Before we get to today’s regularly scheduled programming, there’s something that’s been bothering me about Rotten Tomatoes. There’s this contingent of low budget horror movies that get unusually high scores on the site that don’t match up with the quality of the film. “Alone,” about a man stalking a female driver – 94% RT score. 58% audience score. I saw that movie and it was literally “first movie out of film school” weak. “His House,” which focuses on two displaced refugees in a haunted house. 100% RT score. 76% audience score. Extremely serious for a horror film. Disarmingly so. “Relic,” about an elderly mother’s erratic behavior, scored a 91% RT score with critics and only a 48% audience score. I don’t know if someone has figured out how to game the system for indie horror films on RT but there’s clearly something going on here and it’s annoying because I’m always looking for a good horror film and if I go by Rotten Tomatoes, I get burned every time. Anyone know what’s going on?
With that upbeat announcement, let’s get to the ten films I refused to watch this year because I knew they’d bore me to pieces. Trigger warning in advance! Some of you might get upset that I’m reviewing movies without seeing them. That’s not what I’m doing, though. I’m reviewing these movies from a conceptual/marketing perspective only. I’m fascinated by what makes the average person decide to watch a movie. The concept, the marketing, the trailer, the pitch – all of this is stuff you should be obsessing over as a screenwriter when you write something. Because even if you write the best script you’ve ever written? If it looks like Nomadland, a movie that makes you want to kill yourself when you watch the trailer, you’re going to have an insanely difficult time getting anybody to read the script. And with that, here are the ten movies in 2020 I wouldn’t touch with a ten foot pole!
I’m Thinking of Ending Things – There are certain topics that are so depressing, they don’t work well within the cinematic format. Suicide is one of those topics for me. The exception to that is when you play off the expected tone and have fun with it. The 1985 comedy, Better Off Dead, comes to mind. Even the recent Netflix show, 13 Reasons Why, created this fun mystery component to the story that implied, for most of the season, that this might not have even been a suicide, but rather a murder. My issue with I’m Thinking of Ending Things is that it leans into the tone of depression and suicide so heavily that it’s too on-the-nose. It’s not a surprise to me at all, then, that the audience score for Kaufman’s latest was only 47%.
Bad Boys for Life – Bad Boys was the poster child for empty-calories entertainment in the 90s. You had the director – Michael Bay – who may be the director most uninterested in the human condition in all of Hollywood. This guy’s deepest thought every day is whether to add mild or hot sauce to his Taco Bell Grande burrito. This meant that the actors in Bad Boys, Will Smith and Martin Lawrence, were relegated to improvising as many variations of “Aww, helllll no!” as possible. Ironically, if I were asked to classify this franchise in three words, it would be: “Aw, hell no.” The biggest mystery about this movie is why did they want to make it? I would rather have seen a sequel to the underrated Martin Lawrence film, The Black Knight, than this. But I do give it props for making a lot of dough. I didn’t think the appetite would be as high as it was. And it managed to beat the pandemic.
Mank – “You can’t include “Mank,” Carson. You saw Mank!” That’s the funny thing. This movie was so forgettable that I actually forgot I saw it when I added it to the list. And it only came out a couple of weeks ago! Despite this, I realize that Mank is a rare achievement in Hollywood that only a select few filmmakers every generation enjoy. It’s when a director is so successful for so long that they can make a movie that only one person cares about – them. Nobody else asked for this movie. It has one fan and one fan only. That fan is David Fincher. And, hey, all the power to him. If I’m ever that successful, I’ll probably make a movie only I like as well.
Nomadland – Carson, why do you hate indie film so much? The truth is I do not hate indie film. In fact, here are a few indie I’ve enjoyed over the last few years: Parasite. Jojo Rabbit. The Favourite. Three Billboards. Do you notice a trend with all of these movies? Oh yeah, it’s that THEY’RE NOT DEPRESSING AS SHIT!!!! That’s all I’m asking for from my indie movie. That it not depress the hell out of me. And there is nothing in this universe that looks as depressing as this film. It isn’t even that I can’t take depressing narratives. But there has to be variety of emotion in a movie. It can’t be one single depressing note the whole way through. It irks me that movies like this get made because they seem to be saying, “Suffer through our depressing film so you can hear our message.” I’m sorry but I don’t watch movies to suffer.
First Cow – Without question, the single worst title of 2020. And maybe the worst title of the decade. It really says something that this movie is so highly reviewed yet I will never see it because of the title alone. A title is supposed to inform. Create curiosity. Give us a feel for what kind of movie we’re watching. Unless this is literally about the first cow in existence, this title does none of these things. This is another thing about indie film that bothers me. They don’t have people pushing back as much. So there’s no one to challenge anything. This is especially relevant in this case since someone needed to say, “I refuse to distribute this movie unless you change the title.”
