by “lightning in a bottle.”

I’m curious what you think the reason for Stranger Things’ success is and if it can be replicated. Because I don’t think it can be.

The big thing that inspired today’s post was hearing so much about this season of The Boys that I decided to give it another go. I want to see what it is about the show that makes it so “talk-worthy.” So don’t be surprised if you get a few “Boys” articles in the near future.

We’re back with seven new First Act entries! If you weren’t around last week, I’m doing a public dissection of First Act Contest submissions. I give each entry at least 10 pages. From there, I keep reading until I get bored. If the script manages to keep me reading all the way to the end of the first act, that script advances to the next round. Then I re-evaluate every script that advanced, pick five finalists, and choose a winner. Good news. Another script got through this week! Keep reading to find out which one. And, just as was the case last week, let me know if you disagree with my analysis on any of the entries!

Title: WAR HOUND
Genre: Action
Logline: After being honorably discharged from the US Special Forces because of a failed mission in Syria, a former Army operator returns home to a country he defended but can’t recognize anymore. A call from an FBI agent who masterminded the failed Syrian mission brings him an offer to go to Ukraine as a volunteer and exact revenge on the guy who disgraced him.
Writer: Dimitrije Vojnov

Thoughts: This is cool. The writer of this script has NINE produced films in Serbia. And, obviously, English is his second language. I have mad respect for anyone competing in a contest that isn’t in his native language. Not easy to do! So let’s start with the obvious. AVOID TWO-SENTENCE LOGLINES. I’m okay with them if you have a really complex world to set up (sci-fi or fantasy). Or if you’re log-lining a show, which needs a little more explanation. But this didn’t need a two-sentence logline. My big worry going into this (yes, I broke my own rule by reading the logline first) was that it would be too generic. There isn’t a single element in the logline that feels unique. But that didn’t turn out to be the main problem in the script. The main problem is that the English-second-language issue rears its head so aggressively that the read doesn’t flow. A script MUST FLOW. I know this is frustrating for ESL writers to hear as they’re probably thinking, “As long as the core of the story is conveyed, it should’t matter if there are grammar or punctual errors.” Yeah but a script is dependent on suspending the reader’s disbelief. And the ESL kept breaking my focus. There are people who will fix ESL errors in your script, so that’s an option. I even do it myself but I’m not cheap. Only because I’ve found that it’s not just about fixing grammar. Sometimes you’re making creative choices for the writer, and that requires some back and forth, which is time-consuming. For example, there’s a line in this script: “Parker is charismatic and Cameron’s team is focused.” These are two separate sentences. They should not be combined. And if I had my choice, I wouldn’t mention either. They’re not relevant to the moment and only act to gum up the read. So I’d probably cut that sentence. But, yeah. That’s why this script didn’t advance. If you are interested in ESL help, e-mail me at carsonreeves1@gmail.com.

Page Stopped: 10
Verdict: Pass

Title: The Law of Worthless Stones
Genre: Action / Adventure
Logline: In 1877 Turkey, when an American demolitions expert inadvertently unearths a billion dollar treasure coveted by a bloodthirsty Ottoman Queen, he must fight for his own life, and the lives of millions, to stop her from funding an all-out war on an unsuspecting world.
Writer: Jeff Stein

Thoughts: I love Jeff. I think he’s extremely talented. He has one of the more unique voices on the site (“An empty bottle of whiskey rolls out of his hand, bumps against the scuffed shoes of a 12-year-old CHINESE GIRL. She is cute, crafty, loyal, and has enough attitude for a dozen Awkwafinas.”). I think he’s won an Amateur Showdown before (Jeff, can you confirm this?). As I’ve told Jeff in the past, his only problem is that he wants to include every single idea he can think of. Whereas I like stuff that’s simpler and more focused. So that’s where our writer-reader conflict lies. — I like the contrast inherent in this opening. We start with the Ottoman War. Then we somehow end up with a cowboy in America. How do these things connect? We’re curious and want to find out. There’s a fun “runaway train” set piece that follows, but something about the writing here is too loose. I’m not *entirely* sure what’s going on in the scene and I find that my concentration is often drifting. I repeatedly have to do the dreaded “back up and re-read that part”.” Sometimes I get the feeling Jeff writes faster than he thinks. We get the benefit of that (wild ideas, imaginative writing) as well as the disadvantage (I don’t feel confident that the writer knows where he’s headed in the scenes or in the story). I’d be curious what you guys thought of The Law of Worthless Stones. The concept sounds cool. But I want to know if my repeated focus-drifts are just my problem or they’re happening to you guys as well. Cause I want to figure out a way to help Jeff here. I would like to give him more concrete criticism so he knows what he has to correct.

