Early 90s “Die Hard in the Chunnel” spec sold for a million bucks!

Genre: Action
Premise: When his daughter gets stuck on a terrorist-controlled train in the Chunnel, an engineer must team up with his girlfriend to save her life.
About: This script sold 4 days after it went out on the town back in the early 1990s. It was originally written for Jodie Foster, which differentiated it at the time, since nobody had yet written a “Die Hard” clone with a female lead. But Jodie eventually dropped out, forcing the writer to change the lead from female to male. From there, it went out to the number 1 star at the time, Arnold Schwarzenegger. But he eventually passed and the project was forgotten.
Writer: Ron Mita and Jim McClain
Details: 128 pages

When I look back at the spec sale days of the 90s, I realize that, in a lot of ways, it was a big pile of fool’s gold. Don’t get me wrong. Getting paid a million bucks for a script must’ve been amazing. And it happened a lot. But once you got past that, you weren’t really in any better shape than the average aspiring screenwriter who had sold nothing. It was nearly impossible to get from “sold” to “produced.”

Case in point, Ron Mita writes about his experience selling this script and how if you sold an action script, YOU HAD NO CHOICE BUT TO GO TO Arnold Schwarzenegger first. I used to think everybody wanted to try and get Arnold attached. But, in actuality, YOU HAD TO go to him.

This is because, if an action movie became a hit and it had never crossed Arnold’s desk, him and his team would go nuclear on everyone in the industry. Therefore, every single sold action script would enter the “Arnold Bottleneck” and you’d have to wait for his team to read it and pass before you could go to anyone else.

Well, when someone’s team has 100 scripts in a pile and zero incentive to hurry (because they know no one can do anything with those scripts in the meantime), you might be waiting a year for your “no.” And the thing with any project – whether it be then or now – is that they’re entirely dependent on momentum. And the Arnold Bottleneck destroyed 99% of every script’s momentum, leaving a graveyard of forgotten material.

With that said, if a script is great, it will find a way to the big screen. I am yet to read a marketable screenplay (key word there – “marketable”) that was great that hasn’t eventually gotten produced. So, I’m assuming there was something holding this script back.

American Charlie Sanger, an engineer who worked on the Chunnel and is living in the UK, is finally ready to take a holiday to France with his 11 year old daughter, Jessica. Jessica really wants Charlie to marry his current girlfriend, Bridget, but neither Charlie nor Bridget is sure what’s going to happen when Charlie moves on to his next job.

But they at least figure out their weekend holiday and plan to take the very Chunnel Charlie worked on. Unfortunately, once they get to the Chunnel, Charlie is pulled into work because of some flooding sensor issues. He decides to send Jessica onto the early train, where Bridget will meet her, and come in on the next train.

Only one problem with that plan. TERRORISTS TAKE OVER THE TRAIN, led by an evil man named Sinclair. Sinclair is IRA. He wants the UK out of Irish business AND 100 million dollars because why not.

Meanwhile, back at the Chunnel tunnel, Charlie runs into… Bridget!? What the heck are you doing here, he asks. You’re supposed to be on the train with Jessica. Oh no. Reality sets in. Bridget is in on the terrorist plan! She’s IRA.

Except she insists she’s not. It’s complicated, she explains. Yes, she’s IRA. But the people on the train are an extremist version of the IRA. She wants to stop them. She insists that, without her help, Charlie won’t be able to save his daughter. Should he believe her?

The control tower is able to lower one of the flood walls, bringing Sinclair’s train to a halt. This allows Charlie and Bridget to race down the tunnel, board the train, and try to save Jessica and kill Sinclair. But does Charlie really have an ally by his side? If not, can he stop a madman all by himself?

It’s always fun comparing these older scripts to the way scripts are written these days. The very first thing I noticed – and it didn’t take long – was how dense the description was. Lots of 4-5 line paragraphs. Slowing down that read! Readers do NOT have the patience for that these days. And you see it in the final page count. 128 pages. Youch.