Songbird – There’s miscalculation and then there’s stupidity. People don’t like to watch movies about upsetting subject matter while the subject is still happening. Michael Bay’s decision to make a movie about the pandemic during the pandemic would be second only to making a movie about 9-11 two months after 9-11. Oh yeah, I think somebody did that, too. In times of crisis, people don’t like to be reminded of said crisis. They like to laugh. They like to get lost in a fun story. There’s a good example of how to do this right and I have to thank Poe for it because he alerted me to the movie. The film is called “Host” and the whole story takes place over a Zoom meeting during the pandemic, which isn’t even about the pandemic. Check it out if you like horror.
The Lovebirds – The Lovebirds represents one of the oldest mistakes Hollywood makes. They take two quickly rising actors and assume that because everybody likes those actors individually that everybody will like them together as well. That’s not how it works. Every couple has its own personality just like every individual has their own personality. Nobody wanted to see a movie with these two together. Literally nobody. You see them in a poster and it’s the easiest “no thank you” you’ve ever said. Same thing happened with Passengers. You took one look at Jennifer Lawrence and Chris Pratt and said, “Something’s not right here.” I guess I understand, logically, why this happens. Actors are commodities and attaching hot ones are one of the best ways to move a project forward. But somebody needs to solve this particular problem because nobody wants to see movies like this.
The Last Days of American Crime – If anybody anywhere understands the plot to this movie, please let me know. I’ve never watched twenty minutes of something and been more confused than while watching this. This is only a movie that could’ve been made in this time, in this environment, with this business model, because Netflix is still so new to the feature game that they don’t have any quality control in place yet. The thing is, “Last Days of American Crime” has an interesting concept at its core – a blocker that the government initiates in all individuals makes them unable to perform a crime. But like so many bad writers before him, this writer took that idea and decided to make it as complex as possible instead of as simple as possible. Let this be your 6785th reminder that simple narratives win out over complex ones 99.9% of the time.
Fatman – I wanna pitch something to you. Are you ready? Miracle on 34th street meets Fargo. “Um, what exactly?” “You know, a movie about Santa Clause but it’s a crime film.” “But that doesn’t make any sense.” “Egggsaccctly.” “Um, no I don’t think you’re hearing me. That’s the dumbest idea I’ve ever heard.” Look, I’m all for doing something different. But when you’re doing something different, it can’t be forced. There are certain genres that don’t want to be mixed together. Sure, I could pitch a new version of “A Christmas Story,” told in three chapters, all of them backwards, in the style of a sci-fi Christopher Nolan film, for which I would win the “found a new angle” award. But did I create a good idea that audiences would actually want to pay for? No. I did not. And that’s the case with Fatman as well. I mean, this is a really poor idea for a movie.
Sound of Metal – I know I’m going to get some blowback on this one but there’s something about this movie, despite the critical praise, that’s keeping me away. And I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s the concept. A drummer for a rock band is losing his hearing? My first thought when you pitch me that is: I don’t care. I’m sorry. I don’t care if a drummer loses his hearing, lol. So what! I hate movies that put messaging over entertainment. But the flip side of that coin is when a movie isn’t about anything. This just seems so devoid of depth to me. Some of you may say, “Give it a chance, Carson!” That’s the point I’m trying to make, though! We all only have a finite amount of time. Which means we can’t watch everything. Which is why it’s so damn important to get the concept right. Millions of people are going to be looking at that concept and asking, ‘Do I want to check that out or no?” And they’re going to be making that decision within three seconds. So the more powerful you can make your pitch, the better off you’re going to be. Who the hell cares if a drummer loses his hearing?
Stand by for my favorite movies of 2020! Have there even been 10 good movies in 2020? Find out tomorrow! And share the 2020 movie you refused to watch!
Mayhem Jones, you ask? Who’s that? Isn’t the writer of the number one script, Sophie Dawson? Well, around here we’ve always known her as Mayhem. Not just because it’s her online alias, but because she’s always up to some kind of mischief. The good kind of mischief, of course. Speaking of mischief, Mayhem’s script, Headhunter, follows a cannibal who selects his victims based on their Instagram popularity. Today I ask her about that script, how she develops her ideas, and how she crafted the voice that won her so many fans around town. Enjoy the interview!
SS: First off, congratulations! This all must be a bit overwhelming.
MJ: Thank you! I work a crappy retail job and this customer was arguing with me about leggings as my phone was blowing up with the news. I’m obsessed with Franklin Leonard and his annual Black List – my goal was to make the very bottom of it at some point in my life, so HEADHUNTER hitting #1 left me speechless. I quickly texted a friend who squealed: “I just showed the manager of H&M your name in Deadline!” and I was like, “Do you even know this person??” and he went, “No, but we’re both FREAKING OUT!!”
SS: By the way. There are many a rumor about where you live and what you do. I recently heard you live off the grid in a forest so big that it hasn’t been fully charted by the United States government yet. Can you tell us anything about where you reside or is that top secret?