Page Stopped: 13
Verdict: Pass

Title: The Sanctuary
Genre: Action/ adventure
Logline: A couple on the run from hit men find themselves shipwrecked on an island paradise where a drug lord hid his treasure, unaware that they are being hunted by wild beasts.
Writer: Mariano Rueda

Thoughts: This one started out really strong. Great cold open. We have, what looks like, soldiers, on a boat, headed towards an island at night. Once they get there, they head into the jungle, then come upon an old abandoned mansion. They’re looking for something. They then come across a cage with a still rotting lion carcass inside. That was the first moment where I was like, “Okay, this is cool.” Again, as readers, we’re looking for things that are original. Stuff we don’t typically see. I’ve seen military guys hop on shore and go try to execute a mission hundreds of times. But when I realized these guys were looking for something more treasure-related, I became intrigued. And the lion carcass snapped me to attention. It was a fresh choice. The rest of the scene plays out well. We then cut to Florida and meet this couple who’s had brushes with the law. I found their dialogue to be a little simplistic. It lacked specificity, which is what helps make your characters stand out. They’re just talking in generic relationship-speak. To the writer’s credit, we get another exciting scene, as the couple is chased by someone. But once they hid on the boat it felt like we’d stuck around the scenario for too long. The dialogue continued to be barely passable. I could feel my interest dropping quickly. When the boat owner fell off the boat, it just felt like hi jinx at that point so I gave up. But overall, this is a top 20% entry. Maybe even top 15%. So there’s nothing to be disappointed about here.

Page Stopped: 17
Verdict: Pass

Title: The King of Ghosts
Genre: Drama
Logline: When a survivor of the Burundian genocide is reunited with his daughter, he must decide between pursuing a new life with her, or remaining with the orphan boy he’s caring for and the violent existence he’s carved out for himself in the underground world of machete fighting.
Writer: No Given Name

Thoughts: You can tell the good writers right away. I liked, for example, the simple but effective description in this script (“KARENGA MUMBOYO (50s) sits with eyes closed. He might be napping. He’s shadow-black and lean and his face is horribly scarred. So are his arms. A man built from pain and survival.”). The writer uses a British character as the engine pushing the story forward (a journalist looking for the elusive Mumboyo, a notorious machete fighter). We then meet Mumboyo himself, who’s struggling to make ends meet in these underground machete fights to the death. And then we have a third character, Zecharia, who’s caring for his ailing sister. The writing is purposeful (it’s clear the writer has a plan, and every scene pushes us forward to accomplish that plan) and the story moves along quickly. We also have a unique world, which I just told you readers are always looking for. So everything felt new and fresh here. Easily one of the best entries in the contest so far. If you’re looking to see what the writing bar is, check out this first act!

Page Stopped: Read entire act (27 pages)
Verdict: Advance!

Title: The Patriotic Hitman
Genre: Action/Thriller
Logline:  A sniper assigned by a government agency to assassinate a senator at a public rally catches a glimpse of a suicide bomber in the crowd.
Writer: Alex Beattie

Thoughts: We’ve got character naming problems right off the bat. Jake Ryan? As in one letter removed from Jack Ryan? Mary Swanson? One of the most famous comedy female characters of all time (Dumb and Dumber). I’m not asking for names like Locoio Markopolis. But if you’re not thinking hard about names, that makes me think you’re not thinking hard about anything in your script. With that said, the first ten pages are better-than-average. But it’s all very routine. Even the sniper cold open. You’re going up against American Sniper here with its similar sniper scenario. Your goal should be to give us a sniper opening that’s even better than that, not a notch less exciting. A female suicide bomber who takes out a team of marines? I read that scene every other week. I don’t think writers realize just how common their ideas are. You have to work harder than you’re working if you want to stand out. Nothing has happened in these first 12 pages that’s any different from anything I’ve read before. By the way, this is why scripts like, “The King of Ghosts,” do well. Their very setting is so unique that every single page is going to provide us with something new. Whereas when you write about covert agents, you’re going up against thousands of other covert agent scripts around town. So you’re going to have to move mountains and push yourself beyond your creative limits to find fresh new ideas in that space.