There is, of course, no way to know for sure why Arnold’s people passed. But if I was on Arnold’s team at the time and I had been asked to give my thoughts on the script, I would’ve had some heavy reservations in those first 50 pages.

Surprisingly, it’s the same sort of thing that writers do wrong today. The script starts off with a fun cold open. One dude asks another dude what he’s doing on a ship. The guy says he’s a terrorist and he’s here to kill the man and assume his identity. As that tension sits, the guy smiles and says he’s joking and the two keep chatting. But then, as it turns out, he wasn’t joking. And he kills him.

Good fun opener.

Then, not long after that, we get a great scene. Several workers are on the tracks, fixing stuff when they get a warning that the train is five minutes away and they have to clear the tracks.

But one of the workers gets their foot caught in the rail. Everyone’s trying to get him out. They can’t. Time is ticking down. Many of the workers flee for their own safety. One worker stays behind, determined to help him get out. And it’s a race to the last second to save his life.

Simple scene. But very effective. At this point, I was in.

But then, the next 25 pages are some of the densest setup I’ve encountered in a while. Tons of characters to keep track of. Lots of technical track and train stuff being thrown at us. Bouncing between four different locations (bad guys, good guys, track workers, the control tower).

The problem with this isn’t just that it hurts your script in the moment. It hurts it THE WHOLE REST OF THE WAY. Because if we couldn’t follow these 25 pages of setup, we’ll be confused about certain people and certain plotlines the whole rest of the way through. So it’s kind of like Double Doom.

And look, this is one of the trickiest things about screenwriting. Onscreen, this stuff isn’t going to be as confusing. We remember faces a thousand times easier than we remember names on a page. But, unfortunately, people have to read and like the script first in order to want to make it. So you do have to alter your script sometimes to make it easier to read even if that means it won’t be as good onscreen.

If this is confusing, remember that, this is why there are additional rewrites once a movie gets greenlit. Once you officially have that money and you’re moving towards a start date THEN you can bring back in these scenes that were maybe more confusing on the page.

All of this, however, bolsters my belief that the answer to everything is just to write better scenes. The best scene in this script is the “foot caught in the railway” scene. And it doesn’t even involve any of the main characters. But simply drawn out scenes that naturally have suspense and stakes along with a clear beginning (foot gets caught), middle (try to get him out), and end (they either get him out or fail), will always keep a reader’s interest. Always.

So why do we then go 25 straight pages without any of those scenes? Instead we get these little quick mini-scenes that either have beginnings, middles, or ends, but never all three. I don’t get it. It seems so obvious to me and yet only 1% of the working screenwriters in this town understand how to do this.

As for the entirety of the script, there was one main thing that worked for me, which was the relationship between Charlie and Bridget. There was a lot of nuance to that setup of her being a part of the IRA but not the IRA faction that had taken over the train.

When it comes to 2-handers, I’m a fan of non-obvious conflict between the two lead characters. The standard is that the two characters hate each other (Rush Hour). But that’s the most basic version of conflict and therefore cliche. This is much more interesting. Can she be trusted or can’t she? That creates a more layered conflict that makes you think whenever we’re with the two. I actually wished that the writers had explored that on a more extensive level.

But, as for everything else, I thought it was okay. It was too much setup for me. Too overly plotted. I mainly want to have fun in these scripts and I felt like the writers would too often get in the way of that.

Script link for male version of script: Trackdown
Script link for female version of script: Trackdown

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

What I learned: Be careful about aggressively jumping back and forth between a bunch of different locations and characters early on in your script because WE DON’T KNOW YOUR CHARACTERS YET. We’re still in the stage of trying to remember who’s who. Later in the script, once we know everyone, you can get away with this. But, early in the script, you’re playing with fire, because there’s a good chance that the reader is falling behind due to not knowing everybody yet.

How is it that my two favorite movies of the year so far both star Jack Quaid?