MJ: TOP SECRET. I enjoy being incredibly difficult to reach, so when my managers insisted I set-up my cell phone’s voicemail (for the first time ever, I might add) stating my actual name and stuff… I was livid. It’s been 4 months and I’m still pissed! It’s really bizarre seeing people mention a script using my real name now. Don’t they mean Mayhem Jones??
SS: Why do you think, of all the scripts you’ve written, that Headhunter is the one that clicked with people and helped you break out?
MJ: Let’s face it, most of my earlier dialogue-driven work exploded all over the page in an insane, uncontrollable frenzy. With HEADHUNTER, I slowed down a bit. It’s still weird – but with less spin outs, more control! The producers and executives I talked to said it was a fun, interesting read that felt so different from what they’re normally given. Most importantly: you only need to find ONE PERSON to love and champion your script, and I hit the freakin’ jackpot finding a team who immediately took to the material. (Ha ha, sickos!)
SS: Can you tell us a little about your process for writing a screenplay? Do you jump right in? Do you meticulously outline?
MJ: I have a 40-beat chart that I use color-coded post-its to fill with one sentence scene pitches. I transfer that over to a word document where I go deeper: scene summary, links of research I might need, and “dialogue ideas”. I’ll transfer that into a Final Draft document with each beat numbered for clarity. I then write 2-3 scenes per day – withholding sleep, and sometimes food – until I make that quota. Once I have a more formal draft, I change my quota to 5-10 pages per day to more closely shape the scenes. I see dialogue and scene descriptions as totally different things, so I’ll do 10-20 pages a day of ONLY scene description work/polish, then switch to 5-10 pages a day of ONLY dialogue polish. I then do more broader passes of 20-30 pages per day.
Towards the end, I’ll do a “reader engagement” check – do I skim quicker over certain scenes? Those need more work. With a dialogue-heavy script like HEADHUNTER, I’ll have easily gone through it 100+ times, sometimes only changing a few words or moving a comma. I’ll go over the first 5-10 pages an extra 30+ times because it’s critical to gain the reader’s trust early.
SS: Headhunter has a BIG main character. Can you share your approach to character creation?
MJ: When I’m writing more voice-y stuff, it’s essential I relate in some way to the main character. This way, they can serve as a vector for my thoughts and opinions – which will lead to more energetic prose. I wanted to do a commentary on everyone’s 24/7 addiction to social media, so it made sense to make a cannibal character (us!) literally consume Instagram models (social media!), right? In general, I love the exploration of dark/demented characters that are presented in a more digestible way (uhhh, no pun intended). When people heard about HEADHUNTER early on, they were like: “Ewww! I’m not reading a script about a CANNIBAL!!” But once they found out I wrote it, they were like “Oh… OK. I know Sophie will do something different with it.”
SS: I suspect your dialogue was a big reason this script got passed around. What’s your secret to strong dialogue?
MJ: Dialogue succeeds when it’s natural, so I go with my “first take” as much as possible. The more you tweak it, the more awkward it sounds. I’m neurotic about looking up words I don’t know, and keep notes of dialogue ideas that pop into my mind. Even if I’m about to fall asleep – I’ll wake up and write it down. I’ll then go through my script and input these lines where they’d make the most sense. I was in Whole Foods listening to a pretentious douche brag about the price of avocados, and was like – my main character in HEADHUNTER could totally troll someone like that before killing them. Later, I read an article about how it rains diamonds on the planet Neptune. That fact was incredible! It’s a little too random to work into a conversation, but seemed like the perfect annoying ice breaker for an Uber driver.
You can even get more nit-picky if you want, and use rhythmic cadences. In HEADHUNTER, every time the main character wanted to close his eyes and disappear to another place – the description of the places he was daydreaming about had a certain rhythmic pattern. Towards the end of the script, when these daydreams were becoming more violent/unhinged, I slightly changed the rhythm (achieved by simply using words with different amounts of syllables) to be a bit “off” – so the sequence was more jarring.
SS: You get endless compliments about your unique voice, and rightfully so. Can you give other writers tips on finding their unique voice?
MJ: Ask yourself: what annoys the SH*T out of you? Start ranting about it. Seriously. Pull up a word document or whatever and write a paragraph about what pisses you off the most. Now, read it. Notice how animated you are? Notice how specific you are? Listen to yourself when you get angry – whether it’s about the Tesla that just cut you off, or the friend trying to offload their $1 Lake Tahoe timeshare on you – that super raw, inner monologue of yours is your “voice”. Apply that inner energy to scripts that deal with topics you have opinions on, and I guarantee you’ll notice a different kind of writing.
SS: What everyone is always asking is how to get an agent, how to get a manager, how a script goes from one’s computer to “sale.” Can you tell us, in as much detail as possible, how you got your agent/manager?