Page Stopped: 10
Verdict: Pass

Title: On the Lam
Genre: Fun Action/Thriller
Logline: A wealthy man who has worked as an underground doctor of assisted suicide for 20 years must condense his fortune, pack up his life’s work, and head across the Canadian Border in order to hideout from the multiple parties interested in finding him, arresting him, using him, or killing him.
Writer: Josh Bullock

Thoughts: I highlighted this one specifically because, as writers, we get so tunnel-visioned that we don’t notice the most obvious things. Look at the genre here and then look at the first half of this logline. “Fun Action” and “has worked as an underground doctor of assisted suicide for 20 years.” Do you see how those two things don’t go together? And worse, they seem comical when read together? This is why you need feedback on your loglines and scripts. If you can’t afford feedback, you must become an expert at seeing your writing through the reader’s eyes. You must learn how to become a different person and then read everything (the logline, the query, the script) as if you’re reading it for the first time. Because when I see something like this, I already know the script is in trouble. And that’s a problem because getting people to keep reading your script can’t happen if they don’t open your script in the first place. But I did open the script and I got what I was afraid of, which was a tonal mismatch. The opening scene is a gun to the back, “I’m taking you out of here,” bad-guy-catches-our-protagonist…. during a screening of Titanic. The dialogue borders on comedic: “Did you know that James Cameron
actually sketched that picture? It’s true. Winslet originally protested the nudity. She only agreed to it when James told her it would be a closed set with minimum crew. So to avoid bringing in an artist, he sketched her himself.” This scene is then followed by an assisted suicide, which is one of the most depressing situations a human can imagine. The two scenes don’t naturally come together. So I would tell Josh that he needs to work on incorporating a consistent tone, both in his loglines and scripts.

Page Stopped: 10
Verdict: Pass

Title: One Flesh
Genre: Horror
Logline: When a disease causes humans to fuse when they physically touch, a cult leader sets her sights on her estranged family as she seeks to spread her vision of love and a new fused human race.
Writer: Evan Job

Thoughts: This one started off strong. We see a group of naked people, all of them with aggressively cracked skin, go to a house at night and then a member of the group, a girl, run into the house and steal a baby, which we realize is hers. As her ex-husband chases her out, the baby fuses to the girl’s skin. I definitely haven’t seen that before, so I was intrigued. We then cut to a different character, Tasha, who also has this rare skin disease. She’s taking care of her father. And a member of that same car group, Anton, comes to her house and wants to reconnect with her. It turns out he’s her boyfriend. This is where I began to lose interest in the pages. Their dialogue felt very simplistic and it went on for too long. A good scene always has a point. We’re then moving towards that point during the scene. For a big long chunk of this scene, it felt like we weren’t moving at all. And the dialogue just wasn’t sharp enough to carry it. “Why are you being like this, Tasha?” “I am not playing this game, I want you to leave.” “I don’t want to leave.” “You’re going to leave.” Something about that exchange didn’t feel sophisticated enough to me. But kudos to Evan for writing a first scene that pulled me in. And this subject matter seems unique. So nice job there as well!

Page Stopped: 16
Verdict: Pass

Share your thoughts on these entries over the weekend! Curious what you think!! Especially about The King of Ghosts.

GET PROFESSIONAL FEEDBACK BEFORE YOU SEND YOUR SCRIPT OUT THERE!!! – I give screenwriting consultations for every step of the process, whether it be loglines (just $25!), e-mail queries, plot summaries, outlines, Zoom brainstorming sessions, first pages, first acts, full pilots, full features. E-mail me at carsonreeves1@gmail.com if you’re interested in any type of consultation.  I want to help you make your script as good as it can possibly be!