Genre: Action
Premise: (from IMDB) When the girl of his dreams is kidnapped, a man incapable of feeling physical pain turns his rare condition into an unexpected advantage in the fight to rescue her.
About: Do not sleep on Jack Quaid, people. This dude understands material. He knows what a good script is. First, Companion. And now this. This is a great script to study for any spec screenwriters. This is how you do it. A low-budget action movie. This is exactly what I was talking about in my post this Friday – where Hollywood is headed. Novocaine did not light the box office on fire. But it deserves your attention on streaming. So go watch it! In fact, watch it before reading this review, preferably without watching the trailer either. The movie evolves in a really fun way.
Writer: Lars Jacobson
Details: 110 minutes

Having exhausted all movie options, I reluctantly rented Novacaine last night and ended up absolutely loving it. What’s interesting about this movie is that, one the years, I’ve read about a dozen screenplays centering around someone who isn’t able to feel pain.

That’s the thing with the spec world. Everybody pretty much as the same ideas. So you need to be able to find an angle that idea that separates you from the pack. What complicates this is that, sometimes, one of these scripts gets through solely because a great producer shoved it through and somehow got it made. That’s why sometimes bad versions of these common ideas become movies.

But in the case of Novocaine, the opposite happened. Someone finally wrote a great version of this idea. Actually, let me rephrase that. They executed the hell out of this idea. I don’t think anyone could’ve written a better version of a “dude feels no pain” movie. I honestly don’t. The writing is so sharp and seasoned here, that I was constantly impressed. I’ll give you a couple of examples of what I mean, but first let me summarize the plot for you.

By the way, I am going to be getting into spoilers because some of the teachable moments here include spoilers.

Nick, a loner assistant bank manager, has a rare condition that prohibits him from feeling pain. This means he stays away from all social interactions, save for his online gaming escapades.

One day, a beautiful young teller named Sherry starts working at the bank. Nick is obsessed with her but too afraid to ask her out. But one day, the two bump into each other in the break room, sparks fly, and she asks him to lunch.

Lunch turns into a date, date turns into a sleepover, and all of a sudden Nick has his first girlfriend ever. He’s in love. But the very next day at work, three Santas come in with guns (it’s the day before Christmas) to rob the place. They kill the bank manager, and as soon as they figure out that Nick loves Sherry, threaten to kill her unless he opens the safe. Nick gives up the combination, they level him to the ground, and take Sherry with them as a hostage for the pursuing cops.

When Nick wakes up, he’s determined to save Sherry. He’s shocked to find all the cops outside dead. These robbers are no joke. He then steals a cop car and begins his investigation into where these guys are going so he can get there and rescue Sherry.

MAJOR SPOILERS FOLLOW

The first moment that came where I knew this writing was at another level was the big twist. Sherry was working with the bank robbers all along. She played Nate.

I was SHOCKED by this twist. I had NO IDEA it was coming. And you guys know how long I’ve been doing this. I read a billion scripts. I can always sniff out a twist a mile away. So, I had to stop and evaluate how I missed this one so badly.

Here’s why it happened. Because the writer fully committed to the love story in the first act. There’s this really deep intense moment where the two of them are at Nate’s place and they’re taking their clothes off. For Nick, his secret is that, under his clothes, he’s self-tattooed almost his entire body. And then for Sherry, when she takes her shirt off, we see all these cuts on her. It’s a very vulnerable moment, and we can tell that it’s really hard for Sherry to share this part of herself. She doesn’t usually tell people this. We’re convinced this is deep love at this point.

In a typical script where you’re going to later reveal that that girl was playing our protagonist the whole time, the writer wouldn’t have written this scene. They want it to make sense, later, when Sherry turns on Jack. They would’ve thought there was too much closeness here to get away with that twist. But that closeness is exactly why I was fooled.

As screenwriters, we sometimes get lost in the puzzles we create, thinking too far up the line before we’ve put the puzzle together. Good writers write for the moment. They try to create the most powerful present moment and don’t overthink things to make sure that, later on, it’s all going to fit. Because if the writer would’ve made Sherry a little less committed in the moment, I would’ve seen that twist coming 30 pages early.

The second moment where I knew the writing was great occurred not long after that twist. As we know, movies like this require a lot of urgency. Initially, Novocaine’s urgency is obvious. The bad guys have the girl. She’s disposable. It’s only a matter of time before they kill her. So Nate has to find out where she’s being kept and get to her fast.