MJ: HEADHUNTER made the quarterfinals/semifinals in the 2020 Academy Nicholl Fellowships, and my friend was like, “YOU GOTTA QUERY PEOPLE RIGHT NOW!”. I hate querying so much, but I trolled the interwebs for awesome managers – begrudgingly sending the simplest/least annoying pitch I could to one per day. Someone on Reddit posted a Twitter thread by literary manager John Zaozirny, head of Bellevue Productions. It was about how he manages clients… I instantly became obsessed! I sent him a quick pitch, and amazingly he responded with a read request.
I was getting more read requests and even meetings – but after a zoom with John and his colleague Zack Zucker, I knew I wanted them in my life ASAP!! (I was right – they don’t mind my freak outs, ALL CAPS EMAILS, and ridiculous ideas, ha ha!) John and Zack started sending out HEADHUNTER, and it led to an astonishing six agencies wanting to know more about me. It was excruciating to decide (as many of these fabulous, fabulous agents have clients on this years Black List!!) but I have a wonderful team of people as crazy as me.
SS: Headhunter won Amateur Showdown and was reviewed on Scriptshadow a while back. Was there any feedback from the commenters you got that day that helped you improve the script to what it is now? If so, can you highlight some?
MJ: Honestly, the biggest complaint from that weekend was the genre. Everyone HATED that I called it a drama, saying it was more of a dark comedy. So I started labeling it as a dark comedy/satire. Except for some minor tweaks, it’s pretty much the same! The biggest change? A modified title. My manager John went all Sean Parker (from that famous scene in THE SOCIAL NETWORK) and said: “Drop the ‘The’. Just – HEADHUNTER.”
SS: I’ve found that there’s a direct correlation between a writer’s ability to stay positive and the length of time they stick with the craft. And since it takes a while to get good at this screenwriting thing, possessing the skill of remaining positive is very important. You are well-known for your positivity. Can you share your secret?
MJ: First off, you have to be in complete and utter denial about your odds of becoming a screenwriter. Like, it can’t even occur to you that it might not work out. You have to – naively as possible – keep marching forward. You gotta be a video game character that just keeps dying then regenerating. Second: you have to get over yourself, and get over yourself QUICK. I’m not perfect, not every script I write will be great, and I still have an unimaginable amount of things to learn about screenwriting. Self-deprecation and an overall humorous outlook on life (and its setbacks) is essential!
If one script doesn’t work out, maybe the next one will. Enjoy the hell out of any praise you get, but also get rejected often and early. I’ve been called EVERYTHING – from a “ranting maniac who probably spends her free time assembling robots out of old dishwasher parts” and “a mind numbing, insufferable dialogue hack” to a “plot-less blowhard who only writes to hear the sound of her own voice”. I’ll then dramatically read these jabs to my Mother, who’s like: “Sophie, most of those things are true.” HA!
SS: What are some of the tips you’ve learned over the years that have really improved your screenwriting? I like to call them, “Ah-ha,” moments. Can you give us a few of those tips that, when you heard them, you thought, “Oh my God, I need to start doing that!”
MJ: There’s so many great lessons everywhere, but for me one really stands out: I love the complexity of the opening scene in Aaron Sorkin’s THE SOCIAL NETWORK. The way the conversation is so out-of-step – with Mark Zuckerberg both jumping forwards and backwards on different topics – while Erica Albright just tries to keep up (being a few paces behind, or ahead). I’ll never be qualified to breathe the same air as Aaron, but this kind of jagged word play is interesting to watch and incredibly fun to write! If it fits the script I’m working on, I really like having an aloof character not quite on the same page as whoever they’re talking to.
SS: You’ve sent me, I believe, 5 scripts over a period of 8 years? And I believe you’ve written 20 scripts in total. In an industry where you get so little positive feedback until you make it, how did you stay motivated during that time?
MJ: WOW, has it been that long?! I feel like I started to take screenwriting “seriously” about 3-4 years ago. Because I was just writing off-and-on as a hobby (taking year-long breaks) during extremely demanding publishing jobs in New York City. But as my scripts got more and more positive feedback, I was like – wait, should I try to make this a career? I was just so swept up in climbing the ladder in a completely different industry that I wasn’t thinking about it. I just wrote for fun, experimenting in drama, dark comedy, and sci-fi to figure out my strengths and weaknesses.
I wouldn’t even use the term “motivated” to describe how I kept going… I’d rather say: have malignant, narcissistic masochist tendencies (seriously, be a complete sadist) with an urge to keep writing and throwing your work online. Amateur Offerings Weekend is one of the BEST things your site has ever offered to aspiring screenwriters – and was one of my biggest motivations to write, knowing I could pitch you some wacky crap and maybe you’d give me a chance. Thank you so much!
SS: You are, of course, welcome. One last question. You’ve got such an incredible imagination. What was your craziest script idea? Can you pitch it to us?
MJ: I had a terrible experience at the retail store JCPenney a couple years ago, so I came home and decided I was going to write a screenplay called: JCPENNEY IS A WHORE. I basically just listened to Beck albums on repeat while crafting this story about a suicidal man having 24 hours to locate someone’s stolen Justin Bieber concert ticket – before a bomb under that seat blew up the LA Staples Center. It opened with the protagonist tied up in Richard Simmons basement, having been lost in a human poker match to his insane maid.
There was only one scene that took place in an actual JCPenney (right before the main character went to Leonardo DiCaprio’s house for a party). It basically had everything you NEVER want in a script: sex robot-addicted cops, murders at Jack in the Box, a pimp with itchy pants syndrome who’s obsessed with vintage Nintendo systems, Chuck E. Cheese, and cameos by Amanda Bynes and Tish Cyrus (Miley’s mom). It never got past the outline stage, DON’T WORRY!!
Long story short, this is the Super Showdown, the last screenplay showdown of 2020. Why is it called the Super Showdown? Because all four scripts have already won their respective showdowns. That’s correct, this is a winners-only competition. And whoever you vote as the winner AUTOMATICALLY becomes a finalist in The Last Great Screenplay Contest. So there’s a ton on the line here.
The rules are the same as any Amateur Showdown. Read as much of each entry as you can then vote for your favorite in the Comments Section. It’s VERY IMPORTANT THAT YOU VOTE. You could be changing someone’s life. Votes are due in the Comments Section by Sunday evening at 11:59pm Pacific Time.
Good luck everybody!
Title: POSSESSIONS
Genre: Horror
Logline: An estranged daughter returns to her childhood home to help with her mother’s extreme hoarding only to discover her mother’s cursed by one of her many, many possessions.
Title: Archer
Genre: War
Logline: 1415 — As the English army marches towards doom in the greatest battle of the medieval age, a young archer seeks redemption for his past under the cruel tutelage of his ruthless and invincible sergeant. A medieval FURY meets PLATOON.
Title: Bad Influence
Genre: Horror Comedy
Logline: After a popular child influencer gets possessed by the devil, her family, who rely on her income, struggle to keep her brand alive.
Title: Our Hero
Genre: Family Comedy
Logline: When 3 nerdy middle school kids discover the secret lair of a burned-out superhero; the world’s most powerful man agrees to be their friend in exchange for keeping his secret.
Tomorrow is the SUPER SHOWDOWN we’ve all been waiting for where the winners of the last four Amateur Showdowns face off. Considering that a previous Amateur Showdown winner took the top spot on the 2020 Black List, I can only imagine what will happen with the winner of Super Showdown!!! Is an 8-figure sale on the table? I don’t see why not.
But that’s not what today’s article is about. Today is about the eight scripts that finished at the bottom of the last four showdowns. Amateur Showdown mirrors Hollywood in that if a potential reader doesn’t think the script sounds interesting, they won’t open it. You almost have to imagine Amateur Showdown times 100. Or Amateur Showdown times 1000. That’s how many entries you’re up against. It’s only once you internalize that, that you realize how enticing your script idea needs to be to stand out from those other 5000.
So I’m going to break down the eight loglines that finished in last place and see if we can identify weaknesses that might help the writers – and, in turn, you guys – understand why the scripts didn’t score well. It may have nothing to do with the concept. Sometimes it’s the execution that’s the problem. But usually, if a script isn’t getting a lot of love, there’s something faulty in the concept. Today, we’re going to identify those faults.
Before we get to that, for reference’s sake, here are the winners of the last four Amateur Showdowns…
FIRST WEEK WINNER
Title: Our Hero
Genre: Family Comedy
Logline: When 3 nerdy middle school kids discover the secret lair of a burned-out superhero; the world’s most powerful man agrees to be their friend in exchange for keeping his secret.
SECOND WEEK WINNER
Title: Bad Influence
Genre: Horror Comedy
Logline: After a popular child influencer gets possessed by the devil, her family, who rely on her income, struggle to keep her brand alive.
THIRD WEEK WINNER
Title: Archer
Genre: War
Logline: 1415 — As the English army marches towards doom in the greatest battle of the medieval age, a young archer seeks redemption for his past under the cruel tutelage of his ruthless and invincible sergeant. A medieval FURY meets PLATOON.
FOURTH WEEK WINNER
Title: POSSESSIONS
Genre: Horror
Logline: An estranged daughter returns to her childhood home to help with her mother’s extreme hoarding only to discover her mother’s cursed by one of her many, many possessions.
They will be facing off tomorrow so get ready to vote! Okay, now let’s try to fix the scripts that got the lowest number of votes.
Title: Violet Sun
Genre: Horror
Logline: Born with a severe allergy to sunlight, a maladjusted teenager struggles to cure his disease by consuming the healthy blood of unsuspecting victims so he can win back the girl of his dreams before she leaves his life forever.
Analysis: I thought this was going to do a lot better. One of the most common pieces of screenwriting advice you hear is to identify a successful concept then find a fresh angle on it. This is a vampire movie without actual vampires. I felt that was a good pitch. Not to mention, it’s been a while since we’ve had a big vampire movie. And since vampires ALWAYS come back, I thought this was showing up at just the right time. But that’s the weird thing about timing. It’s always too soon until one day it isn’t. And it usually “isn’t” when someone comes up with a killer screenplay in the genre. Alas, maybe Violet Sun just didn’t stick the landing.