But then, we get the big twist. Sherry was working with the bank robbers all along. She played Nate. Note how as soon as this reveal is made, THERE IS NO MORE URGENCY IN THE MOVIE. Doesn’t matter how fast Nate gets there. She’s working with the bank robbers so she’s going to be safe.

At the time this happened, I thought to myself, “Ooh, the writers are in trouble now. How are they going to adjust for this?” And then, we get one of the best set pieces in the script. Nate goes to the house of one of the bank robbers (to try and find out where their workplace is) but the whole house is boobytrapped. He gets his leg snagged in a ceiling rope contraption and finds himself hanging upside down.

So he calls his only friend and begs him to come cut him down. The friend says he’ll be there in ten minutes. Now, before I even get to the lesson here, there’s ANOTHER screenwriting tip to come out of this. 90% of screenwriters would’ve cut to the friend showing up and helping him down.

But good screenwriters ALWAYS MAKE BAD SITUATIONS WORSE. So, what happens right after Nate calls his friend? One second later, Nate hears the front door open. It’s one of the other bank robbers. That’s good screenwriting! Never let your foot off the gas. Always make things more difficult. Even if you’re not sure how you’re going to get your hero out of it.

But back to my point. As soon as Nick gets off the phone, he sets his watch timer to 10 minutes, in anticipation of his friend coming (by the way, if anybody thinks this is strange, Nick uses his watch timer constantly throughout the movie – it’s not random). In other words, THIS PROVED TO ME that the WRITER KNEW he lost his urgency once he revealed that Sherry was a bad guy. Therefore he knew he had to add urgency somewhere else. So he creates this entire set piece around urgency! Nick has to convince this bank robber not to kill him before his friend shows up (in ten minutes).

That’s clever stuff.

And the script is filled with good screenwriting. Nick is NEVER helped by the screenwriter ever. He always makes it hard for Nick. This is one of the best screenplays I’ve read about a normal guy (somebody without black ops or military training) going up against much stronger bad guys. The writer never cheats regarding who Nick is. Also, I always tell you guys, LEAN INTO WHAT’S UNIQUE ABOUT YOUR CONCEPT. What’s unique in this concept is a guy who can’t feel pain. There are literally 75 different moments in this script built around the fact that Nick can’t feel pain.

The only weak part of the script is the fact that cops had been killed and there were only 2 cops chasing Nick around the whole time. But EVEN THEN the writer didn’t ignore that. He tried to explain it by saying it was Christmas and they were short-staffed.

I love movies like this because they show what the power of a good script can accomplish. It will get a movie made. And a good one at that! Highly recommend this one.

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

What I learned: Commit to the emotional beats of your screenplay even if you’re writing in the action or thriller genres. This movie DOES NOT WORK if that love story isn’t perfectly set up in the first act. We wouldn’t give a shit whether Nate saved Sherry or not.

And screenwriters are going to take over

Every time I go out and meet new people these days, one of the first questions I ask them is, “Do you go to the movies?” And the inevitable answer I get is, “No.” The explanations I receive break down into two demographic categories. If the person is younger than 30, they almost always complain about the price being too high. If the person is older than 30, they usually say that life got more complicated (marriage, kids) and they don’t have as much free time as they used to.

With Marvel, the current leader in box office receipts, making half as much as they used to with each release, it is safe to assume that the industry is about to go through a major change. I believe that we’re 3-5 years away from a cratering in the theatrical movie business. But unlike a lot of people in the industry, I don’t see that as a bad thing. I see it as a good thing, especially if you’re a screenwriter. Let me explain.

The thing that is most at risk of dying here is the giant blockbuster. These movies don’t have the box office juice that they used to and it’s causing studios to lose a lot of money. You don’t get to keep spending money forever if you’re losing it so, inevitably, they’re going to have to pull back on these budgets.

This is great news for screenwriters because the less a movie can depend on spectacle, the more it must depend on good storytelling. Movies will go back to the “word of mouth” days of the 70s where, if someone writes a great movie, it will play on and on in the theaters. And even if it doesn’t, it will do well on streaming, because in a world where you don’t need to make 500 million at the box office to break even, it’s perfectly okay to send your movie to streaming early.

What does this mean for screenwriters? What it means is, everybody here is going to have to become a better character writer. The less a movie costs, the more dialogue scenes you’ll be writing into your script. So you need to get good with character in order to write those scenes. Also, the movies themselves will be more character-driven because they have to be. Without spectacle, you have to explore characters internally, explore them in conflict with other characters, and explore them in conflict with the world.

By the way, this does not mean every script now has to be Manchester By The Sea. Far from it. You can still write genre films (horror, thriller, low-budget action). Sinners is actually a good example of what one might write in this new era. It’s character-driven but it still has a genre element to draw audiences in.

Other movies that will do well in this new era (assuming some of them were written better) are: It Ends With Us, A Quiet Place, Longlegs, Heretic, The Beekeeper, Get Out, Air, Bullet Train, and The Menu.

What does this mean for IP? IP will still be valued, of course, but this is also going to benefit screenwriters because the costs of these movies are going to plummet. So they’ll be looking for writers who actually know how to write, since they’ll need you to come up with a fresh cheap take and be able to execute it. A good example would be “Prey,” on Hulu. Big franchise – contained low-budget take.

Again, with less action, you’re going to have more character moments. So screenwriters have to be able to handle those. Thunderbolts is a good example of this. That movie had a lot more character development than your average superhero movie. This tells me that Hollywood may already be moving over to this model.

The next thing that’s going to be important in this new era is separating yourself from AI. AI will get better at writing but it’s only going to get better at the most populist version of writing. It’s going to be able to write a generic sequel to The Rock. But it’s not going to be able to write Everything Everywhere All At Once.

So, in addition to learning how to write strong characters and strong character-driven stories, you need to infuse your own voice as much as possible into those stories so you stand out.

Now, what I’ve learned over the course of reading 10,000 scripts, is that there’s “forced voice” and “natural voice.” “Forced voice” is when you try to ape somebody else’s voice. You’re trying to write all this wall-breaking commentary directly to the reader even though you’ve never done that before in your life. There’s a clear inauthenticity to it.

“Natural voice” is when you take the elements that make you unique as a person and accentuate them. So, if you like dry humor, you up the dry humor in your script. If you love long scenes, like Quentin Tarantino, write long scenes. If you like non-sequiturs, add them. If you’re weird as hell and think about bizarre stuff, include it! If you like telling stories out-of-order, do that. If you naturally love talking to the reader, you can do that as well. Just as long as that’s truly your thing.

Scripts like Civil War, Challengers, Leave The World Behind, Anora, and Missing, will do well in this new era.

This change will not be all-compassing. I think animated movies, like Inside-Out, are still going to do well because parents will want to get their kids out of the house. There will still be outliers, like Barbie and Minecraft, every couple of years. But even those films will take a hit at the box office. They’re not going to become phenomenons anymore, as more and more stuff moves to streaming, keeping even more people home.

But that’s good news for screenwriters as well. The nice thing about streaming is that the admission price is zero. It’s basically: point a device at your TV and press a button. For that reason, the audience doesn’t have nearly the same standards as they do when they go to the theater. I mean I just watched the first 20 minutes of this movie called iHostage on Netflix, about a guy who holds up an Apple Store. It was easily one of the worst movies ever made AND IT WAS #3 ON NETFLIX’S MOST WATCHED MOVIES LIST!

In other words, you don’t have to be the greatest writer to write streaming movies. As long as you’ve got a strong flashy concept, you’ve got a shot. And they need ENDLESS content over there. So there are opportunities to be had.