Title: IN A FIX
Genre: Thriller
Logline: Amid growing tensions with a rival gang, a fixer must quit her job before her controlling crime boss discovers she is pregnant.
Analysis: I’m not as surprised that this one struggled. For starters, I don’t think everyone knows what a “fixer” is. It’s a general enough term that a lot of people won’t know what’s going on. And like I always remind everyone, generalities get you nowhere in loglines. It’s the specifics that win over the reader. In other words, it isn’t the “family lives on a farm and must avoid a world of monsters” that gets you to read A Quiet Place. It’s that the monsters have super-hearing which means even the slightest sound can get you killed. I’ve also found that words like “gang” without context can be logline killers. What gang? There are thousands of gangs. What’s unique about this one? Again, BE MORE SPECIFIC. Finally, it isn’t clear why the complication in the logline – being pregnant – is so bad. Is there a known pregnancy bias in this line of work? So this one had a lot of issues and my guess is that it’s low vote count had a lot to do with readers simply not opening the script. This is my weekly reminder to get a logline evaluation, guys (e-mail “logline consult” to carsonreeves!@gmail.com). I can help you avoid these problems.
Title: Get Woke
Genre: Buddy-comedy
Logline: An old-school police officer joins forces with his tech-savvy teenage daughter to crack the case of a social media influencer’s cyber stalker.
Analysis: I was so bummed when this one didn’t do well. It was one of my favorite titles. I think this is another case of choosing the wrong things to focus on in the logline. I don’t know what the actual story is (it’s been forever since I read the first ten pages) but I would hope that the specifics of the setup are more interesting than what I’m seeing here. We start off with too common-sounding of a team-up. It’s the “old school” police officer. How many times have we seen that in a logline? A million? That’s okay, though, if you get us excited about the team-up partner. But all we hear about her is that she’s “tech-savvy.” That’s the wrong thing to focus on in a concept like this. When you hear “Get Woke,” you’re immediately thinking of political correctness and social issues. But there’s no mention of either anywhere in the logline. In fact, if this wasn’t titled “Get Woke,” I would think it was silly comedy about the internet. So there’s a disconnect there. Lesson? Make sure your logline and title are simpatico.
Title: Unchained
Genre: Action
Logline: Two fallen out sister-soldiers must reunite and reconcile as they fight their way through a train of mercenaries to reclaim a mysterious WMD-classified object that drove them apart — before the ride reaches its destination.
Analysis: One of the reasons I put this one into the showdown is because I wanted some variety and there weren’t a lot of straight action scripts to choose from. But even as I was putting it up, I sensed that it would struggle. As someone pointed out in the comments, I don’t know what a “sister-soldier” is. Is it two sisters who were also soldiers and the writer just wanted to pare that down into a combo-word for faster reading? Is it that whenever two women fought in the army together, they are known as “sister-soldiers?” It’s frustrating because I don’t know. One of the fastest ways to kill a logline is to confuse the reader early. And there’s a specific reason for that. The reader says to himself, “If this writer can’t make one sentence clear, how is he going to make 110 pages of sentences clear?” I would’ve also told the reader what the WMD is. Once again, you do not pull in readers with generalities. You pull them in with specifics. “WMD” makes this sound like every other action movie ever.
Title: The Article
Genre: Contained Drama/Thriller
Logline: When the CEO of a large media news company invites a troubled Male escort to her apartment……things are not as they seem.
Analysis: I thought this one was going to do better. I liked the twist of a female hiring a male escort instead of what we usually see, which is the other way around. I liked the contained component of the story. I liked how the large media company implied that there were some stakes on the line. It’s not like this escort is showing up at some middle manager’s one-bedroom apartment. But now that I’m looking at the logline again, I can see why it didn’t do well. It contains the logline-killing “ending to nowhere” tag. “They get stuck in a haunted house where they realize… they are not alone.” “An antiquities dealer is presented with a choice… that will change her life forever.” “A politician must win the election while keeping… a horrifying secret from his past.” TELL US THE THING!!! TELL IT TO US! The “thing” is what gets us excited. It’s what gets us to read. Why would you ever not include it in the logline? Do you really think someone’s going to get excited to read something where someone… “experiences a terror they’ve never experienced before?” What’s the terror???? I think if the writer had included what ‘wasn’t as it seemed,’ he would’ve gotten a lot more reads and, therefore, a lot more votes.
Title: Big Stick
Genre: 1 Hr. TV Drama
Logline: After a crushing fall from grace, a Boston cop/mom with an anxiety disorder retreats to her California surf community where her rogue investigation into a young girl’s murder teases a career do-over requiring the takedown of a powerful judge and her surf-hero son.