People have been saying that screenwriting is going to fall to AI over the next few years. I think the opposite. Hollywood is going to need writers more than ever when the mega-franchise collapse happens. So buckle up. It’s about to get fun. :)

Genre: Superhero
Premise: When a group of misfit semi-superheroes are betrayed by their boss, they band together to take her down, but in order to do so, must defeat her ultimate creation, a supervillain “more powerful than all of the Avengers combined.”
About: Thunderbolts, the latest offering from Marvel, came out this past weekend and earned 76 million dollars. Depending on who you talk to, this is considered either a decent or poor result. Thunderbolts was conceived during an era of Marvel making a Marvel movie (and show) for every subset of people. Not every film had to have super-wide appeal. Therefore, the movie is catered to the indie movie crowd (it actively promotes how many people from A24 films are on the Thunderbolts payroll). At the time, when Marvel could do no wrong, that sounded brilliant. These days, it sounds like a way to lose money.
Writers: Eric Pearson and Joanna Calo and Kurt Busiek
Details: about 2 hours long

As I’ve stated here already, I’ve been on the fence about whether to see this film. I was waiting for the reviews to come in and, even though I was hoping for a better RT score, I could tell that this wasn’t one of those disposable Marvel films that don’t have anything new to offer. At the very least, they were trying to do something new here.

The plot is surprisingly simple. Yelena, who is the sister of Black Widow, is in a dark place. She feels alone. She feels sad. She doesn’t have any purpose in life. She takes a job from Val, an evil politician obsessed with power, to assassinate a superhero known as “Ghost,” at a remote facility.

Yelena heads there to do the job but is accosted by former Captain American, John Walker. Then Taskmaster shows up to attack John Walker and everybody realizes that they’ve been sent here to kill each other so that Val can rid herself of all her dirty laundry (since everybody here has done sketchy deeds for her). They also realize that the room they’re in is a giant incinerator which is about to begin its incinerating in two minutes.

Complicating matters further is some dude who appears in a hospital smock named Bob. Nobody knows how he got here or who he is, including Bob! Fast-forward, the group breaks out and battles an awaiting army. They get separated from Bob. Val realizes Bob is the lone survivor of a failed project to turn humans into superheroes. She labels him “Sentry” and teaches him how to use his powers.

Meanwhile, a still despondent Yelena, who had a brief connection with Bob because they both felt the pits of depression so deeply, receives a visit from her father, The Red Guardian, who is thrilled to finally fight bad guys again. Along with Bucky and the rest of the crew, they gear up to take down Val. But in order to do so, they’ll have to defeat her own guardian, a newly all-powerful Sentry, who is stronger than all of the Avengers combined.

Thunderbolts is the most character-driven Marvel movie ever made. If you understand that going in, you have a better chance of enjoying this movie than if you don’t. Because if you’re coming for a superhero action movie, you’re going to be sorely disappointed. There’s a 20 minute set piece in this film of people trying to get out of a room. That’s the level of set pieces you’re going to get here.

So, did I like it?

Let me start by saying this. I now understand why they cast Florence Pugh in the lead. It’s because she’s a great actress. When your movie is dependent on the characters over the action, you better have good actors. And Florence Pugh is as good as they come. She’s such a star. She’s got that inexplicable quality where you can’t look away from her whenever she’s onscreen. She’s what makes this movie watchable. If you would’ve cast Scarlett Johansson in this role, it would’ve been considerably worse.

And they did something really daring here. They made a movie about depression, which is on-brand for the “Beef” team. This is a HEAVY movie. And I’m not convinced it works. Superheroes and depression… that’s something you can maybe explore on a TV show. But a movie? A superhero movie is supposed to be a good time.

I suppose the counterpoint to that would be, “Everybody says they want superhero movies that are different. They’re doing something different!” True. But that doesn’t mean it will work.

Truth be told, I thought the first two acts of this movie were strong. The characters were a lot more interesting than I thought they would be. The chemistry within the group was better than any Marvel movie I’ve seen since the Avengers films. And the writing was strong.

One of the most clever things that they did was introduce Bob (who becomes the villain) WITH the rest of Thunderbolts. They all get caught in this room together and Bob happens to be there. This allowed us to get to know Bob ALONG with our heroes, which prevented the writers from having to do what every other Marvel movie does, which is build this separate origin storyline for the villain.

When you do that, you’re cutting away, which means you’re breaking up the momentum of your main storyline. It’s time consuming and, essentially, visual exposition, to set up your villain, all so you can have a point to the story (for the good guys to have someone to beat). But here, we meet them together, which keeps the narrative simple. And, also, it allows Bob to develop a bond with the Thunderbolts, which creates a more emotional encounter later on, when they duke it out. As a result, he’s one of the stronger villains in the Marvel Universe, especially in the most recent movies.

My big issue with Thunderbolts was its third act. It fell apart. And I’m trying to figure out if behind-the-scenes shenanigans were responsible. On the one hand, this movie was trying to be different. So the choice to embed the climax in a bunch of dream sequences would make sense. It’s certainly more original than yet another superhero showdown in the middle of a city.

On the other hand, I get the impression that they ran out of money. Or this movie was in production during a major Marvel bomb, possibly The Marvels. And they freaked out and cut the budget significantly, which is why we got this weak ending.

And look, if I were in that room for the pitch about the third act, I could see myself buying into it. Cause the pitch is kinda compelling. Everybody has these thought loops where we get sucked into our dark thoughts or dark memories and we play them over and over in our brains. Pearson and director Schreier posed the idea, “what if we visually went into those loops?” And it’s like, sure, that sounds cool. But, in the end, you have to know your audience. This is a Marvel movie. People want a final act that’s big and fun.

I commend Thunderbolts for trying to do something different. I thought the writing was noticeably better than the more recent Marvel efforts, especially when it came to the characters. I just don’t know if you can make a Marvel movie about depression. It doesn’t quite fit the brand. But, look, if you want to see 2 solid acts of a unique Marvel movie, check it out. I don’t think you’ll be disappointed.

[ ] What the hell did I just watch?
[ ] wasn’t for me
[x] worth the price of admission
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius

What I learned: You should always look for ways to consolidate your script. You can combine scenes. You can combine characters. And you can get creative, like Thunderbolts, by introducing your villain (Bob) along with your heroes. That’s going to prevent you from having to write 3-4 additional scenes setting Bob up separately, which is going to save you 6-10 pages.

Is Zach Cregger now better at writing Stephen King stories than Stephen King?

Genre: Horror
Premise: When every kid from a third-grade classroom runs away into the night at the exact same time, disappearing, the town centers their suspicion on the children’s teacher.
About: Zach Cregger barreled into the crowded horror market after his film, Barbarian, became a surprise box office hit, allowing him to set up numerous movies around town. This was the first big project he set up. It stars Julia Garner.
Writer: Zach Cregger
Details: 118 pages

I’m on a good script-reading run.

I read three genuinely good consultation scripts last week, which is rare.

That streak continues today because we’ve got a kick ass horror script. It’s so good, in fact, I’m thinking this is going to blow up when it hits theaters. Not only that, but I believe it’s going to change the horror game. Because it’s not your average horror film. These days, everybody makes the same horror movies again and again. The whole industry has gotten lazy. Cregger is about to change that.

Justine Gandy is a 3rd grade teacher who’s about to have her life turned upside-down. She shows up to class one morning and all but 1 of her 18 kids is gone. It turns out that, the previous night, every kid in her class (except that 1) got up at 2 in the morning and ran away, their arms stretched out wide, like an airplane, something captured by all the home Ring cameras.

Because the only constant in this mystery is Justine, everyone assumes she had something to do with it. Principal Andrew has no choice but to put her on temporary leave, which means Justine is hitting the bottle every night, trying to make sense of what happened.

The script changes POVs throughout. So, even though we start with Justine, we eventually move to Archer, one of the parents determined to get his kid back. He’s convinced Justine knows more than she’s letting on. We also follow Officer Paul, a married policeman who Justine is hooking up with. And, finally, a homeless drug addict named Anthony.

We’re going to get into some semi-spoilers here so you have been warned. Justine is very concerned about the lone surviving kid in her class, Alex, and goes to his home, only to find that, by peeking through the window, his parents are on the couch not moving at all. They’re alive but, for some reason, they’re frozen in this awkward position. Whatever’s going on seems to be tied to this house.