Analysis: To be fair, this is a feature-driven contest. Having a TV idea is a handicap. With that said, there are a LOOOOOOOOTTTTT of TV ideas being pitched all over town. And while they don’t need to be as high concept as movie concepts, they do need some aspect of them that stands out. The most specific component of this logline is surfing. Everything else is general to the TV landscape(fall from grace, a girl has been murdered, returning home). So I would at least hope that there was something interesting going on with the surf aspect in the logline. But it feels like window dressing. ‘Oh yeah, and people surf here too!’ Maybe if the girl murdered was a surfer and the protagonists’s son is also a surfer, and the logline hints at the idea that he may be involved, now you’re getting closer to an appealing concept. But as it stands, nothing in this logline screams, “Oh my God, I have to read this now.” I’m not saying every logline has to do that. But I started out this article reminding you of just how many concepts your script is in competition with. So if you’re not going to write something that has an “Oh my God, I have to read this now” concept, you have to accept that your job just got a lot harder. Cause you’re going to be trying to get people to read something that, when they hear the pitch, they’re not going to be excited to read. That’s always a tougher road.
Title: Kelsey’s Crossing
Genre: Drama
Logline: When the helicopter she’s riding in over the Sonoran desert crashes in Mexico, the racist host of an anti-immigrant youtube channel has to rely on a group of migrants to survive the dangers and brutality of the desert and help her travel 40 miles to get back to American soil.
Analysis: I was surprised this didn’t do better. This logline was one of, maybe, twenty-five in the entire contest, that truly understood how to develop a concept with irony. I don’t know if the execution was lackluster or what. But as I’m re-reading the logline now, I’m noticing one thing that may have hurt it. This part: “the racist host of an anti-immigrant youtube channel.” While that does convey the concept to the reader, it doesn’t put an image in their head. It doesn’t even tell us if it’s a man or a woman (even though pronouns tell us later and the title implies it). Nailing the identity of this person is key to making this logline work. For example, if I told you the main character looked like Natalie Portman and wore a hoodie, that’s going to put a different movie in your head than if I told you she looked like Blake Lively and was quickly becoming Fox News’ next big anchor. Imagery is so important in envisioning movies so when you have an idea like this one where look is so important, make sure to tell us what the person looks like.
Title: Ambrosia
Genre: Time Travel/Heist
Logline: Three anxiety-ridden young adults discover an experimental drug that allows them to time travel back 36 hours after each overdose. As the side effects intensify and their tolerance builds, each time travel back becomes reduced (16 hours, 8 hours, etc), but they keep going back anyways to perfect a bank robbery. Meanwhile, the town’s leading detective chases them down.
Analysis: I think this is a pretty good idea but anyone who’s read a lot of scripts before knows that when time-travel rules get even a little bit complicated, the story falls apart quickly. Props to Alex because he makes the concept sound as simple as it can. But I heard right away in the comments that people were getting confused reading the script, and that wasn’t surprising at all. I do think this idea of continuing to go back in time to execute a heist could work. But I’d encourage Alex to simplify the rules. It’s like beating a dead horse at this point. I always warn writers away from complicated time travel. But they keep ignoring me!
Genre: Teen Comedy
Premise: A young Asian-American teen basketball fanatic who just wants to dunk and get the girl ends up learning much more about himself, his best friends, and his mother.
About: This script finished all the way up at NUMBER 2 on the 2020 Black List, which was just released this week. While there hasn’t been an official announcement yet, it looks to be set up over at Disney +. The writer, Jingyi Shoa, was a staff writer on the show, Boomerang.
Writer: Jingyi Shao
Details: 109 pages
One of the reasons I started this site was because I wanted to learn more about these successful screenwriters who sold screenplays for a million dollars. Their success seemed magical to me, almost intimidatingly so. Were they always to remain enigmatic mysteries? Unobtainable gods whose keys to success would forever be locked up in some secret screenwriting vault behind the Hollywood sign?
There were times where I thought the answer was yes. Monday, the readers of this site learned that it doesn’t take magic. What it takes is writing a lot of screenplays and trying to get better with each one. That’s what Angela and Mayhem showed you. Success is obtainable. But you do have to work for it. It’s not going to be handed to you.
Now that I’m thinking about it, both Mayhem and Angela were very active on the internet – posting and getting their scripts read repeatedly. Taking feedback. Using that feedback to improve. Neither of them buried their heads in the sand and dogmatically declared, “My way or the highway.” They embody the 2020 screenwriting path to success. You got to get your work out there. If the only people who see your script are you and your cat, you’re never going to get anywhere. Unless your cat becomes the president of Paramount.
And with that PSA out of the way, join me and Chang. Cause we’re going to show you how to dunk!
Chang is 16 years old and plays bass in the marching band. And he loves basketball. He doesn’t love it enough to play on any teams. Or, I should say, the teams don’t love him enough to let him play on the team. But that doesn’t stop Chang’s enthusiasm for the fastest growing sport in the world.