When Justine and Archer come back to the house later, they’re shocked to see a brain-dead bloodied Principal Andrew charging them. I think it’s best that I not continue summarizing the script because it is built on surprises and reveals. But what I will tell you is that, from that point on, things get craaaaaaaaazy.

The best way I would categorize Zach Cregger is to say he’s the mainstream version of Ari Aster. His movies are way more thoughtful than the average horror film, but he cares more about scaring people than shocking people. Which makes his movies more fun than Ari’s.

Just yesterday, I was talking about non-traditional narratives and how they’re hard to write. But you wouldn’t know that after reading Weapons. Even though the narrative weaves all over the place, taking on different points of view, occasionally jumping back in time, you’re never lost. And I know exactly why that is.

It’s because Cregger writes full scenes.

Let me repeat that. Cause it’s important. CREGGER WRITES FULL SCENES.

You see, when you do something complicated on one side of your script, you have to balance that out by doing something simple on the other side. This is a potentially confusing narrative with all the jumping around. Therefore, when we do get into these POV sections, Cregger writes long scenes with beginnings, middles, and ends. This allows us to settle into the new POV and get our bearings. Also, it improves the entertainment value, since we’re getting these mini-stories within the larger story.

For example, Anthony, the drug addict, comes to Alex’s house, hoping to steal something so he can buy some drugs. And we follow him as he stakes out the house (beginning), sneaks in and steals stuff (middle), then tries to get out when other people in the house come after him (end).

I don’t see that in enough scripts these days. Every writer has become a scene-fragment writer. So, it was refreshing to be able to sit in these scenes for a while and build up suspense and get pulled in and want to see what happens next. I just don’t see that anymore and Cregger shows you why writing out full scenes matters. Because they’re more engaging! I’m not engaged by a half-page mini-scene where one character tells another character some exposition.

The main reason this movie is going to work, though, is that it’s different. We’ve got a very unique mythology here that I’ve never come across before. More importantly, we’ve got horror images that I’ve never seen. Just these kids running outside in the middle of the night with their hands out is both creepy and original.

You have to understand that in every horror script I read, there’s someone at a mirror seeing a scary person behind them. If you’re writing that scene into your horror script, you’ve already lost. Not because nothing with a mirror jump scare works. But because it demonstrates laziness. You’re just doing what you’ve already seen before.

I don’t see that when I read a Zach Cregger script. I see someone striving to avoid cliché. And it pays off. Cause this script is the best of both worlds. It’s a storyline you haven’t seen before. But it’s still familiar enough that people are going to want to see it. It’s not like Ari Aster’s Beau is Afraid, where you watch the trailer and you have no idea what’s going on.

Finally, this script possesses that rare x-factor *thing* that some writers just seem to have. And I’m envious of it. It’s this thing that you can’t quite put your finger on where they’re able to tell this slightly unique story in a slightly unique way and you mix in these shocks and these scares and this mythology and this imagery, and you still tell a good story with each scene, all of which creates this exceptional experience that can’t be replicated by many writers. We were just talking about AI last post. AI could NEVER write a script like this. Ever. Cause you need to be part fucked up, part messy, part good screenwriter, part oddball. You need to be flawed. And AI doesn’t have that tool in its toolbox.

The only mark against this script is the character writing. Justine was too one-dimensional for my taste. She just drank a lot and lashed out at people. And none of the other characters are that deep. For example, Archer just wants his son. There is nothing more to his character than that.

But, strangely enough, it doesn’t matter. We’re so pulled in by this bizarre mystery that we’re determined to keep turning the pages until we find out what happened. And what happened is crazy. Definitely recommend this one!

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

What I learned: Make the mystery at the center of your story more interesting. This is EASILY the biggest lesson I learned from this script. Every horror script I read is a scary monster with a mask, or some kid’s been kidnapped, or some slasher is on the loose. This setup is so much more compelling because it doesn’t make sense. And our minds are determined to make sense of things that don’t make sense. So people are going to show up to this movie just to find out what the hell happened with these kids.