Chang’s world of basketball love is interrupted one day by real love! A fellow sophomore named Kristy, she of the emo variety, moves into town and joins the band. She takes an immediate liking to Chang but then the worst thing imaginable happens. MATT. Yup, that darn Matt. Greek God. Beautiful blue eyes. Star basketball player. Worst of all, he can dunk like nobody’s bidness.
Once Kristy starts hanging around Matt, Chang realizes that to get her back in his orbit he’ll need a hail kristy. So after a basketball game, in front of the whole school, Chang bets Matt that he can dunk a basketball by the end of the season. That would be 12 weeks from now. Matt laughs. This 5’8” kid who’s not even on the team? Yeah right. But you’re on.
In a stroke of luck, Chang meets an AT&T rep, Devin, who used to be the star of the Romanian league. Chang asks Devin to teach him how to dunk and Devin’s in. But only if he can put it on his Youtube channel. The next 12 weeks entail a lot of Rocky style montage training until Chang is literally within one inch of dunking. But time has run out. His first dunk will have to happen on the big day! By the way, this is the midpoint of the screenplay. And, wouldn’t you know it, Chang does it! He dunks! In front of the whole school!
When the dunk heard round the school uploads to Devin’s channel, it goes viral. Which leads to local news wanting to interview Chang. Then ESPN. Then, while he’s at ESPN, he meets NBA basketball player Gilbert Arenas, who takes him out to a strip joint! Where Chang makes it rain. As the Chang legend grows, so too does a rumor. A rumor that, if it gains traction, could end all of this. That rumor is… Chang cheated. That Chang… cannot dunk!
First off, I love when writers play with the expected format. On the first page, instead of “Based on a true story,” we get, “Based on countless true stories.” As if to imply that thousands of Asian teenagers everywhere are trying to get the girl by learning how to dunk. That single line tells you exactly what you’re in for with Chang Can Dunk. This is turn-your-mind off 1200 degrees of surface-level entertainment.
But if we’re being real, this script is not a #2 worthy Black List script. It doesn’t have enough meat on it. And I’ll tell you exactly where it’s lacking – character development. A script at this level with this kind of story needs heavier character development to earn its place. Scripts like Edge of Seventeen come to mind. You get the impression that the writer of Edge of Seventeen was interested in creating real people. Where this script is more about creating archetypes.
Which is fine. I’m only judging it by that high bar because it’s so high on the list.
One of the characters who had a ton of potential in this script was the mom, Chen. She’s a single mother who’s a little overprotective of her son. But the problem with her is that she was never clearly defined. We don’t know what her “issue” was. If you don’t establish a clear character “issue,” then we don’t know what needs to change in that character for them to arc.
A few weeks back I reviewed a short story about an Asian family called The Paper Menagerie. In that story, the mother’s issue was clear. She wouldn’t learn English, which created a chasm of communication issues between her and her son. The whole story was about how that lack of communication destroyed their relationship, all the way up until her death. The reason that story is one of the most emotional you’ll ever read is specifically because the writer so clearly identified the mother’s issue in the story.
The character issues didn’t stop there. All of the characters outside of Chang felt off. Kristy is the romantic interest for the first 20 pages after her entrance. And then she just straight up disappears, occasionally making cameos when she gets bored. Or there’s Devin, the coach. He had potential as a character but he didn’t have a single flaw. There was nothing in his life that he was having trouble with or trying to overcome. When you don’t explore the weaknesses in your characters, your characters remain one-dimensional.
But the biggest problem with Chang Can Dunk is that it makes a pivotal error right at the midpoint. Chang isn’t sure he can dunk yet when going into the day of the dunk. So what he does is he sneaks into the gym the night before and lowers the rim a couple of inches. So what’s the story issue? It isn’t clear that this happens. The writer doesn’t show it. We see Chang sneak through the gym window. But we don’t see him with tools or anything. So we don’t know what’s going on. I only found out 50 pages later that he cheated when Chang admits he lowered the rim.
This is the kind of thing that would’ve worked better if you clearly showed Chang lowering the rim. This would create a powerful state of dramatic irony that runs through the second half of the story. We know Chang is a fraud but nobody else does. That type of setup ENSURES the reader will keep reading because they want to see what happens when the secret gets out. They want to be there for the fall.
I was trying to think of a similar movie to compare this to and then it came to me. Chang Can Dunk is Spiderman: Homecoming but without Spiderman or any superheroes or super powers. It has that same tone and sense of humor. So if you liked the last two Spiderman movies, you’d probably like this. Me? I needed a lot more from the characters to connect to this story and care about its conclusion.
[ ] What the hell did I just read?
[x] wasn’t for me
[ ] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius
What I learned: I like when writers take a chance and complete the story goal at the midpoint (as opposed to waiting until the end of the movie). It makes for a more unpredictable script because now we’re wondering where the story goes from here. Chang Can Dunk actually has Chang dunk at the midpoint! It’s unexpected and genuinely had me wondering what would happen next.
